James River Watershed Management Plan: Lower James River & James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-Watersheds

James River Watershed Management Plan: Lower James River & James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watersheds

August 24th, 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region7, through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, has provided partial funding for this project under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (MoDNR Subgrant #G07-NPS-07)

Acknowledgements

This James River Basin Watershed Management Plan was completed with assistance from many partners including Ozark Environmental and Water Resources Institute (OEWRI), Midwest Environmental Consulting (MEC), The Forrester Group, Christian County Soil and Water Conservation District (CCSWCD) and Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. (TRLWQ).

The James River Basin Partnership (JRBP) facilitated the basin-wide planning effort including coordination of the various stakeholder groups for sub-watersheds or portions of the James River Basin watershed. Water quality data and watershed characteristics were compiled by MEC and OEWRI. This information was utilized by stakeholders, made up of local watershed residents and business people, throughout the planning process as a reference to the known state of the watershed. This water quality data also served as a tool for the stakeholders to make better informed decisions regarding land management practices needed to help protect and improve the water quality. OEWRI also developed methodology for determining nutrient loading and load reduction expectations for the sub-watersheds.

Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. (TRLWQ) administered the watershed management planning process for the Lower James River Basin sub-watershed and also for the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake sub-watershed. Christian County Soil and Water District administered the watershed management planning process for the Finley River sub-watershed and the James River Basin Partnership administered the watershed management planning process for the Middle James sub-watershed. The Forrester group, an environmental management consultant company, was the moderator and facilitated stakeholder meetings in each of the sub-watersheds with the aim of providing a detailed planning document for water quality preservation and management throughout the James River Basin watershed.

2 Table of Contents

Introduction A. The James River Basin B. Land Use C. Geology and Soils D. Climate and Hydrology E. Biology F. Water Quality Data G. Non-Point Pollution Sources and Load Estimates

Stakeholder Involvement

Lower James River Sub-watershed A. Introduction B. Water Quality Threats C. Best Management Practices D. WMP Stakeholder Committees E. Action Plan F. Education G. Monitoring for Water Quality and Watershed Changes H. Future of Lower James River WMP

James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed A. Introduction B. Water Quality Threats C. Best Management Practices D. WMP Stakeholder Committees E. Action Plan F. Education G. Monitoring for Water Quality and Watershed Changes H. Future of James River arm of Table Rock Lake WMP

3 Background Data – James River Watershed

Introduction

The Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc., in cooperation with the James River Basin Partnership, both non-profit, grass roots organizations, have facilitated the development watershed management plans to help protect water quality in the James River watershed. This effort proceeds by highlighting water quality issues within individual sub-watersheds with the aim of completing a comprehensive, region-based watershed management plan for the entire James River Basin.

Currently, the James River is listed as impaired from excessive nutrient concentrations on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 303(d) impaired waters list. The creation of a watershed management plan for the James River watershed will help to protect and improve water quality in the James River and in Table Rock Lake. This plan is meant to identify pollutant sources, identify better management practices to be implemented, set reachable goals and a timeline for implementation, and establish an evaluation and monitoring program to determine success of implemented projects/programs.

Development of a watershed management plan will increase the success of future projects, help to determine where efforts should be focused, fulfill specific grant application requirements for securing future funding, assist other organizations and municipalities in water quality related efforts, and provide insight for creation of more efficient implementation and/or education budgets for future projects.

The watershed management plan was developed using a stakeholder driven process that allowed input from over 80 stakeholders, so far, to assist watershed managers in future implementation, education/outreach, and monitoring efforts that will occur throughout the basin. This plan will act as a road map to improve the water resources throughout the basin and prioritize efforts for reduction of nonpoint source pollution.

This watershed management planning process was implemented using the EPA’s 9 key elements for watershed management plan development. These basic elements are listed as follows: 1. Identify the sources that will need to be controlled to reduce pollution levels. 2. Estimate the reductions expected. 3. Describe the management measures needed to achieve the pollution reductions. 4. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed. 5. Information/education components needed. 6. Schedule or timeline for the management plan. 7. Identify measurable milestones for determining whether management plan is working. 8. Set criteria to determine whether pollution reductions are being achieved over time. 9. Add a monitoring component to the plan that evaluates the effectiveness of the plan.

A. The James River Basin

The James River watershed is located in the Ozark region of Southwest Missouri. It is approximately 931,050 acres or 1455 square miles in size. Portions of eight counties

4 Background Data – James River Watershed (Stone, Christian, Barry, Lawrence, Greene, Webster, Wright, and Douglas) drain into the James River which eventually flows into Table Rock Lake (Figure 1). There are approximately 289 miles of streams with permanent flow, 74 miles of intermittent streams, and numerous losing streams within the James River Basin where all or most of the flow enters underground channels. Streams in the Basin are characterized by narrow bottoms, rock and gravel bottom strata, high gradient, and are surrounded by high relief outside of the flood plains. The Ozark region, including the James River watershed, is well known for its karst geology. Sinkholes are present throughout the entire basin, especially in the Finley and upper Flat Creek areas.

The majority of the land within the basin, an estimated 74,400 acres, is privately owned, although there are several thousand acres of National Forest. Land uses in the watershed include urban development, agricultural use including row crops and livestock, and forested areas.

The James River Basin encompasses the metropolitan area of Springfield and many rapidly growing communities such as Ozark and Nixa. Growth of these communities has greatly increased population pressure and demands the natural resources of this river which is used for drinking water and to carry wastewater from municipal treatment facilities. Tourism is also major industry in the James River and Table Rock Lake Basins. The James River and its tributaries are also used frequently for floating, swimming, and fishing for bass, sunfish, and catfish.

Within the James River Basin the following streams are either listed on EPA’s 303(d) list of impaired wastewaters or have a completed Total Maximum Daily Load estimate (TMDL): James River, Wilson Creek and Pearson Creek. The pollutants identified as responsible for these impairments include nutrients, unknown toxicity, bacteria, and mercury. In 1998 three segments of the James River were listed as impaired for nutrients. These segments extend from the river’s headwaters to its mouth on Table Rock Lake. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) cited phosphorus from sewage treatment plants, and runoff of phosphorus and nitrogen from urban and agricultural development as being of particular concern in the James River Basin. Elevated nutrient levels, particularly phosphorus, have also been attributed to causing decreased clarity due to algae growth in Table Rock Lake (MoDNR, 2004a).

The EPA approved the James River TMDL in May 2001, which is to be completed in two phases. Phase I of the TMDL includes the implementation of phosphorus removal efforts at select wastewater discharge facilities. The Springfield Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has been cited as the most significant nutrient loading source, completed its phosphorus removal upgrades in March 2001. Phosphorus removal upgrades at all other facilities were planned to be completed by November 2007. Phase II of the James River TMDL primarily addresses the reduction of nonpoint nutrient loadings (MoDNR, 2001).

Substantial efforts to reduce point source and nonpoint source pollution have been occurring within the James River watershed. According to volunteer monitoring, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants have already shown improvement to water quality within the James River arm of Table Rock Lake. A number of projects now completed or ongoing have also focused on agricultural land use and implementation of 5 Background Data – James River Watershed best management practices. As agricultural land use rapidly changes to urban areas, urban runoff has become an increased concern within the James River watershed. The city of Springfield, located in Greene County, is the largest urban area with a population of approximately 140,500. Christian county, the most rapidly developing county in the state, has experienced an explosion of urban development in the cities of Ozark and Nixa causing a concern of nutrient loading from these developing and newly established areas. Currently a number of projects that focus on reduction of storm water runoff are occurring throughout the basin.

James River Basin of Missouri

Figure 1. Map of the James River Basin with Sub-watersheds Outlined.

6 Background Data – James River Watershed

B. Land Use (MEC et al, 2007)

Population data from the 2000 census show the highest population density (>5,000 persons per mi2) in the basin occurs in downtown Springfield (Figure 2). Density decreases moving away from center city with the lowest population density being found in the lower basin. Deviating from this trend, locally high population densities are found near the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake and around Cassville in western Barry County.

Analysis of population change from 1990 to 2000 shows a trend of decreasing population in downtown Springfield to a more than 100% increase in the unincorporated areas of Greene County and around the cities of Nixa and Ozark in Christian County (Figure 3). A significant population increase (>50%) also occurred close to Table Rock Lake near the cities of Reeds Spring and Branson West.

High and Low Density Urban land use dominates the areas around Springfield, Nixa and Ozark (Figure 4). The headwater areas of the basin are comprised of mainly forest and grassland/pasture land use interspersed with small areas of cropland. The western sections of the basin are comprised of mostly agricultural land uses with pasture/grassland being the most prominent. The lower sections around the lake are dominated by forest land cover with several small high density urban clusters. Table 1 summarizes land use for the basin.

Table 1. Percent Land Use 2004. Area % of Land Use Description (sq. mi.) Total High Density Urban 45 3 Low Density Urban 60 4 Barren 14 1 Cropland 42 3 Grassland 757 52 Forest 445 31 Young Forest/Shrubland 70 5 Water 22 1 Total 1,455 100

7 Background Data – James River Watershed

Figure 2. James River Basin Population Density (2000).

Figure 3. James River Basin Population Change (1990 – 2000).

8 Background Data – James River Watershed

Figure 4. James River Basin Land Use.

9 Background Data – James River Watershed

C. Geology and Soils (MEC et al., 2007)

The James River Basin covers two Ozark Plateaus physiographic regions, the Springfield Plain and the Ozark Highlands of Missouri and Arkansas. Both physiographic regions are underlain by limestone, dolomite, and shale bedrock (Aldrich and Meinert, 1994 as cited in MEC et al., 2007) (Figure 5). These bedrock units are of differing ages with the Ozark Highlands (Ordovician) being older and more dissected than the Springfield Plain (Mississippian) (Adamski et al., 1995 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). Karst topography, common to the region, accounts for the numerous springs, losing streams, and sinkholes, which act as a conduit between surface runoff and groundwater (Petersen et al., 1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). These geologic attributes affect the natural quantity and quality of water resources in the James River Basin.

The spatial distribution of soil series associations from both the Springfield Plain and Ozark Highland within James River Basin reflect the geological control in these two regions (Figure 6). Soil characteristics such as drainage characteristics, permeability, and assimilative capacity greatly affect the quantity and quality of surface runoff.

Detailed taxonomic and morphological information for each soil series can be obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) website at http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdnamequery.cgi.

10 Background Data – James River Watershed

Figure 5. James River Basin Geology.

11 Background Data – James River Watershed

Figure 6. James River Basin General Soil Associations.

12 Background Data – James River Watershed

D. Climate and Hydrology (MEC et al., 2007)

Climate for the region is considered temperate, with an average annual temperature of 59oF and average annual precipitation of 40 inches (Adamski et al., 1995 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). Thirty year monthly average temperatures at the Springfield Regional Airport range from approximately 30oF in January to near 80oF in July (Figure 7). Monthly average precipitation starts to rise in late winter and peaks in late spring with 4.5 to 5 inches of rainfall in May and June. Relatively high average rainfall totals also occur in the months of September and November with between 4.5 and 5 inches of rainfall. January and February receive the lowest average precipitation totals for the year with around 2 inches of rainfall per month.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates 9 discharge stations in the basin located on the James River (3), Wilson Creek (3), Finley Creek (1), Pearson Creek (1), and South Creek (1) (Figure 8, Table 2). James River stations at Galena and Springfield have more than 50 years of recorded data, while 4 of the 9 stations have less than 10 years of record, and the remaining 3 have between 12 and 17 years of record. Recordings at these stations are not necessarily continuous throughout their periods of record.

Monthly mean discharge data from the 9 stations show the highest average runoff occurs between March and May corresponding to the spring wet season (Table 3). The lowest average discharges occur between July and October. Stations that do not follow this pattern are found in the Wilson Creek watershed, which is highly urbanized and influenced by wastewater treatment plant discharge. Additionally, only short periods of record are available for the Wilson Creek watershed stations.

The regions base flow hydrology is primarily controlled by karst features such as sinkholes, springs and losing/gaining sections of stream. The linkages among these features contribute to the ephemeral and intermittent properties of most Ozark streams as well as inter-basin water transfer. An important distinction however is that stream flows measured at Wilson Creek near Brookline (07052152) and James River near Boaz (07052200) are highly influenced by releases from the City of Springfield’s Southwest Treatment Plant. This is especially true during low flow periods where wastewater discharges contribute a high proportion of the flow below Springfield. The 90% expedience flow for Wilson Creek increases from 0 cubic feet per second (cfs) above the plant to 34 cfs below the plant. The 34 cfs at Brookline is over half the flow recorded at Boaz (67 cfs) for the 90% expedience discharge.

Flood records show that the highest floods on record for the two longest continually recording stations along the James River were during the floods of 1993 (Table 4). The flow peak during the 1993 floods was ~41,000 cfs near Springfield and ~73,000 cfs at Galena. While three established stations with non-continuous periods of record were established, they were not recording in 1993. The highest floods on record for the non- continually recording and recently established stations resulted from locally intense storm events in July 2000 and May 2002.

13 Background Data – James River Watershed

Monthly Average Precipitation and Temperature Springfield Regional Airport 1971-2000 6 90

Precipitation Temperature 80

4 60

40 Temperature (F) Precipitation (In)

2 30

0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 7. Monthly Average Precipitation and Temperature at the Springfield Regional Airport (1971-2000).

14 Background Data – James River Watershed

Figure 8. James River Basin Hydrology and USGS Gage Stations.

15 Background Data – James River Watershed Table 2. USGS Gage Stations James River Basin. Drainage Start Years of 2 Station ID Station Name Area (mi ) Elevation (ft) Year Record 07050690 Pearson Creek near Springfield, MO 21 1,201 1999 6 07050700 James River near Springfield, MO 246 1,143 1955 50 07052000 Wilson Creek at Springfield, MO 17.8 1,201 1932 17 07052100 Wilson Creek near Springfield, MO 31.4 1,150 1972 17 07052120 South Creek near Springfield, MO 10.5 1,146 1998 7 07052152 Wilson Creek near Brookline, MO 44.6 1,130 2001 4 07052200 James River near Boaz, MO 462 1,035 1972 12 07052345 Finley Creek below Riverdale, MO 261 1,140 2001 4 07052500 James River at Galena, MO 987 921 1921 84 * Information on all USGS gages in Missouri can be found at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/rt

Table 3. Mean Monthly Discharge for USGS Gage Stations in the James River Basin. January February March April May June July August September October November December Station ID Station Name (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 07050690 Pearson Creek near Springfield, MO 34 28 29 22 34 15 19 9 7 6 14 21 07050700 James River near Springfield, MO 229 274 409 420 398 187 102 37 104 90 241 280 07052000 Wilson Creek at Springfield, MO 21 19 22 22 29 29 19 11 32 13 18 14 07052100 Wilson Creek near Springfield, MO 17 16 31 27 36 26 18 10 13 15 23 15 07052120 South Creek near Springfield, MO 3 6 13 7 14 2 6 3 2925 07052152 Wilson Creek near Brookline, MO 87 56 68 66 102 54 49 46 50 43 58 61 07052200 James River near Boaz, MO 525 529 1,064 820 809 396 274 143 246 197 630 463 07052345 Finley Creek below Riverdale, MO 373 265 390 413 617 105 76 55 40 34 142 287 07052500 James River at Galena, MO 941 1,130 1,521 1,758 1,617 1,133 580 385 411 473 856 959

16 Background Data – James River Watershed Table 4. Hydrology for USGS Gage Stations in the James River Basin. Low Q 90% Q 50% Q Mean Q 10% Q Max Q Station ID Station Name (cfs) Low Date (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Max Date 07050690 Pearson Creek near Springfield, MO 1.4 9/7/2002 3.1 9.3 20 40 2,200 7/12/2000 07050700 James River near Springfield, MO 0.1 9/16/1956 12 73 231 496 41,100 9/25/1993 07052000 Wilson Creek at Springfield, MO 0.31 9/29/2004 3 8.6 18.5 37 6,750 7/12/2000 07052100 Wilson Creek near Springfield, MO 0 many 0 5.8 20.8 44 5,480 7/12/2000 07052120 South Creek near Springfield, MO 0 many 0 0 6.18 6.9 unk 7/12/2000 07052152 Wilson Creek near Brookline, MO 1 4/13/2004 34 44 62 85 unk 5/8/2002 07052200 James River near Boaz, MO 35 9/19/2002 67 238 508 1,070 21,700 5/8/2002 07052345 Finley Creek below Riverdale, MO 10.92 8/28/2003 24 90 210 433 21,400 5/8/2002 07052500 James River at Galena, MO 10 9/20/1954 121 426 979 2,130 73,200 9/25/1993 “many” = multiple dates “unk” or unknown = flow was not calculated for this stage Q = discharge Low Q = lowest flow on record 90% Q = 90% of recorded flows exceed this discharge, “average low” 50% Q = 50% of recorded flows exceed this discharge, or median flow Mean Q = average of all recorded flows 10% Q = 10% of recorded flows exceed this discharge, “average high” Max Q = maximum flood peak on record

17 Background Data – James River Watershed

E. Biology

As a result of geology, hydrology, and soils, every watershed contains a unique balance of animal and plant life. The James River Basin enjoys a diverse mix of species, though some species have become threatened or endangered. This threatened or endangered status can be due to a variety of things, but habitat loss is usually the key element. Water plays a vital role in habitat; therefore it is useful to be aware of endangered and threatened species within a watershed. These species may actually serve as an indicator of the overall effectiveness of water quality and watershed improvements.

The Missouri Department of Conservation’s Natural Heritage Database (MDC, 2008a) and the Missouri Fish and Wildlife Information System (MDC, 2008b) were used to identify species that are threatened or endangered on a state and/or federal level. The species are listed below in Table 5.

Table 5. Threatened or Endangered Species in the James River Basin. Group Common Name Scientific Name Location (by County)* Mammals Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus Br,Ch,Dg,Gr,Lw,St,Wb,Wr Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Br,Ch,Gr,Lw,St,Wb,Wr Indiana Bat Myotis sodalist Br,Ch,St,Wr Birds Bachman’s Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Br,Dg,Gr Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Br,Ch,Dg,Gr,St,Wr Barn Owl Tyto alba Br,Lw,Gr Greater Prairie Chicken Tympanuchus cupido Lw Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum Gr Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Gr,Lw Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Ch,Gr,Lw Reptiles Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens Br Amphibians Ozark Hellbender Cryptobranchus Dg alleganiensis Fishes Longnose Darter Percina nasuta St Niangua Darter Etheostoma nianguae Gr,Wb Ozark Cavefish Amblyopsis rosae Br,Gr,Lw,St Mussels Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon Wr Plants Geocarpon Geocarpon minimum Gr,Lw Missouri Bladderpod Lesquerella filiformis Ch,Gr,Lw *County Abbreviations: Br-Barry, Ch-Christian, Dg-Douglas, Gr-Greene, Lw-Lawrence, St-Stone, Wb-Webster, Wr-Wright

18 Background Data – James River Watershed

F. Water Quality Data (MEC et al., 2007)

This section outlines the known water quality information and data used to present at stakeholder meetings and as a reference point for development of this James River Basin Watershed Management Plan.

Nutrients

Cultural eutrophication, the adverse effects of excess nutrient inputs on surface water, is an issue confronting the much of the developed regions of the U. S. Approximately 10 percent of all Missouri waters listed on the 2002 303(d) impaired waters list are listed due to excessive nutrients. The effects of cultural eutrophication can include the following (MDNR, 2005a as cited in MEC et al., 2007):

• Proliferation of nuisance algae and the resulting unsightly and harmful bottom deposits; • Turbidity due to suspended algae and the resulting unsightly green color; • Dissolved oxygen depletion resulting from decomposition of overabundant algae and other plants that can have a negative impact on aquatic life; and • Organic enrichment when algal blooms die off, which perpetuates the cycle of excessive plant growth.

Nutrient impairment may be gaged by two general categories – causal and response variables. Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen are typically the causal variables of interest, since limnologists consider them to be the most essential parameters for nutrient enrichment.

1. Phosphorus

Phosphorus is a naturally occurring nutrient found in streams and rivers and is essential to all forms of life. Minimal levels of phosphorus are important for maintaining the ecological health and regulating the autotrophic state in lotic ecosystems. Excessive levels of phosphorus have been linked to eutrophication and increased production of autotrophs (e.g., algae). Phosphorus is generally regarded as the most common cause of autotrophic eutrophication in reservoirs, lakes and streams (Correll, 1999; Dodds, 2006 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

Phosphorus occurs in a variety of molecular forms in the environment, but is rarely found in volatile states. Phosphates bind strongly to most soils and sediment, therefore surface waters receive most of their phosphorus from surface flows. The dominant form of phosphorus found in aquatic ecosystems is the pentavalent form. Among the pentavalent forms of phosphorus, only orthophosphate may be assimilated by autotrophs. Other forms of phosphorus may be chemically or enzymatically hydrolyzed to orthophosphate under appropriate conditions (Correll, 1999 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

19 Background Data – James River Watershed Phosphorus may be discharged to aquatic systems from both point and nonpoint sources. Historically, point sources such as wastewater treatment outfalls have been considered the most significant sources of phosphorus. However, the influence of nonpoint sources has taken on greater significance as treatment technologies have improved. Agricultural runoff of field fertilizers and animal manure, as well as runoff from residential and commercial fertilized lawns are commonly recognized nonpoint sources of phosphorus (Correll, 1999; Dodds et al., 1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). Nonpoint sources may be responsible for greater than 90% of phosphorus loading in about one third of US streams and rivers (Newman, 1996 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

Baseline nutrient levels vary based on regional differences in geology, topography, and land uses (Dodds, 2006 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suggested an appropriate TP reference condition for the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion (inclusive of the James River Basin) is 6.6 μg/L (EPA, 2000 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). However, the Regional Technical Assistance Group (RTAG) for EPA Region 7 has recommended in draft a TP benchmark of 75 μg/L for all Region 7 states (email correspondence with Gary Welker – EPA Region 7 Nutrient Regional Coordinator – 2/20/2007). The MDNR also recommends that the in-stream TP level for the James River should not exceed 75 μg/L (MDNR, 2001). The RTAG and MDNR recommendations are supported by Dodds et al. (1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007 ), which suggests the threshold between mesotrophic and eutrophic rivers is characterized by a TP level of 75 μg/L.

Phosphorus reduction efforts by the City of Springfield are evident in annual geomean TP levels at the James River near Boaz water quality station. The James River near Boaz station is located approximately 13.5 miles downstream from the Springfield Southwest Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and represents one the most complete long-term TP monitoring stations in the James River Basin. Figure 9 illustrates that TP levels at the Boaz station have been declining since the early 1970s. A significant decrease in TP levels coincides with the completion of phosphorus removal upgrades to the Springfield Southwest WWTP in 2001.

20 Background Data – James River Watershed

1600 (12) - Sample Count (5)

1400 (12)

(12) March 2001 - $1.9 million in phosphorus removal upgrades to the Springfield Southwest 1200 (12) WWTP were completed. (11) (12)

(12) 1993 - $30 million in improvements 1000 (12) to the Springfield Southwest WWTP (12) completed.

(6) 800 (10)

(12) (12) (12) (1) 600 (12) (12)

TP Annual (ug/L) Annual Geomean TP (14) (6) (6) (5) (6) (8) (2) (7) (7) 400 (8) (2)

(6) 200 (6) (6) No data (5)

0 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 9. Annual TP Geometric Means at the James River near Boaz Station.

Wilson Creek had the highest observed TP geomeans in the James River Basin, with values ranging from 165 μg/L above the Springfield’s Southwest WWTP to 343 μg/L approximately 4 miles below the plant. The elevated levels of TP in Wilson Creek are likely due to its close downstream proximity to the Springfield metro area and the Springfield Southwest WWTP effluent. TP geomeans in the James River were lowest upstream of the Wilson Creek confluence and the Springfield city limits, where geomeans ranged from 20 μg/L to 38 μg/L. TP geomeans in James River ranged from 103 μg/L to 162 μg/L downstream of the Wilson Creek. TP geomeans along the Finley Creek branch of the James River increased from 14 μg/L upstream of Ozark to 265 μg/L downstream of Ozark. TP geomeans along Flat Creek increased from 24 μg/L upstream of Cassville to 55 μg/L downstream of Cassville. TP geomeans were generally the lowest along Panther Creek, Pearson Creek, Crane Creek, and Flat Creek, where geomeans ranged from 21 μg/L to 55 μg/L.

A boxplot comparison of TP values further illustrates that phosphorus levels increase near major urban areas (e.g., Springfield, Nixa, and Ozark) (Figure 10). Eleven of the 27 water quality monitoring stations in the James River Basin, which were largely outside the influence of urban areas, had interquartile TP ranges below the Dodds et al. (1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007 ) eutrophic threshold value of 75 μg/L. Figure 11 illustrates that the James River at Galena water quality station (the most downstream James River station with TP values) is ranked near the middle of all James River Basin stations with regards to TP geomeans.

21 Background Data – James River Watershed (n) 100000 Ex p l an at i o n

Number of Samples

Statistical Outliers (Out ide 1.5x MaximumInt erquart Non-Outlier ile Range) (54) 75t h Percent ile 10000 Median

(25) (98) 25t h Percent ile (68) (138) Minimum Non-Outlier (63) (25)

1000 (24) (55) (26) Eut rophrophic threshold (23) (25) (Dodds et al., 1998) and MDN R James River TMDL target. (85) (16) (28) (24) (36) (36) (37) (28) (13) (27) (15) 100 (36) (28) (12) (14) Total Phosphorus, in micrograms liter per Total Phosphorus,

1 Jam es R. atHw y . B Ter rell Cr . nr . M out h Cr ane Cr . atHw y. AA Schuler Cr. nr. Mouth nr. Cr. Schuler Panther Cr. nr. Hwy. B Hwy. nr. Cr. Panther Fi n l ey Cr . atRi ver dal e Jam es R. n r . Bo az , M O Jam es R. Westo f N i x a Flat Cr. at Jenkins, MO James R. at Galena, MO Galena, at R. James Wilson Cr. atRd. Wilson Cr. Wilson Flat Cr. 5 mi.bl. Cassville mi.bl. 5 Cr. Flat Jam e s R. atSh e l v i n Ro c k James R. at Kinser R. BridgeJames Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, MO Finley at Cr. Green Bridge Wi lson Cr.4.3 mi .bl. WWTP Flat Cr. 0.5 mi.ab. Cassville mi.ab. 0.5 Flat Cr. Fi nley Cr . bl. Riverdale, MO Wilson Cr. 0.6 mi.ab. WWTP mi.ab. 0.6 WilsonCr. Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO Brookline, nr. Cr. Wilson James R. at Hootentown R. Acc James Wi lson Cr . nr . Bat t lef i eld, MO Flat Cr. at Stubblefield Cr. Access Flat James R. nr. Wilson Creek, MO Creek, Wilson nr. R. James Finley Cr. nr. mouth nr. - Riverfork Cr. Finley Pearson Cr. nr. Springfield, MO Springfield, nr. Cr. Pearson

Figure 10. Box Plot of Total Phosphorus in the James River Basin (October 1, 1992 to September 16, 2005).

22 Background Data – James River Watershed

Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO

Wilson Cr.4.3 mi.bl. WWTP

Wilson Cr. Nr. Battlefield, M O

Finley Cr. at Riverdale

Wilson Cr. at Wilson Rd.

Finley Cr. nr. mout h - Riverf ork

Wilson Cr. 0.6 mi.ab. WWTP

James R. at Hootentown Acc

James R. West of Nixa

Terrell Cr. nr. M out h

James R. nr. Wilson Creek, M O

James R. at Shelvin Rock

Finley Cr. bl. Riverdale, M O

James R. at Galena, M O

James R. nr. Boaz, M O

Schuler Cr. nr. M out h

Flat Cr. 5 mi.bl. Cassville

Pearson Cr. nr. Springf ield, M O

Pant her Cr. nr. Hwy. B

James R. at Kinser Bridge

Crane Cr. at Hwy. A A Eutrophic threshold Flat Cr. at St ubblef ield A ccess (Dodds et al., 1998)

Flat Cr. at Jenkins, M O

Flat Cr. 0.5 mi.ab. Cassville

Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, M O

James R. at Hwy. B

Finley Cr. at Green B ridge

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Total Phosphorus Geomean (ug/L)

Figure 11. Bar Chart of Total Phosphorus Geomeans in the James River Basin (10/1/2000 – 9/16/2005).

23 Background Data – James River Watershed 2. Nitrogen

Like phosphorus, nitrogen is a found in variety of chemical forms and is an essential nutrient for living organisms. Nitrogen may be present in the air, water, soil, rocks, plants, and animals. The chemical forms of nitrogen include organic nitrogen compounds, nitrogen gas (N2), ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH4), nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3), nitrous oxide (N2O), and nitric oxide (NO). Reactive nitrogen is biologically the most important form of nitrogen. Although most nitrogen is not in a reactive form, nitrogen migrates throughout the environment and changes chemical forms in what is commonly termed the nitrogen cycle (Driscoll et al., 2003; Seelig and Nowatzki, 2001 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

Microorganisms may utilize nitrogen in its organic form as an energy source in a process referred to as mineralization. The process of mineralization transforms organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen in two steps. The first step is ammonification, whereby microorganisms extract energy from organic nitrogen and release NH4 as a byproduct. Nitrification is the second step, in which nitrosomas bacteria convert the NH4 into NO2 and nitrobacter bacteria convert the NO2 into NO3. Conversion of NO2 to NO3 typically occurs more readily than conversion of NH4 to NO3; therefore, NO3 concentrations typically far exceed those of NO2. The opposite of mineralization is immobilization, whereby microorganisms convert inorganic nitrogen into its organic form (Seelig and Nowatzki, 2001 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

In a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen fixing bacteria, some plants are capable of extracting elemental nitrogen gas (N2) from the atmosphere and converting it into a NH3, where it may be readily assimilated into organic nitrogen. A microbial process called denitrification releases nitrogen from decomposing plant matter back into the atmosphere. Denitrification converts NO3 to the gaseous forms of N2O and elemental N2. Nitrogen may also be volatilized to the atmosphere as NH3 during ammonification. The loss of nitrogen to the atmosphere is a natural mechanism that helps protect water resources from excessive levels of nitrogen (Seelig and Nowatzki, 2001 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

Anthropogenic activities have effectively increased the delivery of nitrogen to water bodies. Although a variety of pathways exist for reactive nitrogen to enter aquatic systems, surface runoff from agricultural and urban areas is one of the most cited. Stormwater runoff from lawns, agricultural fields, golf courses, parks and gardens often contains relatively high concentrations of nitrogen and may reach streams in its highly soluble form (i.e., NO3) or absorbed to soil particles as the positively charged NH4. Industrial discharges and municipal wastewater effluents also contribute significant levels of nitrogen to stream systems as point sources (Driscoll et al., 2003; Seelig and Nowatzki as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

The EPA has suggested an appropriate Total Nitrogen (TN) reference condition for the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion (inclusive of the James River Basin) is 379 μg/L (EPA, 2000 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). However, the RTAG for EPA Region 7 has recommended in draft a TN benchmark of 900 μg/L for all Region 7 states (email correspondence with Gary Welker – EPA Region 7 Nutrient Regional Coordinator – 2/20/2007). Additionally, MDNR recommends that the in-stream TN level for the James River should not exceed 24 Background Data – James River Watershed 1,500 μg/L (MDNR, 2001 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). Dodds et al. (1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007) suggests the mesotrophic and eutrophic TN thresholds for streams are 700 μg/L and 1,500 μg/L, respectively. Eutrophic thresholds are typically not expressed in terms of NO3+NO2; however, Missouri has applied a criterion for NO3-N of 10,000 μg/L for surface waters designated as a drinking water supply (Carnahan, 2005 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

a. Total Nitrogen

No apparent temporal trend for TN exists based on annual geomean concentrations at the James River near Boaz water quality station (Figure 12). Although annual TN geomean values varied between years, the data did not indicate any upward or downward trends over the observed period of record. The available TN period of record for the Boaz station spanned from 1973 to 2004; however, no TN data are available from 1978 through 1991.

6000

(12) - Sample Count

(6)

5000

(12)

(6) 4000 (9)

(6) (6) (5) (6) (8) (7) (6) (6) (2) (5) (12) 3000 (1) (4)

(12)

TN Annual Geomean (ug/L) Geomean Annual TN 2000

1000

No data

0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 12. Annual TN Geometric Means at the James River near Boaz Station.

As with phosphorus, the highest levels of TN geomeans in the James River Basin were observed in Wilson Creek. TN geomeans in Wilson Creek ranged from 3,005 μg/L above the Springfield’s Southwest WWTP to 10,867 μg/L at the Brookline station. The elevated TN levels at the Brookline station and its relatively close proximity to the Southwest WWTP suggests wastewater effluent significantly influences nitrogen levels within Wilson Creek and the James River. TN geomeans along the James River ranged from 346 μg/L at its most upstream station to 4,127 μg/L at Shelvin Rock. Along the Finley Branch, TN geomeans increased from 635 μg/L upstream of Ozark to 2,185 μg/L 25 Background Data – James River Watershed just below Ozark at Riverdale. TN geomeans were generally the lowest along Panther Creek, Flat Creek, Finley Creek and the upper reaches of the James River.

A boxplot comparison of TN values suggests most water quality samples collected in the James River Basin exceed the Dodds et al. (1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007) eutrophic threshold value of 1,500 μg/L (Figures 13 and 14). Only four of the 27 water quality monitoring stations in the James River Basin had interquartile ranges below the suggested eutrophic threshold value. The greatest concentrations of TN were observed in the vicinity of Springfield, Nixa, and Ozark; however, TN levels outside the influence of urban areas were also largely above the Dodds et al. (1998 as cited in MEC et al., 2007) eutrophic threshold.

26 Background Data – James River Watershed (n) 1000000 Ex p l an at i o n

Number of Samples

Statistical Outliers (189) (65) (Out i de 1.5x (114) 100000 MaximumInt erquart Non-Outlier ile Range) 75t h Percent ile (46) (71) (116) (56) (112) (64) (28) (89) (28) (37) (41) (184) Median (26) (28) (36) (27) (19) (68) 10000 25t h Percent ile Minimum Non-Outlier (14) (13) (48) (55) (15) (12) Eutrophrophic threshold (Dodds et al., 1998) and MDN R James River TMDL target. 1000

100 Total Nitrogen,Total in microgramsliter per

1 James R. at Hwy. R. B James Ter rell Cr . nr. Mout h Cr ane Cr . at Hw y. AA Schuler Cr. nr. Mouth nr. Cr. Schuler Panther Cr. nr. Hwy. B Hwy. nr. Cr. Panther FinleyCr. at Riverdale James R. nr. Boaz, MO Boaz, nr. R. James James R. WestJames R. of Nixa Fl at Cr . at Jen ki n s, M O James R. at Galena, MO Galena, at R. James Wilson at Cr. Wilson Rd. Flat Cr. 5 mi.bl. Cassville mi.bl. 5 Cr. Flat Jam e s R. atSh e l v i n Ro c k Jam es R. at Ki n ser Br i d g e Flat Creek bl.MO Jenkins, Finley at Cr. Green Bridge Wilson mi.bl.Cr.4.3 WWTP Flat Cr. 0.5 mi.ab. Cassville mi.ab. 0.5 Flat Cr. Fi nleyCr. bl. River dale,MO Wilson 0.6mi.ab. Cr. WWTP Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO Brookline, nr. Cr. Wilson James R. at Hootentown Acc R. James Wi lson Cr. Nr . Bat t lef i eld, MO Flat Cr. atSt ubblef ield Access James R. nr. Wilson Creek, MO Creek, Wilson nr. R. James Pearson Cr. nr. Springfield, MO Springfield, nr. Cr. Pearson mouth nr. - Riverfork Cr. Finley

Figure 13. Box Plot of Total Nitrogen in the James River Basin (October 1, 1992 to September 16, 2005).

27 Background Data – James River Watershed

Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, M O

Wilson Cr.4.3 mi.bl. WWTP

Wilson Cr. at Wilson Rd.

Wilson Cr. Nr. Battlefield, M O

James R. at Shelvin Rock James R. West of Nixa Terrell Cr. nr. M out h James R. nr. Boaz, M O James R. at Hootentown Acc Wilson Cr. 0.6 mi.ab. WWTP Schuler Cr. nr. M out h Pearson Cr. nr. Springf ield, M O

Flat Cr. 0.5 mi.ab . Cassville

Crane Cr. at Hwy. A A

James R. at Galena, M O

Finley Cr. at Riverdale

Finley Cr. nr. mout h - Riverf ork

James R. nr. Wilson Creek, M O

Flat Cr. 5 mi.bl. Cassville

Flat Cr. at St ub b lef ield A ccess

Finley Cr. bl. Riverdale, M O

Flat Cr. at Jenkins, M O Eutrophic threshold James R. at Kinser B ridge (Dodds et al., 1998) Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, M O

Pant her Cr. nr. Hwy. B

Finley Cr. at Green B ridge

James R. at Hwy. B

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 Total Nitrogen Geomean (ug/L) Figure 14. Bar Chart of Total Nitrogen Geomeans in the James River Basin (10/1/1992 – 9/16/2005).

b. Nitrite plus Nitrate Nitrogen

The annual NO2+NO3 geomean concentrations at the James River near Boaz water quality station suggest no obvious trend (Figure 15). The data appeared to be highly variable with periods of spiking where NO2+NO3 annual geomean values jumped over 1,000 μg/L in 1978, 1980 and 2003. The available NO2+NO3 period of record for the Boaz station spanned from 1973 to 2004, however no NO2+NO3 data were available from 1988 through 1991.

28 Background Data – James River Watershed

5000 (6) (12) - Sample Count

4500

4000 (10)

(6) 3500 (5)

(6) (6) (6) (6) (6) 3000 (11) (6) (18) (6) (6) (11) (8) (2) (14) (12) 2500 (5) (12) (2) (5) (4) Annual Geomean (ug/L) 3 2000 (12) + NO 2

NO 1500 (12) (12) (12) 1000

500 No data

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 15. Annual NO +NO Geometric Means at the James River near Boaz Station . 2 3

The spatial patterns observed with the NO2+NO3 data closely mimicked the TN data. As with TN, the highest levels of NO2+NO3 were observed in Wilson Creek where geomeans in Wilson Creek ranged from 1,784 μg/L above the Springfield’s Southwest WWTP to 8,230 μg/L at the Brookline station. NO2+NO3 geomeans along the James River ranged from 132 μg/L at its most upstream station to 3,904 μg/L at Shelvin Rock. Along the Finley Branch, NO2+NO3 geomeans increased from 510 μg/L upstream of Ozark to 2,185 μg/L just below Ozark at Riverdale. NO2+NO3 geomeans were generally the lowest along Panther Creek, Flat Creek, Finley Creek and the upper reaches of the James River.

Concentrations of NO2+NO3 trend upward in the James River as water flows from the Highway B station to the West of Nixa station (Figure 16). The West of Nixa station is located approximately 2.2 miles downstream from the Wilson Creek confluence. Wilson Creek had the four highest ranking water quality stations in terms of NO2+NO3 geomean concentrations (Figure 17). Downstream of the West of Nixa station, NO2+NO3 levels in the James River appear to initially level out and then decline slightly before reaching the Galena station.

29 Background Data – James River Watershed 1000000 Ex p l an at i o n (n)

Number of Samples

(75) Statistical Outliers (131) (210) (Out i de 1.5x 100000 Interquartile Range) (92) (162) Maximum Non-Outlier (41) (130) (28) (36) (154) (41) (27) (27) (95) 75t h Percent ile (63) (73) (212) 10000 (23) (86) Median (72) (36) (14) (76) (74) (48) 25t h Percent ile (55) (12) (13) Minimum Non-Outlier (13) 1000

100

Nitrate plus Nitrite, in micrograms per liter as N as liter per micrograms in Nitrite, plus Nitrate 10

1 Jam es Ri v er Jones Spring Jones Turner Creek James R. at Hwy. B R. James Terrell Cr. nr. Mouth nr. Cr. Terrell Cr ane Cr . at Hwy. AA Schuler Cr. nr. Mouth nr. Cr. Schuler Panther Cr. nr. Hwy. B Hwy. nr. Cr. Panther Fi n l ey Cr . atRi ver d al e Jam es R. n r . Bo az , M O Jam es R.West o f N i x a Flat Cr. at Jenkins, MO Jam es R. at Gal en a, M O Wilson at Cr. Wilson Rd. Jam e s R. at Sh e l v i n Ro c k Jam es R. atKi n ser Br i d g e Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, MO Finley at Cr. GreenBridge Wilsonmi.bl. Cr.4.3 WWTP Finley bl.Riverdale, Cr. MO Wilson Cr. 0.6 mi.ab. WWTP mi.ab. 0.6 Cr. Wilson Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO Brookline, nr. Cr. Wilson Sawyer Creek bl. Norman Br. James R. at Hoot R. James ent own Acc Sawyer Norman Creek ab. Br. Wi lson Cr . Nr . Bat t lef i eld, MO Jam es R. n r . Wi l so n Cr eek, M O Finley Cr. nr. mouth nr. - Riverfork Cr. Finley Pearson Cr. nr. Springfield, MO Springfield, nr. Cr. Pearson

Figure 16. Box Plot of NO2+NO3 in the James River Basin (October 1, 1992 to September 16, 2005).

30 Background Data – James River Watershed

Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, M O

Wilson Cr.4.3 mi.bl. WWTP

Wilson Cr. at Wilson Rd.

Wilson Cr. Nr. Battlefield, M O

James R. at Shelvin Rock

James R. West of Nixa

Turner Creek

James R. nr. Boaz, M O

Terrell Cr. nr. M out h

Jones Spring

Sawyer Creek ab. Norman B r.

Schuler Cr. nr. M outh

James R. at Hoot ent own A cc

Crane Cr. at Hwy. AA

Pearson Cr. nr. Springf ield, M O

Finley Cr. at Riverdale

James R. at Galena, M O

Wilson Cr. 0.6 mi.ab. WWTP

Flat Cr. at Jenkins, M O

Finley Cr. bl. Riverdale, M O

Sawyer Creek bl. Norman B r.

James R. nr. Wilson Creek, M O

Finley Cr. nr. mout h - Riverf ork

James R. at Kinser B ridge

Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, M O

James River

Pant her Cr. nr. Hwy. B

Finley Cr. at Green B ridge

James R. at Hwy. B

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Nitrite plus Nitrate Nitrogen Geomean (ug/L)

Figure 17. Bar Chart of NO2+NO3 Geomeans in the James River Basin (10/1/1992 – 9/16/2005).

3. Nutrient Limitations

The concept of nutrient limitation is key to understanding eutrophic systems. According to Leibig’s Law of Minimum, the least available element or nutrient relative to a primary producer’s requirements limits its growth. Under reasonable growth conditions, algae have relatively well defined elemental and nutrient requirements. Typically, TN:TP ratios less than 10 are considered nitrogen-limiting and TN:TP ratios greater than 20 are phosphorus-limiting (Smith et al., 1999 as cited in MEC et al., 2007). Average TN:TP ratios indicate the James River Basin is phosphorus limited. In March 2001, the City of Springfield completed phosphorus removal upgrades to its Southwest WWTP. These upgrades effectively altered portions Wilson Creek and James River downstream from the WWTP from a nitrogen to a phosphorus-limited system (Table 6). Prior to the phosphorus removal, all water quality stations downstream of the WWTP had TN:TP average ratios of less than 10. Subsequent to the upgrades, average ratios of TN:TP downstream of the Springfield Southwest WWTP ranged from 26.3 to 44.1. Average TN:TP ratios at monitoring sites outside the influence of the Springfield Southwest WWTP ranged from 14.4 to 527.6 (Table 7).

31 Background Data – James River Watershed Table 6. TN:TP Ratios for Monitoring Sites Downstream of the Springfield Southwest WWTP (Before and After Upgrades). TN:TP (Average) Count Period of Record Site Number Station Name Pre-Upgrade Post-Upgrade Pre-Upgrade Post-Upgrade Pre-Upgrade Post-Upgrade 7052152 Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO 4.8 37.0 105 84 9/2/1992-1/23/2001 3/7/2001-7/22/2004 7052160 Wilson Cr. nr. Battlefield, MO 6.6 30.7 54 49 9/21/1993-1/23/2001 3/29/2001-6/17/2004 2375/2.4 Wilson Cr.4.3 mi.bl. WWTP 7.9 26.3 48 17 9/21/1993-1/23/2001 3/29/2001-1/2/2004 2375/1.0 Wilson Cr. at Wilson Rd. 9.3 44.1 61 53 9/2/1992-1/23/2001 3/29/2001-1/2/2004 2362/8.1 James R. West of Nixa 8.0 34.6 70 42 9/2/1992-2/20/2001 3/9/2001-1/2/2004 7052250 James R. nr. Boaz, MO 6.4 43.1 95 23 7/10/1973-11/8/2000 3/7/2001-7/21/2004 2362/2.6 James R. at Shelvin Rock 5.0 35.7 5 36 6/4/1993-11/2/1993 8/22/2001-8/27/2003 2347/27.4 James R. at Hootentown Acc 9.0 31.4 47 18 9/2/1992-1/23/2001 3/29/2001-1/2/2004 7052500 James R. at Galena, MO 9.6 32.6 62 116 6/4/1993-2/6/2001 3/6/2001-9/16/2005 Notes: The Pre and Post-Upgrade refers to the phosphorus removal upgrade completed at the Springfield SW WWTP in March 2001.

Table 7. TN:TP Ratios for Monitoring Sites in the James River Basin Not Downstream of the Springfield Southwest WWTP. Site Number Station Name TN:TP (Average) Count Period of Record 2368/0.7 Panther Cr. nr. Hwy. B 54.0 28 8/22/2001-10/9/2002 7050690 Pearson Cr. nr. Springfield, MO 81.7 79 8/18/1999-3/24/2005 2375/7.3 Wilson Cr. 0.6 mi.ab. WWTP 14.9 12 1/21/1993-3/13/2003 3368/0.1 Schuler Cr. nr. Mouth 48.0 23 5/31/1995-1/2/2004 2376/0.7 Terrell Cr. nr. Mouth 33.0 41 12/1/1994-1/2/2004 2352/13.6 Finley Cr. at Green Bridge 527.6 27 8/22/2001-10/9/2002 2352/4.0 Finley Cr. at Riverdale 14.4 28 8/22/2001-10/9/2002 7052340 Finley Cr. at Hwy 160 67.0 25 7/10/1973-7/8/1975 7052345 Finley Cr. bl. Riverdale, MO 21.1 46 6/27/2001-7/25/2004 2352/0.3 Finley Cr. nr. mouth - Riverfork 17.7 53 6/4/1993-1/2/2004 2381/0.9 Crane Cr. at Hwy. AA 97.2 36 8/22/2001-8/27/2003 2397/2.8 Flat Cr. 0.5 mi.ab. Cassville 109.7 14 4/25/2004-7/17/2005 2387/37.1 Flat Cr. 5 mi.bl. Cassville 38.0 15 4/25/2004-7/17/2005 2387/23.7 Flat Cr. at Stubblefield Access 64.6 12 4/25/2004-6/26/2005 7052800 Flat Cr. at Jenkins, MO 57.7 48 10/12/1999-9/15/2003 7052820 Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, MO 64.4 12 10/27/2003-9/7/2004 2365/19.7 James R. at Hwy. B 116.9 27 8/22/2001-10/9/2002 2365/2.3 James R. at Kinser Bridge 62.9 37 8/22/2001-8/27/2003 7051600 James R. nr. Wilson Creek, MO 33.8 109 7/10/1973-1/2/2004

32 Background Data – James River Watershed

Escherichia coli

E. coli is an indicator organism used to test for the presence of pathenogenic bacteria. Although E. coli are generally not harmful, their presence in high levels indicates fecal contamination and the potential presence for pathogens. Sources of E. coli can include wild and domestic animal waste, domestic wastewater, and sewer overflows. The EPA conducted a series of epidemiological studies that examined the relationship between swimming-associated illnesses and the microbiological quality of the waters used by recreational bathers, prior to releasing its recommended criteria in 1986 (EPA, 2003b as cited in MEC et al., 2007). Based on these EPA studies, MDNR developed E. coli criteria for Missouri’s recreational waters. The MDNR designated E. coli whole body contact recreation (WBCR) criteria of 126 cfu/100 mL and 548 cfu/100 mL for Category A and B waters1, respectively. The water quality criteria are expressed as a recreational season (April 1 – October 31) geometric mean. The James River, Finley Creek, Flat Creek, and Pearson Creek all have Category A whole body contact use designations. Wilson Creek is designated for Category B whole body contact recreation (Carnahan, 2005 as cited in MEC et al., 2007).

The annual E. coli geomean concentrations at the James River near Boaz water quality station do not suggest any temporal trend in E. coli concentrations (Figure 18). The available E. coli period of record for the Boaz station spanned from 1997 to 2006; however, no E. coli data were available for 2002.

180 (12) - Sample Count

160 (15) (15)

140

(47) 120

100

80 (21) Annual Annual Geomean (cfu/100 mL)

60 (30) (5) (15)

E. coli coli E. (21) (23) 40

No data

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 18. Annual E. coli Geometric Means at the James River near Boaz Station.

E. coli geomean concentrations are the greatest at monitoring sites located downstream of the City of Springfield in Wilson Creek, ranging from 138 cfu/100 mL to 462 cfu/100

Category A applies to those water segments that have been established by the property owner as public swimming areas allowing full and free access by the public for swimming purposes and waters with existing whole body contact recreational use(s). Category B applies to waters designated for whole body contact recreation not contained in Category A. 33 Background Data – James River Watershed mL. The Pearson Creek site was the only monitoring station with a E. coli geomean concentration to exceed the applicable criterion. The E. coli geomean concentration at the Pearson Creek (WBCR-A) station was 290 cfu/100 mL. Figure 19 illustrates a clear downward trend in E. coli concentrations as one travels downstream the James River. Although Wilson Creek had the greatest observed concentrations of E. coli, no station geomean value in Wilson Creek exceeded the WBCR-B criterion of 548 cfu/100 mL (Figure 20).

34 Background Data – James River Watershed

Explanat ion 100000 (n) Number of Samples

St at i st i c al O u t l i er s (Out ide 1.5x Interquartile Range)

10000 Maximum Non-Outlier 75t h Percent ile

Median

25t h Percent ile 1000 Minimum Non-Outlier

WBCR-B Criterion (548)

E. coli, in cfu/100 milliliters cfu/100 in coli, E. 100 WBCR-A Criterion (126)

1 Rader Spring Rader Figure 19. Box Plot of E. coli in the James River Basin (June 19, 1997 to May 3, 2006). Finley Cr. atFinley Cr. Hwy 125 atFinley Cr. Hwy 160 James R. nr. Boaz, MO Boaz, nr. R. James James R. WestJames R. of Nixa Flat Cr. atJenkins, MO Finley Cr.at OzarkC.P. Flat Cr. bl. Jenki ns, MO James R. at Kerr Access Kerr at R. James James R. at Galena, MO at Galena, R. James Wilsonat Cr. Wilson Rd. Jam e s R. at Sh e l v i n Ro c k James R. at Shoals Cmpgd at Shoals R. James Sp r i n g f i el dSW WWTP 0 0 1 Fi nleyCr. bl. River dale, MO Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO Brookline, nr. Cr. Wilson James R. at McCall Bridge Rd Bridge McCall at R. James James R. at Hoot entown R. Acc James Wi lson Cr. Nr. Bat t lef i eld, MO James R. nr. Wilson Creek, MO Creek, Wilson nr. R. James Wilson Cr. 1.6 mi.bl. SW WWTP SW mi.bl. 1.6 Cr. Wilson WWTP SW mi.bl. 2.3 Cr. Wilson Finley Cr. nr. mouth nr. - Riverfork Cr. Finley Pearson Cr. nr. Springfield, MO Springfield, nr. Cr. Pearson

35 Background Data – James River Watershed

Wilson Cr. 2.3 mi.bl. SW WWTP Wi l son Cr . 1.6 mi .bl . SW WWTP Rader Spring Wilson Cr. Nr. Battlefield, MO Pearson Cr. nr. Springf ield, MO Wi l son Cr . at Wi l son Rd. Wilson Cr. nr. Brookline, MO Springfield SW WWTP 001 James R. nr. Wilson Creek, MO J ames R. West of Ni x a Finley Cr. at Ozark C.P. Finley Cr. bl. Riverdale, MO WBC-B Criterion James R. nr. Boaz, MO (548 cfu/100mL) James R. at Hoot ent own Acc James R. at Shelvin Rock Finley Cr. at Hwy 160 James R. at McCall Bridge Rd Finley Cr. nr. mout h - Riverf ork

Finley Cr. at Hwy 125

Flat Cr. at Jenkins, MO WBC-A Criterion

James R. at Kerr Access (126 cfu/100mL)

James R. at Shoals Cmpgd

James R. at Galena, MO

Flat Creek bl. Jenkins, MO

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

E. coli Geomean (cfu/100mL)

Figure 20. Bar Chart of E. coli Geomeans in the James River Basin (June 19, 1997 to May 3, 2006).

36 Background Data – James River Watershed

G. Nonpoint Pollution Sources and Load Estimates

Nonpoint Pollution Sources

A water quality vulnerability model was created for the Upper White River Basin (UWRB) in 2006 (Lopez et al, 2006). This model combines existing water quality data and geospatial data to isolate potential pollution sources of nutrients and bacteria. Regionally, the James River Basin has been identified as having the highest total phosphorus and total ammonia concentrations in the UWRB (Figures 21 and 22).

In an analysis of total phosphorus concentrations at 18 sites in the UWRB, Lopez et al. found that highest TP concentrations tend to be found in watersheds with the following characteristics: 1) low percent forest cover in the basin and/or the riparian zone 2) high percent barren land cover in the basin and/or the riparian zone 3) low total stream density of the basin network.

Total ammonia (TA) trends show a weak negative relationship with forest land cover over the watershed and in the riparian zone. In addition, TA concentrations are also positively related to percent urban land use in the basin and/or the riparian zone in the analysis by Lopez et al. The results of this study stress the influence of urban land use, poor riparian buffer, and soil disturbance increased nutrient levels in Ozark streams. However, urban watersheds typically receive high nutrient loadings from point source inputs, such as sewage treatment plant effluents, that often mask the nonpoint effects of urban runoff, agriculture, and forest cover in mixed use watersheds (Borchelt, 2007).

For more information on this model visit the following website: http://www.epa.gov/esd/uwr_browser/pages/uwr_basicinfo.htm

37 Background Data – James River Watershed

Figure 21. Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Upper White River Basin from Lopez et al, 2006.

Figure 22. Total Ammonia Concentrations in the Upper White River Basin from Lopez et al, 2006.

38 Background Data – James River Watershed Stakeholder Involvement

The development of this Watershed Management Plan was a stakeholder driven process that included input from over 80 stakeholders from various watershed groups. The entire James River Basin (8 digit HUC 11010002) is highly complex with multiple land uses and watershed conditions. In order to facilitate a more specific and useful Watershed Plan for all areas, the Basin was divided into sub-basins to include: The Upper James, Middle James, Finley, Lower James, Flat Creek, and James River Arm of Table Rock Lake.

Each sub-watershed included a group of 15 to 20 stakeholders that met a minimum of four times in the following process: A preliminary stakeholder committee meeting was held to go over what a watershed management plan is and to discuss issues, concerns and set goals. At this meeting watershed information and available background data was presented for comment to determine what types of data should be collected for further analysis. The second Stakeholder Committee meeting includes revising concerns and issues based on presented watershed data. Data includes land use, population, management practices, demographics, water body conditions and water quality standards which are included in Chapter I of this James River Basin Watershed Management Plan. The James River Basin TMDL report, other water quality studies, pollutant sources, both point and nonpoint were also discussed in the stakeholder process.

The third Stakeholder Committee Meeting included refining of goals and establishing detailed objectives and targets. These included more detailed management objectives with specific target values. Stakeholders identified existing programs or policies, quantified effectiveness of these programs, discussed new management options, prioritized areas where additional efforts were needed, and determined if practices could produce quantifiable nutrient load reductions. In addition, the stakeholders developed activities and both short and long term milestones for the watershed management plan as well as developed a monitoring component to the plan. An estimation of the financial and technical needs for the plan was developed as part of the working document for review by technical and stakeholders committees. A fourth stakeholder committee meeting was held to review the draft watershed management plan and finalize the document.

Issues of concern vary throughout the James River watershed and by allowing focus on each sub-watershed, management will more effectively target the priorities in their portion of the watershed. The actions and goals outlined in the watershed management plan will guide watershed managers and stakeholders in future and current implementation, education/outreach, and monitoring efforts. The following pages present the Watershed Management Plans for the Lower James River and the James River arm of Table Rock Lake sub-watersheds. The following chapters are designed to be used as individual, stand-alone Watershed Management Plans for each sub-watershed. Therefore any information repeated from one sub-watershed to another is simply a result of each sub-watersheds being a part of the whole James River Basin and thus having similar land, hydrology, geology and population dynamics. Each sub-watershed chapter attempts to include the EPA’s nine elements of a watershed management plan.

39 James River Sub-watershed

Lower James River Sub-Watershed

James River Basin of Missouri

40 James River Sub-watershed

Lower James River Sub-watershed

A. Introduction

The Lower James River (10 digit HUC 1101000205) is located in the Ozark region of Southwest Missouri (Figure 1). It is part of the larger James River Basin, which covers approximately 931,050 acres. This portion of the watershed area encompasses just over 189,000 acres (295 square miles) in the counties of Stone, Barry, Christian, and Lawrence with the majority of this watershed within Stone County, Missouri.

Historically, the land use of the Lower James River watershed has been primarily forest and agriculture consisting of small family farms in the lowlands and cleared plateau areas and hardwood forests and glades on the slopes and hills. Farmers raise cattle, hogs, and poultry and grow fruit and vegetables such as peaches and tomatoes. According to a 2004 land use classification and assessment by the Missouri Resources Assessment Partnership, the Lower James River watershed is approximately 59% agriculture and 37% forest with about 1.5% urban area. The larger agricultural areas are made up of cleared pasture and grasslands for forage and hay production. Estimated percentage of urban area does not include the numbers of homes scattered in rural areas and the space these occupy on the landscape but rather indicates the percentage of land area taken up by the many small towns within the watershed.

The geological structure of the Lower James River watershed is typical of the Ozark region characterized by karst features such as sinkholes, caves, bedrock fractures and loosing streams. This allows direct linkage from surface waters to groundwater without filtration. Karst terrain is formed over time by the erosion and weathering of limestone and dolomite bedrock as slightly acidic rainwater creates channels, caverns and sinkholes into this material. The weathered carbonate rock forms residual soils containing resistant cherts and clay. Erosion of the residual soil accounts for the tumbled gravels found in streambeds of the watershed. Slopes can be 5° to 90º and tend to be steeper in areas close to creeks or water bodies. Soils on the broad ridge tops or in the river valleys are relatively deep with thin silt-loams over clayey residuum on limestone, shale and sandstone bedrock. Soils often contain a moderate amount of cherty rock fragments and support a variety of oak and hickory trees. Soils on slopes are thin and poor, supporting mainly smaller oaks, smoke-bush and cedar. Creek-bottom soils are gravelly in the upper reaches and become deeper silt loams in the lower reaches of streams. These areas contain sycamore, willow and other bottom-land vegetation. The majority of the streams in the basin are characterized by a shallow bottom composed of bedrock and gravel.

Scenic landscapes, lakes and the many clear, spring-fed streams have made the Lower James River and all of the Ozark region a popular family vacation and retirement destination. As consequence of the region’s natural attraction this region has been experiencing rapid population growth. Springfield, Nixa, Ozark, Branson, and Branson West as well as smaller towns in the Lower James River watershed such as Galena, Crane, Kimberling City and Reeds Spring are expanding as more population moves to the Ozarks. The population of Stone County alone has increased 30% between the years 1995

41 James River Sub-watershed to 2005, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. The entire state of Missouri has had an increase of approximately 13% during this period. These increases are projected to continue due to people moving from urban and other locations around the country into the rural setting in the James River and Table Rock Lake watersheds, further changing the watershed’s dynamics.

Figure 1. Lower James River land use map

42 James River Sub-watershed B. Water Quality Threats

The Lower James River was placed on the impaired waters list or 303(d) list, in 1999 due to excessive nutrients, particularly phosphorus. Excessive nutrient loading in streams occurs in association with areas of urban and agricultural development, or nonpoint sources (NPS), as well as point sources (PS) such as wastewater treatment plant (WTP) discharge which is rich in nutrients from human fecal matter, a byproduct of digestion. This Watershed Management Plan focuses on NPS pollution due to this being the most prevalent, unregulated source of nutrient pollution in the James River Watershed. Point sources of pollution including the municipal WTPs are currently regulated and must maintain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit which is used to monitor pollution levels in their discharge. Non-point source pollution is much more difficult to regulate since it does not emanate from individual locations rather is a collection of widespread pollution caused by certain land development and land use practices.

Excessive nutrient loading causes over-growth of algae known as eutrophication in lakes and streams. Increased nutrient and algae concentration can lead to water quality problems when dense concentrations of algae choke out the indigenous aquatic species and reduce water clarity and recreational uses. Decaying algae decreases dissolved oxygen in the water and may cause streams to become unable to support fish and other aquatic life resulting in fish kills. Ammonia, a form of nitrogen, is also released from decaying algae and, in excessive amounts may cause tissue damage to fish. The natural occurrence of nitrogen and phosphorus in streams varies from one geographical region to another and comes from natural soil erosion, wildlife fecal matter and decomposition of organic material such as fallen leaves. Nitrogen and phosphorus are major plant nutrients essential for growth of aquatic vegetation and form the basis of aquatic food chains, but these concentrations are low in natural streams due to a high removal rate by vegetation and lack of excessive inputs.

According to the James River Total Maximum Daily Load for nutrients (MoDNR 2001), the phosphorus levels in the James River should not exceed 0.07 mg/L in order to prevent excessive or nuisance algae growth. The estimated loading rate of phosphorus in the James River exceeds its targeted loading rate by approximately 5 to 6 times (MoDNR 2001). This Watershed Management Plan is intended to help focus conservation efforts toward reduction of nutrient loading to achieve the James River TMDL recommendations of less than 0.07 mg/L phosphorus.

The Lower James River is affected by population increases as the towns expand outwards into this rural watershed and more communities and subdivisions spring up to accommodate the population increases. Associated pollution from human activities such as lawn fertilizer, construction erosion, pet wastes, septic seepage and impervious runoff are increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the watershed. Impervious surfaces including roads, parking lots, building tops, and some lawns and sidewalks collect nutrients and other contaminants from vehicles, yard waste, soil erosion, fertilizer and animal waste. All of this NPS contamination is washed by precipitation runoff into nearby streams which makes towns and urban areas one of the largest contributors to

43 James River Sub-watershed nutrient pollution. Towns with municipal infrastructure usually discharge WTP effluent which is often a major source of nutrient loading to the local stream.

Manure fertilizer or WTP sludge (solids) are applied to many fields in the Lower James River watershed to increase crop and hay yields. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus in these applications may enter groundwater and streams as runoff. Construction sites often cause erosion runoff from rain on the exposed soil which contains high amounts of phosphorus. Soil erosion also loads additional sediments and gravels onto the streams which in turn causes the stream beds to spread out and undercut their banks causing additional stream bank erosion. Stream bank erosion is accelerated when the trees and vegetation are removed from the riparian areas to make more room for pastures and crops. When it rains, the streams and rivers in the James River Watershed are often very muddy from the excessive erosion caused by development and bank erosion. Ozarks creeks and streams naturally contain clear water with rocky bottoms, the environment to which aquatic life has adapted. Excessive erosion destroys the natural water uses of the Lower James River and its tributaries.

Another NPS common in the Lower James River watershed is onsite septic systems. Septic tanks are often used as a means of wastewater treatment in rural areas that do not have municipal sewers. Wastewater treatment depends on the ability of soil to absorb effluent. The problem stems from the lack of suitable soil for proper treatment of septic effluent from a conventional system. While population growth continues to rise in the Lower James River watershed and homes are built in the rural areas, higher treatment standards are needed to protect water quality. Large numbers of septic systems in the shallow soil with poor absorption can release significant nutrient pollution into the watershed. Failing and inadequate septic systems in the Lower James River watershed are a major issue and concern for the residents in this area. These concerns are receiving more attention through action by local regulatory agencies and watershed conservation groups.

The James River Basin Partnership (JRBP), a local watershed conservation organization, has sponsored a septic tank pump-out incentive program for residents in the James River Watershed to help raise awareness of the problems associated with failing septic tanks. Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. (TRLWQ), another watershed conservation group, has demonstrated and tested, through a project in 2002-2007, better onsite treatment alternatives for the Table Rock Lake area through installation and monitoring of various treatment technologies. The Stone County Health Department (SCHD) has also launched a program in 2007 to focus on septic regulations and enforcement as well as a revision of its septic ordinance to better reflect needed changes in the installation and operation of onsite wastewater treatment systems to protect water quality. All of these actions and programs have been in response to the threat upon water quality from an increasing population as well as demand by many local concerned citizens. However, there is still a great need for public information programs as many residents are still unaware of the importance of adequate onsite wastewater treatment to protect ground and surface water quality. Education is therefore extremely important for increasing public awareness of the water quality problems and offering feasible solutions for remediation and prevention of water quality degradation.

44 James River Sub-watershed C. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

In order to preserve the natural water quality of the Lower James River best management practices (BMPs) need to become general knowledge and applied through education, voluntary adoption and regulatory enforcement. Some BMPs to reduce nutrient pollution from non-point sources include:

1. Soil erosion prevention on construction sites and new developments through use of runoff retention, vegetation, effective silt retention fences and minimal soil disturbance. 2. Provide education on low-impact development practices to prevent nonpoint source pollution. 3. Riparian corridor restoration and soil retention through planting of trees and shrubs and maintenance of natural vegetative cover along river and stream banks. 4. Prevention of livestock manure deposition in creeks by filtering with vegetation, fencing livestock out of streams and construction of alternative watering ponds or troughs. 5. Better timing and rate of fertilizer and manure applications to agricultural fields by using soils tests, seasonal rainfall considerations and accurate estimation of crop needs. 6. Prevention of nutrient runoff through constructed berms and detention methods at edges of potential nutrient runoff sites along streams such as fertilized fields, quarries or confined animal operations. 7. Reduction of nutrient runoff from residential lawns through education, soils tests, fertilizer application plans, rain gardens and detention basins. 8. Work with City and County Regulatory agencies to change ordinances and enforce BMPs for development.

BMPs are also needed to reduce nutrient-rich wastewater being discharged or leaked into the Lower James River watersheds. Examples of these include:

9. Phosphorus removal from WTP effluent even for the many smaller dischargers (at least to the Missouri Clean Water Commission recommended 0.5 mg/L). 10. Gradual remediation of failing residential onsite wastewater treatment systems through both education/incentives and regulation such as time-of- sale inspections. 11. Promotion and construction of clustered community wastewater treatment facilities for the many small communities that currently contain numerous older and often failing onsite wastewater systems. 12. Determine the scope of failure for onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Lower James River watershed in order to aide addressing this problem and tracking progress in its remediation. 13. Public demonstrations and education on the proper maintenance of advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems suitable for the geological environment of the Lower James River watershed.

45 James River Sub-watershed

D. Watershed Management Plan Stakeholder Committee

Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. (TRLWQ), working with the James River Basin Partnership and funded through section 319 Watershed Protection grant organized a series of stakeholder meetings in the Lower James River watershed in 2007. The Lower James River stakeholder committee was made up of local residents and businesses who took on the task of forming a watershed management plan to help preserve the natural water quality of the Lower James River and prevent exploding human populations from degrading this treasured resource. This was also meant to be a part of the overall watershed management plan for the entire James River Basin.

Timeline and Revisions: Water quality improvement goals fell into short-term goals, those that could be achieved in less than 5 years, and long term goals, those that would be more feasibly achieved 5 to 10 years. This watershed management plan is meant to contain dynamic goals and actions to achieve those goals which also encourage the public to have an active role in ensuring this plan’s success. This watershed management plan is therefore meant to be revised and changed over time to reflect changes in water quality status and watershed population/land use dynamics.

Table 1: Stakeholder Committee Members: Greg Evans* Local business Ronda Headland* MDC Collin Brannon* Mayor Sue Vannier* Real estate Jack Mustard* City council Dennis Vannier* Real estate Jack Swearengen* City council Teresa Hughes* Local resident Janet Copeland* Local land owner Lester Davis Local agriculture Maryellen Chaney* Local resident Floyd Hultz Small business Lois Cameron Turton* Real estate Holly Neill Watershed conservation Larry Turton* Real estate Kyle Bently Camp coordinator Janetta Cole* Real estate Stacey Armstrong Watershed conservation Robert Morgan* Local resident Kevin Wray Stone County SWCD Chris Cristopherson* Local ranch owner Tim Schnakenberg+ MU Extension Erman Cristopherson* Local ranch owner Justin Jenkins* Christian County SWCD Steve White + County commission Aaron Hafer + USDA-NRCS Steve Wilson + USDA-NRCS Gail Lineberry + Local resident

+ Invited but unable to attend meetings * Members added after first meeting

The Stakeholder Committee decided to focus the action plan (Table 2) on a few goals which they considered more critical and immediately possible rather than trying to

46 James River Sub-watershed address all water quality problems within the watershed. The few goals indentified in this Lower James River Watershed Management Plan were also considered the most critical water quality problems based upon the land use and population of this watershed. This approach was meant to simplify the Watershed Management Plan in order to produce a document that could be easily used and understood by future watershed groups, planners, as well as citizens and stakeholders. This plan would also be easily updated as its simplicity would encourage additions from future water quality stakeholders to reflect new watershed developments and needed changes.

E. Action Plan

The initial focus of this Watershed Management Plan is on two major water quality conservation goals:

1) Remediation of failing onsite wastewater treatment systems and prevention of system failure through education, regulation, cost-share programs, promotion of clustered/regulated community treatment systems and other incentives.

2) Reduction of nutrient runoff from erosion and livestock through education and incentives and by use and demonstration of BMPs including filter strips, riparian buffers, detention basins, rain gardens, fencing livestock out of streams and regulation of nutrient applications.

According to the Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems published by the EPA, 1995 census data indicated that 10% of nationwide onsite septic were failing (EPA 2003). In addition half of the onsite systems were installed more than 30 years ago when regulations to ensure proper installation were lax or non-existent. Thais is case in the Lower James River watershed where many homes are utilizing 500 gallon metal (rusted) drums as septic tanks. With approximately 35,000 residents in Stone County, which covers the majority of the Lower James River watershed, an estimated 50% septic failure rate may contribute significantly to water quality degradation. In the thin, rocky soil of the Ozarks, septic system failure can quickly affect ground and surface water through the porous geology. Figure 2 therefore shows the Lower James River a priority for wastewater BMPs.

In a previous study by Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc., the National Onsite Wastewater Demonstration Project, it was found that an average septic tank effluent contains 5 milligrams of total phosphorus (TP) per liter (TRLWQ, 2007). Based upon this and the standard estimated 60 gallons of water usage per day per person, a measurement used by wastewater system engineers, the average phosphorus output can be calculated at 2,270 mg TP per year for a 2-person household.

Non-point source pollution in the Lower James River is also being accelerated by development outside of the towns where large subdivisions are being placed where there was once forest and all the topsoil is removed exposing the fine clays to erosion. Impacts of detention, silt fences and other BMPs to help prevent erosion are difficult to measure since the scope of the runoff problem has not been quantified. Education about the impacts of erosion, its affects on water quality and enforcement of required runoff prevention measures is seen as the most feasible answer to this water quality threat now. 47 James River Sub-watershed

Figure 2. Priority areas for BMPs

Solutions to stream bank erosion and nutrient pollution from livestock are also based on education of the farmers and cattlemen. The priority areas for these BMS are show in Figure 2 mainly along streams and the James River in the north and central regions of the watershed. Awareness paired with incentives to help fence animals out of the streams and instead use pasture ponds or well-fed troughs to provide water is seen as a feasible solution. The Stone County Soil and Water Conservation District has worked with farmers on riparian restoration projects and incentives. The impact of fencing out cattle from streams has not been measured terms of water chemistry can be clearly observed in streams where this has been implemented.

48 James River Sub-watershed Over-fertilization or improper timing of fertilization on agricultural fields or lawns may cause nutrient pollution from runoff. Since chemical fertilizers are costly there is not an incentive for farms to over-fertilize. Manure fertilizers can be less expensive and in some cases may be over-applied or spread on fields as a way to dispose of this waste. Lawns are much smaller and the tendency to over-fertilize is often greater as homeowners try to achieve a perfect green lawn. The James River Basin Partnership has offered free lawn soils tests to its members, mainly residents of the James River Basin closer to Springfield, which includes a fertilization plan to provide adequate lawn growth without over- fertilization. Maintenance of riparian corridor and installation of buffer zones with vegetation between fields and streams will help prevent nutrient runoff. Rain gardens are another tool which can be used by homeowners to capture runoff and reduce nutrient and sediment pollution from their yards.

The following tables (Table 2 and Table 3) outline specific actions and projects that the Stakeholder Committee for this initial Lower James River Watershed Management Plan have presented to address the two main concerns, septic system failure and non-point nutrient runoff. These projects are designed based on previous experience, feasibility and regional demographics to provide the needed focus on projects that are most effective. The tables have been structured to clearly address issues deemed critical by the EPA in its guidance for the Nine Minimum Elements for Watershed Management Plans.

Table 2: Reduction Actions BMP/Reduction Management Financial Responsible Schedule/ Monitoring/ Action Practices Assistance Member Milestones Evaluation Create accountability Establish/promote Stone County Stone County Complete in Monitor use and follow- for local septic issues use of a septic Health Dept. Health Dept. 2010 up through user surveys problem hotline (SCHD) (SCHD) Remediate failing Remediate failing $300,000 from 319 TRLWQ, Complete in Monitor system septic systems with septic systems in grant to remediate SCHD 2012 performance and impacts advanced wastewater the watershed 22 systems—this is to surface water quality treatment in the through education, a start to before and after Lower James River enforcement and remediation and remediation of systems Watershed. cost-share regulation of septic (30% of rural systems. systems may be failing). Create database for Compile a septic TRLWQ, SCHD TRLWQ, Complete in Public response to onsite septic system system data and through 319 grant SCHD 2012 reminders for regular tracking & track status, send maintenance. regulation. out reminders for regular maintenance. Volunteers identify Annual float trips Funds form local Volunteers, Start Presence and record of failing septic system down the James sponsors and Stakeholder immediately, algal blooms, unlawful to the James River river and its volunteer resources continued as discharge locations in the tributaries. needed streams. Pilot, demonstration Create 10 to 20 TRLWQ, JRBP 319 TRLWQ, Complete in Monitor runoff form project to reduce & examples each of grant funding, JRBP local 2015 remediated sites w/goal capture runoff from berms, rain landowner cost- landowners of 20% reduction in agricultural land & gardens and other share quantity and 40% restore vegetative riparian filters reduction in nutrient growth on stream along stretches of content banks. ag and developing

49 James River Sub-watershed land near streams Septic Tank Septic Tank Pump- $35,000 from Bass JRBP, 1st phase Sewage removed from Maintenance Out Program (700 Pro, National Fish TRLWQ 2009, households. Participant pump-outs) & Wildlife Found., 2nd phase surveys to determine MO Department of Complete in reception & value of Conservation 2010 program education. Soil Testing Urban lawn testing $8,000 JRBP JRBP Ongoing Track participants that program-nutrient don’t require additional plan (500 lawn phosphorous application tests).

F. Education

Stakeholder and Advisory Committees all agreed that public education on water quality issues is the key to implementation of a successful watershed management plan. Some of the objectives for education include education of developers on best management practices for construction and land clearing including the value of trees and effects of storm water runoff.

An education campaign is also needed to reach realtors so they can pass on information about potential septic system problems to home buyers and help encourage the region to adopt better onsite wastewater treatment policies to protect water quality and home investments. In addition a solution demonstration program for failing septic systems could help rural homeowners obtain the knowledge they need to fix and prevent problems. Advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems require additional maintenance. Demonstrations and workshops are needed to provide public education on how to properly maintain these systems.

Increased public awareness of the causes of non-point source nutrient pollution as well as the possible alternatives to current practices will go hand-in-hand with all nutrient reduction projects.

Table 3: Public Education Education Opportunities Financial Assistance Responsible Schedule Monitoring/ Evaluation Member Educational workshops Funds from TRLWQ TRLWQ Five workshops Follow-up surveys/ for rural homeowners grants by 2012 questionnaires of participants Radio/TV Public Service Funds from and TRLWQ Six PSAs Public response/ Announcements Stone County and by 2010 requests for information TRLWQ Stone County Watershed JRBP and TRLWQ JRBP and One festival w/ Pre/Post surveys of water Festival TRLWQ 800 students quality knowledge annually James River float trips Funds from TRLWQ TRLWQ Annual events Public involvement/ and local sponsors feedback Demonstration of runoff $5,000 TRLWQ and Two Public response/ prevention techniques TRLWQ and local Stakeholder demonstration requests for information business or resident committee sites by 2012 volunteers Educational program for $1,000 from TRLWQ TRLWQ Presentation and Realtor/developer realtors/developers and Stone County educational fliers involvement/ by 2009 feedback

50 James River Sub-watershed Water Quality Newsletters $1,000 quarterly TRLWQ A quarterly Public response/ TRLWQ publication requests for newsletter Websites $1,000 annually TRLWQ Ongoing Tracking of website visitor TRLWQ numbers Septic tank hotline TRLWQ and SCHD TRLWQ and Ongoing Tracking of calls received SCHD Septic Tank Pump-Out $35,000 from Bass JRBP, TRLWQ Completed in Assessment of Knowledge Program (700 pump-outs) Pro, National Fish 2010 and Behavior Changes of and Wildlife participants. Foundation, Missouri Department of Conservation Radio/TV Public Service $20,000 through SW JRBP Six PSAs by Public response/requests Announcements 319 and JRBP 2010 for information River Rescue $6,000 provided by JRBP One event Public involvement/ JRBP annually feedback Water Quality Newsletters $2,000 quarterly JRBP One publications Public response/requests through 319/ JRBP quarterly – for newsletter/amount ongoing distributed Websites $1,000 annually TRLWQ /JRBP Ongoing Tracking of website visitor through 319/JRBP/ numbers TRLWQ Water Quality Toll-Free $1,000 annually from JRBP Ongoing Tracking of calls received Line JRBP Presentations, community $5,000 TRLWQ/JRBP Ongoing # of activities, # of event displays, materials TRLWQ/JRBP materials distributed distribution Work with city and TRLWQ, JRBP, TRLWQ, JRBP, Ongoing Track needed changes to county regulatory General organization Upper White River planning and zoning and agencies to change operation funding. Basin Foundation, health department, city ordinances and enforce Stakeholder ordinances and policies. BMPs for development. Committee Updates to the Lower $5,000-funding from TRLWQ, JRBP, Ongoing-update Monitor public James River Watershed TRLWQ, JRBP, Upper White River every 5 years involvement in the WMP Management Plan every 5 Upper White River Basin Foundation, update process and years. Basin Foundation, Stakeholder ownership of its results 319 mini grant. Committee and conclusions.

G. Monitoring for Water Quality and Watershed Changes

Organizations and individuals concerned this Watershed Management Plan and responsible for its continuation will need a measurement of the current water quality status and updates on how this changes over time to reflect changes in land use practices and development, natural forces and conservation efforts. This information will allow the WMP to be changed and updated accordingly. Currently there are several organizations that are gathering water quality data in the region including the Lakes of Missouri Volunteers Program which collects water quality data from lakes throughout Missouri during the spring and summer months. The Stone and Taney county health departments collect information on bacteria at swim beaches throughout the summer also. Studies by the University of Missouri and Missouri State University are often published and easily accessible. The U. S. Geological Society has placed several continuous data collection stations along stretches of the James River from which results are published on their website and www.usgs.gov. This and data from other studies will be used to track changes in water quality in the Lower James River watershed.

51 James River Sub-watershed

H. Future of the Lower James River Watershed Management Plan

This WMP is deigned to evolve as water quality conservation needs change. Parties responsible for changes and updates to the WMP include all parties included as stakeholders in the quality of water in the Lower James River watershed. Specifically responsible are watershed conservation groups such as the Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. and James River basin Partnership, regulatory agencies such as Stone County Health Department and Stone County Planning and Zoning and groups directly dependent upon the water quality for their livelihood such as resorts and outdoor recreation outfitters.

Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. in cooperation with JRBP and other stakeholders is eager to take immediate responsibility for implementing and updating this WMP. TRLWQ proposes to update this document by 2010 and again as needed every 3 to 5 years. This will allow for the completion of short-term goals and reassessment of progress and direction of long-term goals. The re-assessment process will include reports to stakeholders (the public) on the progress of the tasks outlined in this WMP. Stakeholders will provide input for revisions to help this plan more accurately reflect changes in water quality status and watershed population/land use dynamics.

52 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-Watershed

James River Basin of Missouri

53 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

A. Introduction

The James River Arm of Table Rock Lake (10 digit HUC 1101000207) is located in the Ozark region of Southwest Missouri (Figure 1). It is part of the larger James River Basin, which covers approximately 931,050 acres. This watershed encompasses an area of over 58,600 acres (100 square miles) and is located in Stone and Barry Counties with the majority of the watershed in Stone County.

The historical land use in the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed has been primarily forest with some agriculture in the bottom lands and lowlands especially prior to the formation of Table Rock Lake in the 1950s. According to a 2004 land use classification by the Missouri Resources Assessment Partnership, the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed is approximately 11% agriculture and 72% forest with about 2% urban area. The watershed area also contains a large amount of open water from Table Rock Lake. The agricultural areas are largely made up of cleared pasture and grasslands for forage and hay production. Estimated percentage of urban area does not include the numbers of homes scattered in rural areas and the space these occupy on the landscape but rather indicates the percentage of land area taken up by the many small towns and villages within the watershed.

The geological structure of the James River arm of Table Rock Lake watershed is typical of the Ozark region characterized by karst features such as sinkholes, caves, bedrock fractures and loosing streams. This allows direct linkage from surface waters to groundwater without filtration. Karst terrain is formed over time by the erosion and weathering of limestone and dolomite bedrock as slightly acidic rainwater creates channels, caverns and sinkholes into this material. The weathered carbonate rock forms residual soils containing resistant cherts and clay. Erosion of the residual soil accounts for the tumbled gravels found in streambeds of the watershed. Slopes can be 5° to 90º and tend to be steeper in areas close to creeks or water bodies. Soils on the broad ridge tops or in the river valleys are relatively deep with thin silt-loams over clayey residuum on limestone, shale and sandstone bedrock. Soils often contain a moderate amount of cherty rock fragments and support a variety of oak and hickory trees. Soils on slopes are thin and poor, supporting mainly smaller oaks, smoke-bush and cedar. Creek-bottom soils are gravelly in the upper reaches and become deeper silt loams in the lower reaches of streams. These areas contain sycamore, willow and other bottom-land vegetation. The majority of the streams in the basin are characterized by a shallow bottom composed of bedrock rock and gravel.

Population has been increasing in this region and will likely continue to grow, further changing the watershed’s dynamics. Scenic landscapes, lakes and the many clear, spring- fed streams have made the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake a very popular family vacation, lake home, resort and retirement destination. Rapidly increasing population is largely taking place in rural, lake-front communities while the population of Stone

54 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed County alone has increased 30% between the years 1995 to 2005, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. The entire state of Missouri has had an increase of approximately 13% during this period. These increases are projected to continue due to people moving from urban and other locations around the country into the rural setting in the James River and Table Rock Lake watersheds.

Figure 1. James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed map

55 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed B. Water Quality Threats

The James River Arm of Table Rock Lake is currently listed as an impaired water body or 303(d) list due to excessive nutrients, particularly phosphorus. Excessive nutrient loading in streams occurs in association with areas of urban and agricultural development or nonpoint sources (NPS) as well as point sources (PS) such as wastewater treatment plant (WTP) discharge which is rich in nutrients from human fecal matter, a byproduct of digestion. This Watershed Management Plan focuses on NPS pollution due to this being the most prevalent, unregulated source of nutrient pollution in the James River Watershed. Point sources of pollution including the municipal WTPs are currently regulated and must maintain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit which is used to monitor pollution levels in their discharge. Non-point source pollution is much more difficult to regulate since it does not emanate from individual locations rather is a collection of widespread pollution caused by certain land development and land use practices.

Excessive nutrient loading causes eutrophication of lakes and streams which is an overproduction of algae. Increased nutrient and algae concentration can lead to water quality problems when dense concentrations of algae choke out the indigenous aquatic species and reduce water clarity and recreational uses. Decaying algae decreases dissolved oxygen in the water and may cause streams to become unable to support fish and other aquatic life resulting in fish kills. Ammonia, a form of nitrogen, is also released from decaying algae and, in excessive amounts, may cause tissue damage to fish. The natural occurrence of nitrogen and phosphorus in streams varies from one geographical region to another and comes from natural soil erosion, wildlife fecal matter and decomposition of organic material such as fallen leaves. Nitrogen and phosphorus are major plant nutrients essential for growth of aquatic vegetation and form the basis of aquatic food chains, but these concentrations are low in natural streams due to a high removal rate by vegetation and lack of excessive inputs.

The James River Arm of Table Rock Lake is affected by population increases as the towns expand and subdivisions spring up around the lake to accommodate the population which greatly values lakefront living. Associated pollution from subdivisions and human activities such as lawn fertilizers, construction erosion, pet wastes, septic seepage and impervious runoff are increasing nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus as well as increasing soil erosion in the watershed from developments. Impervious surfaces including roads, parking lots, building tops, and managed/cleared shorelines collect nutrients and other contaminants from vehicles, yard waste, soil erosion, fertilizer and animal waste. All of this NPS contamination is washed by precipitation runoff into

56 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed nearby streams and the lake. Small towns and communities with a central sewer infrastructure usually discharge WTP effluent which is often a major source of nutrient loading to the water way.

Another NSP common in the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed is onsite septic tanks. Septic tanks are often used as a means of wastewater treatment in rural areas that do not have municipal sewers. Wastewater treatment depends on the ability of soil to absorb effluent. While population growth continues to rise in the James River arm of Table Rock Lake watershed and homes are continually built in the many rural communities, the threat to water quality in Table Rock Lake, the main economic and recreational engine in this region, continually increases. Large numbers of septic systems in the shallow-to-nonexistent soil provides little or no absorption and thus can release significant nutrient pollution into the watershed. Failing and inadequate septic systems are therefore a major issue and are the major concern for the residents in this area. A septic tank pump-out incentive program for all residents in the James River Basin has therefore been well received in the Table Rock Lake area.

Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. (TRLWQ) has implemented a project to demonstrate better treatment alternatives for onsite systems in the Table Rock Lake area through installation and monitoring of different technologies. Stone County Health Department (SCHD) has also launched a program to focus on septic regulations and enforcement as well as a revision of its septic ordinance to better reflect needed changes in the installation and operation of onsite wastewater treatment systems to protect water quality. All of these actions and programs have been in response to the possible water quality implications of an increasing population as well as demand by many local concerned citizens. However, many residents do not know about the importance of adequate onsite wastewater treatment to ground and surface water quality. Education is therefore extremely important for increasing public awareness of the water quality problems and offering feasible solutions for remediation and prevention of water quality degradation.

The James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed also contains many construction sites that may contribute significant soil erosion. Construction sites cause contribute erosion when rain falls on the exposed soil which contains high amounts of phosphorus. Soil erosion also loads additional sediments and gravels onto the streams which in turn causes the stream beds to spread out and undercut their banks leading to additional stream bank erosion. Stream bank erosion is also accelerated when the trees and vegetation are removed from the riparian areas to create better views of the lake or to make more room for access to the water. Heavy Rains cause streams and Table Rock Lake to become very muddy especially in isolated coves where a significant amount of construction and land clearing is taking place. Ozarks creeks and streams naturally contain clear water with rocky bottoms, the environment to which aquatic life has adapted.

C. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

In order to preserve the natural water quality of the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake best management practices (BMPs) need to become general knowledge and applied through education, voluntary adoption and regulatory enforcement. A list of needed BMPs to reduce nutrient pollution from non-point sources is included below: 57 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

1. Soil erosion prevention on construction sites and new developments through use of runoff retention, vegetation, effective silt retention fences and minimal soil disturbance. 2. Provide education on low-impact development practices to prevent non-point source pollution. 3. Riparian corridor restoration and soil retention through planting of trees and shrubs and maintenance of natural vegetative cover along river and stream banks. 4. Prevention of commercial and business nutrient runoff through education and constructed rain gardens, detention basins and bioswales. 5. Reduction of nutrient runoff from residential lawns through education, soils tests, fertilizer application plans, rain gardens and detention basins. 6. Work with City and County Regulatory agencies to change ordinances and enforce BMPs for development. 7. Phosphorus removal from WTP effluent even for the many smaller dischargers (at least to the Missouri Clean Water Commission recommended 0.5 mg/L). 8. Gradual remediation of failing residential onsite wastewater treatment systems through both education/incentives and regulation such as time-of-sale inspections. 9. Promotion and construction of clustered community wastewater treatment facilities for the many small communities that currently contain numerous older and often failing onsite wastewater systems. 10. Determine the scope of failure for onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Lower James River watershed in order to aide addressing this problem and tracking progress in its remediation. 11. Public demonstrations and education on the proper maintenance of advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems suitable for the geological environment of the Lower James River watershed.

D. Watershed Management Plan Stakeholder Committee

Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. (TRLWQ), working with the James River Basin Partnership and funded through a section 319 Watershed Protection grant organized a series of stakeholder meetings in the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed in 2007. The James River Arm of Table Rock Lake stakeholder committee was made up of local residents and businesses who took on the task of forming a watershed management plan to help preserve the natural water quality of the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake and prevent exploding human populations from degrading this treasured resource. This was also meant to be a part of the overall watershed management plan for the entire James River Basin.

The Stakeholder Committee discussed the real and perceived water quality problems and possible solutions to these problems. This discussion was also geared toward development of goals and objectives for water quality protection that were both realistic and measurable. This watershed management plan is meant to contain dynamic goals and actions to achieve those goals which also encourage the public to have an active role in ensuring this plan’s success. This watershed management plan is therefore meant to be 58 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed revised and changed over time to reflect changes in water quality status and watershed population/land use dynamics. There were a total of four stakeholder meetings for the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed management process which occurred June 2007 through September 2007. Stakeholders involved in the process are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Stakeholder Committee Members: Gary Clark Real estate Roy Holand Local resident Kathy Clark Real estate Holly Neill Water quality Mike Collins Stream team/teacher Rex Walker County Planning Ray Jones Local resident Gary Fultz Resort/watercraft Paul Lear Mayor of Reeds Spring Angela Ford County Health Dept. Rick Helms Local water/septic Maint. Co. Cy Murray Chamber of commerce Mimi Aumann Concerned Citizen Candy Lordo County Planning Dennis Wood State Representative Aderian Adams Local resident David Casaletto Resident/water quality *Todd Fickbohm County Health Dept. Tonya Lewis Stream team/teacher *Sommer Wells County Health Dept. +Travis Tucker City public works *John Moore Water Quality +Mark Clark Local resident +Rick Balsey Local resident +Rondal Bandy Local resident +Tony Delong County Health Dept.

+ Invited but unable to attend meetings * Members added after first meeting

The Stakeholder Committee for the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake drove discussions toward focusing on a few achievable goals that rather than trying to cover all possible water quality problems within the watershed. This approach was meant to simplify the Watershed Management Plan in order to produce a document that could be easily used and understood by future watershed groups, planners, as well as citizens and stakeholders. This WMP would also be easily updated as its simplicity would encourage additions from future water quality stakeholders to reflect new watershed developments and needed changes. The few goals indentified were also considered the most critical water quality problems based upon the land use and population dynamics of the Lower James River watershed.

59 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed E. Action Plan

The initial focus of this Watershed Management Plan is on two major water quality conservation goals:

2) Reduction of nutrient runoff from erosion and bacteria pollution from urban development and storm water runoff through education on Lake-friendly home and yard products, buffering such as rain gardens, incentive programs, workshops and field days.

According to the Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems published by the EPA, 1995 census data indicated that 10% of nationwide onsite septic were failing (EPA 2003). In addition half of the onsite systems were installed more than 30 years ago when regulations to ensure proper installation and functioning were lax or non-existent. Many homes in the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake watershed are utilizing 500 gallon metal (now heavily rusted) drums as septic tanks. With approximately 35,000 residents in Stone County an estimated 50% septic failure rate may contribute significantly to water quality degradation. This entire watershed is therefore considered a priority region for implementing wastewater treatment BMPs including advanced onsite treatment and community clustered wastewater treatment plants (Figure 2).

Non-point source pollution in the James River region is also being accelerated by development outside of the towns where large subdivisions are being placed where there was once forest and all the topsoil is removed exposing the fine clays to erosion. Impacts of detention, silt fences and other BMPs to help prevent erosion are difficult to measure since the scope of the runoff problem has not been quantified. Education about the impacts of erosion, its affects on water quality and enforcement of required runoff prevention measures is seen as the most feasible answer to this water quality threat now.

The following tables (Table 2 and Table 3) outline specific actions and projects that the Stakeholder Committee for this initial James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Watershed Management Plan have presented to address the two main concerns, septic system failure and non-point nutrient runoff. These projects are designed based on previous experience, feasibility and regional demographics to provide the needed focus on projects that are most effective. The tables have been structured to clearly address issues deemed critical by the EPA in its guidance for the Nine Minimum Elements for Watershed Management Plans. 60 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

Figure 2. Priority areas for BMPs

Table 2: Reduction Actions BMP/Reduction Action Management Financial Responsible Schedule/ Monitoring/ Practices Assistance Member Milestones Evaluation Create accountability for Establish/promote Stone County Stone Complete in Monitor use and local septic issues use of a septic Health Dept. County 2010 follow-up through problem hotline (SCHD) Health Dept. user surveys (SCHD) Remediate failing septic Remediate failing $300,000 from TRLWQ, Complete in Monitor system systems with advanced septic systems in 319 grant to SCHD 2012 performance and wastewater treatment in the watershed remediate 22 impacts to surface the Lower James River through education, systems—this is a water quality before Watershed. enforcement and start to and after remediation cost-share remediation and of systems (30% of rural regulation of systems may be septic systems. failing). Create database for Compile a septic TRLWQ, SCHD TRLWQ, Complete in Public response to onsite septic system system data and through 319 grant SCHD 2012 reminders for regular

61 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed tracking & regulation. track status, send maintenance. out reminders for regular maintenance. Encourage use of Table Work with cities to Local cities and TRLWQ, Start by Surveys to document Rock Lake-friendly create incentives communities, cost volunteers getting greater knowledge of products for homes and for residents to use share grants, local Stakeholder support from and use of Lake- septic green products product retailers committee community friendly products Bolster county and city Cities and counties TRLWQ, 319 TRLWQ, Policy Visually monitor regulations to prevent require erosion grants JRBP changes in runoff detention and storm water runoff from prevention through Community local filtering efforts w/goal construction riparian buffers and stakeholders communities of 20% of detention by 2015 developments taking measures Promote rainwater Implement rain TRLWQ TRLWQ, 2015 Track use of rain detention and use barrel and cistern local barrels and cisterns program suppliers, w/goal of 500 home JRBP systems Soil Testing Urban lawn testing $8,000 JRBP JRBP Ongoing Track participants that program-nutrient don’t require plan (500 lawn additional tests). phosphorous application Septic Tank Septic Tank Pump- $35,000 from JRBP, 1st phase Sewage removed from Maintenance Out Program (700 Bass Pro, Ntnl TRLWQ 2009, households. pump-outs) Fish & Wildlife 2nd phase Participant surveys to Found., MO Complete in determine reception & Department of 2010 value of program Conservation education. Reduce Stormwater Create 5 to 10 TRLWQ, grants, TRLWQ and Two Public response/ Runoff from new and examples of local business, watershed demonstratio requests for existing developments pervious concrete, volunteers conservation n sites by information/ others rain gardens, partners 2012— implementing tools detention basins, project low-impact ongoing development options, bioswales ect.

Water and well pollution from failing and inadequate systems is a continuing problem in the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake and the surrounding area. This is a major concern for the local residents and stakeholders who enjoy the water quality, fishing and swimming in this area. Again, the problem stems from lack of suitable soil to treat septic effluent from a conventional system. Population growth continues to rise, however, and therefore increases the threat of water quality contamination from additional septic systems. Goals reached in the Stakeholder Committee Meetings point to the need for regulatory agencies to be accountable for making sure their wastewater is being treated properly with an adequate system. The Committee also agreed that a hotline for reporting septic pollution violations to the local Health Department was a needed item as well as promotion of the awareness of this facility. Other goals for the watershed are to have home sales voluntarily adopt the policy of promoting septic system inspections to ensure that the treatment system is adequate and functioning properly. This may be done through education of realtors, lenders and communities on the dangers of a failing septic system to both property values and water quality.

62 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed F. Education

Education is extremely important for increasing public awareness of the water quality problems and offering feasible solutions for remediation and prevention of water quality degradation. The Stakeholder and Advisory Committees all agreed that public education on water quality issues is the key to implementation of a successful watershed management plan. Some of the objectives for education include education of developers and home builders on best management practices for construction site and post- construction runoff prevention through the use of rain gardens, catchments and other riparian buffers.

An education campaign is also needed to reach individual homeowners and offer them alternative, lake-friendly (environmentally friendly) products and practices to use on their homes, septic systems and lawns. These may include yard waste recycling, runoff prevention (rain gardens, bioswales), planting native varieties, getting soil tests, fertilizing only when needed, using rain barrels for yard watering and using less harsh chemicals in home and yard maintenance.

Table 3: Education Education Financial Responsible Schedule Monitoring/ Opportunities Assistance Member Evaluation Educational $8,000 from 319 TRLWQ and Five workshops Follow-up surveys/ feedback workshops and field grant to TRLWQ local by 2012 from participants days and sponsorships by stakeholders area businesses Educate local real $1,000 from TRLWQ 2 presentations for Community response/ estate and lending TRLWQ from 319 Tri-Lakes board of requests for more communities about grants and matching realtors, distribute information and survey of septic tank issues funds flyers, meet with willingness to help educate lenders home buyers Stone County Community TRLWQ and One festival w/ Pre/Post surveys of water Watershed Festivals Foundation of the JRBP 300 participants quality knowledge Ozarks/JRBP annually

Add local water TRLWQ, local TRLWQ and Monthly updates Public feedback quality news to TV business sponsors volunteers of water quality and radio networks and local media information Septic tank hotline TRLWQ and SCHD TRLWQ and Ongoing Tracking of calls received SCHD Non-traditional $4,000 Volunteer Complete in 2011 Monitor participation in education program Local Community stakeholder programs w/goal of 15% for throughout all levels Sponsors committee, rural residents of the community SCHD, TRLWQ Septic Tank Pump-Out $35,000 from Bass JRBP, Completed in 2010 Assessment of Knowledge Program (700 pump- Pro, National Fish TRLWQ and Behavior Changes of outs) and Wildlife participants. Foundation, Missouri Department of Conservation Radio/TV Public $20,000 through JRBP Six PSAs by 2010 Public response/requests for Service SW 319 and JRBP information Announcements

63 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed River Rescue $6,000 provided by JRBP One event annually Public involvement/ JRBP feedback Water Quality $2,000 quarterly JRBP, Two quarterly Public response/requests for Newsletters through 319/ TRLWQ publications – newsletter/amount distributed JRBP/TRLWQ ongoing Websites $2,000 annually TRLWQ, Ongoing Tracking of website visitor through 319/JRBP/ JRBP numbers TRLWQ Water Quality Toll- $1,000 annually JRBP Ongoing Tracking of calls received Free Line from JRBP Work with city and TRLWQ, JRBP, TRLWQ, Ongoing Track needed changes to county regulatory General organization JRBP, Upper planning and zoning and agencies to change operation funding. White River health department, city ordinances and Basin ordinances and policies. enforce BMPs for Foundation, development. Stakeholder Committee Updates to the James $5,000-funding from TRLWQ, Ongoing-update Monitor public involvement River Arm of Table TRLWQ, JRBP, JRBP, Upper every 5 years in the WMP update process Rock Lake Watershed Upper White River White River and ownership of its results Management Plan Basin Foundation, Basin and conclusions. every 5 years. 319 mini grants. Foundation, Stakeholder Committee

G. Monitoring for Water Quality and Watershed Changes

H. Future of the James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Watershed Management Plan

This WMP is deigned to evolve as water quality conservation needs change. Parties responsible for changes and updates to the WMP include all parties included as stakeholders in the quality of water in the James River watershed. Specifically responsible are watershed conservation groups such as the Table Rock Lake Water Quality Inc. and James River basin Partnership, regulatory agencies such as Stone County Health Department and Stone County Planning and Zoning and groups directly dependent upon the water quality for their livelihood such as resorts and outdoor recreation outfitters.

64 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

65 James River Arm of Table Rock Lake Sub-watershed

Literature Sources

Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington D.C. EPA 841-B-08-002.

MEC Water Resources Inc. and Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute, 2007. Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project (WQIP) James River Basin Water Quality Gap Anaysis.

MoDNR 2001. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for James River, Webster, Greene, Christian and Stone Counties, Missouri.

Ritter, W. F., 1988. Reducing Impacts of Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture: A Review. J. Environ. Sci. Health, A23(7), 645-667 (9188). Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Shaver, E., R. Horner, J. Skupien, C. May, and G. Ridley, 2007. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, 2nd Edition. Published by the North American Lake Management Society in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

TRLWQ 2007. Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration Project Dec. 31, 2007 (can be found at http://www.trlwq.org)

EPA 2003. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 832-B-03-0