DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Affiliation Statement for Buffalo National River
    CULTURAL AFFILIATION STATEMENT BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER, ARKANSAS Final Report Prepared by María Nieves Zedeño Nicholas Laluk Prepared for National Park Service Midwest Region Under Contract Agreement CA 1248-00-02 Task Agreement J6068050087 UAZ-176 Bureau of Applied Research In Anthropology The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85711 June 1, 2008 Table of Contents and Figures Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................2 Chapter One: Study Overview.............................................................................................5 Chapter Two: Cultural History of Buffalo National River ................................................15 Chapter Three: Protohistoric Ethnic Groups......................................................................41 Chapter Four: The Aboriginal Group ................................................................................64 Chapter Five: Emigrant Tribes...........................................................................................93 References Cited ..............................................................................................................109 Selected Annotations .......................................................................................................137 Figure 1. Buffalo National River, Arkansas ........................................................................6 Figure 2. Sixteenth Century Polities and Ethnic Groups (after Sabo 2001) ......................47
    [Show full text]
  • Springfield Area Directory of Environmental Agencies and Organizations
    Springfield Area Directory of Environmental Agencies and Organizations Springfield/Greene County Choose Environmental Excellence 2010 Welcome to the Springfield Area Directory of Environmental Agencies and Organizations… …The purpose of this directory is to provide information about government agencies, not-for-profit and member-based organizations serving Springfield and Greene County that are active in protecting our natural environment. The directory has been compiled by Springfield/Greene County Choose Environmental Excellence as a service to the community. The directory will be periodically updated to include new submissions as they are received. In addition to providing contact information for several environmental agencies and organizations, each listing in the directory also provides information that will allow the user to determine which agency or organization will best meet a particular need. Additions to the Directory, as well as suggestions for improvement, can be made by submitting information to: Barbara J. Lucks Springfield/Greene County Choose Environmental Excellence PO Box 8368 Springfield, MO 65801 Re: Springfield Environmental Directory Or send an e-mail to: [email protected] This directory is also available on the following web sites: www.springfieldmo.gov/cee www.OzarksEnvironment.com i Table of Contents Introduction to the Directory i Table of Contents ii U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) 2 MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) – Nature Center 3 MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) – Service Center 4 MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) – Storm Drain Stenciling Project 5 MO Dept. of Natural Resources (MDNR) – Air Pollution Control 6 MO Dept. of Natural Resources (MDNR) – Hazardous Waste Management 7 MO Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Subterranean Journeys March 2017 a Springfield Plateau Grotto Publication Volume 12 Issue 1
    Subterranean Journeys March 2017 A Springfield Plateau Grotto Publication Volume 12 Issue 1 Contents March 2017 Volume 12 Issue 1 Page President’s Column 3 James River Valley Caves, Jonathan Beard 4 Bats and Caves, a Teen Perspective 12 Golden Age of Missouri Show Caves, Jonathan Beard 15 Ozark Big-Eared Bat (COTO) Project, Jonathan Beard 19 About the Springfield Plateau Grotto 22 Subterranean Journeys Subterranean Cover Photo: A collage of vintage brochures from Missouri Show Caves compiled by Jonathan Beard. 2 President’s Column We’re almost three months into 2017 and it’s already shaping up to be a great year for SPG members. On a regular basis, we’ve got multiple members doing different things every weekend. There is no shortage of things to do. We’ve got the recurring monthly Cave Research Foundation trips to caves in Buffalo River National Park, monthly Barry County ridgewalking weekends, work at the Ozarks National Scenic Riverways, the on-going Shoal Creek Cave survey, not to mention other multiple surveys Jon, et al have in progress. Breakdown Cave, which SPG manages, is closed during the winter months so that hibernating bats are not disturbed. The cave will open for the year on April 1st, so those of you who joined the grotto over the winter will now have a chance to get an introduction to the cave. It’s a GREAT cave to cut your caving teeth on, if you haven’t had a chance to yet. And remember, Breakdown Cave is accessible to members anytime from April 1st to November 15th.
    [Show full text]
  • White River Forum II: Second Annual Meeting of the White River Forum John Havel
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Technical Reports Arkansas Water Resources Center 11-2-2009 White River Forum II: Second Annual Meeting of the White River Forum John Havel Kenneth Steele Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/awrctr Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, Hydrology Commons, Soil Science Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Havel, John and Steele, Kenneth. 2009. White River Forum II: Second Annual Meeting of the White River Forum. Arkansas Water Resources Center, Fayetteville, AR. MSC287. 28 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Arkansas Water Resources Center at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ~~ White River Forum II ABSTRACTS Technical Session: Water Quality and Conservation Issues in the White River Basin Mountain Home, Arkansas November 2, 2000 94. 93" 92. LAKE TANEYCOMO / r - 36" \., - MISSOURI ' r--f.TVOV LJAIIIA ARKANSAS 0 10 20 MILES 6 16 I to ~LOMETERS (map pro••ided b) USGS) Publication No. MSC-287 Arka nsas Water Resources Center 112 Ozark Ball University of Ar kansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 White River Forum II Mountain Home, Arkansas Nov 2, 2000 Technical Session: Water Quality and Conservation Issues in the White River Basin Preface This second annual meeting of the White River Forum is proof of widespread interest in the water quality of the Upper White River watershed. The participation of numerous elected officials, state and federal agencies, universities, businesses, and local citizens indicates that interest in understanding policy issues crosses political boundaries and occupations.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Christian County, Mining by Wayne Glenn
    EARLY CHRISTIAN COUNTY MINING By Wayne Glenn, 2009 After finishing a book on Christian County’s first 150 years, this author decided to look into an element of the county’s history that I had become aware of when doing research for that book. I had seen a few references to the county’s mining past, but I had no idea how significant the search for gold, lead, iron ore, coal, zinc, copper, etc. were in helping settle the southeast quarter of Christian County. Having time for additional research, I quickly came upon many 19th century references to mining in future Christian County (before 1859) and even more detailed information about local mining after the county was established. It is even likely that the search for minerals played a role in the movement to create Christian County from already existing counties. In my book on Christian County’s 150 year history, we recited passages from geologist Henry Schoolcraft’s monumental writings on his 1818-1819 trip to future Christian County and its surrounding territory. In reality, American-born Schoolcraft (1793-1864) came to southwest Missouri Territory to learn about its mineral potential. While Schoolcraft took a wide-angle look at everything he saw, his area of greatest concern was the existence and volume of minerals in the area. He wrote of his first hand observation of primitive mining and smelting that had been done by the Osage Indians in future Christian and Greene Counties. He stated in a book he wrote on Missouri mines that he believed valuable lead mines were about 20 miles above the junction of the “Findley River” (Finley Creek) and the larger James River.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonpoint Source Bank Erosion and Water Quality Assessment, James River at River Bluff Farm, Stone County, Missouri
    The Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute (OEWRI) Missouri State University (MSU) FINAL REPORT Nonpoint Source Bank Erosion and Water Quality Assessment, James River at River Bluff Farm, Stone County, Missouri Field work completed May 2012- May 2013 Prepared by: Marc R. Owen, M.S., Assistant Director Robert T. Pavlowsky, Ph.D., Director Ezekiel Kuehn, Graduate Assistant Assisted in the field by Lindsay M. Olson, Graduate Assistant Prepared for: James River Basin Partnership Joseph Pitts, Executive Director 117 Park Central Square Springfield, MO 65806 August 16, 2013 OEWRI EDR-13-002 1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The James River Basin Partnership (JRBP) is working with a landowner to implement a conservation easement along the west bank of the James River in Stone County. This conservation easement is part of a Section 319 Grant from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency Region VII designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the James River. The Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute (OEWRI) will complete a bank erosion and nonpoint modeling study to determine the annual bank erosion rates and related sediment and nutrient loadings to the James River for the 6 km (3.7 mi) long easement segment. Sediment released to the channel by erosion can supply excess nutrients to river and cause sedimentation problems downstream. Portions of the James River are listed on the 303 D list of impaired waters for nutrients, and phosphorus (P) has been identified as the limiting factoring in eutrophic conditions in the basin (MDNR, 2001). Riparian easements remove the potential for future development or other disturbances that can increase runoff and nonpoint loads to the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper White River Basin Physiography and Hydrography
    N " 94°12'0"W 94°0'0"W 93°48'0"W 93°36'0"W 93°24'0"W 93°12'0"W 93°0'0"W 92°48'0"W 92°36'0"W 92°24'0"W N " 0 ' 0 4 ' 4 2 ° 2 ° 7 3 7 3 Dade Greene Webster N " Wright N 0 " ' 0 2 ' 1 2 ° Upper James River 1 7 ° 3 Jasper 7 3 Lawrence Wilsons Creek - James River Finley Creek N " N 0 " ' James River Sub-Basin 0 ' 0 ° 0 ° 7 3 7 3 Christian Douglas Crane Creek - James River Upper Newton Bull Shoals Lake - White River N Beaver Creek " N " 0 ' 0 8 ' 8 4 ° 4 ° 6 3 6 Flat Creek Lake Taneycomo - 3 Stone White River Barry Lower James River - Little North Fork Table Rock Lake White River Lower Taney Table Rock Lake - Ozark N " N 0 McDonald " ' 0 6 White River ' 3 6 ° 3 6 ° 3 6 Bull Shoals Lake Sub-Basin 3 T a b l e R o c k L a k e Bear Creek - Upper Table Rock Lake - Lower Bull Shoals Lake White River Middle Table Rock Lake Missouri Table Rock Lake - Big Creek - White River Bull Shoals Lake Arkansas N Kings River - B u l l S h o a l s L a k e " N " 0 ' 0 4 ' 4 2 ° Table Rock Lake 2 ° 6 3 6 3 Bear Creek Benton Carroll Long Creek Bull Shoals Lake - B e a v e r L a k e White River Beaver Lake - Boone Baxter £ White River Marion Osage Headwaters Creek Crooked Creek Outlet N " N " 0 ' 0 2 Crooked Creek ' 2 1 ° 1 ° 6 3 6 Beaver Reservoir Sub-Basin 3 Clear Creek Upper War Eagle Creek Kings River N " N 0 " ' Washington Madison 0 0 ' ° 0 6 Richland Creek ° 3 6 3 Middle Fork White River Newton Searcy West Fork Lake Sequoyah - White River White River Stone N " N " 0 ' Headwaters 0 8 ' 8 4 ° 4 ° 5 3 White River 5 3 Crawford Van Buren Franklin Johnson Pope 94°12'0"W
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Watershed
    Status of the Watershed A Report from the Upper White River Basin Foundation On Water Quality in the Ozarks October 2008 Upper White River Basin Foundation P.O. Box 6218 Branson, MO 65615 www.uwrb.org 2 Status of the Watershed A Report from the Upper White River Basin Foundation On Water Quality in the Ozarks October, 2008 The Foundation The Upper White River Basin Foundation (the “Foundation”) is a not-for-profit watershed organization with offices in Branson, Missouri. Its mission is to promote water quality in the upper White River watershed through bi-state collaboration on research, education, pubic policy and action projects in Arkansas and Missouri. The basin region is shown in the accompanying map. Established in 2001, the Foundation was formed to address threats to the beautiful rivers, lakes and streams which have supported economic development in the region and contributed to the attractive lifestyle of the Ozarks. Through the support of its board of trustees and several water quality grants, the Foundation has undertaken a variety of projects to fulfill its mission. More information about the Foundation can be found on the organization’s website at uwrb.org. The Problem The Foundation’s board has regularly discussed the extent to which its programs and projects are having an impact on water quality in the basin watershed. This is a difficult issue because many factors influence what is happening to the water. An even more fundamental issue involves what is actually meant by the term “quality,” prompting the question “quality for what purpose?” We understand the answer to this latter question in common terms like suitability for fishing, swimming, water sports and with appropriate treatment, drinking.
    [Show full text]
  • James River Freeway in Springfield, MO
    March 30, 2021 The Honorable Billy Long United States House of Representatives 2454 Rayburn HOB Washington D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Long, The Ozarks Transportation Organization would like to express our support of additional funds to widen James River Freeway in Springfield, MO. The freeway is in desperate need of additional lanes to solve safety and congestion issues on the roadway. With over 80,000 cars a day using the freeway, it serves as an essential arterial to get people to work and goods moving in and through our community. There have been over 804 crashes over the last ten years, which many might have been avoided if speeds were not slowed to 46 miles per hour in the evening peak hour. The region is proud of the collaboration we have in selecting projects using a data driven approach to agree on our top priorities. The cities of Springfield, Republic, Nixa, Ozark, Willard, Strafford and Battlefield along with Greene and Christian counties agree James River Freeway is a priority for the region. We must keep the freeway system moving in to keep business moving. The widening of James River Freeway will be a straightforward project, as environmental clearance is approved pending final details on sound wall locations. MoDOT has done considerable work to prepare for the construction of additional lanes from National to Kansas Expressway and construction is planned for FY22. We look forward to the completion of this important project and hope that you will request that congressional funds are directed to the widening of James River Freeway. Thank you for your service and your consideration of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Springfield, Missouri Integrated Planning Support: Task 1 Data Collection Plan
    Springfield, Missouri Integrated Planning Support: Task 1 Data Collection Plan Draft July 2015 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Supply Users ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Surface ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Industrial ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Agricultural .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Available Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Methods for Estimating Cattle Access ................................................................................................................ 15 Recreational Users ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper White River Watershed Integrated Economic and Environmental Management Project Related Publications
    FAPRI–MU Report #09-08 Upper White River Watershed Integrated Economic and Environmental Management Project September 2008 www.fapri.missouri.edu Published by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri– Columbia (FAPRI–MU), 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite E; Columbia, MO 65203 in September 2008. FAPRI–MU is part of the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources (CAFNR). http://www.fapri.missouri.edu This project was partially funded by the US EPA Region 7, through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (subgrant #G05-NPS-09), under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Contact author for FAPRI–MU Report #09-08 is Verel Benson ([email protected]). Any opinion, fi ndings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the view of the US EPA or MODNR. Permission is granted to reproduce this information with appropriate attribution to the author(s) and FAPRI–MU. For more information, contact Pamela Donner ([email protected]) Coordinator Publications & Communications, FAPRI–MU. Upper White River Watershed Integrated Economic and Environmental Management Project FAPRI–MU Report #09-08 By Verel W. Benson Claire Baffaut Dennis Robinson Walaiporn Intarapapong Todd Farrand Wendi Rogers Kyoungmin Nam Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the contributions and the cooperative efforts of Ralph Davis from the University of Arkansas, Water Resources Center; Indrajeet Chaubey, Marty Matlock, Chad Cooper, and Brian K. Schaffer, University of Arkansas, Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering; and Jennie Popp, H. German Rodriguez, and Nathan Kemper, University of Arkansas, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria Source Tracking to Support Watershed Planning, Pearson Creek, Greene County, Missouri
    Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute (OEWRI) Missouri State University (MSU) Bacteria Source Tracking to Support Watershed Planning, Pearson Creek, Greene County, Missouri. FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Marc R. Owen, M.S., Assistant Director, OEWRI Babur S. Mirza, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, MSU Grace F. Roman, Graduate Assistant, OEWRI John C. Kincaid, Laboratory Assistant, Department of Biology, MSU Robert T. Pavlowsky, Ph.D., Director, OEWRI Ozark Environmental and Water Resources Institute Missouri State University Temple Hall 342 901 South National Avenue Springfield, MO 65897 Completed for: Timothy Davis, Environmental Compliance Manager Greene County Resource Management Department 940 Booneville Ave Springfield, MO 65802 417-868-4147 [email protected] February 8, 2019 OEWRI EDR-19-001 1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES Pearson Creek, a tributary of the James River, in Greene County Missouri is on the state’s 303d list of impaired waters due to high concentrations of E. coli bacteria. Pearson Creek consistently exceeds the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) water quality standards for Whole Body Contact Recreation (WBCR) Class-A designation of 126 MPN/100 mL from both urban and rural nonpoint pollution sources (Richards and Johnson 2002, Owen and Pavlowsky 2014, MDNR 2014, MDNR 2018). The City of Springfield and Greene County have been working to identify bacteria sources that will ultimately reduce E. Coli concentrations in the stream. In 2017, Greene County started monitoring bimonthly water quality at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station at Farm Road (FR) 148. That same year, the City of Springfield provided funding for a wastewater exfiltration study aimed at pinpointing specific bacteria (and other pollutants) source areas along Pearson Creek.
    [Show full text]