October 8-10 Flooding

The area experienced excessive precipitation on Thursday, October 8 and Friday, October 9, 2008. The Kansas City NEXRAD "storm total" map indicates the rainfall amounts throughout the Spring River watershed. The local newspapers reported rainfall amounts between 3" and 10.5" for the 24-hour storm total.

Using the USGS water gage and discharge data (available on the Internet), the reader can see how storm water runoff moves downstream. For demonstration purposes, the USGS water gage and discharge data sites on Spring River at La Russell, Carthage, Waco, Baxter Springs and Quapaw are posted below.

La Russell, MO. USGS readings indicated 249 cubic feet/minute at 10:45 am, Thursday, October 8, and 2.18' water gage. Spring River crested (maximum gage and discharge) at 12:00 pm (noon) on Friday, October 9, and 13,500+ cubic feet/minute and 14.62' water gage. [click on charts for close-up view]

Carthage, MO. USGS readings indicated 309 cubic feet/minute at 1:15 pm, Thursday, October 8, and 4.11' water gage. Spring River crested (maximum gage and discharge) at 9:45 pm on Friday, October 9, and 35,200 cubic feet/minute and 17.71'water gage.

Waco, MO. USGS readings indicated 424 cubic feet/minute at 9:15 am, Thursday, October 8, and 2.46' water gage. Spring River crested (maximum gage and discharge) at 8:45 pm on Saturday, October 10, and 35,700 cubic feet/minute and 24.94' water gage.

Baxter Springs, KS. USGS readings indicated 969 cubic feet/minute at 8:15 am, Thursday, October 8, and 3.74' water gage. Spring River crested (maximum gage and discharge) at 4:45 pm on Saturday, October 10, and 60,900 cubic feet/minute and 21.18' water gage.

Quapaw, OK. USGS readings indicated 973 cubic feet/minute at 9:30 am, Thursday, October 8, and 6.53' water gage. Spring River crested (maximum gage and discharge) at 6:30 pm on Saturday, October 10, and 66,200 cubic feet/minute and 27.94' water gage.

Spring River Watershed Partnership - 5th Meeting

The Spring River Watershed Partnership committee met today to review the draft Spring River Watershed Management Plan for HUC #11070207140002. It should be finished in 30 days, after which, invitations to the original participants will be sent for their comments. The committee talked about setting up a survey for the original participants to help prioritize the most important issues. A copy of the Spring River Watershed Management Plan will be available online at the Jasper County Health Department and Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties, websites.

Spring River Watershed Management Plan is to provide an initial assessment and a general strategic plan for the Spring River Watershed, and to focus on a 14-Digit HUC Code portion located in Central Jasper County near Carthage. The organizational format follows the nine elements recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters (2008). The Objective of this watershed plan is to reduce the number of bacterial levels (total coliform and E. coli) to below the whole body contact level for recreational waters.

Elements of Spring River Watershed Management Plan
1. Quantify Sources of Pollutant
2. Estimates of Pollutant Load Reductions
3. Non-Point Source (NPS) Management Measures
4. Estimate of Technical and Financial Assistance Needed
5. Information/Education Component
6. Schedule for Best Management Practices(BMP)Implementation
7. Description of Interim Milestones
8. Method Used o Determine Load Reduction
9. Water Quality Monitoring Program

In addition, there was preliminary discussion about sponsoring a Missouri Stream Team, Spring River cleanup for HUC #11070207140002.

Committee accepts proposed Spring River watershed plan w/ Spring River Watershed draft report, Joplin Globe, 10/01/2009

Draft copy Executive Summary Spring River Watershed Management Plan for HUC #11070207140002, Joplin Globe, 10/01/2009

USGA Water Gages in Spring River Watershed

Spring River at Quapaw, OK. USGS NO. 07188000 (Ottawa C0.)

Spring River at Baxter Springs, KS. USGS No. 07187600 (Cherokee Co.)

Spring River at Waco, MO. USGS No. 07186000 (Jasper Co)

Spring River at Carthage, MO. USGS No. 07185765 (Jasper Co.)

Spring River at La Russell, MO. USGS No. 07185700 (Jasper Co.)

North Fork Spring River at Purcell, MO. USGS No. 07185910 (Jasper Co.)

Shoal Creek at Joplin, MO. USGS No. 07187000 (Newton Co.)

Esatern Shawnee Tribe Warns Swimmers of Bacteria

The Joplin Globe, reported 07/17/2009, that the Easter Shawnee Tribe (Ottawa Co, OK) was urging swimmers to stay out of the water, due to elevated bacteria levels. Oklahoma has set a standard of 235 colonies on E coli bacteria per 100 milliliter of river water. Samples taken last week from Lost Creek near the Missouri-Oklahoma state line, showed 2,419 colonies, while a sample from Spring River at the Highway 10 Bridge in Ottawa County, showed 866 colonies.

E. coli test Results - Spring River 2009

The Jasper County Health Department began testing for E. coli bacteria in Spring River in May 2007. They selected seven sites for weekly testing, including: Spring River at County Road 3 (referenced as SR1), Spring River at County Road 85 (SR2), Spring River at Kellogg Lake-Carthage (SR3), Spring River at Francis Street-Carthage (SR4), Spring River at Quaker Mill on County Lane 216 (SR5), and Spring River at Kafir and State Line (SR7). The following are test results for 2009.

The test results are shown as # of colonies of E. coli bacteria per 100 milliliters of river water. The data in Bold indicates that the # of colonies are in excess of the maximum recommended by the US EPA for bodily contact, which is 235 colonies of E. coli per 100 milliliter of water sampled. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) recommends a maximum of 126 E. coli colonies per 100 ml. as the limit for "recreational" swimming and whole body contact, annually between April 1 and October 31. The data is arranged by sampling site, with the latest data 'on top'.

Spring River at County Road 3 (SR1)

10/07/2009, 218.7
10/01/2009, 240.0
09/23/2009, 2419.6
09/17/2009, 248.1
09/03/2009, 167.4
08/26/2009, 298.7
08/19/2009, 135.4
08/12/2009, 2419.6
08/05/2009, 72.7
07/29/2009, 88.2
07/23/2009, 325.5
07/15/2009, 222.4
07/09/2009, 73.8
07/01/2009, 1203.3
06/24/2009, 83.9
06/18/2009, 2419.6
06/11/2009, 686.7
06/02/2009, 67.6
05/28/2009, 980.4

Spring River at County Road 85 (SR2)

10/07/2009, 344.8
10/01/2009, 185.0
09/23/2009, 2419.6
09/17/2009, 125.0
09/03/2009, 149.7
08/26/2009, 365.4
08/19/2009, 137.4
08/12/2009, 613.1
08/05/2009, 69.7
07/29/2009, 52.8
07/23/2009, 214.1
07/15/2009, 125.9
07/09/2009, 78.9
07/01/2009, 118.7
06/24/2009, 84.2
06/18/2009, 2419.6
06/11/2009, 1986.3
06/02/2009, 135.4
05/28/2009, 816.4

Spring River at Kellogg Lake-Carthage (SR3)

10/07/2009, 344.8
10/01/2009, 88.6
09/23/2009, 372.4
09/17/2009, 75.9
09/03/2009, 103.9
08/26/2009, 461.1
08/19/2009, 185.0
08/12/2009, 37.6
08/05/2009, 83.9
07/29/2009, 40.8
07/23/2009, 172.3
07/15/2009, 157.6
07/09/2009, 54.8
07/01/2009, 52.8
06/24/2009, 52.0
06/18/2009, 2419.6
06/11/2009, 372.5
06/02/2009, 86.2
05/28/2009, 1413.6

Spring River at Francis Street-Carthage (SR4)

10/07/2009, 517.2
10/01/2009, 152.9
09/23/2009, 533.5
09/17/2009, 119.8
09/03/2009, 1413.6
08/26/2009, 214.2
08/19/2009, 101.2
08/12/2009, 285.1
08/05/2009, 111.2
07/29/2009, 67.0
07/23/2009, 114.6
07/15/2009, 148.9
07/09/2009, 30.5
07/01/2009, 43.5
06/24/2009, 65.0
06/18/2009, 2419.6
06/11/2009, 322.3
06/02/2009, 95.9
05/28/2009, 1986.3

Spring River at Quaker Mill on County Lane 216 (SR5)

10/07/2009, 142.1
09/23/2009, 691.0
09/17/2009, 78.0
09/03/2009, 166.4
08/26/2009, 209.8
08/19/2009, 70.2
08/12/2009, 85.7
08/05/2009, 96.0
07/29/2009, 75.4
07/23/2009, 238.2
07/15/2009, 218.7
07/09/2009, 61.3
07/01/2009, 184.2
06/24/2009, 101.4
06/18/2009, 2419.6
06/11/2009, 2419.6
06/02/2009, 86.2
05/28/2009, 1553.1

Spring River at County Road 270 (SR6)

10/07/2009, 83.3
09/23/2009, 2419.6
09/17/2009, 93.4
09/03/2009, 44.8
08/26/2009, 204.6
08/19/2009, 91.0
08/12/2009, 114.5
08/05/2009, 57.6
07/29/2009, 81.3
07/23/2009, 2419.6
07/15/2009, 435.2
07/09/2009, 53.7
07/01/2009, 61.3
06/24/2009, 110.6
06/18/2009, 2419.6
06/11/2009, 1732.9
06/02/2009, 95.9
05/28/2009, 980.4

Spring River at Kafir and State Line (SR7)

10/07/2009, 90.9
09/23/2009, 2419.6
09/17/2009, 139.6
09/03/2009, 86.5
08/26/2009, 167.4
08/19/2009, 79.2
08/12/2009, 55.6
08/05/2009, 67.7
07/29/2009, 69.1
07/23/2009, 2419.6
07/15/2009, 206.4
07/09/2009, 56.3
07/01/2009, 64.4
06/24/2009, 74.9
06/18/2009, 960.6
06/11/2009, 2419.6
06/02/2009, 42.8
05/28/2009, 1413.6

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)

Body Contact is NOT Recommended 5/28/2009

The Jasper County Health Department has posted the results of their 05/28/2009 water quality testing at seven locations on Spring River. Specifically, this is the number of Escherichia coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that swimming and body contact is NOT recommended when the sample exceeds 235 E. coli colonies per 100 ml. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) recommends a maximum of 126 E. coli colonies per 100 ml as the limit for "recreational" swimming and whole body contact, annually between April 1 and October 31.

The 05/28/2009 test results (E. coli colonies per 100 ml) and locations are listed below:

Swimming and body contact is NOT recommended at these sites.
980.4, Spring River at County Road 3
816.4, Spring River at County Road 85
1413.6, Spring River at Kellogg Lake
1986.3, Spring River at Francis Street
1553.1, Spring River at Quaker Mill, County Lane 216
980.4, Spring River at County Road 270
1413.6, Spring River at Kafir and State Line

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

50+ Attend Watershed Public Meeting

The Carthage Press reported , Friday, April 24, 2009, that over 50 people attended the Spring River Watershed Partnership Public Meeting, Thursday night. After an explanation of watershed planning by Dan Downing, University of Missouri Extension, and a review of watershed maps, those attending were divided into four smaller discussion groups. Each group discussed, then responded to four questions: (1) In general terms, how do you feel about the main stem of the Spring River and its watershed? Positive, neutral, negative? (2) What concerns do you have about the Spring River and its watershed? (3) What factors do you feel have the most influence on the watershed? and (4) What are some outstanding features about the river and its watershed? The responses will be included in the development of a Spring River Watershed Plan. Below are the consolidated responses from the four discussion groups:

In general terms how do you feel about the main stem of the Spring River and its watershed? Positive, neutral, negative?
• Don’t have a problem with it.
• Positive – 2 votes
• Negative – 5 votes
• Negative
• Much better now than 50 years ago
• Below Carthage, much better than 10 years ago.
• As a parent, will not let my child in the water.


What concerns do you have about the Spring River and its watershed?
• We make a living here. How will this impact us?
• Cow calf operations
• Regulations
• Personally ingesting _____?
• Bad press for agriculture
• What do e-Coli levels mean?
• Trash: Walnut Bottoms-Turkey Ford
• Raw poultry wastes
• Pesticides
• Human waste –sludge and industrial
• Food industry in Carthage bottoms
• Cattle
• Recreation
• Kellogg Lake
• What are we going to do to support agriculture because everyone wants distilled water flowing down the river?
• Want to be really certain where the problem comes from (if you don’t know the source, how are you going to fix it).
• Come up with solutions that aren’t a burden to any one entity.
• How are we going to measure any good we do-factor out outside sources such as headwater flow?
• Need to know more about the river and its watershed, i.e. sink holes, karst topography.
• Wildlife being poisoned
• Lagoons
• Educating people: urban and rural
• Prospect of excessive regulation (inc. determination of benchmarks)
• Excessive water usage
• Respect usage
• Opening Pandora’s Box (unintended consequences)

What factors do you feel have the most influence on the watershed?
• New Zealand dairies
• Soil conservation
• All soil disturbances
• Carthage Waterworks treatment
• ConAgra-waste (blood, guts, etc, knifed in)
• Heavy metals
• Dates on data
• Purcell Landfill
• Clean water: Is it used for drinking water?
• White Oak Creek influence
• How far does regulation reach?
• Urban run-off testing
• Trash: Walnut Bottoms-Turkey Ford – 5 votes
• Raw poultry wastes – 2 votes
• Leachate from septic systems
• Runoff from CAFOs
• Agriculture and residential chemical use
• Illegal trash dumps
• Industrial waste
• Be selective with what is detrimental to human and environment
• Psychology
• Population
• Erosion
• Enforcement of existing regulations
• Difference in core values
• Municipal water retention

What are some outstanding features about the river and its watershed?
• Recreation
• Living here
• People moving in
• Beautiful
• Wildlife
• Good access points
• Good fishing.
• Recreation, fishing and canoeing
• Supports agriculture
• Lots of springs on it (at least at one time)
• Many rivers provide drinking water for municipalities, Spring River does not. (Maybe not outstanding but is unique)
• How many species of wildlife/plants endangered by low quality water-should be checked out.
• Many concerned citizens
• Multi-use
• Supports a diverse wildlife
• Canoeing
• Scenic

You're Invited to Watershed Public Meeting

The Carthage Press reported Sunday, April 19, 2009, that The Spring River Watershed group is hosting a public meeting on Thursday, April 23, 2009, beginning at 7:00 pm, at Carthage High School Technical Center (Agricultural Department), 609 River Street, Carthage, MO. The purpose of the meeting is to collect input on ways of enhancing the water quality on Spring River. The input session is open to Jasper County residents located on or near the Spring River as well as Carthage residents.

Spring River Watershed Partnership - 4th Meeting

The Carthage Press reported on the Wednesday, March 17. 2008 meeting, "Public input meeting tabbed to discuss dirty Spring River", which included identifying the specific section of Spring River to focus on, approving an organizational logo, starting the process of drafting the Watershed Plan and then setting a date for a public input meeting, scheduled for Thursday April 23 @7:00 pm (location to be announced).

Spring River Watershed Partnership - 2nd Meeting

A group of twelve met Friday, Dec. 12, 2008 in carthage, MO. for the purpose of continuing the conversation of establishing a (Jasper County, MO) Spring River Watershed organization. The Carthage Press reported (12/14/2008) Plan of Attack Revealed, on the priortization of desired outcomes for the group, Spring River Watershed Partnership. The MISSION: "Protect, conserve and restore water quality and water quantity though scientific and educational programs for all who receive the benefits of Spring River Watershed". The group agreed to initially focus on the Spring River (elevated bacteria levels) and North Fork of Spring River (excessive sediment levels). The next step is to identify all groups that have done or are doing research in these taget areas. Then the group will begin assimilating data regarding the problems, in order to develop plans for management and solutions.

White Oak Creek Erosion Project

The Joplin Globe reported that the Jasper County (MO) Commissioners agreed to seek state approval for a project that would stabilize the stream bank at a bridge over White Oak Creek. The article, Panel Moves to Save Soil, reports that "the county is working on four potential projects with representatives of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A report on the problem will be submitted to the state, which allocates federal funds for the work, said Derek Ball of the NRCS office in Carthage. 'There is severe erosion both upstream and downstream of the bridge where the bank is giving way because of the 100-year flood events we’ve had in the last several years,' Ball said. The county also is looking at potential projects on County Road 118 near Morrow Mill, on Pine Road near County Road 160 and on County Road 110 south of Blackberry Road. The project near Morrow Mill is the largest of the four and also will involve the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."

Shoal Creek Watershed Improvement Group

The Joplin Globe, article in today's paper, Cash Flow Into Creek, describes the award of $224,000 from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to the Shoal Creek Watershed Improvement Group. Drew Holt, who works with the watershed group, said the bacterial loading is coming from three sources. “DNA tracking during low flows and higher flows showed three primary sources. It’s one-third human, one-third poultry and one-third cattle,” he said. Property owners along the creek and its tributaries will be eligible for assistance, along with homeowners living within a half-mile of environmentally-sensitive areas, such as losing streams, sinkholes and springs, the MDNR said. The grant was funneled from the federal government to Missouri’s Water Protection Program through a Clean Water Act appropriation.

Information about the project is available by contacting MDNR’s Water Protection Program at (573) 751-1300 or Drew Holt with the Shoal Creek Watershed Improvement Group at (417) 838-1939.

Impaired Streams, Section 303 (d) Federal Clean Water Act

The Joplin Globe, Friday, November 14, 2008, provided an update of streams in southwest Missouri (including Spring River) that are on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of Impaired Streams. Included is a link to the EPA's complete list of impaired streams in Missouri. The EPA’s list of impaired streams by county in Southwest Missouri is as follows:

Barry: 4 miles of Shoal Creek were added because of low dissolved oxygen.
Barton: 51.5 miles of the North Fork of Spring River remain on the list because of ammonia.
Jasper: 7.5 miles of Blackberry Creek were added because of sulfate and chloride; 7 miles of Turkey Creek remain on the list because of cadmium, but bacteria also has been identified as a pollutant; 26 miles of Center Creek remain on the list because of cadmium and lead; 58.5 miles of the Spring River remain on the list because of bacteria (part of the river is in Lawrence County).
Lawrence: 9 miles of Clear Creek were added because of bacteria, and 6 miles of the creek remain on the list because of low dissolved oxygen and nutrients (portions of the creek are in Barry and Newton counties); 4.5 miles of Douger Branch remain on the list because of cadmium and lead.
McDonald: A small stretch of Cave Spring Branch, which receives wastewater from the Simmons poultry plant near Southwest City, remains on the list; 26 miles of Indian Creek remain on the list because of bacteria (part of the creek is in Newton County).
Newton: 4 miles of Capp’s Creek remain on the list because of bacteria; 4.5 miles of Hickory Creek remain on the list because of bacteria; 8.5 miles of Lost Creek remain on the list because of bacteria.
Vernon: 15 miles of Clear Creek were added to the list because of low dissolved oxygen; 17 miles of Little Drywood Creek were added because of low dissolved oxygen; 16 miles of the Little Osage River were not delisted because of low dissolved oxygen; 49 miles of the Marmaton River were not delisted because of low dissolved oxygen; 5.5 miles of the West Fork of Drywood Creek were added because of low dissolved oxygen.

Spring River Watershed Partnership

A group of 15 concerned citizens met in Carthage (Jasper Co.) MO, October 14, 2008, for what was referred to as an "organizational meeting of the Spring River Watershed Partnership". Those individuals making a presentation to the group included Jasper County Commissioner Jim Honey; Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties, President, Bob Nichols; Tony Moehr, Jasper County Health Department; Dan Downing, Water Quality Associate, Water Quality Program, University of Missouri Extension; Carl Hayes, Spring River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (Kansas); and Drew Holt, Elk River Watershed Group.

Commissioner Honey explained that the purpose of the group was to form a committee that would undertake to develop a watershed plan and then carry out the implementation of the plan. The Spring River Watershed Partnership will operate within the Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties organizational structure. The next planning meeting will be in December 2008.

Body Contact NOT Reccomended 10/17/2008

The Jasper County Health Department has posted the results of their 10/17/2008 water quality testing at seven locations on Spring River. Specifically, this is the number of Escherichia coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that swimming and body contact is NOT recommended when the sample exceeds 235 E. coli colonies per 100 ml.

The 10/17/2008 test results (E. coli colonies per 100 ml) and locations are listed below:

Swimming and body contact is NOT recommended at these sites.
313.0, Spring River at County Road 3
298.7, Spring River at County Road 85
365.4, Spring River at Kellogg Lake
365.4, Spring River at Francis Street
260.3, Spring River at County Road 270

The following 2 locations were reported below the 235 limit.
77.1, Spring River at Quaker Mill, County Lane 216
95.8, Spring River at Kafir and State Line

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

E. coli Test results, 10/09/2008 below 235 limit

The Jasper County Health Department has posted the results of their 10/09/2008 water quality testing at seven locations on Spring River. Specifically, this is the number of Escherichia coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that swimming and body contact is NOT recommended when the sample exceeds 235 E. coli colonies per 100 ml.
The sampling results for Spring River today, indicate that all seven of their test sites were below the EPA recommended limit of 235 E. coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water.
NOTE: This will be the last scheduled water quality testing on Spring River until Spring 2009.

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

Spring River Watershed Restoration & Protection Strategy Group

The Joplin Globe, Friday, September 19, 2008, reported that The Spring River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) group recently selected as a demonstration project, creating a wetland in Schermerhorn Park, which also is the location of the Southeast Kansas Nature Center. Shoal Creek flows into Spring River just west of Schermerhorn Park. Crystal Eisele, watershed coordinator with Southeast Kansas Resource Conservation and Development, and Carl Hayes, chairman of the Spring River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy group, are involved in the project.

Kansas group, federal agency work to restore Spring River w/ link to Cherokee County Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment The Joplin Globe, August 13, 2008

Body Contact NOT Recommended 09/18/2008

The Jasper County Health Department has posted the results of their 09/18/2008 water quality testing at seven locations on Spring River. Specifically, this is the number of Escherichia coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that swimming and body contact is NOT recommended when the sample exceeds 235 E. coli colonies per 100 ml.

The 09/18/2008 test results (E. coli colonies per 100 ml) and locations are listed below:

Swimming and body contact is NOT recommended at these sites.
920.8, Spring River at County Road 3
517.2, Spring River at County Road 85
613.1, Spring River at Kellogg Lake
727.0, Spring River at Francis Street
308.8, Spring River at Quaker Mill, County Lane 216
249.5, Spring River at Kafir and State Line

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

E. coli test Results - 09/11/2008 Below 235 Limit

The Jasper County Health Department has posted the results of their 09/11/2008 water quality testing at seven locations on Spring River. Specifically, this is the number of Escherichia coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that swimming and body contact is NOT recommended when the sample exceeds 235 E. coli colonies per 100 ml.
The sampling results for Spring River today, indicate that all seven of their test sites were below the EPA recommended limit of 235 E. coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water.

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

Body Contact is NOT Recommended 7/2/2008

The Jasper County Health Department has posted the results of their 07/02/2008 water quality testing at seven locations on Spring River. Specifically, this is the number of Escherichia coli colonies per 100 milliliters of river water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that swimming and body contact is NOT recommended when the sample exceeds 235 E. coli colonies per 100 ml.

The 07/02/2008 test results (E. coli colonies per 100 ml) and locations are listed below:

Swimming and body contact is NOT recommended at these sites.
365.4, Spring River at County Road 3
579.4, Spring River at County Road 85
387.3, Spring River at Kellogg Lake
435.2, Spring River at Francis Street
613.1, Spring River at Quaker Mill, County Lane 216
456.5, Spring River at County Road 270
272.3, Spring River at Kafir and State Line

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

E. coli test Results - Spring River 2008 (Jasper County, MO)

The Jasper County Health Department began testing for E. coli bacteria in Spring River in May 2007. They selected seven sites for weekly testing, including: Spring River at County Road 3 (referenced as SR1), Spring River at County Road 85 (SR2), Spring River at Kellogg Lake-Carthage (SR3), Spring River at Francis Street-Carthage (SR4), Spring River at Quaker Mill on County Lane 216 (SR5), and Spring River at Kafir and State Line (SR7). The following are test results for 2008.

The test results are shown as # of colonies of E. coli bacteria per 100 milliliters of river water. The data in Bold indicates that the # of colonies are in excess of the maximum recommended by the US EPA for bodily contact, which is 235 colonies of E. coli per 100 milliliter of water sampled. The data is arranged by sampling site, with the latest data 'on top'.

Spring River at County Road 3 (SR1)
10/17/2008, 313.0
10/09/2008, 95.9
10/01/2008, 104.3
09/24/2008, 118.7
09/18/2008, 920.8
09/11/2008, 96.0
08/27/2008, 59.1
08/20/2008, 66.3
08/13/2008, 74.8
08/07/2008, 76.8
07/29/2008, 104.3
07/23/2008, 52
07/16/2008, 67.7
07/09/2008, 70.8
07/02/2008, 365.4
06/25/2008, 1299.7
06/19/2008, 344.8
06/11/2008, 791.5
06/04/2008, 1119.9
05/28/2008, 501.2
05/21/2008, 83.6
05/13/2008, 435.2

Spring River at County Road 85 (SR2)
10/17/2008, 298.7
10/09/2008, 120.1
10/01/2008, 86.2
09/24/2008, 238.2
09/18/2008, 517.2
09/11/2008, 178.9
08/27/2008, 95.9
08/20/2008, 58.1
08/13/2008, 55.6
08/07/2008, 64.4
07/29/2008, 228.2
07/23/2008, 62.2
07/16/2008, 58.3
07/09/2008, 118.7
07/02/2008, 579.4
06/25/2008, 1119.9
06/19/2008, 275.5
06/11/2008, 1986.3
06/04/2008, 980.4
05/28/2008, 1299.7
05/21/2008, 91
05/13/2008, 410.6

Spring River at Kellogg Lake-Carthage (SR3)
10/17/2008, 365.4
10/09/2008, 95.9
10/02/2008, 88.6
09/24/2008, 103.9
09/18/2008, 613.1
09/11/2008, 156.5
08/27/2008, 95.9
08/20/2008, 74.3
08/13/2008, 63.8
08/07/2008, 98.8
07/29/2008, 248.1
07/24/2008, 44.3
07/16/2008, 77.6
07/09/2008, 70.3
07/02/2008, 387.3
06/25/2008, 1732.9
06/19/2008, 178.9
06/11/2008, 1553.1
06/04/2008, 1413.6
05/28/2008, 1413.6
05/21/2008, 93.4
05/13/2008, 360.9

Spring River at Francis Street-Carthage (SR4)
10/17/2008, 356.4
10/09/2008, 142.1
10/02/2008, 72.7
09/24/2008, 117.8
09/18/2008, 727.0
09/11/2008, 125.9
08/27/2008, 123.6
08/20/2008, 60.9
08/13/2008, 116.9
08/07/2008, 78.0
07/29/2008, 235.9
07/24/2008, 45.7
07/16/2008, 93.3
07/09/2008, 80.1
07/02/2008, 435.2
06/25/2008, 1413.6
06/19/2008, 156.5
06/11/2008, 2419.6+
06/04/2008, 920.8
05/28/2008, 1986.3
05/21/2008, 79.4
05/13/2008, 387.3

Spring River at Quaker Mill on County Lane 216 (SR5)
10/17/2008, 77.1
10/09/2008, 88.4
10/01/2008, 51.2
09/24/2008, 90.9
09/18/2008, 308.8
09/11/2008, 137.6
08/27/2008, 68.3
08/20/2008, 52.8
08/13/2008, 59.1
08/07/2008, 73.8
07/29/2008, 165.8
07/24/2008, 59.8
07/16/2008, 121.1
07/09/2008, 69.7
07/02/2008, 613.1
06/25/2008, 1732.9
06/19/2008, 210.5
06/11/2008, 499.6
06/04/2008, 1413.6
05/28/2008, 1203.3
05/22/2008, 10.7
05/13/2008, 222.4

Spring River at County Road 270 (SR6)
10/17/2008, 260.3
10/09/2008, 58.3
10/01/2008, 46.5
09/24/2008, 74.8
09/18/2008, 196.8
09/11/2008, 172.3
08/27/2008, 65.0
08/20/2008, 27.5
08/13/2008, 96.0
08/07/2008, 87.8
07/29/2008, No sample, broken bottle
07/24/2008, 31.8
07/16/2008, 275.5
07/09/2008, 83.6
07/02/2008, 456.5
06/25/2008, 1553.1
06/19/2008, 157.6
06/11/2008, 1732.9
06/04/2008, 727.0
05/28/2008, 2419.6+
05/22/2008, 48
05/13/2008, 304.4

Spring River at Kafir and State Line (SR7)
10/17/2008, 95.8
10/09/2008, 52.0
10/01/2008, 36.8
09/24/2008, 56.5
09/18/2008, 249.5
09/11/2008, 125.9
08/27/2008, 38.4
08/20/2008, 18.3
08/13/2008, 40.8
08/07/2008, 35.0
07/29/2008, 344.8
07/24/2998, 40.8
07/16/2008, 191.8
07/09/2008, 53.7
07/02/2008, 272.3
06/25/2008, 1299.7
06/19/2008, 325.5
06/11/2008, 920.8
06/04/2008, 648.8
05/28/2008, 2419.6+
05/22/2008, 30.5
05/13/2008, 579.4

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)

Oklahoma Attorney General Seeks to Halt Litter Application in Illinois River Watershed. Will Spring River Watershed be next?

The Oklahoma Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson, has filed a suit to halt poultry waste disposal in the Illinois River Watershed. Citing an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health, the State of Oklahoma today asked a federal judge to prohibit any further land application of poultry waste in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW). Showing a “direct path from the place of poultry waste disposal to the locations...where contamination is found,” the state presented evidence that the poultry companies’ reckless waste dumping methods are contributing to high levels of bacteria in the waters of the state. “We can show that fecal bacteria in poultry waste is reaching the surface water and groundwater,” Edmondson said. “Scientists found areas where the bacterial counts in runoff water from poultry waste disposal fields were similar to those found in raw, untreated human sewage. These bacteria can cause a myriad of gastrointestinal illnesses and infections through ingestion and skin contact. We need the court to stop the dumping of waste to protect public health and the safety of the state’s water resources.”

News Release, State Seeks to Halt Litter Application

Copy of, State of Oklahoma's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

How long will it be before he files a similar suit against polluters in the Spring River Watershed?

Recent Headlines in Spring River Watershed

More and more concern is being focused on the Spring River watershed in southwest Missouri, southeast Kansas and northeast Oklahoma. Below are recent newspaper headlines and publications decribing efforts to identify, then organize groups to begin developing strategies to protect and preserve the natural resource we have.

Officials Explore Watershed Committee for Spring River, The Carthage Press reported, 1/4/2008, that Jasper County Eastern District Commissioner Jim Honey, Jasper County Health Department Director Tony Moehr and Bob Nichols, Webb City resident who has spearheaded the creation of such groups as the Tri-State Water Resources Coalition, all said they are exploring ways to do something to improve the quality of the water in the Spring River. The three agreed to meet with officials with the University of Missouri Extension Service who are experienced in setting up watershed groups and applying for grants, then set up an exploratory committee to decide how much of the Spring River watershed they wanted to tackle and what kind of group to form.

Watershed Group Reaching out to Landowners, The Joplin Globe reported 10/26/2007 that support of property owners will be the key element in any plans shaped for the lower Shoal Creek watershed. The Lower Shoal Creek Watershed Committee has sent out the first round of surveys to property owners along the stream to gauge their “knowledge and perception of water quality issues,” said Craig Jones, a planner for the Harry S. Truman Coordinating Council, which is advising the group. A second round of surveys is planned for later this year.

Soil and Water District Awaits Word on North Fork Grant, and Conservation Group Seeks Funds, The Joplin Globe, 11/24/2007 reported that Jasper County Soil and Water Conservation District, is seeking about $1.5 million in federal funding to improve water quality in the North Fork of Spring River; the goal is to lower sediment getting into the stream by up to 35 percent by implementing a variety of streamside and watershed management projects. Money is being sought from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. In addition to this grant, the project could be eligible for $1.9 million in matching funds (including in-kind services) and $37,326 in other federal money. The total project cost would be around $3.4 million.

The previous article, 10/7/2007, reported that the application relates to a 251,360-acre watershed, most of which is in Barton and Jasper counties. Lawrence County residents who own land in the 4,000 acres in that county that are part of the North Fork watershed also may participate. Work to improve water quality also could help reduce flooding along the stream. A potential goal of the grant is to develop 20 controlled grazing systems to keep livestock out of streams. Such systems would fence off streams and take water to cattle.

Compiled Testing Results Raise Stream Worries, The Joplin Globe, 10/26/2007 reported that parts of several streams in Jasper and Newton counties were classified as “impaired” earlier this year, but two residents concerned about water quality say more should be added to the federal listing. Wayne Christian, of Carthage, and Dewayne Miller, of Goodman, say bacteria levels are high on streams throughout the region, based on tests done by health departments and volunteer stream teams last summer. The two have compiled results of tests done by health departments in Jasper, Newton and Lawrence counties in Missouri, the Cherokee County Health Department in Kansas and the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. The information will be shared with the participating agencies, and submitted to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, to support an argument that more streams should be classified as impaired.

Shoal Creek Conservation Area, This is a link to a Missouri Department of Conservation fact sheet on the Shoal Creek Conservation Opportunity Area (COA). It describes the strategies, priority research and inventory needs, a list of present and prospective partners and conservation challenges for the COA.

New Group Set to Tackle Water Issues, The Joplin Globe, 11/12/2007 reported that a new water resources group has formed to coordinate the activities of watershed groups in the Four-State Area. The organizers of the Multi-Basin Regional Water Council met for their first summit at the Bentonville (Ark.) Public Library to talk about water issues in the region. After a three-hour conference, the representatives of the 25 or so water groups attending decided to form the council. Among the groups attending the conference were the Elk River Watershed Improvement Association in McDonald County, the Tri-State Water Resource Coalition, the Grand Lake (Okla.) Watershed Foundation and the Beaver (Ark.) Water District. Bill Millagers, a Rogers, Ark., resident who organized the conference, said the makeup of the council reflects the fact that both surface water and groundwater flow across state lines. “All of these groups are interlocked,” he said. “Because of that, this council could make a difference in discussions of policy, infrastructure investment and the protection of watersheds.”

Group Establishes Top Environmental Priorities for Spring River, Clean drinking water, and healthy and abundant aquatic life were among the top best-case scenarios for the future of the Spring River watershed determined Thursday by members of The Spring River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Group. Safe water recreation was a third priority. Among the worst-case scenarios: a river polluted beyond repair, and contamination and disappearance of aquatic life. The group at its fourth meeting also heard about watershed protection groups in Missouri and Oklahoma. The group is supported by See-Kan Resource Conservation and Development and Pittsburg State University. The Joplin Globe, 8/9/2007.

Task Force Updated on Waste Cleanup, The Joplin Globe quotes, 7/24/2007, Mark Doolan, project manager with the Environmental Protection Agency, at a meeting of the Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties, regarding an update from on water-quality testing in Spring River. Water samples are being tested for heavy metals, Doolan said, and the results should be available in the next few weeks. Once that is completed, tests for toxicity will begin. The tests will measure chemical compounds such as phosphates, pesticides, nitrates and other substances.

Flooding Flushes Bacteria into Jasper County Streams w/ Water Quality Testing Data for Spring River in Jasper County, The Joplin Globe, reported 6/24/2007 Bacteria levels in Spring River at Kellogg Lake exceeded federal standards more than tenfold after the rainstorms more than a week ago. That’s according to data compiled by the Jasper County Health Department showing the results of weekly testing of streams throughout the county since late May. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends against swimming in water with E. coli levels of 235 colonies per 100 milliliters of water. The sample taken June 13 at Kellogg Lake tested at 2,419.6 colonies. The eight samples taken that day from Center Creek, Spring River and Turkey Creek tested above federal levels, all but one at least seven times over the standard.

Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas Watershed Groups, This is link to a Natural Resources Conservation Service publication, listing all of the watershed initiatives in Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas, including contact and historical information for each.

Watershed Restoration & Protection Strategy Group

Roger McKinney reports in The Joplin Globe, Flow of Ideas, Group Establishes Top Environmental Priorities for Spring River, the progress that the Spring River Watershed Restoration & Protection Strategy Group (SRWR&PSG) made at its meeting, Thursday, August 9, Baxter Springs, KS. The group, supported by See-Kan RC&D along with Pittsburg State University, identified: clean drinking water as the #1 priority, a healthy and abundant aquatic life as #2, and safe water for recreation as the #3 priority.

Groups attending or represented at the Strategy meeting were:

• Harry S. Truman Coordinating Council of Southwest Missouri - Craig Jones
• Elk River Watershed Improvement Association
• Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project
• Upper Shoal Creek Watershed Improvement Group-Barry County
• Shoal Creek Watershed Partnership
• Grand Lake of the Cherokees Watershed Foundation - Carl Metcalf & John Gillette
• Pittsburg State University - Shirley Drew, Jim Triplett
• Cherokee County Health Department - Carl Hayes

This was the fourth meeting of the SRWR&PSG. Carl Metcalf is quoted as saying that the group strives to be cooperative rather than confrontational, and having representatives from Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma is critical. Previously, the group had targeted Spring River issues, including (1) water quality and the contamination from heavy metals and fecal bacteria; (2) water quality and the depletion of the area aquifer by large consumers in Missouri; and (3) the stability of the river banks.

Septic tanks continue to be a contributing cause of water contamination, according to a presentation by Craig Jones. He said that 70% of septic systems in Missouri are considered to be failing. Jim Triplett added that the soil type in southeast Kansas is mostly clay, which is not good for septic tanks.

The groups next meeting will be Thursday, Septemeber 6, 2007.

E. coli test Results - Spring River (Jasper County)

The Jasper County Health Department began testing for E. coli bacteria in Spring River on May 24, 2007. They selected seven sites for weekly testing, including: Spring River at County Road 3 (referenced as SR1), Spring River at County Road 85 (SR2), Spring River at Kellogg Lake-Carthage (SR3), Spring River at Francis Street-Carthage (SR4), Spring River at Quaker Mill on County Lane 216 (SR5), and Spring River at Kafir and State Line (SR7).

The test results are shown as # of colonies of E. coli bacteria per 100 milliliters of river water. The data in Bold indicates that the # of colonies are in excess of the maximum recommended by the US EPA for bodily contact, which is 235 colonies of E. coli per 100 milliliter of water sampled. The data is arranged by sampling site, with the latest data 'on top'.

Spring River at County Road 3 (SR1)
10/19/2007, 77.6
09/25/2007, 83.9
09/19/2007, 131.4
09/05/2007, 387.3
09/05/2007, 325.5
08/29/2007, 158.5
08/21/2007, 2,419.6+
08/14/2007, 75.9
08/07/2007, 64.3
07/31/2007, 82.3
07/24/2007, 101.4
07/17/2007, 172.3
07/10/2007, 1986.3
07/02/2007, 1046.2
06/26/2007, 816.4
06/19/2007, 290.9
06/13/2007, 870.4
06/05/2007, 517.2
05/30/2007, 107.1
05/24/2007, 114.5

Spring River at County Road 85 (SR2)
10/19/2007, 135.4
09/25/2007, 142.1
09/19/2007, 172.3
09/05/2007, 920.8
09/05/2007, 248.1
08/29/2007, 129.6
08/21/2007, 1,119.9
08/14/2007, 35.9
08/07/2007, 70.3
07/31/2007, 91
07/24/2007, 161.6
07/17/2007, 95.9
07/10/2007, 228.2
07/02/2007, 920.8
06/26/2007, 547.5
06/19/2007, 128.1
06/13/2007, 1732.9
06/05/2007, 613.1
05/30/2007, 112.6
05/24/2007, 52.9

Spring River at Kellogg Lake-Carthage (SR3)
10/18/2007, 461.1
09/25/2007, 125
09/19/2007, 113
09/05/2007, 517.2
09/05/2007, 410.6
08/29/2007, 81.6
08/21/2007, 2,419.6+
08/14/2007, 46.4
08/07/2007, 41.7
07/31/2007, 88.2
07/24/2007, 72.3
07/17/2007, 95.9
07/10/2007, 116
07/02/2007, 1299.7
06/26/2007, 225.4
06/19/2007, 161.6
06/13/2007, 2419.6
06/05/2007, 365.4
05/30/2007, 148.3
05/24/2007, 18.7

Spring River at Francis Street-Carthage (SR4)
10/19/2007, 248.1
09/25/2007, 93.4
09/19/2007, 100.8
09/05/2007, 517.2
09/05/2007, 435.2
08/29/2007, 83.9
08/21/2007, 2,419.6+
08/14/2007, 31.2
08/07/2007, 69.7
07/31/2007, 88.6
07/24/2007, 95.9
07/17/2007, 77.6
07/10/2007, 235.9
07/02/2007, 1203.3
06/26/2007, 328.2
06/19/2007, 172.3
06/13/2007, 1986.3
06/05/2007, 290.9
05/30/2007, 131.4
05/24/2007, 45

Spring River at Quaker Mill on County Lane 216 (SR5)
10/19/2007, 93.3
09/25/2007, 74.9
09/19/2007, 101
09/05/2007, 613.1
09/05/2007, 172.3
08/28/2007, 151.5
08/21/2007, 2,419.6+
08/14/2007, 81.3
08/07/2007, 91
07/31/2007, 116.9
07/24/2007, 57.3
07/17/2007, 93.3
07/10/2007, 816.4
07/02/2007, 980.4
06/26/2007, 101.7
06/19/2007, 240
06/14/2007, 156.5
06/05/2007, 344.8
05/30/2007, 135.4
05/24/2007, 127.4

Spring River at County Road 270 (SR6)
10/19/2007, 113.7
09/25/2007, 53.8
09/19/2007, 107.1
09/05/2007, 344.8
09/05/2007, 122.3
08/28/2007, 285.1
08/21/2007, 2,419.6+
08/14/2007, 71.2
08/07/2007, 75.9
07/31/2007, 167
07/24/2007, 125
07/17/2007, 72.7
07/10/2007, 167.4
07/02/2007, 686.7
06/26/2007, 648.8
06/19/2007, 191.8
06/14/2007, 160.7
06/05/2007, 344.8
05/30/2007, 325.5
05/24/2007, 67

Spring River at Kafir and State Line (SR7)
10/19/2007, 161.6
09/25/2007, 59.8
09/19/2007, 75.4
09/05/2007, 225.4
09/05/2007, 172.5
08/28/2007, 158.5
08/21/2007, 2,419.6+
08/14/2007, 40.5
08/07/2007, 39.1
07/31/2007, 135.4
07/24/2007, 86
07/17/2007, 78.9
07/10/2007, 156.5
07/02/2007, 648.8
06/26/2007, 95.9
06/19/2007, 178
06/13/2007, 151.5
06/05/2007, 261.3
05/30/2007, 209.8
05/24/2007, 69.7

For further information, contact:
Jasper County Health Department
105 Lincoln
Carthage, MO 64836
417/358-3111
417/358-0494 (fax)
moehra@lpha.dhss.mo.gov (e-mail)
877-879-9131 (toll free)
8:30 - 4:30 (hours)

Spring River Watershed Stakeholder Leadership Team

SEE-Kan RC&D (US Department of Agriculture, Resource Conservation and Development) has announced a Spring River Watershed Stakeholder Leadership Team meeting for Thursday, August 9, 2007, 4-6:30 pm, at the Baxter Springs Community Center, 1101 East Avenue. The Joplin Globe reported (Sunday, August 5, 2007) that See-Kan RC&D, and Pittsburg State University are facilitating the meeting, to help develop a team of stakeholders who will provide leadership and direction for restoring the watershed. Craig Jones with the Harry S. Truman Coordinating Council will provide the group with information regarding water protection strategies in Missouri. For more information, call 620-431-6180.

North Fork Watershed Cleaup Projects

The Carthage Press reports that the University of Missouri Extension Office, in Lamar, is inviting residents of Jasper and Barton counties to participate in a discussion regarding the future of the watershed drained by North Fork and the Spring River iself, including Carthage, Lamar and much of rural Jasper and Barton counties.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 @ 7:30pm
Wolf Center -Finely Room
801 E. 12th Street
Lamar, MO. 64759
Registration 417-682-3579

The purposes of the meeting include:
1. Become acquainted with each other.
2. Become more familiar with the watershed.
3. Introduce the watershed-planning concept.
4. Listen to the public's concerns and interest regarding the stream.
5. Solicit involvement in an ongoing watershed group.

Other sponsoring groups:
Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS)- Robert Paul, District Conservationist for Barton and Jasper counties
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)-Greg Anderson

Watershed Task Force

The Carthage Press, reported Saturday, June 23, 2007, that Officials are hoping to turn a number of separate efforts to clean up the waters of the Spring River and North Fork of the Spring River in Jasper and Barton counties, into a coordinated effort to get more federal money for water cleanup projects. Jasper County Commissioner Jim Honey, Jasper County Health Department Director Tony Moehr and Bob Nichols, with the Tri-State Water Resources Coalition, met on Tuesday with Ron Paul, USDA offices in Jasper and Barton Counties, to discuss forming a Spring River Watershed Task Force, to coordinate groups and people wanting to clean up the waters flowing into the North Fork River and the Spring River.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a new Watershed Builder program (Internet based), called Watershed Planning Process - Design an Implementation Program. Perhaps we can get the Lawrence County, Barton County, and Newton County Commissions involved, along with Cherokee County Kansas. That would be a comprehensive plan.

Baxter Springs KS, KDHE and Lagoon

The Kansas Department of Heath and Environment (KDHE) has ordered the City of Baxter Springs (KS.) to stop poluting Spring River. The Joplin Globe, Friday, June 22, 2007, reports that the sewage lagoon east of Spring River on the eastern edge of town has been a source of complaints about odors for several years. The Administrative Order from KDHE (dated June 13, 2007) tells Baxter Springs Mayor Huey York and the City to find a solution to problems with its lagoon that are causing partially untreated sewage to be discharged into Spring River. The options include: building a mechanical sewage treatment plant; adding a pre-treatment system at the sewage lagoon; and/or requiring any industry discharging high amounts of waste to treat the waste before it enters the city's system.

Jasper County Health Department Stream Sample Results

The Joplin Globe, Friday, June 22, 2007 reports on the water quality results, as determined by the Jasper County Health Department, May 24 through June 19, on twenty (20) sites thoughout Jasper County. The rivers and creeks being monitored are all part of the greater Spring River watershed. Those being monitored include: Turkey Creek, Center Creek, Spring River, North Fork Spring River, and Dry Fork. Tony Moehr, Jasper County Health Department Director, has assigned source identifiers for the 20 test sites. They are:
Center Creek, High Street, Sarcoxie grocery - CC1
Center Creek, Highway 37, golf course - CC2
Center Creek, C.R. 110 - CC3
Center Creek, Highway 71 - CC4
Center Creek, Old 66 Highway - CC5
Center Creek, Stones Corner - CC6
Center Creek, C.R. 303 - CC7
Dry Fork, C.R. 100 - DF1
North Fork, West Mercer, Jasper - NF1
North Fork, C.R. 210 - NF2
Spring River, C.R. 3 - SR1
Spring River, C.R. 85 - SR2
Spring River, Kellogg Lake - SR3
Spring River, Francis Street - SR4
Spring River, Quaker Mill C.L. 216 - SR5
Spring River, C.R. 270 - SR6
Spring River, Kafir and State Line - SR7
Turkey Creek, Kenser Road - TC1
Turkey Creek, Lone Elm - TC2
Turkey Creek, Fox Bluff -TC3

Click on chart to enlarge. The data is expressed in number of E.coli colonies per 100 milliliters of water sampled.

Bacteria Testing Gains Momentum

Derek Speelman and Susan Redden, The Joplin Globe, revisit bacteria testing in Southwest Missouri streams. The article quotes Jasper County Health Director, Tony Moore, as saying that Jasper County is now testing twenty sites on Spring river, Center Creek and Turkey Creek. Recently several Newton and Jasper County stream were added to Missouri's 303 (d) list. The following are E. coli counts (in colonies per 100 milliliters of water).

Jasper County (tested May 20, 2007 by Carthage Stream Team)
Spring River-Bowers Mill(Lawrence County line), 133.4
Spring River-Highway 37, 77.1
Spring River-Forest mills (east of Carthage), 78.0
Spring River-Kellogg Lake, 86.0
Spring River-County Road 180, 113.7
Spring River-Quaker Mill (near Alba), 95.9
Spring River-Highway 43, 124.6
Spring River-Maple Road, 55.6
Spring River-Kafir Road, 75.4

Lawrence County (tested May 15-21, by Lawrence Co. Health Dept.)
Dry Hollow-Farm Rd. 2110, 686.7
Goose Creek-Camp Wakonda Farm Rd. 2080, 435.2
Honey Creek-Farm Rd. 2150 bridge, 238.2
Honey Creek-Farm Rd. 2170, 613.1
Spring River-Marionville City Park, 517.2
Spring River-Hwy 97 (north of Stotts City), 235.9
Spring River-Farm Rd. 2137 (east of Hoberg), 579.4
Spring River-Farm Rd. 1040 bridge, 435.2
Stahl Creek-Farm Rd. 1100, 410.6
Truitt Creek-Hwy 39 (north of Mt. Vernon), 1,732.9
White Oak Creek-Farm Rd. 1025, 248.1
Willias Creek-Mt. Vernon City Park, 920.8
Big Spring-Baptist Hill, 10.9
Center Creek-Farm Rd. 1060 bridge, 8.4
Center Creek-Farm Rd. 1010 bridge, 108.1
Chesapeake Creek-Farm Rd. 1217 bridge, 185.0
Clear Creek-Pierce City Park, 20.9
Dry Fork Creek-Farm Rd. 2075, 93.4
Honey Creek-Farm Rd. 1210 bridge, 218.7
Honey Creek-Marionville Park, 198.9
Johnson Creek-Rounte N bridge, 65.0
Spring River-Farm Rd. 2110, 43.1
Spring River-Verona, 20.1
Turnback Creek-Farm Rd. 2025 bridge, 156.5
Williams Creek-Baptist Hill boat launch area, 38.4

Newton County (samples taken May 22-23 by Newton Co. Health Dept.)
Big Spring-Above Hickory Creek, 488.4
Big Spring Cave-Big Spring Park, 12.1
Capps Creek-Barry Co. Rd., 920.8
Capps Creek-Jolly Mill Lane (private Rd)., 214.2
Capps Creek-Jolly Mill Park, 488.4
Cedar Branch-Ols Scenic Drive, 68.3
Clear Creek-Wallaby Rd., 816.4
Edmonson Hollow-North of Stella, 13.4
Hickory Creek-Hwy 60 at Marble Ln., 88.0
Hickory Creek-Hwy 86 (Neosho), 88.2
Hickory Creek-Business Hwy 60, 145.5
Indian Creek-Rt. D, 172.3
Indian Creek-West of Stella, 1,986.3
Little Lost Creek-Seneca, 98.3
Lost Creek-Seneca, 131.7
Lost Creek-Route K, 93.4
Lost Creek-Route CC (Racine), 156.5
Lost Creek-Hwy 86 (Racine), 613.1
Middle Indian Creek-Rt. O, 770.1
North indian Creek-Rt. O, 1,046.2
Shoal Creek-Walleye Bridge, 648.8
Shoal Creek-old Route E (Granby), 68.3
Shoal Creek-Lime Kiln Conservation Area, 52.0
Shoal Creek-Allen Bridge Conservation, 33.2
Shoal Creek-Undercliff Campground, 45
Shoal Creek-Tipton Ford Conservation Area, 39.7
Shoal Creek-near bridge on Coyote Drive, 22.1
Shoal Creek-Schermerhorn Park (Kansas), 30.1
South Indian Creek-Future Stella City park, 1,413.6
Tributary to S. Indian Creek-Ozark Street/Route D, 2,419.6
Unidentified tributary-E. of Racine, 11.9
Unidentified tributary-E. of Racine, 14.6
Unidentified tributary-Eagle Drive (Racine), 66.3
Unidentified tributary-Rt. CC (Racine), 104.3
Willow Branch-Jasmine Dr. (Racine), 59.2
Willow Branch-Iris and Falcon Rds., 17.3

Shoal Creek Advisory for E. coli Contamination

Bob Kulp, Director of the Newton County Health Department, is quoted in The Joplin Globe, May 16, 2007, issuing a Health Advisory for Shoal Creek, due to elevated E. coli bacteria levels. The following E. coli colony readings were observed the week of May 7, 2007:
Walleye Bridge (at Barry County Line) 1,413 colonies per 100 milliliters
Route E Bridge (at Grandby) 173
Lime Kiln Bridge 980
Allen Bridge 238
Undercliff Campground 168
Tipton Ford Conservation Area 184
Redings Mill 139
Schermerhorn Park (south of Galena, KS) 20
[The State of Missouri uses a benchmark of 126 colonies per 100 milliliters of water to evaluate contamination in a body of water. In contrast, the Newton County and Lawrence County Health Departments use a standard of 235 E. coli colonies per 100 milliliters, when evaluating contamination.]

Jasper County to Monitor Spring River, Center Creek and Turkey Creek

The Joplin Globe reported, May 11, 2007, that the Jasper County Health Department will begin water quality testing on parts of Spring River, Center Creek and Turkey Creek, for bacterial levels. The article credits the Carthage High School Stream team with publicizing the elevated levels of E. coli bacteria. The Jasper County health Department will expand on the Stream Team's efforts. Tony Mohr, Director of Jasper County Health Department said that the county will begin weekly sampling on 20 sites.

Carthage High School Stream Team No. 2416 Blog

The Joplin Globe has started hosting the Carthage High School Stream Team No. 2416 Blog. I will set the Stream Team Blog up as a link on the right side of this page, for future reference. I congratulate Carthage High School Stream Team sponsors Wayne Christian and Frank Martinez, for setting this up. I commend The Joplin Globe for recognizing the value of promoting stream stewardship and the need for pollution monitoring.

WARNING Signs Along Spring River, Carthage

The Jasper County Commissioners heard a report/presentation by Wayne Christian and Frank Martinez of the Carthage High School Stream Team, regarding plans to post WARNING signs at popular swimming and wading places along Spring River, warning swimmers that full body contact would pose a health risk. Tony Moehr, Director of Jasper County Health Department suggested that the signs be made so that they could reflect changes in the river quality, based on testing by the Carthage High School Stream Team.

The Joplin Globe, Friday, March 16, 2007, Tony Moehr said that the Jasper and Newton County Environmental Task Force is also looking for ways to help or serve as a funding mechanism to expand the scope of the Stream Team's work. He said that Spring River's designation as impaired, based on stream-team tests and some conducted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, could open the door for money for more testing “and opportunities to fix the problem.”

Jim Honey, Eastern District associate commissioner, offered the use of the county highway department’s sign machine to make the placards.

$30,000 to Lower Shoal Creek Watershed Committee

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has awarded $30,000 to the Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties and the Lower Shoal Creek Watershed Committee. The Harry S. Truman Coordinating Council assisted in securing the grant for the committee. The Joplin Globe, Saturday, March 17, 2007 reports that the grant will be used to develop a survey that, in part, will “gauge perceptions of local water-quality issues and support of various types of local programs aimed at restoring and protecting local waterways,” according to DNR.

The Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties formed the Lower Shoal Creek Watershed Committee as a steering committee, last year. The group’s mission statement designates not just the lower part, but the entire Shoal Creek watershed, from its headwaters in Barry County to its confluence with Spring River west of the Missouri-Kansas line near Riverton, KS., as the area to be served by the plan. The goal of the group is to “identify and implement voluntary, common-sense actions that will help to improve and conserve the water quality” of the lower part of the creek and its tributaries.

Five more Streams IMPAIRED

The Joplin Globe, Thursday, March 8, 2007 reported that five more streams have been added to the Missouri list of Impaired Waterways. They are: Hickory Creek, Capps Creek, Lost Creek and Indian Creek (in Newton County), and Spring River (in Jasper County). The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) had recommended that the five waterways be placed on the impaired list based on data showing levels of E. coli bacteria in excess of state standards. The Carthage High School Stream Team has been gathering samples on Spring River since 2004. The Newton County Stream Team had collected more than 195 samples from the Newton County streams last year. John Ford, MDNR's Chief of Water Quality Assessment, said that the State will now study how frequently the E. coli levels exceed state standards, in order to establish the stream's Total Maximum Daily Loan ( TMDL), or the maximum amount of a pollutant that may enter the water without breaching water quality standards.

PCB's, Chlordane & Turkey Creek

The Joplin Globe , State Amends Fish Advisory, Friday, February 22, 2007, reports that small mouth buffalo fish in Turkey Creek, (near Route P in western Jasper County) near the Kansas state line were found contaminated with high levels of PCBs and chlordane. The advisory was issued by Missouri Department of Conservation (MDOC), Fish species on the list should be avoided or eaten in limited quantities because of concerns about environmental contaminants.

Stream Teams, Doyle Childers & Signage

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) director, Doyle Childers, was in Jasper County, Friday, January 5, 2007, for what he called his 75th public forum. Frank Martinez of the Carthage Stream Team and Dwayne Miller of Neosho asked Childers for more MDNR suppport of their Stream Team initiatives. They were referring to dangerous contamination levels of bacteria in local streams. Childers responded by saying that MDNR does not have enough resources to do the monitoring and put up signs. He encouraged local groups to erect signs warning potential swimmers of the water contamination. Carthage Press

The Joplin Globe, in an article dated December 9, 2006, In our view: Monitoring Water Quality, warned that One of these days, Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources may be posting signs every 100 yards or so warning swimmers to stay out of Spring River because of human waste. Two water samples recently collected by a Carthage Senior High School volunteers found human fecal material near the dam below Spring River and very high levels of animal waste downstream. Such findings are not all that unusual in streams across the region. What better argument than preserving the quality of Southwest Missouri’s water supplies can be made to legislative consideration for additional funding so DNR and counties can to do more testing? Certainly the state needs to be proactive in investigating the various sources of such pollution and take corrective action. Finding the money may not be easy. But legislators should look long and hard to find additional dollars for such a program when they convene next month.

Dry Creek & Missouri Farms Dairy

Missouri Farms Dairy (MFD), Golden City, MO. was cited Friday, December 29, 2006 for allowing wastewater to flow from its lagoon into Dry Fork Branch, a violation of their operating permit. Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Environmental Specialist, George Parsons, indicated that there were some maintenence issues causing the pollution problems.

Missouri Farms Dairy, originally called Hylton Dairy, was built on a 538-acre farm near Maple Grove (MO.). It is Jasper County's first confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) involving cows. The dairy produces about 6 million cubic feet of manure annually, according to The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, January 3, 2007, DNR Cites Dairy Runoff. A $3 million construction permit was issued by MDNR in 2000 to Danny Hylton of Hylton Dairy. It was aquired by MFD in 2004.

An adjacent property owner and environmental activist, Brent Erwin, spoke to the Jasper County Commission on Thursday, January 4, 2006, and encouraged the County to enact a CAFO ordinance. He reminded the comission that he asked for regulation of the large, concentrated livestock operation in 1999. "You said that you would look at a CAFO ordinance, but you dropped the ball." Erwin said that MFD has 1250 cows and a 10-acre lagoon. "If they can't manage their runoff in a drought, what's going to happen when we get a wet season?" Jasper County Commissioner Jim Honey responded by saying "I'm most interested in seeing setbacks from roads and streams. I don't think the county has the reources or the scientific knowledge to police them (CAFOs) otherwise". Erwin said that thirteen counties in Missouri have enacted CAFO ordinances, and that at least one, in Linn County, has withstood a court challenge.

Impaired Streams Updated

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, October 18, 2006, did a thorough story on impaired streams in the area. The following are excerpts from the article. These Spring River Watershed streams, creeks and waterways were previously classified as impaired, but are not on the proposed 2006 lost of impaired streams:

Clear Creek (Barry, Lawrence and Vernon Counties), three segments that total 23 miles. The pollutants are sediment from non-point source agriculture, low dissolved oxygen, bacteria and nitrogen. A total maximum daily load(TMDL)plan has been approved, but part of the creek is still impaired because of low dissolved oxygen.

North Fork of Spring River(Jasper County), 51.5 miles. the pollution is sediment from non-point-source agriculture. Invertebrate data shows impairment, but the stream now is listed for an unknown pollutant.

Indian Creek (McDonald County), 26 miles. The pollutant is nutrients from livestock production. A TMDL plan has been approved.

Buffalo Creek (McDonald County), two segments that total 15.5 miles. the pollutant is nutrients from livestock production. A TMDL plan has been approved.

Indian Creek (Newton County), three segments that total 19.5 miles. the pollutant is nutrients from livestock production. A TMDL plan has been approved.

Shoal Creek (Newton County), 13.5 miles. the pollutant is fecal coliform bacteria from unknown agricultural sources. A TMDL plan has been approved.

The following regional streams are still classified as impaired:
Joyce Creek (Barry County), five miles. The pollutant is bacteria. The source is unknown.
Shoal Creek (Barry County), four miles. The pollutant is bacteria. The source is unknown.
North Fork of Spring River (Barton County)15.6 miles. The issues are low-dissolved oxygen an ammonia. The source is the Lamar wastewater treatment plant.
Center Creek (Jasper County)12.8 miles. The pollutants are lead, cadmium and zinc from former mining sites.
Turkey Creek (Jasper County)seven miles. The pollutants are cadmium and zinc from former mining sites.
Clear Creek (Lawrence County), three miles. The issue is low-dissolved oxygen from the Monett wastewater treatment plant.

Each waterway has been studied, and plans have been created setting out "total maximum daily loads," or TMDLs. The plan spells out the total nutrient load a stream can receive and still meet water-quality standards. It does not address levels of bacteria such as fecal coliform. Creating plans for each waterway means the Missouri Department of Natural Resources(MDNR) has met a key water-quality requirement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).

Does this mean the stream is no longer impaired? "No," said John Ford, with the MDNR's water-protection program in Jefferson City. "When a TMDL is written for a stream and approved by the EPA, the stream is dropped from the list of impaired streams. These streams are still impaired and are given a high priority for future monitoring to see if we can stay below the total maximum daily load." Ford said the DNR is working with organizations, including the National Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) and local watershed groups, to address pollution. That includes management of poultry litter, fertilizer and pesticides.

"We also have voluntary watershed programs that have been ongoing for many years," he said. "The TMDL just gives a target to these watershed groups to give them a goal of what we are shooting for." It's not only local groups that have a stake in the plan. The EPA looks carefully at what happens to interstate waters. "When the MDNR writes up its TMDLs, it is cognizant of water-quality standards across the state line," Ford said.

"We will now be able to look at the monitoring data and look at the TMDL recommendations for that river, and see whether we are meeting our goal." The state sends an impaired-streams, or "303d," list to the EPA every two years. The state had no problems with producing the list through 1996. But beginning in 1998, public interest in the lists, both local and national, began to grow, and the complaints soon followed. Ford said that when the public became active in the issue, the primary complaint was that the lists in most states were too small. The lists identified only point-source pollution. They did not identify non-point-source pollution, such as runoff from agricultural and livestock operations. In response, the EPA expanded the list to include non-point sources. The EPA, Ford said, changed its emphasis after it lost lawsuits in federal court. "The EPA, the environmental community, the regulated community and a lot more people got pulled into the process," he said. "It became very complicated for Missouri to prepare its list. This is a long-term process. We don't correct a problem that is this large in scope in a couple of years."

Add Spring River to List of Impaired Waters

The Joplin Globe, Sunday, November 5, 2006 reported that The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is proposing that Spring River be added the the state's list of impaired waters because of high bacteria levels. The article reports that thirteen of 33 sites recently tested in Southwest Missouri, including Spring River, Shoal Creek and Little Sugar Creek, have bacteria levels so high they are unsafe for human contact. The article quotes (1) Renee Bungart, MDNR's Division of Water Quality, (2) Frank Martinez, Volunteer with a Stream Team in Carthage, (3) Bob Kulp, Administrator of the Newton County Health Department, and (4) Alethea Goodman, Administrator for Lawrwence County Health Department.

A majority of water quality samples collected on Spring River around Carthage in the last few years, whether done by state regulators or the volunteer Stream Team, have consistently found elevated levels of E. coli or another bacteria, enterococci, both of which can cause health problems for people who are exposed. Frank Martinez said that "By the criteria of the Environmental Protection Agency, this river (Spring River) should be put on a 303(d) list." The Stream team's latest tests on Spring River, done October 31 at five sites around Carthage, showed elevated levels of either E. coli, enteroccoi or both. Previous tests done on October 18 at the request of The Joplin Globe, on two sites downstream on Spring River, near Purcell and Waco, showed E. coli at levels considered unsafe.

Renee Bungart said 'only the area of Spring River near Carthage and two miles downstream are currently being proposed for the state's list of impaired rivers.'

The MDNR began testing in the Carthage area in the Spring of 2005, after the Stream Team identified high levels of bacteria and held public forums to educate the community about its findings. The MDNR initially began testing at several sites around Carthage, but has since scaled it back to an unnamed spring tributary near the Butterball Turkey Co. plant, where the Stream Team continues to find some of its highest levels of bacteria. MDNR testing resulted in the replacement of a city sewer line in that area earlier this year. Runoff from agricultural and/or human activity may still be contributing to overall elevated levels of E/ coli.

Water quality analysis in Newton County also indicates many streams and rivers there remain unsafe, too. Of 200 samples collected at 13 different sites around the county (April through October 14, 2006) 134 or 67% had elevated levels of E. Coli. Five of the 11 sites, last tested October 3 and October 18, 2006, by Newton County officials had elevated E. coli. Parts of Capps Creek, Clear Creek, Indian Creek, Lost Creek and Shoal Creek remained elevated throughout the year, regardless of rainfall or other changing stream conditions. Bob Kulp said that "eventually we are going to have to start posting some kind of advisories. If we are testing the water and the public is at risk, we want to get the word out."

The Joplin Independent, Wednesday, December 1, 2006 included an article about the Newton County Health Department's efforts to get a health tax levy passed in the November 7 election. Shocking statistics released by the department indicated that 100% of the rivers and streams tested in Newton County for E. coli bacteria were too high, with 72% of all samples at higher than minimum levels for safe body contact. They also found that one third of the water wells tested in the county were contaminated with bacteria. Dale Jobe, a member of the Newton County Health Department Board of Trustees said that "people don't like change. Everyone wants to blame everybody else. We need to identify it (the bacterial origin) beyond a shadow of a doubt." DNA testing would be able to definitely say whether contaminants in the water were from humans, chicken, cattle or any other livestock.

In answer to the critisism by some members of the Newton County Board of Commissioners, that water issues should continue to be handled on the state level, Bob Kulp pointed out that the MDNR does not function at the non-point source polution level.

Bacteria Levels (The Joplin Globe 11/05/2006)
The current health standard is 126 colonies of E. coli per 100 milliliters of water, according to the MDNR. The locations of sites tested and their bacteria levels are:
[Sampling done for The Joplin Globe by the Newton County Health Department on October 18, 2006]
Indian Creek at Anderson 56.3 colonies of E. coli/100 milliliters of water
Elk River at Cowskin Conservation Area (Highway 43 in McDonald County) 86.5
Elk River at Mount Shira Conservation Area near Noel 27.2
Elk River at River Ranch Campground Swim Beach near Noel 122.3
Elk River at Big Elk Camp Swim Beach in Pineville 77.6
Little Sugar Creek near Pineville 111.9
Little Sugar Creek near Caverna 866.4
Big Sugar Creek at Cyclone 15.4
Shoal Creek near Ridgely 2,419.6
Shoal Creek near Pioneer 110.0
Clear Creek west of Pierce City 224.7
Center Creek at Highway 43 79.4
Center Creek near Smithville 83.9
Spring River near Waco 435.2
North Fork of Spring River near Galesburg 30.5
Spring River near Purcell 272.3
Center Creek north of Fidelity 104.6

[Sampling done by the Stream Team #2416 on October 31, 2006]
Spring River near Morrow Mill 140.8
Spring tributary in Carthage for Spring River 2,419.6
Spring River at Francis Street 88.6
Spring River at Tucker's Ford 133.6

[Sampling done by the Newton County Health Department on either October 3, or October 18, 2006]
Hickory Creek east of Neosho 38.3
Hickory Creek on Business Highway 60 73.3
Indian Creek at Boulder City 111.2
Lost Creek at Racine 387.3
Shoal Creek at Tipton Ford 146.7
Shoal Creek north of Granby 121.1
Shoal Creek at Lime Kiln Conservation Area near Neosho 124.6
Shoal creek near Barry County line 1,553.1
Shoal Creek at Wildcat Park in Joplin 78.0

How Clean Is It?

Andy Ostmeyer and The Joplin Globe, Sunday, August 27, 2006, lead with an excellent series of articles: Many Area Streams, Creeks Show High Bacteria Levels; Results of Bacteria Sampling; Tribe Testing for Bacteria; and Carthage Teens Continue Survey of River Bacteria Levels.

In all, forty sites in Southwest Missouri were tested for bacteria levels by Stream team volunteers, county health department officials or at the request of The Joplin Globe. Lawrence and Newton Counties use the Environmental Protection Agency standard of 235 clonies of Escherichia coli per 100 mililiters of water as their thresholds for a one-time test. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a standard of 126 colonies of E. coli per 100 mililiters of water for what it defines as whole body contact recreation, such as swimming. The standard is the mean for five tests conducted within 30 days.

The locations of those sites and the bacteria levels were:
[Sampling on August 17, 2006 for The Joplin Globe by Newton County Health Department]
Indian Creek at Anderson 27.2
Elk River at Cowskin Conservation Area (Hwy 43 in McDonald County)35.5
Elk River at Mt. Shira Conservation Area (north of Noel in McDonald County)13.9
Elk River at River Ranch Campground Swim Beach in Noel 12
Elk River at Big Elk Camp in Pineville 69.5
Little Sugar Creek just upstream of Pineville 21.6
Little Sugar Creek near Caverna 56.1
Big Sugar Creek at Cyclone 3.0
Shoal Creek near Ridgeley 2419.6
Shoal Creek near Pioneer 98.5
Clear Creek west of Pierce City 172.3
Center Creek at Hwy 43 90.9
Center Creek near Smithfield 74.9
Spring River near Waco 146.7
North Fork of Spring Ribver near Galesburg 35.9
Spring River at Purcell 110.0
Center Creek north of Fidelity 83.9

[Sampling on August 16, 2006 by Newton County Health Department]
Indian Creek - Boulder City 866.4
Shoal Creek at Limn Kiln Conservation Area near Neosho 98.4
Hickory Creek in Neosho 461.1
Lost Creek near Racine 1986.3
Shoal Creek at Wildcat Park near Joplin 41.9
Shoal Creek near Tipton Ford 178.5
Shoal Creek near Granby 154.1
Capps Creek near Jolly Mill 46.5
Shoal Creek near Barry County Line 1299.7
Clear Creek east of Ritchey 1046.2

[Sampling on August 2, 2006 by Lawrence County Health Department]
Clear Creek in Pierce City 158.5
Goose Creek near YMCA Camp 121.1
Williams Creek near Baptist Hill Boat Launch 128.1
Williams Creek at Mt. Vernon City Park 160.7
Stream in Marionville City Park 101.2
Spring in Marionville City Park 42.8
Big Spring at Baptist Hill 20.1
Spring River at Farm Road 1040 152.9

[Sampling on August 19, 2006 by Stream Team #2416]
Spring River near Morrow Mill in Carthage 365.4
Kellogg Lake in Carthage 81.6
Spring Tributary in Carthage for Spring River 2419.6
Spring River at Francis Street 166.4
Spring River at Tucker's Ford 88.4

Regional Water Quality Resources
Wayne Christian, Stream Team Leader
Frank Martinez, Stream Team Volunteer
Bill Miller, Stream Team Volunteer
Cindy Davies, Director, Southwest Regional Office for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Bob Kulp, Adm. Newton County Health Department
Roxanne Weldon, Dir. Environmental Land Management, Eastern Shawnee Tribe
Allen Reed, Water Quality Officer, Eastern Shawnee Tribe
Gary Boone, Environmental Specialist, Lawrence County Health Department

Quotes from the article
1. "Our position is that there is a public health threat, and it needs to be addressed." - Wayne Christian, Strem Team Leader

2. "We need to be advising the public about the safety of the water they are getting in. As a public health agency, that is one of our responsibilities." - Bob Kulp, Adm. Newton County Health Dept.

3. "There is no way of knowing unless you test for E. coli speciation", referring to DNA analysis that can determine whether the waste in the water is from humans, cattle, poultry, or wild animals or birds. - Roxane Weldon, Dir. Environmental Land Management, Eastern Shawnee Tribe

Is It Safe to Swim?

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, poses the question to readers, Is It Safe to Swim? The article identifies the various tributaries (and monitoring sites) that empty into Grand Lake, including: Elk River near Tiff City, Spring River at Quapaw, OK, Neosho River at Commerce, OK, and Honey Creek near Grove, OK.

The answer to the question is that swimming is "not supported" because of bacterial contamination at every monitoring site along the rivers and streams that feed into the Grand Lake-Neosho River Watershed. It all comes down to numbers. For example, the article states that the mean enterocci bacteria in Honey Creek is 362.7 colonies per 100 milliliters of water, 10 times the federal standard of 33 colonies per 100 milliliter for enterococci. The article quotes the United States Geological Survey, "At a level of 35 colonies of enterococci per 100 milliliters of water, 190 of every 1,000 people who get into the water might be expected to come down with diarrea. In other words, if water quality of a particular waterbody is maintained at or below this standard, then swimmers have a 1.9% chance of becoming ill."

Lower Shoal Creek Watershed Group.2

The Neosho Daily News, Wednesday July 26, 2006 and The Joplin Globe, Tuesday July 25, 2006, reported on organizational progress that the Lower Shoal Creek watershed group is making. As reported previously in this Blog, the group first met on June 13, 2006. The initiative is being coordinated by The Environmental Task Force of Newton and Jasper Counties. A steering committee is being formed to "study, analyze and remediate environmental pollution problems on the lower Shoal Creek watershed." The spokesman for the group is Newton County Presiding Commissioner, Jerry Carter.

The groups agreed on three primary goals:
(1) Determining contaminants in area waterways,
(2) Finding out the sources of those contaminants, and
(3) Determining what can be done about them.

The area being designated by the group as the Lower Shoal Creek Watershed includes: from its headwaters in Barry County (MO) to its confluence with Spring River west of the Missouri-Kansas line near Riverton, KS. Mr Carter said that the people to be served are the residents who live in the watershed, including those who get drinking water from the creek or use it recreationally, and any others who would be affected by management of its watershed. These would include agricultural interests and businesses affected by Shoal Creek.

The following are some of the topics covered during the meeting:
Funding of the organization - Harry Rogers, former Carthage mayor and executive director of the Harry S Truman Coordinating Council, will report on funding efforts as well as measures to obtain a non-profit 501(c)(3) status for the group; Volunteers, getting enough people for measures such as stream teams, water quality monitoring, serving on the watershed group and the like; Educational outreach; Collaborating university resources, such as the Ozark Environmental Water Resource Institute; Canoeists and litter's impact on waterways; Drinking water supplies for people and livestock; Enforcement measures; Sustainability of watershed improvements, and having the time to pull all of these projects together.

The group also shared their concerns and cares about area waterways and with the watershed association. Among these: Getting representation from across the state line in Kansas, as the watershed extends as far west as Empire Lake at Riverton; Getting more representation from Shoal Creek landowners on the watershed group; Getting more representation from area cities and industries; Water quality and groundwater issues, including falling water tables and increases in fecal coliform colonies and the presence of heavy metals in area waterways, a leftover of the area's mining past; Getting representation from the Neosho National Fish Hatchery at watershed sessions; Getting representation from Granby / East Newton County.

Swimming Holes or Black Holes?

The Joplin Globe, Sunday, July 2, 2006, reports in a front page headline, that bacterial levels in area creeks, streams remain ambiguois. Mr. Frank Martinez, member of Carthage Stream Team No. 2416 is quoted as saying that bacteria monitoring at five Spring River sites, upstream and downstream of Carthage, has regularly picked up Escherichia (E.) coli and enterococci at levels that exceed standard defined as safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. Acording to federal standards, there should not be more than 126 colonies of E. coli and no more than 33 colonies of enterococci per 100 milliliters of water.
In April 2006, all five Carthage Spring River locations (Morrow Mill, Francis Street, Tucker's Ford, an unnamed tributary near Butterball, and Kellogg Lake) exceeded standards for one or both bacteria. Similiar numbers were found again in June. The Carthage Stream Team often has found what is called the most probable number: 2,419.6 for either E. coli or enterococci at one or more locations. Martinez said that the bacteria are so widespead that the team's equipment simply can't measure it.



The Joplin Globe/David Stonner

Carthage stream team sponsor Frank Martinez tests water clarity at Kellogg Lake.


The article includes E. coli sample levels taken from Indian Creek (April 11, May 25, June 6, and June 20, 2006); Spring River (June 2, June 11, June 17, and June 23, 2006); and Shoal Creek at Old Highway EE Bridge-Granby (April 11, May 25, and June 20, 2006); Lime Kiln Conservation area (May 25, June 6, and June 20, 2006); and Old Highway 71-Undercliff (May 25, June 6 and June 20, 2006). The Indian Creek samples exceded the safe levels each date. The Spring River samples exceded safe levels on June 2 and June 17, 2006. The Shoal Creek samples exceded the safe levels on April 11, May 25 and June 6, 2006. Mr Matinez said that "There is absolutely no misinterpretation of the data. It is freightening to think we have allowed this to happen to our rivers and streams."

The article also includes information on regional water sampling efforts. They are:
Ottawa County, OK. Environmental Health Officer, Preston Ross, said that there's a blanket advisory against swimming in the streams, rivers and lakes in Ottawa County, including upper Grand Lake, because of high levels of bacteria. "It's dangerous. Basically the swimming holes that are not chlorinated we recommend not to swim in".
Cherokee County, KS. Health Department Environmental Officer, Carl Hayes, said "When in doubt, stay out."
McDonald County, MO. officials do not have any information on bacteria levels.
Newton County, MO. Health Department Administrator, Bob Kulp, said that preliminary sampling done last year with interns monitoring 83 sites throughout the county, found 62% of all samples were at levels considered unsafe for swimming due to high levels of E. coli. Newton County also tested for ammonia, nitrates and phosphates.
Jasper County, MO. Health Department Administrator, Tony Moehr, said that "There is no specific statuatory authority to do anything. When you come right down to it, we have along line we are required to enforce."
Barry County, MO. Health Department Administrator, Kathleen King, said "I don't have the resources for it." She added that 'Education is what brings about change. Without that information we may never get the change."
Christian County, MO. Health Department Director, Karen Potter, commits a full-time staff person to one day a week in the summer to gather water samples at nine sites. "Our resources are stretched pretty thin but we do think water quality in the county is important."

Spring River in Jasper County declared unusable

Carthage High School Stream Team Members (Kate Kennedy, Rebekah Davis, Briana Russo, Natalie Lingenfelter, Clint Wilkerson and Mark Buchheit) presented their findings to the Carthage Community, Wednesday, April 5, 2006. The Joplin Independent covered the story with a headline, Spring River in Jasper County Declared Unusable.
"Kansas and Oklahoma should be concerned over what's coming their way," was Wayne Christian's warning, a Carthage Senior High School physics teacher and Stream Team mentor.

MDNR response to stream team data: same old b.s.?

The Joplin Independent, April 26, 2006, wrote an editorial piece on the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' (MDNR) Letter to the Editor, that appeared in the Jopolin Globe authored by Cindy Davies, MDNR Southwest Regional Director-Springfield, MO.

Lower Shoal Creek Watershed Group.1

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, June 14, 2006, reported that a steering committee was formed Tuesday night in cooperation with the Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties (MO) to establish a watershed management plan for the lower Shoal Creek.

Those attending included Bob Kulp, Director of the Newton County Health Department; Mark Doolan, US Environmental Protection Agency; Drew Holt, a Watershed Management Coordinator with the University of Missouri Extension Service in Springfield; and Bob Nichols, Chairman of the Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties.

Mark Doolan said that the EPA had "tested the Spring River Basin for 16 regulated heavy metals. More than 2,000 samples were collected over the course of three weeks from 250 sites. There were samples taken from 31 sites along Shoal Creek. The samples involved sedement, water in the sedement and surface water. The objective of the testing is to determine which tributaries are dispersing heavy metals from abandoned lead and zinc mining sites into the creeks, and ultimately Spring River and Grand lake in Oklahoma."

The proposed Lower Shoal Creek watershed will befrom the Newton-Lawrence County MO. line to the Empire Lake at Riverton, (Cherokee County) KS. Bob Nichols said that "the mission statement is to Protect, conserve and restore water quality and quantity through scientific and educational programs for all who receive the benefits of Shoal Creek."

TMDL Information Sheets

Here are links to Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) information Sheets on rivers, streams and creeks in the Spring River watershed.

Center Creek (Joplin, Jasper County) http://dnr.missouri.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/info/center-ck-info.pdf

Clear Creek (Monett, Barry & Lawrence Counties)
http://dnr.missouri.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/info/clear-ck-info.pdf

Lamar Lake (Lamar, Barton County) http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/info/lamar-lk-info.pdf

Shoal Creek (Neosho & Monett, Newton & Barry Counties) http://dnr.missouri.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/info/shoal-ck-info.pdf

Turkey Creek (Joplin, Jasper County) http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/info/turkey-cr-jasper-co-info.pdf

Lamar Watershed USGS No. 1107-0207-060-004

Tuesday, December 10, 2006, a group met at the Wolf Center University of Missouri Extension Center, for preliminary discussions regarding formation of a Lamar (MO) Watershed District. Representatives from the Missouri Rural Water Association (MRWA), Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), City of Lamar and and the University of Missouri Extension (MU) discussed issues, including Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protection Plans, Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) and identifying a Community Planning Team, to formulate the plan.

Wellhead Protection Plan
5-Steps to Developing a Wellhead Protection Plan
1. Form a Community Planning team
2. Delineate the Wellhead Protection Area
3. Identify and locate potential sources for contamination
4. Manage Wellhead Protection Area (regulatory and non-regulatory)
5. Plan for the future (contingency plans, identy future problems and solutiuons)
(Wellhead Protection: A Guide to Small Communities, EPA625/R-93/002)

Sourcewater Protection Plan
1. Delineate te Source water Assessment Plan
2. Conduct an inventory of potential contamination sources
3. Determine susceptibility of water supply for contamination
4. Release the assessment to the public

Define Water Quality Criteria
3-Types of Standards
1. Numeric (maximum concentrations and minimum/maximum acceptable levels)
2. Narrative (desirable biological conditions and "Free From" standards)
3. Antidegradation values

Developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
1. Identify more data
2. Identify possible sources
3. Use data to model the stream
4. Calculate how much pollutant the stream can handle
5. Divide load among sources
6. Develop Plan

Comments made during the meeting:
1. TMDL's are a tool, not a weapon.
2. It is the right thing to do (restoring water quality using the watershed approach)
3. "A stream is a reflection of its watershed."
4. Nutients do not have standards.
5. Modeling will determine the target TMDL.
6. "If you are part of the problem, you must be part of the solution."
7. Agencies do not have all of the answers.
8. "If we don't start, we will never get there."

Watershed Management Plan
9-Critical Elements
1. Identify causes and sources/groups of similar sources of contamination
2. Estimate expected load reductions
3. Description of Non-Point Source management measures
4. Estimate of financial andtechnical assistance needed
5. Information/education to enhance understanding and encourage participation
6. Implementation schedule
7. Description of measurable milestones
8. Determine whether loading reductions are achieved
9. Plan monitoring, evaluation, revision.

USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes:
HUG-8 1107-0207 Spring River Basin
HUC-11 1107-0207-060 North Fork of Spring River Basin
HUC-14 1107-0207-060-004 Lamar Sub Basin
HUC-18 1107-0207-060-004-7356 Lamar Lake Sub Sub Basin

Resources available:
1. MDNR's TMDL Video "Keeping Your Waters Clean"
2. Information Sheets for 303D listed waters (impaired waters failing to meet quality standards)
3. Watershed Maps for individual Missouri counties

Shoal Creek Watershed

A group met Tuesday, January 10, 2005 to begin preliminary plans to form a Shoal Creek Watershed. Representatives from the Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties; the Regional Economic Development Center (REDC) at Missouri Southern State University; and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) met at Joplin City Hall, approving a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue formation of a Shoal Creek Watershed Group. Specifically, the watershed will be designated 'downstream' on Shoal Creek from the Highway 60 bridge in Newton County. Tom Simpson, Director of the REDC, said that initially the project involves identifying stakeholders. They will include property owners along Shoal Creek, farmers, educators, recreational users, developers, public water suppliers, environmentalists, cities, counties and local health departments. The REDC will be facilitating a forum in April or May to begin educating area residents about the watershed. The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, January 11, 2006 http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=120068

Lamar Lake / North Fork Spring River Watershed Plans

Notice of Public Meeting: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will be holding a public meeting regarding the TMDL and Source Water Protection Plan for the Lamar Lake / North Fork of Spring River Watershed Project on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, beginning at 7:00 pm, at the Barton County Extension Office, 801 E. 12th Street, Lamar, MO.

Project Background:
1. Project is in the North Fork of the Spring River Basin.
2. NRCS has a CREP program for the North Fork Basin.
3. Barton County SWCD has a MDNR Agricultural Non-Point Source project for the North Fork Basin.
4. Lamar Lake has a 303 (d) listing for nutrients, nearly completed.
5. Lamar Lake, a public water supply, needs an updated Source Water Protection Plan.
6. North Fork has a 303 (d) listing for sediment, with a TMDL under development.
7. Focusing on the smaller Lamar Lake Sub-Basin first, and later expand efforts to develop Watershed Plan for the entire North Fork of the Spring River Basin.

New EPA Watershed Publications, Tools and Forums

There are some great new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) watershed publications, tools and forums. Here are the titles and links to each resource material.

1. Watershed Academy Webcast Seminars, http://epa.gov/watershedwebcasts/

2. Catalog of Federal Funding for Watershed Protection, http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/

3. Region 7 Watershed Funding Workshop

4. Plan2Fund

5. W.A.T.E.R.S., http://epa.gov/waters/

6. EPA's Targeted Watersheds Program, http://epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/

7. STORET, http://epa.gov/storet/

8. EPA's Wetlands Web Site, http://epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

9. Nonpoint Source Web Site, http://epa.gov/owow/nps/

10. NPDES Stormwater Web Site, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=6

11. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), http://epa.gov/owow/tmdl/

12. BASINS, http://epa.gov/waterscience/basins/

13. Watershed-Based Permitting Web Site

14. Adopt Your Watershed, http://www.epa.gov/adopt/

15. After the Storm, http://epa.gov/weatherchannel/

16. Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns, http://epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/

17. Protecting water Resources with Smart Growth, http://epa.gov/smartgrowth/

18. National Costal Condition Report II, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/

19. Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook, http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading.htm

20. Community-Based Watershed managament Lessons from the National Estuary Program, http://epa.gov/owow/estuaries/

21. Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place, http://epa.gov/ecocommunity/pdf/ccecomplete.pdf

22. Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance

23. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, http://epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/

There is a Watershed Discussion Forum at http://epa.gov/watershedforum. For more information you can also click on www.epa.gov.owow/watersheds (Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds). EPA publications can be obrtained for free by calling the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) toll-free at 1-800-490-9198, or by sending an e-mail to ncepimal@one.net.

Oklahoma Grand Lake Study

The Office of the Secretary of Environment (Oklahoma) and the Oklahoma Clean Water Forum have published the final report on the Comprehensive Study of the Grand Lake Watershed (per Senate Bill 408, 2003 Session).

Poultry Production in Spring River Watershed

The James River Watershed in Springfield (1-888-924-WATER, or www.jrbp.missouristate.edu) has released statistics on poultry operations along the major rivers in Southwest Missouri. For Spring River, they report: turkeys, 5,291,469; chickens, 89,682,520; total birds, 94,973,989; manure produced a year, 254,577 tons.
The Joplin Globe, Sunday, December 4, 2005, www.joplinglobe.com.

See If Your Stream is Targeted for an Exemption

See if your stream is targeted for an exemption. Visit these websites and help protect our streams. Even if you are not a Stream Team Member or State Official you are a stream user. The MDNR’s “Use Attainability Analysis” are being used to determine if MDNR can exempt certain streams from protections under the Clean Water Act. Make sure and let them know what we use our streams for, so that they must keep enforcing the laws that keep our streams clean. The UAA’s are due by August 24th.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) UAA website: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/wpscd/wpcp/wqstandards/uaa/index.html

To look up your stream, review any UAAs done on it, and to read the Review Committee's Recommendation.

More About "Use Attainability Analysis"

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) calls them Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for Missouri streams and rivers. The analysis helps MDNR determine how the public uses the state's waterways and whether a stream can be exempted from tougher water-quality standards. You can view the UAAs and MDNR recommendations, www.dnr.mo.gov/wpscd/wpcp/wqstandards/uaa/uaa_county.htm.

On July 7, 2005 this Blog reported on two creeks, Hudson Creek and Capps Creek, that were being included in the UAA list of exempted streams, both tributaries to the Spring River watershed. Now it seems that Elm Spring Branch in Newton County Missouri is also being included on this exemption list. Ted Heisel, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said,"Why is it the DNR is not trying to alert the public about specific streams? Does it fear that the public, if it knew, would not favor those exemptions?" The Joplin Globe, Monday, August 15, 2005. http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=108194

The Public has the opportunity to comment on DNR's assessment for streams and rivers until Wednesday, August 24. All comments will be posted on the DNR Web site one week later. The Clean Water Commission could make a final decision on the status of the exemption of streams and rivers as early as Sept.7.

Once again, I can not imagine excluding any creek, stream, river or tributary to the regulatory standards set out by the Clean Water Act. We know that what goes in upstream always affects the water quality downstream. MDNR thinks that if you can't swim in a stream, then it shouldn't be subject to water quality monitoring and regulations, and should be added to their list of exempted streams that are not regulated. That's the dumbest thing I have heard. Little creeks flow into bigger streams which flow into rivers, etc. This "reasoning" (or lack thereof) appears to ignore the fundamental basics of watershed management, that groups like the State of Missouri, the Missouri Clean Water Commission, the EPA, and the Missouri Department of Conservation are all trying to teach, educate, practice and communicate. Everything is connected. There is a relationship between upstream and downstream.

Please, please, please don't exempt ANY Missouri creeks, streams, rivers, waterways or tributaries from all the protections and regulations afforded and included under the Clean Water Act.

"The DNR is all ticked off at us for trying to alert the public. We have taken a little better approach in that we actually identify the streams, " said Ted Heisel. In addition, Ken Midkiff, Conservation Chairman with the Ozarks Chapter of the Sierra Club said that it appears the DNR is trying to "avoid" compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, which requires all bodies of water to be "fishable" and "swimmable". "...the DNR is using depth as the sole criteria for attainability. But, the federal regulations state that an existing use cannot be removed. The EPA has stated that if the use of Whole Body Contact has occured in the past 30 years, that use cannot be removed. Clearly depth has little to do with submersion".

Heavy Water - The Work Begins!

Scientist with the US Geological Survey (in conjunction with the US Fish and Wildlife Service) have started sampling the sediment of the Empire Lake (Part of Spring River in Cherokee County KS). The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, August 10, 2005, reported on the Phase One project, called Cherokee County Streambed and Empire Lake Sediment Assessment. 'For nearly 100 years, Empire Lake has been collecting sediment coming from the lead and zinc mining fields in Southeast Kansas and Southwest Missouri. An on-going study, involving 40 core samples, will determine how much lead and zinc has been trapped in the sediment and whether it poses an environmental risk to acquatic life.' http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=200815&PHPSESSID=14a25f4920d866cdf3fcc2153c83dd0c

Preliminary findings published in the article found:
Concentrations of lead ranged from 22 to 7,400 parts per million. Estimated natural background concentrations of lead would be less than 20 parts per million (ppm). 56 percent of the sites sampled exceeded quality guidelines and could be hazardous to some acquatic species.
Concentrations of zinc ranged from 100 to 45,000 ppm. Estimated natural background concentrations of zinc would be less than 100 ppm. 75 percent of the sites sampled exceeded sediment quality guidelines and could be hazardous to some acquatic species.
Concentrations were highest in Short Creek, near Galena KS, and TarCreek, near Treece, KS.

Protecting Water Quality Makes Sense

The Joplin Globe, Sunday, July 24, 2005, proclaimed that Protecting Water Quality Makes Sense. 'The states of Missouri and Oklahoma have good reason for worry that chicken litter can forever change the water quality of their streams and rivers. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson has filed a lawsuit against 14 poultry companies in Arkansas to seek money to handle the cleanup of polluted waterways.'
'The poultry industry, which unsuccessfully tried to get Oklahoma lawmakers to block Edmondson's suit, are worried that their costs could run into the millions of dollars.'
'The chicken industry is big business, contributing $2 billion annually to the economy. A lawsuit might radically change that if the industry loses. A more satisfactory approach would be for the poultry industry and the state of Oklahoma to find common ground for developing a long-term, mutually workable solution.'
http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=106007

Wouldn't it be nice (not to mention strategic, efficient and a great use of tax payers dollars) if Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson met with Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon and Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline to collaborate on developing a coordinated solution to the accelerating contamination of our creeks, streams, rivers, tributaries and rivers. Doesn't it make sense that each State be talking with the other with regard to new and existing operating permits, and water discharge violations within the poultry industry. It all comes back to the watershed concept, what happens upstream always ends up downstream, too. The Joplin Globe article is underscoring the concept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

'As a cautionary tale, we would suggest that the states take a look at Northeast Oklahoma and the 40-square-mile Tar Creek Superfund site. The environmental hazards created by the abandoned lead and zinc mines - concentrations of lead damaging to children under 6; mountains of chats from which winds whip heavy metal-laden dust to cover the land; the potential for contamination of water, air and soil; and the prospect of dangerous cave-ins - did not happen overnight. It took decades of neglect.

Lead mining was a vital industry at the turn of the century and throughout World War II. Had mine and smelter owners been better stewards of the land or had federal and state governments taken a more active role at the time in protecting and restoring the environment, Northeast Oklahoma might be a vastly different place today. Such hindsight can provide the platform for taking steps to protect the environment today from other industries that can cause serious damage.'

Survey Results from Watershed Meeting

Spring River Basin Water Quality Assessment
Summary of Survey Responses from Attendees
May 24, 2005

1) What do you use the local rivers and streams for?

• Floating, fishing, swimming, recreation.
• Habitat, fish and invertebrate; aesthetics.
• Canoe, fish, wade, exercise dog, picnic, paint, photo, bird, animal and bug watching
• Swimming, floating, fishing.
• Recreation, education.
• Stormwater runoff and wastewater effluent.
• Fishing and pleasure/canoe/swimming; wildlife and recreation usage mostly.
• Fishing and own property on river.
• Fishing.
• Drinking water raw source.
• Recreation; drinking water supply.
• Boating, fishing, swimming.
• Fishing and swimming for personal use. Cooling water intake for business use.
• Floating, fishing.
• In my job I monitor water quality. Previously I like to fish a lot and swim.
• Recreational boating, fishing, spiritual maintenance and renewal.
• To drink.
• Recreational activities and work-related concerns.
• Boating, camping, fishing and scenic beauty.
• Water supply, wildlife habitat, flood management.

2) Why are the rivers in this watershed important to you?

• I live in this watershed. Also work for regulatory agency responsible for water quality.
• Important part of the ecosystem.
• All
• Important recreation source; long-term ecological health.
• They are important to all of us.
• It’s part of the environment, and a possible source of drinking water.
• We own land along Spring River into Oklahoma. Kansas state line for smiles (east side) and some land on 5-mile creek flowing into Spring River also.
• Impact on treatment ability and cost.
• Simply for the sake of the water use; use by future generations; current use/loss of use due to quality.
• Recreational resource; only surface water source for possible future drinking water resource; irrigation.
• I want it to be safe to eat the fish and to swim the water; aesthetic reasons; retain ready availability of water.
• It is very important to protect water quality (surface and groundwater). Water quality is a good indicator of the overall health of ecosystems.
• Good water quality is key to wildlife perpetuation and quality of life for humans. Poor stream water ultimately affects groundwater quality also.
• Surface waters as a resource for: water supplies; ecological services to the environment; and aesthetics.
• Recreational, economic development, water supply, it’s the right thing to do!
• It is always important to be concerned when it is in your backyard.
• Boating, camping, fishing and scenic beauty.
• Needed for above uses primarily (e.g., Water supply, wildlife habitat, flood management).

3) What are any activities in the watershed that cause you concern that you would like state and federal regulatory agencies to know about?

• Mining releases – water and sediments; cattle and poultry ‘ out-of-date sewage treatment facilities.
• Out dated practices of disposal by individuals; opportunistic business and industry seeing state as vulnerable because it lacks progressive and or established limits, watchdogs, penalties and “permits” the bad. This is not a wasteland
• Grants and programs. Now people don’t know or understand, so no use. Drain stencil program - 3 yrs - Joplin City has none and no one cares even though the ___ it. Birds with messed up feet??? Dead and alive.
• Livestock watering in streams listed for whole-body contact.
• CAFO; poor development management.
• Dumping and lack of monitoring of septic tanks and field within Jasper County.
• Concern is the Baxter Springs sewer when unofficially dumping raw sewage off and on into the River plus past damage from Jayhawk plant and Case Turkey Farm – pollutes badly in the Spring River.
• Baxter Springs, KS sewer.
• Drug activity, trash in Walnut bottoms
• Any introduction of E-Coli (e.g., chicken and cattle ranching); possible introduction of zebra mussel by recreational boaters; pesticide/herbicide runoff from farmlands.
• Dumping (boat sewage pumping), solid waste dumping, point sources with inadequate permit limits, non-point sources (litter application and septic systems); composting facility east of Miami, Oklahoma.
• Trash dumping in and along the river; possible leakage of municipal waste from sewer systems; feedlots, poultry houses, etc.
• CAFOs, mining wastes, septic systems, agriculture in general, development.
• Wastewater spills/discharges into River from municipalities and poultry processors and runoff from poultry litter application.
• Uncoordinated activities cause concern. People/groups doing “things” without awareness of what others are doing.
• Non-point sources, sewage (public and non-public), contamination from any sources – residential, industries, CAFOs, etc.
• Spreading manure; water usage, even surface water is decreasing; springs are drying up; contamination with commercial fertilizer.
• Agricultural/municipal/industrial point and non-point source contamination; historical mining.

4) Do you have any other suggestions for state and federal regulators?

• Work smart, efficient, cooperate instead of duplicate.
• Educate reporters so they report and write correct concerns and information; press release direct information for articles. Water users – enforce recycling of water – self-regulate and be responsible for their own pollution and that cost. Educate and help folks get up to speed and proactive. Adopt and use progressive, up-to-date practices and brake offenders of their poor practices and let forward thinkers improve quality of life for mid-westerners. Look to industry and business as a future for jobs and tax dollars. Stop tolerating the ugly, damaging thinking still tolerated in this area. Control sales of poor choice products and encourage/make better available. Reconsider water rights – “pollute no water;” clean users get priority, self-regulating get priority. Network, network – watchdogs and agencies so all informed and share energies – websites with searchable databases. Update technology and tools. Educate Garland 4 users about risk to water.
• Hats-off the basin-wide approach; please don’t forget long-term continuous monitoring.
• Develop more stringent requirement for county health departments in regard to regulation and monitoring of rural sewage sources.
• Stream Team/Blue Thumb needs organized to monitor the Spring River from Riverton to down to Twin Bridges.
• Keep eye on this River.
• Standardized collection and reporting methods.
• Check for Heavy Metals in Spring River and tributaries; regulation of septic tank pumpers.
• Develop a central clearinghouse for water quality data.
• Enforce the laws!
• Keep pushing or pulling or what ever you need to do. Blog for interested parties (posting privileges assigned by major agencies federal, state and local).
• Today’s meeting is a great start. Must set-up watershed organization to coordinate issues, projects and information.
• Restrict wells to residences; agribusiness should use their own impoundments; keep CAFOs small and disguise them throughout the state; restrict pesticides.
• Work to improve coordination of efforts at federal, state and local levels.

The opportunities for improving Spring River are (obviously) pretty overwhelming. What are your thoughts? Where do we start? What needs to be done first? What project would you willing to help with?

Wait Just a Minute!

I can't believe that the Missouri Clean Water Commission is considering an exemption for Hudson Creek in Barry County, from meeting the clean water standards set by the Federal Clean Water Act of 1982. Something is not right here. Hudson Creek runs into Capps Creek, which runs into Shoal Creek (a part of the water supply for Neosho and Joplin), which runs into Spring River. Hello, this is all part of the Spring River Watershed.

Wait just a minute! Don't you think that EPA Region 6, EPA Region 7, United States Geological Survey, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife ConservationMissouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Office of Attorney General, Kansas Department of Health & Environment, Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, and the Cherokee, Eastern Shawnee, Miami, Ottawa and Wyandotte Indian tribes might have a little input into this decision. They are all involved in trying to stop the polution and contamination of the Spring River and its tributaries.

Why in the world would the Missouri Clean Water Commission be even considering an exemption of any creek, stream or waterway in the State of Missouri. Don't they know the concept of a watershed? What happens upstream ends up downstream. Those interested parties concerned about protecting the Spring River Watershed, need to get their voices heard, in front of the Missouri Clean Water Commission, immediately.

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, July 6, and Thursday, July 7, 2005, report that people who want to comment about Hudson Creek or any other stream that has been targeted for exemption may submit their comments to: Marlene Kirchner, Clean Water Commission Secretary, PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO. 65102. Comments will be accepted until August 24. http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=195175, http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=104008

Let's get this 'exemption' stopped now! This is absolutely contrary to everything positive that is going on in the Spring River Watershed.

How Do You Define "Clean"?

The Simmons Food plant in Southwest City (MO) processes 2 million chickens a week, but when it comes to water quality, company officials say their waste water is "clean". Hummm? http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=194605

In 1998, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, got a court order requiring millions of dollars in upgrades to the water-treatment system at the Southwest City plant. In 1999, Nixon asked the company to be found in contempt for violating a consent order setting specific limits on the amount of phosphorous, ammonia and nitrates that could be discharged into the watershed. In 1998 and 1999, the company was fined more than $700,000 by the states of Missouri and Oklahoma to settle complaints about wastewater discharges from the plant. Does that sound like "clean" water to you?

The Joplin Globe, Tuesday, June 28, 2005, article states that local residents who live in Oklahoma said the water in Cave Springs Branch and Honey Creek contains sludge and smells bad. Last Friday it was reported that Bruce Martin, Regional Director of Missouri Department of Natural Resources(MDNR) said that "(he) would not let (his) children swim in the creek. I would not let my children swim in any creek unless it's been tested regularly and I know it's safe". The Joplin Globe, Friday, June 24, 2005.

OK, so the obvious question is, how do you define "clean"? I don't think that Simmon's definition of "clean" and my definition, or the local residents or the Regional Director of MDNR, are the same. Simmons says that the discharge water is clean because there are fish in it. Albert Midoux, an environmental activist from Anderson (MO), said that the presence of fish in the stream near the company's water discharge does not prove that the water is clean because some species of fish can live in poluted water. What do you think?

This poultry processing plant is less than a mile east of the Oklahoma state line. All the treated wastewater flows from the plant into Cave Springs Branch, then into Honey Creek, and finally into Oklahoma's Grand Lake.

Oklahoma's Secretary of Environment Takes a Stand!

Miles Tolbert, Oklahoma Secretary of Environment, is asking the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to withhold issuing permits for egg producer MOARK's planned expansion in Newton County Missouri. MOARK is seeking approval from the MDNR to build 13 houses in Newton County that would each hold 200,000 chickens each, totaling 2.6 million birds.

"Oklahoma is tired of being the dumping ground", said Mr Tolbert. In a letter from the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment to MDNR, Mr. Tolbert says that his chief concerns are related to Elk River and Spring River tributaries, both of which flow into Oklahoma. Both of these streams are in the watershed of Ft. Gibson Reservoir, which is designated as "nutrient-limited" in the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards. Tolbert's letter said that Oklahoma is concerned about MOARK's environmental record in Missouri. "MOARK has consistently violated the terms and conditions of their existing permits. What assurances are there that the proposed permits will not just be a continuation of the past problems and an undocumented source of additional nutrient loads to an already sensitive area?" The Joplin Globe, Tuesday, June 28, 2005, http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=194683

You've heard the phrase, "Know When to Say When". Well, isn't it time to say STOP. Why can't we stand up and stop these polluters before they do something else. What good is the process of public hearing, applications and comments if the polluters get their permit anyway. Obviously Miles Tolbert, Oklahoma Secretary of Environment, knows what is really going on. This is a good example of why we need to get the Spring River Watershed Organization up and going. It is embarassing that Oklahoma's Secretary of Environment is standing up for what (we know) is right in Missouri!

"Is It Safe for Children to Swim in the Creek?"

Jim York, resident of rural Grove OK, who lives on Cave Springs Branch, downstream from the Simmons Foods Inc. processing plant in Southwest City, MO. asked Bruce Martin, Regional Director of Missouri Department of Natural Resources(MDNR), "Is it safe for children to swim in the creek?"
"No, I would not let my children swim in the creek." said Mr. Martin. "I would not let my children swim in any creek unless it's been tested regularly and I know it's safe". The Joplin Globe, Friday, June 24, 2005. http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=103154

That's what I like about Bruce Martin, he is honest!

Oklahoma Attorney General Files Water Polution Suit

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmonson filed a lawsuit, Monday,June 13, 2005 against 14 poultry companies accussed of polluting the water in northeastern Oklahoma, The Joplin Globe,Tuesday,June 14,2005. The Compliant,filed in the US District Court of the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleges violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA), state and federal nusiance laws, trespass and Oklahoma environmental codes. "It all comes down to polution. Too much poultry waste is being dumped on the ground and it ends up in the water. That's against the law", said Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma A.G.
"One company alone, Tyson, announced that they spent $75 million over 12 months in an ad campaign. If they can afford that, they can afford to clean up their waste", said Mr. Edmondson.
Named in the complaint are: Tyson Foods Inc., Tyson Poultry Inc., Yyson Chicken Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Aviagen Inc., Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Cargill Inc., Cargill Turkey Production LLC, George's Inc., George's Farms Inc., Peterson Farms Inc., Simmons Foods Inc. and Willow Brook Foods Inc. http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=101960

The suit is focused on problems in the Illinois River. However, the Spring River Watershed (including tributaries) has poultry farms and poultry producers that are contributing to the problems in the Spring River Watershed, too.

When We Help the River, We Help Ourselves

The Carthage Press, Monday, June 6, 2005, started their editorial piece by acknowledging, "...we can be only as healthy as Spring River...Recognizing the extreme importance of the watershed, helps us understand why it is so important to reduce, eliminate if possible, the volume of polution being deposited daily by the various tributaries that comprise Spring River...When investments are made in cleaning, protecting and revitalizing Spring River or any of its tributaries, every one here benefits from that action and those benefits will extend through the generations to give life or preserve life for their descendants." www.carthagepress.com

Submit Research Projects to ODEQ

In an attempt to begin pulling together all of the research that has, and is, taking place within the Spring River Watershed, Mary Jane Calvey, Environmental Programs Manager-Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ) has offered to begin cataloging the research projects. Once the projects, papers, articles, and varous documents have been identified by ODEQ, Mark Doolan-EPA Region 7, has offered to get them set up in a searchable database. If you have authored a paper, or know of one that deals with waterways or tributaries within the Spring River Watershed, please take the time to submit it to ODEQ so that they can get the material organized and available for everyone to learn from and to utilize in future watershed planning.
Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality -Tri State Watershed Project

Watershed Group to Form

"The goal would be to develop a communituy-based watershed management plan and an alliance. Because of the size of the watershed, it could be smaller functional units under a larger umbrella group. The alliance is needed, in part, to provide local input to the federal and state agencies that are preparing to tackle water quality issues associated with the watershed." Drew Holt, Univ of Missouri-Extension, Springfield. The Joplin Globe, Friday, May 27, 2005. http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=99975

Are you interested in getting involved? Do you know something that the group should focus on? Will you help us get this project started?

Mark Doolan, EPA-Kansas City said, "This meeting is about partnership development. We wanted to bring everyone here today so that we hopefully could form a core group." He said that it had been his experience that the most effective cleanups have involved participation by resident's groups.

We've Started the Process of Getting Organized

58+ individuals interested in developing a comprehensive strategy for a Spring River Watershed met today at the Empire District Electric Co. Auditorium (Joplin, MO), for what was called Spring River Basin Water Quality Assessment. Drew Holt, Univ. of Missouri Extension-Springfield, and Jaci Ferguson, EPA District 7-Springfield, MO. facilitated the meeting. Mr. Holt explained that the purpose of a watershed was to "effectively protect and restore aquatic ecosystems and protect human health". He explained the difference between Point Source and Non-Point Sources of pollution. Point sources are managed by State and Federal Regulations. Non-Point Sources are not. He explained the the strategies a watershed group should include: targeting priority problems, promoting stakeholder participation, integrating solutions and a system for measuring success.

Mr. Holt shared a couple of regional watershed groups as examples of functioning groups: Shoal Creek Watershed Improvement Group (SCWIG) and the Elk River Watershed Improvement Association (ERWIA). The ERWIA has 11 Board members, 2-from Business & Industry, 2-from Production Agriculture, 2-from Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 2-from Local Government, and 3-from local Citizens/Residents. He said that each group needs to develop a strategy for its Focus and Funding. He recommended that the group consider several sub-basin watershed alliances due to the size of the Spring River Watershed.

Mark Doolan, EPA District 7-Kansas City, shared an outline for the Spring River Watershed Framework. Phase 1 would be projects within the regional Superfund sites. Phase 2 would be the comprehensive watershed management plan outside of the Superfund.

Phase 1 (Superfund)
1. Partnership development
2. Existing data assessment
3. Identify watershed risks
4. Additional data collection
5. Refine risk assessment
6. Evaluation of Water Quality Standards (WQS) and sediment criteria
7. Watershed modeling
8. Develop implementation plan
9. Identify remediation funding schedule
10. Establish monitoring program

Phase 2 (Outside Superfund)
1. Identify lead agencies/entities
2. Develop goals & objectives
3. Identify stressors & sources (i.e. P, N, DO, Bact., CAFO's)
4. Establish required load reductions
5. Identify physical issues (i.e. flooding, habitat improvement)
6. Identify management measures & critical areas
7. Identify water quality success criteria & indicators
8. Develop monitoring & implementation plan
9. Identify resources & funding sources

Wayne Christian presented a summary of the Carthage High School Stream Team (No. 2416)'s monitoring of 5-sites along Spring River. He referred to them as: #1-Morrow Mill, #2-Francis Street, #3-Tucker's Ford, #5 Springwater at ADM, and #6-Kellogg Lake. There was an informative discussion regarding the differences between fecal coliform, E. coli and total coliform. He said that they also do macroinvertebrate sampling at Site #6. They use the IDEXX quanta-Tray.

George Parsons, Missouri Department of Natural Resources-Neosho said that as a follow-up to the Carthage Stream Team results, MDNR was monitoring 5-sites through October 2005, to substantiate the Stream Team findings. He also mentioned several programs: '319 Non-Point funds', '303 D List', 'TMDL list', 'Impaired list', and '503 bio-solids Class A sludge'. He shared a current strategy to remove phosphorous rich poultry litter from Newton County MO and transport it north into Barton County MO. He explained that the row crops in Barton County need phosphorous. He warned that if Spring River is identified as an 'Impaired Waterway', any introduction of phosphorous into the watershed would have to meet guidelines under a nutrient management plan. He said that NRCS typically assists landowners with testing and nutrient management plans.

Mary Jane Calvey, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality-Oklahoma City, OK. said that ODEQ is developing a database of all research that has been done in the Spring River Watershed. She invited those attending the planning session to submit material to her. The data base will eventually be accessible on line and searchable. She also agreed to post all meetings, forums, and conferences on their watershed website calendar. She announced that there is a June 8 meeting in Tulsa to finalize the Spring River Watershed framework with EPA.

Dan Butler, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, reported that in addition to fecal coliform and Escherichia coli, they also measure enterocci, and probably will begin testing for arsenic.

Dr. Jim Triplett and Dr. Joe Arruda, Pittsburg State University, reported on their activities on the Neosho River Basin Advisory Council and Spring River Watershed research being done by PSU graduate students. They invited participants to visit the www.kwo.org website to get additional information about water basin initiatives.

Drew Holt invited participants to complete a survey regarding their interests in and willingness to participate in a Spring River Watershed group. He encouraged the group to look beyond the 3 state lines and the 2 EPA district boundaries, and think in terms of a watershed district.

Spring River Basin Water Quality Assessment Forum May 26, 2005 1-4:00 pm, Joplin, MO.

Empire District Electric Co. Auditorium
602 S. Joplin Street
Joplin, MO.
Thursday, May 26, 2005, 1:00pm-4:00pm

Agenda:
Welcome/Introductions - Harry Rogers, Harry S.Truman Coordinating Council

Watershed Planning Overview - Drew Holt, Univ. MO Extension, Springfield

Current State/Tribal/Local Water Quality Monitoring Activities - Carthage H.S. Fecal Coliform Study; George Parsons, MDNR; Dr.Joe Arruda/Dr.Jim Triplett, Pittsburg State University; Dan Butler, Asst.Director, OKCC; Katie Gaines, Eastern Shawnee Tribe

Federal Monitoring - Superfund Assessment, Mark Doolan, EPA Region 7; USGS Monitoring, John Schumacher; Assessment Needs Outside the Superfund project, Jaci Ferguson, EPA Region 7

Next Steps/Organizing Local Watershed Alliances - Drew Holt

Heavy Metals Poisoning Birds

The Joplin Globe, Thursday, April 28, 2005, Heavy Metals Poisoning Birds, reported that a study, completed by researchers with US Geological Survey, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Health Center, has documented that wild birds in the former (Tri-State) mining district are being poisoned by heavy metals in their habitats. John Miesner, a researcher with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Manhattan,KS, said that the mining district in the first site at which wild birds have been found to suffer from zinc poisoning.
"Migratory birds are flying into this area where they are exposed to these metals.Who knows how many fly away and die somewhere that we don't know about?" John Sparkman, a Pitcher resident. The irony that such a detailed heavy-metal study has been done on wild birds at the site and not done on the people who live there was evident to Sparkman. "I have never seen anything this detailed on the children who live here. What scares me is that these heavy metals are having such an adverse affect on wildlife. What is it doing to the people?"
USGS Researcher Meisner said that waterfowl, such as geese, mallards and swans, were the most affected by heavy metal contamination because they consume sediments from the streams and millponds in the mining district that have high concentrations of zinc and lead. http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=183666&c=87

Notes From the Tri-State Mining District Forum

Here are my notes from the Tri-State Mining District Forum.

Day 1
1. Crossing jurisdictional lines
2. Contamination does not know state lines
3. Remedial effort on a 'watershed' basis
4. Need resources to tackle huge tasks
5. What has worked & what didn't
6. Focus on Natural Resources
7. How to get co-ordination moving forward
8. "Injured" resource vs. "damages"
9. RP= responsible parties
10. PRP= prospective responsible parties
11. Cost of remediation
12 Ten Tribes: Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Miami Nation of Oklahoma, Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee nation, Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca-Cayugo Tribe, and Shawnee Tribe.
13. Tribal concerns: chat, subsidence, surface water, ground water, air quality, sediments, and cultural issues
14. "Is it safe to practice traditional lifestyles?"
15. SW=surface water; GW=ground water; QW= water quality
16. Look at the Kansas-Missouri contribution to flow
17. Look at Watershed scale
18. Data sharing, more so than data collection
19. Trustees & EPA are focused on remediation and restoration without consideration and understanding of true hydrolics
20. Significantly elevated levels of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in soft body tissues
21. 70-75 fish species in (Kansas) Spring River (up stream from Empire Lake)
22. Pathways to contamination
23. Comparing floristic qualities of native versus planted grasslands
24. Sensitivity, Tolerance
25. Originally (Pre-settlement) 90% tall grass prairie, 10% forest
26. Assemblages of plants adaptable/suitable for contaminated sites
27. Sequential extraction, "pore" water
28. Crayfish are 'keystone' species
29. Assimilative capacity-resilience, contaminant penetrates to target sites (tissue)
30. Exposure pathway
31. Heme Biosynthetesis and Pb, AOAD Aminoleualinic Acid Dehydratose ALA-D
32. Documentation = laboratory + field study
33. Iron oxide-oozing out of ground
34. Contamination by metals evident in Tri-State Mining District fish. Bioavailability issue resolved
35. Blood, liver, metals correlation
36. Penetration to active sites (tissues)
37. Higher level effects also evident
38. Bioaccumulation
39. Spacial, temporal variability
40. Streambed sediments 2004-2005, Phase 1
41. Empire Lake sediment 2005-2006, Phase 2
42. Total trace element analysis (complete digestion)
43. Metal reducing bacteria
44. Empirically derived sediment quality guidelines
45. Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) = Can this contiminant, at this concentration, in this sediment contribute to or cause toxicity?
46. MacDonald Values
47. Is this sediment likely to be toxic or not?
48. AET=apparent effects threshold; ERM= effects range median (50%); and ERL= effects range low (10%)
49. "Smart sediment assessors do it both ways"
50. SQG= sediment quality guidelines
51. Characterization vs. remediation
52. Evaluations include: comparability, reliability, predictive ability

Day 2
53. Citizens Task Force, environmental master plan
54. Ground water ordinance
55. Holistic approach
56. OU = Operable Unit
57. Oklahoma OU #1-surface water, ground water, divisional dikes; OU #2-residential properties, yard remediation; OU#3-complete, Eagle Picher facility; OU#4-chat piles flotation pools, communication, human health risk assessment (incl. tribes); OU#5-sediments
58. OU#4 Phase 1-find chat piles, metal loading sites; Phase 2-characterize chat piles; Phase 3-find sampling locations.
59. Closed 80 shafts, engineered closure, revegetation, applying bio-solids, phosphates to reduce lead
60. Long term maintenance (stewardship), long term remedy
61. Institutional controls, forever?
62. Natural resource damage trustee
63. A 'second' cleanup
64. Economy of effort
65. Remedial partner
66. Cleanup chat pile in Spring River at Turkey Creek
67. Remove material (remediation)
68. Main stream, streams
69. Focused approach
70. Sediment toxicity numers
71. Upstream, downstream
72. State to State issues, (a Big Deal)
73. A "Basin Study - Basin Action"
74. Need geo-morphologists, stream loading
75. How to remove sediment without causing other problems
76. Stream sediment dredging
77. Phosphate tends to bind organic matter (clay, metals), is a problem if erosion, column leaching study, not a nutriment loading problem
78. "Basin wide" approach to sharing information. Co-ordinator for entire watershed
79. MOU= Memorandum of Understanding
80. Elk River is already supersaturated with phosphate
81. Keep phosperous out of streams
82. Geo-morphological data is shortcoming in watershed management process.
83. NOI = Notice of Intent
84. Subaqueous mine waste disposal
85. Historically not placed mine wastes in saturated zone
86. Change of approach-large scale pilot study
87. Characterization of low hydraulic permediability & gradient
88. Collection of data (incredible amount of information produced)
89. Serchable data base; reference list; published and unpublished information; A,B,C qualifier (i.e peer reviewed, informational purposes only)
90. Geo-morphology-what will we do with these sedements?
91. Mine pool and deeper aquafer are connected. Need good ground water monitoring system
92. Co-ordination-doing more with less; Be more flexible in approach; Recognize public's frustration
93. Watershed Framework Project, quarterly meetings
94. MOU, monthly-quarterly project manager meetings
95. Long term operation, maintenance in perpetuity
96. Least common denominator = rules/regulations
97. "Manure, plumbing and gravity"
98. Tri-State Partnership Agreement (US Fish & Wildlife, KS, MO, OK, and the Tribes)
99. Surrogates compromised the Seneca tribe
100. "Orphan share" of responsibility (only 10% of PRP identified) causalty of NRD component.
101. Watershed Managament Framework, 2-objectives: determining the extent of contamination, priortizing cleanup of mine wastes.
102. Phase I, Develop watershed wide remediation plan for cleanup, based on ranking and priortization of source area.
103. Concentrations and risk
104. Existing data assements for the watershed, summary of source chacterization, develop risk assessment for sediment & surface water exposure
105. Access existing site specific toxicity studies & establish toxicity and screening values
106. Indentify data gaps and additional data needed
107. Finalize basin-wide risk assessment
108. Establish & evaluate WQS, TMDL
109. TMDL= Total maximum daily load
110. "Terrestrial" risk
111. Watershed modeling, validate GIS based QW, metal load reduction requirements, define & rank priority source areas
112. Develop cleanup implementation plan
113. Establish monitoring plan, including performance monitoring, conduct 1-2 year pre-remediation, continue monitoring throughout the life of the remedial actions.
114. Phase II, Non-superfund site related issues
115. Identify lead agencies/entities
116. Develop goals & objectives
117. Identify stressors and source
118. Establish required load reductions
119. Identify physical issues
120. Identify management measures & critical areas
121. Identify QW success criteria
122. Will include Missouri OU#5, Kansas OU#2, and Oklahoma OU#5
123. Sequencing remedial activities, including human health risk assessment, ecological acquatics and terestial (sensitive receptors) risk assessments
124. Stream study vs Grand Lake study
125. 319 Lead Agency, required watershed implementation in place
126. Issues identification & solutions: information needs(database, modeling, evaluations, reasearch, monitoring); duplication of effort (who is doing what? What is being duplicated?); Communication MOU (missing MOU) outreach, gaps; and co-ordination/co-operation (opporyunities, leadership, who should lead it?)

Day 3
127. Excess zinc in acidic soils, Zn phytotoxicity, DGT-resin based method for valuing biotoxicity
128. Phospherous affects Zinc transfer in plant tissue
129. Kansas chronic metal criteria, hydrology is major factor, hydrology & loading, hydrology & hardness, acquatic life impairment, EPT taxa on Spring River
130. Baxter Springs, Spring Branch, Willow Creek, Brush Creek, Shoal Creek, Shawnee Creek, Short Creek, Turkey Creek, Center Creek, Crestline
131. Higher flows, higher exceedances, chronic, accute issues
132. High flows inpact 'clean sites'
133. "Short Creek is a mess"
134. TMDL allocations, WLA=waste load allocations (point sources), LA= load allocations (non point sources), MOS= Margin of safety
135. Load reduction strategy: tributary reduction for self & Baxter Springs; removal of in-channel sediments; potential dredging of Empire Lake (sink & source)
136. Highest priorities: Short Creek Zn, Cd; Turkey Creek Zn, Cd; Center Creek Zn, Cd, Pb; Shawnee Creek Pb; Shoal Creek Zn; and Baxter Springs Pb, Zn.
137. 2005-2008 ongoing remedial action
138. 2008 Reopen TMDL-NRDA data, effluent monitoring, establish WLAs
139. 2009 Begin targeting sediment removal
140. 2013 Revisit TMDL, note progress
141. Existing national water quality levels not sufficient to protect/sustain muscles
142. February 1923, lead poisioning mallards & pintails in Baxter Springs, from mines and refuse in Spring River
143. Winter warm fowl, mallards, canada geese, bob white, doves, swallows, cardinals, robins
144. Evaluating injury, histopathology, concentrations of metals in tissues, ppm
145. Lead sensitive enzyme, ALAD in blood
146. Sublethal, physiological toxic effects
147. "When the well is dry, we learn the value of water" Benjamin Franklin
148. Categories of damages: clean drinking water, ability to store water, increased public utilities, loss of in-situ services, and loss of amenity value by presence of contaminated plumes
149. Areas of disagreements: scarcity of water, price of water, role of replacement
150. Scarcity: uncertainity(decline in Ozark aquifer, future development); intergenerational equity; role of trusteeship (protect natural assets)
Price of water: local consumer prices, commercial rates, agricultural rates, and in-situ and future value; Role of Replacement:remedial efforts to improve groundwater, alternative provision of bottled water and wastewater treatment facilities, access to an alternative aquifer
151. Valuation Methods: I Market Price Methodology (pg 260 in 43 CFR); II Cost Estimating Methodologies (NRDAR) (pg 259 in 43 CFR; III Hedonic Pricing Method (property values) (pgs 260-261 in 43 CFR; IV Contingent Valuation method; V Conjoint Analysis; VI Habitat Equivalency Analysis; VII Resource Equivalency Analysys, (focused on restoration)
152. Sonar survey, geo-referencing
153. Oxidation, turbidity
154. Phosphate based treatment of contaminated land
Phosphoric acid + Pb, chloropyromorphite, reduce Pb bioavailability and solubility
155. Other cat-ions compete with Pb/phospherous reaction
156. "Can't do it willy-nilly"
157. Revegitation using bio-solids, including: mushroom solids, Mizzou Doo, composted chicken litter, un composted turket litter, City of Springfield composted sewage sludge, topsoil, contaminated soil repository
158. Geochemical reactions in sub-aerial setting, pyrite oxidation, acid generation, sulfide dissolution, metals release
159. Post remedy foot print reduced
160. Hydraulically isolated pits
161. Chat has higher permeability than tailings
162. lack of understanding of mine pool hydrology, potential ecotoxicity
163. Co-ordination of Tri-State Partnership and Corps Watershed Plan
Terchnical issues: ecological issues cross political boundaries, expanding applicability of studies, increase co-operation, co-ordination & consolidation among technical investigators
164. Technical Information, including acquatic, NRDAR, remedial
165. issue identification & Solutions: information needs/actions; duplication of efforts; communication; co-ordination/co-orperation
166. What did we learn? Communication & outreach are critical. Development of web based communication, NGOs, local groups
167. Co-ordination: incorporation of research; sequencing & timing of response is important; subsidence teams & groundwater teams; consider a clearing house for funding, requests and requirment for partnership
168. Data Gaps/technical needs: Use consistent approaches; develop long term biological, chemical; continue research in ecological toxicology; consequences of chat disposal in mines; connectivity of surface & ground water; sediment studies in all 3-states; Fluvial Hydrogemorphology; 'acceptable' protocols for data gathering; lack of geochemical information and modeling; better understanding of integration of NRDAR into remedial processes; value of ground water; water quality standards (303d list); and expand existing ground water model across the region.
169. There were missing players, both in academia and legislative
170. Study boundaries should define themselves
171. Remediation, Rehabilitation, Reclamation, and Restoration do not mean the same.
172. QAPP

The End

Tri-State Mining District Forum, Joplin, MO.

The Tri-State Mining District Forum Goals were: to Promote Awareness, to Increase Coordination - Optomize Activities, and to Share Technical Information. The Agenda included:the History of Tri-State Mining District; discussion of Natural Resource Damage Assessment & Restoration (NRDAR); discussion of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); a review of the 10 Oklahoma Tribes; and
Technical Presentations:

(Aquatics)
1. Conceptual Hydrologic Model, Data Collection, Current USGS Modeling Activities, and Proposed Modeling in Tri-State Area
2. Florstic Quality Index
3. Residual Effects of Lead and Zinc Mining on Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the Spring River Basin
4. Bioavailability of Metals From Mining and Effects on Aquatic Organisims
5. Assessment of Trace Elements in Sediment in the Spring River/Empire Lake and Tar Creek Systems, Southeast Cherokee County, KS.
6. Development and Application of Empirically-Derived Sediment Quality Guidelines
7. Framework for the Ecological Assessment of Impacted Sediments at Mining Sites in Region 7

(National Resource Damage Assessment & Restoration)
8. Zinc Ecotoxicological Endpoints in Metal Contaminated Soils
9. Kansas Spring River Metal TMDLs(Total Maximum Daily Loads)
10. Zinc and lead Poisioning in Wild Birds in the Tri-State Mining District
11. Thoughts on Groundwater Valuation: Economic Methods and Issues

(Remedial Technologies)
12. Phosphate-Based Lead Stabilization at the Jasper County Site, Missouri
13. Subaqueous Disposal
14. Demonstration of Subaqueous Disposal of Mill Wastes, Jasper County, MO.
15. Passive Treatment Mine Sweeps

WOW! They Really Care About the Watershed!

You can't believe all of the activity that has been going on in the Spring River Watershed. I just attended the Tri-State Mining District Forum, April 12-14, 2005, at Missouri Southern State University, Joplin, MO. Below is a list of the organizations represented at the Forum.

Barr Engineering, Minneapolis, MN.
Black & Veach, Laurel Springs, NJ.
Cherokee Nation
Columbia Environmental Research Center
Doe Run Company, The
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
Empire District Electric Co.
Environmental Management Services Company
Freese & Nichols, Webb City, MO.
Harvard School of Public Health
Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Kansas Biological Survey
Kansas Department of Health & Environment(KDHE)
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
Kansas State University
Linebach Funkhouser, Inc., Louisville, KY.
Miami Tribe
Missouri American Water Company
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Missouri Office of Attorney's General
Newfields, LLC, Denver, CO.
Office of Surface Mining
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Ottawa Tribe
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Quapaw Tribe
Tribal Environmental Management Services
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
US Department of the Interior (DOI)
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 (USEPA)
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
US Geological Service (USGS)
US Geological Survey
Weston Solutions, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK.
Wyandotte Nation

MDNR Credits Carthage Stream Team

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Bruce Martin, Regional Director-Springfield, credits the Carthage High School Stream Team for calling the high levels of bacteria in Spring River to the attention of MDNR. Martin has already met with the Stream Team and reviewed the MDNR plan with them, in respose to their findings and concerns on Spring River. The Joplin Globe, April 2, 2005

Surf Your Watershed

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a web link called, Surf Your Watershed. This is a great resource for information about the Spring River Watershed.

USGS Data on Your Watershed

Here are the links to the USGS Spring River Watershed monitoring sites:

Spring River at Carthage, MO.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/uv?07185765

Spring River near Waco, MO.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/uv/?site_no=07186000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

Shoal Creek above Joplin, MO.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/uv/?site_no=07187000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

Spring River near Quapaw, OK.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ok/nwis/uv?07188000

Kansas Issues New Fish Consumption Advisory

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) have issued new fish consumption advisories for 2005. Guess what? Spring River is on the advisory, recommending "that eating specified fish or aquatic life be avoided". http://www.marc.org/newsreleases/kdhe010705.htm http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/fishing/are_my_fish_safe_to_eat

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) recommends that the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) process be implemented on a local level by a Watershed Stakeholders Committee (WSC). The ultimate goal of the WRAPS process is to create and implement a plan to restore the health of water bodies that do not meet their water quality standards. The WSC would have the responsibility of working with local and state agencies to develop a WRAPS plan. This plan should identify the following: public outreach methods; required monitoring activities based on water quality goals and outcomes; specific water quality problems; watershed coordinator/evaluator; actions to be taken to achieve water quality goals and outcomes; schedule for implementation of needed restoration measures; and funding needs.
The Spring River, Cow Creek and Shawnee Creek in Kansas are the largest tributaries in this watershed. It should be no surprise that 71% of the total miles of water in the watershed are contaminated and do not meet State standards. Are you interested in changing this embarssing statistic? Let me know if you're interested in organizing a WSC. KDHE has already placed the Spring River watershed on their priority list for water restoration. We need to start organizing a WRAPS. Will you join me in getting one started?

How Are They Doing?

The Missouri Department of Conservation has published their goals for the Spring River Basin. They are:

Goal 1: Improve water quality and maintain or improve water quantity in the Spring River Basin so all streams are capable of supporting native acquatic communities.

Goal 2: Improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions in the Spring River Basin to meet the needs of native aquatic species while accomodating demands for water and agriculture production.

Goal 3: Maintain diverse and abundant populations of native aquatic organisms while accomodating angler demands for quality fishing.

Goal 4:Improve the public's appreciation for stream resources and increase recreational use of streams in the Spring River Basin.

How do you think the Department of Conservation is doing?

What would you suggest needs to be done first?

What would you be willing to help with?

Is There Someplace Else That Needs to be Checked?

The following are locations of Stream Habitat Sampling Sites (SHAD) in the Spring River Basin: Asbury, Avilla, Carl Junction, Carthage, Chesapeake, Dudenville, Exeter, Fidelity, Golden City, Granby, Jasper, Joplin-East, Joplin-West, Kenoma, Lamar-South, La Russell, Maple Grove, Milford, Miller, Mindenmines, Monett, Mt. Vernon, Nashville, Neck City, Neosho, Neosho-East, Newtonia, Pierce City, Purdy, Reeds, Rescue, Rocky Comfort, Sarcoxie, Stotts City, Tipton Ford, Webb City, Wheaton.
Is there another location that you think should be checked?

Do These Sound Familiar?

The following lists are causes/sources of fish kills in the Spring River Basin, according to the Missouri Department of Conservation. Do these contaminants sound familiar? How many times does it have to happen before we say, STOP IT!

Barry County:Industrial waste, Hog manure, Poultry Process water, Ammonia, Sewage (3 times) , Agricultural manure.

Barton County:Toxins, Fertilizer, Spawning stress, Sewage, Petroleum, Animal fat spill, Landfill leachate, Agriculture byproduct, Ammonia phosphate, Ammonia.

Dade County: Truck spill.

Jasper County: Industrial wastes, Anhydrous ammonia, Ammonium hydroxide, Asphalt sealer, Potassium hydroxide, Hydrochloric acid, Urea ammonia(2 times), Acid Mine drainage, Sewage(5 times), Pipeline break, Truck spill, Ammonia, Acid, Sulfuric acid, Chemical spill (11 times), Petroleum, Kerosene, Acid/Alkali spill, heavy metal.

Lawrence County: Sewage effluent, Sewage(8 times), Food spill, Ammonia, Dioxin, Oil spill, Hog waste.

Newton County: Aquashade, Dursban, Bentonite, Municipal wastes, Diesel fuel, Aquatic habitat destruction, Pipeline break, Railway spill, Lindane, Demolition material.

Escherichia coli (E. coli 0157:H7)

Escherichia coli (also known as E. coli 0157:H7) is a natural part of a river ecosystem. It is the concentration of E. coli that is a health hazzard. The Carthage Missouri High School Stream Team reported the following levels on E. coli during the Public Hearing on February 16, 2005. The US Environmental Protection Agency has determined that if levels of E. coli exceed 235 organisms (Colony Forming Unit or Cfu) per 100 mL of water, a health risk to humans may exist and recreational waters should be closed to the public. In Vermont, the health protective level in recreational water is set at 77 organisms per 100 mL of swimming water. In Indiana the maximum level is 125. In Missouri, there is a proposal to lower the maximum level to 126; currently the maximum level in Missouri is 200. The average E. coli level in Spring River is 329.
Site #2
06/26/2004 235.9 E. coli, Cfu/100mL
07/24/2004 1,203.13
08/28/2004 231.0
09/18/2004 344.8
09/25/2004 166.4
10/01/2004 461.1
10/02/2004 920.8
10/07/2004 2,419.6
10/08/2004 1,413.6
10/08/2004 980.4
10/22/2004 196.8

Site #3
06/26/2004 290.9 E. coli, Cfu/100 mL
07/24/2004 1,986.28
08/28/2004 77.6
09/18/2004 172.0
09/25/2004 172.3
10/01/2004 461.1
10/02/2004 344.1
10/08/2004 816.4
10/22/2004 63.8

The high levels of E. coli can be due to leaking and overflowing of sanitary sewer systems, leaking septic tanks, effluent discharges from animal production facilities or the release of animal feces into the water. What do you think? Were you in Spring River on any of these dates?

We All Live Downstream From Someone!

We all live down-river, or down-stream, from someone. Have you ever thought about what someone does up-river from you, is affecting your water quality? Conversely, have you ever thought about what you are doing will affect a neighbor, a family member, a community or a friend, down-stream. Here are some of the communities that might be up-river or down-river from where you live. Are you eating fish from, swimming in, or drinking water from a portion of the Spring River Watershed that is being polluted, and contaminated by your 'neighbor' up-stream?

Aurora, Baxter Springs, Carl Junction, Carterville, Carthage, Exeter, Fairview, Galena, Granby, Joplin, Marionville, Miller, Mt. Vernon, Neosho, Newtonia, Picher. Pierce City, Purdy, Quapaw, Purdy, Ritchey, Riverton, Sarcoxie, Stotts City, Verona, Waco, Webb City, Weir, Wheaton, and Wyandotte.

What Do These All Have in Common?

Q: What do all of the following creeks, streams and rivers have in common?

Big Spring, Blackberry Creek, Brush Creek, Buck Branch, Buffalo Creek, Capps Creek, Cedar Creek, Center Creek, Clear Creek, Cow Creek, Dry Fork, East Cow Creek, Elm Branch, Elm Springs Branch, Glendale Fork, Hickory Creek, Honey Creek, Indian Creek, Jenkins Creek, Jones Creek, Joyce Creek, Little North Fork, Little Shawnee Creek, Long Branch, Lost Creek, North Fork, Pettis Creek, Shawnee Creek, Shoal Creek, Spring River, Stahl Creek, Taylor Branch, Truitt Creek, Turkey Creek, West Fork, White Oak Creek, Williams Creek and Willow Creek.

A: They are all part of the Spring River Watershed. [In fact, there are even three more, unnamed tributaries: T26N, R32W, S28-unnamed tributary to Cedar Creek; T28N, R33W, S15-tributary to Center Creek; and T29, R29W, S15-tributary to White Oak Creek].

Joplin Globe Articles about Spring River problems

Here are recent articles published in The Joplin Globe (Missouri), www.joplinglobe.com, about efforts to identify the environmental problem(s) in Spring River.

4/21/2004 Stream Team Reports Additional Findings, http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=53094

7/2/2004 Elevated Bacteria Cause for Concern, http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=62034

9/20/2004 Confluent Interests Staff Members, http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=71206

2/13/2005 Bacteria in River 'Off Scale', http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=87722

2/18/2005 County Panel Urged to Enter River-Bacteria Issue, http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/story.php?story_id=88209

We're Already on Someones Radar Screen.

In addition to identifying the problem(s), the challenge is identifying all of the resources available. Below is my attempt to begin gathering the information that already exists on Spring River and the problems that have been identified. The following links are from US Environmental Protection Agency.

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/huc_rept.control?p_huc=11070207&p_huc_desc=SPRING

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/waters_list.control?huc=11070207&wbname=SPRING%20RIVER&wbtype=STREAM%2FCREEK%2FRIVER

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/waters_list.control?state=MO&cycle=2002&huc=11070207

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/waters_list.control?state=OK&cycle=2002&huc=11070207

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/waters_list.control?state=KS&cycle=2002&huc=11070207

Where do you start, upstream or downstream?

This is a first for me, getting innvolved for an environmental cause. It just seemed like the right cause, the right time and the right place. Apparently, I'm not the first one to think that there is a problem. Spring River is already identified as USGS Watershed No. 11070207. The Missouri Department of Conservation already has a file on it.

It has already been listed as a "impaired waters" in Missouri and Kansas. As with any project, awareness, resources, communication, volunteers, a Plan and enthusasm are what it takes to be successful. Regrettably, Spring River has been neglected, ignored, and taken for granted by many people, businesses, communities and 'neighbors'. I suppose that identifying resources and volunteers will be the first task. Awareness will be a close second.

Below is an excerpt from Spring River Watershed Inventory and Assessment, referenced above. The Spring River Basin is located in southwest Missouri in Barry, Barton, Christian, Dade, Jasper, Lawrence, Newton, and Stone counties. The basin lies along the border between the Osage Plains and Springfield Plateau physiographic regions. The Spring River originates along the Barry-Lawrence county line south of Verona, flows west-northeast to its confluence with the North Fork of the Spring River east of Asbury in Jasper County and then southwest into Kansas and Grand Lake of the Cherokees in Oklahoma. Major tributaries within the basin are the North Fork of the Spring River, Center Creek, Turkey Creek, and Shoal Creek. Numerous smaller tributaries flow throughout the basin.

Southwest Missouri, Southeast Kansas and Northest Oklahoma are all dependent on, and should be concerned about, Spring River. Help me get this started.