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."