quality of surface water in missouri, water year 2007 · by william otero-benítez and jerri v....

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2009–1096Revised October 2009

Prepared in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2007

Cover picture shows USGS personnel 1. Installing a continous water-quality monitor. 2. Processing indicator bacteria plates. 3. Collecting surface water-quality sample using Equal Width Increment (EWI) method. 4. Measuring streamflow with StreamPro. 5. Servicing a continuous water-quality monitor. 6. Measuring streamflow with ADCP. 7. Measuring pH of a surface water-quality sample. 8. Collecting a surface water-quality sample for pesticide analysis. 9. Collecting a surface water-quality sample from a bridge using a D-96 sampler.

1 2

34

5

8

97

6


By William Otero-Benítez and Jerri V. Davis

In cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Open-File Report 2009–1096

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the InteriorKEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological SurveySuzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009Revised: 2009

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:Otero-Benítez, W., and Davis, J.V., 2009, Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2007: U.S. Geological Sur-vey Open-file Report 2009–1096,19 p. (Revised October 2009)

iii

ContentsAbstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1The Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network.....................................................................................1Laboratory Reporting Conventions .............................................................................................................2Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................................................2Station Classification for Data Analysis .....................................................................................................2Summary of Hydrologic Conditions ............................................................................................................5Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Selected Constituents ..............................5

Distribution of Physical Properties and Fecal Coliform Bacteria .................................................7Distribution and Concentration of Dissolved Nitrate Plus Nitrite and Total Phosphorus .........7Distribution and Concentration of Dissolved and Total Recoverable Lead and Zinc ..............15Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Selected Pesticides from

Selected Stations ..................................................................................................................15References Cited..........................................................................................................................................19

Figures 1–2. Maps showing: 1. Location and class of selected Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN)

stations, Missouri, water year 2007 ...........................................................................................6 2. Physiographic regions of Missouri ............................................................................................8 3. Graph showing 2007 water-year monthly mean discharge and long-term median of

monthly mean discharges at six representative streamflow gaging stations ....................9 4–6. Boxplots showing: 4. Distribution of physical properties and fecal coliform bacteria indicator densities in

samples from 64 stations in the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007 ...........................................................................................................................11

5. Concentration distribution of dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total phosphorus in samples from 64 stations in the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007 ...........................................................................................................................12

6. Concentration distribution of dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc in samples from 64 stations in the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007 ......................................................................................................................................14

7. Graph showing the distribution and detection of selected pesticides from selected sta-tions in the Ambient Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007 ...............16

iv

Tables 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station number and name of the 64 selected Ambient

Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) stations ........................................................3 2. Classification system ...................................................................................................................7 3. Peak discharge for the 2007 water year and for period of record for selected

stations .........................................................................................................................................10 4. Comparison of 2007 water year 7-day low flow and 7-day low flow for the period of

record for selected stations ......................................................................................................10

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)cubic meter (m3) 264.2 gallon (gal)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (µS/cm at 25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (µg/L).

AbstractThe U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Mis-

souri Department of Natural Resources, designed and operates a series of monitoring stations on streams throughout Missouri known as the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network. During the 2007 water year (October 1, 2006 through Sep-tember 30, 2007), data were collected at 67 stations including two U.S. Geological Survey National Stream Quality Account-ing Network stations and one spring sampled in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. Dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus nitrite, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc, and selected pesticide data summaries are presented for 64 of these stations, which primarily have been classified in groups corresponding to the physiography of the State, main land use, or unique station types. In addition, a summary of hydrologic conditions in the State during water year 2007 is presented.

IntroductionThe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation

with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), collects data pertaining to the water resources of Missouri each water year (October 1 to September 30). These data are collected as part of the Missouri Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) and stored and maintained in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database. These data constitute a valuable source of reliable, impartial, and timely information for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make this information readily available, these data were published annu-ally from water years 1964 to 2005 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1964-2005). The published data for the 2006 and 2007 water years are now available on the World Wide Web and can be accessed at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov.

The MDNR is in charge of the implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in Missouri. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires that each State develop a water-quality monitoring program and periodically report the status of its water quality (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997).

Water-quality status is described in terms of the waters’ suitability for various uses, such as drinking water, fishing, swimming, and aquatic life; these uses are formally defined as “designated uses” in State and Federal Regulations. Sec-tion 303(d) of the CWA requires that certain waters that do not meet applicable water-quality standards be identified, and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) be determined for these waters (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997).

Missouri has an area of approximately 69,000 square miles (mi2) and an estimated population of 5.88 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) with 22,216 miles (mi) of clas-sified streams that support recreation, agriculture, industry, transportation, and public utilities. An estimated 8,541 mi of stream are adversely affected (impaired) by various physical changes or chemical contaminants to the point that at least one of the waterbody uses has been lost (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2007).

The purpose of this report is to summarize ambient water-quality data collected cooperatively by the USGS and MDNR for water year 2007. Data on the physical characteristics and water-quality constituents in samples collected at 64 surface-water stations are presented in figures and tables. These 64 sta-tions were classified based on the physiography of the State, main land use, or unique station types.

The Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network

The USGS, in cooperation with the MDNR, designed and operates the cooperative AWQMN, which is a series of monitoring stations on streams throughout Missouri. Constitu-ent concentration data from the AWQMN are used to deter-mine statewide water-quality status and trends in order to meet many of the information needs of State agencies involved in water-quality planning and management. The information collected provides support for the design, implementation, and evaluation of preventive and remediation programs.

The objectives of the AWQMN are (1) to obtain informa-tion on the quality and quantity of surface water within the State; (2) provide a historical database of water-quality infor-mation that can be used by the State planning and management agencies to make informed decisions about cultural impacts on the State’s surface waters; and (3) provide for consistent


By William Otero-Benítez and Jerri V. Davis

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov

2 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2007

methodology in data collection, laboratory analysis, and data reporting.

The MDNR and the USGS have maintained a fixed-sta-tion AWQMN in Missouri since 1964. During the 2007 water year, the program consisted of 67 stations including two USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) stations and one spring sampled in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. From these 67 stations, 64 are included in this report (table 1). Of the 64 stations, 2 were sampled 14 times, 28 were sampled 12 times, 1 was sampled 10 times, 29 were sampled 9 times, 3 were sampled 7 times, and 1 was sampled 4 times during the 2007 water year. Sampling frequency is determined by a number of factors that include the drainage basin size, potential effects from cultural activity, history of chemical change, the need for short-term data, and cost. Three stations did not fit in the groups (classes) defined in the study, and it was decided not to include them. The three excluded stations were 05514500 and 06907300 located in the Ozark Plateau border and 07053700 which is Lake Taneycomo at Branson, MO.

The unique 8- to 10-digit number used by the USGS to identify each surface-water station is assigned when a sta-tion is first established and is retained for that station almost indefinitely. The system used by the USGS to assign identi-fication numbers to surface-water stations specifies the order as increasing downstream along the mainstems. A station on a tributary that enters between two mainstem stations is listed between them. The complete 8-digit number for each sta-tion such as 05587455, includes the 2-digit part number “05” which designates major river systems (05 is the Upper Mis-sissippi River, 06 is the Missouri River, and 07 is the Lower Mississippi River) plus the 6-digit downstream-order number “587455”.

Methods used by the USGS for collecting and processing representative water-quality samples are presented in detail in U.S. Geological Survey (variously dated). Onsite measure-ments of dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance, and water temperature were done at each site according to procedures described in Wilde (chapter sections variously dated). Samples were collected and analyzed for fecal indica-tor bacteria [fecal coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli)] using the membrane filtration procedure described in Myers and others (2007). Methods used by the USGS for collecting and processing representative samples for nutrients, major ion, trace element, suspended solids and sediment, and pesticide analysis are presented in detail in U.S. Geological Survey (2006) and Wilde and others (2004). All chemical analyses were done by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado, according to procedures described in Fishman and Friedman (1989), Fishman (1993), and Zaugg and others (1995).

Laboratory Reporting ConventionsThe NWQL uses a method and reporting convention

for establishing the minimum concentration above which a quantitative measurement could be made. These report-ing conventions are the method reporting level (MRL) and laboratory reporting level (LRL). The method detection level (MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the concentration is greater than zero. Reporting levels typically are set higher than the MDL. A long-term method detection limit (LT-MDL) is a detection level obtained by determining the standard deviation of 20 or more MDL spiked-sample measurements conducted over an extended time. The MRL is defined by the NWQL as the smallest measured concentration of a substance that can be reliably measured using a given ana-lytical method. The LRL is computed as twice the LT-MDL. In box and whiskers distributions (boxplots), values reported less than the LRL, MRL, or as “E” (estimated to be below the MRL) were included in each distribution as a value equal to the MRL or LRL.

Data Analysis MethodsThe distribution of selected constituent data was graphi-

cally displayed using side-by-side boxplots (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002, p. 24–26). The plots show the center of the data (median—the center line of the boxplot), the variation [inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentiles)—the box height], the skewness (quartile skew—the relative size of the box halves), the spread (upper and lower adjacent values—vertical lines or whiskers), and the presence or absence of unusual values, or outliers (individual points). If the median equals the 25th and 75th percentiles, the boxplot is represented by a line. Boxplots constructed for sites with censored data (data reported less than some threshold) were modified by making the lower limit of the box equal to the MRL.

Station Classification for Data AnalysisThe stations primarily were classified (fig. 1; table 2) in

groups (capitalized) corresponding to the physiography of the State (fig. 2), main land use, or unique station types. The physiography groups include the Plains (PLAINS) in the north and west, the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MIALPL) in the southeast, and between them the Ozark Plateaus. The Ozark Plateaus are further subdivided into two distinct sections based on physiographic location, the Salem Section (OZPLSA) and the Springfield Section (OZPLSP) (Fenneman, 1938). Main land uses include mining (MINING) and urban (URBAN) sta-tions, while the unique station types refer to springs (SPRING) and the stations located on the big rivers [the Mississippi

Station Classification for Data Analysis 3

Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station number and name of the 64 selected Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) stations.

USGS station number

Station name

05495000 Fox River at Wayland05500000 South Fabius River near Taylor05587455 Mississippi River below Grafton, Ill.06817700 Nodaway River near Graham06818000 Missouri River at St. Joseph

06821190 Platte River at Sharps Station06896187 Middle Fork Grand River near Grant City06898100 Thompson River near Mt. Moriah06898800 Weldon River at Princeton06899580 No Creek near Dunlap

06899950 Medicine Creek at Harris06900100 Little Medicine Creek near Harris06900900 Locust Creek near Unionville06902000 Grand River near Sumner06905500 Chariton River near Prairie Hill

06905725 Musselfork near Mystic06906300 East Fork Little Chariton River near Huntsville06918070 Osage River above Schell City06918600 Little Sac River near Walnut Grove06921070 Pomme de Terre River near Polk

06921582 South Grand River below Freeman06923700 Niangua River below Bennett Spring06926510 Osage River below St. Thomas06928440 Roubidoux Spring at Waynesville06930450 Big Piney River at Devil’s Elbow

06930800 Gasconade River above Jerome06934500 Missouri River at Hermann07014000 Huzzah Creek near Steelville07014200 Courtois Creek at Berryman07014500 Meramec River near Sullivan

07016400 Bourbeuse River above Union07018100 Big River near Richwoods07019280 Meramec River at Paulina Hills

07021000 Castor River at Zalma07022000 Mississippi River at Thebes, Ill.


Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station number and name of the 64 selected Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) stations.—Continued

USGS station number

Station name

07036100 St. Francis River near Saco07037300 Big Creek at Sam A. Baker State Park07042450 St. Johns Ditch near Henderson Mound07046250 Little River Ditches near Rives07050150 Roaring River Spring near Cassville

07052152 Wilson Creek near Brookline07052250 James River near Boaz07052345 Finley Creek below Riverdale

07052500 James River at Galena07052820 Flat Creek below Jenkins

07053810 Bull Creek near Walnut Shade07053900 Swan Creek near Swan07054080 Beaver Creek at Bradleyville07057500 North Fork River near Tecumseh07057750 Bryant Creek below Evans

07061600 Black River below Annapolis07066110 Jacks Fork above Two Rivers 07067500 Big Spring near Van Buren07068000 Current River at Doniphan07068510 Little Black River below Fairdealing

07071000 Greer Spring at Greer07071500 Eleven Point River near Bardley07186480 Center Creek near Smithfield07186600 Turkey Creek near Joplin07188653 Big Sugar Creek near Powell

07188838 Little Sugar Creek near Pineville07188885 Indian Creek near Lanagan07189000 Elk River near Tiff City07189100 Buffalo Creek at Tiff City

Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Selected Constituents 5

River (BRMIG, BRMIT) and the Missouri River (BRMOS, BRMOH)].

Some additional variability was observed on account of differences in drainage area and land use within regions; there-fore, secondary size and land-use indicators were employed to develop a complete set of classes. The secondary land-use indicator (in lower case) (fig. 1; table 2) provides a subclassi-fication for stations in similar regions with different land uses. The secondary land-use indicators are: watershed indicators (wi), which identify the most downstream stations of a large watershed; forest (fo); and agricultural (ag). Observations and analyses from watershed indicator stations can be interpreted as representative of the general condition of the watershed. In some instances, the agricultural and forest secondary land use were present, hence, the convention was to men-tion them in predominant order. For example, an agriculture/forest (ag/fo) indicator implies that the main land use of the watershed is agriculture, although a substantial fraction of it is considered forest.

Summary of Hydrologic ConditionsSurface-water streamflow varies seasonally in Missouri

and tends to reflect precipitation patterns. During 2007, a series of storms brought flooding, millions of dollars in dam-ages, and loss of life from Texas to Kansas and Missouri in June and July (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration, 2008). Using six streamflow gaging stations, selected for their long period of continuous records and location in different physiographic regions, the 2007 water year monthly mean discharges and the long-term median of monthly mean discharges are illustrated (fig. 3) over the State. Of these six stations, three (05495000 Fox River at Wayland, 06934500 Missouri River at Hermann, and 07052500 James River at Galena) (fig. 3) belong to the AWQMN. The additional three stations (06897500 Grand River near Gallatin, 06933500 Gas-conade River at Jerome, and 07067000 Current River at Van Buren) (fig. 3) are not part of the AWQMN.

For the 2007 water year, the annual mean precipitation was approximately 1 inch below the long-term (historic) mean statewide (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, 2007). However, some monthly mean discharges were reported substantially above the long-term median of the monthly mean discharges (fig. 3). This tendency was observed mainly at the gaging stations located in the northern part of the State ( 05495000 Fox River at Wayland and 06897500 Grand River near Gallatin) during the last three quarters of the the 2007 water year.

The gaging stations in the central part of the State (06933500 Gasconade River at Jerome and 06934500 Mis-souri River at Hermann) showed discharge values (fig. 3) simi-lar to the historic median of monthly mean values with some exceptions during December, January, and the last quarter of the 2007 water year, where monthly mean discharge values

were above the historic median of monthly mean discharge values. The gaging station in the southwestern part of the State (07052500 James River at Galena) showed monthly mean values (fig. 3) consistently above the historical median of monthly means with exceptions during the months of March, June, and August of the 2007 water year. In the southeast-ern part of the State, the gaging station (07067000 Current River at Van Buren) showed monthly mean values consis-tently above the median of the historic means during the first 5 months of the 2007 water year.

Peak discharges of the 2007 water year were compared to the peak discharges for the period of record at nine selected streamflow gaging stations (table 3). Of these gaging stations, six (05495000 Fox River at Wayland, 06905500 Chariton River near Prairie Hill, 06934500 Missouri River at Hermann, 07022000 Mississippi River at Thebes, Ill., 07057500 North Fork River near Tecumseh, and 07068000 Current River at Doniphan) belong to the AWQMN and three (05587450 Mis-sissippi River at Grafton, Ill., 06933500 Gasconade River at Jerome, and 07019000 Meramec River near Eureka) do not. Because water-quality standards are based on low-flow condi-tions, the 7-day low flow for the 2007 water year is compared to the 7-day low flow and minimum flow for selected stations in table 4.

Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Selected Constituents

Physical properties, densities of fecal coliform bacteria, and concentrations of major chemical constituents, nutrients, and trace elements were determined in samples collected from all AWQMN stations. The analyses presented in this report include the following contituents: DO, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrite plus nitrate, total phosphorus, and dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc. In addition, pesticides were collected at seven stations in the AWQMN. The following pesticides were chosen for analysis in this report: 2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine (CIAT; a transformation product of atrazine), acetochlor, ala-chlor, atrazine, metolachlor, metribuzin, molinate, prometon, and simazine. The selection of these constituents was based on: (1) values or concentrations of the selected constituents are characteristic of stream-water quality in the different physio-graphic areas and occur because of natural causes, and (2) val-ues and concentrations of the selected constituents are above background concentrations, and in some cases, have resulted in the 303(d) listing of the stream as impaired. Boxplots are presented for the different classes (figs. 4–6).


Figu

re 1

. Lo

catio

n an

d cl

ass

of s

elec

ted

Ambi

ent W

ater

-Qua

lity

Mon

itorin

g N

etw

ork

(AW

QMN

) sta

tions

, Mis

sour

i, w

ater

yea

r 200

7.

Mis

sour

i

River

Miss

issip

pi

Rive

r

0689

6187

0705

4080

0705

2345

0705

3810

0702

2000

0718

9100

0718

8885

0718

8838

0549

5000

0689

8100

0681

7700

0550

0000

0681

8000

0690

2000

0690

5500 06

9063

0006

8211

90

0693

4500

0692

6510

0701

8100

0701

4500

0691

8070

0692

1070

0703

6100

0702

1000

0705

2152

0718

6600

0705

2250

0706

7500

0705

2500

0707

1000

0707

1500

0705

7500

0718

9000

0718

6480

0706

8510

0706

8000

0706

6110

0706

1600

0705

7750

0705

3900

0705

2820

0705

0150

0704

6250

0704

2450

0703

7300

0701

9280

0701

6400

0701

4200

0701

4000

0693

0800

0693

0450

0692

8440

0692

3700

0692

1582

0691

8600

0690

5725

0690

0900

0690

0100

0689

9950

0689

9580

0558

7455

0689

8800

0718

8653

'

"

"

#

#

#

#

'

''

'

$

$

$

$

#

#

#

"

"

""

"

!

!

!

!

$$

$$$

$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$$

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

$$

$

$

$

$

$$+

)

)

))

)

))

)

)

)*

))

(

)

)

+

* ++

+++

*

++

*

+

+

)+

+

++

++

+

+

+

(

+

)

)

+

+

++

+*

*

+

+

*

(

)

(

+ +

90°

91°

92°

93°

94°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

36°

Uni

vers

al T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor p

roje

ctio

n, Z

one

15H

oriz

onta

l coo

rdin

ate

info

rmat

ion

refe

renc

ed to

the

Nor

th A

mer

ican

Dat

um o

f 198

3 (N

AD

83)

030

60 M

ILES

15

020

4060

KIL

OMET

ERS

EX

PLA

NAT

ION

' '

Stre

am

Stat

ion

num

ber—

Am

bien

t Mon

itorin

g W

ater

Qua

lity

Net

wor

k (A

WQ

MN

) Cla

sses

Big

riv

ers (

BR

MIG

, BR

MIT

, BR

MO

S,

and

BR

MO

H)

Mis

siss

ippi

Allu

vial

Pla

in (M

IALP

L)

Oza

rk P

late

aus—

Sale

m P

late

au S

ectio

n F

ores

t/Agr

icul

ture

(OZP

LSA

fo/a

g)

Oza

rk P

late

aus—

Sale

m P

late

au S

ectio

n W

ater

shed

Indi

cato

r (O

ZPLS

A w

i fo/

ag)

Oza

rk P

late

aus—

Sprin

gfie

ld P

late

au S

ectio

n A

gric

ultu

re/F

ores

t (O

ZPLS

P ag

/fo)

Plai

ns A

gric

ultu

re (P

LAIN

S ag

)

Plai

ns W

ater

shed

Indi

cato

r (P

LAIN

S w

i ag)

Spri

ngs (

SPR

ING

)

Min

ing

(MIN

ING

)

Urb

an (U

RB

AN

)

Urb

an W

ater

shed

Indi

cato

r (U

RB

AN

wi)

!( # *") ") ")$+$+

$+ #*

0550

0000


Distribution of Physical Properties and Fecal Coliform Bacteria

The physical properties analyzed for this report were DO, temperature, specific conductance, suspended solids, and sus-pended sediments. The median DO, in percent saturation, was similar for all station types, ranging from 81 to 101 (fig. 4). Samples from PLAINS ag and URBAN stations had the low-est DO percent saturation values. Median water temperature values also were similar for all station types, ranging from 12.2 to 18.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (fig. 4). The smallest range in water temperature was found at SPRING stations. Median specific conductance values varied substantially among the station types, ranging from 274 to 724 microsiemens per centi-meter at 25°C (fig. 4). The largest median specific conductance values were found at the Big River and URBAN stations, with the largest median value at BRMOS. The next largest median specific conductance values were found at MINING and PLAINS ag stations. MIALPL, OZPLSA fo/ag, OZPLSA wi fo/ag, OZPLSP ag/fo, and SPRINGS had the smallest median specific conductance values.

Suspended solids and suspended sediment are mea-sures of the solid material suspended in the water column. These two measures are not considered directly comparable because of differences in collection and analytical techniques. Suspended-sediment concentrations were determined only at the four Big River stations and one station in the OZPLSA fo/ag category; suspended-solids concentrations were determined at all other stations. Median-suspended solids concentrations

varied considerably between all station types, ranging from <10 to 159 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (fig. 4). Samples col-lected at BRMIG, BRMOS, and PLAINS wi ag stations had the largest median suspended-solids concentrations, while samples collected at all OZPL (SA fo/ag, SA wi fo/ag, and SP ag/fo), SPRING, MINING, and URBAN stations had the smallest. Median suspended-sediment concentrations ranged from 132 to 474 mg/L at the four Big River stations, which is substantially larger than the median of 4 mg/L at the one OZPLSA fo/ag station (fig. 4).

Fecal coliform bacteria densities varied considerably between all station types, ranging from 13 to 310 colonies per 100 milliliters (fig. 4). The largest median densities were found in samples collected at BRMOH, PLAINS ag, PLAINS wi ag, and URBAN stations; the smallest median densities were found at OZPLSA wi fo/ag and SPRING stations.

Distribution and Concentration of Dissolved Nitrate plus Nitrite and Total Phosphorus

Filtered and unfiltered samples were collected at all stations for the analysis of nutrients, including dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total phosphorus. Median dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total phosphorus concentrations varied considerably between all station types, ranging from 0.22 to 3.64 mg/L nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen and from <0.04 to 0.42 mg/L total phosphorus as phosphorus (fig. 5). The largest median dissolved nitrate plus nitrite concentrations were found in samples collected at all Big River (BRMIG and BRMIT

Table 2. Classification system.

Class (fig. 1) DescriptionNumber of

stations

BRMIG Big River – Mississipi River at Grafton 1

BRMIT Big River – Mississipi River at Thebes 1

BRMOS Big River – Missouri River at St. Joseph 1

BRMOH Big River – Missouri River at Hermann 1

MIALPL Mississippi Alluvial Plain 2

OZPLSA fo/ag Ozark Plateaus – Salem Plateau Section (forest and agriculture) 18

OZPLSA wi fo/ag Ozark Plateaus – Salem Plateau Section (watershed indicator, forest and agriculture) 4

OZPLSP ag/fo Ozark Plateaus – Springfield Plateau Section (agriculture and forest) 8

PLAINS ag Plains (agriculture) 11

PLAINS wi ag Plains (watershed indicator and agriculture) 5

SPRING Springs 4

MINING Mining 3

URBAN Urban 4

URBAN wi Urban (watershed indicator) 1


Figure 2. Physiographic regions of Missouri.

EXPLANATION

Plains Ozark Plateaus-Salem Plateau Section

Ozark Plateaus-Springfield Plateau SectionMississippi Alluvial Plain

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15Horizontal coordinate information referenced to theNorth American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

89°90°91°92°93°94°95°96°

40°

39°

38°

37°

36°

Modified from Fenneman, 19380 50 100 MILES25

0 100 150 KILOMETERS50


Figure 3. 2007 water-year monthly mean discharge and long-term median of monthly mean discharges at six representative streamflow gaging stations.

2007 water year monthly mean discharge

Long-term median of monthly mean discharges

EXPLANATION

1

10

100

1,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept


Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug SeptDIS

CHA

RGE,

IN C

UB

IC F

EET

PER

SECO

ND


05495000 Fox River at Wayland 06897500 Grand River near Gallatin

06933500 Gasconade River at Jerome 06934500 Missouri River at Hermann

07052500 James River at Galena 07067000 Current River at Van Buren

0 50 100 MILES

0 100 KILOMETERS50

0706700007052500

06934500

06933500

0549500006897500


Table 3. Peak discharge for the 2007 water year and for period of record for selected stations.

U.S. Geological Survey station

number1

Station name (period of record in water years)

Peak discharge during 2007 water year

Peak discharge for long-term period of record

Cubic feet per second

DateCubic feet per second

Date

05495000 Fox River at Wayland (1922–2007) 7,090 February 25 26,400 April 22, 1973

05587450 Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois (1928–2007) 269,000 April 15 598,000 August 1, 1993

06905500 Chariton River near Prairie Hill (1929–2007) 25,000 May 7 37,100 May 13, 2002

06933500 Gasconade River at Jerome (1923–2007) 15,400 August 22 136,000 December 5, 1982

06934500 Missouri River at Hermann (1898–2007) 301,000 May 12 750,000 July 31, 1993

07019000 Meramec River near Eureka (1922–2007) 29,900 January 16 145,000 December 6, 1982

07022000 Mississippi River at Thebes, Illinois (1933–2007) 491,000 May 13 996,000 August 7, 1993

07057500 North Fork River near Tecumseh (1945–2007) 17,000 December 1 133,000 November 19, 1985

07068000 Current River at Doniphan (1919–2007) 30,600 December 2 122,000 December 3, 19821 Stations 05587450, 06933500, and 07019000 do not belong to the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network.

Table 4. Comparison of 2007 water year 7-day low flow and 7-day low flow for the period of record for selected stations.

[flows in cubit feet per second]

U.S. Geological Survey station

number1

Station name (period of record in water years)

7-day low flows Minimum flows for period of record

2007 Period of record Discharge Date

05495000 Fox River at Wayland (1922–2007) 0.14 0 0 Several years

06820500 Platte River near Agency (1933–2007) 78 0 0 Several years

06921070 Pomme de Terre river near Polk (1969–2007) 1.3 .34 .3 August 10, 1980

07016500 Bourbeuse River near Union (1921–2007) 30 13 11 October 10, 1956

07067000 Current River at Van Buren (1912–2007) 648 479 473 October 7, 1956

07187000 Shoal Creek above Joplin (1942–2007) 55 16 12 September 7, 19541 Stations 06820500, 07016500, 07067000 and 07187000 do not belong to the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network.


Num

ber o

f v

alue

s

EXPL

AN

ATI

ON

Upp

er a

djac

ent

75th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

25th

per

cent

ile

Low

er a

djac

ent

Low

er o

utsi

de

Low

er d

etac

hed

Upp

er d

etac

hed

Upp

er o

utsi

de

12

BRMIGBRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIALP

L

MININ

G

OZPLSA fo

/ag

OZPLSA w

i fo/ag

OZPLSP ag/fo PLAIN

S agPLA

INS w

i ag

SPRING

URBAN URBAN wi

DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN PERCENT OF SATURATION WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

BRMIGBRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIALP

L

MININ

G

OZPLSA fo

/ag

OZPLSA w

i fo/ag

OZPLSP ag/fo PLAIN

S agPLA

INS w

i ag

SPRING

URBAN URBAN wi

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETERAT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS

400 30 20 10 050100

150

200

250

0

200

400

600

800

1,00

0

1,20

0

1,40

014

1415

1221

2718

044

9810

558

3251

12

1414

1512

2127

180

4587

105

5832

5112

1414

1412

2127

180

4487

105

5831

4912

CLAS

S

CLAS

S

Figu

re 4

. Di

strib

utio

n of

phy

sica

l pro

perti

es a

nd fe

cal c

olifo

rm b

acte

ria in

dica

tor d

ensi

ties

in s

ampl

es fr

om 6

4 st

atio

ns in

the

Ambi

ent W

ater

-Qua

lity

Mon

itorin

g N

etw

ork

(AW

QMN

), w

ater

yea

r 200

7.


SUSPENDED SOLIDS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA, IN COLONIES PER 100 MILLILITERS OF WATER

1412

2127

179

4587

104

5832

4712

0

Min

imum

Rep

ortin

g Le

vel i

s 10

SUSPENDED SEDIMENT, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1414

1435

00

90

00

00

00

Min

umum

Rep

ortin

g Le

vel i

s 1

1414

1412

2127

179

4587

103

5832

4912

Min

imum

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

is 1

0

Num

ber o

f v

alue

s

EXPL

AN

ATI

ON

Upp

er a

djac

ent

75th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

25th

per

cent

ile

Low

er a

djac

ent

Low

er o

utsi

de

Low

er d

etac

hed

Upp

er d

etac

hed

Upp

er o

utsi

de

12

BRMIGBRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIALP

L

MININ

G

OZPLSA fo

/ag

OZPLSA w

i fo/ag

OZPLSP ag/fo PLAIN

S agPLA

INS w

i ag

SPRING

URBAN URBAN wi

BRMIGBRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIALP

L

MININ

G

OZPLSA fo

/ag

OZPLSA w

i fo/ag

OZPLSP ag/fo PLAIN

S agPLA

INS w

i ag

SPRING

URBAN URBAN wi

1,00

0

100 10 1

100

1,00

0

110100

1,00

0

10,0

00

100,

000

CLAS

S

CLAS

S

10

Figu

re 4

. Di

strib

utio

n of

phy

sica

l pro

perti

es a

nd fe

cal c

olifo

rm b

acte

ria in

dica

tor d

ensi

ties

in s

ampl

es fr

om 6

4 st

atio

ns in

the

Ambi

ent W

ater

-Qua

lity

Mon

itorin

g N

etw

ork

(AW

QMN

), w

ater

yea

r 200

7.—

Cont

inue

d


number of values

EXPLANATION

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacentLower outside

Lower detached

Laboratory reportinglevel (LRL)

Upper detached

12

Upper outside

DISS

OLVE

D N

ITRA

TE P

LUS

NIT

RITE

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R AS

NIT

ROGE

NTO

TAL

PHOS

PHOR

US, I

N M

ILLI

GRAM

S PE

R LI

TER

AS P

HOSP

HORU

S

LRL = 0.06

BRMIGBRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIALP

L

MININ

G

OZPLSA fo

/ag

OZPLSA w

i fo/ag

OZPLSP ag/fo

PLAIN

S ag

PLAIN

S wi a

g

SPRING

URBAN

URBAN wi

0.10

1.00

10.00

14 14 1412 21 27179 45 98 104 58 32 51 12

0.05

0.10

0.50

1.00

14 14 1412 21 27179 45 98 104 58 32 51 12

LRL = 0.04

CLASS

o

Figure 5. Concentration distribution of dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total dissolved phosphorus in samples from 64 stations in the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007.


Figu

re 6

. Co

ncen

tratio

n di

strib

utio

n of

dis

solv

ed a

nd to

tal r

ecov

erab

le le

ad a

nd zi

nc in

sam

ples

from

64

stat

ions

in th

e Am

bien

t Wat

er-Q

ualit

y M

onito

ring

Net

wor

k (A

WQM

N),

wat

er y

ear 2

007.

17N

umbe

r of v

alue

s

EXPL

AN

ATI

ON

Upp

er a

djac

ent

75th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

25th

per

cent

ile

Low

er a

djac

ent

Low

er o

utsi

de

Low

er d

etac

hed

Upp

er d

etac

hed

Upp

er o

utsi

de

Labo

rato

ry re

potin

gle

vel (

LRL)

BRMIG

BRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIA

LPL

MIN

ING

OZPLS

A fo/ag

OZPLS

A wi fo

/agOZP

LSP ag

/fo PLAIN

S agPLA

INS w

i ag SPRING

URBAN URBAN wi

BRMIG

BRMIT

BRMOH

BRMOS

MIA

LPL

MIN

ING

OZPLS

A fo/ag

OZPLS

A wi fo

/agOZP

LSP ag

/fo PLAIN

S agPLA

INS w

i ag SPRING

URBAN URBAN wi

CLA

SS

LRL

= 0.

12LR

L =

0.6

LRL

= 2

LRL=

0.0

6

0.10.20.30.51.02.03.05.010.0

6515

2940

65

45

89

2114

174

DISSOLVED LEAD, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED ZINC, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER TOTAL RECOVERABLE ZINC, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL RECOVERABLE LEAD, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.0

065

1529

60

05

89

4021

1417

4

1.000

10.00

100.0

1,000

656

54

58

915

2940

2114

174

10 5 150100

500

1,000

6515

60

05

89

2940

2114

174


having the largest median values) and URBAN stations; fol-lowed by OZPLSP ag/fo and PLAINS wi ag; with the small-est being found at MIALPL, OZPLSA fo/ag, OZPLSA wi fo/ag, MINING, and URBAN wi stations. Similarly, median total phosphorus concentrations also are among the largest at the Big River (BRMIG having the smallest median value of the Big River stations) and URBAN stations, but in addition, samples collected at PLAINS wi ag stations also had larger median concentrations than other station types (fig. 5).

Distribution and Concentration of Dissolved and Total Recoverable Lead and Zinc

Filtered and unfiltered samples were collected for the analysis of dissolved and total recoverable trace elements, including lead and zinc. No total recoverable lead and zinc samples were collected at BRMIT and BRMIOH. Median concentration ranges of dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc were as follows: dissolved lead, <0.12 to 0.40 micro-grams per liter (μg/L); total recoverable lead, 0.07 to 10 μg/L; dissolved zinc, 0.72 to 23 μg/L; and total recoverable zinc <2 to 24 μg/L (fig. 6). The largest median concentrations for all four constituents generally were found in samples collected at MINING, URBAN, and URBAN wi stations. In addition, median total recoverable lead and zinc concentrations also

were among the largest at PLAINS wi ag stations. The small-est median concentrations of dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc generally were found in samples collected at all OZPL (SA fo/ag, SA wi fo/ag, and SP ag/fo) and SPRING stations (fig. 6).

Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Selected Pesticides from Selected Stations

Filtered samples for the analysis of pesticides were col-lected at seven stations in the AWQMN, including three of the four Big River stations (BRMIG, BRMIT, and BRMOH), both stations in the MIALPL, one station in the PLAINS wi ag, and one SPRING station (fig. 7). The nine compounds that were detected are discussed here. None of the nine pesticides were detected at the SPRING station. The most frequently detected pesticides were atrazine and metolachlor, followed closely by CIAT (a transformation product of atrazine), acetachlor, and simazine. Pesticide concentrations generally were near or less than 1.00 μg/L. Notable exceptions are atrazine with concen-trations ranging from <0.007 to 20.4 μg/L and metolachlor with concentrations ranging from <0.01 to 5.39 μg/L.


BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL PLAINSwi ag

12/12 14/14 13/13 6/10 6/6

SPRING

0/3

12/12 14/14 13/13 4/10 5/6 0/3

1/12 9/14 6/13 3/10 4/6 0/3

CLASS

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIC

ROGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

1.00

0.10

0.01

0.001

1.00

0.10

0.01

0.001

CIAT

Acetochlor

Alachlor

EXPLANATIONLaboratory Report Level (LRL) (concentrations below the LRLare estimated)

Number of detections out of total number of samples

Detection

4/6

LRL = 0.014

LRL = 0.006

LRL = 0.005

Figure 7. Distribution and detection of selected pesticides from selected stations in the Ambient Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007.


SPRINGBRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL PLAINSwi ag

12/12 14/14 13/13 10/10 6/6

12/12 14/14 13/13 10/10 6/6

1/12 2/14 6/13 0/10 4/6

CLASS

0.0001

0.1

1

10

0.001

100

10.0

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIC

ROGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

1.00

0.10

0.01

0.001

10

1

0.01

0.1

0.001

Atrazine

Metolachlor

Metribuzin



Detection

4/6

LRL = 0.007

LRL = 0.010

0/3

0/3

0/3

LRL = 0.016

Figure 7. Distribution and detection of selected pesticides from selected stations in the Ambient Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007.—Continued


BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL PLAINSwi ag

0/12 0/14 0/13 4/10 0/6

SPRING

0/3

6/12 8/14 4/13 10/10 2/6 0/3

12/12 13/14 10/13 4/10 5/6 0/3

CLASS

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIC

ROGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

0.01

0.001

1.00

0.10

0.01

0.001

Molinate

Prometon

Simazine



Detection

5/6

LRL = 0.002

LRL = 0.010

LRL = 0.006

Figure 7. Distribution and detection of selected pesticides from selected stations in the Ambient Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), water year 2007.—Continued

References Cited 19

References Cited

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of eastern United States: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 689 p.

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-125, 217 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for the determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in water resources: US Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, accesed October 2008 at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2007, Missouri water quality report (Section 305(b) Report) 2006, 86 p.

Myers, D.N., Stoeckel, D.M., Bushon, R.N., Francy, D.S., and Brady, A.M.G., February 2007, Fecal indicator bacteria (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A7, section 7.1, accessed October 2008 from http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A7/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2007, Cli-matological data annual summary, Missouri: Ashville, North Carolina, National Climatic Data Center, 34 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008, Climate of 2007—in historical perspective annual report, accesed January 2009 at URL http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html

U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, U.S. population projections, accessed November 2008, at URL http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Guidelines for preparation of comprehensive state water quality assess-ments (305(b) reports) and electronic updates: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-841-B97-002A, variously paginated, accesed October 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/guidelines.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 1964-2005, Water resources data—Missouri: variously paginated.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples (version 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, accessed Octo-ber 2008 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field man-ual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geologi-cal Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps.A1-A9, last accessed October 2008 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A

Wilde, F.D., ed., chapter sections variously dated, Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, accessed October 2008 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/ (Chap-ter sections are cited by author and date.)

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., eds., April 2004, Processing of water samples (version 2.2): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A5, accessed October 2008 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A5/

Zaugg, S.D., Sandstrom, M.W., Smith, S.G., and Fehlberg, K.M., 1995, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determina-tion of pesticides in water by C-18 solid-phase extraction and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrom-etry with selected-ion monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-181, 49 p.

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A7/


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/guidelines.html

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/guidelines.html

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A



Publishing support provided by:Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:Director, USGS Missouri Water Science Center1400 Independence Road, MS 100Rolla, MO 65401(573) 308–3667

Or visit the Missouri Water Science Center Web site at:http://mo.water.usgs.gov

Otero-Benítez—Q

uality of Surface Water in M

issouri, Water Year 2007—

Open-File Report 2009–1096

quality of surface water in missouri, water year 2007 · by william otero-benítez and jerri v....

Documents