Little Sac River Priority Watershed 2013 Sampling Summary Report

0

Little Sac River Priority Watershed

2013 Sampling Summary Report

Missouri Department of Conservation

Fisheries Division-Southwest Region

Dave Woods, Fisheries Management Biologist

August, 2014

1

Executive Summary

The Little Sac River Priority Watershed is located in Greene and Polk counties, Missouri, within the Ozark/Osage

Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU). Nine sites were sampled within the Little Sac watershed during the summer field season

of 2013 in an effort to establish baseline aquatic community data, determine Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Stream

Condition Index (SCI) scores, compare the list of species collected to historic samples and targeted species predicted to

occur within the watershed, and collect baseline habitat data. The fish communities and physical habitats were sampled

according to Resource Assessment and Monitoring (RAM) protocol and fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores were

calculated. In addition to fish samples, macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted to calculate Stream Condition Index

(SCI) scores for all stream reaches sampled. A total of forty-two fish species were collected from nine sites in the Little

Sac River watershed. Of the 63 fish species previously observed from historic collections in the Little Sac watershed, 40

were observed in the 2013 samples. Additionally, two species observed in the 2013 samples were never documented in

the watershed according to the WIA or RSD-IAD data. Two sites of the nine sites sampled in the Little Sac River

watershed (LSR01 and LSR02) were designated as “highly impaired”. The other seven sites sampled in the watershed

were designated as “not impaired” based fish IBI scores. One hundred and seventy-three different macroinvertebrate

taxa were collected from sites in the Little Sac watershed. Macroinvertebrate data showed similar results as the IBI data,

as seven of the nine sites in the Little Sac watershed scored high in the Stream Condition Index, designating those

reaches as “fully biologically supporting”. The few high stress level factors that do exist in the watershed, calculated by

the Human Stress Index, include the high percent of land used for agriculture and the number of stream crossings in the

drainage. These potential threats should be addressed by engaging conservation partners and other stakeholders in the

watershed to promote best management practices on agricultural land and by working with county road districts to

install crossings that facilitate fish passage when stream crossings are scheduled for replacement.

2

Introduction

The Little Sac River Priority Watershed is located in Greene and Polk counties, Missouri, within the Ozark/Osage

Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU) (Figure 1; Appendix A). The Little Sac main-stem flows for approximately 49 miles from

its headwaters just west of the town of Strafford before reaching its terminus as a fifth order stream in the Little Sac

Arm of Stockton Lake. The Little Sac main-stem is impounded in two locations just north of the city of Springfield

creating the 820-acre Fellows Lake and the 300-acre McDaniel Lake, both owned by City Utilities of Springfield as

drinking water supply lakes. The entire Little Sac watershed encompasses approximately 190,000 acres. The Little Sac

River watershed was designated an MDC Priority Watershed by Southwest Region Fisheries staff for a variety of reasons,

including its value as a sport fishery, direct influence on the high profile Stockton Lake recreational area, its role as a

major drinking water source for the City of Springfield, the existing network of conservation partners, and the potential

to expand best management practices and landscape conservation in the watershed (Boman, MDC internal document).

The Little Sac Priority Watershed lies within the Ozark/Osage EDU, and is classified within the Finley Creek and

Middle Upper Little Sac Aquatic Ecological System Types (AES Type 23 and 24, Appendix B and C). The watershed spans

two different Land Type Associations (LTA’s) with three named LTA’s; including the Springfield Karst Prairie Plain which is

an Ozark Prairie/Savannah Dissected Plain LTA type (Appendix D), and the Little Sac River Oak Savanna/Woodland Low

Hills and Middle Sac River Oak/Savanna Woodland Low Hills which are Ozark Oak Savanna/Woodland (Dissected) Plains

LTA types (Appendix E). In addition to the Little Sac River, North Dry Sac River, South Dry Sac River, Asher Creek, Bear

Creek, Browns Branch, Coates Branch, Flint Hill Branch, King Branch, Pea Ridge Creek, Sims Branch, Slagle Creek, Spring

Branch, Tinkle Branch, Tommie Creek, Venable Spring Branch and Walnut Creek are other named streams in the Little

Sac River watershed. The total watershed area at the downstream outlet of the Little Sac River is approximately 296

square miles (767 km

2

) (Figure 2). Approximately 51% of the land cover within the watershed boundary is grassland,

with some sparse (about 29%) deciduous forest cover (Figure 3). The watershed has approximately 447 miles (719.4 km)

of stream segments that represent Strahler stream orders 1 through 5 (including 292.2 miles 1

st

order, 87.5 miles 2

nd

order, 23.3 miles 3

rd

order, 34.1 miles 4

th

order, and 10.0 miles 5

th

order; Figure 4). Intermittent and perennial flowing

stream segments make up 316.7 miles and 130.4 miles of stream in the watershed, respectively (Figure 5). While there

are numerous karst features located within the watershed, there are no reaches within the watershed designated as

cold water habitat (Figure 6). A local land relief map reveals how the Little Sac River watershed consists of mostly

shallow rolling terrain (Figure 7).

Assessing the human threats of a watershed using geospatial analysis is very difficult; however the USGS Gap

Analysis Program’s (GAP) Human Stress Index can be used as a coarse-scale assessment of human disturbances that may

be having deleterious effects on an aquatic system (Sowa et al. 2005). Using the presence of various known human

stressors in the watershed as metrics, this method produces an index score for specific areas. The highest scores

indicate high threats in the watershed. Using this process, the Little Sac River watershed was assigned a Human Stress

Index score of 322, which is a relatively low HSI score. High stress level values (3) were attributed to three human

stressors in the watershed, including high percent agriculture, degree of hydrological alteration and the density of

stream crossings. However, stressors including number of dams, density of coal and lead mines, number of CAFO’s,

number of exotic species and percent urban use received lower stress level values (1 or 2). Mapping of available GIS

layers for specific stress sources revealed six Superfund sites, eighteen underground storage tanks, twenty-three NPDES

permitted facilities, one wastewater treatment plant, sixty-one hazardous waste sites, one landfill, six major dams and

eleven CAFO sites located within the Little Sac River Priority Watershed (Figure 8). As verification of the high stress level

value associated with the density of stream crossings, five hundred and forty-five road crossings are documented within

3

the Little Sac River watershed, many of which may have the potential to limit or eliminate aquatic organism passage and

alter local stream habitat (Figure 9). Four major power lines also cut across portions of the watershed, which may be

areas of degraded riparian vegetation and possible sources of stress (Figure 9).

GIS was also used to locate existing biotic records within the Little Sac Priority Watershed. The Resource Science

Division’s Integrated Aquatic Database (RSD-IAD) was used to identify previous fish and crayfish sampling locations and

data within the watershed. In addition, the Sac River Watershed Inventory and Assessment (WIA) was used to compile

historic fish and crayfish sampling data. Prior to 2013, the Resource Assessment and Monitoring (RAM) master database

shows that three RAM protocol fish or macroinvertebrate samples have been conducted in Little Sac River watershed.

The objectives of sampling in the Little Sac River Priority Watershed were to:

1.) Establish baseline aquatic community data (fish, crayfish, and macroinvertebrate) at several sites within the

watershed.

2.) Use Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Stream Condition Index (SCI) analysis to assess the relative health of

the aquatic communities throughout the watershed.

3.) Generate a recent species list for fish and crayfish species and compare the list of species collected in 2013

to historic samples and targeted species predicted to occur within the watershed.

4.) Collect baseline habitat data at sampling sites to describe in-channel, bank, fish cover and riparian habitat

conditions.

Methods

Data Collection

Nine sites were sampled within the Little Sac watershed during the summer field season of 2013 (Table 1, Figure

4). Sampled stream segments were randomly selected by assigning every available valley segment type (VST) in the

watershed a number and using a random number generator to select the segments. Sites were selected on the Little Sac

River proper and associated tributaries including the North Dry Sac, Sims Branch, Asher Creek, Slagle Creek and two

unnamed tributaries. The sampling site coordinates within each selected stream segment were determined in ArcMap

by selecting a coordinate position that was located near the approximate center of the randomly selected stream

segment. All randomly chosen sampling sites were scouted to locate access and obtain landowner permission. When

site scouting revealed that a site may not be suitable for sampling (due to lack of landowner permission or the stream

channel was dry) the site location was moved within the original random segment or another randomly selected

segment/site was chosen altogether. The sampling reach length (forty times the stream’s wetted width up to a

maximum reach length of 300 meters) was measured and marked with flagging prior to the sampling date. It is

important to note that the Resource Assessment and Monitoring (RAM) sampling protocol guidance from Resource

Science Division (RSD) currently recommends dropping the 300 meter site length cap and sampling the entire length

calculated from forty times the wetted width. Southwest Region Fisheries staff has chosen to keep the 300 meter

maximum length due to other responsibilities that require staff time outside of priority watershed sampling. Thus, site

lengths over 300 meters, which could require multiple days to complete the sample, were avoided due to limitations in

time and manpower.

During the sample day, water quality parameters were first measured at one location in the sampling reach

upstream from any disturbance caused by entering the stream. Conductivity was measured with an electronic meter,

dissolved oxygen (DO) and ammonia were determined with HACH reagent kits, temperature with a hand held

4

thermometer, pH with a hand held probe, and turbidity was measured with a turbidity tube. Stream discharge was

measured at each sampling site with a Marsh-McBirney flow-meter (Kaufmann et al. 1999).

At each site, the fish community and physical habitat were sampled according to the Resource Assessment and

Monitoring protocol (Fischer and Combes 2003; Kaufmann et al. 1999). Fish collection data was used to calculate Index

of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores to measure stream health. Crayfish were collected using ten, one square meter kick seines

in various habitats throughout the site. In addition to fish and crayfish surveys by regional Fisheries staff, the RSD

statewide RAM crew conducted fall (September) macroinvertebrate samples at all sites. Macroinvertebrate data was

used to calculate Stream Condition Index (SCI) scores for all stream reaches sampled.

Table 1. Little Sac River watershed sampling site data for the nine sampled reaches. The unique id for each site is the

identification number used for the site in the RAM master database.

Site and Unique ID

Date

surveyed

Stream Name

Strahler order

Flow type

Midpoint

Coordinates

LSR01, LSRO11-13

6/20/2013

Unnamed tributary

2

intermittent

488956, 4128201

LSR02, LSR021-13

6/18/2013

Unnamed tributary

2

intermittent

478550, 4130340

LSR03, LSR031-13

7/23/2013

Sims Branch

2

perennial

471913, 4139256

LSRO4, LSR041-13

8/1/2013

North Dry Sac

3

perennial

466879, 4142965

LSR05, LSR051-13

7/16/2013

Little Sac River

4

perennial

464093, 4138224

LSR06, LSR061-13

7/3/2013

Asher Creek

2

perennial

458377, 4136792

LSR07, LSR071-13

7/2/2013

Asher Creek

4

perennial

458471, 4142810

LSR08, LSR081-13

6/27/2013

Slagle Creek

4

perennial

460407, 4150902

LSR09, LSR091-13

6/25/2013

Slagle Creek

4

perennial

458867, 4150595

Data entry and analysis

All RAM fish, physical habitat, stream discharge, and water quality data were entered into a standard Microsoft

Access database template provided by RSD staff. The completed database was sent to RSD staff for statistical analysis

including generation of IBI scores, generation of fish community metric values, and summarization of multiple fish and

habitat parameters. Macroinvertebrate data was collected and analyzed by the RSD statewide RAM crew to calculate

SCI scores.

In addition, fish data were entered into an Excel database and used to calculate species catch per unit effort

(CPUE) and relative abundance (% abundance of the species in relation to the total fish sample) for each site. Crayfish

data were also entered into an Excel database and used to calculate crayfish densities. Maps were constructed using

ArcGIS software to illustrate fish community IBI scores and macroinvertebrate SCI scores.

Results

Historic fish and crayfish species

Using the Sac River WIA and the RSD-IAD project, historical records showed that 63 fish species and three

crayfish species have been documented in the Little Sac River watershed prior to 2013 (Table 2 and Table 3).

5

Table 2. Fish species observed in historical samples in the Little Sac River watershed according to the Sac River WIA and

the RSD-IAD Project. Species shaded in grey were also observed in 2013 samples.

Family Name

Common Name

Genus species

Atherinidae

Brook Silversides

Labidesthes sicculus

Inland Silversides

Menidia beryllina

Catostomidae

White Sucker

Catostomus commersoni

Northern Hog Sucker

Hypentelium nigricans

Silver Redhorse

Moxostoma anisurum

Black Redhorse

Moxostoma duquesnei

Golden Redhorse

Moxostoma erythrurum

Centrachidae

Ozark Bass

Ambloplites constellatus

Green Sunfish

Lepomis cyanellus

Orangespotted Sunfish

Lepomis humilis

Bluegill

Lepomis macrochirus

Longear Sunfish

Lepomis megalotis

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolomieu

Spotted Bass

Micropterus punctulatus

Largemouth Bass

Micropterus salmoides

White Crappie

Pomoxis annularis

Black Crappie

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Clupeidae

Gizzard Shad

Dorosoma cepedianum

Cottidae

Banded Sculpin

Cottus carolinae

Cyprinidae

Largescale Stoneroller

Campostoma oligolepis

Central Stoneroller

Campostoma pullum

Red Shiner

Cyprinella lutrensis

Blacktail Shiner

Cyprinella venusta

Common Carp

Cyprinus carpio

Gravel Chub

Erimystax x-punctatus

Striped Shiner

Luxilus crysocephalus

Bleeding Shiner

Luxilus zonatus

Redfin Shiner

Lythrurus umbratilis

Hornyhead Chub

Nocomis biguttatus

Golden Shiner

Notemigonous crysoleucas

Emerald Shiner

Notropis athernoides

Ghost Shiner

Notropis buchanani

Blacknose Shiner

Notropis heterolepis

Sand Shiner

Notropis ludibundis

6

Table 2. continued

Ozark Minnow

Notropis nubilus

Carmine Shiner

Notropis percobromus

Suckermouth Minnow

Phenacobius mirabilis

Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus

Fathead Minnow

Pimpehales promelas

Southern Redbelly Dace

Phoxinus erythrogaster

Creek Chub

Semotilus atromaculatus

Fundulidae

Northern Studfish

Fundulus catenatus

Blackspotted Topminnow

Fundulus olivaceus

Ictaluridae

Black Bullhead

Ameiurus melas

Yellow Bullhead

Ameiurus natalis

Channel catfish

Ictalurus punctatus

Slender Madtom

Noturus exilis

Stonecat

Noturus flavus

Lepisosteidae

Longnose Gar

Lepisosteus osseus

Percidae

Greenside Darter

Etheostoma blennioides

Rainbow Darter

Etheostoma caeruleum

Fantail Darter

Etheostoma flabellare

Least Darter

Etheostoma microperca

Niangua Darter

Etheostoma nianguae

Jonny Darter

Etheostoma nigrum

Stippled Darter

Etheostoma punctulatum

Orangethroat Darter

Etheostoma spectabile

Missouri Saddled Darter

Etheostoma tetrazonum

Banded Darter

Etheostoma zonale

Logperch

Percina caprodes

Slenderhead Darter

Percina phoxocephala

Poeciliidae

Western Mosquitofish

Gambusia affinis

Sciaenidae

Freshwater Drum

Aplodinotus grunniens

Table 3. Crayfish species observed in historical samples in the Little Sac River watershed according to the Sac River WIA

and the RSD-IAD project. Species shaded in grey were also observed in 2013 samples.

Common Name

Genus species

Bristly Cave crayfish

Cambarus setosus

Golden Crayfish

Orconectes luteus

Northern crayfish

Orconectes virilis

7

Fish species, distribution, and catch rates

A total of forty-two fish species were collected from nine sites in the Little Sac River watershed (Table 4 and

Table 5). The Largescale Stoneroller (Campostoma oligolepis), Central Stoneroller (Campostoma pullum) and

Orangethroat Darter (Etheostoma spectabile) were the only three species present at all nine sites. Creek Chub

(Semotilus atromaculatus) were observed at all but one of the nine sites (LSR09). The Largescale Stoneroller, Central

Stoneroller and Creek Chub dominated the cyprinid community in the watershed although Bleeding Shiners (Luxilus

zonatus), Ozark Minnows (Notropis nubilus) and Bluntnose Minnows (Pimephales notatus) were also prevalent at most

sites (Table 6). Orangethroat Darters were the most abundant and widely distributed percid species sampled, although

Fantail Darters (Etheostoma flabellare), Rainbow Darters (Etheostoma caeruleum) and Stippled Darters (Etheostoma

punctulatum) were observed regularly throughout the basin. The Centrarchid community was mostly dominated by

Longear Sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Present at

seven of the nine sites, Slender Madtoms (Noturus exilis) were the most abundant ictalurid species, although multiple

species in that family were observed throughout the watershed. Western mosquitofish were collected at all but one

site. Multiple catostomid species were observed, including the White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni), Northern Hog

Sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) and Golden Redhorse (Moxostoma

erythrurum). Various species, including the Redear Sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus

dolomieu), Blacktail Shiner (Cyprinella venusta), Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas), Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus),

Missouri Saddled Darter (Etheostoma tetrazonum), Banded Darter (Etheostoma zonale) and Freshwater Drum

(Aplodinotus grunniens) were only observed in one site in the watershed.

Of the 63 fish species previously observed from historic collections in the Little Sac watershed, 40 were observed

in the 2013 samples. Additionally, two species observed in the 2013 samples were never documented in the watershed

according to the WIA or RSD-IAD data (Table 7).

Table 4. Total species abundance and total catch per unit effort (total # of individuals/ hour) of fish collected during the

2013 sampling of the Little Sac River watershed (electrofishing; seining).

Site

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Stream order

2

3

4

2

4

Total species

7;2

7;6

21;15

27;19

29;11

20;13

27;17

27;19

21;14

Effort

0.59;0.05

0.41;0.05

0.86;0.08

1.39;0.20

0.77;0.11

0.98;0.12

0.87;0.12

1.40;0.14

2.0;0.10

Total CPUE

659;567

93;471

574;1692

515;1095

1337;1102

130;3139

855;1594

386;698

237;1295

8

Table 5. Percent relative abundance of fish species collected during the 2013 sampling of the Little Sac River watershed.

A value of 0 indicates the species’ was present, but in a relative abundance of < 1. (% relative abundance from

electrofishing sample; seine sample)

Species

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Brook Silversides

--

--;3

0;1

--;12

--

0;12

0;4

0;1

White Sucker

--

1;22

0;--

--

1;1

Northern Hog Sucker

--

1;--

1;1

1;--

--

1;--

0;--

--

Black Redhorse

--

0;3

4;--

--

2;--

0;5

--

Golden Redhorse

--

0;--

--

0;--

--

Ozark Bass

--

1;--

0;--

--

0;--

--

Green Sunfish

9;--

--

3;--

2;--

0;--

5;--

6;-

3;--

4;--

Bluegill

--

3;1

0;0

0;--

2;0

10;5

6;4

1;--

Longear Sunfish

--

20;8

13;25

3;7

4;--

7;4

8;--

4;--

Redear Sunfish

--

0;--

--

Smallmouth Bass

--

0;0

--

Spotted Bass

--

0;1

0;--

--

Largemouth Bass

--

0;1

--

1;--

2;1

3;1

1;5

0;5

Banded Sculpin

--

5;1

0;--

--

14;0

2;--

--

Largescale Stoneroller

35;50

13;23

8;11

26;6

19;2

6;9

21;9

28;7

21;2

Central Stoneroller

35;50

13;23

8;12

26;6

19;2

7;9

21;9

28;7

21;2

Blacktail Shiner

--

0;--

--

Common Carp

--

0;--

--

1;--

--

Striped Shiner

--

0;1

--

1;1

--;2

Bleeding Shiner

--

2;45

5;14

2;44

2;2

3;7

1;8

3;2

Redfin Shiner

--

0;12

--;63

0;1

--;5

1;--

Ozark Minnow

--

0;11

5;10

--

1;--

3;30

2;6

4;3

Bluntnose Minnow

--

1;0

2;2

6;4

2;4

4;5

7;8

1;5

Southern Redbelly Dace

15;--

--

25;1

--

5;1

0;6

--

Creek Chub

2;--

13;14

2;1

0;--

0;1

9;1

--;1

10;--

--

Northern Studfish

--

1;1

--

0;1

--

Blackspotted Topminnow

--

1;1

0;--

5;5

1;1

0;--

--

Black Bullhead

--

2;--

--

Yellow Bullhead

--

1;--

--

3;--

1;--

Channel catfish

--

0;--

--

Slender Madtom

--

5;5

4;--

3;0

0;--

--

1;--

4;--

6;--

Flathead Catfish

--

0;--

--

0;--

--

Greenside Darter

--

1;0

6;--

--

0;--

--;11

1;1

Rainbow Darter

--

1;--

2;2

2;--

9;--

2;1

1;1

3;--

Fantail Darter

--

26;32

1;--

1;0

1;--

--;0

--

0;2

10;2

Stippled Darter

1;--

--

4;--

--;1

2;--

1;--

0;--

Orangethroat Darter

3;--

26;5

3;1

3;3

2;1

18;--

4;3

2;4

13;7

Missouri Saddled Darter

--

0;--

--

Banded Darter

--

0;--

--

Logperch

--

3;--

1;--

2;--

1;1

1;5

9

Table 5. Continued

Western Mosquitofish

--

3;--

1;2

1;0

--;14

3;3

3;6

1;10

6;63

Freshwater Drum

--

1;--

--

Table 6. Catch per unit effort of fish species (# of individuals in a species/ hour) collected during the 2013 sampling in

the Little Sac River watershed (CPUE electrofishing; CPUE seining).

Species

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Brook Silversides

--

-;48

--;15

--;33

--

1;197

1;28

0;10

White Sucker

--

7;240

1;--

--

3;7

1;10

Northern Hog Sucker

--

8;--

6;15

9;--

--

8;--

1;--

--

Black Redhorse

--

1;30

55;--

--

14;--

1;35

--

Golden Redhorse

--

4;--

--

2;--

1;--

--

Ozark Bass

--

3;--

5;--

--

Green Sunfish

59;--

--

12;--

4;--

6;--

48;--

11;--

9;--

Bluegill

--

17;24

1;5

1;--

3;9

88;77

21;28

3;--

Longear Sunfish

--

113;132

69;275

396;80

5;--

57;69

30;--

10;--

Redear Sunfish

--

Smallmouth Bass

--

1;5

--

Spotted Bass

--

1;15

3;--

--

Largemouth Bass

--

1;12

--

9;--

2;35

24;17

6;35

0;61

Banded Sculpin

--

28;12

1;--

--

18;9

18;--

--

Largescale Stoneroller

229;284

12;107

47;192

136;65

255;18

8;296

183;137

110;49

49;31

Central Stoneroller

229;284

12;107

47;204

136;65

255;27

9;296

183;129

110;49

49;31

Blacktail Shiner

--

1;--

--

Common Carp

--

1;--

--

3;--

--

Striped Shiner

--

2;10

--

2;7

--;31

Bleeding Shiner

--

12;768

24;155

33;489

2;78

29;111

3;56

6;20

Redfin Shiner

--

1;133

--;1991

2;17

--;35

2;--

Ozark Minnow

--

-;180

28;105

--

1;--

29;471

9;42

9;41

Bluntnose Minnow

--

6;--

8;25

76;44

2;122

35;77

29;56

1;16

Southern Redbelly Dace

102;--

--

143;24

--

7;17

1;94

--

Creek Chub

15;--

12;64

13;24

1;--

3;9

12;35

-;17

--;70

--

Northern Studfish

--

6;12

--

2;9

--

Blackspotted Topminnow

--

3;12

1;--

3;--

7;165

9;17

1;--

--

Black Bullhead

--

2;--

--

Yellow Bullhead

--

6;--

4;--

--

1;--

10;--

2;--

1;--

Channel catfish

--

1;--

--

Slender Madtom

--

5;21

22;--

18;5

5;--

--

5;--

16;--

14;--

Flathead Catfish

--

Greenside Darter

--

3;5

78;--

--

2;--

--;77

1;10

Rainbow Darter

--

7;--

9;20

31;--

12;--

17;9

5;7

6;--

Fantail Darter

--

24;150

34;--

5;5

13;--

--;9

--

1;14

25;20

Stippled Darter

3;--

--

22;--

19;--

1;9

3;--

6;--

1;--

0;--

10

Table 6. Continued

Orangethroat Darter

20;--

24;21

19;12

14;35

30;9

23;--

38;51

8;28

30;92

Missouri Saddled Darter

--

1;--

--

Banded Darter

--

5;--

--

Logperch

--

44;--

1;--

15;--

6;7

3;61

Western Mosquitofish

--

2;--

3;36

3;--

--;151

4;87

26;94

4;70

13;816

Freshwater Drum

--

10;--

--

Table 7. Fish species collected in 2013 that were not previously documented in the Little Sac River watershed in WIA or

RSD-IAD databases.

Family Name

Common Name

Genus species

Centrachidae

Redear sunfish

Lepomis microlophus

Ictaluridae

Flathead catfish

Pylodictis olivaris

Fish Index of Biotic Integrity evaluation of fish community health

The overall health of the stream using fish community data was evaluated using two biotic indexes, the RAM IBI

(Fischer and Combes 2003) and the Missouri Criteria IBI (MO IBI) (Doisy et al. 2008). The RAM IBI consists of 11 metrics

(Table 8) and provides a total site score ranging from 0 (low biological integrity) to 100 (high biological integrity). RAM

IBI site scores for the Little Sac River Priority Watershed sites ranged from 38 to 87 with a mean score of 70.0 +/- 11.6

(Figure 10, Table 8). The lowest RAM IBI score (38) was observed at site LSR02, which was located on an intermittent

unnamed tributary just downstream of Fellows Lake. The second lowest score (51) occurred at site LSR01, which was

also located on an intermittent unnamed tributary in the uppermost headwaters of the basin. The highest site score

(87) was located at site LSR07, on a 4

th

order stretch of Asher Creek approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence

with the Little Sac River. The remaining six sites (LSR03, 04, 05, 06, 08 and 09) produced relatively high RAM IBI scores

ranging from 69 to 82. Table eight demonstrates the effects of various IBI metrics on the total RAM IBI score of Little Sac

River sites. As a generalization across all sites, values for percent tolerant individuals, percent individuals being

carnivores, percent individuals being insectivores and invertivores, and percent individuals being omnivores and

herbivores were the lowest scores. Conversely, sites generally exhibited high values for the number of native

individuals, number of native species, number of native minnow species, number of native benthic species, number of

native water column species and number of long-lived species. The lowest scoring site (LSR02) exhibited very low scores

for number of native individuals, number of native water column species, number of native sunfish species, number of

long-lived species and percent individuals that were carnivores. The highest scoring site (LSR07) only scored low in

percent tolerant individuals, scored fair in percent individuals being insectivores and invertivores, and scored high in all

other metrics.

The MO IBI consists of nine metrics (Table 8) and provides a total site score ranging from 9 to 45. The MO IBI

site score classifies the health of the fish community into three possible categories: highly impaired (9-28), impaired (29-

36), and no impairment (37-45). MO IBI site scores for the Little Sac River Priority Watershed ranged from 13 to 43 with

a mean score of 35.7 +/- 8.7 (Figure 11, Table 8). Using the MO IBI, two sites out of the nine sites sampled in the Little

11

Sac River watershed (LSR01 and LSR02) were designated as “highly impaired”. All other seven sites sampled in the

watershed were designated as “not impaired” based on the MO IBI criteria and scoring.

Table 8. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores and metric values. For each metric, the first number represents the metric

value. The number following the semicolon represents the metric score. Shaded columns represent sites designated as

impaired or highly impaired.

Site

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Mean

Score

Stream Order

2

3

4

2

4

RAM IBI Score

51

38

76

78

76

73

87

82

69

70.0

MO IBI

19

13

43

41

39

35.7

RAM IBI

Metric value; metric score (on a 0-10 scale)

# of native

individuals

415; 10

60; 2.5

635; 10

636;

8.8

1146;

10

476;

8.9

906; 10

635; 10

605;

6.1

8.5

# of native

minnow species

4; 5.5

3; 4.1

7; 9.5

7; 9.4

6; 8

8; 10

9; 10

7; 9.4

8.4

# of native

benthic species

2; 4.5

2; 4.6

5; 10

7; 10

6; 10

4; 6.7

6; 10

5; 10

5; 7.2

8.1

# of native

water column

species

2; 2.2

9; 9.9

11; 10

10; 10

8; 8.8

11; 10

8; 8.8

8.0

# of native

sunfish species

1; 3.5

0; 0

3; 9.4

3; 8.2

3; 7.7

3; 9.2

4; 10

3; 8.6

3; 8.5

7.2

# of long-lived

species

4; 3.8

3; 2.8

12; 10

17; 10

16; 10

10; 8.8

15; 10

10; 8.4

8.2

# of native

species

8; 4.4

7; 3.9

23; 10

21; 10

30; 10

22; 10

28; 10

29; 10

22; 10

8.7

% tolerant

individuals

8; 1

2; 7.9

6; 2.4

4; 5.3

2; 7.8

6; 3.1

16; 1

10; 1

22; 1

3.4

% individuals

carnivores

8; 10

0; 0

3; 4

4; 6

1; 1.4

3; 3.6

8; 10

5; 6.7

4; 5.9

5.3

% individuals

insectivores and

invertivores

3; 1.4

23; 9.3

15; 5.8

19; 7.7

15; 5.9

12; 4.8

11; 4.6

11; 4.2

19; 7.7

5.7

% individuals

omnivores and

herbivores

86; 10

33; 4.2

44; 2.3

55; 0.4

41; 2.8

22; 6.2

62; 10

68; 10

41; 2.8

5.4

MO IBI

Metric value; metric score (1, 3, or 5)

# of native

individuals

415; 3

60; 1

635; 5

636; 5

1146; 5

476; 5

906; 5

635; 5

605; 5

4.3

12

Table 8. continued

# of native

minnow species

4; 3

3; 3

7; 5

6; 5

8; 5

9; 5

7; 5

4.6

# of native

benthic species

2; 1

5; 5

7; 5

6; 5

4; 3

6; 5

5; 5

5; 3

3.7

# of native

water column

species

2; 1

9; 5

11; 5

10; 5

8; 5

11; 5

8; 5

4.1

# of native

darter species

2; 3

1; 1

3; 5

5; 5

3; 5

4; 5

4.3

# of native

lithophilic

species

6; 1

5; 1

17; 5

21; 5

20; 5

14; 5

20; 5

14; 5

4.1

% of the 3

dominant

species

94; 1

80; 3

48; 5

52; 5

62; 5

66; 3

48; 5

64; 3

63; 5

3.6

% native

insectivore

cyprinid species

0; 1

12; 3

11; 3

8; 3

50; 5

3; 1

4; 1

2.1

% native

sunfishes

8; 5

0; 1

20; 5

11; 5

28; 5

4; 5

15; 5

11; 5

7; 5

4.6

Crayfish species and abundance

Of the three crayfish species observed in historical samples in the Little Sac River watershed, only two were

observed in 2013 (Table 3 and Table 9). No Bristly Cave Crayfish were observed in the Little Sac watershed during

sampling in 2013. Golden Crayfish were the most abundant species observed throughout the Little Sac watershed and

were found at all sites. The Northern Crayfish was also observed at all sites in somewhat lower numbers. The highest

total crayfish density (38.1/m

2

) was observed at LSR07, while the lowest (3.5/m

2

) was observed at LSR01.

Table 9. Total crayfish density and species percent relative abundance obtained from individuals collected in the Little

Sac River watershed.

Site

LS01

LS02

LS03

LS04

LS05

LS06

LS07

LS08

LS09

Stream Order

2

3

4

2

4

Effort (hrs.)

0.08

Total Number

Collected

35

341

67

139

151

203

381

140

149

Species % relative abundance

Northern crayfish

71

62

31

10

1

39

25

39

34

Golden crayfish

29

38

69

90

99

61

75

61

66

13

Macroinvertebrate Taxa and Stream Condition Index Scores

Stream Condition Index (SCI) scoring consists of four metrics including taxa richness, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera

and Trichoptera (EPT) richness, Biotic Index and the Shannon Diversity Index (Appendix F). Each metric gets a score of 1,

3, or 5, generating a total score of 4-20. Scores ranging from 16-20 indicate a stream reach that is fully biologically

supporting. Scores ranging from 10-14 designate reaches as being partially biologically supporting and scores ranging

from 4-8 indicate reaches that are non-biologically supporting. Table 10 and Figure 12 contain the SCI scores and

metrics for the Little Sac River watershed samples. One hundred and seventy-three different taxa were collected from

sites in the Little Sac watershed. Sites LSR03, 04, 05, 06 and 09 exhibited the greatest taxa richness with over 80

different taxa collected at each site. The lowest taxa richness was observed at LSR02 with only 42 different taxa

observed. Sites LSR03, 05 and 09 produced the highest SCI scores possible with values of 20, and seven of the nine

sites in the Little Sac watershed scored high in the Stream Condition Index, designating those reaches as “fully

biologically supporting”. Site LSR01 scored a SCI of 12 and was designated “partially biologically functioning. Based on

its SCI score of eight, LSR02 was designated as “non-biologically supporting”. A full list of species collected by site can be

found in Appendix G.

Table 10. Index scores using macroinvertebrate collection data for the Little Sac River Priority Watershed.

Site

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Stream order

2

3

4

2

4

Taxa Richness

69

42

87

83

86

80

79

77

85

EPT Richness

13

7

27

26

29

25

27

23

26

Biotic Index

6.78

7.62

5.43

6.25

5.63

5.12

5.55

6.37

6.2

Shannon Diversity

2.72

1.56

3.51

3.36

3.72

3.55

3.37

3.42

3.28

Stream Condition Index

12

8

20

18

20

18

20

Habitat and Water Quality

Stream discharge for sampled sites ranged from 0.01 to 0.92 cubic meters per second (Table 11). Stream water

temperature ranged from 16°C to 27°C and dissolved oxygen ranged from 5 to 8 mg/L. Turbidity was less than 10 NTU’s

for all sites based on the degree of precision obtained from our turbidity tube method. The pH values measured

between 7.8 and 8.7 and ammonia levels at most sites was measured at 0.5 ppm or less, with the exception of LSR05,

where ammonia was measured at 1.0 ppm.

Table 11. Stream discharge and water quality parameters measured at eight sites during fish and physical habitat

sampling in the Little Sac River Priority Watershed.

Site

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Temperature (°C)

17

19

24

23

24

16

20

26

27

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

8

7

5

6

9

8

7

pH

8.1

7.8

8.7

8.5

8.6

8.8

8.7

8.4

8.5

Turbidity (NTU's)

<10

Ammonia (ppm)

<0.5

0.5

<0.5

1.0

0.5

<0.5

Discharge (m

3

/sec)

0.014

0.010

0.013

0.376

0.088

0.138

0.317

0.499

0.92

14

The mean wetted width for sampled sites ranged from 3.72 to 18.27 meters and average depths ranged from

0.21 to 0.60m (Table 12). The difference between mean bankfull height and incised height was moderate to substantial

at all sites, indicating that stream channel incision or head-cutting has occurred throughout the watershed. Mean bank

canopy density ranged from 75% to 99%. Mean mid-channel canopy density ranged from 24%-89%. Undercut banks,

overhanging vegetation and brush/small woody debris were the dominant fish cover types among all sites; however two

sites also had high densities of aquatic macrophytes. In general, coarse gravel was the dominant substrate type

throughout the watershed, although LSR03 and LSR04 had a primarily bedrock stream bed while LSR05 had mostly

cobble substrate. Mean substrate embeddedness ranged from 28% to 45%. The amount of large woody debris was

moderate through the watershed, with the exception of LSR03, where in-channel and above-channel volumes of large

woody debris reached 43.6 and 43.3 cubic meters, respectively. Correlation analysis of habitat values with RAM IBI

scores and MO IBI scores revealed very few correlations (r > 0.75; Appendix H). Both RAM IBI scores and MO IBI scores

were positively correlated with wetted width, bankfull width and depth. SCI scores calculated from macroinvertebrate

collections were also positively correlated with bankfull width. There was also a strong positive correlation between

crayfish densities and percent fine gravel. MO IBI scores and SCI scores were negatively correlated with percent coarse

gravel.

Table 12. Summarized habitat data for nine sampling sites within the Little Sac River Priority Watershed. Values

represent the mean value for that parameter at that site. Percent values for substrates represent the percent for that

parameter of the entire sampling reach. Percent values for fish cover represent the percent of transects within the site

where that cover type was observed. The volume of large woody debris is reported in cubic meters.

Site

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Stream order

2

3

4

2

4

RAM IBI Score

51

38

76

78

76

73

87

82

69

MO Biocriteria IBI Score

19

13

43

41

39

Macroinvert SCI score

12

8

20

18

20

18

20

Crayfish densities (#/m

2

)

3.5

34.1

4.6

12.5

14.9

12.3

28.5

8.6

9.9

Bank Measurements

Wetted width (m)

3.72

3.31

7.82

18.27

14.66

7.41

14.76

14.36

11.88

Bankfull width (m)

6.25

4.03

12.46

23.15

22.89

11.23

22.48

19.00

16.36

Bankfull height (m)

0.64

0.33

0.50

0.57

1.00

0.65

1.14

0.56

0.55

Incised height (m)

1.63

1.59

1.17

2.00

1.91

1.35

2.29

2.10

1.94

Bank angle (°)

43.0

26.0

42.0

41.0

22.0

46.0

44.0

27.0

35.0

Undercut distance (m)

0.00

0.70

0.75

0.00

1.00

0.50

0.00

Thalweg

Depth (m)

0.27

0.21

0.32

0.48

0.59

0.45

0.60

0.48

0.50

Slope (%)

0.6

0.5

2.5

0.0

1.7

1.0

0.7

0.2

Large Woody Debris

Large woody debris in channel (m3)

3.81

3.13

43.60

0.23

4.74

10.81

16.17

2.91

7.18

Large woody debris above channel (m3)

1.98

1.76

43.36

0.00

0.42

0.06

0.00

1.42

Canopy Cover

% bank canopy cover

95

96

93

85

97

99

75

99

87

% mid-channel canopy cover

88

89

68

39

62

84

24

86

55

15

Table 12. continued

Fish Cover

% Filamentous algae

0

18

1

0

27

0

% Aquatic macrophytes

0

100

7

55

0

100

1

73

% Large woody debris

0

1

36

1

36

1

27

18

% Brush/Small debris

73

91

18

36

73

36

45

% Overhanging vegetation

73

82

100

82

100

73

82

73

% Undercut banks

82

1

55

82

64

100

82

45

% Boulder

0

64

0

45

1

0

18

0

% Artificial structure

0

Channel Unit

% Pool

43

62

74

36

61

79

58

52

% Glide

29

35

19

15

56

17

13

22

32

% Riffle

28

22

19

11

8

22

8

20

16

% Dry

0

Substrate

% Fines

9

19

7

18

9

18

21

12

14

% Sand

0

1

0

% Fine gravel

11

21

11

10

17

20

10

16

% Coarse gravel

56

54

23

16

18

29

44

28

36

% Cobble

16

3

2

8

50

29

9

16

29

% Boulder

0

2

3

10

0

6

0

% Bedrock

3

0

55

43

3

5

0

26

1

% Hardpan

2

3

0

5

0

3

% Wood

4

0

1

3

0

2

0

% Embeddedness

45

28

37

33

30

29

44

40

34

Discussion

Surveys conducted during 2013 were successful in establishing baseline fish, crayfish, aquatic macroinvertebrate

and habitat data for the Little Sac River Priority Watershed. In addition, a comprehensive characterization of current

land use and human stressors was also achieved.

While RSD-IAD records from historical fish collections showed 63 fish species documented in the Little Sac River

watershed in the past, only 42 fish species were observed during sampling in 2013. Many of the fish species historically

observed in the watershed that were not observed in 2013, including the Inland Silversides (Menidia beryllina), crappie

species (Pomoxis spp.), Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus), could be

considered more lentic or larger river species and were probably observed within the Little Sac Arm of Stockton Lake or

in the lowest stretches of the Little Sac River that feed into these arms. A number of others species observed in

historical samples were not collected by MDC staff in 2013. The most dominant species present throughout all sites

were Central and Largescale Stonerollers and Orangethroat Darters, which are typically abundant species in Ozark

streams. According to historical databases, Flathead Catfish and Redear Sunfish were observed for the first time in the

watershed in 2013. In general, the observation of many of the historically documented species indicates fish sampling in

2013 was successful in describing the fish community in that drainage.

16

Fish IBI scores, both RAM IBI and MO Criteria IBI, indicated the majority of sites sampled in the Little Sac River

watershed are not ecologically impaired. The two sites that were considered highly impaired (LSR01 and LSR02) were

located on intermittent, 2

nd

order stream reaches. Because of the intermittent flow at on these reaches, the designation

of these sites as highly impaired cannot imply that impairment is due to anthropogenic sources. Intermittent stream

reaches will score low using IBI’s due to their ephemeral nature and the resulting extirpation of fish communities from

those areas during dry seasons. Using the Human Stressor Index (HSI) available from the MORAP GIS data, the Little Sac

watershed received a relatively low stress index score (322), with high percent agriculture, number of stream crossings,

and degree of hydrological alteration being the only high stress level factors. Fish IBI scores in the Little Sac basin may

be used as ecological support for the HIS scores, as most sites within the watershed were designated as “not impaired”.

Based on MORAP location information of environmental stressors within the watershed, the highest concentration of

potential stressors exists in headwater region along the southernmost boundary of the watershed, within the northern

urban areas of Springfield.

Stream Condition Index scores calculated using aquatic macroinvertebrate data reinforce stream health

designations produced by fish IBI data. Seven of the nine sites were designated as “fully biologically functioning” based

on macroinvertebrate samples. The two sites receiving lower SCI scores, designating those reaches as “partially

biologically functioning” or “non-biologically functioning”, were located at LSR01 and LSR02. Again, these sites are

located on intermittent stream reaches, which are naturally expected to score low on aquatic macroinvertebrate indices

given that the stream reaches are devoid of most, if not all, aquatic habitats during periods of low precipitation runoff.

Data collected during 2013 can be used to provide direction in the Little Sac River Priority Watershed as efforts

progress. The Little Sac River watershed was designated as a priority geography for Southwest Regional Fisheries staff

because of its value as a sport fishery, direct influence on the Stockton Lake recreational area, its role as a major drinking

water source for the City of Springfield and the existing network of conservation partners. By all biotic measures in this

sample, data suggests the main goal in the Little Sac watershed should be protection of a high quality resource. The few

high stress level factors that do exist in the watershed as calculated by the Human Stress Index, including agricultural

practices and the number of stream crossings in the drainage, should be addressed by engaging conservation partners

and other stakeholders in the watershed to promote best management practices on agricultural land and working with

county road districts to install crossings that facilitate fish passage when bridges come up for replacement.

17

Literature Cited

Boman, Adam D. 2011. Little Sac Watershed, Justification for Selection as a Priority Watershed in the MDC SW Region.

Missouri Department of Conservation internal document. Springfield, MO.

Doisy, K., C. Rabeni, and M. Combes. 2008. Biological criteria for stream fish communities of

Missouri. Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7.

Kansas City, Kansas.

Fischer, S. and M. Combes. 2003. Resource Assessment and Monitoring Program:

Standard Operation Procedures – Fish Sampling. Missouri Department of

Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Kaufmann, P., P. Levine, E. Robison, C. Seegler, and D. Peck. 1999. Quantifying

physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available on-line:

http://www.epa.gov/emfjulte/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/phyhab.html

Nigh, T. 2005. MDC Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment. Missouri Department of

Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri.

Pflieger, W. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation.

Jefferson City, Missouri.

Pflieger, W. 1996. The Crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation.

Jefferson City, Missouri.

Sowa, S. P., D. D. Diamond, R. Abbitt, G. Annis, T. Gordon, M. E. Morey, G. R. Sorensen, and D. True. 2005. A Gap Analysis

for Riverine Ecosystems of Missouri. Final Report, submitted to the USGS National Gap Analysis Program.

1675 pp.

18

Appendix A.

DESCRIPTION OF THE OSAGE EDU

The Osage EDU (Figure 1) lies in south-central Missouri and encompasses the lower portion of the Osage River

watershed, which falls within the Ozark Highlands as defined by Bailey (1995). Overall there are 16,553 km of primary

stream channel within this EDU, of which 4,794 km are classified as perennial in the 1:100,000 National

Hydrography Dataset. The Osage River, for which this EDU is named, is the third largest river in Missouri and is a

tributary to the Missouri River. Other major streams within this EDU include the Sac, Pomme de Terre, and Niangua

Rivers.

The landscape of this EDU is nearly equally divided among three ecological subsections; the Central Plateau, Osage River

Hills, and Springfield Plain. The average gradient across all stream size classes is 11.9 m/km. Average gradients (m/km)

by size class are: headwater 15.7, creek, 3.6, small river 1.0, and large river 0.3. For sake of brevity and ease of

comparative understanding it is best to describe the geographic variation in landscape and stream conditions in terms of

these broader ecoregions.

The southern and eastern portions of the Osage EDU fall within the Central Plateau Ecological Subsection. The Central

Plateau Subsection consists of some of the least dissected portions of the Ozark Highlands. It is dominated by a thick

carobnate geology consisting mainly of cherty dolomites and some prominent sandstones, all of Ordovician age. Soil

surface textures are mainly cherty loams or silt loams with moderate to slow infiltration rates. Fragipans are widespread

in the subsoil. Relief in this portion of the EDU is generally 50-150 feet. Floodplains tend to be narrow and not extensive,

with very gravelly soils. This area is minimally dissected and many of the streams are either ephemeral or intermittent.

Stream gradients are lower, substrates smaller, and waters are warmer and more turbid than those found in the Osage

River Hill subsection. Only a few small springs are found in this low relief landscape. This area was historically covered in

a diverse mosaic of prairie, savanna, and open oak woodlands. Today it is largely covered in pasture and second growth

timber. Some of the principle management concerns include fragmentation and inundation by Lake of the Ozarks and

Pomme de Terre reservoir, overgrazing, fragmentation of riparian forest cover, gravel mines, and runoff from CAFOs and

abandoned lead mines.

The northern portion of the EDU falls within the Osage River Hills Ecological Subsection. This subsection is composed of

hilly to rugged lands bordering the Osage River and the lower mainstems of the principle tributaries. Cherty dolomites

and sandstones of the Gasconade and Roubidoux formations underlie the area. Karst features are very prevalent in

those areas underlain by dolomite. Springs, some quite large, are abundant here resulting in coldwater fisheries in some

streams like the Niangua River. Relief is quite high (200-350 feet), with some areas over 350 feet. Soils are moderately

thick and mainly coarse to very coarse loams and silty loams with moderate infiltration rates. Smaller streams have

relatively high gradients and carry large bedloads of cobble, gravel, and sand, which result in extensive gravel and sand

bars. Riffles are well developed and waters are generally very clear and often cool. Historically this region was covered in

a mosaic of tallgrass prairie, glades, oak savanna, oak woodlands, and oak forests. Most of the prairie and open

woodlands have been converted to pasture, however, a high percentage of the glade, woodland, and forest remains

within the steepest lands. Some of the principle management concerns include fragmentation and inundation by Lake of

the Ozarks and Truman Reservoir, intense recreational use, gravel mining, and runoff from abandoned lead

mines.

The southwestern portion of the EDU falls within the Springfield Plain. This ecological subsection is mainly underlain by

very cherty Mississippian limestones, with some smaller inclusions of more resistant Pennsylvanian sandstone and shale

deposits, which tend to form ridges that rise above a generally flat plain. The high percentage of limestone results in

high groundwater contributions to streams within this AES-Type, and springs and other karst features (sinkhole

ponds/caves) are quite abundant. Local relief is generally 100 to 200 feet. The moderately deep soils formed from the

19

weathering of the underlying cherty limestones, are loams/silt-loams of medium to fine textured, have slow to

moderate infiltration rates and often are covered with thin layer of loess. Streams have an Ozark-Border character, with

moderate gradients and spring influence. Waters are fairly clear and substrates mainly chert gravel and cobble, with

well-defined riffles, although some streams still have relatively high percentages of fine materials, mainly sand. Gravel

and sand bars are quite prevalent. Historically this are represented a transition zone between the prairies to the west

and the forests to the east. Prairies graded into extensive oak savannas and into oak woodlands and oak forests in the

most dissected areas. Glades, sinkhole ponds, and depressional wetlands were scattered throughout this area. Today

this subsection is dominated by fescue pasture and small isolated woodlots of invasive trees and shrubs. Some of the

principle management concerns include fragmentation and inundation by Stockton Lake and Truman Reservoir,

overgrazing, fragmentation of riparian forest cover, urbanization, and runoff from CAFOs and abandoned lead mines.

A total of eight different Aquatic Ecological System Types (Figure 1) were delineated within the Osage EDU in order to

account for the more detailed, but equally important, differences in watershed, stream conditions and aquatic fauna

that exist within this EDU. The AES Types are described in Appendix 1.

There are 116 fish, 46 mussel and 6 crayfish species that either inhabit, or at one time inhabited, the Osage EDU.

According to the Missouri Natural Heritage database there are 17 globally listed (rare, threatened, or endangered)

species and 32 state listed species. The Osage EDU contains a unique combination of species that are characteristic of of

neighboring EDUs in the Ozarks and Central Plains. Distinctive fish species include the bluestripe darter, Niangua darter,

and Ozark cavefish. Common or distinctive mussel species include the giant floater, fatmucket, northern brokenray,

Ouachita kidneyshell, Ozark pigtoe, pondmussel, and western fanshell. Common or distinctive crayfish include the bristly

cave, devil, golden, and virile crayfish. Of the 168 fish, mussel and crayfish species present in the EDU, 89 are considered

target species (61 fish, 25 mussels and 3 crayfish) (Table 1).

20

Appendix B.

AES-Type 24 (Finley Creek)

Geographic location:

Restricted to the Ozark Aquatic

Subregion.

Ozark/ Osage EDU

Ozark/ White EDU

Ozark/ Neosho EDU

Description:

This AES-Type is located in the Ozarks

of southwest Missouri. Local relief

ranges from nearly zero to slightly

over 200 feet. The geology here

consists of Mississippian period cherty

limestones with significant karst

features including sinkholes, caves and

springs. Some of the highest densities

of sinkholes in the state of Missouri

can be found within this AES-Type.

Minor amounts of dolomite and sandstone are also present. The deep soils were formed in weathered cherty limestone

and often have loess as the surface material. Surface soil textures consist of cherty and silt loam soils with moderate to

slow infiltration rates. Stream discharge is highest at the end of winter and early spring and subsequently diminishes

throughout summer and into fall. Heavy rain events can produce flash flooding. Streams carry bed loads consisting of

sand and chert gravel, but carry very little suspended sediment. Some of the highest densities of losing streams in the

state are found in this Type, especially in the James River and Indian Creek drainages. Springs are common and can be

quite large contributing significantly to stream base flows. Groundwater is abundant and of good quality. Coldwater is

an important ecological feature of this Type. There are 489 headwater/creek springs and one main stem spring

scattered throughout the 14 individual units comprising this Type. This AES-Type contains one spring over 10 cfs. The

median spring count is 29.5. The combined headwater and creek mean stream gradient is 13.3 meters per kilometer.

The historic vegetation consisted primarily of prairie, but timber was located along the stream valleys.

Typical unit: 464 – Finley Creek

EDU Boundary

Individual AES Boundary

Selected AES Type

Typical Unit

EDU Boundary

Individual AES Boundary

Selected AES Type

Typical Unit

21

Appendix C

AES-Type 23 (Middle Upper Little Sac)

Geographic location:

Restricted to the Ozark

Aquatic Subregion.

Ozark/ Osage EDU

Ozark/ Neosho EDU

Description:

This AES-Type is located

within the Ozarks in

southwest Missouri. Local

relief is variable, but typically

ranges from 50 to over 200

feet. This area consists of

Mississippian cherty

limestone geologic

formations with some karst

features. Some of the

deeper stream valleys cut down into the Ordovician Jefferson City – Cotter Formation. Soils in this AES-Type were

formed in weathered cherty limestone and are deep. Surface soil texture consists of cherty soils and silt loams with

moderate to slow infiltration rates. Streams have narrow floodplains and carry bedloads of gravel and sand that form

bars. Stream flows are highest at the end of winter and into spring and diminish the rest of the year. Flash floods can

occur after large rain events. Springs are common and can be quite large contributing greatly to stream base flows.

Groundwater is relatively abundant and of good quality. There are 43 headwater/creek springs with no main stem

springs scattered throughout the eight individual units comprising this AES-Type. The median spring count is 3.5. The

combined headwater and creek mean stream gradient is relatively high at 12.9 meters per kilometer. Historically the

vegetation within this AES-Type consisted of prairie on the flatter portions with oak savanna and woodlands on the

more rugged sections.

Typical unit: 412 – Middle Upper Little Sac River

EDU Boundary

Individual AES Boundary

Selected AES Type

Typical Unit

EDU Boundary

Individual AES Boundary

Selected AES Type

Typical Unit

22

Appendix D

Z9 OZARK PRAIRIE PLAINS (yellow) & Z10 PRAIRIE/SAVANNA

DISSECTED PLAINS (orange) LTAS

CHARACTERISTICS: High, flat to gently

rolling landscapes with less than 100 feet of

local relief. These landscapes occur mainly in

the western Ozarks where prairie was more

prevalent, but also in the vicinity of St. Louis.

They are often associated with karst areas.

Historically, prairie dominated the highest,

flattest areas and graded into post oak barrens

and savanna. Intermittent headwater streams,

as well as sinkhole basins were prevalent.

Today, these landscapes are largely fescue

pasture with small, isolated woodlots, except

where urban development dominates.

Substantial opportunity for grassland and

savanna management exists.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES:

 These landscapes encompass over 3 million acres. Conservation lands make up 18,000 acres (less

than 1% of the area). Consequently, private land programs may dominate land conservation efforts.

Prominent conservation lands include Bois d’ Arc, Talbot, Diamond Grove, Sloan, and Rinquelin

Conservation Areas (MDC), Mount Vernon Prairie Natural Area (TNC), and Woods Prairie (Ozark

Regional Land Trust).

 While some of the largest patches of grassland in the Ozarks occur on these LTAs, they are mainly

fescue pasture with limited diversity.

 Very few prairie or savanna communities remain, making these ecosystems among the most

endangered in the Ozarks. Management using prescribed fire in these landscapes has illustrated the

resiliency of prairie and savanna systems.

 582 Heritage records, most records are for upland prairie species. There are also many records for

headwater stream and small river species, including federally listed Neosho Madtom, Topeka Shiner

and Arkansas Darter. Other important habitats include glades (with geocarpon), and caves (with Ozark

cavefish, Indiana and gray bats).

 Land use in sinkhole plains and headwater streams, especially intensive livestock grazing and riparian

clearing, may impact water quality here and downstream.

 Grassland management can potentially supply native forage.

 Access to roads and towns offers opportunities for interpretation, picnic grounds and short trails.

23

Appendix E

Appendix F

Z5 OZARK

OAK SAVANNA/WOODLAND DISSECTED PLAINS LTAs

CHARACTERISTICS: High, flat to moderately rolling

landscapes most often on drainage divides throughout

the Ozarks. Also includes the relatively shallow valleys

and Low Hills LTAs in the more droughty western Ozarks.

These landscapes occur mainly on somewhat shallow,

droughty soils, with frequent fragipans. Historically, post

oak and post oak-black oak savannas and woodlands

with scattered prairie openings dominated. Frequently,

these landscapes include karst areas with numerous

sinkholes. Streams are often intermittent in shallow

valleys with gravel bed channels. Today, a mosaic of

fescue pasture, scattered trees and dense second growth

oak woodlots exists with abrupt transitions. Many roads

and towns, and little public land occurs.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES:

 These landscapes encompass over 4 million acres. Conservation lands make up 120,000 acres (3% of the

area). Consequently, substantial conservation efforts may rely on private lands. Prominent conservation

lands include Whetstone, White River Trace, Reform and Fort Crowder Conservation Areas (MDC), Bennett

Springs and Stockton State Parks (DNR), Stockton Reservoir (COE), Mark Twain National Forest (USFS),

and Bennett Springs Savanna (TNC).

 Though mosaics of grass, scattered trees and dense woodlands are common, they are often degraded by

heavy grazing and the absence of fire. Wildfire is a problem in some areas.

 Very few prairie, savanna or woodland communities remain. “Ozark Barrens” are among the most

endangered ecosystems in the Ozarks.

 Prescribed fire has illustrated the resiliency of the oak savanna and woodland systems.

 575 Heritage records (including 160 species and 39 community types), many for headwater stream and small

river species, plus the federally listed Missouri bladderpod, geocarpon, Niangua darter and Ozark cavefish.

 Other important habitats include prairie, woodland, sinkhole ponds, glades, caves, and globally unique chert

glades.

 LTAs form critical corridors between major drainages.

 Land use in sinkhole plains and headwater streams may impact water quality and habitat downstream.

 Grassland, savanna and woodland management can potentially supply native forage and short log timber

products.

 Roads and towns offer opportunities for interpretation, picnic grounds and short trails.

24

Appendix F

The calculation of Stream Condition Index.

Determining Stream Condition Index for

Missouri macroinvertebrates

• 4 metrics

– Total taxa

– EPT taxa

– Biotic index

– Shannon diversity

Each metric receives a

score of 1, 3, or 5 to

produce a score

between 4 and 20

• 16-20 = Fully

Biologically

Supporting

• 10-14 = Partially

Biologically

Supporting

• 4-8 = Non Biologically

Supporting

25

Appendix G

Macroinvertebrate taxa collected from sites in the Little Sac River Priority Watershed in 2013.

Taxa

LSR01

LSR02

LSR03

LSR04

LSR05

LSR06

LSR07

LSR08

LSR09

Ablabesmyia

X

-

X

-

X

Acerpenna

-

X

Acroneuria

-

X

Anopheles

X

-

X

Anthopotamus

-

X

-

X

-

Aquarius

X

-

X

-

Argia

X

Axarus

-

X

Baetidae

X

-

X

Baetis

X

-

X

Basiaeschna janata

X

-

Berosus

-

X

-

X

Boyeria

-

X

-

X

-

Branchiobdellida

-

X

-

X

-

Branchiura sowerbyi

-

X

-

X

Caecidotea (hypogean)

-

X

-

Caenis

X

-

X

-

X

-

Caenis anceps

-

X

-

X

Caenis latipennis

-

X

Calopterygidae

-

X

-

X

Calopteryx

X

-

X

-

Cardiocladius

-

X

-

X

-

Centroptilum

X

-

X

-

X

-

Ceratopogoninae

X

-

X

Ceratopsyche

-

X

-

Chaoborus

X

-

X

-

Cheumatopsyche

-

X

Chimarra

X

-

X

Chironomidae

-

X

-

Chironominae

-

X

-

Chironomus

X

-

X

Choroterpes

X

Chrysops

-

X

-

Cladotanytarsus

-

X

-

Corbicula

-

X

-

X

-

X

Corixidae

-

X

-

Corydalus

X

-

X

-

X

Corynoneura

-

X

-

26

Crangonyx

-

X

-

Cricotopus/Orthocladius

-

X

-

X

Cryptochironomus

X

-

X

-

X

Cryptotendipes

-

X

-

X

-

X

Dicrotendipes

X

Dubiraphia

-

X

Ectopria

-

X

-

Empididae

-

X

-

Enallagma

X

Ephemera

-

X

-

X

Erpobdellidae

X

-

X

-

X

Fallceon

X

-

X

-

X

-

X

Ferrissia

-

X

-

X

Forcipomyiinae

X

-

X

-

X

Gammarus

-

X

-

Gerris

X

-

X

-

Glyptotendipes

X

-

X

Gomphidae

-

X

-

X

Gomphus

-

X

-

Hagenius brevistylus

-

X

-

X

-

Helichus fastigiatus

-

X

-

Helichus lithophilus

-

X

-

Helicopsyche

-

X

-

X

-

Helisoma

-

X

-

X

-

Hemerodromia

-

X

-

X

Heptagenia

-

X

-

X

Heptageniidae

X

-

X

Hetaerina

-

X

-

Heterosternuta

-

X

-

Hexagenia

-

X

-

X

Hexagenia limbata

-

X

-

X

-

Hexatoma

-

X

-

X

Hyalella azteca

-

X

Hydracarina

X

Hydrobiidae

-

X

-

Hydrophilidae

X

-

Hydroporus

X

-

Hydropsyche

-

X

-

X

-

Hydropsychidae

-

X

Hydroptila

-

X

-

X

Hydroptilidae

-

X

-

X

-

27

Ishnura

X

-

Isonychia

-

X

Isonychia bicolor

-

X

-

X

Kiefferulus

X

-

Labrundinia

X

-

X

-

X

-

Laccophilus

-

X

-

Leptoceridae

-

X

-

X

-

Leucrocuta

-

X

Leuctra

-

X

-

Limnephilidae

-

X

-

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri

X

Limonia

X

-

Lirceus

-

X

-

Lumbricina

X

-

X

-

X

Lumbriculidae

-

X

-

X

-

X

-

X

-

Lutrochus

-

X

-

Lymnaea (Fossaria)

-

X

-

Lype diversa

-

X

-

X

-

Macronychus glabratus

-

X

-

Menetus

X

-

X

-

Mesovelia

-

X

-

Microcylloepus

-

X

-

X

-

X

Micropsectra

X

-

X

-

Microtendipes

X

-

X

-

Microvelia

X

-

X

-

X

-

Muscidae

-

X

Nanocladius

X

-

Natarsia

-

X

-

X

-

Neoplea

-

X

Neoporus

-

X

-

X

Neurocordulia

-

X

-

Nigronia serricornis

-

X

-

Nilotanypus

X

-

X

-

Nyctiophylax

-

X

-

Oecetis

-

X

-

Orconectes

X

-

X

Orconectes neglectus

-

X

-

X

Orthocladiinae

-

X

-

Paracymus

-

X

-

Paraleptophlebia

X

-

Paramerina

X

-

Parametriocnemus

X

-

X

-

X

-

28

Paratanytarsus

-

X

-

X

Paratendipes

X

-

X

Peltodytes

-

X

-

X

Pentaneura

-

X

-

X

Perlidae

-

X

-

X

-

X

Physa

-

X

-

X

-

X

Planariidae

X

-

X

-

X

Polycentropus

X

-

Polypedilum aviceps

X

-

X

-

X

-

Polypedilum convictum group

X

-

X

Polypedilum fallax group

-

X

-

X

-

Polypedilum illinoense group

X

Polypedilum scalaenum group

X

-

X

-

X

Procladius

-

X

Procloeon

-

X

-

X

-

X

Psephenus

-

X

-

X

Pseudochironomus

-

X

Pseudocloeon

X

-

Pycnopsyche

-

X

-

Rhagovelia

X

-

X

-

Rheocricotopus

-

X

-

X

-

X

Rheotanytarsus

X

Rheumatobates

-

X

Scirtidae

X

-

X

-

X

Sialis

X

-

X

-

Silvius

-

X

-

X

Simulium

X

-

X

Somatochlora

-

X

-

Sphaeriidae

X

-

X

-

X

Stempellina

-

X

-

Stempellinella

-

X

-

X

-

Stenacron

X

-

X

-

Stenelmis

X

Stenochironomus

X

-

X

-

X

Stenonema

-

X

Stenonema femoratum

X

Stenonema

mediopunctatum

-

X

-

X

-

Stenonema terminatum

-

X

-

Stictochironomus

-

X

-

X

-

Stylogomphus albistylus

X

-

X

-

X

Tanypodinae

-

X

-

X

-

29

Tanypus

-

X

-

Tanytarsus

X

Thienemanniella

-

X

-

Thienemannimyia group

X

-

X

Tipula

-

X

-

X

-

Trepobates

-

X

-

Triaenodes

-

X

Tricorythodes

-

X

-

X

Tubificidae

X

Tvetenia bavarica group

-

X

-

X

-

X

-

Zavrelimyia

X

-

X

-

30

Appendix H

Correlation coefficients for habitat variables and biotic stream condition indices (RAM/MO IBI and SCI).

Habitat Value

RAM IBI

MO IBI

SCI

Stream order

0.606314364

0.506259271

0.492658952

Wetted width (m)

0.806310957

0.759801353

0.688803441

Bankfull width (m)

0.856476468

0.807587533

0.763209018

Bankfull height (m)

0.578806190

0.447566779

0.498226707

Incised height (m)

0.411858868

0.208560329

0.134633491

Bank angle (°)

0.210392614

0.190731787

0.162499775

Undercut distance (m)

0.423699560

0.501902924

0.470845448

Depth (m)

0.828606075

0.785571205

0.746596490

Slope (%)

0.140939680

0.273409184

0.429247235

Large woody debris in channel (m3)

0.270778281

0.328225075

0.402949969

Large woody debris above channel (m3)

0.093831402

0.195681991

0.287920932

% bank canopy cover

-0.383101701

-0.267920127

-0.167726061

% mid-channel canopy cover

-0.611279682

-0.564382705

-0.476563901

% Filamentous algae

0.453403234

0.308209012

0.332910857

% Aquatic macrophytes

0.470334650

0.486444899

0.522491812

% Large woody debris

0.596957083

0.568620759

0.656865189

% Brush/Small debris

-0.318446026

-0.343896264

-0.270178964

% Overhanging vegetation

0.199011962

0.399334995

0.514344500

% Undercut banks

0.652142494

0.551297920

0.617534781

% Boulder

0.289642009

0.395755462

0.550770882

% Artificial structure

0.000000000

% Pool

0.638815564

0.520481897

0.421344523

% Glide

-0.352528402

-0.225375920

-0.153371432

% Riffle

-0.645774517

-0.646937529

-0.579256849

% Dry

0.000000000

% Fines

0.003122494

-0.078972141

-0.261975348

% Sand

0.191467694

0.259480103

0.142857143

% Fine gravel

-0.317161044

-0.359749288

-0.486724799

% Coarse gravel

-0.692136967

-0.845920222

-0.836233486

% Cobble

0.194363984

0.324020847

0.372727909

% Boulder

0.379086693

0.404672324

0.510308422

% Bedrock

0.364518171

0.422454141

0.464970742

% Hardpan

-0.220870136

0.703330187

% Wood

-0.156178040

-0.217928626

-0.122976053

% Embeddedness

0.246381211

-0.026590040

0.064792188

31

Figure 1.

32

Figure 2.

33

Figure 3.

34

Figure 4.

35

Figure 5.

36

Figure 6.

37

Figure 7.

38

Figure 8.

39

Figure 9.

40

Figure 10.

41

Figure 11.

42

Figure 12.