United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wastewater
Management
August 2017
EPA 830-R-17-005
Est imat ing Users
of Water Resources:
Springfield-Greene County
Data Collection Plan
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Springfield Team
Erin Kemper, City of Springfield, MO
Carrie Lamb, City of Springfield, MO
Todd Brewer, City Utilities of Springfield
Daniel Hedrick, City Utilities of Springfield
EPA Team
Emily Halter, U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Kevin Weiss, U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Glenn Curtis, U.S. EPA Region 7
Tanya Nix, U.S. EPA Region 7
This report was developed under EPA Contracts EP-C-11-009 and EP-C-16-003.
Cover photo: Photo: City of Springfield, Department of Environmental Services (top right)
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan
-------
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .1
2. Major Water Users 2
2.1 Data Sources 2
2.1.1 Surface Water Usage 3
2.1.2 Groundwater Usage 3
2.1.3 Industrial Groundwater Users 5
2.1.4 Agricultural Groundwater Users 6
2.2 Estimating Cattle Access 8
3. Recreational Users 9
3.1 Available Data 9
3.1.1 Fellows Lake 9
3.1.2 Springfield-Greene County Parks 10
3.1.3 State Conservation Areas 12
3.1.4 National Battlefield 13
3.1.5 Canoe and Kayak Vendors 14
3.2 Recommended Methods 15
3.2.1 Mechanical Trail Counters 16
3.2.2 Manual Trail Counts 16
3.2.3 Self-Registration 17
3.2.4 Counting Access Permits 17
3.2.5 Summary and Recommendations 17
4. Vehicle Counts at Stream Crossings 18
4.1 Available Data 18
4.2 Recommended Methods 19
5. Summary 20
6. References 21
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. MDNR major surface water users in study area watersheds 3
Table 2. MDNR major groundwater users in study area watersheds 4
Table 3. Percent NASS 2014 land cover distribution within study area watersheds 7
Table 4. Watershed Committee of the Ozarks education and outreach participation 2013-2014 11
Table 5. Ozark Greenways 2009-2010 trail counts 11
Table 6. Springfield Conservation Nature Center user data, FY 2012-2014 13
Table 7. FY 2014 summary of monthly visitation totals 14
Table 8. Watercraft rental information in the study area watersheds 15
Table 9. MDOT traffic data at road-stream intersections with significant driver views 19
Table A-1. HUC-12 aggregation for study area subwatersheds 22
Table B-1. City of Springfield permitted industrial dischargers 24
Table C-1. NASS agricultural census summary statistics for study area counties 26
Table C-2. NASS pastureland statistics for study area counties 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. MDNR major water users within the study area watersheds 2
Figure 2. NASS 2014 land cover in study area watersheds 6
Figure 3. Watercraft rental locations 16
Figure D-1. Data sets of interest from national sources 28
Figure D-2. Flow diagram of GIS methods and processes 29
Figure D-3. Example map depicting the processed results 31
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: HUC Aggregation for Study Area Watershed 22
APPENDIX B: Permitted Industrial Dischargers 24
APPENDIX C: NASS Crop and Livestock Statistics 26
APPENDIX D: Livestock Stream Access Methods 28
APPENDIX E: Road-Stream Crossing Data Gaps 32
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan iii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The quality of life in the Springfield-Greene County,
Missouri, region depends on the health of its water
resources. Whether using water for everyday life,
to support a business, or for recreation and other
enjoyment, the region's many water users depend
on a reliable and clean source of water.
Springfield is on a plateau and many streams
start within its boundaries and flow through
the city providing greenway corridors for
recreational trails and wildlife while conveying
stormwater from urban development. These
streams have access points for paddlers and
other boaters. Streams and rivers also receive
sanitary wastewater effluent from Springfield and
surrounding communities. At several locations,
the streams are impounded for municipal water
supply and recreational uses, including fishing,
boating, and swimming. Several industries intake
source water for processing food and other
products, and a number of industries discharge
permitted stormwater and wastewater to the
streams. In agricultural areas surrounding
Springfield, cattle and other livestock use streams
for drinking water.
How water is managed within the city and county
also affects water users downstream. Much of the
streamflow from the Springfield-Greene County
area drains to either Stockton Reservoir or Table
Rock Lake. Recreation at these lakes draws local
and out-of-town visitors, generating economic
activity within the Springfield-Greene County
region. Stockton Reservoir also functions as a
municipal water supply for the area.
Improvements to water resources could potentially
increase the ecological, economic, and social
values of water use in the region, and coordinating
management of air and land quality can help
increase these values. Through a comprehensive
integrated plan, the city of Springfield, Greene
County, and City Utilities of Springfield (project
partners) are addressing the region's various
Clean Water Act regulatory obligations and air
quality and land resource quality obligations.
With the integrated plan, the project partners
seek to prioritize investments in water, land, and
air resource improvements that address the most
pressing problems first and provide the greatest
value to the area's citizens. The partners are using
economic, social, and environmental benefits
information for decision analysis and public
outreach about the integrated plan.
A quantitative assessment of water users can
help communicate the importance of water
resource protection and improvement as well
as provide data for prioritizing projects. As part
of the Springfield-Greene County effort, EPA
investigated data on water resource users within
and downstream of the city and county. After
compiling existing data, the EPA project team
identified data gaps and developed recommended
methods for collecting additional data to address
these gaps. This data collection plan provides
next steps for the project partners as well as ideas
for other communities on how to collect water
resource user data to help support an integrated
planning process.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 1
-------
2 MAJOR WATER USERS
Government agencies., industries, and the public
all depend on the quality and quantity of water
supply available for consumptive use. The Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) defines
a major water user as a public or private entity that
can withdraw 100,000 gallons/day from a source
of either surface or groundwater. MDNR maintains
a database of water withdrawal types and totals
from 1987 to 2013. Data for 2014 are also available,
but some water users have not yet reported
their 2014 records to MDNR (B. Fredrick,, MDNR,
personal communication to H. Fisher, May 2015).
Other data sets are available for industrial water
users/dischargers and agricultural operations that
may use water resources.
Some data were only available on a watershed or
county basis. The following study area definitions
were used to guide compilation of available data:
if data were available on a watershed unit
basis, the study area was defined as the
Upper James River within Greene County (see
Appendix A for relevant HUC-12s); the Middle
James River (HUC 10160006); the Lower James
River (HUC 10160011); and the Upper Little
Sa,c River, Lower Little Sac River, and Upper
Sac River watersheds (see Appendix A for
watersheds defined by HUC-12s within HUC
10290106). The Upper James River watershed
was iimited to the area within Greene County
because the remaining watershed area
upstream would be minimally affected by
management decisions within the city and
county.
If data were available on a county basis, then
the study area was defined as Polk, Greene,
Christian, and Stone Counties.
These area definitions reflect the majority of land
within the city and county. In addition, these areas
Figure 1. MDNR major water users within the study
area watersheds.
include the majority of land downstream of city
and county urban areas where water quality from
stormwater and wastewater would be affected. The
area definitions are illustrated in Figure 1 along with
the locations of the major surface and groundwater
users within the study area watersheds.
2.1 Data Sources
Data sources for groundwater and surface water
are discussed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 below,
These categories are not mutually exclusive, and
commonalities are noted for each data set
Cedar County
Lawrence County
Legend
Major Roads
Major Rivers
I Springfield. MO City Limits
| County Boundaries
Study Area Counties
Water Users by Draw Type
O Ground Water Users
i County
Stone County
[Taney Col
Major Water Users
NAO 1983 UTM.Zone 15N
Map Produced 10-09-2015
TETRA TECH
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 2
-------
2.1.1 Surface Water Usage
Table 1 summarizes the most recent water usage by the four major surface water users in the study area, who
withdrew nearly 42 billion gallons in 2013. Four of these intakes are used for municipal water supply and five are
used to support power generation at the City Utilities James River Power Plant at Lake Springfield. None of the
surface intakes were used for commercial, livestock, industrial, dewatering, irrigation, or recreational purposes.
Table 1. MDNR major surface water users in study area watersheds
Major Water
User ID
Water Draw
Identifier
2013 Total Withdrawal
(million gallons)
Watershed
Type
59360400
6999670
1,396
Upper Little Sac River
Watershed
Municipal
59360400
5852675
2,595
Upper Little Sac River
Watershed
Municipal
59360400
5023206
1,565
Upper Little Sac River
Watershed
Municipal
59360400
6060386
4,043
Upper James River within
Greene County
Municipal
67261846
6322355
6,453
Upper James River within
Greene County
Electric
67261846
6350724
5,936
Upper James River within
Greene County
Electric
67261846
5849991
10,426
Upper James River within
Greene County
Electric
67261846
5738646
6,782
Upper James River within
Greene County
Electric
67261846
4470297
2,506
Upper James River within
Greene County
Electric
2.1.2 Groundwater Usage
Table 2 summarizes the most recent groundwater usage by the 29 major groundwater users in the watershed
study area, representing 51 individual water draws. These users withdrew nearly 3.3 billion gallons of
groundwater in 2013. All potential water use categories (municipal, commercial, wildlife, livestock, electric,
industrial, irrigation, recreation, and dewatering) were represented by at least one user except for the
dewatering category.
Separate from the major water users database, MDNR also maintains counts of domestic wells built since
1987. Within the entire Sac River and James River Basins collectively, about 18,000 wells have been built since
1987. Some of these wells may no longer be operating, and other wells may exist that were built before 1987.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 3
-------
Table 2. MDNR major groundwater users in study area watersheds
Major
Water
User ID
Water
Draw
Identifier
2013 Total
Withdrawal
(million
gallons)
Percent in Use Category
Municipal
Commercial
Wildlife
Livestock
Electric
Industrial
Irrigation
Recreation
Lower James River Watershed
66495158
3937626
9.2
70%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
66495158
2024627
10.1
70%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
66495158
1800847
9.3
70%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
63673585
1775463
42.0
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
63673585
1210572
17.4
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
65964179
2081729
0.1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
65964179
1731212
0.1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Middle James River Watershed
46256175
1084101
48.0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
48110165
3138470
51.0
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
48110165
2803972
215.7
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
48110165
2366605
70.4
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
46256175
2940849
58.0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
48110165
1982312
63.4
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
43926398
1589467
6.3
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
48110165
2151087
51.8
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
42730537
2216911
62.5
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
64422154
70001099
26.1
0%
40%
0%
0%
0%
58%
2%
0%
61001240
7000687
15.6
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
58789980
1069981
76.5
80%
18%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
58789980
3938697
204.4
80%
18%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
58789980
1533067
102.6
80%
18%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
69997329
7000149
212.4
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
69997329
7000148
101.4
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
69997329
7000147
338.9
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
48293764
2955154
8.2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
69504824
1661009
122.6
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
67261846
3907537
30.1
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
67261846
3104471
39.2
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
58053612
3658314
145.4
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan
-------
Table 2. MDNR major groundwater users in study area watersheds
Municipal
Commercial
Wildlife
Livestock
Electric
Industrial
Irrigation
Recreation
58053612
3017200
123.7
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
60344079
1032114
28.3
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
Upper Little Sac River Watershed
56815154
1427664
8.7
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
52269193
1454125
0.9
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
59360400
2513004
477.0
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
42634682
2241123
8.6
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
51611581
2381036
2.6
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
44825923
2493142
0.0
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
44825923
1926613
0.2
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Upper Sac River Watershed
55558196
2050861
0.2
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
61832195
1851879
0.2
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
58789980
2931883
100.3
80%
18%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
69800219
7000955
130.0
50%
10%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
69800219
1945810
46.4
50%
10%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
69800219
7000954
103.0
50%
10%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
69800219
2898306
62.7
50%
10%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
Lower Little Sac River Watershed
51370263
3907872
6.9
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
48998312
1003567
13.9
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Upper James River within Greene County
59386395
1869296
9.8
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
59386395
1371098
16.9
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
40273187
2218849
3.5
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
40273187
1616437
2.7
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Total (million gallons)
3,285.4
1,876.1
146.5
17.1
34.2
756.2
237.9
195.5
21.9
2.1.3 Industrial Groundwater Users
Table 2 identifies several of the major groundwater users as industrial operations. Industrial water users may
discharge to the city's publicly owned treatment works (POTW), the city's municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4), or directly to streams. Dischargers are tracked through either the city's own database (if
discharging to the POTW) or the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These listings
may include facilities that use raw water from their own withdrawals or that purchase treated water from a
water utility.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 5
-------
Appendix B provides data on Springfield's major
industrial water users who require permits and
regular water quality monitoring to discharge
wastewater to the city's POTW. This list includes
users that depend on source water quaiity and
quantity for their daily operations. Seven food-
related producers represent a regulated discharge
of about 1.2 million gallons per day. These users
were Dairy Farmers of America, Hiland Dairy
IsoNova Technologies (animal feeds), Kemin
industries (animal feeds), Kraft Foods, Ozarks
Coca-Cola Bottlers, and French's Food Co./Reckitt
Benckiser. The other industrial users generally
represented a range of industrial processes using
and discharging water with a regulated discharge
of 2.2 miilion gallons per day. Additionally, about
100 entities within the city limits of Springfield
have NPDES industrial stormwater discharge
permits for discharge to the city's MS4 or directly
to streams.
2.1.4 Agricultural Groundwater Users
Beef cattle represent the largest agricultural
industry in the Springfield-Greene County study
area. Dairy operations and horse farms are also
fairly prevalent. The EPA project team investigated
available data to estimate the number of livestock
and extent to which they use streams directly as
a water source in the study area; the analysis did
not consider farm ponds or wells. The Springfield-
Greene County integrated plan will consider the
water quality effects of unlimited livestock access to
streams. This practice also represents an intensive
use of a water resource, an important component
to Springfield-Greene County's valuation of regional
water uses.
Pastures represent the majority of agricultural
land within the study area (Figure 2 and Table 3)
according to the National Agricultural Statistics
Figure 2. NASS 2014 land cover in
study area watersheds
Service (NASS) Crop Data Layer (CDL), which
is derived using satellite imagery1 (NASS 2014).
After pastures, the agricultural operations with
the greatest aerial coverage were hay, corn, and
soybeans. The MDNR major groundwater users data
in Table 2 identifies several livestock operations
that are considered major groundwater users in the
study area, Considering the extent of pasture, many
additional water users are likely to exist. Some
pasture operations may use streams directly as a
water source, while others may use wells. Data were
not readily available on the amount of water used
by pasture operations in the study area. NASS also
publishes county-level data on counts of livestock
(Appendix C),
1 https://nassaeodata.amu.edu/CropScape/
Christian County
tftney County
Springfield Land Cover Study
Legend
~ Lower Little Sac River Watershed
~ Upper Little Sac River Watershed
~ Upper Sae River Watershed
I I Middle James River Watershed
Lower James River Watershed
I I Upper James River within Greene County
|__J Springfield, MO City Limits
S j County Boundaries
NASS CDL 2014 Categories
I I Com
I. ;>J Sorghum
Soybeans
B Winter Wheat
IHI Dbl Cf°P WinWh t/Soybe ans
flH Rye
°a|s
Millet
I I Alfalfa
I | Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Id Other Crops
Clover/Wildftowers
I I Sod/Grass Seed
I I Fallow/Idle Cropland
Pecans
I I Walnuts
Open Water
|! II Developed/Open Space
Developed,Low Intensity
Developed/Med Intensity
Developed (High Intensity
I "I Deciduous Forest
I' I Evergreen Forest
I I Mixed Forest
I J Shrubland
I Grass/Pasture
I H Woody Wetlands
I I Dbl Crop WinWhtCom
IK Pumpkins
m| Dbl Crop WinWht/Sorghum
I I Dbl Crop Barley/Com
Dbl Crop Soybeans/Oats
Dbl Crop Barley/Soybeans
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 6
-------
Table 3. Percent NASS 2014 land cover distribution within study area watersheds
NASS CDL 2014
Categories
Middle
James River
Watershed
Lower
James River
Watershed
Upper
Sac River
Watershed
Upper Little
Sac River
Watershed
Lower Little
Sac River
Watershed
Upper James
River within
Greene County
All
Corn
0.40%
0.41%
0.91%
0.30%
0.20%
0.15%
0.45%
Sorghum
0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.00%
<0.01%
Soybeans
0.32%
0.15%
0.60%
0.23%
0.36%
0.31%
0.33%
Winter wheat
0.19%
0.25%
0.16%
0.05%
0.11%
0.58%
0.19%
Winter wheat/
soybeans (double crop)
0.02%
0.11%
0.37%
0.08%
0.10%
0.01%
0.14%
Rye
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.00%
<0.01%
Oats
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.00%
<0.01%
Millet
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.00%
<0.01%
Alfalfa
0.19%
0.24%
0.39%
0.28%
0.27%
0.51%
0.29%
Other hay/non- alfalfa
0.43%
0.65%
1.24%
0.46%
1.01%
0.39%
0.74%
Other crops
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.01%
Clover/wildflowers
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Sod/grass seed
0.01%
0.01%
0.21%
0.01%
0.01%
<0.01%
0.05%
Fallow/idle cropland
<0.01%
0.01%
0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.02%
Pecans
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Walnuts
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Open water
0.10%
0.49%
0.13%
0.72%
8.48%
0.49%
1.55%
Developed/open space
9.11%
4.62%
4.56%
4.96%
3.53%
6.49%
5.35%
Developed/low
intensity
15.63%
0.89%
2.58%
3.72%
0.94%
8.95%
4.67%
Developed/medium
intensity
9.53%
0.17%
0.70%
1.68%
0.07%
3.34%
2.24%
Developed/high
Intensity
3.64%
0.02%
0.22%
0.69%
0.01%
0.77%
0.80%
Barren
0.17%
0.03%
0.04%
0.16%
0.06%
0.24%
0.10%
Deciduous forest
18.98%
41.08%
23.11%
39.06%
33.36%
32.73%
31.68%
Evergreen forest
0.29%
0.86%
0.40%
2.02%
1.49%
0.44%
0.94%
Mixed forest
0.06%
0.08%
0.05%
0.15%
0.07%
0.07%
0.08%
Shrubland
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
Grass/pasture
40.87%
49.87%
64.22%
45.37%
49.75%
44.47%
50.32%
Woody wetlands
0.04%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.15%
0.01%
0.05%
Herbaceous wetlands
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Triticale
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Winter wheat/corn
(double crop)
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Pumpkins
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Winter wheat/ sorghum
(double crop)
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Barley/corn
(double crop)
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Soybeans/oats
(double crop)
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.02%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Turnips
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Barley/soybeans
(double crop)
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan
-------
2.2 Estimating Cattle Access
Data were not available on cattle access to streams.
A survey of farmers could provide an estimate, but
with the large watershed area and many pasture
operations, a direct survey may be cost-prohibitive
for a local government.
Instead, the EPA project team developed an approach
using a combination of geographic information
system (GIS) data and information from local Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) agents. The
approach involves creating a layer of grazed land with
stream access using the following steps (additional
GIS processing methods, assumptions, and caveats
are provided in Appendix D):
1. Select the highest resolution land cover data
set available that classifies land based on
detailed agricultural land uses. The project
partners indicated that NASS CDL was the best
available data set for the Springfield-Greene
County area. Other communities may have
access to other data.
2. Select the best available perennial streams and
roads data set. If local, higher resolution data
sets are not available, then the U.S. Geological
Survey National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
and U.S. Census Bureau roads coverage data
can be used (NHDPIus 2015, U.S. Census Bureau
2014). The most appropriate NHD version
currently available is NHDPIus v2.1 Flow Lines
(select perennial streams, connectors, and
artificial paths; remove intermittent streams).
3. Using the land cover data, identify the land that
is managed as pasture (in NASS, the Grass/
Pasture class can be used). This will result in a
map with individual pasture fields.
4. Select fields that are greater than a particular
acreage threshold to avoid the inclusion of
residential parcels. Based on an initial analysis
of NASS, a 5-acre threshold appears to avoid
most residential parcels, while the majority of
pasture remains. Other communities could start
with this threshold and adjust based on a visual
assessment of the data.
5. Split fields using the roads data set to create
individual fields where cattle are more likely to
move freely. This step is not necessary if the
land cover data set accurately reflects roads.
6. Create a buffer around the perennial streams
that is 1,320 feet wide on either side. This width
corresponds to the average distance that cattle
are likely to travel to a stream based on the
best professional judgment of NRCS agents
local to the Springfield-Greene County region
(Appendix D). Other communities should
review this assumption with their own local
NRCS agents and revise according to local
livestock management practices.
7. Clip pasture fields to the 1,320-foot buffer. The
result provides an estimate of the location and
pasture area that likely provides stream access
for livestock.
Once the pasture with stream access layer is created,
that area can be tabulated by county and applied
to available statistics on livestock densities. NASS
publishes county-level survey data on acres of pasture
and livestock counts, collected through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Census of Agriculture.
For each county and livestock type, the proportion
of livestock per pasture acre can be applied to the
pasture with stream access layer to estimate the
number of livestock accessing streams. For instance,
Greene County has about 217,000 acres of pasture and
55,000 cattle, which translates into roughly 0.25 cattle
per acre of pasture. About 43,000 acres of pasture
have stream access within the downstream watersheds
in Greene County. Applying the 0.25 proportion, this
translated into an estimated 11,000 cattle with access
to streams downstream of the city.2 The same methods
can be used to estimate any pasture animal surveyed
by the Census of Agriculture, including beef cows and
dairy cows. NASS does not estimate horse numbers,
but if another source estimates the county horse
population, then the proportional population with
stream access could be estimated.
2 The same methods result in an estimate of 8,000 cattle with access to
streams in the Upper James River watershed in Greene County upstream
from the city.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 8
-------
3 RECREATIONAL USERS
A wide range of water-related recreational
opportunities are available within the city of
Springfield and Greene County. The Springfield-
Greene County Park Board maintains most of
the parks that offer water recreation. Other park
management entities include the following:
City Utilities of Springfield: Fellows Lake,
McDaniel Lake, and Lake Springfield (in
partnership with the Park Board).
Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC):
state conservation areas, fisheries management
at Fellows Lake and Lake Springfield.
National Park Service (NPS): Wilson Creek
National Battlefield.
The EPA project team compiled available data
on recreational users, identified data gaps, and
developed recommended methods to address the
remaining data needs.
3.1 Available Data
The EPA project team investigated available
recreational user data for parks managed within
the city of Springfield and Greene County. The
project team then investigated information from
canoe and kayak vendors to gain insight into how
many recreational users are affected downstream
of the city and county along the Sac and James
Rivers.
3.1.1 Fellows Lake
Fellows Lake is an 820-acre water supply
reservoir owned by City Utilities of Springfield.
The reservoir was created in 1955 by impounding
a portion of the Little Sac River, approximately
10 miles northeast of the city of Springfield.
Recreational opportunities at the lake include
fishing (muskie, bass, catfish, crappie, and
sunfish), boating, canoeing, kayaking, picnicking,
and waterfowl hunting.
Fellows Lake data were collected from MDC's
Fellows Lake 2014 Annual Report. The report
provides the number of boat permits sold from
1997 to 2014. Operators must obtain boat permits
from the lake marina before launching any
watercraft (Woods 2014).
Beginning in March 2013, boaters could purchase
a $10 daily permit, a $20 non-motorized annual
permit, or a $35 annual motorized permit (Woods
2014). Before 2013, all boaters were required to
buy the same annual permit. The number of boat
permits sold from 1997 to 2008 ranged from 1,426
to 1,725. Following a price increase from $5 to $25
per permit in 2009, the number of permits sold
dropped to 1,186 in 2009 and 1,137 in 2010. In 2011,
the price of an annual permit rose again to $35 and
sales dropped to 966 permits. In 2012, permit sales
rose to 1,047. In 2013, the availability of multiple
permit options boosted total permit sales to 1,259,
with 732 motorized permits, 377 non-motorized
permits, and 150 day passes. In 2014, annual total
permit sales increased again to 1,271, with 696
motorized permits, 423 non-motorized permits,
and 152 day passes.
Through a survey conducted in 2013 and 2014,
MDC estimated that 9,261 and 19,822 fishing
trips occurred in those years, respectively. MDC
also estimated 28,484 hours of fishing in 2013
and 54,910 hours in 2014. In 2013, 565 anglers
were surveyed, while 1,562 were surveyed
in 2014. Anglers were surveyed at a greater
frequency in 2014, which may explain the
substantial increase in counts between the two
years (K. Vedt, MDC, personal communication to
H. Fisher, May-June 2015).
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 9
-------
View of Valley Water Mill Lake from pedestrian bridge.
City of Springfield, Department of Environmental Services
3.1.2 Springfield-Greene County Parks
The EPA project team reviewed park locations
managed by the Springfield-Greene County Park
Board and developed the following list of parks
that included water-related primary or secondary
recreationai opportunities:
Lake Springfield Park
Ritter Springs Park
Sequiota Park
Valley Water Miil Park
Rivercut Golf Course
Cruse Dog Park
Horton-Smith Golf Course
Bill & Payne Stewart Golf Course
Nathanael Greene/Close Memorial Park
Dickerson Park Zoo
Fassnight Park
Phelps Grove Park
Rutledge-Wilson Farm Park
Doling Park
Smith Park
Silver Springs Park
McDaniel Park
Jordan Valley Park
The EPA project team focused information
gathering on the parks with the largest water
features and the most diverse recreational
opportunities. Both Lake Springfield and Valley
Water Miil Park are popular for water-related
recreation. Recreational opportunities at Lake
Springfield include fishing, boating, canoeing,
kayaking,, and picnicking. Picnic shelters with
lake views are also available for rental, and the
boat house community room, kitchen, and deck
are rented for weddings and other events with
a scenic view of the lake. Lake Springfield staff
estimated that approximately 53,327 people visit
the lake annually, and 3,000 of those visitors rent
watercraft on the lake, These are conservative
estimates. The total watercraft use might fali
within 6,000 to 10,000 people per year if visitors
with their own watercraft were included (J.
Chamberlin, Lake Springfield Boathouse, personal
communication to H. Fisher, May 2015),
Recreational opportunities at Valley Water Mill
Park include fishing, picnicking, hiking, and
environmental education. Boating and swimming
are not allowed. The Watershed Center for the
Ozarks is also located at this park and holds
educational events throughout the year. As shown
in Table 4, the center had 4,639 visitors in 2014, up
from 1,605 in 2013 (Watershed Committee of the
Ozarks 2014).
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 10
-------
Table 4. Watershed Committee of the Ozarks education and outreach participation 2013-2014
2013
2014
Participants visiting watershed center
1,605
4,639
Event bookings (excluding field trips)
53
49
Watershed center field trips
53
71
Volunteer hours logged
1,626
2,705
Booths at community events
6
11
Jordan Creek tours
11
19
Onsite wastewater training center uses
3
8
Blog Posts
92
75
(including 33 Water Wednesday Posts)
Visitor counts are not available for every park.
However, the Dickerson Park Zoo maintains annual
visitor counts. During calendar year 2014, 208,992
people visited the zoo (M. Arnold, Dickerson Park
Zoo, personal communication to H. Fisher, May 2015).
The Springfield-Greene County Park Board also
maintains over 100 miles of trails, including about
65 miles of greenways. Many of these greenways
follow streams and include stream crossings.
The nonprofit organization Ozark Greenways
partners with the Springfield-Greene County Park
Department to develop a network of greenway trails.
Ozark Greenways staff and volunteers collected
user data from 2009 to 2010 (Table 5) by using
mechanical trail counters placed along trails on a
rotating schedule (T. Whaley, Ozark Greenways,
personal communication to A. Orndorff, July 2015).
Since only three trail counters were used to cover
68 miles of the greenway trail system, Ozark used
some averaging and manual counts. In recent
years, to estimate the number of people using the
greenways, the nonprofit obtains the visitor counts
at the Springfield Conservation Nature Center from
MDC and adjusts them proportionally based on the
ratio of trail miles at the nature center versus the
greenway trail miles. Since the nature center does
not allow bicycles or dogs, they double the counts
to approximately reflect the dog owners and cyclists
that use the greenways. Ozark Greenways estimates
that thousands of people use their trails per week (L.
Tack, Ozark Greenways, personal communication to
H. Fisher, May 2015).
Table 5. Ozark Greenways 2009-2010 trail counts
Trails
2009-;
>010 Trail Counts
Hour
Day
(8hrs)
Week
Month
Year
Total
Galloway Creek
25
200
1,400
5,600
67,200
67,200
South Creek
20
160
1,120
4,480
53,760
53,760
Sac River MT
1
8
56
224
2,688
2,688
Sac River Ridder
1
8
56
224
2,688
2,688
Sac River Lost Hill
1
8
56
224
2,688
2,688
Sac River Truman
2
16
112
448
5,376
5,376
Volunteer Nature Trail
2
16
112
448
5,376
5,376
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 11
-------
Table 5. Ozark Greenways 2009-2010 trail counts
Trails
2009-;
>010 Trail Counts
Trail of Tears
1
8
56
224
2,688
2,688
Ward Branch North/
Shadowood
2
16
112
448
5,376
5,376
Ward Branch South/
Wanda Gray
3
24
168
672
8,064
8,064
Jordan Creek between the parks
3
24
168
672
8,064
8,064
Jordan Valley Park
3
24
168
672
8,064
8,064
Jordan Creek Ewing-Cruse
1
8
56
224
2,688
2,688
Frisco Highline Spf-Willard
3
24
168
672
8,064
8,064
Frisco Willard-Walnut Grove
3
24
168
672
8,064
8,064
Frisco Highline Polk County
2
16
112
448
5,376
5,376
Frisco Highline Events
0
0
0
0
700
700
Wilson Creek/Rutledge/
Flattisburg
3
24
168
672
8,064
8,064
Valley Water Mill Nature Trail
2
16
112
448
5,376
5,376
Lake Springfield
2
16
112
448
5,376
5,376
Fassnight Creek
1
8
56
224
2,688
2,688
Total
218,428
3.1.3 State Conservation Areas
MDC manages several conservation areas and stream access points within the Springfield-Greene County
region. The stream access points in Greene County are Phenix (Clear Creek), Crighton (James River), and
Tailwaters (James River; managed by City Utilities of Springfield). Downstream of Springfield-Greene
County urban areas, there are five MDC boat ramps along the James River and one MDC boat ramp near
the confluence of the Sac River and Stockton Reservoir. Other than the recent Fellows Lake angler survey
discussed above, MDC has not collected user data at state conservation areas or stream access points.
In addition to the state conservation areas, MDC operates the Springfield Conservation Nature Center. MDC
counts the number of visitors entering the nature center and those using its trails. Table 6 summarizes the
annual counts from the most recent three fiscal years (FYs). MDC has been collecting building entrance data
since 1989 and trail use data since 1992.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 12
-------
Boardwalk at Springfield Conservation Nature Center.
City of Springfield, Department of Environmental Services
Table 6. Springfield Conservation Nature Center user data, FY 2012-2014
Year
Building Entrance
Trails
FY 2012
84,379
181,048
FY 2013
84,447
194,520
FY 2014
84,619
210,236
3.1.4 National Battlefield
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield is located
southwest of the city of Springfield and is owned by
the NPS. Wilson's Creek flows through the center of
the park, from north to south, and smaller segments
of Shuyler Creek and Terrell Creek also run through
portions of the park. The park's main recreational
activities are historical tours (including a 4.9-mile,
self-guided auto tour), five walking trails that vary
in length from a quarter to three quarters of a mile,
and a 7-mile trail system for horseback riding.
The NPS provided visitor counts for Wilson's Creek
National Battlefield. Table 7 presents a summary
of visitation totals by month for federal FY 2014.
The numbers were recorded at the location or
event listed in the first column. No active fishing
or watercraft activity takes place within the park.
However, visitors benefit indirectly by walking along
and enjoying the creek's aesthetics.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 13
-------
Table 7. FY 2014 summary of monthly visitation totals
Location or Event
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
Annual
Visitor center (visitation)
334
2,358
3,927
105
211
204
4,787
6,081
4,892
4,892
4,330
3,564
35,685
Junior ranger booklets
(completed)
13
20
14
0
22
65
59
8
169
63
130
36
599
Education program
(number of school
groups)
4
6
0
0
0
0
35
66
11
0
2
0
124
Education program
(number of students)
110
225
0
0
0
0
1,260
3,000
295
0
20
0
4,910
Education program
(attendance)
6,300
13,500
885
20
0
20,705
Ray House tour (number
of visitors)
254
599
43
0
111
815
2,896
4,250
2,347
698
1,016
692
13,721
Civil War medical talk
(number of visitors
0
190
0
0
0
0
1,260
3,035
295
0
0
0
4,780
Civil War soldier talk
(number of visitors)
0
150
0
0
0
0
1,260
3,183
387
0
140
50
5,170
Education in the 1860s
(number of visitors)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,260
3,037
0
0
28
0
4,325
Artillery and living history
weekends
(number of visitors)
150
446
905
925
420
2,846
Artillery and living history
weekends (number of
programs)
40
10
13
10
73
ARTS in PARKS (number
of visitors
0
1,110
350
0
1,460
ARTS in PARKS
(number of events)
0
5
1
0
6
3.1.5 Canoe and Kayak Vendors
The number of watercraft used annually can be
associated with the public's interest in streams
around the Springfield-Greene County area and
with how much value the public places in such
recreation. The EPA project team contacted
vendors who lease watercraft along the James and
Sac Rivers to obtain the number (estimates) of
watercraft rented during a year. Rented watercraft
included boats., pontoons., canoes., and kayaks. The
team identified and contacted 11 vendors., most
of whom were willing to provide information; ali
information collected represents estimates or rough
descriptions of annual activity. Most vendors were
open from March/April until the end of September
each year, and the majority of their business was
Conducted on weekends during that timeframe.
Table 8 presents the vendor data, and Figure 3
displays the vendor locations. As noted in Table 8,
Kayaks on the James River. City of Springfield,
Department of Environmental Services
five vendors were located outside of the study area
watersheds, either on or downstream of Stockton
Lake. The data collected suggest that over 21,000
watercraft rentals occur annually in the study area.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 14
-------
Table 8. Watercraft rental information in the study area watersheds
In
Number of
Vendor
Study
Waterbody
Watercraft in
Area?
Stock
Comments
James River Outfitters, LLC
Yes
James River
88 canoes, 39
kayaks, and 6
John boats
Sold out most weekends from
April 15 to October 1
Y-Bridge Canoe Rental
Yes
James River
Not willing to provide information
Camp Harlow, LLC
Yes
James River
25 canoes and 4
kayaks
Only a few are rented out each
weekend, depending on time of
year and weather
Mutton Creek Marina and
Campgrounds
No
Stockton
Lake
4 pontoon
boats, 2 canoes,
2 paddle boats,
and 2 jet skis
Varies with weather; rent out
approximately 25 to 35% of
watercraft each weekend
Caplinger Mills River Front
Resort
No
Sac River
Approximately 2,200 canoes rented
annually from May 1 to October 31
Orleans Trail Resort and
Marina
No
Stockton
Lake
6 pontoon and
fishing boats
On average, 3 boats are rented out
each weekend
Stockton State Park Marina
Yes
Stockton
Lake
Unable to provide information
Riverside Bait and Canoe
Rental
No
Sac River
40 canoes and 5
kayaks
Varies weekend by weekend and by
whether the Stockton Dam is open;
rented out 10 canoes and 1 kayak
during Memorial Day weekend
Hootentown Canoe Rental
and Campground
Yes
James River
Approximately 3,000 canoes and
500 kayaks rented annually
Caplinger Woods
No
Sac River
100 canoes and
7 kayaks
Normally all canoes are in the water
every Saturday from Memorial Day
weekend to Labor Day weekend
Lake Springfield Park,
Boathouse and Marina
Yes
Lake
Springfield
Approximately 3,000 watercrafts
rented annually; total watercraft
count could potentially range
between 6,000 and 10,000 if
personal watercraft is included
3.2 Recommended Methods
As noted above, existing recreational user data
has been collected using a variety of methods,
including automatic trail counters, visitor center
door counters, boat rental sales, and direct surveys.
The city and county can use the available data
to estimate a lower bound for recreational use in
the area. However, user data are not available for
many of the Springfield-Greene County parks,
state conservation areas, and stream access points.
While rental information is available, data on the
use of privately owned watercraft are not available.
Additional data collection could provide a more
accurate estimate of the overall water-related
recreational use in the area.
Recreational use surveys can provide valuable
information to local organizations, municipalities,
and state agencies, especially for planning and
future capital development projects. Methods for
surveying recreational users include mechanical
counting devices, direct observation, self-
registration, and counting access permits. These
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 15
-------
methods can be expanded to collect additional
information beyond user counts, including useful
data about where users are from, why they use the
recreational area, and what they would like to have
in a recreational area (e.g., playground, benches,
and additional trails). The following sections review
the available data collection methods.
3.2.1 Mechanical Trail Counters
Traffic counters are portable, battery-operated
instruments that tally passing objects. They may
be positioned to count use of roads, streams,
or trails. Some trail counters can record specific
time intervals (e.g., every hour) for over a year.
Mechanical counters are most effective when
combined with other tools to access an area's
recreational use.
From 2009 to 2010, Ozark Greenways installed
three mechanical trail counters on a rotating
schedule. The counters were installed at three
different locations along the same traii for a
certain period of time and then moved to another
trail segment. The three counters covered 68
miles of the greenway CM1 system. Volunteers
also manually recorded counts at various
trailheads throughout the year (T. Whaley, Ozark
Greenways, personal communication to A.
Orndorff, July 2015). Updated counts have not
been conducted since 2010 for several reasons,
including a lack of staff time and volunteers to
place, relocate, and record the counter numbers,
The counters' age, maintenance, and accuracy are
also in decline. Finally, the cost for replacing the
counters is not affordable.
Recreational areas that have a parking lot might
use pneumatic road tube sensors to count the
number of vehicles entering the park. Pneumatic
road tube sensors send a burst of air pressure
along a rubber tube when a vehicle's tires pass
over the tube (USDOT 2014). The pressure pulse
closes an air switch, producing an electrical
signal that is transmitted to a counter or analysis
software, Road tube sensors can be quickly
installed and are usually low-cost and easy
Trail Resort and Marina 9
and Campgrounds
Legend
I I Springfield, MO City Limits
I County Boundaries
Study Area Counties
Study Area Watersheds
1 I Lower Little Sac River Water!
1 I Upper Little Sac River Waters
I Upper Sac River Watershed
j Middle James River Watorshi
ind Campground
James'RiwTdutfitters. LLCd
Watercraft Rental Locations
Figure 3. Watercraft rental locations.
to maintain. Since road tube sensors count
the number of vehicles and not users, certain
assumptions and averages must be made, if
visitors mostly drive their personal vehicles, then
assuming two people per car is reasonable. If
visitors are frequently dropped off by bus, then
assumptions should be increased accordingly.
3.2.2 Manual Trail Counts
Park staff or volunteers conduct manual trail counts
through direct observation and record them on
paper or an electronic device. The most accurate
counts are obtained when enough staff are
available to record counts throughout an entire day
during the busy season. The labor hours required
for this approach can be cost-prohibitive. Manual
traii counts can be combined with other methods,
as Ozark Greenways demonstrated, to obtain more
accurate data while lowering costs.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 16
-------
3.2.3 Self-Registration
Self-registration consists of providing survey forms
for the recreational user to voluntarily complete.
Survey forms can be made available at information
centers, ranger stations, trailheads, or designated
entry points to a recreational area. These forms can
either be filled out on site and deposited into a drop
box or taken home and mailed back to the park or
recreational organization. Maintaining a "sign-in"
book on site would be a comparable alternative
to the drop-box method. The mail-back method
can be via a self-addressed stamped envelope or
business reply mail.
Self-registration is a low-cost method because
users voluntarily record their information. The labor
needs consist of having someone monitor and refill
the supply of survey forms and periodically empty
the drop boxes. At least one staff or volunteer
would need to collect the forms that were either
sent in or collected in the drop box and record the
information provided.
3.2.4 Counting Access Permits
Recreational activities such as boating, hunting, and
fishing require a permit. Some parks may also require
permits for hosting events at the park. Tracking and
recording the number of permits sold each year
can provide a rough estimate for the number of
users in a park, and even a strong estimate for parks
where the permitted activity is the main attraction.
For example, MDC collects and reports the number
of boat permits sold in its annual reports (Woods
2014). It has collected 17 years of data for Fellows
Lake, which shows how annual permit sales have
fluctuated as day passes have been introduced and
permits have been categorized for motorized and
non-motorized boats.
3.2.5 Summary and Recommendations
The selection of user data collection methods
depends on the availability of funding and
labor hours as well as the feasibility of installing
automatic counters at a given location.
Collaboration between the state, Ozark Greenways,
Springfield-Greene County, and other entities may
provide the best opportunity to collect additional
data. A partnership could be formed and funding
leveraged. Labor-intensive surveys could be
conducted at several new locations to determine
which sites have similar visitation. If funding can be
identified, automatic counters could be installed
at a few representative locations. Counts at these
locations could be used to extrapolate visitor
counts at similar locations. The extrapolated results
could be validated periodically by direct surveys
or through self-registration methods (e.g., drop
box). For example, many stream access points
could be surveyed on the same day and these
surveys would be repeated several times during a
season. Representative low-, medium-, and high-
volume sites could then be selected for automatic
counters (either vehicle or trail counters depending
on feasibility). Direct surveys could be conducted
periodically at the stream access points to validate
the automatic counter results.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 17
-------
4 VEHICLE COUNTS AT
STREAM CROSSINGS
Scenic views from roadways.
City of Springfield, Department of Environmental Services
Scenic views of streams and lakes offer an
aesthetic value to drivers, and traffic counts at
these road crossings can help estimate how many
people enjoy these views. The photographs above
provide two examples of scenic stream crossings in
the Springfield-Greene County area. Traffic count
data, or vehicle volume., can often be obtained
from a state's department of transportation,,
and some local governments may also collect
additional traffic data.
4.1 Available Data
The EPA project team obtained vehicle volume data
from the Missouri Department of Transportation's
(MDOT's) website. MOOT determines the annual
average daily traffic (AADT) by deploying
pneumatic road tube sensors perpendicular to the
roadway. These tubes count vehicles as they drive
over particular roadway segments. Every three
years, MDOT produces maps detailing the amount
of traffic on Missouri's state highways.
MDOT's 2013 vehicle count map (MDOT 2013)
was compared with a standard Google map of
Greene County with roads and waterbodies.
For each intersection where a road intersected
a waterbody, it was reasonably determined
through street view images if the average driver
could view the waterbody and possibly obtain
some aesthetic value from this view. These
intersections were recorded and matched with
the locations where the vehicle count data
were obtained. Any intersection within 1 miie of
where the vehicle count data were taken was
considered a match.
Table 9 lists the available vehicle counts at
stream crossings with a significant driver view
in Greene County. The highest vehicle counts
occurred at the U.S. Highway 60/James River
(27,471 AADT) and U.S. Highway 65/Little
Pomme de Terre River (12,062 AADT), Traffic
volume was not available for 77 stream crossings
(listed in Appendix E).
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 18
-------
Table 9. MDOT traffic data at road-stream intersections with significant driver views
Road/Stream Intersection
2013 Annual Average Daily Traffic
U.S. Hwy 60/James River
27,471
Farm Rd 164/Nolichucky River
988
State Hwy BB/Asher Creek
430
State Hwy H/Little Sac River
5,391
State Hwy E/Pomme de Terre River
1,194
U.S. Hwy 65/Little Pomme de Terre River
12,062
State Rd U/Sac River
508
U.S. Hwy 160/Sac River
1,892
State Hwy F/Sac River
690
U.S. Hwy 160/Clear Creek
2,933
4.2 Recommended Methods
Transportation departments often use statistical
methods to extrapolate known vehicular data
to road segments and intersections where data
have not been collected. Recent methods include
statistical analyses that incorporate spatial
relationships (Eom et al. 2006), and such methods
would likely provide a robust traffic volume
estimate for Springfield road crossings without
observed data. Springfield-Greene County and
other communities could use more simplified
approaches if a less robust order-of-magnitude
estimate is desired.
The simplest approach would be to sort the road
crossings with and without data into categories
and calculate the average traffic volume for each
road crossing category. Within each category
communities would then use these averages to
estimate the traffic volume at each road crossing
where observed data are not available. Categories
for road crossings could be based on how the state
or local government classifies roads. For example,
MDOT uses the following major classes when
reporting traffic volume data: interstate, U.S. routes,
state routes, lettered routes, business routes and
loops, and spur routes and alternate routes.
Estimates based on averages may need to be
adjusted manually based on location and other
knowledge of particular road crossings. For
example, a spur road between two state roads
where both state roads have less than 500 vehicles
per day should also have less than 500 vehicles
per day.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 19
-------
5 SUMMARY
The EPA project team explored available data
on water users to illustrate the value of water
resources in the Springfield-Greene County area.
The data illustrate the magnitude of users across
the region. Within the study area watersheds
(Greene County and downstream of Springfield-
Greene County), about 45 billion gallons of water
are withdrawn from surface and groundwater
sources each year (based on 2013 data). Among
livestock populations downstream of urban areas,
over 10,000 cattle depend on streams as a direct
water supply. Trails, including many that follow or
cross streams, draw thousands of visitors each
week, resulting in over 200,000 individual visits
each year. While limited data are available on boat
use, watercraft rental in the region reflects at least
20,000 individual uses annually.
Methods outlined in this plan can provide
additional estimates of recreational users, water
use for livestock, and scenic views from road
crossings. A combination of direct surveys,
automatic counters, and extrapolation can be used
to develop cost-effective, order-of-magnitude
estimates of recreational visitors. When local
data are not available, national-scale data can be
combined with local knowledge of agricultural
practices to estimate water use in rural areas,
as demonstrated by methods outlined for cattle
access to streams. Finally average vehicle volumes
at road crossings can be applied to similar road
categories to provide an approximate estimate of
scenic views experienced annually.
The breadth of water uses considered in this
plan reflects the unique value of water to the
Springfield-Greene County region. While other
communities may find commonalities with
Springfield-Greene County identifying major
water uses is an important part of the valuation
process, and each community should assess their
unique uses and why they are important. Through
this evaluation, a community can find a useful tool
for prioritizing projects and for illustrating the
importance of protecting and improving water
quality through the integrated planning process.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 20
-------
0 REFERENCES
Eom, J.K., M.S. Park, T.Y. Heo, and L.F.
Huntsinger. 2006. Improving the prediction
of annual average daily traffic for nonfreeway
facilities by applying a spatial statistical
method. Artificial Intelligence and Advanced
Computing Applications 1968: 20-29.
MDOT. 2013. Southwest district traffic volume
and commercial vehicle count map. Missouri
Department of Transportation, Transportation
Planning. Accessed May 2015.
NASS. 2014. National Agricultural Statistics Service
Cropland Data Layer (NASS Website).
Accessed June 2015.
NHDPIus. 2015. Hydrography: NHDPIus high
resolution National Hydrography Dataset,
Watershed Boundary Dataset. Accessed
June 2015.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 21
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks. 2014. 2014
annual report.
Woods, D. 2014. Fellows Lake 2014 annual report.
Missouri Department of Conservation.
USDOT. 2014. A summary of vehicle detection
and surveillance technologies use in intelligent
transportation systems: Chapter
4in-roadway sensor technologies.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed
July 24, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. TIGER/line shapefiles.
Accessed June 2015.
-------
APPENDIX A: HUC AGGREGATION
FOR STUDY AREA WATERSHED
Table A-1. HUC-12 aggregation for study area subwatersheds
HUC-12
HUC-12 Name
Middle James River
110100020301
Headwaters Wilson's Creek
110100020303
Wilson's Creek
110100020302
Terrell Creek
110100020305
Green Valley Creek-James River
110100020304
Ward Branch-James River
Lower James River
110100020505
Lower Crane Creek
110100020503
Spring Creek
110100020506
Tory Creek-James River
110100020504
Middle Crane Creek
110100020501
Goff Creek
110100020502
Upper Crane Creek
110100020508
Pine Run-James River
110100020509
Wilson Run-James River
110100020507
Railey Creek
Upper Little Sac River
102901060406
Asher Creek-Little Sac River
102901060403
North Dry Sac River
102901060404
Flint Hill Branch-Little Sac River
102901060402
Headwaters Little Sac River
102901060401
South Dry Sac River
Lower
Little Sac River
102901060503
Little Sac River
102901060502
Walnut Creek-Little Sac River
102901060501
Turkey Creek
102901060405
Slagle Creek
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 22
-------
HUC-12
HUC-12 Name
Upper Sac River
102901060503
Little Sac River
102901060502
Walnut Creek-Little Sac River
102901060501
Turkey Creek
102901060405
Slagle Creek
Upper Sac River
102901060207
Cave Spring Branch-Sac River
102901060205
Clear Creek
102901060206
Dry Branch-Sac River
102901060204
Headwaters Clear Creek
102901060203
Sycamore Creek-Sac River
102901060202
Headwaters Sac River
102901060201
Pickerel Creek
Upper James River within Greene County
110100020108
Lake Springfield-James River
110100020107
Turner Creek-James River
110100020106
Pearson Creek
110100020105
Sawyer Creek-James River (partial)
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 23
-------
. APPENDIX B: PERMITTED
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
Table B-1. City of Springfield permitted industrial dischargers
Categorical
Treatment
Industry Name
Standard
Regulated Process
Yor N
Regulated
Treatment
Flow
Total Flow
Last
Type
(1000 gal/day)
(1000 gal/day)
Inspection
ACRO Trailer Co.
433
Passivate/pickle
Y
Precipitation/
pH adjust
No discharge
1.1
12/12/14
American Products
433
Phosphatize/clean
Y
Precipitation
7.2
10.3
12/09/14
Ameripride Linen
N/A
Industrial laundry
Y
Precipitation/
filter
82.3
84.1
12/08/14
Aramark
N/A
Laundry
Y
Precipitation/
filter
87.1
88
12/30/14
BCP Ingredients, Inc.
414
Organic chemical
Y
Aeration/
settling
0.5
0.9
12/30/14
Black Oak Landfill
N/A
Leachate
N
Aeration
22.9
-
10/27/14
Central States Industrial
433
Passivation
Y
Evaporation/oil
separation
0.3
1.3
12/15/14
Cintas Corporation
N/A
Industrial laundry
N
Screen/settle
50.5
52.8
11/14/14
City Utilities
James R. Power
423
Electric generation
N
No Discharge
2
11/12/14
Culligan of Springfield
N/A
Water softener
maintenance
Y
pH adjust
3.7
3.8
12/21/14
Custom Metalcraft, Inc.
433
Passivation
Y
pH adjust
0.4
0.7
11/14/14
Custom Powder Systems
433
Passivation
Y
pH adjust
0.15
0.95
12/18/14
Dairy Farmers of America
N/A
Dairy products
Y
pH adjust
474
474.1
12/23/14
Enterprise Laundry
N/A
Industrial laundry
Y
Lint trap/settle
57.8
58.7
12/03/14
Erickson Transport
442
Transportation
Y
Grease
interceptor
1.1
1.4
12/03/14
Euticals
439
Pharmaceutical
Y
Air strip/pH
adjust
23.1
24
12/29/14
Glanbia Nutritionals
439
Mixing
Y
Settle
0.721
.8
12/22/14
Hiland Dairy
N/A
Dairy products
Y
pH adjust
229
229
12/17/14
Holloway America
433
Electropolish
Y
Precipitation/
pH adjust
4.9
6.0
12/16/14
IsoNova Technologies
N/A
Animal feeds
Y
Aeration
5.6
5.8
12/11/14
John Twitty Energy Center
423
Electric generation
N
518.2
518.5
12/31/14
Kemin Industries
N/A
Animal feeds
Y
Aeration
0.2
0.2
12/11/14
Kraft Foods
N/A
Cheese/pasta
N
Grease
interceptor/pH/
BOD red.
333.7
350.6
09/10/14
L & W Industries
433
Phosphatize
Y
Evaporation
No Discharge
0.8
12/18/14
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 24
-------
Table B-1. City of Springfield permitted industrial dischargers
Industry Name
Categorical
Standard
Regulated Process
Treatment
Yor N
Treatment
Type
Regulated
Flow
(1000 gal/day)
Total Flow
(1000 gal/day)
Last
Inspection
Loren Cook, Barnes Street
433
Phosphatize/clean
Y
pH adjust
6.7
11.6
11/18/14
Loren Cook, Dale Street
433
Phosphatize/clean
N
Sedimentation
21.3
23.7
11/18/14
Milky-Way Transport
442
Transportation
N
Grease
interceptor
No discharge
9.9
12/23/14
3M Springfield
433
Coating
N
0.6
42.9
12/05/14
Multi-Craft Contractors
433
Passivation
Y
pH adjust
0.05
1.1
11/18/14
Nabors Landfill (closed)
N/A
Leachate
N
2.3
2.3
CLOSED
Northstar Battery Co., LLC
461
Pb battery
manufacturing
Y
Precipitation/
filter
2.8
23.2
10/28/14
Northstar Battery Co., LLC-
Plant #2
461
Pb battery
manufacturing
Y
Precipitation/
filter
1.4
30.7
10/28/14
Ozarks Coca-Cola Bottlers
N/A
Soft drink
N
pH adjust
59.3
60.4
11/24/14
Paul Mueller Company
433
Passivation
Y
Precipitation
4.6
4.8
12/18/14
Positronic Industries
433
Metal plating
Y
Precipitation/
filter
11.4
12
12/23/14
PCI Acquisition, LLC/
Precision Coatings
466
Paint formulation
N
No discharge
1.6
12/11/14
French's Food Co./Reckitt
Benckiser
N/A
Sauces
Y
pH adjust
148.6
153.6
12/04/14
Regal Corp./
RBC Mfg. Corp.
433
Phosphatize
Y
Precipitation/
filter
20.4
76.6
08/29/14
Springfield Branson National
Airport
449
Aircraft de-icing
N
0.027
5.75
N/A
Springfield Remanufacturing
Corp
433
Coating
N
No discharge
12.7
12/30/14
Springfield Sanitary Landfill
N/A
Leachate
N
22.7
22.8
12/16/14
Stainless Fabrication
433
Passivation
Y
Precipitation
1.4
3.9
12/18/14
ABEC/Stainless Technology
433
Passivation
Y
Precipitation/
filter
1.4
8.2
11/19/14
T-Haul Tank Lines
442
Transportation
Y
Grease
interceptor
3.5
3.8
12/18/14
Unifirst
N/A
Industrial laundry
Y
Filter
33.5
34.7
12/17/14
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 25
-------
APPENDIX C: NASS CROP
AND LIVESTOCK STATISTICS
Table C-1. NASS agricultural census summary statistics for study area counties
Polk County
Christian
County
Greene
County
Stone County
Farm Results
Farms (number)
1,505
1,177
1,752
601
Land in farms (acres)
336,228
179,468
210,600
118,015
Average size of farm (acres)
223
152
120
196
Median size of farm (acres)
100
78
50
111
Total cropland (acres)
102,638
53,328
68,216
32,121
Harvested cropland (acres)
83,527
44,286
60,254
25,793
Irrigated land (acres)
1,347
64
316
134
Livestock and Poultry Results
Cattle and calves inventory (number)
90,519
33,967
55,424
24,651
Beef cows (number)
39,962
15,440
27,041
11,125
Milk cows (number)
3,484
881
1,998
1,169
Cattle and calves sold (number)
52,800
19,311
30,953
12,796
Hogs and pigs inventory (number)
4,622
190
291
48
Hogs and pigs sold (number)
17,156
185
1,030
34
Sheep and lambs inventory (number)
1,203
1,429
356
315
Layers inventory (number)
6,926
1,964
3,204
1,092
Broilers and other meat-type
chickens sold (number)
984
878
6,154
5,338,124
Pastured Land and Operations Results
Ag land, cropland, pastured only (acres)
12,116
5,168
4,305
2,670
Ag land, cropland, pastured only
(Number of Operations)
116
70
88
28
Ag land, pastureland (acres)
208,340
109,333
126,356
69,869
Ag land, pastureland
(number of operations)
1,329
993
1,417
516
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 26
-------
Table C-2. NASS pastureland statistics for study area counties
County
Data Item
Value
POLK
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-ACRES
12,116
CHRISTIAN
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-ACRES
5,168
GREENE
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-ACRES
4,305
STONE
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-ACRES
2,670
POLK
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
116
CHRISTIAN
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
70
GREENE
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
88
STONE
AG LAND, CROPLAND, PASTURED ONLY-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
28
POLK
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-ACRES
208,340
CHRISTIAN
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-ACRES
109,333
GREENE
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-ACRES
126,356
STONE
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-ACRES
69,869
POLK
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
1,329
CHRISTIAN
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
993
GREENE
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
1,417
STONE
AG LAND, PASTURELAND-NUMBER OF OPERATIONS
516
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 27
-------
APPENDIX D: LIVESTOCK
STREAM ACCESS METHODS
This appendix provides methods to estimate the area of grazed land with stream access. The project team
used the study area watersheds downstream of the city of Springfield to test the application of these
methods. Figure D-1 outlines the national data sets available for this analysis and suggests additional local
data sets to use when applicable. Figure D-2 describes the GIS processing methods related to this analysis.
NASS CDL
2014
NHDPIus
V2.1
Census
Roads
Springfield
City staff indicated
that NASS is the
best available
dataset.
Springfield
NHD flowlines
are the most
consistent data
source for this
analysis.
General
Use national roads
dataset unless
a statewide or
local data set of
higher resolution is
available.
Springfield
City staff provided
the Missouri DOT
roads (arcs) data
set which is of
greater resolution
than Census roads.
General
NHD Flowlines
(perennial streams
connectors,
and artificial
paths) leaving
out intermittent
streams.
General
Select "Grass/
Pasture" attribute
class to represent
grazed lands.
Local, higher
resolution data sets
should be used
when applicable
and available.
Figure D-1. Data sets of interest from national sources.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 28
-------
NASS CDL
2014
NHDPIus
V2.1
Census
Roads
Clip 30m raster to the
study area.
Convert 30m raster to
polygon (vector).
Extract "Grass/
Pasture" category
as proxy for "grazed
land."
Clip flowlines to
study area.
Retain FCodes of
perennial streams,
connectors, and
artificial paths only.
Buffer by 1,320 feet.
Clip vector polylines to
the study area.
Compute acres for
each individual field.
Extract only those
greater than 5 acres
to avoid choosing
residential parcels.
1. Use roads to split grass/pasture from NASS as necessary to create individual "fields"
polygons (for Springfield area, NASS CDL already divided polygons by impervious land cover
corresponding to roads).
2. Clip the resulting grazed land polygons by the streams buffer coverage. The result
corresponds to the area of grazed land that has potential access to steams.
Figure D-2. Flow diagram of GIS methods and processes.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 29
-------
Based on a visual analysis of NASS, a 5-acre
threshold avoided selection of most residential
parcels, while the majority of pasture remained.
Other communities could start with this threshold
and adjust it based on a visual assessment of the
data. Fields, for the purposes of this analysis, are
defined as islands of grass/pasture from NASS
that are made discontinuous by intersecting roads
and streams.
The buffer width assumption was derived from
local information provided by NRCS agents. The
streams (NHD flowlines) were buffered by 1,320
feet, or a quarter of a mile, corresponding to how
far cattle are likely to travel to a stream for water.
This distance derived from knowledge of local
conditions and cattle behavior and management
(M. Green and S. Hefner, NRCS, personal
communication to Alex Porteous, July 16, 2015).
Other communities should consult with their local
NRCS agents before using this assumption.
The EPA project team considered wells to further
refine the analysis and inform which fields would
have more residential plots and likely not have
cattle visiting the stream. Most of the wells are
coded as "domestic," which are just as likely
to be out in a field somewhere as they are in a
new, "rural" home backyard. They are also quite
ubiquitous, and almost every field would have
a well on it. Some wells may no longer be used,
and others may be functional but only used when
needed. Using the knowledge that livestock,
particularly cattle, commonly have access to
streams for watering purposes in the region, it was
determined that it was unnecessary to use well
locations to filter the results. Aerial imagery can
be used to ground-truth and provide a sensitivity
analysis to verify the results.
The methods require several assumptions that
affect the certainty of the estimates. The buffer
distance is assumed as an average distance, and
livestock may travel farther to streams depending
on individual management practices or field
characteristics. In this instance, the grazed land
would be underestimated.
The effect of exclusion fencing was assumed to
be negligible for the purposes of the Springfield-
Greene County analysis. Each community would
need to review this assumption and determine
whether the results need to be adjusted to account
for exclusion fencing. Livestock stream access could
be overestimated if significant exclusion fencing has
been implemented.
Each local application of the above methods should
evaluate the uncertainty of the estimates and
document all major assumptions. Uncertainty in
the land cover data is an additional consideration.
Individual parcels may be classified by NASS as
grazed land but could be used for another purpose.
The use of broad animal-to-acre ratios from the
agricultural census carries additional uncertainty.
Animal densities on individual fields may vary and
animal densities within the buffer area may differ
from densities countywide.
Figure D-3 depicts the analysis results, zoomed into
the area west of Springfield. The map shows how
the threshold of 5 acres of grazed land precludes
most residential plots within the city limits. The map
also includes satellite imagery because it is a useful
way to ground-truth spatial results.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 30
-------
^ss
Legend
NHD Flowlines
NHD Flowline Buffer (1/4 mile)
Grazed Lands Intersecting NHD Buffer
~1 Springfield. MO City Limits
Springfield, MO Stream Access Study
I Kilometers
-|^ TETRATECH
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_15N
Map Produced 07-17-2015
Figure D-3. Example map depicting the processed results.
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 31
-------
APPENDIX E: ROAD-STREAM
CROSSING DATA GAPS
MDOT traffic volume data were not available for the following road-stream crossings:
MO-413/James River
McCall Bridge Rd/James River
The Loop Rd (V-20)/James River (Hootentown
Bridge)
State Highway M/James River
Big Bend Rd/Ficus Rd (N-18B)/James River
MO-14/James River
Nelson Mill Rd/James River
Blue Springs Rd/James River
Farm Rd 141/James River
MO-13/US Hwy 160/James River
Farm Rd 169/James River (Lake Springfield Dam)
US Hwy 65/Lake Springfield
E Farm Rd 148/James River
E State Hwy D/James River
MO-125/James River
E State Hwy Ad/Sayers Creek
S Farm Rd 241/Sayers Creek
E Farm Rd 150/Turner Creek
E Farm Rd 134/Broad Creek
E Buena Vista In/Broad Creek
S Skyline Dr/Galloway Creek
E Avalon Dr/Galloway Creek
Farm Rd 193/Pierson Creek
Farm Rd 148/Pierson Creek
Farm Rd 199/Pierson Creek
Wilson Rd/Old Limey Rd/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 128/Pickerel Creek
Farm Rd 116/Sycamore Creek
Farm Rd 17/Sycamore Creek
Tour Rd/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 182/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 115/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 174/Wilson's Creek
State Hwy M/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 168/ Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 146/ Wilson's Creek
W By-Pass/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 137/Wilson's Creek
Grant Ave/Wilson's Creek
Campbell Ave/Wilson's Creek
Farm Rd 115/Little Sac River
State Hwy BB/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 44/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 54/Little Sac River
State Hwy O/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 117/Little Sac River
County Rd 125/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 129/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 94/Spring Branch
Route 13/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 141/South Dry Sac River
County Rd 76/McDaniel Lake
Summit Street Rd/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 68/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 171/Little Sac River
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 32
-------
Farm Rd 197/Fellows Lake
US Hwy 65/Little Sac River
Farm Rd 44/Pomme de Terre River
Farm Rd 225/Pomme de Terre River
Farm Rd 221/Pomme de Terre River
US Hwy 65/Pomme de Terre River
State Hwy CC/King Branch
State Hwy CC/Sims Branch
Farm Rd 20/Little Pomme de Terre River
State Hwy CC/Little Pomme de Terre River
MO-245/Sac River
Dade 122/Sac River
Farm Rd 34/Sac River
Farm Rd 44/Sac River
Farm Rd 68/Sac River
Farm Rd 74/Sac River
Farm Rd 84/Sac River
Lawrence 2007/Sac River
Lawrence 1247/Sac River
Farm Rd 17/Sac River
Farm Rd 35/Sac River
Farm Rd 128/Sac River
Springfield-Greene County Data Collection Plan 33
------- |