Download Meramec River Conservation Action Plan PDF

TitleMeramec River Conservation Action Plan
LanguageEnglish
File Size3.5 MB
Total Pages141
Table of Contents
                            Meramec River Conservation Action Plan
	Cover
	Appendices
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

TNCLogoHoriz_Rev_Wht349.eps




 



 

MERAMEC RIVERMERAMEC RIVERMERAMEC RIVER
CONSERVATION ACTION PLANCONSERVATION ACTION PLANCONSERVATION ACTION PLAN



MMMAYAYAY 201420142014

Page 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This plan would not have been possible without the time, input,
data, and material contributions of numerous individuals and
organizations. We would like to thank in particular Rob Pulliam and
Kevin Meneau of the Missouri Department of Conservation, Abigail
Lambert of Ozark Regional Land Trust, Ron Coleman and Brittany
Barton of Open Space Council, Rob Jacobson of the U.S. Geological
Survey, Bob Pavlowsky of Missouri State University, Dave Wilson of
the East-West Gateway Council of Governments, and the many
people who participated in workshops and meetings over the past
years. Funding for this project was provided by Crystal Light through
a “Collaboration for U.S. Freshwater Sustainability” grant. Support
was also provided by The Boeing Company Charitable Trust and the
Employees Community Fund of Boeing St. Louis. Finally, we would
like to acknowledge the individuals who reviewed this plan and
provided valuable comments.

The Nature Conservancy Team:
Steven J. Herrington, Director of Freshwater Conservation, Missouri
Kristen Blann, Freshwater Ecologist, Minnesota
Todd Sampsell, State Director, Missouri
Doug Ladd, Director of Conservation, Missouri
Cynthia Pessoni, Conservation Programs Coordinator, Missouri
Amy Hepler Welch, Operations & Marketing Coordinator, Missouri
John Heaston, CAP Facilitator and Platte River Project Manager,

Nebraska
Blane Heumann, Director of Fire Management, World Office
Betsy LePoidevin, Director of Philanthropy, Missouri
Usman Khan, Marketing Intern, Missouri

Meramec River Conservation Partners and Participating

Organizations:
American Bird Conservancy
Belews Creek Watershed Partnership
Conservation Federation of Missouri
East-West Gateway Council of Governments
Friends of LaBarque Creek
Great Rivers Greenway
Kayak Swarm
Meramec Regional Planning Commission
Meramec River Tributary Alliance
Meramec State Park
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership
Missouri State University
Missouri Stream Teams
Open Space Council
Ozark Regional Land Trust
Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute
Saint Louis County Department of Parks
Shaw Nature Reserve
Teaming With Wildlife, Missouri Conservation Federation
University of Missouri
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Farm Services Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation

Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service

Meramec River overlook. © Bill Duncan

Page 70

A
p
p
en

d
ix

D
. V

ia
b
ili

ty
a

ss
em

en
t

ra
tin

g
s

fo
r

M
er

am
ec

R
iv

er
B

as
in

t
ar

g
et

s.








In
d
ic

at
or

R
at

in
g
s






C
on

se
rv

at
io

n
Ta

rg
et

s
C

at
eg

or
y

K
ey

A
tt

ri
b
u
te


In

d
ic

at
or


P
oo

r
Fa

ir


G
oo

d
V

er
y

G
oo

d
R

at
in

g
s

S
ou

rc
e

C
u
rr

en
t

R
at

in
g


D
es

ir
ed


R

at
in

g







H
yd

ro
lo

g
y

P
re

su
m

pt
iv

e
st

an
d
ar

d
f

or


ec
ol

og
ic

al
ly


su

st
ai

n
ab

le
f

lo
w

s

>
20

%
d

ev
ia

tio
n
f

ro
m


n
at

u
ra

l f
lo

w
r

eg
im

e

10
-2

0%
d

ev
ia

tio
n


fr
om

n
at

u
ra

l f
lo

w


re
g

im
e

5-
10

%
d

ev
ia

tio
n
f

ro
m


n
at

u
ra

l f
lo

w
r

eg
im

e
<

5%
d

ev
ia

tio
n
f

ro
m


n
at

u
ra

l f
lo

w
r

eg
im

e
Ex

te
rn

al


R
es

ea
rc

h


V
er

y
G

oo
d

V
er

y
G

oo
d




La
n
ds

ca
pe


p
at

te
rn

(
m

os
ai

c)


&
s

tr
u
ct

u
re



P
er

ce
n
t

flo
od

p
la

in


an
d
w

et
la

n
d


co
n
ve

rs
io

n
(

n
on

-
u
rb

an
)

>
30

%
la

n
d


co
n
ve

rs
io

n
20

-3
0%

la
n
d


co
n
ve

rs
io

n
10

-2
0%

la
n
d


co
n
ve

rs
io

n
<

10
%

la
n
d
c

on
ve

rs
io

n
R

ou
g

h


G
u
es

s
G

oo
d

G
oo

d




La
n
ds

ca
pe


p
at

te
rn

(
m

os
ai

c)


&
s

tr
u
ct

u
re



P
er

ce
n
t

im
pe

rv
io

u
s

su
rf

ac
e

>
10

%
im

p
er

vi
ou

s
su

rf
ac

e.
S

ig
n
ifi

ca
n
t

im
p
ac

ts
a

t
25

%
.

5-
10

%
im

p
er

vi
ou

s
su

rf
ac

e
1-

5%
im

pe
rv

io
u
s

su
rf

ac
e

<
1%

im
pe

rv
io

u
s

su
rf

ac
e

Ex
te

rn
al


R

es
ea

rc
h


V
er

y
G

oo
d

V
er

y
G

oo
d




S
tr

ea
m


g
eo

m
or

p
h
ol

og
y

C
h
an

n
el

a
lte

ra
tio

n


(E
P
A

)

B
an

ks
s

h
or

ed
w

ith


g
ab

io
n
o

r
ce

m
en

t;
ov

er
8

0%
o

f
th

e
st

re
am

r
ea

ch


ch
an

n
el

iz
ed

a
n
d


d
is

ru
p
te

d
. I

ns
tr

ea
m


h
ab

ita
t

g
re

at
ly

a
lte

re
d


or
r

em
ov

ed
e

n
tir

el
y.



C
h
an

n
el

iz
at

io
n
m

ay


b
e

ex
te

ns
iv

e;


em
b
an

km
en

ts
o

r
sh

or
in

g
s

tr
u
ct

u
re

s
p
re

se
n
t

on
b

ot
h


b
an

ks
; a

n
d
4

0
to


80

%
o

f
st

re
am


re

ac
h
c

ha
n
n
el

iz
ed


an

d
d

is
ru

p
te

d
.

S
om

e
ch

an
n
el

iz
at

io
n


p
re

se
n
t,

us
ua

lly
in


ar

ea
s

of
b

ri
d
g
e

ab
u
tm

en
ts

; e
vi

de
n
ce

o
f

p
as

t
ch

an
ne

liz
at

io
n
, i

.e
.,

d
re

d
g

in
g

, (
g

re
at

er
t

h
an


p
as

t
20

y
r)

m
ay

b
e

p
re

se
n
t,

b
ut

r
ec

en
t

ch
an

n
el

iz
at

io
n
is

n
ot


p
re

se
n
t.

C
h
an

n
el

iz
at

io
n
o

r
d
re

d
g

in
g

a
bs

en
t

or


m
in

im
al

; s
tr

ea
m

w
ith


n
or

m
al

p
at

te
rn

.

Ex
te

rn
al


R

es
ea

rc
h


V
er

y
G

oo
d

V
er

y
G

oo
d

Page 71

A
p
p
en

d
ix

D
. V

ia
b
ili

ty
a

ss
em

en
t

ra
tin

g
s

fo
r

M
er

am
ec

R
iv

er
B

as
in

t
ar

g
et

s.








In
d
ic

at
or

R
at

in
g
s






C
on

se
rv

at
io

n
Ta

rg
et

s
C

at
eg

or
y

K
ey

A
tt

ri
b
u
te


In

d
ic

at
or


P
oo

r
Fa

ir


G
oo

d
V

er
y

G
oo

d
R

at
in

g
s

S
ou

rc
e

C
u
rr

en
t

R
at

in
g


D
es

ir
ed


R

at
in

g





C

on
d
iti

on


In
-s

tr
ea

m


h
ab

ita
t

S
u
b
st

ra
te

/a
va

ila
b
le


co

ve
r

(E
P
A

)

Le
ss

t
ha

n
2

0%
(

10
%


fo

r
lo

w
g

ra
d
ie

n
t

st
re

am
s)

s
ta

b
le


h
ab

ita
t;

la
ck

o
f

h
ab

ita
t

is
o

b
vi

ou
s;


su

b
st

ra
te

u
n
st

ab
le

o
r

la
ck

in
g

.

20
-4

0%
(

10
-3

0%
f

or


lo
w

g
ra

d
ie

nt


st
re

am
s)

m
ix

o
f

st
ab

le
h

ab
ita

t;
h
ab

ita
t

av
ai

la
b
ili

ty


le
ss

t
h
an

d
es

ir
ab

le
;

su
b
st

ra
te

f
re

q
u
en

tly


d
is

tu
rb

ed
o

r
re

m
ov

ed
.

40
-7

0%
(

30
-5

0%
f

or


lo
w

g
ra

d
ie

nt
s

tr
ea

m
s)


m

ix
o

f
st

ab
le

h
ab

ita
t;

w
el

l-
su

ite
d
f

or
f

u
ll

co
lo

n
iz

at
io

n
p

ot
en

tia
l;

ad
eq

ua
te

h
ab

ita
t

fo
r

m
ai

n
te

n
an

ce
o

f
p
op

u
la

tio
ns

; p
re

se
n
ce


of

a
d
d
iti

on
al

s
u
bs

tr
at

e
in

t
h
e

fo
rm

o
f

ne
w

fa
ll,


b
u
t

n
ot

y
et

p
re

pa
re

d


fo
r

co
lo

n
iz

at
io

n
(



G
re

at
er

t
ha

n
7

0%
(

50
%


fo

r
lo

w
g

ra
d
ie

n
t

st
re

am
s)

o
f

su
bs

tr
at

e
fa

vo
ra

b
le

f
or

e
p
ifa

u
n
al


co

lo
n
iz

at
io

n
a

n
d
f

is
h


co
ve

r;
m

ix
o

f
sn

ag
s,


su

bm
er

g
ed

lo
g
s,


u
n
d
er

cu
t

b
an

ks
, c

ob
b
le


or

o
th

er
s

ta
b
le

h
ab

ita
t

an
d
a

t
st

ag
e

to
a

llo
w


fu

ll
co

lo
n
iz

at
io

n


p
ot

en
tia

l (
i.e

.,
lo

g
s/

s

R
ou

g
h


G
u
es

s
V

er
y

G
oo

d
V

er
y

G
oo

d




R
ip

ar
ia

n


co
rr

id
or


B

an
k

st
ab

ili
ty

(
EP

A
)

U
n
st

ab
le

; m
an

y
er

od
ed

a
re

as
; "

ra
w

"
ar

ea
s

fr
eq

u
en

t
al

on
g


st

ra
ig

ht
s

ec
tio

ns
a

n
d


b
en

d
s;

o
b
vi

ou
s

b
an

k
sl

ou
g

h
in

g
; 6

0-
10

0%


of
b

an
k

h
as

e
ro

si
on

al


sc
ar

s.


M
od

er
at

el
y

u
n
st

ab
le

; 3
0-

60
%

o
f

b
an

k
in

r
ea

ch
h

as


ar
ea

s
of

e
ro

si
on

;
h
ig

h
e

ro
si

on


p
ot

en
tia

l d
u
ri

n
g


flo

od
s.



M
od

er
at

el
y

st
ab

le
;

in
fr

eq
u
en

t,
sm

al
l a

re
as


of

e
ro

si
on

m
os

tly


h
ea

le
d
o

ve
r.
5

-3
0%

o
f

b
an

k
in

r
ea

ch
h

as


ar
ea

s
of

e
ro

si
on

.

B
an

ks
s

ta
b
le

; e
vi

de
n
ce


of

e
ro

si
on

o
r

ba
n
k

fa
ilu

re
a

b
se

n
t

or


m
in

im
al

; l
itt

le
p

ot
en

tia
l

fo
r

fu
tu

re
p

ro
b
le

m
s.


<

5%
o

f
ba

n
k

af
fe

ct
ed

.

Ex
te

rn
al


R

es
ea

rc
h


V
er

y
G

oo
d

V
er

y
G

oo
d




S
p
ec

ie
s

as
se

m
b
la

g
e

&


co
n
d
iti

on


Fi
sh

a
ss

em
b
la

g
e

IB
I

IB
I s

co
re

<
29

. H
ig

h
ly


im

p
ai

re
d
.

IB
I s

co
re

2
9-

36
.

Im
p
ai

re
d
.

IB
I s

co
re

3
7-

41
. N

o
im

p
ai

rm
en

t.
IB

I s
co

re
4

1-
45

. N
o

im
p
ai

rm
en

t.
Ex

te
rn

al


R
es

ea
rc

h


V
er

y
G

oo
d

V
er

y
G

oo
d




S
p
ec

ie
s

as
se

m
b
la

g
e

&


co
n
d
iti

on


M
is

so
ru

i S
tr

ea
m


C

on
d
iti

on
In

d
ex


(M

S
C

I)


S
co

re
4

-8
. N

on
-

b
io

lo
g

ic
al

ly


su
p
p
or

tin
g

.

S
co

re
1

0-
12

.
P
ar

tia
lly

b
io

lo
g

ic
al

ly


su
p
p
or

tin
g


S
co

re
1

2-
14

. P
ar

tia
lly


b
io

lo
g

ic
al

ly
s

u
p
p
or

tin
g


S
co

re
1

6-
20

. F
u
lly


b
io

lo
g

ic
al

ly
s

u
p
p
or

tin
g


Ex
te

rn
al


R

es
ea

rc
h


V
er

y
G

oo
d

V
er

y
G

oo
d




W
at

er
c

h
em

is
tr

y
C

h
em

ic
al

p
ol

lu
ta

n
ts


an

d
c

on
ta

m
in

an
ts


H

ig
h
c

on
ta

m
in

at
io

n
M

od
er

at
e

co
n
ta

m
in

at
io

n
S
lig

h
t

co
n
ta

m
in

at
io

n
N

o
co

n
ta

m
in

at
io

n
R

ou
g

h


G
u
es

s
V

er
y

G
oo

d
V

er
y

G
oo

d




W
at

er
q

u
al

ity


N
itr

og
en

a
n
d


P
h
os

p
h
or

u
s

H
ig

h
e

le
va

tio
n
a

b
ov

e
am

b
ie

nt
le

ve
ls



M
od

er
at

e
el

ev
at

io
n


ab
ov

e
am

b
ie

nt


le
ve

ls


S
lig

h
t

el
ev

at
io

n
a

b
ov

e
am

b
ie

nt
le

ve
ls


V

er
y

lo
w

/a
m

b
ie

n
t

le
ve

ls


R
ou

g
h


G
u
es

s
V

er
y

G
oo

d
V

er
y

G
oo

d

Page 140

achieve. The vision of the Meramec River Conservation Action Plan




RM -– River mile.


SABs -– Suspended and bedded sediments (USEPA 2003)

Severity – For ranking a Stress, the level of damage to a target by a stress that can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current
circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing situation) (TNC 2007).

Scope (Project) – See “Project Scope”.

Scope (Stress) – For ranking a Stress, most commonly defined spatially as the geographic scope of impact of a stress on a target at the site
that can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing situation) (TNC
2007).

Source of Stress – See “Threat”

Size – A class of Key Ecological Attribute that is a measure of the area or abundance of the conservation Target's occurrence (TNC 2007).

S.M.A.R.T. -– Objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-limited (TNC 2007). See “Objectives”.

Strategic Action – A broad or general course of action undertaken needed to help reach one or more of the project’s objectives.

Stresses – Impaired aspects of Targets that result directly or indirectly from human activities (e.g., low population size, reduced extent of
forest system; reduced river flows; increased sedimentation; lowered groundwater table level). Generally equivalent to degraded Key Eco-
logical Attributes (e.g., habitat loss) (TNC 2007).


Target – A limited suite of species, ecological communities, or ecological systems that are chosen to represent and encompass the biodiver-
sity found in your project area (TNC 2007). There are eight targets identified in the Meramec River Conservation Action Plan, including
the Lower Meramec River Drainage, Middle Meramec River Drainage, Upper Meramec River Drainage, Bourbeuse River Drainage, Big
River Drainage, Huzzah Creek and Courtois Creek River Drainage, LaBarque Creek River Drainage, and Freshwater Mussels.

Threat – The proximate activities or processes that directly have caused, are causing, or may cause a Stress(es) and thus the impairment,
degradation, and/or destruction of Targets (e.g., logging). Also known as the “Source of Stress” or “Direct Threat”. Also see “Critical
Threats” (TNC2007).

TNC -– The Nature Conservancy


USEPA -– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS -– U.S. Geological Survey

USFS -– U.S. Forest Service

USFWS -– U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Viability – The status or “health” of a population of a conservation target. Viability indicates the ability of a focal conservation target to
withstand or recover from most natural or anthropogenic disturbances and persist sustainably or over long time periods (TNC 2007).

Q

R

S

T

U

V

Page 141

Viability Analysis – An assessment of a Target to determine how to measure its “health” over time, including how to identify how the
Target is doing currently and what a “healthy state” might look like in the future (TNC 2007).

Vision – See “Project Vision”










W

X

Y

Z

Similer Documents