U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 734

Prepared in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, 

Water Year 2011
Front cover. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic technicians collecting water-quality samples.
Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, 

Water Year 2011

By Miya N. Barr

Prepared in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Data Series 734

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

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

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Barr, M.N., 2012, Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 734, 22 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

The Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network.....................................................................................2

Laboratory Reporting Conventions .............................................................................................................2

Data Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................................5

Station Classification for Data Analysis.....................................................................................................5

Summary of Hydrologic Conditions ............................................................................................................5

Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents ..................................8

Distribution of Physical Properties, Suspended-Solids Concentration,

Suspended-Sediment Concentration, and Indicator Bacteria Density..........................8

Distribution of Dissolved Nitrate plus Nitrite and Total Phosphorus Concentrations .............15

Distribution of Dissolved and Total Recoverable Lead and Zinc Concentrations....................15

Concentration and Detection Frequency of Select Pesticides from Selected Stations.........15

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................21
iv

Figures

1. Map showing location and class of selected stations and physiographic regions

of Missouri, water year 2011.......................................................................................................6

2. Map showing land use in Missouri............................................................................................7

3. Map showing location of streamflow-gaging stations used for the description of

hydrologic conditions for Missouri, water year 2011 .............................................................8

4. Graphs showing the 2011 water year monthly mean discharge and long-term

median of monthly mean discharges at six representative streamgages ..........................9

5. Boxplots showing distribution of physical properties, suspended-solids

concentrations, suspended-sediment concentrations, and indicator bacteria

densities in samples from 72 stations, water year 2011.......................................................11

6. Boxplots showing distribution of dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total

phosphorus concentrations in samples from 72 stations, water year 2011......................13

7. Boxplots showing distribution of dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc

concentrations from 72 stations, water year 2011 ................................................................14

8. Graphs showing detection of select pesticides from selected stations, water

year 2011 ......................................................................................................................................16

Tables

1. U.S. Geological Survey station number, name, drainage area, and sampling

frequency of 72 selected stations in Missouri, water year 2011 ..........................................3

2. Station classification system......................................................................................................8

3. Peak discharge for the 2011 water year and select periods of record for 

selected streamgages ...............................................................................................................10

4. Seven-day low flow for water year 2011, period of record 7-day low flow, and 

period of record minimum daily mean flow for selected streamgages in Missouri........10
v

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

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

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

 °F=(1.8×°C)+32

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

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

25°C).

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

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
vi
Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, 

Water Year 2011

By Miya N. Barr

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, designed and operates 

a series of monitoring stations on streams throughout Missouri 

known as the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network. 

During the 2011 water year (October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011), data were collected at 75 stations—72 Ambient 

Water-Quality Monitoring Network stations, 2 U.S. Geological 

Survey National Stream Quality Accounting Network stations, and 1 spring sampled in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. Dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water 

temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, fecal 

coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli bacteria, dissolved nitrate 

plus nitrite, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable 

lead and zinc, and select pesticide compound summaries are 

presented for 72 of these stations. The stations primarily have 

been classified into groups corresponding to the physiography 

of the State, primary land use, or unique station types. In addition, a summary of hydrologic conditions in the State including peak discharges, monthly mean discharges, and 7-day low 

flow is presented.

Introduction

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

with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 

collects water-quality data pertaining to Missouri’s water 

resources each water year (October 1 through September 30). 

These data, stored and maintained in the USGS National 

Water Information System (NWIS) database, are collected 

as part of the Missouri Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) and constitute a source of reliable, 

impartial, and timely information for developing an enhanced 

understanding of the State’s water resources. To make this 

information readily available, these data were published 

annually in the Water-Data Report series from water years 

1964 through 2005 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1964–2005). 

Published data for the 2006 through 2010 water years can be 

accessed at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2006–2010). Beginning in the 2011 water year, discrete 

water-quality data are no longer published annually, but can 

be accessed on the National Water Information System Web 

Interface (NWISWeb) at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/

nwis/qwdata.

The MDNR is responsible for the implementation of the 

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in Missouri. Section 305(b) 

of the CWA requires that each State develop a water-quality 

monitoring program and periodically report the status of its 

water quality (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). 

Water-quality status is described in terms of the suitability of 

the water for various uses, such as drinking, fishing, swimming, and support of aquatic life; these uses formally are 

defined as “designated uses” in State and Federal Regulations. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires certain waters that 

do not meet applicable water-quality standards be identified, 

and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) be determined for 

these waters (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). 

TMDLs establish the maximum amount of an impairing 

substance that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the 

water-quality standards. A TMDL addresses a single pollutant 

for each waterbody.

Missouri has an area of approximately 69,000 square 

miles (mi2) and an estimated population of 6 million people 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Within Missouri, there are 

22,708 miles (mi) of classified streams that support a variety 

of uses including wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industry, 

transportation, and public utilities. An estimated 11,646 mi 

of streams are adversely affected (impaired) by various 

physical changes or chemical contaminants to the point that 

criteria for at least one of the designated uses no longer can 

be met (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2010). 

The impairment of about 3,772 mi of assessed streams 

has been documented by data that meet the requirements 

of Missouri’s 303(d) Listing Methodology. There also are 

about 7,874 mi of classified, unassessed streams suspected 

of nonsupport, for which some data have been collected but 

the data are not of sufficient quality or quantity to officially 

rate the stream as impaired. Many of the unassessed streams 

suspected of non-support have been affected or modified 

by agriculture (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

2010).
2 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

The purpose of this report is to summarize surface-water 

quality data collected by the USGS in cooperation with the 

MDNR and other Federal and local entities for water year 

2011. The annual summary of select constituents provides 

MDNR with current information to assess the quality of 

surface water within the State and to ensure the objectives of 

the AWQMN are being met. This report is one in a series of 

annual summaries (Otero-Benitez and Davis, 2009a, 2009b; 

Barr, 2010, 2011). Data on the physical characteristics and 

water-quality constituents in samples collected at 72 surfacewater stations are presented in figures and tables. These 

72 stations primarily were classified into groups corresponding 

to the physiography of the State, primary land use, or unique 

station types.

The Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring 

Network

The USGS, in cooperation with the MDNR, designed and 

operates the cooperative AWQMN, which is a series of monitoring stations on streams and springs throughout Missouri. Constituent concentration data from the AWQMN have been used 

to determine statewide water-quality status and long-term trends 

(Barr and Davis, 2010) to meet information needs of State agencies involved in water-quality planning and management. The 

data collected also provide support for the design, implementation, and evaluation of preventive and remediation programs.

The objectives of the AWQMN are to obtain data on the 

quality and quantity of surface water within the State; provide 

a historical database of water-quality information that can be 

used by the State planning and management agencies to make 

informed decisions about anthropogenic effects (agriculture, 

mining, urban) on the State’s surface waters; and provide for 

consistent methodology in data collection, laboratory analysis, 

and data reporting.

The MDNR and the USGS established a fixed-station 

AWQMN in 1964 with 18 stations, 5 of which are still currently (2012) being sampled. During the 2011 water year, 

the program consisted of 72 stations. In addition to the 

AWQMN stations, water samples are collected by the USGS 

at two USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network 

(NASQAN; a national water-quality sampling network 

operated by the USGS) stations, and one spring sampled in 

cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. From these 75 stations, 72 are included in this report. Three stations from the 

AWQMN did not fit in the groups (classes) defined for this 

report and were not included. The three excluded stations were 

Cuivre River near Troy (05514500) and Lamine River near 

Pilot Grove (06907300), both located in the Ozark Plateaus 

border, and Lake Taneycomo at Branson (07053700). Sampling frequency (table 1) is determined by a number of factors, 

including drainage basin size, potential effects from anthropogenic activities (such as agriculture, mining, and urban), 

history of chemical change, need for short-term data, and cost. 

Each of the streams in the AWQMN is classified for one or 

more designated uses. For specific information on the designated uses applicable to the stations in the AWQMN, refer to 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (2012).

The unique eight-digit number used by the USGS to identify each surface-water station is assigned when a station first 

is established. The complete eight-digit number for each station includes a two-digit prefix that designates the major river 

system (05 is the Upper Mississippi River, 06 is the Missouri 

River, and 07 is the Lower Mississippi River) plus a six-digit 

downstream-order number. For example, the station number 

05587455 indicates the station is located on the Upper Mississippi River (“05”) while the remaining six digits (“587455”) 

locate the station in downstream order. In this system, the 

station numbers increase downstream along the main stem. A 

station on a tributary that enters between two main stem stations is assigned a station number between them.

Methods used for collecting and processing representative water-quality samples are presented in detail in the USGS 

“National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality 

Data” (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). Onsite measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance, 

and water temperature were taken at each station according 

to procedures described in Wilde (chapter sections variously 

dated). Samples were collected and analyzed for indicator 

bacteria [Escherichia coli (E. coli) and fecal coliform] using the 

membrane filtration procedure described in Myers and others 

(2007). Methods used by the USGS for collecting and processing representative samples for nutrients, major chemical constituents, trace elements, suspended solids, suspended sediment, 

and pesticide analysis are presented in detail in U.S. Geological 

Survey (2006), Guy (1969), and Wilde and others (2004). All 

chemical analyses were done by the USGS National Water 

Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado, according 

to procedures described in Fishman and Friedman (1989), Fishman (1993), and Zaugg and others (1995).

Laboratory Reporting Conventions

The NWQL uses method reporting conventions (Childress and others, 1999) to establish the minimum concentration for more than which a quantitative measurement can be 

made. These reporting conventions are the method reporting level (MRL) and the laboratory reporting level (LRL). 

The MRL is defined by the NWQL as the smallest measured 

concentration of a substance that can be measured reliably 

using a given analytical method. The method detection level 

(MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substance that can 

be measured and reported with 99-percent confidence that the 

concentration is greater than zero. A long-term method detection level (LT-MDL) is a detection level obtained by determining the standard deviation of 20 or more MDL spiked-sample 

measurements conducted for an extended period of time. The 

LRL is computed as twice the LT-MDL.
Laboratory Reporting Conventions 3

Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station number, name, drainage area, and sampling frequency of 72 selected stations in 

Missouri, water year 2011.

[mi2, square mile; --, not applicable]

USGS 

station number Station name

Contributing 

drainage area

(mi2

)

Water year 2011 

sampling frequency

05495000 Fox River at Wayland 400 6

05496000 Wyaconda River above Canton 393 6

05497150 North Fabius River near Ewing 471 6

05500000 South Fabius River near Taylor 620 12

a

05587455 Mississippi River below Grafton, Illinois 171,300 12

06817700 Nodaway River near Graham 1,520 6

a

06818000 Missouri River at St. Joseph 426,500 12

06821190 Platte River at Sharps Station 2,380 6

06894100 Missouri River at Sibley 426,500 12

06896187 Middle Fork Grand River near Grant City 82.4 6

06898100 Thompson River at Mount Moriah 891 6

06898800 Weldon River near Princeton 452 6

06899580 No Creek near Dunlap 34.0 12

06899950 Medicine Creek near Harris 192 12

06900100 Little Medicine Creek near Harris 66.5 12

06900900 Locust Creek near Unionville 77.5 12

06902000 Grand River near Sumner 6,880 12

06905500 Chariton River near Prairie Hill 1,870 6

06905725 Mussel Fork near Mystic 24.0 12

06906300 East Fork Little Chariton River near Huntsville 220 6

06917630 East Drywood Creek at Prairie State Park 3.38 4

06918070 Osage River above Schell City 5,410 6

06918600 Little Sac River near Walnut Grove 119 12

06919500 Cedar Creek near Pleasant View 420 12

06921070 Pomme de Terre River near Polk 276 9

06921590 South Grand River at Archie 356 6

06921720 Big Creek near Blairstown 414 12

06923700 Niangua River at Bennett Spring 441 6

06926510 Osage River below St. Thomas 14,580 6

06927850 Osage Fork of the Gasconade River near Lebanon 43.6 6

06928440 Roubidoux Spring at Waynesville -- 6

06930450 Big Piney River at Devil’s Elbow 746 9

06930800 Gasconade River above Jerome 2,570 12

a,b06934500 Missouri River at Hermann 522,500 16

07014000 Huzzah Creek near Steelville 259 6

07014200 Courtois Creek at Berryman 173 6

07014500 Meramec River near Sullivan 1,475 12

07016400 Bourbeuse River above Union 808 9

07018100 Big River near Richwoods 735 9

07019280 Meramec River at Paulina Hills 3,920 12

07020550 South Fork Saline Creek near Perryville 55.3 6
4 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station number, name, drainage area, and sampling frequency of 72 selected stations in 

Missouri, water year 2011.—Continued

[mi2, square mile; --, not applicable]

USGS 

station number Station name

Contributing 

drainage area 

(mi2

)

Water year 2011 

sampling frequency

07021020 Castor River at Greenbriar 423 6

a,b07022000 Mississippi River at Thebes, Illinois 713,200 12

07036100 St. Francis River near Saco 664 9

07037300 Big Creek at Sam A. Baker State Park 189 6

07042450 St. Johns Ditch at Henderson Mound 313 7

07046250 Little River Ditches near Rives 1,620 12

07050150 Roaring River Spring at Cassville -- 6

07052152 Wilson Creek near Brookline 51 12

07052250 James River near Boaz 462 7

07052345 Finley Creek below Riverdale 261 12

07052500 James River at Galena 987 12

07052820 Flat Creek below Jenkins 274 12

07053900 Swan Creek near Swan 148 6

07057500 North Fork River near Tecumseh 561 6

07057750 Bryant Creek below Evans 214 6

07061600 Black River below Annapolis 493 7

07066110 Jacks Fork above Two River 425 12

07067500 Big Spring near Van Buren -- 4

07068000 Current River at Doniphan 2,040 12

07068510 Little Black River below Fairdealing 194 6

b

07071000 Greer Spring at Greer -- 4

07071500 Eleven Point River near Bardley 793 6

07185764 Spring River above Carthage 425 12

07186480 Center Creek near Smithfield 303 9

07186600 Turkey Creek near Joplin 41.8 9

07187000 Shoal Creek above Joplin 427 12

07188653 Big Sugar Creek near Powell 141 12

07188838 Little Sugar Creek near Pineville 195 12

07188885 Indian Creek near Lanagan 239 12

07189000 Elk River near Tiff City 872 12

07189100 Buffalo Creek at Tiff City 60.8 12

a

Additional water temperature and suspended-sediment samples collected in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

b

Stations 06934500, 07022000, and 07071000 are not part of the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network, but were used in the report. Stations 

06934500 and 07022000 are funded by the U.S. Geological Survey National Stream Quality Account Network; station 07071000 is funded by the 

U.S. Forest Service.
Summary of Hydrologic Conditions 5

Data Analysis Methods

The distribution of select constituent data was graphically displayed using side-by-side boxplots (box and whiskers 

distributions; Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). The plots show the 

center of the data (median, the center line of the boxplot), 

the variation [interquartile range (25th to 75th percentiles) 

or the height of the box], the skewness (quartile skew, which 

is the relative size of the box halves), the spread (upper and 

lower adjacent values are the vertical lines or whiskers), and 

the presence or absence of unusual values, or outliers (upper 

and lower detached and outside values). If the median equals 

the 25th and 75th percentiles, the boxplot is represented by a 

single horizontal line. Censored concentration data reported 

less than the MRL, less than the LRL, or as estimated to be 

below the MRL or LRL were included in each distribution as a 

concentration value equal to the MRL or LRL. Boxplots with 

censored data were modified by making the lower limit of the 

box equal to the MRL or LRL.

Station Classification for Data Analysis

The stations primarily were classified in groups corresponding to the physiography of the State (fig. 1), primary 

land use (fig. 2), or unique station types (fig. 1; table 2). The 

physiography-based groups include the Dissected Till Plains 

(DTPL) in the north, the Osage Plains (OSPL) in the west, 

the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MIALPL) in the southeast, 

and between them the Ozark Plateaus. The Ozark Plateaus 

(Fenneman, 1938) were further subdivided into two distinct 

groups based on physiographic location—the Salem Plateau 

(OZPLSA) and the Springfield Plateau (OZPLSP). Landuse groups include mining (MINING) and urban (URBAN) 

stations, whereas unique station classes refer to springs 

(SPRING) and the stations located on the big rivers [the Mississippi River (BRMIG and BRMIT) and the Missouri River 

(BRMOSJ, BRMOS and BRMOH)].

Some additional variability caused by differences in 

drainage area and land use was observed within physiographic regions; therefore, watershed size and land-use 

indicators were employed to develop a complete set of 

classes. The land-use indicator provides a subclassification 

for stations in similar regions with different land uses (fig. 1; 

table 2). The secondary land-use indicators are watershed 

indicator stations (wi), which are the most downstream stations in a large watershed, and are defined for the purposes 

of this report as a drainage area greater than 1,000 mi2; forest 

(fo); agricultural (ag); and prairie (pr). Observations and 

analyses from watershed indicator stations can be interpreted 

as being representative of the general condition of the watershed. In some instances, the agricultural and forest secondary 

land uses were present; therefore, the convention was to mention them in predominant order. For example, an agriculture 

and forest (ag/fo) indicator implies that the primary land use 

of the watershed is agriculture, although a substantial part of 

the land use is forest.

Summary of Hydrologic Conditions

Surface-water streamflow varies seasonally in Missouri and tends to reflect precipitation patterns. The selection of streamflow-gaging stations (hereinafter referred to 

as streamgages) used to describe the variation in hydrologic 

conditions was based on their geographical distribution across 

the State and their long period of record. This summary of 

state-wide hydrologic condition data is a legacy of information that was previously provided in the annual Water-Data 

Reports (U.S. Geological Survey, 1964–2005). Stations used 

to provide hydrologic conditions that are not already identified as a surface-water quality sampling station on figure 1, are 

identified in figure 3.

Six streamgages across the State were selected to illustrate the 2011 water year monthly mean discharge and the 

long-term median of monthly mean discharge (fig. 4). Monthly 

mean discharge is the arithmetic mean of daily discharges for 

a given month. The median of the monthly mean discharges 

computed for the available period of record is used to represent 

the historical data for comparison to the current water year. Of 

these six stations, three (05495000, 06921590, and 07052500) 

are part of the AWQMN and the remaining four (06897500, 

06921590, 06933500, and 07067000) are streamgages only and 

are not part of the AWQMN (figs. 1 and 3).

During the 2011 water year, the average annual precipitation of the conterminous United States was about 0.36 inches 

(in.) less than the long-term average of 29.35 in. (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012a). Missouri’s precipitation ranked less than normal with 39.72 in. 

of total precipitation, whereas the long-term State average is 

41.17 in. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2012b). Most stations had monthly mean discharges greater 

than or equal to the median of the monthly mean discharges 

for April through June 2011 except station 06921590 (South 

Grand River at Archie). Stations 06933500 (Gasconade River 

at Jerome) and 07067000 (Current River at Van Buren) had 

monthly mean discharges during March through September 

2011 that were mostly greater than the long-term monthly 

mean discharges for their period of record. The largest differences can be observed at stations 05495000 (Fox River at Wayland) and 06921590 (fig. 3). Site 06921590, which is located 

in the west-central region of Missouri, exceeded the historical 

monthly mean discharges only in February 2011 (fig. 3).

Peak discharges for the 2011 water year and select 

periods of record are presented for nine streamgages (fig. 3; 

table 3). The peak discharges shown in table 3 were less than 

the peak discharges for the period of record at all stations. The 

7-day low flow for the period of record, and the minimum 

daily mean flow for the 2011 water year are presented for 

selected stations in table 4.
Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15Horizontal coordinate information referenced to theNorth American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

0 15 30 60 MILES

0 20 40 60 KILOMETERS

95° 94° 93° 92° 91° 90°

40°39°38°37°36°

06896187

07052345

07022000

07189100

07188885 07188838

05495000

06898100

06817700

05500000

06818000 06902000

06905500

06906300

06821190

06934500

06926510

07018100

07014500

06918070

06921070

07036100

07021020

07052152

07186600 07052250

07067500

07052500

07071000

07071500 07057500 07189000

07186480

07068510

07068000

07066110

07061600

07057750

07053900

07052820

07050150

07046250

07042450

07037300

07019280 07016400

07014200

07014000 06930800

06930450

06928440

06923700

06921590

06918600

06905725

06900900

06900100

06899950

06899580

05587455

06898800

07188653

05497150

05496000

06894100

06921720

06917630

07187000

07185764

06919500 07020550

06927850

06896187

07052345

07022000

07189100

07188885 07188838

05495000

06898100

06817700

05500000

06818000 06902000

06905500

06906300

06821190

06934500

06926510

07018100

07014500

06918070

06921070

07036100

07021020

07052152

07186600 07052250

07067500

07052500

07071000

07071500 07057500 07189000

07186480

07068510

07068000

07066110

07061600

07057750

07053900

07052820

07050150

07046250

07042450

07037300

07019280 07016400

07014200

07014000 06930800

06930450

06928440

06923700

06921590

06918600

06905725

06900900

06900100

06899950

06899580

05587455

06898800

07188653

05497150

05496000

06894100

06921720

06917630

07187000

07185764

06919500 07020550

06927850

Missouri

River

Mississippi

River

#

#

#

#

'

'

' '

$

$

$

$

#

#

# "

"

"

"

!

!

!

!

!

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

"

"

""

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

$$ $

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

"

"

"

"

'

"

"

Big River (BRM

and BRMO

Mining (MINIMississippi ADissected Till Dissected Till 

agriculture 

Ozark Plateau

agriculture 

Ozark Plateau

forest and 

Ozark Plateau

forest (OZ

Springs (SPRIUrban (URBAUrban waters

Ambient Water-

(AWQMN) cnumber (055

Osage Plains Osage Plains 

(OSPL wi a

Central LowlaCoastal Plain Central LowlaOzark PlateauOzark Plateau

 Physiographic 

Fenneman, 

!

#

"

""$$

$

#

''""" Osage Plains 

Figure 1. Location and class of selected stations and physiographic regions of Missouri, water year 2011. Figure 1. Location and class of selected stations and physiographic regions of Missouri, water year 2011.
Summary of Hydrologic Conditions 7

Open water—Lakes Agricultural land

Urban Forest

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Land use in Missouri.

96° 95° 94° 93° 92° 91° 90° 89°

40°

39°

38°

37°

36°

Land-cover data modified from the U.S. Geological Survey

National Land Cover dataset 30-meter digital data, 2001;

reclassified to water, urban, agricultural, and forest

0 25 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Base from USGS digital data, 1991, 2001, 1:100,000 and 1:2,000,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information referenced to the

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Figure 2. Land use in Missouri.
8 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

Distribution, Concentration, and 

Detection Frequency of Select 

Constituents

The analyses presented in this report include the following constituents: dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance, 

water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, 

E. coli bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus 

nitrite, total phosphorus, and dissolved and total recoverable 

lead and zinc. In addition, pesticide data were analyzed from 

eight stations. Of the 85 pesticide constituents analyzed during 

the water year, 15 were selected for presentation in this report: 

2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine (CIAT; a degradation product of atrazine); 3,4-dichloroaniline, acetochlor; 

alachlor; atrazine; cis-propaconazole; metalaxyl; metoalachlor; 

metribuzin; pendimethalin; prometon; prometryn; simazine; 

terbuthylazine; and trans-propiconazole. The selection of these 

constituents and pesticides for presentation in this report was 

based on values or concentrations of the select constituents are 

characteristic of stream-water quality in the different physiographic areas, and values and concentrations of the select 

constituents and pesticides are more than background concentrations. Boxplots of measured constituents are presented for 

the different classes (figs. 5–7). Pesticide data are presented 

in figure 8. Missouri water-quality standards are not shown 

on the graphs because these standards are not applicable to all 

streams in the AWQMN network. For specific information on 

Missouri water-quality standards, refer to Missouri Department of Natural Resources (2012).

Distribution of Physical Properties, SuspendedSolids Concentration, Suspended-Sediment 

Concentration, and Indicator Bacteria Density

The physical properties analyzed for this report were DO, 

specific conductance, and water temperature. The median DO, 

in percent saturation, ranged from 71 to 111 percent (fig. 5). 

Samples from MIALPL, OSPL wi ag, and SPRING stations 

had the lowest median DO percent saturation values, whereas 

samples from URBAN stations had the highest (fig. 5). The 

range in DO percent saturation values was smallest at BRMIG. 

Median specific conductance values varied substantially 

among the station classes (fig. 5), ranging from 113 microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius at the OSPL 

pr station to 772 microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees 

Celsius at the BRMOSJ station. Median water temperature 

values ranged from 10.3 to 19.9 degrees Celsius, with the 

Table 2. Station classification system.

[Classification system is based on physiography of the State, primary and secondary land use, unique station type, and watershed size, as well as a station’s 

representativeness to the general condition of the watershed]

Class 

(fig. 1) Description Number of stations

BRMIG Big River—Mississippi River below 

Grafton, Illinois

1

BRMIT Big River—Mississippi River at 

Thebes, Illinois

1

BRMOSJ Big River—Missouri River at 

St. Joseph, Missouri

1

BRMOS Big River—Missouri River at Sibley, 

Missouri

1

BRMOH Big River—Missouri River at 

Hermann, Missouri

1

MIALPL Mississippi Alluvial Plain a

2

OZPLSA fo/ag Ozark Plateaus—Salem Plateau forest 

and agriculture

18

OZPLSA wi fo/ag

Ozark Plateaus—Salem Plateau 

watershed indicator, forest and 

agriculture

4

OZPLSP ag/fo Ozark Plateaus—Springfield Plateau 

agriculture and forest

11

DTPL ag Dissected Till Plains agriculture 12

DTPL wi ag Dissected Till Plains watershed 

indicator, agriculture

4

OSPL ag Osage Plains agriculture 2

OSPL wi ag Osage Plains watershed indicator, 

agriculture

1

OSPL pr Osage Plains prairie 1

SPRING Springs 4

MINING Mining 3

URBAN Urban 4

URBAN wi Urban watershed indicator 1

a

One station in this class, Little River Ditches near Rives, Missouri 

(07046250), has a drainage area greater than 1,000 square miles but is not considered a watershed indicator station because the manmade canals and ditches within 

its drainage area are not hydrologically connected.

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

07067000

07052500

06921590

06933500

05495000

06897500

07019000

06820500

07016500

05587450

06905500

06934500

07022000 07187000

06921070

07057500 07068000

Figure 3. Location of streamflow-gaging stations used for the 

description of hydrologic conditions for Missouri, water year 2011.
Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents 9

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

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

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1

10

100

1,000

Discharge, in cubic feet per second

2011 water year monthly mean discharge

Median monthly mean discharge for period of record

EXPLANATION

05495000 Fox River at Wayland 06897500 Grand River near Gallatin

06933500 Gasconade River at Jerome

07052500 James River at Galena 07067000 Current River at Van Buren

06921590 South Grand River at Archie

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

07067000

07052500

06921590

06933500

05495000

06897500

Figure 4. The 2011 water year monthly mean discharge and longterm median of monthly mean discharges at six representative 

streamgages.
10 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

Table 3. Peak discharge for the 2011 water year and select periods of record for selected streamgages.

[Peak discharge in cubic feet per second]

U.S. Geological 

Survey station 

numbera

Station name

 (period of record used for statistical summaries 

in water years)

2011 water year Long-term period of record

Peak

discharge Date Peakdischarge Date

05495000 Fox River at Wayland, Mo. (1922–2010) 26,200 June 15 26,400 Apr. 22, 1973

05587450 Mississippi River at Grafton, Ill. (1987–2010) 362,000 May 1,

June 19

598,000 Aug. 1, 1993

06905500 Chariton River near Prairie Hill, Mo. (1929–2010) 22,900 June 28 38,400 July 27, 2008

06933500 Gasconade River at Jerome, Mo. (1903–2010) 85,100 Apr. 27 136,000 Dec. 5, 1982

06934500 Missouri River at Hermann, Mo. (1958–2010) 279,000 May 27 750,000 July 31, 1993

07019000 Meramec River near Eureka, Mo. (1904–2010) 60,600 Apr. 29 145,000 Dec. 6, 1982

07022000 Mississippi River at Thebes, Ill. (1933–2010) 876,000 May 2 996,000 Aug. 7, 1993

07057500 North Fork River near Tecumseh, Mo. (1945–2010) 81,000 Apr. 26 133,000 Nov. 19, 1985

07068000 Current River at Doniphan, Mo. (1921–2010) 90,100 Apr. 26 122,000 Dec. 3, 1982

a

Stations 05587450, 06933500, and 07019000 are streamflow-gaging stations only and not part of the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network 

(AWQMN).

Table 4. Seven-day low flow for water year 2011, period of record 7-day low flow, and period of record minimum daily mean flow for 

selected streamgages in Missouri.

[Flow in cubic feet per second]

U.S. Geological 

Survey station 

numbera

Station name

 (period of record in water years)

7-day

low flow

Minimum daily mean flow for 

period of record

2011 Period of 

record Discharge Date

05495000 Fox River at Wayland (1922–2011) 3.5 0 0 Several years

06820500 Platte River near Agency (1933–2011) 62 0 0 Several years

06921070 Pomme de Terre river near Polk (1969–2011) 5.8 0.34 0.30 Aug. 10, 1980

07016500 Bourbeuse River near Union (1921–2011) 62 13 12 Oct. 10, 1956

07067000 Current River at Van Buren (1912–2011) 809 479 476 Oct. 8, 1956

07187000 Shoal Creek above Joplin (1942–2011) 111 16 15 Sept. 7, 1954

a

Stations 06820500, 07016500, and 07067000 are streamflow-gaging stations only and not part of the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network 

(AWQMN).
Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents 11

o

o

x

x

x

o

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

xx

xx

x

o

o o

o

x

x

xx

oo

o

x

x

x

xx

o x x

o

x

o

xx

oo

x

Number of samples 

EXPLANATION 

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Lower detached

Upper detached

Upper outside

12

o

o

x

x

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

20

200

600

1,000

0

400

800

1,200

1,400

-10

50

10

20

30

40

0

Dissolved oxygen,

in percent saturation

Water temperature,

in degrees Celsius

Specific conductance, in microsiemens

per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius

BRMIG [1]

BRMIT [1]

BRMOSJ [1]

BRMOS [1]

BRMOH [1]

MIALPL [2]

OZPLSA fo/ag [18]

OZPLSA wi fo/ag [4]

OZPLSP ag/fo [11]

DTPL ag [12]

DTPL wi ag [4]

OSPL ag [2]

OSPL wi ag [1]

OSPL pr [1]

SPRING [4]

MINING [3]

URBAN [4]

URBAN wi [1]

Station classification system (table 2)

[number of stations in class]

10 11 11 12 16 19 145 24 128 108 30 18 6 4 20 22 40 12

10 12 12 12 16 19 145 24 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 23 40 12

84 90 54 12 44 19 145 24 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 24 40 12

Figure 5. Distribution of physical properties, suspended-solids concentrations, suspended-sediment concentrations, and 

indicator bacteria densities in samples from 72 stations, water year 2011.
12 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

x

x

x o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o

o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

o o oo

o

o

x

x x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

xxx x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

oo

x

x

x

x

x

o

x

x x

Number of samples 

EXPLANATION 

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Lower detached

Upper detached

Upper outside

12

Laboratory reporting level 

o

o

x

x

Suspended sediment,

in milligrams per liter

Fecal coliform indicator bacteria, 

in colonies per 100 milliliters

of water

Escherichia coli indicator bacteria,

in colonies per 100 milliliters

of water

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

10

100

1,000

Station classification system (table 2)

[number of stations in class]

BRMIG [1]

BRMIT [1]

BRMOSJ [1]

BRMOS [1]

BRMOH [1]

MIALPL [2]

OZPLSA fo/ag [18]

OZPLSA wi fo/ag [4]

OZPLSP ag/fo [11]

DTPL ag [12]

DTPL wi ag [4]

OSPL ag [2]

OSPL wi ag [1]

OSPL pr [1]

SPRING [4]

MINING [3]

URBAN [4]

URBAN wi [1]

10

100

1,000

10,000

Suspended solids,

in milligrams per liter

10 0 12 12 0 19 133 36 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 24 40 12

10 12 12 12 16 19 127 36 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 24 40 12

10 12 12 12 16 19 127 36 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 24 40 12

13 13 28 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Laboratory reporting level = 15

Figure 5. Distribution of physical properties, suspended-solids concentrations, suspended-sediment concentrations, and indicator 

bacteria densities in samples from 72 stations, water year 2011.—Continued
Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents 13

x

x

x

x

x

xx

o

o

o

o

o

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

o

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

o

o

Station classification system (table 2)

[number of stations in class]

BRMIG [1]

BRMIT [1]

BRMOSJ [1]

BRMOS [1]

BRMOH [1]

MIALPL [2]

OZPLSA fo/ag [18]

OZPLSA wi fo/ag [4]

OZPLSP ag/fo [11]

DTPL ag [12]

DTPL wi ag [4]

OSPL ag [2]

OSPL wi ag [1]

OSPL pr [1]

SPRING [4]

MINING [3]

URBAN [4]

URBAN wi [1]

Dissolved nitrate plus nitrite,

in milligrams per liter

Total phosphorus, 

In milligrams per liter

0.01

0.10

1

10

50

0.01

0.10

1

10

10 11 12 12 16 19 133 36 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 24 40 12

10 11 12 12 16 19 133 36 132 108 30 18 6 4 20 24 40 12

Laboratory reporting level = 0.02

Laboratory reporting level = 0.02

x

x

o

o

12 Number of samples 

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Lower detached

Upper detached

Upper outside

Laboratory reporting level 

EXPLANATION 

Figure 6. Distribution of dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total phosphorus concentrations in samples from 72 

stations, water year 2011.
14 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

x

x

x

x

x

o

x

o xx

xx

x

o

o o o o oo o

o

o

o

o o

x

x

oo

o

o

o o

o o

x

x o

x

x

x o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

x

x

x

x

xx

o

o

o

o

o

x

x

x

x

x

0.01

0.10

1

10

Dissolved lead,

in micrograms per liter

Total recoverable lead,

in micrograms per liter

Dissoved zinc,

in micrograms per liter

Total recoverable zinc,

in micrograms per liter

0.01

0.10

1

10

100

1,000

1

10

100

1,000

1

10

100

1,000

Station classification system (table 2)

[number of stations in class]

Station classification system (table 2)

[number of stations in class]

4 0 4 4 0 6 46 12 44 33 10 7 3 2 10 8 13 4

Laboratory reporting level = 0.015

BRMIG [1] BRMIT [1]

BRMOSJ [1] BRMOS [1]

BRMOH [1] MIALPL [2] OZPLSA fo/ag [18]

OZPLSA wi fo/ag [4] OZPLSP ag/fo [11] DTPL ag [12]

DTPL wi ag [4] OSPL ag [2]

OSPL wi ag [1] OSPL pr [1]

SPRING [4]

MINING [3] URBAN [4]

URBAN wi [1]

BRMIG [1] BRMIT [1]

BRMOSJ [1] BRMOS [1]

BRMOH [1] MIALPL [2] OZPLSA fo/ag [18]

OZPLSA wi fo/ag [4] OZPLSP ag/fo [11] DTPL ag [12]

DTPL wi ag [4] OSPL ag [2]

OSPL wi ag [1] OSPL pr [1]

SPRING [4]

MINING [3] URBAN [4]

URBAN wi [1]

Laboratory reporting level = 1.4

4 0 4 4 0 6 46 12 44 36 10 7 3 2 10 8 13 4

Laboratory reporting level = 0.036

4 0 4 4 0 6 46 12 44 36 10 7 3 2 10 8 13 4

Laboratory reporting level = 2.4

4 0 4 4 0 6 46 12 44 33 10 7 3 2 10 8 13 4

Number of samples 

EXPLANATION 

x

x

o

o

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Lower detached

Upper detached

Upper outside

12

Laboratory reporting level 

Figure 7. Distribution of dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc concentrations from 72 stations, water year 2011.
Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents 15

smallest median measured at the OSPL pr station and the largest median measured at the OSPL wi ag station (fig. 5). The 

range in water temperature at the SPRING stations was much 

smaller than at any other station class.

Suspended solids and suspended sediment are measures 

of the solid material suspended in the water column. These two 

measures are not considered directly comparable because of 

differences in collection and analytical techniques. Suspendedsolids concentrations were determined at all stations except 

BRMIT and BRMOH. Median suspended-solids concentrations varied considerably between all station classes, ranging 

from less than 15 to 145 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Samples 

collected at the the OZPL (SA fo/ag, SA wi fo/ag, and SP 

ag/fo), OSPL pr, SPRING, MINING, and URBAN stations had 

median concentrations less than the LRL, whereas the BRMOS 

station had the largest median suspended-solids concentrations. 

Suspended-sediment concentrations were determined only at 

four Big River stations. The suspended-sediment data used for 

this report consist of composited cross-sectional concentrations, average cross-sectional concentrations computed from 

five verticals within the cross-section, or from single vertical (also known as box sample) concentrations. Additional 

suspended-sediment concentrations from individual verticals 

within cross-sections are available on NWISWeb. Median 

suspended-sediment concentrations ranged from 115 mg/L at 

BRMIG to 397 mg/L at BRMOSJ (fig. 5).

Median E. coli bacteria densities ranged from 13 to 

525 colonies per 100 milliliters (col/100mL) (fig. 5). The 

lowest median densities were in samples collected at SPRING 

stations, whereas the largest median densities were in samples 

collected at BRMOS (fig. 5). Median fecal coliform bacteria 

densities (fig. 5) ranged from 18 to 650 col/100mL. Similar to 

the median ranges of E. coli bacteria densities, the the smallest median densities were measured at SPRING stations and 

the largest median fecal coliform densities were in samples 

collected at the BRMOS station (fig. 5). Median E. coli and 

fecal coliform bacteria densities varied considerably between 

all station classes. The range of both fecal bacteria indicator 

densities at BRMOS were smaller than any other class.

Distribution of Dissolved Nitrate plus Nitrite and 

Total Phosphorus Concentrations

Samples were collected at all stations for the analysis 

of nutrients, including dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total 

phosphorus. Median dissolved nitrate plus nitrite and total 

phosphorus concentrations varied considerably between all 

station classes (fig. 6), ranging from 0.05 to 3.5 mg/L nitrate 

plus nitrite as nitrogen and from less than 0.02 to 0.46 mg/L 

total phosphorus. The smallest median dissolved nitrate plus 

nitrite concentrations were detected at OSPL ag, and the 

largest concentrations were detected in samples collected at 

BRMIG and URBAN stations (fig. 6). The smallest median 

total phosphorus concentrations were detected at the OZPLSA 

(fo/ag and wi fo/ag) and SPRING stations, all of which had 

median values equal to the LRL, and the largest median concentrations were at the BRMOH station. (fig. 6).

Distribution of Dissolved and Total Recoverable 

Lead and Zinc Concentrations

Samples were collected for the analysis of dissolved and 

total recoverable trace elements, including lead and zinc. No 

dissolved or total recoverable lead and zinc samples were collected at BRMIT and BRMOH. Median concentration ranges 

of dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc (fig. 7) were 

less than 0.015 to 0.63 micrograms per liter (μg/L) dissolved 

lead, 0.10 to 13.1 μg/L total recoverable lead, less than 1.4 to 

14.6 μg/L dissolved zinc, and less than 2.4 to 54.3 μg/L total 

recoverable zinc. The smallest median concentrations of dissolved lead and dissolved and total recoverable zinc generally 

were detected in samples collected at all DTPL ag, OZPL (SA 

fo/ag, SA wi fo/ag, SP ag/fo), and SPRING stations (fig. 7). 

Median dissolved zinc concentrations were detected at or less 

than the LRL except for OSPL pr, MINING, URBAN and 

URBAN wi stations. Although large median concentrations 

of both dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc were 

detected at the MINING stations, only median concentrations 

of dissolved lead and total recoverable zinc were the largest 

among all classes. Median total recoverable lead concentrations were largest at the URBAN wi station, and median dissolved zinc concentrations were largest in samples collected at 

URBAN stations.

Concentration and Detection Frequency of 

Select Pesticides from Selected Stations

Samples for the analysis of dissolved pesticides were 

collected at eight stations in the AWQMN, including three of 

the five Big River stations (BRMIG, BRMIT, and BRMOH), 

both stations in the MIALPL, one DTPL ag station, the OSPL 

wi ag station, and one URBAN station. The DTPL ag station is 

not routinely sampled for pesticides, but was sampled during 

the 2011 water year to compensate for the inability to access 

one of the MIALPL sites during the spring flooding conditions 

in the southeastern part of the State. Data from 15 compounds 

detected at concentrations greater than the LRL at 1 or more 

stations are presented graphically in this report (fig. 8). The 

most frequently detected pesticides were CIAT, acetochlor, 

alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine. The concentrations detected at all stations for all pesticides were less than 

1.00 μg/L except CIAT, atrazine, metalaxyl, and metolachlor. 

CIAT concentrations ranged from less than 0.006 to 1.29 μg/L. 

Atrazine concentrations ranged from less than 0.008 to 

12.3 μg/L, with the largest concentrations detected at MIALPL 

stations. Metalaxyl concentrations ranged from an estimated 

0.008 to 1.85 μg/L. Metolachlor concentrations ranged from 

an estimated 0.006 to 16.8 μg/L, with the largest concentrations detected at MIALPL stations (fig. 8).
16 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

10/10 12/12 16/16 7/10 2/2 6/6 5/7

0

0.01

0.10

1.00 2-Chloro-4-isoproylamino-6-amino-s-triazine (CIAT)

Laboratory reporting level = 0.006

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

3,4-Dichloraniline

0

0.01

0.10

1.00

Concentration, in micrograms per liter

Acetochlor

0.001

0.010

0.100

BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL DTPL ag OSPL wi ag URBAN

Station classification system (table 2)

Alachlor

5/10 8/12 5/16 8/10 1/2 1/6 2/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.0042

10/10 12/12 16/16 7/10 2/2 6/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.010

2/10 7/12 5/16 1/10 0/2 3/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.008

EXPLANATION

12/12

Laboratory reporting level (LRL)—Concentrations

 less than LRL are estimated

Sample

Number of detections/total number of samples

Figure 8. Detection of select pesticides from selected stations, water year 2011.
Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents 17

Atrazine

cis-Propiconazole

Metalaxyl

Metolachlor

Concentration, in micrograms per liter

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

Station classification system (table 2)

10/10 12/12 16/16 10/10 2/2 6/6 5/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.008

0/10 1/12 2/16 7/10 0/2 0/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.008

Laboratory reporting level = 0.014

0/10 5/12 4/16 4/9 2/2 1/6 1/5

10/10 12/12 16/16 10/10 2/2 6/6 5/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.020

BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL DTPL ag OSPL wi ag URBAN

EXPLANATION

12/12

Laboratory reporting level (LRL)—Concentrations

 less than LRL are estimated

Sample

Number of detections/total number of samples

Figure 8. Detection of select pesticides from selected stations, water year 2011.—Continued
18 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

Station classification system (table 2)

Metribuzin

Pendimethalin

Prometryn

Prometon

Concentration, in micrograms per liter

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

1/10 5/12 2/16 5/10 1/2 1/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.012

0/10 0/12 0/16 4/10 0/2 0/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.012

8/10 9/12 12/16 0/10 1/2 4/6 6/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.012

0/10 1/12 3/16 6/10 0/2 1/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.006

BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL DTPL ag OSPL wi ag URBAN

EXPLANATION

12/12

Laboratory reporting level (LRL)—Concentrations

 less than LRL are estimated

Sample

Number of detections/total number of samples

Figure 8. Detection of select pesticides from selected stations, water year 2011.—Continued
Distribution, Concentration, and Detection Frequency of Select Constituents 19

Station classification system (table 2)

Concentration, in micrograms per liter

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

Simazine

Terbuthylazine

trans-Propiconazole

10/10 12/12 14/16 6/10 2/2 5/6 4/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.006

5/10 4/12 0/16 3/10 0/2 1/6 0/7

0/10 1/12 2/16 7/10 0/2 0/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.010

Laboratory reporting level = 0.006

BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL DTPL ag OSPL wi ag URBAN

EXPLANATION

12/12

Laboratory reporting level (LRL)—Concentrations

 less than LRL are estimated

Sample

Number of detections/total number of samples

Figure 8. Detection of select pesticides from selected stations, water year 2011.—Continued
20 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011 Concentration, in micrograms per liter

Station classification system (table 2)

P04036—Prometryn

P04035—Simazine

P82679—Propanil

P040370—Prometon

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.001

0.010

0.100

8/10 10/12 13/16 6/10 1/2 4/6 6/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.012

0/10 1/12 4/16 6/10 0/2 1/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.006

0/10 0/12 0/16 1/10 0/2 0/6 0/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.010

10/10 12/12 14/16 6/10 2/2 5/6 5/7

Laboratory reporting level = 0.006

BRMIG BRMIT BRMOH MIALPL DTPL ag OSPL wi ag URBAN

EXPLANATION

12/12

Laboratory reporting level (LRL)—Concentrations

 less than LRL are estimated

Sample

Number of detections/total number of samples

Figure 8. Detection of select pesticides from selected stations, water year 2011.—Continued
References Cited 21

References Cited

Barr, M.N., 2010, Quality of surface water in Missouri, water 

year 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1233, 22 p., accessed May 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2010/1233/.

Barr, M.N., 2011, Quality of surface water in Missouri, water 

year 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 636, 21 p., 

accessed June 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/636/.

Barr, M.N., and Davis, J.V., 2010, Surface-water quality 

conditions and long-term trends at selected sites within the 

ambient water-quality monitoring network in Missouri, 

water years 1993–2008: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5078, 42 p.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on longterm method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 

19 p.

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of eastern United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 689 p.

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

LaboratoryDetermination of inorganic and organic 

constituents in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 93−125, 217 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for the 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, accessed May 

2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri5c1/.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, accessed 

May 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri4a3/.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2010, Missouri 

water quality report (Section 305(b) Report), accessed May 

2012, at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/305b/

index.html.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2012, Missouri 

water quality standards—Chapter 7, Water quality: Jefferson City, Missouri, Clean Water Commission, 150 p.

Myers, D.N., Stoeckel, D.M., Bushon, R.N., Francy, D.S., and 

Brady, A.M.G., 2007, Fecal indicator bacteria (ver. 2.0): 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A7, accessed May 2012, at 

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012a, 

State of the climate—National overview for annual 2011, 

accessed June 2012, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

national/2011/13.

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, 2012b, 2011 

Missouri climate summary: National Climatic Data Center 

database, accessed June 2012, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

oa/climate/research/cag3/mo.html.

Otero-Benitez, W., and Davis, J.V., 2009a, Quality of surface 

water in Missouri, water year 2007: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009–1096, 19 p., accessed May 2012, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1096/.

Otero-Benitez, W., and Davis, J.V., 2009b, Quality of surface 

water in Missouri, water year 2008; U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009–1214, 18 p., accessed May 2012, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1214/.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, U.S. population estimates, 

accessed June 2012, at http://www.census.gov/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Guidelines for 

preparation of the comprehensive state water quality assessments (305(b) reports) and electronic updates: Washington, 

D.C., Office of Water, EPA–841–B97–002A, variously 

paged, accessed May 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/owow/

monitoring/guidelines.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1964–2005, Water resources data—

Missouri: variously paged.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples 

(ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, accessed May 

2012, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006-2010, Water resources data for 

the United States: Water-Data Report, accessed May 2012, 

at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/.

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chaps. A1–A9, accessed May 2012, at http://pubs.water.

usgs.gov/twri9A.

Wilde, F.D., ed., chapter sections variously dated, Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, accessed May 

2012, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/.
22 Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 

eds., 2004, Processing of water samples (ver. 2.2): U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A5, accessed May 2012, at http://

pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A5/.

Zaugg, S.D., Sandstrom, M.W., Smith, S.G., and Fehlberg, 

K.M., 1995, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological 

Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of pesticides in water by C-18 solid-phase extraction 

and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected-ion monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 95–181, 49 p.

Publishing support provided by:

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Missouri Water Science Center

1400 Independence Road

Rolla, MO 65401

(573) 308–3667

Or visit the Missouri Water Science Center Web site at:

http://mo.water.usgs.gov

Barr—Quality of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011—Data Series 734