1996 KANSAS WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT (305(b) REPORT)

December 1996

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Division of Environment
Bureau of Environmental Field Services
1000 SW Jackson, Topeka, KS 66612

Table of Contents - Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - References - Appendix

PART II: BACKGROUND

Kansas comprises a land surface of 81,778 square miles. Runoff from this surface is drained by 134,338 miles of streams distributed among twelve major river basins. Surface water impoundments in Kansas are conservatively numbered at 120,000. The state's 291 publicly owned reservoirs ("lakes") represent a surface area of 175,260 acres and account for most of the state's lake acreage and volumetric storage capacity. Kansas also contains an estimated 370,000 acres of wetland. About 36,000 acres of wetland are publicly owned or otherwise open to the general public for recreational and educational purposes (Table 1).

Much of Kansas is underlain by porous geological formations containing appreciable quantities of groundwater. The largest such formations consist of unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, and silt) deposited by streams. Some unconsolidated glacial deposits and consolidated bedrock formations also contain appreciable quantities of groundwater. The total freshwater storage in all major Kansas aquifers is estimated at 590 million acre-feet.

Table 1. Kansas Atlas

Surface Water Pollution Control Program

Watershed Approach

In a letter to the EPA regional administrator dated November 12, 1993, the department committed to the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water quality-limited surface waters in each of the state's twelve major river basins. The anticipated outcome of this effort was the development and adoption of allowable pollution loadings for individual watersheds and/or hydrological units, pursuant to sections 303(d) and 303(e) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). This effort concentrated initially on the Kansas/Lower Republican River Basin. Over the next two years, similar TMDL development efforts will focus on the Walnut, Verdigris, and Upper Arkansas basins, followed in order by the Cimarron, Neosho, Solomon, Smoky Hill/Saline, Lower Arkansas, Marais des Cygnes, Upper Republican, and Missouri basins. These efforts are intended to resolve known water quality problems and minimize the risk of over-allocating available dilution capacity in the future.

In July 1994, the department was awarded a section 104(b)(3) grant from EPA for the purpose of developing and evaluating a watershed approach to surface water quality management based on geographic information system (GIS) methodologies. Specific objectives included (1) the organization and analysis of data from compliance monitoring activities by receiving stream reach, (2) the organization of 305(b) reports and other statewide water quality assessments by stream reach, hydrological unit, and major river basin, (3) the creation of procedural tools needed to determine the effects of widely separated point sources on surface water quality, and (4) the development of conceptual models for jointly addressing the impacts of point and NPSs on water quality. The final project report is scheduled for completion in December 1997.

On October 19, 1995, Governor Graves announced a multi-agency initiative dedicated to the improvement and maintenance of water quality conditions within the state. Participating agencies included the Kansas Water Office (KWO), the State Conservation Commission (SCC), and the departments of Health and Environment, Agriculture, and Wildlife and Parks. Collectively, these agencies were charged with the development and implementation of workable pollution control strategies for point and NPSs, with special emphasis on voluntary and incentive-based strategies. Among the more important aspects of this initiative were (1) an enhancement of existing water quality and hydrological monitoring activities, (2) the acquisition of reliable, watershed-specific data on prevailing livestock and cropland management practices and pesticide/fertilizer application rates, and (3) the utilization of GIS in the identification and resolution of water quality problems. The Kansas/Lower Republican River Basin was chosen as the pilot basin for this initiative.

Several other watershed-based pollution control efforts have been implemented by the department. These include the development of a proposed site-specific phosphorus criterion and associated TMDL for Hillsdale Lake, a large multipurpose reservoir in northeastern Kansas. Based on three independent studies conducted over the past decade and on the results of water quality modeling activities conducted by the department, wasteload/load allocations have been proposed for point and NPSs of phosphorus located upstream of the lake. The department also completed an EPA-funded study of the effects of nutrient loadings from small sewage treatment facilities on watershed impoundments. The results of this study should provide the foundation for as many as seven additional TMDLs.

In the determination of permit limits for individual point sources, the department has long considered "background" pollutant loadings attributable to upstream point and NPSs and to natural (biogeochemical and hydrological) processes occurring within the watershed. Permits commonly contain limits which are based on the remaining, allocable dilution capacity of the receiving stream, as determined through the department's ongoing water quality monitoring activities (see Part III, this report). To date, 131 municipal, 125 industrial, and 6 federal facilities in Kansas have been issued permits containing such watershed and water quality-based limits.

Water Quality Standards

The Kansas surface water quality standards (K.A.R. 28-16-28b through 28-16-28f) establish water quality goals for all streams, lakes, and wetlands occurring within the state or forming a portion of the border with an adjoining state. General narrative provisions within the standards extend a basic level of protection to all such waters, irrespective of size or ownership.

Classified surface waters comprise a large subset of the waters of the state and are subjected to additional narrative and numeric water quality criteria. Classified streams include all streams with mean summer base flows exceeding 0.003 cubic meter per second (0.1 cubic foot per second) and all smaller streams wherein pooling of water during periods of zero flow allows for biological recolonization of intermittently flowing segments. Classified lakes include all publicly owned lakes and all privately owned lakes providing facilities for public recreation. Classified wetlands include wetlands owned by federal, state, county, or municipal authorities (exclusive of wetlands created for the purpose of wastewater treatment) and all privately owned wetlands open to the general public for recreational or educational purposes.

The standards also designate the beneficial uses of classified surface waters and establish water quality criteria necessary to protect and maintain these uses. At a minimum, all classified surface waters are designated for noncontact recreation and one of three categories of aquatic life support (special, expected, or restricted). Other beneficial uses recognized under the Kansas standards include contact recreation, food procurement, domestic water supply, industrial water supply, livestock watering, irrigation, and groundwater recharge. These latter uses are assigned on a case-by-case basis and only where they constitute existing uses (as defined by 40 CFR 131.10) or are otherwise deemed attainable based on studies conducted or accepted by the department.

The designated uses of all major streams, lakes, and wetlands are delineated in the Kansas Surface Water Register (KDHE 1994). This document assigns identification numbers and geographical (latitude/ longitude) descriptors to individual waterbody segments based on EPA river reach files (RF2 and RF3). Waterbody segments in the register are grouped by major river basin and hydrological unit code. Locations of all listed segments are depicted in an accompanying series of maps, which are similarly organized by river basin and hydrological unit code. By "georeferencing" waterbody segments and corresponding use designations in this fashion, the register may be expressed as a GIS coverage and used with other spatial databases in the development of water quality assessment reports, TMDLs, and appropriate water pollution control strategies.

In the amended standards (August 29, 1994), 100% of all listed streams were designated for aquatic life support and noncontact recreation, 59% for food procurement, 37-39% for domestic water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, livestock watering and groundwater recharge, and 29% for contact recreation. One hundred percent of all lake acres were designated for aquatic life support, food procurement and noncontact recreation, 92% for contact recreation, 80-82% for domestic and industrial water supply, 15% for irrigation, seven percent for groundwater recharge, and less than one percent for livestock watering. In addition, four percent of all listed stream miles and 67% of all listed wetland acres were classified as "outstanding natural resource waters" and subjected to the highest level of protection under the antidegradation and mixing zone provisions of the standards.

Another round of public hearings on the Kansas surface water quality standards will be scheduled for the spring and summer of 1997. A series of informational meetings will be held prior to these formal hearings to encourage public participation in the standards review and revision process. Topics of particular interest will likely include (1) the beneficial use designations of intermittent and ephemeral streams in western Kansas and selected smaller streams in eastern Kansas, (2) the feasibility of additional narrative or numeric biocriteria, and (3) the appropriateness of current aquatic life support criteria for chloride, atrazine, various metals, and temperature.

Point Source Pollution Control

The Kansas point source program was first developed in 1907 (K.S.A. 65--161 et seq.) and has been modified on several occasions in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal regulations implementing this law are found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This program helps to protect and improve surface water quality by regulation of wastewater treatment systems for municipal, federal, industrial, and commercial sewage facilities, storm water, and certain larger livestock waste treatment facilities. As discussed later in this report, smaller livestock facilities (less than 300 animal units) and other diffuse sources of pollutants are addressed by the NPS Control Program.

Kansas administers both federal and state laws governing the treatment, reuse, and discharge of wastewater and treated effluent. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is responsible for the review and approval of the engineering plans and specifications and for overseeing operator training and certification, pretreatment programs administered by local wastewater utilities, treatment plant compliance review, and operation of municipal wastewater collection systems (including new, upgraded, or expanded treatment facilities). Non-overflowing wastewater treatment systems are regulated by the Kansas Water Pollution Control (KWPC) permitting system (K.S.A. 65-165). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for all discharging municipal, federal, industrial, and commercial wastewater treatment facilities, and certain livestock operations. Discharges from wastewater treatment systems are authorized by KDHE pursuant to technological effluent limitations and Kansas surface water quality standards. Permits are issued for a period of no more than five years and are reviewed prior to reissuance.

Agricultural water pollution control permits are required for all structures, devices, impoundments, or other facilities used to retain wastewater generated by livestock operations or runoff resulting from rainfall upon exposed livestock facilities. Livestock facilities which do not utilize control facilities, do not currently pose a potential for water pollution problems, and are not subject to NPDES permit requirements and are issued a certification of compliance. Livestock operations which are required to be registered under the requirements of K.S.A. 65-166a, K.S.A. 65-17d, and K.S.A. 28-16-58 through K.S.A. 28-16-63 must be in conformance with the terms of an issued permit or compliance certification. The following types of livestock operations are specifically regulated by the department:

1. Any facility, regardless of size, determined by KDHE to present a significant water pollution potential including but not limited to the following:

1. all livestock operations that utilize wastewater control facilities i.e., manure pits, ponds, lagoons, or other devices;
2. open lots located across or adjacent to creeks, streams, intermittent waterways, or any other conveying channel or device;
3. any operation which cannot retain or control wastewater or waste solids upon the operator’s property;
4. any operation observed to practice improper disposal of livestock wastes (liquid or solid and) which has the potential to degrade or impair the quality of any waters of the state (surface or groundwater);
5. any facility that generates wastewater and releases it on a daily or more frequent basis;

2. Any confined animal feeding facility with a designed animal unit capacity of 300 or more and posing a significant water pollution potential.

3. All facilities with design animal unit capacities of 1,000 or more, regardless of pollution potential.

4. Sale barns and collection centers with an average capacity exceeding 300 animal units or which are utilized more than once a week.

5. Any other animal feeding operation whose operator elects to come under these statutes and regulations.

6. All livestock truck wash facilities.

Table 2 lists the number of KWPC and NPDES permits issued by type of facility. The fifty-seven "major" wastewater treatment facilities in Kansas are inspected annually by KDHE district staff. "Minor" facilities, are defined as generally anything discharging less than 1 million gallons per day (actual flow). Non-discharging facilities are inspected less frequently, but at least once every five years. During federal fiscal years (FFY) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, KDHE staff inspected 504, 742, 474, 715, and 394 wastewater treatment facilities, respectively.

Table2 - Number of Active KWPC and NPDES Permits, FFY 1991-1995

Additionally, KDHE maintains its own program of compliance monitoring as required by the NPDES process (Appendix Part I. A1.) . Approximately 75 discharges are monitored each year for permit limited parameters (Figure 1; Appendix Part I. A1& I.A2.). From FFY 1991 through 1995, the department’s compliance review activities for wastewater treatment facilities resulted in the issuance of 78 consent and administrative orders and in the collection of $132,156 in related penalties.

Wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) in Kansas have a very high permit compliance record due in part to non-overflowing waste stabilization ponds (considered to be in 100% compliance provided they do not discharge) and to discharging waste stabilization ponds (reliable and easily operated and maintained treatment systems). Table 3 presents the facility compliance record for discharging facilities for FFY 1991 through 1995. "Absolute" or 100 % compliance means a facility did not exceed an effluent limit during any monitoring period. The monitoring interval is typically one calendar month, except for municipal and commercial waste stabilization ponds which adhere to a quarterly schedule.

Table 3. Permit Compliance Record.   "Absolute" Compliance for WWTFs Excluding Non-Discharging Lagoons.

	TYPE OF FACILITY
YEAR	MUNICIPAL & COMMERCIAL	INDUSTRIAL	AGRICULTURAL
1991	91%	92%	NA
1992	92%	95%	NA
1993	88%	94%	97% (est.)
1994	84%	94%	97% (est.)
1995	NA	NA	97% (est.)
TOTAL NUMBER	479	354	384

NA = not available est. = estimated

The wastewater permit review process provides detailed evaluation of WWTFs prior to permit reissuance. The level of review depends on the type of wastewater being treated, reliability of the type of treatment process provided, and potential adverse impact on the receiving stream. Permits are reviewed for compliance with KDHE regulations to insure that design capacity is sufficient for waste flows and pollutant volume, and to review any operational, maintenance, or compliance problems. At the time of permit review, KDHE also reviews the status of operator certification.

Effluent Toxicity Monitoring

The department routinely considers whole effluent toxicity in its review of municipal and industrial permits. Definitive whole-effluent toxicity (WET) tests are conducted on effluent from all major treatment facilities and selected smaller facilities (Figure 1; Appendix Part I. A 2.). Such tests involve the exposure of laboratory-reared fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and water fleas (Daphnia pulex) to a series of five different effluent concentrations, ranging from 100% effluent to a control of 100% biologically conditioned aquarium water. The use of multiple concentrations greatly enhances statistical confidence in the test results. If a discharge exhibits toxicity in a WET test and the toxicity has the potential to adversely affect the receiving stream at the 7Q10 low flow condition, repeated WET testing is conducted by KDHE. Failure of one or both of these initial tests generally leads to the inclusion of WET testing requirements and/or limits in the discharging facility’s NPDES permit. Of the 111 definitive tests conducted by the department from calendar year 1991 through 1995, 84 (76%) indicated no significant potential for the development of acutely toxic conditions in the receiving stream.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control

The primary goal of the Kansas NPS pollution control program is to eliminate surface water and groundwater quality impairments attributable to NPS pollution. In pursuing this goal, the program endeavors (1) to inform Kansans about the seriousness of NPS pollution, (2) to improve communication and coordination among agencies, organizations, and individuals having shared NPS pollution control interests and responsibilities, and (3) to enhance the public's willingness and ability to commit to effective NPS pollution control practices.

The Kansas program is a collaborative effort involving many federal, state and local governmental units and private sector organizations. The responsibilities of the various participating agencies and organizations are summarized in Table 4. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment and SCC are the primary agencies of this program. The department is responsible for coordinating and maintaining the Kansas NPS Management Plan and for administering the Local Environmental Protection Program (LEPP) and the NPS grant program under section 319 of the CWA. The State Conservation Commission administers the Kansas NPS Control Fund and coordinates and supports the efforts of the state's 105 county conservation districts. These districts are responsible for implementing the NPS pollution control program at the local level.

Local Environmental Protection Program -- The LEPP, administered by KDHE and funded by the KWO under the auspices of the State Water Plan, provides financial assistance to local governmental units to develop and implement a local environmental protection plan. The authorizing statute requires the local environmental protection plan to include a sanitary code and to provide plans to address subdivision water and wastewater, solid waste, hazardous waste, public water supply protection, and NPS pollution. A total of $9.3 million has been provided during the seven years of the program. Presently, 97 of 105 Kansas counties are participating in the program. Environmental code adoption has been a priority effort since the beginning of the program. Since initiation of the LEPP in 1989, the number of counties which have adopted local codes has increased from 30 to 74. The status of code adoption is shown in Table 5 and Figure 2a.

Table 4. Kansas Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Partners

Table 5.  Summary of Local Environmental Code Adoption

Kansas Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Fund -- The Kansas NPS Pollution Control Fund is established through the Kansas State Water Plan Fund and is the principal means of achieving widespread implementation of NPS pollution control. In the six years of the program, about $2.2 million has been expended to address NPS pollution problems. To be eligible to secure Kansas NPS Pollution Control Funds, the county conservation district must first prepare a Local NPS Pollution Management Plan. Sixty-one county conservation districts now administer management plans (Figure 2b). These plans identify water quality goals for a local planning area (typically the county), identify the categories of pollution sources present in the planning area, establish minimum recommended pollution control practices for each source category, identify implementation partners, and set out an implementation strategy. Once the local plan is found to be consistent with the state requirements, the conservation district may submit a project work plan to implement the local plan. The project work plan is essentially an application for funding.

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grants -- The KDHE is the grantee of record for CWA section 319 grants. Approximately $650,000 is used annually to maintain KDHE’s NPS Pollution Control Section. The remaining funds are used to support partner sponsored projects including information and education, watershed pollution control demonstration, groundwater and wellhead protection, technology transfer, and technical assistance. The locations of current and planned Section 319 supported projects are shown in Figure 3.

Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control

Water pollution control programs can provide social and economic benefits to both users and non-users of water resources. Users are those who benefit directly by instream use of the resources (i.e., swimming, boating, shoreline recreation, fishing, irrigation, livestock watering, and water supply). Potential users are those who may have a potential future use, or who value the preservation of the resource as a diverse ecosystem. Non-users are those who receive no "direct" benefits; however, everyone receives an "indirect" benefit, especially in increased public health protection, decreased nuisance conditions, and a generally improved environment.

Public officials often believe a comparison of costs and benefits will determine the relative value of any investment. However, determining a cost/benefit ratio for environmental programs is no simple task. Costs can be measured, estimated, and/or extrapolated relatively easily. Program costs include regulation, monitoring, research, and development while implementation costs include administrative costs, capital investment, and operational costs for municipal, industrial, commercial, and agricultural facilities. Assignment of a monetary value to the benefits of improved water quality is much more difficult.

The cost of water pollution control programs can be gauged, in part, through direct capital investments made in wastewater treatment facilities. There is minimal information available to KDHE regarding the costs of privately owned industrial or agricultural facilities; however, capital expenditures associated with the upgrading of municipal facilities are well documented.

The department has been responsible for administering the Federal EPA Construction Grants Program (CG) under delegation from EPA Region VII. In the past this funding program provided grants for 55% of allowable project costs. Monies available through this program have been greatly reduced. However, KDHE also administers the Kansas Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (KWPCRF) which provides low interest loans to municipalities for water pollution control projects. Available monies have significantly increased over the current reporting period, primarily due to KDHE's efforts in the sale of a "leveraged revenue bond" that has provided an additional $47.3M for project financing. The staff of KDHE also coordinate with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program which typically provides 50% grants for projects, and the Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA, now the Rural Development Administration) which typically provides financing with both grant and loan monies for all costs of a municipal wastewater facility improvement. Facility improvements from FFY 1991 through 1995 are estimated at $145.8M including state and federal financial aid of $128.5M (Table 6).

Table 6. KDHE Cooperative Funding for Constructino of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades and Expansions.  Monetary units given in millions of dollars, $M.

There have been several notable improvements in the quality of receiving streams as a direct result of these funding programs. For example, the completion of new nitrification and disinfection facilities at the Wichita WWTF in 1990 dramatically reduced concentrations of ammonia and FCB in the Arkansas River. Comparisons of water quality data for the periods 1987-89 versus 1991-93 revealed a 10-fold reduction in the median level of ammonia and a 94-fold reduction in the median concentration of FCB. Although no detailed biological survey has performed since the upgrading of the Wichita WWTF, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) staff have reported an overall increase in the diversity of the fish community downstream of the city. Similar improvements in water quality have been documented at several other locations in Kansas.

Examples include Indian Creek in Johnson County, the Cottonwood River below Emporia, the Walnut River downstream of El Dorado, and the Smoky Hill River below Salina.

During 1991-1993, the CG and the KWPCRF gave high priority to and directed funds toward several water quality improvement projects. These included upgrades to large facilities serving McPherson, Newton, Pittsburg, Emporia, Salina, Topeka, Hays, and Holton. Regionalization projects also were initiated to improve water quality by removing older treatment facilities from service. These involved the Salina-Schilling facility, the Forbes Field facility (south of Topeka), and seven treatment facilities within the Mill Creek regional service area of Johnson County.

Major Water Pollution Concerns

Agriculture exerts a singularly important influence on surface water quality conditions in Kansas. Erosion of croplands produces elevated concentrations of silt and other suspended materials in streams and lakes, often to the detriment of native aquatic and semiaquatic life. The presence of nitrogen- and phosphorus-containing fertilizers in stormwater runoff promotes nuisance growths of algae and detracts from the recreational uses of surface water. Stormwater runoff from feedlots, livestock wintering areas, and heavily grazed pastures introduces fecal pathogens and oxygen consuming organic wastes to nearby lakes and streams, detracting from the sanitary condition of these waters. Pesticide residues in some drinking water supply lakes and streams pose unacceptable, long-term risks to human health and add substantially to the costs of drinking water treatment. Withdrawal of surface water for use in irrigation raises concerns by eliminating the very habitat needed by aquatic life.

Discharges of wastewater from municipal and industrial WWTFs also exert a notable influence on surface water quality. Heavy loadings of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus from some sewage treatment plants encourage blooms of filamentous or scum-forming algae in downstream waters and impair the recreational uses of many streams. Discharges of nondisinfected effluent from WWTFs release potentially harmful levels of microbial pathogens, whereas the addition of chlorine or other disinfectants to treated sewage or industrial cooling water discharges sometimes results in acutely toxic conditions in receiving streams. Bypasses of raw or partially treated sewage occur each year owing to treatment plant malfunctions, operator error, or natural catastrophes. Such bypasses often result in fishkills or other conspicuous water quality problems.

Stormwater runoff from roadways and urban areas contains a wide assortment of contaminants, such as trash, oil, grease, antifreeze, deicing salts, weed control chemicals, insecticides, solvents, paints, detergents, and high levels of silt and other suspended materials. Improper disposal or application of lawn and garden chemicals sometimes results in the complete elimination of aquatic and semiaquatic life from urban streams. Downstream of many urban areas, concentrations of bioaccumulative pesticides (e.g., chlordane) in bottom feeding fish preclude the safe consumption of these fish by humans as per published advisories and pose potential threats to wildlife.

Water quality and the aesthetic attributes of many streams in the state continue to be degraded by the illegal dumping of trash, garbage, rubbish, offal, discarded building and construction materials, car bodies, tires, wire, appliances, and other unwanted or discarded materials. The commonplace practice of discarding grass clippings into streams (and the subsequent decay of these materials) reduces dissolved oxygen levels and jeopardizes native populations of fish and other aquatic life.

Empty paint cans or pesticide containers discarded in or near streams may leach appreciable quantities of toxic materials and pose a serious threat to resident aquatic and semiaquatic life.

Physical Concerns

Erosion of farmland soils continues to impair surface water quality throughout the state by greatly elevating concentrations of suspended solids in streams and prematurely filling ponds and reservoirs with sediment. No recommendations are made below concerning this problem because it is currently being addressed through several governmental and public participation programs and through the Governor’s water quality initiative.

The recent transformation of many streams of historical perennial flow into dry channels or intermittent or effluent-sustained waterbodies has resulted in a decline in dilution base and in a widespread reduction in surface water quality. Efforts to establish minimum desirable stream flows and implement other protective measures have been initiated.

There exists a concern over the widespread, illegal dumping of garbage and other solid wastes into both intermittent and perennial streams. No recommendations are made below concerning this subject because it currently is being addressed through several governmental and public participation programs.

Thick deposits of calcareous sludge continue to accumulate downstream of some urban areas from drinking water treatment (water softening) sludge disposal practices. No recommendations are made below concerning this subject because it is being addressed through existing regulations and administrative actions to eliminate these discharges.

Chemical Concerns

Use of the agricultural herbicide atrazine continues to result in detection in drinking water supply lakes and streams. This problem is most widespread in the traditional "cornbelt" region of northeastern Kansas, where surface water provides the primary source of drinking water for several hundred thousand people. Atrazine is one of three water quality parameters receiving special attention under the Governor’s water quality initiative.

Bottom-feeding/bottom-dwelling fish in many urban areas contain concentrations of the insecticide chlordane which exceed the recommended federal criteria for protection of human health and predatory wildlife. This pesticide’s registration was suspended by EPA in 1988, and concentrations in fish should decline to safer levels over time.

Accelerated rates of lake eutrophication are occurring throughout much of Kansas owing to heavy loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural sources and WWTF discharges. No recommendations are made concerning this problem because it is being addressed through existing and proposed regulations and voluntary programs.

Elevated and potentially harmful levels of fluoride occur in some streams as a result of discharges from industrial point sources. This problem is being addressed through existing regulatory programs.

High levels of unionized ammonia below several major WWTFs have markedly reduced the diversity of native aquatic and semiaquatic life. No recommendations are made below concerning this problem because it is being addressed through existing regulatory programs.

There has been a gradual salinization of many central Kansas streams owing to reductions in flow, the intrusion of highly mineralized groundwater, discharges of sodium and chloride-enriched effluent from resource extraction facilities, the seasonal introduction of irrigation return flows, and salt contributions from some industrial and municipal point sources. This problem is being addressed through existing water allocation and water pollution control regulations and voluntary programs.

Biological Concerns

Nondisinfected discharges from municipal WWTFs and pathogen-enriched agricultural runoff have impaired the sanitary condition of many lakes and streams in Kansas. Municipal point sources continue to stress biological communities over substantial reaches of some major rivers, indicating that the dilution base available to dischargers has been overallocated. These problems are being addressed through existing regulatory and voluntary programs and through the Governor’s water quality initiative.

General Recommendations

(1) Water appropriation actions should consider all existing and attainable uses of surface water. Attempts to improve water quality for aquatic life are meaningless if streams are effectively dewatered.

(2) Nutrient control measures are needed for the majority of the state's reservoirs and lakes. Top priority should be given to the prevention of algal-related taste and odor problems in water supply impoundments.

(3) A uniform nationwide protocol needs to be established for controlling concentrations of pesticides and pesticide degradation products in surface water and groundwater. Given that agricultural practices in upstream states contribute significantly to pesticide loadings in downstream states, interstate cooperation in this issue is imperative.

(4) More focused local involvement in litter control and garbage disposal laws should be encouraged. No specific recommendations are provided.

(5) The required EPA format of the 305(b) report should be revised to make the document more user friendly and informative. Also, because states differ in their approach to beneficial use designations and water quality criteria development, and because methods and resources for water quality assessment and data analysis vary among states and among regions, information presented in 305(b) reports should not be directly compared among states. It is recommended that EPA acknowledge this lack of consistency and take steps to discourage potentially misleading comparisons.

(6) Kansas should consider the development of surface water quality goals for all major river basins and implement long-term management plans to achieve those goals. The goals should be compatible with the provisions and criteria of state surface water quality standards and any TMDLs developed for the basins.

(7) The state should consider development of sediment quality standards for streams, lakes, and wetlands. These standards should be factored into the development of basin water quality managements plans.

(8) The state should consider development of ambient groundwater quality standards and groundwater clean-up (remediation) standards. In turn, these standards should be factored into the development of basin water quality management plans.

Table of Contents - Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - References - Appendix

BEFS Home
| BEFS Download
| KDHE Home