KDHE Home - Environment - BEFS - Resources and Publications - 1996 305(b) Report - Part III: Surface Water Assessment
| Bureau of Environmental Field Services |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1996 KANSAS WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT (305(b) REPORT)December 1996Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Environment Table of Contents - Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - References - Appendix PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT Chapter One: Surface Water Monitoring Programs The department's surface water quality monitoring programs provide information needed for identifying water pollution problems within the state and for meeting the water quality reporting requirements of the federal CWA (sections 305(l) and 319(a)(1)) and the EPA (40 CFR 131.11). Each year, departmental staff collect approximately 1,500 surface water samples, 60 aquatic macroinvertebrate samples, and 40 composite fish tissue samples from monitoring stations located throughout the state. Effluent monitoring activities also are conducted to provide data required for evaluating permit compliance under the NPDES and KWPC permit programs. Wastewater samples are collected from about 50 municipal, 20 industrial, and three federal facilities each year. Approximately 36 whole-effluent toxicity evaluations are also performed annually. Finally, about 100 site-specific water quality summaries are prepared each year at the request of private citizens or other interested parties. Departmental staff also investigate fishkills, lake taste and odor problems, toxic algal blooms, and other special surface water quality problems. Most of the fishkill investigations are conducted in cooperation with KDWP. Both KDWP and KDHE maintain computerized inventories of pertinent fishkill information. Lake taste and odor problems and toxic algal blooms are investigated at the request of concerned citizens, lake managers, drinking water suppliers, and other interested parties. Staff participate in as many as 50 special surface water quality investigations each year. Stream Chemistry Monitoring Program Water quality reports published by KDHE during the past two decades document a gradual change in the function of the stream chemistry monitoring program. Prior to 1972, the protection of public drinking water supplies provided the principal impetus for surface water monitoring activities in Kansas. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, monitoring activities were geared more toward the evaluation of the effects of major reservoirs on downstream physicochemical conditions, toward the quantification of contaminant levels in streams entering and exiting Kansas, and toward the determination of the effects of municipal and industrial wastewater discharges on the functional integrity of stream ecosystems. The department has recently focused its attention on the assessment and control of NPSs of stream pollution. It is apparent that data derived from the stream monitoring program will play an increasingly important role in defining NPS related pollution abatement needs. An evaluation of the stream chemistry network was completed prior to the 1990 sampling year. This review focused on the ability of the network to discern the water quality impacts of NPSs of pollution within the state. The evaluation revealed two primary inadequacies from a NPS pollution perspective. First, western Kansas was under represented in the network in terms of the spatial distribution and number of stream monitoring stations. Although most western Kansas streams are characterized by intermittent flow, many are classified waterbodies legally entitled to protection, and some undoubtedly contribute (at least episodically) to NPS pollution loadings in larger, downstream waterbodies. Secondly, few sampling stations were located in lower order tributaries, even though the water quality impacts of NPSs are often most clearly manifested in such tributaries (owing to the general lack of confounding, point source influences on surface water chemistry). To enhance the monitoring program's overall effectiveness in identifying NPS pollution problems, it was determined that more streams in western Kansas and more lower order streams throughout the state should be included in the sampling network. The ambient stream chemistry network was expanded in 1990 to address these two concerns (Figure 4). The revamping of the network resulted in a 130% increase in the number of monitoring sites (from 115 to 265) and in a more equitable representation of all major physiographic, geological, and land use regions within the state. Grab samples are now collected from stations on a bimonthly basis and analyzed for a wide assortment of conventional pollutants, heavy metals, pesticides, and other parameters (Appendix Part I.B). Monitoring station selection criteria, sample collection, preservation, transport and analysis methods, and quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) requirements for this program are described in a detailed QA management plan and accompanying set of standard operating procedures (KDHE 1995). In addition to day-to-day QA/QC practices, periodic audits are conducted to assess the performance of program staff and to independently determine the representativeness, precision and accuracy of the monitoring data. The stream chemistry monitoring program endeavors to provide timely and scientifically defensible information on the physical, chemical, and bacteriological quality of flowing waters in Kansas. This information is intended for use in:
All field and laboratory data generated from stream water quality samples are handled in an orderly and consistent manner. Time and date of sample collection, stream monitoring station identification number, and other basic information are recorded on standardized sample submission forms and submitted through a chain-of-custody procedure along with the water quality samples to the Kansas Health and Environmental Laboratories (KHEL). Upon completion of the laboratory analyses, the KHEL computer automatically downloads the data to the Kansas Water Database, which are accessed through the KDHE IBM AS-400 computer system. Hard copies of all physicochemical and bacteriological data generated by KHEL are maintained by KDHE’s Office of Science and Support (OSS). These data are carefully reviewed for obvious errors or omissions. Information derived from the QC samples (duplicates, spikes, blanks, etc.) are subjected to a particularly thorough review. With the approval of the section chief, data that are deemed inaccurate, or grossly unrepresentative,
are purged from the electronic database. Laboratory data are electronically downloaded onto the EPA STORET database on a monthly basis. Field data are similarly loaded onto electronic spreadsheets, checked for obvious errors or omissions, and downloaded onto STORET each month. Redundant forms of data storage and backup files (EPA STORET system, Kansas Water Database, KHEL tape files, OSS hard copy files) help to ensure the long-term integrity and availability of the program data. Biological Monitoring Program Freshwater macroinvertebrate communities, consisting of insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids and other organisms which lack a true backbone and are observable with the unaided eye, have long been recognized as excellent indicators of water quality. Ongoing pollution problems, whether continuous or intermittent in nature, tend to reduce in abundance the more pollution intolerant macro-invertebrate species. Conversely, tolerant forms often achieve unusually high densities due to reduced interspecific competition for food, elimination of predators, or other factors. The predictable community-level response to environmental pollution is, therefore, a measurable reduction in macroinvertebrate species richness and an increase in the abundance of tolerant taxa. Where macroinvertebrate sampling efforts are used in conjunction with physicochemical monitoring activities, the ability to detect ongoing water quality problems is greatly enhanced, even at low biological sampling frequencies. The stream biological monitoring program was initiated by the Kansas Department of Health (later reorganized into KDHE) in April 1972. The original monitoring network included 33 stream stations, located at widely scattered locations across the state. Initial goals of the program were to document long-term trends in surface water quality and to supplement site-specific information then being gathered through other departmental monitoring efforts. During the first six years of the program, field protocols entailed a combination of qualitative and quantitative sampling techniques at all stream monitoring stations. Qualitative methods included the collection of macroinvertebrate specimens from all accessible micro habitats using D-frame nets and other simple apparatus. Quantitative methods, focusing on the density of macroinvertebrate populations, varied depending on the predominant substrate type. A Surber sampler generally was used on coarse sediments such as cobble and gravel, whereas a petite Ponar dredge was used on finer sediments such as sand and silt. These tools were not well suited to the sampling of woody debris, tree roots, emergent aquatic vegetation, or other nonhomogeneous surfaces, even though such habitats accounted for much of the macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity in many Kansas streams. Hence, early quantitative measures of macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity employed by the agency tended to underestimate the actual size and complexity of stream biological communities. In 1978, the monitoring program adopted a revised protocol for the collection of macroinvertebrate samples. This new protocol was "semi-quantitative" in nature, in that it measured the number of specimens collected in a prescribed (one-hour) time frame but involved the use of D-frame nets and other tools previously associated with qualitative sampling activities. Emphasis on the number and kinds of specimens collected per unit time (rather than on aerial or volumetric estimates of macroinvertebrate density predicated on the use of Surber samplers and Ponar dredges) permitted the examination of essentially all types of stream habitat. The revised protocol proved to be less resource intensive and produced a more consistent measure of macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity. Similar protocols were eventually endorsed by EPA and applied within the water quality assessment programs of several other states (see Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III in Plafkin et al. 1989). From 1984 onward, monitoring activities at all stations adhered to a seasonal rotational schedule to reduce statistical bias and to provide a more comprehensive picture of the resident biological communities; i.e., samples were collected during the spring of one year, the summer of the next, and the fall of the next, a cycle which was repeated every three years. Although macroinvertebrate sampling activities at many of the original monitoring stations were eventually discontinued, new sites were continually added to the network and, over time, the total number of active stations increased. Macroinvertebrate communities were surveyed at 59 monitoring stations during the period 1990-1994, and 46 stations were sampled in 1994 alone (Figure 5). As of January 1995, a total of 78 stations had been sampled for a duration of at least three consecutive years, and 36 of these stations, known as "core" sites, had been sampled for a period of 10-22 consecutive years. A detailed description of the sampling and taxonomic methods and QA/QC practices currently employed in the program is provided in the program QA management plan and accompanying standard operating procedures (KDHE 1995). Fish Tissue Monitoring Programs Kansas continues to monitor the impact of toxic substances on surface water quality through the analysis of contaminants in fish tissue (Appendix Part I.C.). A combination of fixed and rotating stations is used in this program to evaluate environmental trends, aquatic life support, and the human health significance of contaminants in fish. The program consists of the following subcomponents: (1) Regional Ambient Fish Tissue Monitoring Program (RAFTMP); (2) the Kansas Follow-up Studies Program (KFSP); and (3) the KDHE Fish Tissue Intensive Survey Program (FISP). Fish tissue monitoring activities are conducted at approximately 20 RAFTMP sites (only 5 sites in 1994) and 18 KFSP and FISP sites each year (Figure 6). Regional Ambient Fish Tissue Monitoring Program: The RAFTM program is an environmental monitoring program implemented in 1980 by EPA Region VII and administered in Kansas by KDHE. Analysis of fish tissue samples is conducted by the Region VII Environmental Services Laboratory. This program endeavors to (1) monitor long-term trends in fish tissue contaminants at selected fixed stations; (2) monitor levels of fish tissue contaminants for environmental significance; and (3) screen waterbodies of the state for levels of fish tissue contaminants of potential human health concern. The target species of RAFTMP is the common carp, Cyprinus carpio, because of its ubiquitous and abundant nature in Kansas waters and its bottom-feeding behavior. Analyses are conducted on composite samples of three to six whole-fish to improve the representativeness of the data. In 1994, the Region VII Environmental Services Laboratory reduced RAFTMP sample allocation by 75%. Kansas Follow-up Studies Program: Implemented at its present scale in 1986, KFSP is a program whereby EPA, under provisions of the Kansas 604(b) work plan, provides additional laboratory capacity to KDHE for edible portion fish tissue analyses. The major goals of KFSP include: evaluation of human health significance of edible-portion (fillet) fish tissue contaminants at sites where RAFTMP whole-fish samples have indicated elevated levels of contaminants; evaluation of human health significance of fish tissue contaminants in edible portions at localities where the probability of contamination is high and where historical data are lacking; and where additional information is needed to direct more intensive surveys of local fish tissue quality. Frequently the common carp is used for this assessment; however, if more commonly eaten catfish species of appropriate size are available, then specimens of such species are preferentially collected and analyzed. Bottom-feeding fish species are preferred because they generally represent the worst case contamination scenario. Duplicate composite samples are routinely collected and analyzed.
KDHE Fish Tissue Intensive Survey Program: The fish tissue monitoring and survey program, FISP, was implemented in 1986. Analyses of fish tissue samples for technical chlordane are conducted by KDHE's Health and Environmental Laboratory. The goals of the program are threefold:
Lake and wetland monitoring activities conducted by KDHE have significantly changed since the inception of the program in 1975. The monitoring network originally consisted of eight to ten intensively surveyed lakes. In 1985, statistical analysis of the lake database determined that KDHE’s informational needs were better met by reducing the amount of work at specific waterbodies in favor of expanding geographic coverage of the state. During 1988-1992, the network was further adjusted to include state managed wetland areas (1988) (Figure 7), and to collect data on the abundance of macrophytic vegetation in lakes (1991). Bacterial sampling was moved from open water sites to swimming beaches and other near-shore areas (1992). Since 1993, the network has consisted of approximately 120-130 monitored sites, with representative lakes in all major river basins and physiographic regions. These lakes and all major publicly owned wetland areas are sampled on a three to five year cycle for nutrients, metals, minerals, pesticides, water clarity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, algal abundance, and bacterial quality (Appendix Part I.D.). Lake/wetland selection criteria, sample collection, preservation, transport and analysis methods, and QA/QC requirements for this program are described in a detailed program management plan and accompanying set of standard operating procedures (KDHE 1995). In addition to day-to-day QA/QC practices, periodic audits are conducted to assess the performance of program staff and to independently determine the representativeness, precision and accuracy of the monitoring data. In addition to those lakes and wetlands routinely included in this program (and regarded as "monitored" waterbodies for the purposes of this report), a number of additional standing waterbodies were subjected to less intensive investigation during the 1991-1995 reporting cycle. These "evaluated" waterbodies included lakes from which a single grab sample was collected and analyzed for major cations and anions, nutrients and chlorophyll-a. In other cases, additional physicochemical and biological data were collected and a watershed survey was conducted. In a smaller number of cases, assessment data were derived from visual surveys and the best professional judgement of either KDHE staff or other state personnel.
In all, a total of 144 waterbodies were monitored during the 1991-1995 reporting cycle. These included all multipurpose federal reservoirs, all nine state or federally managed wetland complexes and many smaller waterbodies (Figure 7). An additional 147 lakes were evaluated during this reporting cycle for a combined total of 291 lakes and wetlands. Special Investigations In cooperation with the KDWP, KDHE district staff participated in as many as 60-80 fishkill investigations each year during the 1991-1995 305(b) reporting cycle. Data generated from these activities were used to support enforcement decisions and other administrative actions. Also, use attainability analyses (UAAs) were conducted on approximately 60 waterbody segments during the reporting cycle. Most UAAs focused on streams receiving effluent from NPDES permitted facilities and were performed in conjunction with water quality (section 401) certification reviews. Finally, a few site-specific water quality studies were conducted for the purpose of obtaining information required during section 401 reviews. These studies involved such diverse objectives as establishing mixing zone characteristics, determining background (upstream) pollutant concentrations, or estimating pollutant uptake or decay rates for kinetic equations used in setting permit limits.
Chapter Two: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data Assessment Methodology In its guidance manual for the preparation of the 1996 305(b) report, EPA encouraged all states to apply a "standardized" assessment methodology in the hope of enhancing consistency and comparability among the state use support summaries (EPA 1995a). The manual departed from previous EPA guidance in at least two notable respects. First, it recommended that all states target swimming beaches in the development of use support summaries for contact recreation. Second, it provided little indication of how chronic criteria for the protection of aquatic life were to be factored into 305(b) assessments. In a subsequent written interpretation of the national guidance, EPA directed states to consider chronic ALUS criteria and contact recreational criteria in its 305(b) assessment, as warranted by the state's monitoring methodology and current beneficial use designations (Hutton 1995). Subsequent national guidance essentially left the application of chronic ALUS criteria to the discretion of the individual states (Davies and Waygand 1995). Despite the initial effort by EPA to standardize 305(b) assessment methodologies, it is evident that (1) significant differences in methodologies continue to persist among states and among regions and (2) use support summaries developed by the individual states continue to provide little, if any, legitimate basis for comparison. This lack of consistency and comparability is exacerbated by differences in state beneficial use designations, water quality criteria, and water quality monitoring programs. These factors should be kept in mind as the reader considers the Kansas 305(b) assessment approach described in this chapter and the Kansas use support summaries presented in Chapter Three.
Stream Physicochemical and Microbiological Data Historically, use support summaries for Kansas streams have been based on the assumption that all monitored and evaluated streams within the state are capable of supporting a wide range of beneficial uses. In the 1992 and 1994 305(b) reports, documented water quality conditions were weighed against the most stringent possible combination of aquatic life support, food procurement, water supply, and recreational criteria, irrespective of stream classification status or actual use designation. This approach was not universally applied by other states in the nation or even within Region 7. To maintain a general level of consistency with previous 305(b) reports, thus allowing for the analysis of trends in beneficial use support over time, KDHE has elected to incorporate chronic ALUS and contact recreational criteria into its 1996 assessment. For the first time, however, these and all other criteria have been applied only to those stream segments formally designated for the indicated uses in the Kansas Surface Water Register. This methodology may be unique to Kansas, and the reader is reminded again, that the use support summaries presented in Chapter Three are not directly comparable to those of any other state. Table 7 summarizes the approach utilized by KDHE to distinguish between fully supporting, partially supporting, and nonsupporting stream reaches on the basis of physicochemical and microbiological data. This approach is generally consistent with the previous (1994) 305(b) report. The only differences relate to the contact recreational use and entail (1) the elimination of the "partially supporting" category for this use, (2) adherence to the water quality standards' "geometric mean" criterion for FCB, and (3) utilization of data collected only during the contact recreational season Table 7. Guidelines for Evaluation of Use Support in Streams
Table 7. Guidelines for Evaluation of Use Support in Streams - continued
Table 7. Guidelines for Evaluation of Use Support in Streams - continued
(April 1 through October 31 of each year). Table 8 summarizes the specific physicochemical and microbiological criteria employed by KDHE in this 305(b) assessment. Note that few transition metals have been evaluated with respect to the ALUS use. This is attributable to EPA's promulgation of the National Toxics Rule in 1993 (40 CFR 131.36). As applied to the surface waters of Kansas (and several other states and U.S. territories), this rule established acute and chronic criteria for metals that were based on the dissolved fraction only. During the 1991-1995 reporting cycle, data gathered by KDHE on transition metal concentrations in Kansas streams were based entirely on total recoverable levels and were not readily comparable to the criteria promulgated by EPA. In assigning a support category to a particular designated use, the department consistently considered the "worse case" water quality parameter. For example, if a stream segment complied during the reporting cycle with all but one of the criteria for the protection of the livestock watering use, the segment was deemed either partially supportive or nonsupportive of that use (depending on the severity of the pollution problem) and assigned to the "impaired" category for overall use support (Chapter Three). Any parameter monitored on fewer than three occasions during the reporting cycle was excluded from this analysis. Similarly, monitoring stations visited fewer than three times during the reporting cycle, such as stations added to the monitoring network in the fall of 1995, were not considered in the 1996 305(b) assessment. Several simplifying assumptions were applied by the department in the spatial application of the physicochemical and microbiological data. The foremost assumption was that each network station effectively "monitored" all unimpounded upstream (RF2 and listed RF3) segments within a 30 kilometer radius and all downstream mainstem segments within 15 kilometers. There were several exceptions to this general rule: 1. Where a stream segment originated within the "assessment reach" of a network station, but more than 50% of the segment extended beyond this reach, the entire segment was regarded as "evaluated" rather than monitored. 2. When an upstream or a downstream segment stopped at major impoundment. 3. Where a monitoring station occurred on a tributary within the assessment reach of a downstream (mainstem) station, use support determinations for the tributary were based on data from the upstream (tributary) station. 4. As provided in paragraph (4) below, use support summaries for overlapping assessment reaches were based on data from the downstream monitoring station. Such overlapping reaches generally occurred on larger (mainstem) streams, where the separation distance between stations was sometimes less than 45 kilometers. 5. Where a major (>1.0 MGD) sewage treatment plant discharged into a stream and the outfall location was closely bracketed by two network stations, the outfall location served as the delineation point between upstream and downstream assessment reaches. In the event such a facility discharged into a smaller tributary or headwater stream, and the stream was monitored only downstream of the facility, the assessment reach did not extend above the outfall location. 6. When best professional judgement was utilized to exclude segments not wholly within the assessment distance because they were known to be dry or where there were significant differences between stream order within the assessed area. Table 8. Summary of Numeric Water Quality Criteria Used to Evaluate Use Support
a = criterion established Where listed RF2 or RF3 stream reaches were deemed either partially supportive or nonsupportive of a use, the department considered the pollutants (causes) of concern and attempted to determine the most probable sources of these pollutants. Informational materials used in this analysis were derived both from within KDHE and from various other governmental agencies and institutions and included (1) GIS coverages and related maps depicting prevaling land uses, grazing livestock densities, and the locations of major urban areas, major municipal and industrial point sources, and permitted feedlot facilities, (2) other maps and related written materials addressing regional topography, geology, soil characteristics, and the locations of major mineral intrusion areas, active and inactive oil and natural gas fields, surface mines, permitted irrigation wells, and documented groundwater and/or soil contamination sites, and (3) miscellaneous reports and publications regarding stream flow, stream channelization and dredging practices, pesticide and fertilizer application practices and application rates, brine disposal practices, and stormwater quality. Maps presented in Chapter Three, depicting stream use impairments and related causes and sources, were produced by georeferencing water quality assessment information to a GIS coverage of Kansas streams. This coverage was based on EPA's RF2 and RF3 hydrologic databases and, therefore, included all stream segments identified in the Kansas Surface Water Register. The Kansas list of water quality-limited surface waters for this reporting cycle was similarly developed by electronically linking all classified stream reaches with their corresponding impairment ratings and causes. Stream Macroinvertebrate Community Data Aquatic life use support evaluations for streams also incorporated macroinvertebrate data from the stream biological monitoring network. These data were summarized using several metrics, including the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) (Davenport and Kelly 1983), the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) Index, and taxa richness or total taxa. An additional biotic index, referred to as the Kansas Biotic Index (KBI), was also used (Huggins and Moffet 1988). The KBI is currently under development and testing; like the MBI, it evaluates the effects of nutrient and oxygen demanding pollutants. Both biotic indices rate the pollution tolerances of specific taxonomic groups. The MBI rates large taxonomic groupings such as order and family. The KBI rates groupings which correspond to the level of identification, usually genus or species. Higher values indicate greater pollution tolerances. These tolerance values and the numbers of individuals within a rated group are used to arrive at a single value which characterizes the overall tolerance of the community. The higher the resultant index value the more tolerant the community is of organic pollution. The two indices have a high degree of correlation. For the purposes of this report, an MBI greater than 5.40 indicates nonsupport of the aquatic life use, an MBI between 4.51 and 5.39 indicates partial support, and an MBI less than 4.51 indicates full support of the designated use. The EPT index is the total of all taxa in a sample belonging to the pollution-intolerant insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies). Taxa richness is a general measure of community health and is simply the total number of different species or taxa collected in the sample. Level of use support in this report was based on the average of the index values for the most recent three year period. Time trends in all metrics over the last 13 years were considered in cases where index values fell near the divisions between use support categories. Complexity of habitat sampled was assessed using the Habitat Development Index (HDI) (Huggins and Moffett 1988). The HDI evaluates the relative quantity and quality of the three basic stream macrohabitats (riffle, run, and pool) and the significance of some of the microhabitats. The potential macroinvertebrate community in terms of habitat availability was considered during all biological assessments. Stations were not considered less than fully supporting of aquatic life if natural limitations of habitat caused an apparent use impairment. Lakes and Wetlands Assessments of lake and wetland water quality were based primarily on the numeric criteria within the Kansas surface water quality standards. Due to the relatively small number of samples collected in a given lake during each reporting cycle, even a single exceedence of numeric water quality criteria was equated with a use impairment. Trophic state conditions were also considered when determining levels of use impairment in lakes. In most cases, a lake with a long-term mean designation of "eutrophic" (corrected chlorophyll-a concentration of 7.5-29.9 ug/L) was considered impaired for some use categories. Lakes experiencing "hypereutrophic" conditions (corrected chlorophyll-a concentration > 30 ug/L) were considered non-supportive of all uses. For a small number of Kansas lakes, turbidity or macrophyte community conditions were used along with chlorophyll-a data to determine levels of impairment.
Chapter Three: Stream Water Quality Assessment The Environmental Protection Agency's "RF3" river reach file is an electronic representation of all waterbody segments appearing on 7.5-minute quadrangle maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Based on this file, Kansas contains some 23,731 miles of perennially flowing streams and an additional 110,225 miles of intermittent streams (Table 1). In contrast, the Kansas Surface Water Register is predicated largely on the "RF2" river reach file, which includes the vast majority of all perennial and larger intermittent streams in the state. For the purposes of this report, the total classified stream mileage listed in the register is considered identical to the RF3 perennial stream mileage. The department monitored 17,364 stream miles and evaluated an additional 1,966 stream miles during the 1991-1995 reporting cycle. The combined total of 19,330 miles represents 81% of the RF3 perennial stream mileage. These estimates provide the framework for the use support summaries and comparisons presented below. Support of Designated Uses Tables 9 and 10 present use support summaries for all monitored and evaluated streams in Kansas using the modified EPA guidance which includes both acute and chronic ALUS criteria and the Kansas water quality standards (see corresponding Tables 11 and 12 utilizing "national" guidance which includes only acute aquatic life use criteria and closure of swimming beaches as the criterion for nonsupport for contact recreation). These summaries are based on the various physicochemical, microbiological, macroinvertebrate and fish tissue-based assessments and special studies described in Chapter One and on the data evaluation methodologies described in Chapter Two. Where the findings of one assessment program or special study did not agree with those of another, the "worse case" assessment scenario was incorporated into the use support summaries. Table 9. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Stream Miles (based on application of acute and chronic ALUS criteria)
* = not applicable For illustrative purposes, assume that physicochemical monitoring data indicated a stream segment was fully supporting of the aquatic life use, whereas a biotic index rated the same segment as only partially supporting of the use. The ALUS rating for the entire segment, as reflected in the use support summaries, would be "partially supporting." Based on this approach, 97% of the stream mileage assessed during this reporting cycle did not fully support all designated beneficial uses (Table 9). Only seven percent of the assessed stream mileage fully supported the ALUS use (based on both acute and chronic criteria); in contrast, 28% supported contact recreation, 41-44% supported noncontact recreation, domestic water supply (drinking water use) and irrigation, 72% supported food procurement, and 94% supported livestock watering (Table 9; Stream Assessment Maps). Using the initial EPA guidance, which considers only the acute ALUS and swimming beach closures, and looking at the assessed cumulative stream mileages for designated uses, 78% were fully or partially supported, while using the more stringent chronic ALUS and noncontact recreational criteria, only 55% were fully or partially supported. The reader is reminded that the EPA guidance manual for preparing 305(b) reports allows states to apply widely divergent criteria and data evaluation methodologies. No attempt is made to apply consistent uniform criteria to assess all states. If the department had literally interpreted the guidelines originally presented in the EPA manual, the summary reports for Kansas would have reflected a significantly higher level of use support. Tables 11 and 12 present use support summaries resulting from such a literal interpretation. Overall use support is increased nearly ten-fold, from 545 stream miles (Table 9) to 5,071 stream miles (Table 10). Stream mileage rated as "partially supporting" or "nonsupporting" for one or more designated uses is decreased by approximately 24%, from 18,785 miles to 14,259 miles. These changes illustrate the degree to which use support summaries may vary among states owing to differences in evaluation methodologies. This lack of consistency is exacerbated by differences in state beneficial use designations, water quality criteria, and water quality monitoring programs. Any legitimate attempt to compare use support summaries among states must take all such differences into account. Comparison with other states is not appropriate or dependable. However, if any attempt at such rough comparison is made, one must consider the values in Tables 11 and 12, rather than Tables 9 and 10. The designation of non-supporting should not be interpreted to mean the stream is totally unusable. Rather this designation may mean that the stream is impaired for one designated use. In fact, almost 40% of the "non-supporting" stream segments in Kansas support all but one use, and all streams support at least one designated use. Table 10. Individual Use Support Summary for Stream in Miles
* = category not applicable 0 = category applicable but size of waters in
category is zero
Table 11. National Guidance-Based Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Streams Miles (based on application of acute ALUS criteria only)
Table 13 presents ALUS summaries for streams based on (1) biological/habitat (B/H) metrics only, (2) physicochemical measurements only, and (3) both B/H metrics and physicochemical measurements. This table would appear to suggest that B/H metrics are the less sensitive indicators of water quality degradation or, alternatively, that physicochemical data overestimate the degree of ALUS impairment. However, the table is potentially misleading in that the primary metric employed by the biological monitoring program is the MBI, a statistical measure best suited to evaluations of the effects of unionized ammonia and oxygen demanding pollutants on macroinvertebrate communities. In contrast, physicochemical monitoring activities consider nearly 100 individual parameters (including unionized ammonia and dissolved oxygen), thereby imposing a much broader and more stringent set of water quality criteria than the biological monitoring program.
Table 12. National Guidance-Based Support Ratings for Individual Stream Uses (in miles)
* = category not applicable 0 = category applicable but size of waters in
category is zero
Table 13. Categories of Data Used in ALUS Assessments for Rivers and Streams
Another important consideration is that, in recent years, the biological monitoring program has expended a proportionately greater amount of effort on the assessment of candidate "ecoregional reference streams." Most of these streams drain native prairie or prairie/woodland watersheds with few or no point sources and only limited crop production. Macroinvertebrate communities in such streams would be expected to suffer from relatively few pollution-related problems. Ultimately, the data gathered from these streams is anticipated to play an important role in the development of numeric and narrative biological criteria. Inclusion of such criteria in the Kansas surface water quality standards is a stated priority of EPA Region VII but has been deferred by the department pending further study. The department currently is subjecting an additional biological metric, the Kansas Biological Index or "KBI", to additional field testing and validation. This metric incorporates pollution tolerance scores for nearly all genera and species of aquatic insects known to occur in the state. The scores range from zero (least tolerant) to five (most tolerant) and address six different pollution categories, including nutrients and oxygen demanding substances, agricultural pesticides, heavy metals, persistent organic compounds, salinity, and suspended solids and sediments (Huggins and Moffett 1988). Utilization of this metric in the development of future 305(b) reports may enhance the apparent level of agreement between B/H- and physicochemical-based assessments of aquatic life support. Major Causes and Sources of Stream Impairment Pollutants ("causes") associated with the most widespread water quality problems during the 1991-1995 reporting cycle included, in order of prevalence, suspended solids, FCB (pathogen indicator organisms), dissolved solids, other inorganics, pesticides, and metals (Table 14; Figure 8a). Although these parameters contributed to widespread use impairments, often they did not pose the most serious local water quality concerns. For example, such nonconservative substances as unionized ammonia and total residual chlorine exerted much more pronounced and easily documentable impacts on aquatic life in certain individual stream segments. Factors ("sources") most responsible for widespread pollutant loadings and beneficial use impairments during the reporting cycle included agriculture, habitat modification, natural sources, resource extraction, hydromodification, and groundwater withdrawal (Table 15; Figure 8b). Impairments attributable to point sources were substantially less widespread than those attributable to NPSs. However, the former often exerted highly significant water quality impacts within given stream segments, and some individual point sources caused or contributed to water quality impairments in several downstream mainstem segments. Other factors contributing to localized water pollution problems included, but were not limited to, combined storm and sanitary sewer overflows, construction activities, surface mining activities, and failing septic systems. In a significant number of instances, factors responsible for contaminant loadings were not known (Table 15). The relationships (linkages) between major pollution causes and sources are not indicated in the provided tables but merit some discussion. In general, exceedences of the FCB criteria reflect runoff from animal feeding areas including pastures areas and the presence of livestock in streams and adjacent riparian zones. Discharges from mechanical sewage treatment plants and aerated lagoons greatly augment FCB levels in some streams, especially during periods of low stream flow or following accidental bypasses of raw or partially treated sewage. Elevated levels of total suspended solids (TSS) are largely attributable to the erosion of cropland soils and bank erosion. Other contributing sources of TSS include the channelization of streams, the construction and maintenance of roadways, bridges, pipelines and low water dams, and ongoing urban, residential and highway construction. Geological formations containing gypsum, halite or other soluble mineral deposits, and naturally occurring discharges from mineralized springs and seeps, largely account for the high concentrations of TDS in some streams in central and western Kansas. Background levels of TDS and chloride are substantially augmented in some areas by irrigation return flows and the concentrative evaporation (evapotranspiration) and runoff of salts from irrigated cropland. Such problems are compounded by declines in base flow contributions from shallow freshwater aquifers (i.e., declines in dilution base) resulting from intensive irrigation withdrawals and attendant increases in depth to groundwater. Additional sources of TDS include the historical spillage and mishandling of oil field brine and salt wastes from salt mining and processing facilities. Also, the widespread use of home water softeners in some communities significantly increases TDS and chloride concentrations in sewage treatment plant effluent and downstream surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in some streams are associated with conditions of limited stream flow and heavy loadings of oxidizable organic wastes from agricultural NPSs and/or sewage treatment plants. In a few heavily wooded watersheds in eastern Kansas, decomposing leaf litter may increase biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and contribute to DO violations on a seasonal basis. In areas of former mining activity in southeastern Kansas, springs and seeps may discharge TABLE 14. Total Stream Mileage Impaired by Various Cause (Pollutant) Categories
* = category not applicable
TABLE 15 - Total Stream Mileage Impaired by Various Pollutant Source Categories
1 = indicates
nonsupport for designated use reduced sulfur- and iron-containing compounds, thereby increasing chemical oxygen demand and lowering DO levels in some streams. Throughout much of the state, high TSS and turbidity levels in streams promote the absorption of sunlight, the heating of surface water and, in turn, the lowering of DO saturation levels. Elimination of shade through the removal of woody riparian canopies exacerbates this general relationship between TSS and DO concentration. Pesticides are routinely detected in many streams in eastern Kansas owing primarily, though not exclusively, to their widespread agricultural use and presence in rainfall runoff. The most commonly detected of these is atrazine, a widely used preplant and preemergent herbicide for row crops such as corn and sorghum. Concentrations of atrazine exceed the chronic criterion for aquatic life support in many streams in eastern Kansas. During the peak runoff period in spring and early summer, concentrations may also exceed the applicable domestic water supply criterion. This is especially true of those streams draining the traditional cornbelt region of northeastern Kansas. Levels of another pesticide, chlordane, seldom occur at detectable levels in surface water but are measured routinely in the fatty tissues of bottom feeding fish. The registration for this highly persistent and bioaccumulative pesticide, used commonly as a termiticide in rural, urban, and suburban construction, was suspended by EPA in 1988. Nevertheless, it continues to occur at levels of potential human health significance in fish collected from several urban streams. Chlordane contamination is the basis for all fish tissue consumption advisories currently in effect in Kansas. Stream Assessment Maps The following maps (1-7) illustrate the degree of support for the designated uses of aquatic life (acute and chronic), contact recreation, noncontact recreation, drinking water (domestic water supply), and agriculture (irrigation and livestock watering) in Kansas streams. The remaining maps (8-10) show the distribution of the three main causes of impairment of use support in streams. (Data sources for the coverages are listed Appendix Part II.)
Chapter Four: Lake Water Quality Program Summary Statistics Table 16 presents a comparison of lake acreage investigated during the 1991-1995 reporting cycle through the use of biological/habitat metrics, physicochemical measurements, or both biological/habitat metrics and physicochemical measurements. Note that assessment activities at all monitored and evaluated lakes incorporated both of these assessment approaches. Table 17 lists the number of lakes and associated surface acreage impacted by identifiable point and NPSs of pollution. Although nonpoint sources impact a greater number of smaller lakes, both point and nonpoint sources influence virtually all larger lakes and, therefore, the vast majority of the state's total lake surface acreage. Table 16. Categories of Data used in ALUS Assessments for Lakes
Table 17. Lake Acreage With Identifiable Point and Nonpoint Source Pollution Contributions
*Numbers include any level of point source inputs, and any magnitude or combination of NPSs. Due to the fact that a number of lakes have both source types within their watersheds, the numbers will not total to the acres/numbers of lakes reported in this chapter. Clean Lakes Program Background A total of 291 publicly owned or publicly accessible lakes are included in this reporting cycle. This represents all such lakes known to KDHE through monitoring activities and reports published by other agencies. These lakes comprise 175,260 surface acres. Lakes with their shoreline area under common private ownership are considered to be private lakes, but are often open to members of the general public by invitation. In the future, the number of reported lakes will increase if dam construction continues under several state/federal programs. For the purposes of this report, all publicly owned/accessible lakes, reservoirs, and ponds will be considered as "significant" waterbodies. This is based on the assumption that any lentic waterbody, which is owned by or accessible to the general public, will provide benefits to the population as a whole. These benefits may include recreation and water supply, but will certainly involve habitat for the support of indigenous aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms such as fish and migrating waterfowl. Unless specifically identified as wetlands, all lentic waterbodies will be referred to as "lakes" within this report, regardless of size or origin. This is done in order to avoid the semantics involved in determining the characteristics that divide ponds from lakes and/or natural from human-made. Trophic Staus Trophic state classification in lakes and wetlands is based primarily on the observed chlorophyll-a level (corrected for phaeophytin-a.) The rationale is based on the idea that algal biomass, as represented by chlorophyll-a, comprises the base of the lacustrine food web. The observed level of chlorophyll provides an estimate of overall lake productivity. In addition, higher levels of algal biomass produce correspondingly lower aesthetic appeal and general recreational opportunities, increased problems and cost in treatment of drinking water, and increased problems with using water for livestock and irrigation. Because of this, the trophic state estimate also becomes valuable for assessing overall use support of lakes. While high levels of sedimentation are often concurrent with the eutrophication process, current KDHE monitoring does not allow more than a rough indication of sedimentation problems. When sedimentation problems are visually obvious, they are utilized in "weighting" assigned trophic state classifications. Chlorophyll-a values are converted to Trophic State Index (TSI) values using the formula in Carlson (1977). These TSI numbers are then used to assign a trophic state classification based on the following scale for lakes in the KDHE Lake and Wetland Monitoring Program: Oligo-Mesotrophic = TSI of <40, The eutrophic classification is further broken down into three sub-classes for better determination of lake use impairment levels. The oligo-mesotrophic class is a special grouping that denotes a lake that produces little algal biomass due to light limitation. The "potential" trophic state classification would usually be much higher than that assigned by observed algal biomass for these lakes. For reporting purposes, oligo-mesotrophic lakes are included in the mesotrophic category. In instances where macrophytic production contributes significantly to overall lake productivity, the chlorophyll-a based trophic state classification will be placed in the next highest category. For example, if a lake is assigned a "fully eutrophic" classification based on algal biomass, but has a very abundant macrophyte community, the final trophic state class will be considered "very eutrophic." Table 18 presents trophic state ratings for the lakes assessed during this reporting cycle. (Percent of total in parentheses)
The majority of lakes fall into the eutrophic and hypereutrophic categories, while the vast majority of surface acreage falls into the mesotrophic and eutrophic categories. This primarily results from the influence that lake size (area, volume, depth) exerts on lake trophic state development. Many of the larger lakes in the state are mesotrophic to eutrophic, while many of the small lakes in Kansas develop hypereutrophic conditions, based primarily on hydrologic and morphometric influences. While a significant percentage of reported lakes have not been assessed for their trophic status, they constitute less than 1% of the total reported acreage. Since the last 305(b) reporting cycle, roughly half of the lakes in the unknown category have been surveyed. At present, the majority of reported lakes with unknown trophic state conditions are within the Mined Land Lakes (MLL) Recreation Area in southeast Kansas. Control Methods The Kansas Department of Health and Environment provides guidelines for the construction of drinking water supply lakes. These guidelines recommend that (1) cattle shall be fenced at least 15 feet from the high water elevation, (2) there shall be no discharge of treated or untreated wastewater directly into the lake, (3) there shall be no wastewater facilities, septic tanks, or sanitary sewers allowed within 200 feet from the high water elevation, and (4) the potential for pollutant or nutrient contribution of the watershed shall be evaluated. When reviewing NPDES discharge permits, proximity of the discharge to lakes is considered in setting effluent limitations. As of 1995, two spreadsheet eutrophication/nutrient loading models have been adopted by KDHE as management tools for predicting nutrient loading and trophic response in lakes. An early version of one of these models was used to assess the potential effects of municipal point source discharges on three federal lakes and several smaller lakes. More recently, an updated version of this model (EUTROMOD 2.50) has become available, and is now utilized by KDHE for lake trophic state and nutrient load modeling. To date, between 10 and 20 lakes and watersheds have been modeled using EUTROMOD 2.50 with very satisfactory results. The second lake trophic state model utilized by KDHE is one developed by Dr. William Walker (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), which is distributed under the name CNET. In addition to the lake protection items addressed above, KDHE operates a monitoring network of the lakes and wetlands within Kansas. This network is designed to provide long-term trend and baseline data for determining if point source or NPS pollution is a problem within a given watershed, or within a major river basin generally. Wetlands were first added to this monitoring network in 1988. All water quality standards adopted by the State are applicable to lakes and wetlands within Kansas, contingent on the determination of use attainability at these monitored sites (K.A.R. 28-16-28d(c)). Technical advice and assistance, concerning lake protection, restoration, and assessment, is available to all citizens and agencies in Kansas through the Kansas Clean Lakes Program to determine the best protection and/or restoration options for a given lake. During 1993, the Kansas Clean Lakes Program completed a series of brochures concerning basic lake ecology and protection. These brochures are designed for the general public, as well as for school groups in the grade 4-9 range. In addition, KDHE began a Taste and Odor/Algae Bloom Technical Assistance Program for water supply lakes in 1989. The main thrust of this program is to provide technical assistance in the identification of water supply taste and odor problems caused by algal blooms or other lake-related ecological processes. Samples from any water body are accepted by KDHE when toxic blooms are possible. A total of 73 investigations into taste/odor problems and algae related complaints have been completed as of October 31, 1995. Most lake restoration efforts through KDHE are limited to the cost-sharing Clean Lakes Program administered by EPA. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks provides guidance to municipalities and counties for the construction of lakes used for recreation. The KDWP considers such things as proximity to point source pollution and, depending on soil type and runoff potential, the land use within the watershed. Restoration/Rehabilitation Efforts Several restoration techniques have been applied in Kansas, but many of the instances are not documented in a format that is readily accessible. Therefore, only restoration actions specific to KDHE projects are listed within this report. Other restoration activities, known to have occurred at Kansas lakes, are discussed in a more general fashion. Among the more common are the control of nuisance algal and macrophyte populations through the use of grass carp or copper sulfate additions, both of which tend to be symptomatic treatments only. The practice of copper sulfate use is discouraged by KDHE unless monitoring of the lake algae community is conducted concurrently to determine need. The use of grass carp for macrophyte control is discouraged unless macrophyte abundance clearly causes an impairment and no other option is feasible. The introduction of grass carp to lakes is frequently associated with the loss of macrophytic habitat and an increase in phytoplankton production. The KDWP is involved in lake restoration primarily for the improvement of fish habitat and fishing/hunting recreation. A common practice is the addition of brush piles or discarded trees to augment fish breeding habitat and shelter. To control excessive macrophyte growth, KDWP has recommended use of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) over the use of aquatic herbicides. Dredging of lakes to deepen silted-in areas has become a less common practice due to lack of funds. When dredging is conducted at a lake, the sediment is often recycled for use in fishing pier construction. Management and improvement of fish habitat and consumptive recreation has utilized direct manipulation of the fish population through stocking and/or selective removal. Water level adjustment to improve fish and waterfowl habitat is also practiced. The KDWP annually submits water level adjustment plans for many of the federal lakes in Kansas to the KWO, which are reviewed and commented on at public meetings prior to submission to the Army Corp of Engineers. Under certain situations, these fishery habitat practices can also be used to improve water quality. Hypolimnetic aeration/destratification has been used as a fishery management/restoration tool at both Pottawatomie and Neosho County State Fishing Lakes. This so called "helixor" device was first used at these lakes in 1976 with some success. Such efforts are only feasible in small impoundments in Kansas, usually limited to those with 100 or fewer surface acres. Many communities have used aerators in their water supply lakes to prevent summer stratification which is believed to contribute to taste and odor problems. The department recommends that such practices be limited to the prevention of stratification, rather than enacted to destratify lakes. As stated before, dredging remains a useful (but expensive) tool for lake restoration. Dredging has been undertaken at Ford County and Lone Star Lakes under their Phase II Clean Lakes Projects, and has been suggested for several other lakes in Kansas as the only long term restoration strategy available, when coupled with preventative measures in the watershed. Watershed management practices remain a vitally important tool for lake protection. These management practices cover a variety of options which include terracing, buffer strips, grassed waterways, improved cropping practices, feedlot waste containment, and sediment ponds. Most often, such watershed practices are initiated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and local Conservation Districts. Other watershed management practices might include local ordinances on construction practices, pesticide use on public lands, or restrictions on zoning of land use. Modeling will play an important role in lake restoration and protection in future years. The department has already employed such modeling efforts to select optimal nutrient reduction strategies for specific lakes. To date, Phase I Diagnostic and Assessment projects have been undertaken at Ford County Lake, Sabetha City Lake, Lake Afton, New Olathe Lake, Santa Fe Lake at Chanute, Herington Reservoir, and Nemaha County State Fishing Lake. All have been completed. A Phase I study is in the final stages of completion for Rimrock Park and Mary's lakes, two urban lakes located in northeastern Kansas. Phase II Restoration projects have been initiated at Ford County Lake and Lone Star Lake in Kansas. No Phase III Evaluation projects have been undertaken in this state. Table 19 presents specific information on Clean Lakes Program projects and associated protection/restoration efforts. Kansas completed a Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) project in 1989 which surveyed 121 lakes throughout the state for trophic state, use impairment, and watershed land use. This data has been used to determine need and ranking for the application of future Clean Lakes Program monies, as well as for assessing projects for other types of protection and/or restoration monies. A second, two year, LWQA project was begun in 1991 to continue watershed assessment activity and other follow-up activities identified in the 1989 LWQA work. In addition to follow-up work, this grant was used to produce several lake ecology/protection brochures for general public distribution. It is hoped that these publications will allow for enhanced public awareness of lake water quality and the need for lake protection. Continuation of this LWQA effort, during 1994, resulted in assessments for an additional 59 lakes around the state. The data for these additional 59 lakes is included in the assessments made within this report. The use of watershed practices to control sediment and nutrient pollution in surface runoff is the most utilized restoration/rehabilitation option for Kansas lakes (Table 19). Watershed protection strategies take on numerous forms and practices, and tend to be tailored to the specific situation. However, several practices are often included by local/state/federal participants and include, terracing of cropland, detention ponds, feedlot waste management, riparian vegetation protection, and fertilizer and pesticide management. A total of 1,272 acres (nine lakes) have had watershed protection proposed and/or enacted as part of the Clean Lakes Program to protect and restore water quality. Dredging is the primary option for removing accumulated silt, despite the high costs. Dredging has been conducted for both Clean Lakes Program Phase II projects in Kansas. These two lakes comprise 243 surface acres. Table 19. Clean Lakes Program Phase I and II Projects Undertaken in Kansas, Including Restoration/Rehabilitation Efforts
Impaired and Threatened Lakes Table 20 summarizes overall use support ratings for lakes assessed during this reporting cycle. Support rating for individual designated uses for lakes is presented in Table 21. Table 20. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Lakes
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
