KDHE Home - Environment - BEFS - Resources and Publications - 2000 Kansas Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report
| Bureau of Environmental Field Services |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2000 KANSAS WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT (305(b) REPORT)March 31, 2000Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Environment
Click this link for the PDF version of this report. PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEWThis report, the 2000Kansas Water Quality Assessment, also known as the 305(b) Report, is the biennial assessment of the state's surface water quality as required by 33 USC 466 et seq, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act. The guidance by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the preparation of this report provided three options for reporting. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) elected the second option which is to provide in even years, an electronic report accompanied by an abbreviated narrative report. The abbreviated narrative report contains only the information required by law that has changed from the last report (1998 Kansas Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report), April 1998) and a simple reference to that report. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment assessed the water quality for the period of 1998 -1999, of 18,236 miles of streams, all of which were considered monitored. This report represents an increase assessment of 2,616 miles from the 1998 305(b) Report. This increase in assessed miles is due to: 1) differences in mileage associated with rotational sites, and 2) increased monitoring in the Marais des Cygnes and Missouri River Basin in support of the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDLs). A total of 188,508 lake acres were assessed. Of these, 175,454 acres were monitored and the conditions of an additional 13,052 lake acres were evaluated using best professional judgment. The 2000 Kansas Water Quality Assessment Report includes two years of data (1998-1999) and only acute aquatic life use support application. This assessment is consistent with the 1998 US EPA guidance and reflects the manner in which most states have prepared past 305(b) reports. The assessments contained in this report are consistent with the application of the numeric 1999 Kansas surface water quality standards with the exception of total suspended solids where a basin summary is included for streams for the two year period. The major causes of nonsupport for streams, in order of prevalence, are pathogen indicators (fecal coliform), organic enrichment, sulfates, chlorides, and metals. The major causes for lake impairments were sediments, turbidity, nutrients/eutrophication, and taste and odor problems Sources responsible for widespread pollutant loadings and beneficial use impairments of streams include agriculture (non-irrigated and irrigated crop production, and intensive animal feeding operations), natural sources, habitat modification, municipal point sources, and groundwater withdrawal. Major sources for lake impairment included natural sources and agriculture. Of the assessed lake acreage in Kansas, 53% were stable over time, while slightly more than 27% appeared to be undergoing measurable eutrophication over time. Almost twelve percent of total lake acres showed appreciable improvement in trophic state condition during this reporting cycle. Municipal point sources, natural sources, and agriculture were the primary contributing factors to lake eutrophication. The changes from the 1998 305(b) Report in the cumulative mileage rated as partially and fully supporting may be attributable to random fluctuations in climatological conditions. Specifically, increased rainfall and/or the number of rainfall events may have intensified nonpoint source impacts on water quality. Other variables may include application of total recoverable metal criteria throughout the entire state and the change in rotational sites assessed during this reporting period. Because of the use of rotational site no comparison can be made with the 1998 305(b) Report. High nitrate concentrations accounted for about 76% of the documented exceedences of the federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) during 1997 and 1999 for the groundwater monitoring network. The majority of the samples with excessive levels of nitrate were obtained from shallow wells (less than 100 feet) or in wells located in areas of sandy soil and high water tables. Other isolated concerns of groundwater contamination included the presence of volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, petroleum products and/or bacteria. The major sources of these contaminants included active industrial facilities, spills, leaking storage tanks, mineral extraction activities, and agricultural activities. In Kansas, approximately 68% of public water supplies use groundwater as their only source of water. Five percent of public water supplies use a combination of groundwater and surface water. The majority of MCL violations of public water supplies were due to high levels of bacteria and nitrate. The bacteria exceedences observed are not considered to be reflective of ambient groundwater. The imposition of more stringent permits limits and the resulting upgrades of municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities continue to result in notable improvements in surface water quality. As the number of point sources causing or contributing to significant water quality impairments continues to decline, future attention will necessarily shift to the remaining sources, primarily nonpoint source related water quality problems. It is anticipated that watershed pollution control efforts, predicated on the development of TMDLs and on the allocation of allowable pollutant loadings among point, nonpoint, and natural sources, will play an increasingly important role in the abatement of surface water pollution and improvement in water quality in Kansas. By June 30, 2000 Kansas will have established TMDLs for 48% of the water bodies listed in the 1998 Kansas 303(d) List.
PART II: BACKGROUNDUpdated data are provided in the tables that follow. There are no significant changes since the 1998 305(b) Report, April, 1998.
Top of Page Table 1. Kansas Atlas
Top of Page Table 2. Number of Active KWPC and NPDES Permits*
KWPC = Kansas Water Pollution Control * as of January 1, 2000 Top of Page
WWTF = Wastewater Treatment Facility *Absolute compliance means that the facility reported all parameters required by the permit and met all permit limits for the monitoring period. Top of Page Table 4. Summary of Local Environmental Code Adoption Through 1999
Top of Page
Table 5. KDHE Cooperative Funding for Construction of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facility Upgrades and Expansions.
* KWPCRF= Kansas Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT The KDHE maintains five primary water quality monitoring programs. These address (1) the chemical and physical properties of streams and rivers, (2) the biological properties of streams and rivers, with emphasis on aquatic and semi-aquatic macroinvertebrate communities, (3) the physiochemical and biological properties of lakes and wetlands, (4) contaminant concentrations in the tissues of bottom-feeding fish, and (5) the physiochemical properties of groundwater. There have been no significant changes in the monitoring programs from those described in the 1998 305(b) Report except in the case of the Groundwater Monitoring Network (see Part IV). The current Section 106 monitoring strategy has not changed since the last Report, and therefore, is not included here. The accompanying maps delineate the sampling sites used for this report.
The assessments of streams and rivers were conducted as for the 1998 305(b) Report with the exception of the data from the Biological Monitoring Program, a description of which follows below. The data assessed for the ambient chemistry stream monitoring were collected during the calendar years 1998 and 1999. The assessments were based upon designated uses in the 1999 Kansas surface water quality standards (K.A.R. 28-16-28b through K.A.R. 28-16-28f) and utilized the numeric criteria stated in those standards. The 2000 assessment addresses only acute criteria for aquatic life support use with the exception of chloride. The ambient stream chemistry sampling data consists of grab samples taken, for the most part, every two months and do not lend themselves to chronic assessments based on a 7-day or 30-day averaging periods. Kansas has a narrative criterion for total suspended solids (TSS)(K.A.R. 28-16-28e(c)(2)(D)). Assessments for TSS were summarized basin-wide and the data are presented in Appendix A. The assessment method for the data from the stream Biological Monitoring Program has been modified as follows: The most recent five year period of record data were used (1994-1998) rather than the former two year period of record. Evaluations were based on the five year 75th percentile Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) and Kansas Biotic Index (nutrients and oxygen demanding pollutants) (KBI-NO) scores rather than two year means. It is believed that manifestations of the effects of pollution on macroinvertebrate communities are often associated with episodic low flows and that more consistent aquatic life use attainment ratings will result from this modification. The MBI scale remains the same, the KBI-NO scale is as follows:
The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Index (EPT) 25th percentile rank as well as historical trends in the metrics and historical aquatic life use support (ALUS ) ratings were also considered in the assignment of the 1994-1998 ALUS rating for the 2000 305(b) Report. Causes and sources were based on knowledge of the presence or absence of point sources, point source performance and dominant land use in the watershed and near sampling stations. Best professional judgment was applied considering the qualitative manifestations of pollutant effects. Overall flow chart of the decision process for assessment of ambient stream data are included as Appendix B. Summary tables, although not required, have been provided as follows:
This report shows an increase from the 1998 305(b) Report of 2,616 in assessed stream miles. This increase is due to: 1) differences in mileage associated with rotational sites, and 2) increased monitoring in the Marais des Cygnes and Missouri River Basin in support of the establishment of TMDLs. The changes from the 1998 305(b) Report in the cumulative mileage rated as partially and fully supporting may be attributable to random fluctuations in climatological conditions. Specifically, increased rainfall and/or the number of rainfall events may have intensified nonpoint source impacts on water quality. Other variables may include application of total recoverable metal criteria throughout the entire state and the change in rotational sites assessed during this reporting period. Because of this, comparison with previous reports should not be made. In compliance with Section 314(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, an assessment report of lake water quality is presented in Appendix C. Top of Page Table 6a. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Streams Miles
Top of Page
Table 6b. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Lakes
(in acres)
Top of Page
Table 7a. Individual Use Support Summary for Streams (in miles)
* = category not applicable
Top of Page
Table 7b. Individual Use Support Summary for Lakes (in acres)
* = category not applicable Top of Page TABLE 8a. Total Stream Mileage Impaired by Various Cause/Stressor Categories
* = category not applicable Top of Page Table 8b. Total Lake Acres Impaired by Various Cause Categories
- = Category applicable, no data available. Top of Page TABLE 9a. Total Stream Mileage Impaired by Various Source Categories
* = category not applicable Top of Page Table 9b. Total Lake Acres Impaired by Various Source Categories
- = Category applicable, no data available. * = Refers mainly to in-lake ecophysiological processes (processes secondary to eutrophication, for instance), wind resuspension phenomena, and climate variations, with very little actual background pollution loading from watersheds included. Top of Page Table 10. Trophic Status of Lakes Assessed During This Reporting Cycle
Top of Page Table 11. Trophic State Trends in Lakes (% of total in parentheses)
Top of Page Table 12. Summary of Domestic Water Supply Use Impairments in Streams
* not applicable Top of Page Table 13. Summary of Domestic Water Supply Use Impairments in Lakes
PART IV: GROUNDWATER A statewide, EPA approved, Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is now fully established and is rapidly gaining momentum. A number of Kansas counties and communities are in the process of developing local WHPP plans. The City of Hays has implemented a local WHPP. There are no significant changes since the previous 1998 305(b) Report with the following exception: the Kansas Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network was reviewed, reorganized, and streamlined. The following outlines the primary changes to the statewide ambient groundwater program:
Summary tables, although not required, have been provided as follows:
Top of Page Table 14. Summary of State Groundwater Protection Programs
*principal administrative agency
Top of Page Table 15. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination
Top of Page Table16. Groundwater Contamination Summary.
CAPs - Corrective Action Plans NOTE: This table includes only sites with groundwater contamination (the last report inadvertently listed all contamination sites). Top of Page Table17. Aquifer Monitoring Data
Top of Page
Table 17. Aquifer Monitoring Data (continued)
Appendix A: TSS Concentrations in Kansas Basins (link to image)
Appendix B: Stream Assessment Protocol
(link to image) APPENDIX C: Clean Lakes and Wetlands Only data differing significantly from the previous reporting cycle are provided. Some of the data presented here also appears in Part III of this Report.
Top of Page
Summary StatisticsTable 1. Categories of Data used in ALUS Assessments for Lakes
Top of Page Back to Appendix C Table of Contents Table 2. 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 necessarily total to the acres/numbers of lakes reported in this chapter. Top of Page Clean Lakes Program(Only data differing significantly from the previous reporting cycle are provided) Background - A total of 317 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 188,506 surface acres. Top of Page Trophic Status - The majority of lakes fall into the eutrophic and hypereutrophic categories, while the vast majority of surface acreage falls into the argillotrophic 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, or suffer from high turbidity, while many of the small lakes in Kansas develop hypereutrophic conditions, based in some part on hydrologic and morphometric influences. While a significant percentage of reported lakes have not been assessed for their trophic status (22.2%), they constitute only about 5% of the total reported acreage. At present, about half of the reported lakes with unknown trophic state conditions are within the Mined Land Lakes (MLL) Recreation Area in southeast Kansas. Top of Page Table 3. Trophic Status of Lakes Assessed During This Reporting Cycle
Control Methods - (No new data to report) Restoration/Rehabilitation Efforts - (No new data to report) Top of Page Impaired and Threatened Lakes - Table 4 summarizes overall use support ratings for lakes assessed during this reporting cycle. Impairments related to chronic aquatic life support criteria were not included in the analysis, except as mentioned previously. Support rating for individual designated uses for lakes is presented in Table 5. Top of Page Table 4. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Lakes
Top of Page Table 5. Individual Use Summary in Acres for Lakes
* = category not applicable Top of Page Acid Effects on Lakes - A total of 188,506 acres of lakes in Kansas were monitored or evaluated for pH, out of the total reported during this cycle. This combines the KDHE Lake and Wetland Monitoring Program sites, Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) survey sites, and an additional 1,150 acres within the Mined Land Lakes Area in southeast Kansas. These additional 1,150 acres were part of a special study (funded by Clean Lakes Program LWQA money) to look specifically for low pH problems. In all, >99% of reported lake acres were assessed for pH (100% of monitored lake acres). A total of 15,793 lake acres are impacted by high pH during the 1995-1999 reporting period. In all cases, high summer time pH incidents are related to periods of intense phytoplankton or macrophytic productivity. A total of 73 acres of lakes were impacted by low pH during the 1995-1999 reporting period. In these cases, low pH is due to the lingering impacts of past coal mining activity. Top of Page Table 6. Total Lake Acres Impacted by Various Cause Categories
- = Category applicable, no data available. Top of Page Table 7. Total Lake Acres Impaired by Various Source Categories
- = Category applicable, no data available.
Top of Page Trends in Lake Water Quality - Time trends in lake water quality are difficult to determine, given that the chemical data do not lend themselves well to statistical analysis at this time. Trophic state remains the indicator of overall lake water quality for the determination of trends within this report. If a given lake had trophic state assessments for three, or more, occasions during the last twelve years, then a trend of "improving," "degrading," or "stable" was assigned. If no recent trophic state data were available, or if the most recent data were more than eight years old, then a trend classification of "unknown" was assigned. Table 8 presents the lake trophic state trends for this reporting period. Top of Page Table 8. Trophic State Trends in Lakes (% of total in parentheses)
According to the data in Table 8, the majority of lakes are of unknown trophic state trend, but they constitute less than eight percent of the total reported acreage. These are the small lakes that have undergone assessment, but have not been monitored for trophic state over time. Therefore, trends cannot be determined. Of the monitored lake acreage in Kansas, over 50% is stable over time, while slightly less than 30% appear to be degrading over time. Only about 12% of lake acres in the state have shown any appreciable improvement in trophic state condition during this reporting cycle. Top of Page Wetlands Assessment(Only data differing significantly from the previous reporting cycle are provided) Extent of Wetland Resources - (No new data)
Top of Page
Integrity of Public Wetland Resources - Out of the 35,607 wetland acres (35 wetlands total) assessed during this reporting cycle, 25,069 acres (9 wetlands total) are considered to be monitored sites. This represents 70% of the total acres reported, and 26% of the total number of reported wetlands. An additional 10,538 acres of wetland are reported as evaluated (26 wetlands, 74% of the total). At a minimum wetlands are designated for secondary contact recreation, food procurement, and aquatic life support uses. Wetlands are not generally designated for other uses in Kansas. Overall aquatic life use support (acute criteria only, with the exceptions of chloride and pesticides) is as follows, in terms of total reported acreage (monitored and/or evaluated sites): 9,124 acres are fully supported but threatened (26%), 2,666 acres are partially supported (7%), and 23,817 acres are not supported (67%). These numbers refer primarily to exceedences of acute aquatic life support criteria, although numbers were not significantly different when chronic criteria were analyzed. Levels of secondary contact recreational use support are as follows, in terms of reported acreage: 10,119 acres are fully supported but threatened (29%), 7,886 acres are partially supported (22%), and 17,602 acres are not supported (49%). The major causes of partial and/or nonsupport of designated uses in Kansas' wetlands are excessive nutrient load, heavy metals, salinity, elevated pH, flow alterations, low dissolved oxygen, and turbidity/siltation. The major sources of partial and/or nonsupport of designated uses are agriculture, hydromodifications in watersheds, and natural processes (wetland ecophysiological processes and natural climate variations). Out of the 25,069 monitored wetland acres in Kansas, 100% are monitored for toxics (heavy metals, pesticides, and ammonia). Due to a special wetland assessment project (discussed further on) a large number of normally evaluated wetlands are being assessed for toxics through the year 2000. During this reporting cycle, 18,454 acres of wetlands were impacted by toxics (52% of reported acres). During this reporting cycle, 23,847 wetland acres were assessed as hypereutrophic (67%),
1,110 acres were assessed as slightly-to-very eutrophic (3.1%), 31 acres were assessed as
mesotrophic (<0.1%), and 9,092 acres were not assessed for trophic state (25.5%). Another
1,500 acres were assessed as argillotrophic (4.3%). Out of the reported wetland acres, trends
in trophic status were as follows: 65% were stable over time (23,129 acres), 6.5% were
degrading over time (2,315 acres), and trends in 28.5% (10,163 acres) were unknown. Development of Wetland Water Quality Standards - (No new data) Additional Wetland Protection Activities - (No new data) <<< Top of Page
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
