1998 KANSAS WATER-QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS
(303(d) LIST)

Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Bureau of Environmental Field Services
1000 SW Jackson
Topeka, KS 66611

INTRODUCTION

Kansas has an extensive water quality monitoring network consisting of 291 ambient stream chemistry monitoring sites, 78 biological stations, 38 sites for fish tissue collection, and 141 lakes and wetland monitoring sites. The Kansas surface water register designates beneficial uses for 31,243 stream miles, 181,337 acres of publicly owned lakes and 35,607 acres of publicly owned wetlands.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that each state prepare a list of water quality-limited surface waters and develop a priority ranking for the determination of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prepared the following list of water quality-limited surface waters in an effort to meet the first of these federal requirements. This list is based on information obtained through monitoring and special study programs conducted by the department during calendar years 1996 and 1997.

The list of water quality-limited surface waters is divided into four tables:

Table 1 lists water quality limited stream segments impacted predominantly by nonpoint and point sources.

Table 2 lists stream segments determined to be water quality-limited based on biological monitoring.

Table 3 lists water quality-limited stream segments impacted predominantly by natural conditions.

Table 4 lists water quality-limited lakes and associated limiting pollutants.

METHODOLOGY

Water quality data and information from the following sources were evaluated in compilation of the State's 303(d) list:

• waters identified in the 1998 section 305(b) report as "partially meeting" or "not meeting" designated uses or as "threatened";

• waters for which dilution calculations or predictive models indicate nonattainment of applicable water quality standards;

• waters identified as impaired by data supplied by U.S. EPA, Region 7;

• waters identified as impaired in the 1996-1997 Kansas Nonpoint Source Control Program--319 Report.

  [Top of Page]

  Stream Monitoring Network

  All monitoring data gathered during the calendar years of 1996 and 1997 were analyzed and are deemed representative of current water quality conditions in Kansas. Streams impacted by both point and nonpoint sources are included in this list. Two major assumptions were applied in the evaluation of chemical data obtained from streams:

  1. Data from a given monitoring location were considered representative of conditions occurring within a 30-kilometer radius upstream and 15 kilometers downstream unless:

• an upstream or a downstream segment stopped at a major impoundment.

• a monitoring station occurred on a tributary within the assessment reach of a downstream (mainstem) station, in which case use support determinations for the tributary were based on data from the upstream (tributary) station.

• assessment reaches overlapped, in which case 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.

• a major (>1.0 MGD) sewage treatment plant discharged into a stream and the outfall location was closely bracketed by two network stations, in which case 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.

• 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.

  2. A parameter was deemed water quality-limiting in most instances if the applicable criterion, as set forth in the surface water quality standards, K.S.A. 28-16-28(c), was exceeded by more than 25% of the samples. This assumption acknowledges the skewed distribution of most water quality data and effectively minimizes the impact of unusually high values or "outliers." Typically, these higher values are associated with flood flows or extremely low (<7Q10) flows.

  3. K.A.R. 28-16-28c(c)(2) states "Classified streams may be excluded by the department from the application of the numerical criteria for fecal coliform bacteria in K.A.R. 28-16-18e(c) when stream flow exceeds 50% of the estimated two-year flood flow." Where stream flow data exceeded 50% of the two-year flood flow on the date of sampling, the fecal coliform data were excluded from analysis. Stream flow data was available for approximately 17% of the sampling sites.

  [Top of Page]

  Biological Monitoring Network

  Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities indicate pollution stress through changes in community structure. Typically communities under pollution stress have a greater number of what are considered pollution tolerant taxa and a greater relative abundance of these taxa, while communities free of pollution stress tend to have a greater number of what are considered pollution intolerant taxa. Unstressed communities tend to have greater balance in terms of the kinds and numbers of organisms present. A variety of community metrics are commonly used in evaluating pollution stress in macroinvertebrate communities.

  Aquatic life use support evaluations were based on the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), Kansas Biotic Index (KBI), and the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera Index (EPT). Aquatic life support (ALS) use for stream segments was generally determined by the average MBI for the segment according to the following scale: Non support: MBI>5.40, Partial support: MBI 5.39 to 4.51, full support: MBI<4.5. KBI and EPT Index averages were used to rank the monitored sites and these rankings as well as historical trends in the metrics were also considered in the assignment of ALS. A Habitat Development Index (HDI) for each monitored site was also considered in the assessment so that the influence of habitat quality on the various metrics was minimized.

  [Top of Page]

  Lake and Wetland Monitoring Network

  Because the department monitors lakes and wetlands on a 3-to-5 year rotational schedule, the water chemistry data utilized in the development of this list included data generated during calendar years 1993-to-1997. A chemical parameter was deemed water quality limiting in most instances if the applicable criterion, as set forth in the surface water quality standards, K.S.A. 28-16-28(c), was exceeded by more than 25% of the samples. Biological monitoring data (trophic state assessments) were applied based on professional judgement of how eutrophication impacts different beneficial uses, combined with EPA data from the Midwest on eutrophication related use impairment. This constitutes a valid method for implementation of the narrative criterion for nutrient pollution/eutrophication.

  [Top of Page]

  Fish Tissue Monitoring Network

  Lakes, wetlands, or streams with any form of tissue consumption advisory also were categorized as water quality limited with respect to the contaminant or contaminants of concern. All consumption advisories are based on fish tissue data collected over a minimum of three consecutive years.

  [Top of Page]

  Predictive Models

  Computer modeling techniques were employed by KDHE to identify stream segments experiencing probable water quality standards (ammonia) violations during periods of low flow, whether or not such conditions were detected by the KDHE ambient stream monitoring network during 1996-1997. The ambient stream sampling sites are often several miles downstream from municipal point discharges and are seldom taken at 7Q10 flow conditions. Ammonia, above the standard, may not be detected by the ambient network. If the point source is presently in the construction phase of implementing an upgrade designed to eliminate the pollutant problem, streams were not listed. Pollutants identified by predictive models are identified by an asterisk (*) in the 303(d) list.

  The Clean Water Act requires states to develop and utilize a priority system to identify and schedule publicly-owned sewerage facilities for State Revolving Fund loan assistance. Kansas' Project Priority System utilizes the Section 303(d) list in prioritizing projects by the addition of 10 points to priority scores for facilities that discharge into a stream segment listed on the current 303(d) list.

  [Top of Page]

  PRIORITIZATION OF SURFACE WATERS FOR TMDLs:

  The Kansas Water Office has defined twelve major river basins in Kansas. The TMDLs will be developed by KDHE by basins. The highest priority for TMDL development will be for the parameters with numeric criteria noted for the stream segments listed in Table 1. At the same time, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be encouraged to address concerns associated with impairments identified by biological monitoring, primarily siltation and nutrient loadings (Table 2). Stream segments listed in Table 3 will receive the lowest priority due to major contribution of naturally occurring minerals. Development of TMDLs for lakes and wetlands are prioritized by a combination of factors, including 1) the number and types of uses impaired, 2) the number and type of impairment causes, 3) the magnitude of the impairment causes, and 4) staff knowledge of specific extenuating watershed or lake conditions. Lake and wetland TMDLs will entail voluntary implementation of selected BMPs to address nonpoint source concerns and problems associated with lake morphometry, and the revision of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to control point source pollution.

  [Top of Page]

  IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:

  The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has agreed to a consent agreement to develop TMDLs by basin. The basins are identified as the Kansas/Lower Republican, Upper Arkansas, Lower Arkansas, Cimmaron, Upper Republican, Neosho, Missouri, Marais des Cygnes, Smoky Hill/Saline, Solomon, Walnut, and Verdigris basins. TMDLs for lakes are to be submitted the same time as the TMDLs for the basin in which the lakes are located. Following is the schedule for implementation as provided in the consent agreement:

• June 30, 1999 Kansas/Lower Republican Basin

• June 30, 2000 Two of the remaining eleven basins

• June 30, 2001 One of the remaining eleven basins

• June 30, 2002 Two of the remaining eleven basins

• June 30, 2003 One of the remaining eleven basins

• June 30, 2004 Two of the remaining eleven basins

• June 30, 2005 One of the remaining eleven basins

• June 30, 2006 Two remaining basins