U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2007−5108

Prepared in cooperation with the

JOHNSON COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Assessment of Biological Conditions at Selected Stream

Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson

Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004

Assessment of Biological Conditions at 

Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, 

Missouri, 2003 and 2004

By Barry C. Poulton, Teresa J. Rasmussen, and Casey J. Lee

Prepared in cooperation with the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5108

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Poulton, B.C., Rasmussen, T.J., and Lee, C.J., 2007, Assessment of biological conditions at selected stream sites in 

Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5108, 68 p.

Front cover: Cedar Creek near 83rd Street, October 26, 2006 (photograph taken by Amber Johnstun, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Lawrence, Kansas).

Back cover: (Top left) Blue River near Kenneth Road, October 30, 2006 (photograph taken by Amber Johnstun, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas); (Top right) Mill Creek near Shawnee Mission Park, April 29, 2006 (photograph 

taken by Teresa Rasmussen, U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas); (Bottom) Blue River near Kenneth Road, 

December 9, 2005 (photograph taken by Teresa Rasmussen, U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas).
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................3

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................3

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................3

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................9

Site Selection.........................................................................................................................................9

Macroinvertebrate Community Indicators .......................................................................................9

Sample Collection........................................................................................................................9

Identification and Enumeration ...............................................................................................11

Calculation of Metrics...............................................................................................................11

Selection of Metrics for Site Evaluation ................................................................................11

Rating Methods Used For Site Scoring and Ranking...........................................................13

Site Groupings............................................................................................................................14

Environmental Variables....................................................................................................................15

Streamflow and Precipitation..................................................................................................15

Water and Sediment Quality ....................................................................................................15

Land Use......................................................................................................................................16

Site Groupings and Scoring .....................................................................................................16

Principal Components Analysis...............................................................................................16

Environmental Effects Score ...................................................................................................17

Quality Assurance and Quality Control ...........................................................................................17

Assessment of Biological Conditions.......................................................................................................17

Macroinvertebrate Communities .....................................................................................................17

Summary of Community Structure..........................................................................................17

Individual Metric Values...........................................................................................................18

Site Scoring and Ranking Using Multimetric Combinations...............................................23

Site Groupings............................................................................................................................24

Aquatic-Life-Support Status ....................................................................................................26

Relations Between Macroinvertebrate Indicators and Environmental Variables...................29

Streamflow..................................................................................................................................29

Land Use......................................................................................................................................30

Water and Sediment Quality ....................................................................................................31

Site Groupings and Scoring ..............................................................................................................34

Principal Components Analysis...............................................................................................34

Environmental Effects Score ...................................................................................................35

Macroinvertebrate Responses to Environmental Variables........................................................39

Effects of Urbanization on Macroinvertebrates ...................................................................39

Macroinvertebrate Response to Gradients in Environmental Variables..........................41

Least- and Most-Impacted Stream Sites...............................................................................42

Comparison to Downstream Sites in Missouri .....................................................................42
iv

Evaluation of Metrics for Bioassessments in Urban Streams ....................................................43

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................45

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................47

Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................51

1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004 ....52

2. List of the four most dominant macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, 

Missouri, 2003 and 2004.............................................................................................................59

3. Macroinvertebrate metric values for 15 stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas, and 7 selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, calculated for 

2003 and 2004...............................................................................................................................61

4. Sampling-site rankings based on proportional scaling of metric values for three 

multimetric combinations in 2003 and 2004, for sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 

selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri......................................................66

5. Sampling-site rankings based on percentile site scoring for three multimetric combinations in 2003 and 2004 for sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass 

and Jackson Counties, Missouri..............................................................................................67

6. Environmental variables used to develop environmental effects scores for 15 sampling 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 2004...................................................................68

Figures

1. Photographs showing examples of aquatic macroinvertebrates and their association 

with general water-quality conditions ......................................................................................4

2. Maps showing location of biological sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 

Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004 ...........................................................5

3. Map showing urban, nonurban, and surface-water land use in Johnson County, northeastern Kansas, 2003 ...................................................................................................................7

4. Map showing agricultural and nonagricultural land use in Johnson County, northeastern Kansas, 2003 ...........................................................................................................................8

5. Flowchart showing approach used to evaluate relative biological conditions at Johnson County sampling sites and relations with environmental variables ...........................10

6–12. Graphs showing:

6. Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled 

in 2003 and 2004, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 

showing Kansas aquatic-life-support categories........................................................19

7. Kansas Biotic Index for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 

and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas 

aquatic-life-support categories ......................................................................................20

8. EPT taxa richness for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 

and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas 

aquatic-life-support categories ......................................................................................21

9. EPT abundance for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 and 

selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas aquaticlife-support categories .....................................................................................................22
10. Total taxa richness for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 

and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri .....................................23

11. Mean 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores for 22 stream sites in Kansas and 

Missouri in 2003 and 2004, with similar sites grouped together as A, B, and C 

according to the biological conditions...........................................................................25

12. Mean 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores for 22 stream sites in Kansas and 

Missouri in 2003 and 2004, grouped according to rural and urban land use and 

wastewater treatment discharges .................................................................................26

13. Map showing relative biological impacts indicated by average 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores for 2003–04 for 22 macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri...............................27

14–20. Graphs showing:

14. Streamflow duration curves for Blue River near Stanley and Indian Creek at 

Overland Park from November 1 through March 15, 2002–03, and 2003–04............31

15. Results of principal component analysis for 15 macroinvertebrate sampling sites 

in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 2004 ...................................................................36

16. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores for 2003 and 2004, and 

percentage impervious surface area for sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri......................38

17. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores for 2003 and 2004, and 

total nitrogen concentration in water from sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri......................38

18. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores for 2003 and 2004, and 

concentrations of total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in streambed sediment 

from sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and 

Jackson Counties, Missouri.............................................................................................39

19. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores and environmental 

effects scores for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites 

in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004 ............................................40

20. EPT abundance and EPT abundance minus the tolerant filter-feeding caddisfly 

Cheumatopsyche spp., and annual rankings in 10-metric site scores, for sampling 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004 ..................................................................................44

Tables

1. Location and description of biological sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 

Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004, including drainage area, land 

cover, and distance downstream from wastewater discharges..........................................6

2. List of benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and abbreviations determined for sampling 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, 

Missouri, 2003 and 2004, and their status for inclusion in different multimetric combinations...............................................................................................................................................12

3. Criteria for four macroinvertebrate metrics used in Kansas to evaluate aquatic-life 

support..........................................................................................................................................15

4. Grouping of sampling sites based on rank of 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores in 

2003 and 2004, for 22 stream sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected 

sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri ......................................................................24
vi

5. Aquatic-life-support status for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected 

sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004............................................28

6. Pearson correlation coefficients for nine environmental variables and both individual 

macroinvertebrate metrics and 10-metric site scores for 15 stream sampling sites in 

Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 2004.................................................................................32

7. Spearman-rho rank correlation coefficients between macroinvertebrate site scores 

and land-use variables, and between macroinvertebrate site scores and the environmental effects score, for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites 

in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004 .....................................................33

8. Sampling-site groupings based on principal component analysis of macroinvertebrate 

10-metric scores and land-use, stream-water, and streambed-sediment quality data 

from sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 2004 ........................................35

9. Environmental effects scores, 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores, categories of 

relative biological impacts based on 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores, and sources 

of environmental effects for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected 

sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004............................................37

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch (in.)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

milliliter (mL) 0.0338 ounce, fluid (oz)

Flow rate

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

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.4381 cubic meters per second (m3/s)

Mass

microgram per milligram (μg/mg) 1.0 x 10-3 ounce per ounce (oz/oz)

microgram per kilogram (μg/kg) 1.0 x 10-9 ounce per ounce (oz/oz)

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.

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

°C=(°F-32)/1.8.

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

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

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
Abstract

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 15 stream 

sites representing 11 different watersheds in Johnson County, 

Kansas, in 2003 and 2004 to assess biological conditions in 

streams and relations to environmental variables. Published 

data from an additional seven stream sites, one in Johnson 

County, Kansas, and six others in adjacent Cass and Jackson 

Counties in Missouri also were evaluated. Multimetric scores, 

which integrated a combination of measures that describe various aspects of biological community abundance and diversity, 

were used to evaluate and compare the biological health of 

streams. In addition, for 15 of 16 Johnson County stream 

sites, environmental data (streamflow, precipitation, and land 

use) and water- and sediment-quality data (primarily nutrients, indicator bacteria, and organic wastewater compounds) 

were used in statistical analyses to evaluate relations between 

macroinvertebrate metrics and variables that may affect them. 

The information is useful for defining current conditions, 

evaluating conditions relative to State aquatic-life support and 

total maximum daily load requirements, evaluating effects of 

urbanization, developing effective water-quality management 

plans, and documenting changes in biological condition and 

water quality.

Biological conditions in selected Johnson County streams 

generally reflected a gradient in the degree of human disturbances upstream from the sites, including percentage of urban 

and agricultural land use as well as the presence, absence, 

and proximity of wastewater treatment discharges. In this 

report, the term gradient is used to describe a continuum in the 

conditions (biological, environmental, or land use) observed at 

the study sites. Upstream Blue River sites, downstream from 

primarily agricultural land use, consistently scored among 

the sites least impacted by human disturbance, and in some 

metrics these sites scored higher than the State reference 

site (Captain Creek). The term impact, as used in this report, 

refers to a negative biological response at a site associated 

with one or more human-induced sources of disturbance or 

stress. However, no sites, including the Captain Creek reference site, met Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

criteria for full support of aquatic life during the 2 years of 

sample collection. Upstream sites on Kill and Cedar Creeks 

also consistently scored among the least impacted. Sites less 

than 3 miles downstream from municipal wastewater treatment 

facility discharges (two Indian Creek sites) and sites with no 

wastewater discharge but with substantial impervious surface 

area within their respective watersheds (Tomahawk, Turkey, 

and Brush Creeks) consistently scored among the sites most 

impacted by human disturbance. 

Introduction

Johnson County, with a population of 496,700 people 

in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005), is the fastest growing 

and most populous county in Kansas. Urban development 

affects streams by altering stream hydrology, geomorphology, water chemistry, fish and macroinvertebrate communities 

(Paul and Meyer, 2001) and increases public health concerns 

associated with exposure to and consumption of contaminated 

water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The 

water quality of Johnson County streams is affected by point 

sources, including municipal wastewater and industrial discharges, and by nonpoint sources, including stormwater runoff 

from urban and agricultural watersheds.

Water-quality management is governed by several regulatory programs administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and State environmental agencies. The 

basic structure for regulating water quality was established by 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, which states that “the 

objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” 

[Public Law 92-500, Clean Water Act, Section 101(a)]. Section 208 of the CWA requires every State to establish effective 

best management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint-source 

pollution. The Water Quality Act (WQA), which added section 402 to the CWA in 1987, requires control of stormwater 

through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Assessment of Biological Conditions at Selected Stream 

Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004

By Barry C. Poulton1, Teresa J. Rasmussen2, and Casey J. Lee2

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, 

Columbia, Missouri.

2

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Science Center, Lawrence, Kansas.
(NPDES) permit program. Johnson County municipalities are 

subject to requirements of the CWA and the NPDES program. 

In addition, section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to list 

water bodies that do not meet water-quality standards and to 

develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) that quantify 

the maximum pollutant loads allowed to attain established 

standards. Five major watersheds in Johnson County (Blue 

River, Cedar Creek, Indian Creek, Kill Creek, and Mill Creek) 

have stream segments that have been included on the 303(d) 

list or have had TMDLs developed by the Kansas Department 

of Health and Environment (KDHE) as a result of impaired 

water quality (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

2004). Most stream impairments are related to excessive 

nutrients, bacteria, and sediment. One of several new TMDLs 

submitted to USEPA for approval early in 2006 was developed 

to address biological impairments in the Mill Creek watershed. 

It is the first TMDL in Kansas that considers biological endpoints to indicate full support of aquatic life (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006a).

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Johnson County Stormwater Management 

Program, began an investigation to characterize the water 

quality of Johnson County streams and to provide information for use by municipalities in developing effective waterquality management plans. Initial study efforts described the 

effects of nonpoint and selected point contaminant sources 

on stream-water quality and their relation to land use (Lee 

and others, 2005). Subsequent phases of the investigation 

were designed to characterize biological conditions of county 

streams and to estimate water-quality constituent loads for different watersheds. 

Biological assessments are crucial components of waterquality programs because they determine how well a water 

body supports aquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2002). Aquatic life integrates the cumulative effects 

of various stressors over time, including variable streamflow, 

nutrients, potentially toxic chemicals, and excessive sediment 

and, therefore, provides information that measurements of 

water chemistry alone may not detect (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2002). Biological assessments involve 

the systematic examination of aquatic communities including 

vegetation, algae, zooplankton, fish, amphibians, and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. These components are used separately 

or together along with other indicators such as water chemistry to provide a thorough evaluation of biological integrity 

and stream health. Biological integrity is the capability of 

supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive 

community of organisms having a composition, diversity, and 

functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitats of the region (Frey, 1977; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1990). In addition, biological information can be used 

by States to develop biological criteria and establish aquaticlife goals for particular water bodies. Macroinvertebrate communities were evaluated for this biological assessment because 

they are reliable indicators of biological conditions in streams, 

data exist for comparison, and the State of Kansas was developing TMDLs using macroinvertebrate endpoints.

As urban development in Johnson County increases 

in the future, water quality will change at a rate that will be 

dictated by the degree of protection from water pollution 

or habitat loss, and urban planning efforts. Further, water 

resources generally are not fully judged on their ability to 

support healthy communities but often on evaluation criteria 

dictated by management objectives (intended resource use, for 

example). Management objectives designed to protect water 

quality may include land acquisition and set asides, protection 

of stream riparian corridors, bank stabilization techniques, and 

strategies related to the consolidation and proper discharge of 

wastewater. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe relative biological conditions of 15 stream sites in Johnson County, Kansas, in 2003 and 2004 using macroinvertebrate community 

indicators and their relation to environmental variables such 

as land use and water and sediment quality. The report also 

includes a comparison to previously published data from seven 

downstream sites in Johnson County and in adjacent Cass and 

Jackson Counties in Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005). 

The results in this report can be used by Johnson County 

officials to develop water-quality management strategies and 

to establish baseline information for comparing future conditions and changes at individual sites and within the watersheds 

being studied.

Relative biological conditions in Johnson County streams 

representing 11 watersheds were evaluated by: (1) examining 

community composition and relative abundance of resident 

aquatic macroinvertebrate communities, (2) scoring, ranking, 

and grouping the sites using combinations of macroinvertebrate metrics, (3) describing statistical relations between 

macroinvertebrate results and environmental variables (land 

use and water and sediment quality) that can be used to define 

a gradient in human-induced adverse effects, (4) assigning 

stream sites to impairment categories on the basis of ability 

to support aquatic life as defined by the biological indicators 

outlined by KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b), (5) evaluating the effects of urbanization on 

macroinvertebrate communities, (6) identifying the leastimpacted sites remaining in the area that might be possible 

candidates for additional protection or for defining reference 

conditions in particular watersheds, (7) comparing data from 

Johnson County sites to published data from selected downstream sites in Missouri, and (8) providing an initial evaluation 

of the suitability of additional macroinvertebrate metrics that 

have potential for bioassessments in urban streams. In this 

report the term “gradient” is used to describe a continuum 

in the conditions (biological, environmental, or land use) 

observed at the study sites, and the term “impact” refers to a 

   Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
negative biological response at a site associated with one or 

more human-induced sources of disturbance or stress.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Eileen Hack of the Johnson County 

Public Works Department for technical assistance, support, 

and planning efforts for the macroinvertebrate sampling. 

The authors also thank Scott Grotheer at the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado, for 

technical assistance with macroinvertebrate taxonomy and 

data entry. The authors appreciate the help of the Johnson 

County Environmental Laboratory (Tony Holt and Pedro 

Calderon) for their coordination efforts in laboratory analysis 

of water-quality samples and the Johnson County Automated 

Information Mapping System (Shannon Porter) for providing 

land-use data. 

Previous Investigations

Macroinvertebrate communities have been investigated 

at several stream sites in Johnson County as part of various 

studies conducted by the county and the statewide biological 

monitoring program. However, no comprehensive reports on 

the subject have been published for Johnson County streams.

The most recent water-quality assessment of Johnson 

County streams was published by Lee and others (2005) and 

described the effects of contaminant sources on stream-water 

quality and their relation to varying land use. According 

to the report, during base-flow conditions, discharge from 

wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) comprised greater 

than 50 percent of streamflow at the farthest downstream 

sampling site in six of the seven watersheds studied. Nutrient, 

organic wastewater-indicator compound, and pharmaceutical compound concentrations generally were highest at sites 

at, or immediately downstream from, WWTFs during base 

flow. Stormflow samples had the highest suspended-sediment 

concentrations and indicator bacteria densities. Other than in 

samples from sites immediately downstream from wastewater 

treatment discharges, stormflow samples generally had the 

highest nutrient concentrations. 

In addition to Lee and others (2005), USGS has examined components of urban stormwater runoff and point-source 

effluents within the Blue River and Indian Creek watersheds, 

located in the southern part of the Kansas City metropolitan 

area shared by Missouri and Kansas. In 2002, a macroinvertebrate bioassessment was added to these investigations 

(Wilkison and others, 2005, 2006). However, most of this 

work concentrated on hydrological modeling of nutrient 

loads, identification of tracer compounds and loads in streams 

and municipal effluents, water-quality monitoring, bacteriological source tracking, effluent discharge modeling, and 

determination of the loads of various contaminants in these 

receiving streams (Blevins, 1986; Wilkison and others, 2002, 

2005, 2006).

The physical and hydrological effects of urbanization 

on stream systems have been well documented; however, the 

biological communities in urbanized watersheds have not been 

adequately studied in many of the larger metropolitan areas of 

the Midwest. Only a small percentage of studies that evaluate macroinvertebrate communities have been conducted in 

urban stream systems. Specifically, the responses of particular 

community-level attributes (in other words, metrics such as 

those related to functional feeding groups or specific indicator 

groups with known or suspected tolerances to different levels 

of water pollution) to combinations of urban runoff, municipal 

effluents, industrial discharges, and habitat destruction are 

poorly known. Existing literature suggests that the general 

response of macroinvertebrate communities to increased urban 

development includes diminished biological integrity resulting from a reduction in total species numbers and diversity 

and increased dominance of more pollution-tolerant species 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). Examples of 

pollution-sensitive and pollution-tolerant organisms are shown 

in figure 1.

Description of Study Area

The study area includes Johnson County, Kansas, which 

is located in the western part of the Kansas City metropolitan 

area (fig. 2) and consists of 477 mi2 of surface area (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2005). The county contains all or parts of 

22 HUC–14 (Seaber and others, 1987) watersheds, the largest 

11 of which are within the 15-site sampling network (fig. 2, 

table 1). Published data from an additional seven stream sites, 

one in Johnson County, Kansas, on Indian Creek and six others in adjacent Cass and Jackson Counties in Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), also were evaluated. Designated uses 

for streams within these counties include support of aquatic 

life, contact recreation, drinking-water supply, food procurement, ground-water recharge, irrigation, industrial use, and 

livestock watering. Fifteen municipal and five private wastewater treatment facilities are located within Johnson County 

watersheds.

The mean annual temperature for Johnson County, Kansas, is about 55 °F, with a mean monthly range from 28 °F in 

January to 78 °F in July (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1966–98). Mean annual precipitation (1961–

90) is about 40 in., with 68 percent of the rain occurring from 

April through September (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1966–98).

Population increases in Johnson County have resulted 

in increased urban and suburban land uses. Since 1990, land 

parcels dedicated to residential and commercial land use in 

Johnson County have increased more than 45 percent (K. 

Skridulis, Johnson County Appraiser’s Office, written commun., 2004). Figure 3 shows urban (commercial, industrial, 

parks, and residential) and nonurban land use for Johnson 

County in 2003. The northeastern part of the county including 

the Brush Creek, Dykes Branch, Indian Creek, Rock Creek, 

Introduction   
Tomahawk Creek, and Turkey Creek watersheds contain the 

most urban development with more than 75 percent of the 

watersheds devoted to residential, commercial, industrial, 

and right-of-way land uses. More than 18 percent of these 

watersheds are covered by impervious surfaces. The Blue 

River and Mill Creek watersheds are experiencing the most 

recent development (Mid-America Regional Council, 2002). 

Figure 4 shows agricultural (commercial, cropland, grassland, 

canopy cover, and nonusable) and nonagricultural land use for 

2003. Watersheds shown in figures 3 and 4 represent major 

watersheds recognized by Johnson County officials and in 

some cases include multiple HUC–14 watersheds.

Recreational development planning has been in progress in Johnson County since the 1950s when a parks and 

recreation district was created to provide funding for land 

acquisition and comprehensive planning began for recreational 

opportunities such as multi-use centers, impoundments, and 

streamway parks. In 1986, the district began implementation 

of the streamway park system, where lands adjacent to streams 

were acquired and developed into facilities connected with a 

(A) The organisms shown below generally are pollution tolerant so they can live in streams 

with large amounts of contaminants. The presence of these organisms in large numbers is

usually an indication of poor water quality.

(B) The organisms shown below generally are moderately tolerant so they can live in

streams with small amounts of contaminants. The presence of these organisms is usually an 

indication of moderate water quality.

(C) The organisms shown below are sensitive to small amounts of contaminants. The 

presence of these organisms in large numbers is usually an indication of good water quality.

Midges (Chironomidae) Leech (Hirudinea) Worm (Oligochaeta)

Dragonfly (Odonata) Freshwater mussel (Mollusca) Cranefly (Tipulidae)

Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) Stoneflies (Plecoptera) Caddisfly (Trichoptera)

Figure 1. Examples of aquatic macroinvertebrates and their association with general water-quality conditions. 

Photographs from http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/photos_invertebrates.html

   Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Figure 2. Location of biological sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004. Watershed 

boundaries are from the National Hydrography Dataset, digital data 1:100,000, 1999.

GR19

Jackson

County

Wyandotte County

Cass

County

Johnson

County

Enlarged area

Blue River

South Grand

River

EXPLANATION

Watershed included in this study

Watershed boundary—From the National Hydrography 

 Dataset, digital data 1:100,000, 1999

U.S. Geological Survey stream-gage site and number

U.S. Geological Survey stream-gage and biological

 sampling site

Biological sampling site and identifier—Asterisk

 indicates streambed sediment was sampled

Biological sampling and State reference site and 

 identifier—Asterisk indicates streambed sediment 

 was sampled

Municipal wastewater-treatment facility

Private wastewater-treatment facility

Weather station

95 ̊05’

39 ̊05’

39 ̊

55’

50’

38 ̊45’

95 ̊ 55’ 50’ 45’ 40’ 35’ 30’ 94 ̊25’

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1987, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Jackson County

Johnson

County

Olathe

city limits

Wyandotte County

Leavenworth County

Cass County

BL13

BL8

BL7

IN6 *TO2

BL2b

*BL5

*BL3

06893300

06893300

IN1b

*MI4

*MI1

*MI7

*CE1

*KI5

*KI6b

*CE6

*CE6

*TU1

*CA1

*CA1

*BI1

*IN3a

BR12

Kansas City

metropolitan

area

Johnson County

Wyandotte County

Cass County

Jackson County

Index map

KANSAS MISSOURI

35

35

35

70

70

435

435

435 635

635

435

470

70

Missouri River

Kansas River

KANSAS

MISSOURI 

Wolf Creek

Coffee Creek

Blue River

Tomahawk

Creek

Indian Creek

Dykes Branch

Brush Creek

Rock Creek Turkey Creek

Little Mill Creek

Mill Creek

Clear Creek

Cedar Creek

Lake

Olathe

Cedar

Lake

Kill Creek

Captain Creek

Bull Creek

Little Bull Creek

Introduction 
Table 1. Location and description of biological sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004, including drainage area, land cover, and 

distance downstream from nearest wastewater discharges. [Land-cover percentages from Johnson County Automated Information Mapping System, written commun., 2003; --, not determined or not applicable]

Site 

identifier

(fig. 2)

Site description Approximate land cover (percent) General land 

classification1

Distance 

downstream from 

nearest wastewater 

discharge

(miles)

Stream and 

location

U.S. Geological 

Survey station 

number

County Drainage area (mi2

) Urban Impervious surface

Kansas

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69)2 06893080 Johnson 46.5 24.4 1.9 Rural --BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road2 06893100 Johnson 65.7 21.6 3.0 Rural --IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. 385520094420000 Johnson 15.8 76.4 22.5 Urban 0.6IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road2 06893390 Johnson 63.1 74.5 23.2 Urban 1.4TO2 Tomahawk Creek at 111th Street 385539094372100 Johnson 23.0 70.0 18.4 Urban --

TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street 390027094415600 Johnson 6.7 78.6 30.9 Urban --

MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street 385356094491200 Johnson 4.4 58.4 23.9 Urban --MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane 385800094485300 Johnson 19.4 47.9 15.0 Urban 5.8

MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive2 06892513 Johnson 58.8 50.3 12.2 Urban 12.7CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 562 06892440 Johnson 13.2 31.9 5.4 Rural --

CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street)2 06892495 Johnson 58.5 26.9 3.9 Rural 9.7

KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street 385303094582300 Johnson 18.9 25.0 3.6 Rural 4.4KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street2 06892360 Johnson 48.6 16.7 2.9 Rural 13.1

BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton2 06914950 Johnson 26.5 8.7 1.9 Rural 2.9

CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street3 385540095032800 Johnson 16.0 2.5 1.0 Rural --

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd. Extension2 06893150 Jackson, MO 93.1 32.9 16.0 Urban 4.7

BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road)2 06893500 Jackson, MO 184 50.4 18.7 Urban 55.1BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway2 06893552 Jackson, MO 213 53.4 19.2 Urban 513.8

BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive2 06893578 Jackson, MO 259 60.0 21.8 Urban 523

IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 694 06893270 Johnson, KS 26.6 62.3 20.0 Urban --BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue2 06893564 Jackson, MO 29.9 94.1 47.1 Urban --

GR19 South Fork Grand River below Freeman3 06921582 Cass, MO 150 .1 2.0 Rural --

1Urban sites have greater than 32 percent urban land use and greater than 10 percent impervious surface.2U.S. Geological Survey stream-gage station name; data available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Station number 06893300 on Indian Creek was not a biological sampling site and is not listed in the 

table.

3State reference site.4Located in Johnson County, Kansas, but sampled as part of the Missouri study.5Receives wastewater discharge from more than one facility.

 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
38°50’

38°45’

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

39°

95° 94°55’

94°50’

94°45’ 94°40’

38°55’

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994 

Albers Conic Equal-Area Projection,

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96° 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Commercial

Industrial

 Parks

 Residential

Land use from Johnson County Automated Information 

Mapping System (written commun., 2003)

Urban land use

Nonurban land use

Surface water

No data (government 

 property, public roads)

Watershed boundary

KANSAS

MISSOURI

Mill Creek

watershed

Indian Creek

watershed

Brush Creek

watershed

Rock Creek

watershed

Turkey Creek

watershed

Kill Creek

watershed

Cedar Creek

watershed

Blue River 

watershed

Big Bull Creek

watershed Little Bull Creek

watershed

Tomahawk Creek

watershed

Captain 

Creek 

watershed 

Dykes Branch

watershed

Inactive 

Sunflower Army 

Ammunition Plant 

New

Century

AirCenter

Figure 3. Urban (commercial, industrial, parks, residential), nonurban, and surface-water land use in Johnson County, northeastern 

Kansas, 2003.

Introduction 
38°50’

38°45’

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

39°

95° 94°55’

94°50’

94°45’ 94°40’

38°55’

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area Projection,

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96°

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Commercial agricultural 

 use—Nurseries, tree 

 farms, and so forth

Cropland

Grassland

Canopy cover

Land use

Nonusable acreage

Nonagricultural land use

Watershed boundary

 Location of possible septic

 system (not to scale)

MISSOURI

KANSAS

Mill Creek

watershed

Indian Creek

watershed

Brush Creek

watershed

Rock Creek

watershed

Turkey Creek

watershed

Kill Creek

watershed

Cedar Creek

watershed

Blue River

watershed

Big Bull Creek

watershed

Little Bull Creek

watershed

Cedar Creek

watershed

Blue River

watershed

Big Bull Creek

watershed

Little Bull Creek

watershed

Tomahawk Creek

watershed

Captain

Creek

watershed

Dykes Branch

watershed

Inactive

Sunflower Army

Ammunition Plant

New

Century

AirCenter

Land use from Johnson County Automated Information 

Mapping System (written commun., 2003)

Figure 4. Agricultural and nonagricultural land use in Johnson County, northeastern Kansas, 2003.

 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
network of accessible trails that followed the stream riparian 

corridors (Johnson County, 2003). Streamway parks exist 

along several of the streams sampled in this study including 

Cedar, Indian, Kill, Mill, and Turkey Creeks. More streamway parks are planned for the future, and in many parts of 

Johnson County, these lands are being acquired and improved 

into parks before urban development has occurred. Many of 

the sites included in this study are located within the streamway park system, and several Missouri sites are also located 

adjacent to park lands. Other locations within Johnson County 

have been selected for planned residential development and 

the construction of impoundments to enhance recreational 

opportunities.

Methods 

The general approach used in this study was to collect 

macroinvertebrate samples during early spring of two consecutive years (2003 and 2004). Data then were evaluated by 

calculating various macroinvertebrate metrics and comparing 

results to previously published macroinvertebrate data for sites 

primarily in downstream locations in Missouri (Wilkison and 

others, 2005). Data also were compared to previously published water and sediment data for Johnson County (Lee and 

others, 2005).

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected using KDHE 

protocol outlined in the Quality Assurance Management 

Plan for the Stream Biological Monitoring Program implemented by the State of Kansas (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2000). This protocol was used because it 

provided an opportunity to place stream sites into aquatic-life 

impairment categories defined by the State of Kansas and to 

reduce sample cost as compared to protocols that normally 

include more extensive laboratory sorting. A brief summary 

of the procedure follows. 

Onsite water-quality properties were measured concurrently with macroinvertebrate collection. However, sampling 

for other constituents at these sites, including streamflow and 

water and streambed sediment, was performed at various times 

between October 2002 and March 2003. A flowchart depicting the sequence of approaches and procedures that were 

applied to the data is provided in figure 5 and summarized in 

the following sections. For the purposes of this study, urban 

sites are those sites with drainage areas containing more than 

32 percent urban land use and more than 10 percent impervious surface area. 

Site Selection

Fifteen sampling sites (fig. 2) in Johnson County were 

selected on the basis of availability of previously collected 

data (by USGS, KDHE or Johnson County), concurrent studies related to monitoring of streamflow, water quality, contaminant loading in sediment, and both chemical and 

biological (bacteriological) components of stormwater runoff 

(Lee and others, 2005). An additional seven sites, all of which 

are located downstream in Cass and Jackson Counties in 

Missouri except one (site IN1b, Indian Creek at Highway 69 

in Johnson County), also were sampled as part of a separate 

study with similar objectives being conducted in conjunction 

with the city of Kansas City, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 

2005, 2006). The study sites also included two streams (Captain Creek in Kansas and South Fork Grand River in Missouri, 

sites CA1 and G19, respectively) that both States consider as 

suitable reference sites. 

Although the focus of this study was on sites in Johnson 

County, Kansas, data from the seven sites associated with the 

Missouri study were evaluated in some parts of this report 

because their inclusion enabled a watershed-based evaluation 

with a continuum in the amount of adverse effects related to 

nutrient loading and urban point and nonpoint-source runoff 

within selected watersheds in the southern part of the Kansas 

City metropolitan area (fig. 2, table 1). Also, both Kansas 

and Missouri sites are included together in some parts of this 

report because the same sampling protocol was used concurrently at all of the sites in both years, and many of the assessment results can be strengthened by the inclusion of more than 

one reference stream site and a larger total number of sites. 

Further, the political boundary that exists was not expected to 

have a direct effect on the results. 

Macroinvertebrate Community Indicators

Sample Collection

Macroinvertebrate community samples were collected 

at the 15 Kansas study sites and the 7 Missouri study sites 

(Wilkison and others, 2005) during base-flow conditions on 

March 4–13, 2003, and February 24–March 3, 2004. Sampling was conducted in late February and early March to 

obtain samples representative of benthic communities and to 

precede pulses of early spring runoff that may have disrupted 

benthic populations. In addition, macroinvertebrate samples 

collected from small streams in late winter and early spring 

seasons often have greater diversity compared to samples collected in other seasons (Feminella, 1996) because emergence 

periods of many stream insect species coincide with spring 

and early summer periods. 

To provide maximum consistency in sampling macroinvertebrates using KDHE protocol at all of the stream sites, 

additional guidance and equipment was provided to the field 

personnel. KDHE protocol includes two independently collected 100-organism samples that are counted in the field by 

two scientists (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2000). In this study, the two samples were combined 

into one 200-organism sample after laboratory enumeration 

and identification were completed. To minimize bias in the 

sampling and field-sorting process, a checklist of the major 

stream habitats (pools, riffles, runs) was completed at each site 

Methods 
Macroinvertebrate sampling and 

identification/enumeration

Calculation of indicator metrics 

and selection of metrics for site 

scoring

State-defined metric 

selection (KDHE fourmetric evaluation)

Statistic metric selection 

(six-metric and five-metric

stepwise analysis)

Qualitative metric selection 

(10-metric from visual 

response patterns)

Multi-metric site scoring and ranking

(percentiles and proportional scaling)

Correlation 

analysis

Calculation of environmental effects score

Sites scored and assigned to 

State impairment categories

KDHE = Kansas Department of Health and EnvironmentWWTF = wastewater treatment facility

Site grouping on basis of 

biological data (continuum 

in 10-metric scores)

Grouping of sites with 

principal components 

analysis

Grouping of sites on basis of relative

amount of adverse environmental 

effects (least, moderate, most)

Site grouped on basis of qualitative

site information (rural, urban, without 

WWTF, urban with WWTF)

Identity differences in groups of sites 

(discriminant function analysis)

Interpretation of site water quality and 

concurrence between macroinvertebrate 

scores and environmental variables

Analysis of water and 

sediment quality, and 

streamflow measurements

Quantitative estimates 

of land-use/land-cover 

variables

Figure 5. Approach used to evaluate relative biological conditions at Johnson County sampling sites and relations with environmental variables. 

10 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
to assure thorough sample coverage. In addition, a large white 

sorting tray (31 in. x 25 in. x 2.75 in.) elevated on a portable 

stand at streamside was used to spread out debris during 

sorting and enhanced the visibility of the organisms. These 

changes did not represent a major deviation from KDHE protocol but rather provided more detail in an attempt to improve 

consistency among samples and between sample collections. 

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected with a standard 9- x 18-in. rectangular frame kicknet with a mesh size of 

approximately 500 μm following physical disturbance of the 

substrate upstream from the net. In standing-water habitats, 

the net was used with a sweeping or scooping motion. A 

small amount of water was placed in the sorting tray along 

with the sample debris to enhance the visibility of the organisms. A hand counter was used to count the organisms as 

they were removed from the tray with forceps. Each site was 

sampled with two scientists sorting simultaneously using their 

own set of equipment for no more than approximately 1 hour. 

If 100 organisms were not obtained in the allotted time period, 

sampling ended. Not more than 50 percent of the organisms 

sorted came from any one of the habitats available. Every 

attempt was made to assure that the maximum diversity of 

organisms was obtained during sorting and that each sample 

represented relatively uniform coverage of the habitats present. 

Removal of organisms followed the morphospecies principle, 

meaning that any organism visually appearing different than 

those previously sorted was included in the sample. Every 

attempt was made to consider organism size, making certain 

that both large and small animals were included. 

All of the stream habitats encountered were not always 

present at every site, but those habitats or substrate types that 

were included to obtain the 100 organisms were noted on the 

field sheet. The habitats generally were located in both fastflowing areas as well as slack water. These habitats included 

coarse gravel and cobble in riffles, fine gravel and sand/silt 

substrates near the margins or in runs, leaf packs or organic 

matter accumulations, vegetation and undercut banks along 

margins or around snags, and large moveable objects such 

as logs or rocks where handpicking may reveal additional 

taxa. After sampling any one habitat, if there were no taxa 

that appeared different, or if no organisms from that habitat 

were included in the sample container, this was noted on the 

field sheet. The two, 100-organism samples were preserved 

in 80-percent ethanol onsite in 125-mL polyethylene bottles. 

The sample bottles were labeled with site name, date, and 

collector’s initials. Samples were topped off with preservative and sealed with tape before sending them to the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado, 

for identification and enumeration.

Identification and Enumeration

Identification and enumeration of the organisms and the 

taxonomic references used for each of the organism groups 

are outlined in Moulton and others (2000) and represent 

the same procedure utilized by the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) Program for obtaining biological data from stream samples. This included examination of 

most specimens under a dissecting microscope and mounting 

of midge specimens (Diptera: Chironomidae) on glass slides 

for identification under a compound microscope. In general, 

identification was to the lowest practical taxonomic level (usually genus or species). 

In several cases, the raw data included certain groups of 

organisms that represent taxonomic complexes where individual genera or species could not be readily distinguished from 

one another. In part, this dilemma can be caused by damage 

to organisms and loss of key structures, or slide mounts that 

did not clearly show diagnostic characters. Because these 

problems have varying effects among samples, a few of these 

taxa had to be lumped before mathematical calculations and 

analyses were performed. In a few cases, some terrestrial 

(non-aquatic) organisms or life stages were included in the 

samples, and these organisms were omitted. The data initially 

were recorded in a spreadsheet.

Calculation of Metrics

Benthic macroinvertebrate metrics were determined 

from the data using appropriate mathematical or statistical 

equations. A total of 22 different metrics were calculated, a 

complete list of which is given in table 2. All metrics were 

calculated for each sampling year separately and were determined from categories outlined by Barbour and others (1992, 

1995). These included: (1) metrics that provided a visual 

response pattern across the sites (distinct increase or decrease 

throughout the range of observed site conditions on the basis 

of known or expected sources of disturbance or stress such as 

urbanization, land use, or point-source discharges), (2) core 

metrics used in many State evaluation programs, and (3) metrics known to be sensitive and reliable for measuring degradation of stream assemblages on the basis of available literature. 

Unless otherwise indicated, individual metrics were calculated 

as described in the references listed in table 2. 

An independence test was performed on the relative percentage difference (RPD) of individual metric values between 

2003 and 2004 data. The Mann-Whitney nonparametric test 

for independence (using a probability of error, or p-value, of 

0.05; Helsel and Hirsch, 1992) was used to identify any significant differences between sampling years, between sampling 

sites, and between rural and urban sampling sites. 

Selection of Metrics for Site Evaluation

Biological conditions were determined for the sampling sites by calculating different combinations of indicator 

metrics, which resulted in an overall multimetric site score 

that was used for evaluating site quality (Karr, 1993; Fore and 

others, 1994). The site scores were generated by different 

approaches or rating methods and used as a guide to evaluate 

the relative conditions or degree of biological impacts at the 

Methods 11
Table 2. List of benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and abbreviations determined for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri 

(Wilkison and others, 2005), 2003 and 2004, and their status for inclusion in different multimetric combinations. [KDHE metrics are those used for evaluating the condition of aquatic life in Kansas streams (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006a). Metric selection from the STEPWISE statistical procedure is described in the “Methods” section; KDHE, Kansas Department of Health and Environment; X, metric included in evaluation; %, percentage; <, less than]

Metric name and reference (if available) Abbrevia- tion KDHE metrics Best 10 metrics

STEPWISE

Metric status1 Fivemetric 

solution

Sixmetric 

solution

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) (Davenport and Kelly, 1983) MBI

X

X CM

Kansas Biotic Index (KBI–NO) (Huggins and Moffett, 1988) KBI–NO

X

X CM, RP

Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness (Klemm and others, 1990) EPTRich

X

X

X

X CM

EPT abundance (Barbour and others, 1999) %EPT

X CM, HR, WP

Total taxa richness (Barbour and others, 1999) TRich

X

X

X CM

Chironomidae taxa richness (Hayslip, 1993) ChRich WPPercentage of Chironomidae, (Lenat, 1983; Barbour and others, 1994) %Chir WPPercentage of filterers (Hayslip, 1993) %Fil WPPercentage of scrapers (Barbour and others, 1999) %Sc

X

X RP

Ratio of abundances EPT/Chironomidae (Ferrington, 1987) EPT/Chir WPRatio of abundances scrapers /filtering collectors (Plafkin and others, 1989) Sc/Fc

X

X HR

Percentage of COP midges (Cricotopus, Orthocladius, Paratrissocladius) %COP WPPercentage of Oligochaeta (Lenat, 1993; Kerans and Karr, 1994) %Olig

X RP

Ratio of abundances EPT/Oligochaeta EPT/Olig HR, WPPercentage of Ephemeroptera (Schloesser and others, 1991) %Eph HRPercentage of Filtering Trichoptera (Camargo, 1992) %FT WPPercentage of Tanytarsini midges (DeShon, 1995) %Tany

X

X

X RP

Percentage of intolerant organisms (MBI < 6), (DeShon, 1995) %Int–MBI HRPercentage of intolerant organisms (KBI < 3) (Huggins and Moffett, 1988) %Int–KBI

X

X

X RP, MM

Percentage of dominant taxon (Shackleford, 1988) PDT WPPercentage of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera %EP

X RP, MM

Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (SWDI) (Washington, 1984) SWDI

X CM

1Metric status:

CM = Core metric in State assessment evaluations or commonly used in literature.MM = Represents a modification of a commonly used metric adapted for particular assessment situations.RP = A reasonable response pattern was evident.HR = Not included in one or more site rating schemes, possible high redundancy with other metrics that were included.WP = Not included in one or more site rating schemes; response pattern bimodal, weak, or not evident.

12 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
sites. In this study, metric combinations were used to represent 

a measure of stream condition on the basis of resident biota 

and to provide a continuum of biological response to overall 

human-induced disturbances among the study sites as outlined by the Biological Condition Gradient conceptual model 

(Davies and Jackson, 2006). The continuum of biological 

response as indicated by these metric combinations also provided a basis for grouping or categorizing sites for statistical 

analysis and further screening of metrics for site scoring. In 

addition, integrating individual metrics into multimetric combinations minimized the bias that might occur when relying on 

only one or two metrics for evaluation. 

The choice of metrics to be utilized in each multimetric 

combination and the number of metrics included in these combinations were determined by three methods: (1) four metrics 

pre-selected by the State of Kansas (KDHE metrics) to evaluate the stream’s ability to support aquatic life defined by the 

State 305(b) water-quality assessment (Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment, 2006b), (2) examination of the visual 

response patterns among the sampling sites, and (3) the results 

of statistical analysis. Each of these choices were based on the 

underlying assumption that macroinvertebrate metrics, both 

taken individually or integrated together as a multimetric index 

or score, provided an acceptable measurement of the relative 

biological conditions at the sampling sites. 

The State of Kansas uses four or sometimes five macroinvertebrate metrics for determining the ability of a stream site 

to support aquatic life and for placement of sites into impairment categories (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b). These metrics include the Macroinvertebrate 

Biotic Index (MBI), the Kansas Biotic Index (KBI–NO), 

EPT (Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera) taxa richness 

(EPTRich), EPT abundance (%EPT), and if adequate data are 

available, mussel community loss. The latter metric is used 

only if the site is known to support at least five mussel species. 

The percentage of mussel loss was not evaluated in this study 

because several watersheds were too small in size to contain at 

least five mussel species. Therefore, the remaining four metrics, all of which are core metrics in many State bioassessment 

programs, were used in this multimetric combination method.

Metrics also were selected on the basis of response patterns throughout the range in known site conditions. Ideally, 

metrics are screened and selected on the basis of quantitative 

measures that evaluate their ability to discriminate between 

reference and impacted sites (Barbour and others, 1992). 

However, these quantitative metric-selection methods use coefficient of variation, sensitivity analysis, and calibration techniques that require within-site replication and multiseasonal 

and multiyear macroinvertebrate data from throughout a geographic region or watershed (Kerans and Karr, 1994). Because 

these data were not available for statistically screening metrics 

and testing the ability of individual metrics to discriminate 

between Johnson County stream sites, a more qualitative 

approach was used. Metrics were selected that demonstrated 

a distinct response that was based on metric expectations, as 

described by Simon and Lyons (1995), throughout the range in 

known site conditions (higher values for metrics that increase 

as adverse effects increase, or lower values for metrics that 

decrease as adverse effects increase) and considering basic 

knowledge on sources of stream degradation such as presence 

of municipal or industrial discharges and whether sites were 

located in primarily rural or urban landscapes. This approach 

to metric selection was qualitative only and was not designed 

to evaluate actual metric performance but rather to provide 

an initial filter for reducing the number of overall metrics 

included in further evaluation methods.

To improve isolation of the best indicator metrics to be 

included in the multimetric scores, stepwise regression analysis (Draper and Smith, 1998) was applied to the metric data 

to rate indicator performance and to determine which metrics 

had the highest level of agreement with preselected groups 

or classes of sites (described in section on “Site Groupings”). 

The stepwise procedure developed a model that included all 

of the indicator metrics that met the model acceptance criteria 

of 15 percent as outlined in the procedure (p-value greater 

than 0.15). After the entire list of metrics was added individually into the model using this criterion, the procedure began 

removing metrics that were not important for separating or 

discriminating between groups of sites. The stepwise analysis was used to generate two possible solutions to be used 

for multimetric scoring by selecting: (1) all metrics meeting 

the acceptance criteria, without a metric-removal step, and 

(2) only those metrics that create the best overall model for 

predicting future placement of a site into the correct grouping, 

including the metric-removal step. Multimetric scores and rating of sites were determined for both the five- and six-metric 

solutions resulting from this analysis.

Rating Methods Used For Site Scoring and 

Ranking

Because there are several approaches for presenting and 

reporting multimetric data, three different rating methods were 

used for site evaluation so that several site scoring and ranking 

solutions could be generated to compare for consistencies. 

The sequence of evaluation components and their resulting 

solutions are outlined in the flowchart (fig. 5). These methods 

were: (1) site scoring on the basis of scaling transformation, 

where the metric values were proportionally scaled across all 

sites for each metric, (2) site scoring on the basis of percentiles or quartiles, where the mathematical distribution of 

individual metric values for all sites were split into percentiles 

so that an approximately equal number of sites fell into each 

of the ranges, and (3) the State of Kansas 305(b) water-quality 

assessment (KDHE metrics), which defines stream-impairment categories and measures the ability of a stream site to 

support aquatic life (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b), 

In the first rating method, values for each metric were 

proportionally scaled among all of the sites. This approach 

transformed the metric values to numbers between 1 and 100, 

Methods 13
assigning 1 to the value representing the lowest biological 

quality and 100 to the value representing the highest biological quality (Kreis, 1988). This method has three important 

features: (1) it spreads out the distribution of metric values, 

and when multimetric scores are obtained, there is less chance 

of having ties during the site-ranking process, (2) it retains 

the relative (or proportional) distances among the metric 

values, and (3) each metric has equal weight in the assessment results because each metric is transformed to the same 

numerical scale. This method has been used successfully for 

ranking sites on the basis of benthic macroinvertebrate data 

(Poulton and others, 1995). Multimetric scores for sites were 

determined by summing proportionally transformed values for 

each metric included in the evaluation. For each multimetric 

combination, a ranking of sites was obtained on the basis of 

the sum of the scores. The scaling equations for individual 

metrics are given below:

If the maximum value (Max) represents the highest biological quality, use:

1 + [(Value – Min) / (Max – Min) x 99]; (1)

If the minimum value (Min) represents the highest biological 

quality, use:

1 + [ { 1 - (Value – Min) / (Max – Min) } x 99]; (2)

where Value = number to be scaled.

In the second rating method, quartiles or percentiles are 

used to designate cutoff boundaries for site scoring, where 

metric values determined for all of the sites are divided 

into ranges that are defined by mathematical data distributions (Southerland and Stribling, 1995). Even though the 

scores are unitless values, they can be used for site rating to 

provide a relative measure of biological condition (Lenat, 

1993). The distribution of metric values for sites was divided 

into generally equivalent categories, and each category was 

given a score. When all 22 sites sampled in Johnson County 

and nearby Missouri were considered for comparisons, four 

categories (generally equal quartiles with scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, 

and distribution boundaries at approximately the 25th, 50th, 

and 75th percentiles) were designated for relative scoring 

of sites. For some metrics, several sites had zero values; in 

these instances, three categories (trisection with scores of 

1, 3, and 5, and distribution boundaries at the 33rd and 66th 

percentiles) were designated. A score for each category then 

was assigned for each metric included in the evaluation. A 

multimetric score for each site was determined by adding the 

scores attained for all of the individual metrics included in the 

evaluation. Site ranks for each multimetric combination were 

determined according to these scores. 

For the third rating method, site scores were determined using the four metrics used by the State of Kansas for evaluating aquatic-life status of Kansas streams 

(MBI, KBI–NO, EPTRich, and %EPT). Each metric was 

scored on a three-point system that was based on State criteria 

(Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b;

table 3). Impairment status for each site was determined by 

combining these metric scores into an overall site score representing an average across all of the metrics included.

Site Groupings 

Study sampling sites were divided into groups on the 

basis of available knowledge on the types of disturbance 

sources that were documented from previous investigations 

and on the initial study results. This approach was used 

for the following reasons: (1) lack of within-site replication 

reduced the ability of the sampling protocol to statistically discriminate between individual sites; (2) placing sites together 

that have similar characteristics or known adverse effects from 

human activities, and treating each site as a replicate provided 

the opportunity to statistically discriminate between groups; 

(3) site grouping allowed statistical identification of macroinvertebrate metrics with the best discriminatory power; and 

(4) site groups provided confirmation that a meaningful gradient in biological conditions existed for the sampling sites. 

Categorizing sites into groups or classes is a valid technique for defining a gradient in biological response (Davies 

and Jackson, 2006) and is useful in cases where no site replication is included in the study design (Fore and others, 1994). 

Results from one of the rating methods (rank in multimetric 

site scores on the basis of scaling transformation) were used to 

initially place the 22 sampling sites into three generally equal 

groups (seven to eight sites per group) that were assumed to 

have similar characteristics or relative degree of overall biological impacts from human activities (A, least impacted; B, 

moderately impacted; C, most impacted), as indicated by site 

rankings and the continuum of multimetric site scores. A second site grouping was generated on the basis of a combination 

of existing site knowledge, including predominant land use 

and WWTF effects. In both of these approaches for categorizing or grouping sites, significant differences between groups 

were determined by analyzing group means in multimetric 

scores, treating each site as a replicate within each group (discriminant function analysis, α = 0.05; Johnson, 1998).

The rationale for combining multiple indicator metrics 

into different metric combinations and overall site scores 

is to integrate the levels of macroinvertebrate responses to 

improve site discrimination and the accuracy of site placement 

into groups or rating categories (Fore and others, 1994). The 

resulting site arrangement provided the basis for direct comparisons with gradients in human disturbance and environmental variables, as defined by the Biological Condition Gradient 

conceptual model (Davies and Jackson, 2006). These qualitative site groupings were designed to provide additional indications of the underlying causes of adverse effects as measured 

by other variables included in this report rather than to develop 

numerical cutoff ranges for site scores or rating categories.

14 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Environmental Variables

Quantitative site data were used for streamflow, precipitation, water quality, sediment quality, and land-use variables. 

This information was taken from several sources to provide 

a basis for understanding observed differences in biological 

conditions and the degree of human-induced adverse effects 

among the study sites. Because the KDHE macroinvertebrate 

sampling protocol is considered a screening-level tool for 

evaluation of stream condition, these variables are included in 

this report to provide a basis for comparisons with macroinvertebrate results. Relations between observed macroinvertebrate 

response and environmental variables also were designed to 

measure concurrence among the indicators examined. 

This study did not attempt to fully integrate all of the 

environmental variables affecting aquatic life in streams. 

However, available site data were examined to improve 

understanding of integrated biological response to degrees 

of adverse effects because of human disturbances, such as 

those related to urbanization, nutrient enrichment from both 

agricultural and municipal sources, and presence of chemical 

contaminants. Comparable information for the Missouri sites 

(Wilkison and others, 2005) was not available for all variables, 

and therefore, some relations were examined utilizing only 

data from the 15 Johnson County sites.

Streamflow and Precipitation

Six USGS stream gages downstream from watersheds 

with varying land use, and in the same approximate location 

as some of the macroinvertebrate collection sites, were in 

operation throughout Johnson County from November 2002 

through 2004 (fig. 2). These USGS gages included two gages 

on Cedar Creek (station numbers 06892440 and 06892495, 

sites CE1 and CE6), and one gage each on the Blue River 

(06893080, site BL3), and Big Bull (06914950, site BI1), 

Indian (06893300), and Mill (06892513, site MI7) Creeks. 

Three additional sites (06892360, 06893100, and 06893390; 

sites KI6b, BL5, and IN6) had stream gages operating part 

of that period. Streamflow data are available on the Web at 

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata.html/ . Macroinvertebrate collection at all of the sites generally was completed 

before the occurrence of streamflow increases normally 

associated with spring storm runoff. The only exception to 

this was in 2004 at the Tomahawk Creek site (TO2), when 

macroinvertebrate collection was being completed during the 

beginning of a stormwater pulse on March 3, 2004. 

Trends in streamflow and precipitation were examined 

for these gages to help interpret macroinvertebrate results 

between the two sampling years. To examine these trends, 

duration curves were plotted to compare streamflow during 

the months prior to sampling. The periods from November 1 

through March 15, 2002–03 and 2003–04, were chosen to 

represent streamflow conditions relevant to macroinvertebrate 

populations collected in March 2003 and 2004, respectively. 

Snowfall totals for these same time periods also were compared using the data from a weather station in Olathe, Kansas 

(fig. 2), centrally located in Johnson County (M. Knapp, State 

Climatologist, Weather Data Library, written commun., 2005).

Water and Sediment Quality

Pearson correlation coefficients (Helsel and Hirsch, 

1992) were used to measure the strength of relations between 

various macroinvertebrate site scores and other available 

constituents that were used to define sampling-site water and 

sediment quality. Water- and sediment-quality samples collected from the sites in 2002 and 2003 as part of a previous 

study were used to provide a basis for comparison between 

indicators (Lee and others, 2005). Samples were collected 

during base-flow conditions in November 2002 and July 2003. 

Lee and others (2005) used much of the data on water and 

sediment quality to estimate the distribution of contaminants 

relative to point and nonpoint sources and varying land-use 

characteristics. 

Constituents analyzed from water- and sedimentquality samples included major ions, nutrients, metals, 

pesticides, and wastewater-indicator compounds. Methods 

and results of analysis of stream-water and streambedsediment quality data also are reported in Lee and others 

(2005). Only those compounds that were detected in a majority of stream-water and (or) streambed-sediment samples and 

exhibited variability among the sampled sites were included in 

the analysis for the study described herein. 

Water-quality constituents used for this analysis included 

total nitrogen, total phosphorus, indicator bacteria, and the 

Methods 15

Table 3. Criteria for four macroinvertebrate metrics used in Kansas to evaluate aquatic-life support (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

2006b). 

[MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index with tolerances for nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances; EPTRich, EPT 

(Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera) species richness; %EPT, percentage of EPT species; <, less than; >, greater than]

Aquatic-life-support 

category

Values

MBI KBI–NO EPTRich %EPT Average

Fully supporting < 4.51 < 2.61 > 12 > 48 > 2.49

Partially supporting 4.51–5.39 2.61–2.99 8–12 31–47 1.5–2.49

Nonsupporting > 5.39 > 2.99 < 8 < 31 1.0–1.49
total concentration of a set of 55 organic wastewater compounds. Total concentration of wastewater compounds is 

the sum of detected concentrations in filtered water samples. 

Concentrations for the water-quality constituents represented a 

mean of both base-flow samples, unless only one sample was 

collected at the site. Although two samples from each site do 

not provide a statistical basis for thoroughly evaluating stream 

water-quality conditions at any given site, they do provide an 

estimate of relative water-quality conditions during base flow 

(Lee and others, 2005). No water-quality samples were collected from the Captain Creek site (CA1) because it was dry 

during scheduled sample collections. To maintain comparability between sediment and macroinvertebrate data sets, the 

median value of water-quality constituents from other rural 

sites in Johnson County (sites BI1, BL3, BL5, CE1, CE6, KI5, 

KI6b) were used to estimate water-quality data for site CA1. 

Because water and sediment samples were not collected concurrently with macroinvertebrates, the data are not intended to 

fully characterize conditions at the time of macroinvertebrate 

sampling but rather to provide an estimate of potential exposure at each site.

Streambed-sediment samples were collected in March 

and April 2003 and analyzed for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, indicator bacteria, total concentration of wastewater 

indicator compounds, and metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, 

lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc). Stream-water, streambedsediment, and macroinvertebrate data were log-10 transformed 

to approximate normal data distribution. Pearson correlation 

coefficients then were determined between macroinvertebrate 

scores, water- and sediment-quality indicators, and available 

land-use variables at the 15 sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas. Only data collected in Johnson County, Kansas, were 

used in this analysis because water- and sediment-quality data 

sets for Missouri sites differed in number and timing of samples. A detailed description of all the constituents measured 

in sediment and overlying water and the results of sample 

analysis are given in Lee and others (2005). 

Land Use 

Estimates for land-use percentages were determined for 

all of the sites sampled for macroinvertebrates in both Johnson 

County, Kansas, and in adjacent counties in Missouri. Landuse data for Johnson County came from the Johnson County 

Automated Information Mapping System (AIMS) (S. Porter, 

Johnson County, written commun., 2003). Land-use data for 

Missouri came from Wilkison and others (2006), which used 

2004 data modified from the National Map (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2007). Impervious surface data were estimated by 

adding the total area of all buildings, courtyards, and paved 

and unpaved roads and parking lots. In addition to the percentages of impervious surfaces and agricultural land use 

within the watershed area upstream from each sampling site, 

a more broad land-use category (percentage of urban land 

use) was generated by combining some of the estimates for 

more specific categories. This was necessary because of slight 

differences between the sources used to estimate land-use 

categories for Kansas and Missouri sites. The percentage of 

urban category in this report included combined percentages 

of commercial, industrial, parks, and residential land use. 

Spearman-rho correlation coefficients (Helsel and Hirsch, 

1992) were determined for ranks of the estimates of land-use 

percentages (percentage of urban, percentage of agricultural, 

percentage of impervious surface) and the macroinvertebrate 

site scores that were based on proportional scaling for the 

three different multimetric combinations in both years. Rank 

correlations were used for this analysis to provide an indication of how well the arrangement of the site ranks (in other 

words, the pattern of biological impacts from least to most, as 

defined by macroinvertebrate scores) corresponded with the 

gradient in these land-use percentages. Because comparable 

data on percentage of agriculture land use were not available 

for the Missouri sites, this variable was only included in the 

Pearson correlation matrix. 

Site Groupings and Scoring 

To provide information that can be directly compared with macroinvertebrate results, sampling sites were 

grouped and scored on the basis of several individual indicator 

variables (water and sediment quality, land use, wastewater 

effluent) that have been known to be sources or causes of 

adverse effects in stream systems. Available data from Lee 

and others (2005) and additional data generated as part of this 

study were integrated to provide evidence that a gradient in 

these variables does exist among the sites that were sampled. 

KDHE macroinvertebrate sampling protocol mentioned 

previously is a screening-level procedure, and it is not known 

whether resulting data can be used to identify individual 

stressors present at a stream site. Therefore, no attempt was 

made to fully integrate all of the environmental variables into 

one measurement of relative effects. 

Principal Components Analysis

For 15 of the 16 Johnson County sites, several of the 

important environmental variables previously described were 

included in a principal components analysis (PCA) that was 

performed on the correlation matrix (Johnson, 1998). This 

matrix included stream-water and streambed-sediment quality, 

estimates of land-use percentages (impervious surfaces, agriculture), and macroinvertebrate site scores to identify patterns 

in the data and to examine how variables were interrelated and 

distributed across the sample sites. PCA was performed as 

another method for separating sites or groups of sites along 

axes that are described on the basis of the variance associated 

with each of the variables included. Log transformations were 

applied to land-use and water- and sediment-quality data to 

approximate normality. This analysis was used to demonstrate 

how the sampling sites grouped compared to environmental 

variables and macroinvertebrate site scores.

16  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Environmental Effects Score

To enhance comparisons between macroinvertebrate data 

and environmental variables, an environmental effects score 

was developed that included the best available environmental 

data gathered from Johnson County stream sites. This unitless 

score was developed from variables that generated among the 

highest correlation coefficients with many of the individual 

macroinvertebrate metrics and overall multimetric scores and 

indicators of sources known to affect macroinvertebrates such 

as WWTF discharges. This integration approach is similar to 

that used in recent macroinvertebrate studies on urban streams 

(Cuffney and others, 2005) and was designed to provide 

a more meaningful representation of the relation between 

macroinvertebrate response and the overall adverse effects 

these variables have on aquatic life. The score incorporated 

environmental variables that were significantly correlated 

with macroinvertebrate metrics and incorporated one landuse variable (percentage of impervious surface), one waterquality variable (total nitrogen in stream water), and one sediment-quality variable [total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) in streambed sediment]. Values for each variable were 

derived from Lee and others (2005) and represented a mean 

of two samples collected during base flow (if data from two 

samples were available). The values were scaled proportionately among the study sites. The environmental effects score 

was calculated for each site by summation of scaled values 

for each of the three variables. This score allowed interpretation of biological data in light of the rapid land-use changes 

occurring in Johnson County because the variables selected 

also were related to the degree of urbanization. Presence or 

absence of WWTF discharges was not included in the score 

because some of the variables included (wastewater compound 

concentration and total nitrogen) represent indicators of wastewater effects. 

The following two statistical procedures were used to 

analyze the strength of the relation between the environmental 

effects score and macroinvertebrate site scores: (1) Spearman-rho rank correlation for measuring concurrence among 

site-ranking solutions, made on the basis of multimetric scores 

(least- to most-impacted) and the environmental effects score, 

and (2) simple regression for measuring the ability of environmental variables (both individually and as an integrated 

score) to predict relative biological conditions as indicated by 

macroinvertebrate data. The environmental effects scores and 

the 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores were used as the basis 

for qualitative assignment of sites to rating categories that corresponded with relative quality of the stream sites.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control for macroinvertebrate identification and enumeration procedures generally followed those outlined in Moulton and others (2000) 

and included within-laboratory cross checking of individual 

samples and individual specimens. Updated taxonomic keys 

and voucher specimens are kept on file with the Biological 

Group of the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Lakewood, Colorado. Other quality-assurance measures included 

repeats of identification and enumeration procedures on the 

same sample by different laboratory technicians and a full 

comparison of bench sheets for a minimum of 10 percent of 

the samples. 

Quality-assurance and quality-control samples were 

collected during both stream-water and streambed-sediment 

sampling in 2003 and 2004. Specific descriptions of these 

samples and their purpose are given in Lee and others (2005).

Assessment of Biological Conditions

Results from macroinvertebrate evaluations, metric 

combinations, analysis of environmental variables, and evaluation of relations between variables and macroinvertebrate 

measures, and discussion of these topics, are presented in 

this section. Complete data files and results of analysis are 

available on the USGS Web site (http://ks.water.usgs.gov/

kansas/studies/qw/joco), or on file at the USGS Water Science 

Center in Lawrence, Kansas.

Macroinvertebrate Communities

A complete listing of macroinvertebrate taxa found at 

stream-sampling sites is in Appendix 1, and a list of the four 

most dominant macroinvertebrate taxa observed at the sites is 

in Appendix 2. Values for macroinvertebrate metrics are in 

Appendix 3.

Summary of Community Structure

A total of 190 macroinvertebrate taxa were collected from 

the 16 Kansas and 6 Missouri sampling sites using KDHE 

sampling protocol during 2003 and 2004 (Appendix 1). Two 

taxa were found only in Missouri and not in Johnson County 

(unkeyed Lepidoptera, and the midge Parachironomus), both 

of which were collected in small numbers (less than three individuals) only at the Brush Creek site (BR12, fig. 2). Among 

the total list of taxa, there was a 68-percent overlap between 

the two sampling years, and a total of 43 non-insect taxa. The 

insects collected included 147 taxa, of which 56 (38 percent) 

were midges (Diptera: Chironomidae) and 13 (9 percent) were 

other Dipterans. 

Among the three dominant orders of insects that are 

normally associated with streams, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, 

and Trichoptera (EPT), most sites contained abundances of 

between 10 and 50 percent of the total number of organisms 

(EPT abundance, Appendix 3), and the total number of taxa 

ranged from 0 to 11 species at all sites (Appendix 3). In general, most of the rural sites included in this study contained a 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 17
wide diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates, with good representation of the insect orders normally associated with healthy 

communities such as mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies 

(Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera), dragonflies and 

damselflies (Odonata), and riffle beetles (Coleoptera: Elmidae). Several of the rural sites in Johnson County, including 

the reference site (CA1), both Kill Creek sites (KI5, KI6b), 

the upstream Blue River sites (BL3, BL5), and both Cedar 

Creek sites (CE1, CE6) contained at least 23 taxa in 2003 and 

more than 40 taxa in 2004 (Appendix 3). The midges (Diptera: Chironomidae) also were well represented at these sites, 

with most collections including from 8 to 18 taxa in one or 

both years (Appendix 3). In contrast, the more urban sites had 

none or very few EPT taxa and were dominated by pollutiontolerant organisms such as leeches [Hirudinea: Mooreobdella 

microstoma (Moore)], planarians (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria), Oligochaeta worms (Annelida: Oligochaeta, families 

Naididae and Tubificidae), and midges in the Cricotopus and 

Orthocladius (Diptera: Chironomidae) groups (Appendix 2). 

These sites included the two Indian Creek sites downstream 

from WWTF discharges (sites IN3a, IN6). 

Individual Metric Values

Values for all 22 metrics resulting from both 2003 and 

2004 sampling periods are given in Appendix 3. Figures for 

the KDHE metrics (MBI, KBI–NO, EPTRich, and %EPT) 

are discussed in the following paragraphs. Among the metrics 

determined in this study, results for a total of 12 metrics are 

summarized in this section, with the KDHE aquatic-life status 

metrics described first and the others given in the order they 

are listed in table 2. Most of these metrics were included in 

one or more rating methods because they were considered 

core metrics (used in the Kansas water-quality assessment or 

very common in literature), they demonstrated a distinct visual 

response pattern among the sites, or they were chosen by statistical analysis as being the best metrics for correctly placing 

sites into meaningful groups. Some metrics were not included 

in multimetric combinations because they had a bimodal 

response pattern or had redundancy with other metrics that 

were included (table 2). Among the metrics examined in this 

study, two of the richness metrics (TRich, EPTRich) were the 

only ones that were significantly different between 2003 and 

2004. This was only observed at the rural sites (Mann-Whitney U test for independence, α = 0.05, p-value = 0.01).

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI).—This metric is a 

family-level biotic index that uses tolerance values for insect 

and mollusk taxa, with lower values corresponding to minimal 

biological impacts. Most sampling sites had values between 

5.0 and 7.0 in 2003 and 2004 (fig. 6). Both of the downstream 

Indian Creek sites (Indian Creek at State Line, site IN6, and 

Indian Creek at College Blvd., site IN3a) and downstream 

Blue River sites (Brush Creek at Elmwood, site BR12, and 

Blue River at Stadium Drive, site BL13) had the highest 

values, between 7.0 and 9.0. Most (18 of 22) of the sites had 

higher MBI values in 2004 as compared to 2003. The Kansas 

reference site (Captain Creek, site CA1) was the only site that 

met MBI criteria for full support of aquatic life (less than 4.51, 

table 3) and only in 2003. Two sites on the Blue River (sites 

BL5 and BL8) met criteria for partial support of aquatic life 

(4.51 to 5.39, table 3) both years. The remaining sites were 

nonsupportive at least one of the two sampled years. The Mill 

Creek TMDL (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006a) establishes a goal of 4.5 or less as the average 

MBI score for 2006 through 2015. That goal was not achieved 

in 2003 or 2004 when the Mill Creek MBI scores ranged from 

4.71 to 6.27 (Appendix 3). The MBI metric was not selected 

in the stepwise statistical procedure and, therefore, was not 

included in the five- or six-metric combinations.

Kansas Biotic Index (KBI–NO).—This metric is one 

component of a much larger overall index (KBI) and utilizes 

aquatic organism tolerances to nutrients (N in the acronym) 

and oxygen-demanding substances (O in the acronym) (Huggins and Moffett, 1988). It is a genus-level biotic index calculated in a similar manner as the MBI, with low values indicating minimal biological impacts. KBI–NO values ranged from 

1.61 (Captain Creek, site CA1, in 2003) to 4.55 (Brush Creek 

at Elmwood Ave., site BR12, in 2003) (Appendix 3). The 

State reference stream for Kansas (Captain Creek, site CA1) 

had the lowest values in both years, and the most downstream 

site on Indian Creek (site IN6) had the highest values among 

the Johnson County sites (fig. 7). Four of the 22 sites met 

Kansas criteria for full support of aquatic life (less than 2.61, 

table 3) on the basis of KBI–NO in 2003, two of which also 

met criteria in 2004 (Captain Creek, site CA1, and Cedar 

Creek, site CE1). Fifteen of 22 sites had higher values in 2004 

than in 2003, indicating conditions less supportive of aquatic 

life in 2004, and this difference was most pronounced at the 

middle site on Mill Creek (site MI4). Brush Creek at Elmwood Ave. (site BR12) and the most downstream site on the 

Blue River (site BL13) had among the highest KBI–NO values 

of all the sites sampled. The KBI–NO metric was included 

in the 10-metric score but was not selected by the stepwise 

statistical procedure and, therefore, was not used in the five- or 

six-metric scores. 

EPT Taxa Richness (EPTRich).—EPT taxa richness is the 

sum of the number of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera 

(stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) taxa; most species 

belonging to each of these orders are considered to be intolerant of stressors (Barbour and others, 1999). EPTRich values 

ranged from 0 to 7 in 2003 and 0 to 11 in 2004 (Appendix 3). 

At 11 of the 22 sites, EPTRich values in 2004 were greater 

than in 2003 (fig. 8) indicating conditions more supportive of 

aquatic life in 2004. This difference was most pronounced at 

the less urban sites including Captain Creek (site CA1), the 

upstream Blue River sites (BL3, BL5), and the upstream sites 

on Cedar (site CE1) and Kill (site KI5) Creeks. No sites met 

the EPTRich criterion (greater than 12, table 3) for full support 

of aquatic life. Five sites met the criterion for partial support 

(8–12) in 2004 only. The remaining sites were nonsupportive 

both years. No EPT taxa were present at the Brush Creek 

site (BR12) in either of the 2 years, and downstream Indian 

18  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Creek and Blue River sites (IN3a, IN6, and BL8; Appendix 3) 

contained three EPT taxa or less during one or both years. 

The EPTRich metric was selected by the stepwise procedure 

and was included in all three multimetric site-scoring combinations.

EPT Abundance (%EPT).—This metric is EPT expressed 

as a percentage of the total number of organisms and provides 

information about relative abundance of the three intolerant 

orders of aquatic insects. Compared to other metrics, %EPT 

did not demonstrate a distinct pattern among the study sites. 

Sixteen sites had lower values in 2004 than in 2003 (fig. 9). 

Greater abundances of the pollution-tolerant net-spinning caddisfly larvae Cheumatopsyche spp. (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae), and to a lesser extent Hydropsyche betteni Ross (same 

order and family), were observed at many of the more urbanized sites where they made up most or all of the EPT abundance value. In addition, the upstream Mill Creek site (MI1) 

had large numbers of a moderately tolerant mayfly Stenacron 

sp. (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae) during 2003 (Appendix 2). The Brush Creek site (BR12) had 0 percent EPT 

abundance in both years. The %EPT metric was not included 

in any of the three multimetric site-scoring combinations.

Total Taxa Richness (TRich).—This metric represents 

the number of distinct taxa within a sample. The presence 

of relatively large numbers of distinct taxa suggests that the 

habitats and food sources present at a site can support many 

species (Barbour and others, 1999). Values for this metric 

ranged from 20 to 47 taxa in 2003 and 17 to 56 taxa in 2004 

(Appendix 3). Taxa richness (TRich) values were greater 

in 2004 than in 2003 at 16 of 22 sites (fig. 10) indicating 

BR12

BL3

BL5

IN6

CA1*

*

KI5

KI6b

CE1

CE6

GR19*

IN1b

TO2

MI1

MI4

MI7

BI1

BL2b

TU1

BL13

BL7

BL8

BL5

BL7

IN3a

3.5

4.5

Blue River Indian Creek Other urban

sites

Sampling sites (table 1; fig. 2)

Mill Creek Cedar/Kill Creek Other rural

sites

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI)

Increasing impacts from human disturbance

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

Nonsupporting

Partially supporting

Fully supporting

Sites identified in black analyzed for this study

Sites identified in blue analyzed in previous study

(Wilkison and others, 2005)

Asterisk indicates State reference site

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004, and selected sites 

in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas aquatic-life-support categories (table 3; Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2006b). 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 19
conditions less supportive of aquatic life in 2003. This difference was most pronounced at less urban sites including 

Captain Creek (site CA1), upstream sites on the Blue River 

(sites BL3, BL5), and the upstream sites on Cedar (site CE1) 

and Kill (site KI5) Creeks. The TRich metric was selected by 

the stepwise procedure and was included in all three of the 

multimetric site-scoring combinations.

Percentage Scrapers (%Sc).—Measures of functional 

groups associated with specific feeding strategies, such as 

those taxa that remove periphyton from surfaces by scraping, 

provide information on community balance (Barbour and others, 1999). Values for the %SC metric were generally lower 

at the urban sites and ranged from 1.6 to 41.9 percent in 2003 

and from 1.0 to 28.3 percent in 2004 (Appendix 3). Among 

the Johnson County sites, the lowest values were observed at 

Tomahawk Creek (site TO2), Turkey Creek (site TU1), and 

the downstream Indian Creek sites (IN6, IN3a) in both years. 

The downstream Blue River sites (BL8, BL13) and Brush 

Creek (site BR12) all had values less than 10 percent for this 

metric. The stepwise procedure selected the %Sc metric as 

meeting the acceptance criteria for grouping sites, but it was 

removed from the final model. This metric was included in 

both the 10-metric and 6-metric site-scoring combinations.

Ratio of Abundance of Scrapers and Filters (Sc/Fc)—In 

both 2003 and 2004, the lowest values for this metric were 

observed at sites receiving WWTF discharge. Most of these 

sites had metric values less than 0.5, and most rural sites had 

values greater than 1.0 (Appendix 3). The Sc/Fc metric was 

Figure 7. Kansas Biotic Index (KBI–NO) for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 and selected sites in Cass and 

Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas aquatic-life-support categories (table 3; Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

2006b). 

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

BR12

BL3

BL5

IN6

CA1*

KI5

KI6b

CE1

CE6

GR19*

IN1b

TO2

MI1

MI4

MI7

BI1

BL2b

TU1

BL13

BL7

BL8

IN3a

Blue River Indian Creek Other urban

sites

Mill Creek Cedar/Kill Creek Other rural

sites

Nonsupporting

Partially supporting

Fully supporting

Increasing impacts from human disturbance

*

BL5

BL7

Sampling sites (table 1; fig. 2)

Sites identified in black analyzed for this study

Sites identified in blue analyzed in previous study

(Wilkison and others, 2005)

Asterisk indicates State reference site

EXPLANATION

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Kansas Biotic Index (KBI–NO)

20 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
not included in the 10-metric site scoring but was selected by 

the stepwise procedure as one of the best metrics for placing 

sites into meaningful groups.

Percentage of Oligochaeta (%Olig).—Many of the members of this macroinvertebrate group are considered pollution 

tolerant, but they were not identified below the family level in 

this study. Most of the urban sites and those directly affected 

by WWTF discharges had values for this metric that ranged 

from 8 to 49 percent. Most of the other sites in Johnson 

County had metric values less than 5 percent in both years 

(Appendix 3). The %Olig metric was included in the 10-

metric combination of site scoring but was not chosen by the 

stepwise procedure and, therefore, was not included in either 

the 5-metric or 6-metric combinations. 

Percentage of Tanytarsini Midges (%Tany).—Tanytarsini, an intolerant tribe of midges (Diptera: Chironomidae), 

made up less than 2 percent of the organisms at all of the sites 

in 2003, with slightly higher percentages in 2004. A total 

of 11 sites had no Tanytarsini midges in one or both years, 

and most of these sites were urban or those receiving WWTF 

discharge (Appendix 3). The %Tany metric was included in 

all three of the multimetric site-scoring combinations and was 

selected by the stepwise procedure as one of the best metrics 

for separating site groups.

Percentage of Intolerant Organisms, KBI<3 (%Int–

KBI).—This metric represents the relative abundance of 

organisms that have KBI–NO tolerance values less than (<) 

3.0. This metric is normally calculated using tolerance values 

given in Hilsenhoff (1987) or Lenat (1988). For this study, 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 21

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

0 

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

EPT taxa richness (EPTRich)

BR12

BL3

BL5

IN6

CA1*

KI5

KI6b

CE1

CE6

GR19*

IN1b

TO2

MI1

MI4

MI7

BI1

BL2b

TU1

BL13

BL7

BL8

IN3a

Blue River Indian Creek Other urban

sites

Mill Creek Cedar/Kill Creek Other rural

sites

Nonsupporting

Partially supporting

Fully supporting

Decreasing impacts from human disturbance

*

BL5

BL7

Sampling sites (table 1; fig. 2)

Sites identified in black analyzed for this study

Sites identified in blue analyzed in previous study

(Wilkison and others, 2005)

Asterisk indicates State reference site

EXPLANATION

Figure 8. EPT taxa richness (EPTRich) for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 and selected sites in Cass and 

Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas aquatic-life-support categories (table 3; Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b). 
KBI–NO tolerance values were used instead because of their 

regional specificity for Kansas (Huggins and Moffett, 1988). 

In general, most of the urban sites had lower %Int–KBI values 

in 2003 and 2004 (Appendix 3). The %Int–KBI metric was 

included in all three of the multimetric site-scoring combinations and was selected by the stepwise procedure as one of the 

best metrics for separating site groups.

Percentage of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera (%EP).—

This metric represents a modification of the %EPT metric 

and omits Trichoptera to account for the effect of greater 

abundances of tolerant net-spinning caddisflies often encountered in macroinvertebrate samples from larger urban streams. 

Three Blue River sites (BL3, BL5, BL8), the two State reference sites (CA1, GR19), the Cedar Creek sites (CE1, CE6), 

the Kill Creek sites (KI5, KI6b), and the Big Bull Creek site 

(BI1) all had values greater than 10 percent for this metric in 

2003 and 2004 (Appendix 3). The %EP metric was included 

in the 10-metric site-scoring combination but was not chosen 

by the stepwise procedure.

Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (SWDI).—This core 

metric that measures community diversity ranged from 1.9 to 

3.6 and, for most of the sites, was slightly higher in 2004 as 

compared to 2003. In general, most of the urban sites had 

lower values (Appendix 3). The SWDI was included in the 

10-metric site-scoring combination but was not chosen by the 

stepwise procedure.

Figure 9. EPT abundance (%EPT) for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 and selected sites in Cass and 

Jackson Counties, Missouri, showing Kansas aquatic-life-support categories (table 3; Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b). 

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

BR12

BL3

BL5

IN6

CA1*

KI5

KI6b

CE1

CE6

GR19*

IN1b

TO2

MI1

MI4

MI7

BI1

BL2b

TU1

BL13

BL7

BL8

IN3a

Blue River Indian Creek Other urban

sites

Mill Creek Cedar/Kill Creek Other rural

sites

Nonsupporting

Partially supporting

Fully supporting

Decreasing impacts from human disturbance

*

BL5

BL7

Sampling sites (table 1; fig. 2)

Sites identified in black analyzed for this study

Sites identified in blue analyzed in previous study

(Wilkison and others, 2005)

Asterisk indicates State reference site

EXPLANATION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

EPT abundance (%EPT)

22 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Site Scoring and Ranking Using Multimetric 

Combinations

A list of metrics and their inclusion in the different 

multimetric combinations (10 metric, 6 metric, and 5 metric) 

resulting from the site-rating methods are given in table 2. 

Results from the proportional scaling and percentile methods 

of scoring and ranking sites using metric combinations are 

summarized in Appendixes 4 and 5, respectively. 

A total of 12 metrics were selected on the basis of distinct 

response patterns throughout the range in known site conditions. In this study, MBI, KBI–NO, EPTRich, and %EPT were 

included in the 10-metric score because they are used in Kansas aquatic-life-support assessments. The %Sc, %Olig, %Tany, 

%Int–KBI, and %EP metrics also were included because of 

their distinct response patterns throughout the range of known 

site conditions. The TRich and SWDI metrics were included 

because they represent common metrics in State assessment 

evaluations and because they often are used in macroinvertebrate literature. Using the stepwise regression procedure, six 

metrics met the model acceptance criterion of p equal to or 

less than 0.15 (table 2) and were included in the six-metric site 

scoring (EPTRich, TRich, %Sc, Sc/Fc, %Tany, %Int–KBI). 

The %Sc metric was removed by the procedure before the 

final model was generated. The five metrics remaining after 

completion of the stepwise procedure were used to generate 

the five-metric site scores (EPTRich, TRich, Sc/Fc, %Tany, 

%Int–KBI). 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 23

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Total taxa richness

BR12

BL3

BL5

IN6

CA1*

KI5

KI6b

CE1

CE6

GR19*

IN1b

TO2

MI1

MI4

MI7

BI1

BL2b

TU1

BL13

BL7

BL8

IN3a

Blue River Indian Creek Other urban

sites

Mill Creek Cedar/Kill Creek Other rural

sites

Decreasing impacts from human disturbance

*

BL5

BL7

Sampling sites (table 1; fig. 2)

Sites identified in black analyzed for this study

Sites identified in blue analyzed in previous study

(Wilkison and others, 2005)

Asterisk indicates State reference site

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Total taxa richness (TRich) for Johnson County, Kansas, sites sampled in 2003 and 2004 and selected sites in Cass and 

Jackson Counties, Missouri. 
The 10-metric combination is an integration of multiple 

metrics that measure diversity, composition, tolerance, and 

feeding characteristics of the communities present at each 

site. Appendix 4 lists sampling-site rankings in 2003 and 

2004 according to three multimetric combinations. Sampling 

sites did not have identical rankings in both years, but most 

sites were similar. Among the Johnson County sites ranked 

using the 10-metric scoring, there were six sites that increased 

slightly in rank between 2003 and 2004, six that declined 

in rank, and three sites that remained the same. Among all 

22 sites scored using the 10-metric combination, the greatest 

differences in rank between 2003 and 2004 were observed 

at one of the Blue River sites in Missouri (site BL8) and 

the Missouri reference site (South Fork of the Grand River, 

site GR19), both of which decreased by five rank positions, 

and the upstream Mill Creek site (MI1), which increased by 

five rank positions. 

Site Groupings 

Sampling sites were divided into three groups on the 

basis of their 10-metric rankings (table 4, Appendix 4) and a 

general knowledge of environmental conditions and sources 

of human disturbance at the sites. Sites in group A include 

those with the highest ranks representing the best biological 

conditions, sites in group B include those with ranks representing intermediate biological conditions, and sites in 

group C include those with the lowest ranks representing the 

worst biological conditions (table 4). The mean 10-metric 

macroinvertebrate scores of the three site groups were significantly different from one another (group A scores greater 

than group B scores, and group B scores greater than group 

C scores. Discriminant function analysis indicated that the 

probability that groups are different merely by chance (F statistic) was less than 0.0001 for both 2003 and 2004) (fig. 11), 

indicating that this grouping was reasonable for placing sites 

together that have similar biological conditions. Mean 10-

Table 4. Grouping of sampling sites based on rank of 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores in 2003 and 2004, for 22 stream sampling sites in 

Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005). 

[A, lowest levels of biological impacts from human disturbance; B, moderate levels of biological impacts from human disturbance; C, highest levels of 

biological impacts from human disturbance]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

2003 2004 Average 2003–04

10-metric 

score

10-metric 

rank Site group 10-metric score

10-metric 

rank Site group 10-metric score

10-metric 

rank Site group

CA1 654 3 A 862 1 A 758 1 A

KI5 695 1 A 738 2 A 717 2 A

BL5 683 2 A 720 5 A 702 3 A

BL3 639 4 A 734 4 A 687 4 A

CE1 606 5 A 755 3 A 681 5 A

KI6b 586 7 A 696 6 A 641 6 A

CE6 594 6 A 579 7 A 587 7 A

BL2b 574 8 B 489 10 B 532 8 B

GR19 447 14 B 576 9 B 512 9 B

BI1 484 10 B 527 8 B 506 10 B

IN1b 510 11 B 439 13 B 475 11 B

BL8 373 17 C 466 12 B 420 12 B

MI7 434 12 B 390 11 B 412 13 B

MI1 491 9 B 321 14 B 406 14 B

BL7 417 16 C 384 15 B 401 15 B

MI4 438 13 B 241 17 C 340 16 C

TO2 409 15 B 237 19 C 323 17 C

BL13 267 19 C 328 18 C 298 18 C

TU1 299 18 C 266 16 C 283 19 C

IN3a 118 21 C 193 20 C 156 20 C

IN6 117 20 C 55 21 C 86 21 C

BR12 59 22 C 33 22 C 46 22 C

24 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
metric macroinvertebrate scores at rural sites also were significantly different from that of urban sites (rural site scores were 

greater than scores for urban sites with WWTF discharges, 

and scores for urban sites with WWTF discharges were equal 

to scores for urban sites without WWTF discharges). The 

F statistic was 0.03 for 2003 and less than 0.0001 for 2004) 

(fig. 12), indicating that grouping was reasonable. However, 

mean 10-metric scores for the two urban site groups (with and 

without the presence of discharges from WWTFs) were not 

significantly different from one another. This grouping did 

not fully account for the distance that WWTFs were located 

upstream from the sampling sites. 

The average of the 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores 

(or ranks) for 2003–04 for each site was used to assign three 

categories of biological impact—least impacted, moderately 

impacted, and most impacted (table 4, fig. 13). The categories 

have approximately equal numbers of sites and show relative 

biological conditions among the 22 sites. 

The percentile site-scoring method resulted in many sites 

with ties in rank based on their scores (Appendix 5). However, 

the resulting scores and ranks were similar to those resulting from the proportional scaling method, at least for most of 

the sites. In general, urban sites had lower rankings (highest metric scores) in both years, and these included the two 

Indian Creek sites in Johnson County that are less than 3 mi 

downstream from wastewater discharges (sites IN3a, IN6) and 

three Missouri sites that included Brush Creek (site BR12) and 

the most downstream Blue River sites (BL8, BL13). Rural 

sites such as the Captain Creek (site CA1), the upper Cedar 

(site CE1) and Kill Creek sites (KI5, KI6b), and the two most 

upstream Blue River sites in Johnson County (sites BL3, 

BL5) consistently ranked among sites with the least-impacted 

biological conditions (lowest ranking), regardless of which 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Group A sites

(best biological

conditions)

Group B sites

(intermediate

biological

conditions)

Group C sites

(worst biological

conditions)

Mean 10-metric score (proportionally scaled metrics)

(N = 7) (N = 8)

(N = 8)

EXPLANATION

(N = 7)

+1 standard deviation

Mean score

Number of sampling 

 sites

800

900

2003 scores

2004 scores

Figure 11. Mean 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores (plus one standard deviation) for 22 

stream sites in Kansas and Missouri in 2003 and 2004, with similar sites grouped together as A, 

B, and C according to biological conditions (table 4). Discriminant function analysis, Pr is greater 

than F, was less than 0.0001 for both 2003 and 2004. 
multimetric combination was used. Overall, either the proportional scaling or percentile scoring approaches could be used 

as a basis for grouping and ranking sites according to macroinvertebrate responses. 

Aquatic-Life-Support Status

The KDHE macroinvertebrate sampling protocol used to 

evaluate the biological conditions in Kansas streams was chosen for this study in part so that stream sites could be assigned 

to one of the three categories of aquatic-life-support status 

(fully supporting, partially supporting, nonsupporting) as 

defined by the State 305(b) water-quality assessment. The status categories are used as a guideline for indicating the ability 

of a stream site to support an acceptable level of aquatic life. 

The ranges for the four macroinvertebrate metrics described in 

this report are based on the statewide KDHE database for all 

streams in Kansas (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b) and metric performance at reference stream sites 

that represent the best-available or least-disturbed biological 

condition. Captain Creek (site CA1) in Johnson County was 

selected as one of the sampling sites in part because it is a 

State reference stream and, therefore, useful for comparison 

purposes. The South Fork of the Grand River (site GR19) was 

evaluated among the Missouri sites because it was a candidate 

for reference status in Missouri. 

The placement of sampling sites into categories of 

aquatic-life-support status defined by the four KDHE streamassessment metrics is shown in table 5. All sites evaluated 

have some level of impairment as defined by KDHE. Sixtytwo percent of the Johnson County sites (10 of 16) in each 

of 2003 and 2004 were nonsupportive of aquatic life, and 

38 percent (6 of 16) were partially supportive. Captain Creek 

(site CA1) and upstream sites on Cedar (site CE1), Kill 

(site KI5), and Mill (sites MI1, MI4) Creeks were the only 

Johnson County sites given a score of 3 for any of the individual metrics in either sampling year, indicating full support 

of aquatic-life use. However, no sites obtained an average 

score that would have met the fully supporting category in 

2003 and 2004. Captain Creek (site CA1) had the maximum 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Rural sites Urban sites

(no WWTF discharges)

Urban sites

(with WWTF discharges)

Mean 10-metric score (proportionally scaled metrics)

(N = 9) (N = 4) (N = 9)

800

900

(N = 4)

EXPLANATION

+1 standard deviation

Mean score

Number of sampling 

 sites

2003 scores

2004 scores

Figure 12. Mean 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores (plus one standard deviation) for 22 stream 

sites in Kansas and Missouri in 2003 and 2004, grouped according to rural and urban land use 

(table 1) and wastewater treatment (WWTF) discharges. Discriminant function analysis, Pr greater 

than F, is 0.03 for 2003 and less than 0.0001 for 2004. 

26  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Assessment of Biological Conditions 27

Figure 13. Relative biological impacts indicated by average 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores for 2003–04 for 22 macroinvertebrate sampling 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005).

Wyandotte County

Cass

County

Johnson

County

Enlarged

area

Blue River

South Grand River

Jackson

County

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Biological sampling site, identifier, and relative

 biological impacts from human disturbance

 High

 Moderate

 Low

Municipal wastewater-treatment facility

95°05’

39°05’

39°

55’

50’

38°45’

95° 55’ 50’ 45’ 40’ 35’ 30’ 94°25’

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1987, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Jackson

County

Johnson County

Wyandotte

County Leavenworth

County

Kansas River

MISSO

URI

KANSAS

Wolf Creek

Coffee Creek

River

Blue

Tomahawk Creek

Indian Creek

Dykes Branch

Turkey Creek Little Mill Creek

Mill Creek

Cedar Creek

Captain Creek

Bull Creek

Little Bull Creek

Kill Creek

Brush Creek

Clear Creek

Rock Creek

Cass County

Missouri River

BL13

BL8

BL7

IN6

TO2

BL5

BL2b

BL3

GR19

BL3

IN1b

MI4

MI4

MI1

MI7

CE1

KI5

KI6b

CE6

TU1

CA1

BI1

BI1

IN3a

BR12
average score of the four KDHE metrics in both 2003 and 

2004 (2.25), yet did not score high enough to fall into the fully 

supporting category (greater than 2.49). All sampling sites in 

the study were assigned the minimum score of 1 for EPTRich 

in 2003, and most of the sites that had a score of 3 in 2003 

were assigned a score of 2 for this metric in 2004. Ten of the 

16 Johnson County sites scored in the nonsupporting category 

for each of 2003 and 2004, and these sites included eight of 

the urban sites and six sites receiving wastewater effluent. 

Most rural sites were partially supporting, whereas most of the 

urban sites in Johnson County were assigned a nonsupporting 

status in one or both years (table 5). Brush Creek (site BR12), 

the most downstream site on the Blue River (site BL13), the 

upstream Indian Creek site (site IN1b), and the candidate State 

reference stream in Missouri (site GR19) also were placed 

in the nonsupporting category for 2003 and 2004. In general, many of the sites scored in the same status category in 

both years, but two of the Johnson County sites (Mill Creek 

sites MI1, MI4) and two of the Blue River sites in Missouri 

(sites BL2b, BL7) scored in the nonsupporting category in 

2004 as compared to the partially supporting category in 2003 

(table 5). 

28  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri

Table 5. Aquatic-life-support status for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri 

(Wilkison and others, 2005), 2003 and 2004.

[Status based on average site scores for Kansas Department of Health and Environment (2006b) stream-assessment metrics. MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic 

Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index; EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera]

Site 

identification 

(fig. 2)

General 

land 

classification1

2003 metric scores 2004 metric scores

MBI KBI–

NO

EPT 

taxa 

richness

EPT 

abundance

Average 

score 

of four 

metrics

Aquaticlifesupportstatus2

MBI KBI–

NO

EPT 

taxa 

richness

EPT 

abundance

Average 

score 

of four 

metrics

Aquaticlifesupportstatus2

Kansas

BL3 Rural 1 2 1 1 1.25 N 2 2 2 2 2.00 P

BL5 Rural 2 2 1 1 1.50 P 2 2 2 2 2.00 P

IN3a *Urban 1 2 1 1 1.25 N 1 2 1 1 1.25 N

IN6 *Urban 1 1 1 1 1.00 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

TO2 Urban 1 1 1 1 1.00 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

TU1 Urban 1 1 1 1 1.00 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

MI1 Urban 2 1 1 3 1.75 P 1 2 1 1 1.25 N

MI4 *Urban 1 3 1 1 1.50 P 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

MI7 *Urban 1 1 1 1 1.00 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

CE1 Rural 2 3 1 2 2.00 P 1 3 2 2 2.00 P

CE6 *Rural 1 1 1 2 1.25 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

KI5 *Rural 2 3 1 2 2.00 P 1 2 2 1 1.50 P

KI6b *Rural 1 2 1 1 1.25 N 2 2 1 2 1.75 P

BI1 *Rural 2 1 1 1 1.25 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

CA1 Rural 3 3 1 2 2.25 P 2 3 2 2 2.25 P

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b *Urban 2 1 1 2 1.50 P 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

BL7 *Urban 1 2 1 2 1.50 P 1 2 1 1 1.25 N

BL8 *Urban 2 2 1 3 2.00 P 2 1 1 2 1.50 P

BL13 *Urban 1 1 1 2 1.25 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

IN1b Urban 1 2 1 1 1.25 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

BR12 Urban 1 1 1 1 1.00 N 1 1 1 1 1.00 N

GR19 Rural 1 1 1 2 1.25 N 1 1 1 2 1.25 N

1

Urban sites have greater than 32 percent urban land use and greater than 10 percent impervious surface. Asterisk (*) indicates downstream from wastewater discharge.

2

Aquatic-life-support status (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b): F = fully supporting, average score greater than 2.49; P = partially 

supporting, average score 1.5–2.49; N = nonsupporting, average score 1.0–1.49.
The data indicate that EPTRich values had the most 

negative effect on the aquatic-life status results; every site was 

given the minimum score (1) for this metric in 2003. Even 

though Captain Creek (site CA1) had the highest EPTRich 

value in 2004, a total of 12 taxa or more are needed to reach 

a score of 3 for this metric (Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2006b), and no sites had more than 11 EPT taxa 

in either sampling period (Appendix 3). This was unexpected 

because macroinvertebrate samples collected from small 

streams in late winter and early spring seasons can contain 

a higher diversity as compared to samples collected in other 

seasons (Feminella, 1996). 

In the study that included many of the same Missouri 

sites discussed in this report, Wilkison and others (2005, 

2006) found that, in 2002, 36 percent of 11 macroinvertebrate 

sampling sites met the criteria for full support when they were 

evaluated using Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

bioassessment protocols (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, 2001a). By comparison, none of the same sites 

met the full-support criteria using the Kansas bioassessment 

protocols in either 2003 or 2004. Currently (2007), the effects 

of different sampling protocols and index periods on macroinvertebrate results are unknown. 

The criteria for determining aquatic-life-support status 

as defined by the State of Kansas are based on data from 

monitoring stations that are evaluated on a seasonal or yearly 

rotation. Most biological monitoring stations in Kansas are 

streams that are fourth order and (or) watersheds larger than 

150 mi2, which may have naturally higher macroinvertebrate 

diversity than smaller streams such as those included in this 

study (S. Cringan, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, oral commun., 2006). This may account for the failure 

of Johnson County streams in meeting full or partial support 

for EPTRich and other metrics when evaluated with the Kansas protocol. The Missouri macroinvertebrate protocols (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2001a) and aquaticlife criteria were developed for smaller stream sizes (Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 2001b), which may 

account for the full-support status observed in 2002 at some of 

the sites in the Blue River watershed as reported by Wilkison and others (2005, 2006). Another plausible reason for 

this inconsistency in aquatic-life status is the possible effects 

of generally below-normal precipitation during the summer 

months in eastern Kansas in 2002 and 2003 (http://www.ncdc.

noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html). However, other macroinvertebrate 

metrics included for evaluating relative biological conditions 

in this study indicate that some sites fully meet expectations 

outlined in the Missouri protocol (Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, 2001b), with four sites that have among 

the lowest levels of biological impacts and containing a total 

taxa richness of 50 or greater in the 2004 sampling (fig. 10, 

Appendix 3). 

Mill Creek currently is the only stream in Johnson 

County with a TMDL for biological water-quality impairment (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006a). 

Water-quality standards for nutrients and suspended solids, 

and their interference with aquatic-life support, are cited as the 

basis for the TMDL. Historical MBI and %EPT values were 

described in the TMDL, and Mill Creek sites were found to be 

nonsupportive during most years, as defined by the established 

ranges in those metrics. The metrics calculated for this study 

generally were in agreement with those findings. However, 

%EPT at the upstream Mill Creek site (MI1) showed substantial variability between 2003 and 2004 (fig. 9) because of the 

large number of a moderately tolerant mayfly in 2003 (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae, Stenacron interpunctatum). The 

variability between years in individual metrics such as %EPT 

demonstrates one potential drawback of using a small number 

of individual metrics rather than a combination of metrics for 

site evaluation. The TMDL goal is to achieve an average MBI 

of 4.5 or less from 2006 through 2015. Of all the sites evaluated in this study, only the Kansas reference site (Captain 

Creek, site CA1) achieved that goal and only during 2003. 

Relations Between Macroinvertebrate 

Indicators and Environmental Variables 

Data from the recently published report by Lee and 

others (2005) were used to examine the strength of relations 

between macroinvertebrate indicators and environmental 

variables. Additional streamflow volume and flow-exceedance 

data during the months prior to the 2003 and 2004 sampling 

periods were used to help explain differences in metric values 

between the two sampling years. Correlations were examined 

between 2003 and 2004 individual metric values and the 10-

metric scores, and land use and water- and sediment-quality 

data. Correlations were expected to provide an indication 

of how well the range in multimetric scores for the sites (in 

other words, the gradient in relative biological conditions) 

corresponded with other environmental indicators that were 

measured in this study (land use and water and sediment 

quality). The strength of these relations provides insight on 

the overall impacts of cumulative stressors on the sites, as well 

as future selection of metrics to be used for monitoring and 

bioassessments. However, because evaluations are based on a 

small number of water and sediment samples, the data are not 

intended to fully characterize those conditions or the relations 

between water and sediment variables and macroinvertebrate 

indicators. Even though the sediment-quality data used in the 

correlations came from only one set of sediment samples in 

2003, the levels of contaminants in streambed sediment were 

used as an estimate of sediment conditions and the past and 

present exposure of this sediment to aquatic organisms in both 

2003 and 2004; therefore, most correlations were generated 

from separate macroinvertebrate data sets for both years. 

Streamflow

Streamflow values were higher at all nine USGS streamgage sites in Johnson County (fig. 2) before and during the 

2004 sampling period than before and during 2003 sampling. 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 29
Snowfall totals prior to macroinvertebrate collection in 2004 

were nearly three times that of snowfall totals prior to the 2003 

collection (28 in. and 10 in., respectively; data from weather 

station in Olathe, Kansas, fig. 2; M. Knapp, State Climatologist, Weather Data Library, written commun., 2005). Greater 

antecedent soil-moisture conditions, increased precipitation, 

and snowmelt led to increased streamflows at the nine stream 

gages coincident with sites at which macroinvertebrates were 

collected. 

Streamflow at six of the nine stream gages during the 

5 months prior to sampling in 2003 was compared to streamflow for the same period of time prior to sampling in 2004. 

Three of the nine stream gages were not installed until January 

2004, and therefore, data were not available for this comparison. The relative percentage difference (RPD) between 

median streamflow values (50-percent exceedance) prior to the 

2003 sampling (November 1, 2002, through March 15, 2003) 

and the 2004 sampling (November 1, 2003, through March 

15, 2004) ranged from 191 percent (Blue River near Stanley, 

site BL3, station 06893080) to 33.3 percent (Indian Creek at 

Overland Park, station 06893300, a centrally located streamgage site where no biological sampling occurred, shown in 

fig. 2) (fig. 14). The largest increases in streamflow between 

years were at predominantly rural sites upstream from wastewater discharges (such as at Blue River near Stanley, site BL3; 

fig. 14A). Changes to the hydrology of urban watersheds, 

such as increased wastewater discharges and disconnection 

from subsurface sources of water, may have contributed to less 

substantial changes in streamflow between the two sampling 

years (such as Indian Creek at Overland Park, fig. 14B). 

Increases in streamflow may have led to increases in 

macroinvertebrate diversity at some sites between 2003 and 

2004. Among the macroinvertebrate metrics calculated, TRich 

exhibited the greatest differences between 2003 and 2004. 

The number of total taxa represented in macroinvertebrate 

data typically increased between 2003 and 2004 at rural sites 

and was coincident with larger relative increases in streamflow at these sites (fig. 14A). The TRich metric exhibited a 

lesser (if any) increase at urban sites between 2003 and 2004, 

coincident with smaller relative increases in streamflow prior 

to macroinvertebrate collection (fig. 14B). The drainage area 

for the urban site provided as an example in figure 14B is 

about 38 percent larger than the drainage area of the rural site 

provided (fig. 14A), and therefore, the annual streamflow at 

the urban site is greater and relative response to precipitation 

differs. In addition, RPDs in annual streamflow differ because 

of the effects of WWTF effluent at the urban site. WWTFs 

discharges generally increase downstream base flow, and the 

effects of effluent can be more pronounced during drought 

years (Wilkison and others, 2006). At sites downstream from 

WWTFs, when precipitation is less than normal, a larger contribution of total streamflow originates from WWTF, which 

may result in less macroinvertebrate diversity. Lower base 

flows and increasing dry periods in small streams have been 

linked previously to decreases in macroinvertebrate diversity 

(Feminella, 1996; Meyer and Meyer, 2000). 

Conversely, the pollution tolerance metrics MBI and 

KBI–NO were generally lower in 2003 than in 2004. Less 

streamflow, corresponding with less runoff, also can result in 

lesser amounts of nonpoint-source pollutants, which may have 

led to higher values for these metrics during the drier year 

(2003).

Land Use 

Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r values), calculated 

between macroinvertebrate data (10-metric site scores) and 

land use, water-quality, and streambed-sediment quality data, 

are listed in table 6. The table lists each of the individual environmental variables (and their corresponding coefficients) that 

were significantly correlated with at least one individual macroinvertebrate metric or the 10-metric site scores in 2003 and 

2004. Correlations with other metrics are included to provide 

information on metric-specific trends. 

The diversity of macroinvertebrate communities and the 

site ranks generated in this study generally reflected a pattern 

in the overall effects of predominant land use upstream from 

sampling sites. Land-use-related factors ranged from mostly 

urban sites with municipal WWTF discharge, urban sites with 

no WWTF discharge, mixed urban and rural sites, rural sites 

with municipal discharge, to rural sites. Among the individual 

environmental variables related to land use, 10-metric site 

scores were significantly correlated with percentage impervious surface, percentage urban, and percentage agriculture in 

both 2003 and 2004 (table 6). Percentage urban land use was 

correlated with MBI, %Sc, and %Olig in 2003, but neither of 

the other land-use variables were significantly correlated with 

any individual macroinvertebrate metrics in 2003. In 2004, 

however, all three land-use variables were significantly correlated with 5 of the 10 individual metrics (table 6). 

Percentage of agricultural land is an indicator of nonurban land uses and generally has been found to be negatively 

correlated with macroinvertebrates. However, it also has 

been found to be positively correlated to some macroinvertebrate indices (Stepenuck and others, 2002). Approximately 

one-half of the total land use in Johnson County is nonurban, 

and of that, equal percentages are cropland and grassland 

(38 percent), 18 percent is forest, and 6 percent is miscellaneous including home sites (Johnson County Automated 

Information Mapping Systems, written commun., 2003). In 

this study, among the significant correlations between percentage agricultural land use and biological metrics, all correlations were positive except in 2004 when MBI was found to 

be negatively correlated. The significantly positive correlation 

between percentage agricultural land use and the 10-metric 

macroinvertebrate scores may be because of the rapid landuse changes occurring within the study area. In some areas 

of Johnson County and adjacent counties in both Kansas 

and Missouri, areas that experienced past or recent use for 

agriculture are rapidly being converted to a more urbanized 

landscape, which may have more adverse effects on stream 

communities. Therefore, when assessing effects on streams in 

30 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
urban environments, one might expect land that is classified 

as agricultural and near urban areas to provide more positive 

benefits to streams as long as stream corridors are buffered 

from erosion and excessive nonpoint-source runoff.

Table 7 shows land-use variables (percentage urban, 

percentage impervious surface) and their corresponding coefficients resulting from the Spearman-rho rank correlations with 

the 5-, 6-, and 10-metric macroinvertebrate scoring solutions. 

These rank correlations provided concurrence in site arrangement (as measured by ranks in scores) between macroinvertebrate site ranks and the land-use variables. Relations between 

multimetric scores and land-use variables were similar regardless of whether 5-, 6- or 10-metric scores were used. 

Water and Sediment Quality

Water and streambed-sediment contaminants can originate from point or nonpoint sources. Point sources of contamination typically are municipal and industrial discharges 

and may include nutrients in stream water and organic 

wastewater compounds in stream water and streambed sediment, metals and hydrocarbons in streambed sediment, and 

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

November 1, 2002–March 15, 2003

November 1, 2003–March 15, 2004

November 1, 2003–March 15, 2004

November 1, 2002–March 15, 2003

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of time value equalled or exceeded

(A) Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) (site BL3, fig. 2)

(B) Indian Creek at Overland Park

 (stream-gage site with no biological sampling, station 06893300, fig. 2)

Figure 14. Streamflow duration curves for (A) Blue River near Stanley (representative of rural sites) and 

(B) Indian Creek at Overland Park (representative of urban sites with wastewater discharge) from November 1 

through March 15, 2002–03, and 2003–04.

Assessment of Biological Conditions 31
Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) for nine environmental variables (land use, and water and sediment quality) and both individual macroinvertebrate metrics and 10-metric 

site scores for 15 stream sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 2004. [Macroinvertebrate metric abbreviations are listed in table 2. Values in bold are statistically significant (α = 0.05) with a p-value less than 0.001.]

Environmental variable

10-

metric 

score

Macroinvertebrate metric

MBI KBI EP- TRich TRich %Sc %Olig %Tany %Int– KBI %EP SWDI

2003

Percentage impervious surface1 -0.78 0.48 0.50 -0.55 -0.58 -0.57 0.38 -0.34 -0.57 -0.38 -0.56

Percentage urban land use2 -.83 -.84 -.55 .67 -.55 .82 -.73 .56 .58 .70 .49Percentage agriculture land use .81 -.54 -.44 .61 .57 .55 -.47 .39 .50 .44 .58Total concentration of organic wastewater compounds in filtered water -.59 .63 .52 -.58 -.30 -.18 .38 -.37 -.40 -.30 -.16

Total nitrogen concentration in water -.82 .82 .26 -.60 -.45 -.44 .88 -.51 -.24 -.58 -.44Total phosphorus concentration in water -.75 .78 .22 -.57 -.42 -.44 .86 -.42 -.20 -.54 -.42

Fecal coliforms (streambed sediment) -.59 .37 .02 -.51 -.54 -.28 .80 -.28 -.09 -.11 -.60

Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (streambed sediment) -.89 .82 .48 -.72 -.50 -.45 .77 -.50 -.46 -.53 -.42Nonylphenol diethoxylate (streambed sediment) -.70 .64 .06 -.55 -.48 -.26 .91 -.45 -.09 -.43 -.48

2004

Percentage impervious surface1 -.85 .72 .55 -.83 -.79 -.75 .42 -.45 -.55 -.88 -.84Percentage urban land use2 -.89 -.88 -.80 .93 -.91 .84 -.61 .41 .74 .94 .96

Percentage agriculture land use .86 -.76 -.55 .79 .75 .79 -.51 .46 .53 .88 .83Total concentration of organic wastewater compounds in filtered water -.52 .74 .42 -.42 -.36 -.28 .73 -.03 -.38 -.44 -.45

Total nitrogen concentration in water -.66 .86 .30 -.56 -.51 -.57 .93 -.30 -.18 -.56 -.66Total phosphorus concentration in water -.61 .82 .29 -.50 -.48 -.54 .91 -.16 -.18 -.49 -.62

Fecal coliforms (streambed sediment) -.45 .49 -.11 -.50 -.51 -.53 .55 -.28 .17 -.46 -.53

Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (streambed sediment) -.78 .90 .42 -.73 -.61 -.67 .86 -.43 -.31 -.68 -.72Nonylphenol diethoxylate (streambed sediment) -.49 .62 .01 -.50 -.43 -.47 .69 -.31 .09 -.44 -.52

1Impervious surfaces include buildings, courtyards, and paved and unpaved roads and parking lots.2Urban includes park, residential, commercial, and industrial land use.

32 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
bacteria in stream water and streambed sediment. Nonpoint 

sources of contamination include storm runoff from urban and 

agricultural lands and seepage from septic systems. Potential 

contaminants from nonpoint sources include indicator bacteria 

in stream water, and metals and hydrocarbons in streambed 

sediment. 

Several water-quality variables were significantly correlated with macroinvertebrate community metrics. Total 

nitrogen and total phosphorus in water showed a significant 

negative correlation with the 10-metric score in 2003 (table 6). 

However, these relations were not significant in 2004, which 

may have been because of higher streamflows observed before 

the 2004 sampling and also may be related to the percentage 

of total streamflow originating from WWTFs. The individual 

metrics MBI and %Olig showed a significant positive correlation with the two nutrients in both years (table 6). Total 

concentration of organic wastewater compounds (the sum of 

detected concentrations in filtered water samples) was significantly correlated with MBI in 2004, but no other relations 

tested with this variable were significant.

Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in 

streambed sediment generally had the strongest relation to the 

10-metric macroinvertebrate scores, and this environmental 

variable was significantly correlated with MBI and %Olig 

in 2003, and MBI, EPTRich, and %Olig in 2004 (table 6). 

PAHs, generally considered nonpoint contaminants but also 

found in WWTF discharge, typically are related to increases 

in vehicle exhaust (Van Metre and others, 2000; Yunker and 

others, 2002), incomplete combustion of fossil or biogenic 

fuels (Schauer and others, 2001, 2002), and the direct release 

of fossil fuels, such as oil leakage or parking-lot sealant 

(Wang and others, 2000; Mahler and others, 2005). Several 

PAH compounds were present in concentrations higher than 

USEPA probable effects level guidelines for streambed sediment (benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene). All PAHs analyzed from streambed-sediment 

samples had some concentrations higher than USEPA threshold effects level guidelines (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1998; Lee and others, 2005). 

Nonylphenol diethoxylate in sediment was significantly 

correlated with %Olig in 2003 but was not significantly 

correlated with any metric values generated from 2004 data 

(table 6). Among the other sediment-quality constituents, 

fecal coliforms had a weak relation with 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores (table 6). Fecal coliform in streambed 

sediment was not significantly correlated with any macroinvertebrate metric except %Olig in 2003. 

Point sources of water- and sediment-quality contamination appear to have negative effects on macroinvertebrate communities related to the proximity downstream from WWTF 

discharges, whereas the effects of nonpoint-source contamination relate more broadly across all sites. Possible causes of 

decreased macroinvertebrate community diversity downstream 

from wastewater discharges include effects associated with 

nutrients or organic wastewater compounds or a combination 

Table 7. Spearman-rho rank correlation coefficients (r values) between macroinvertebrate site scores and land-use variables, and between macroinvertebrate site scores and the environmental effects score, for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), 2003 and 2004. 

[Values in bold are statistically significant (α = 0.05) with a p-value less than 0.001. JC, Johnson County; --, not applicable]

Year Score type Number of sites 

included

Land-use variable Environmental 

Urban Impervious surface effects score

2003 5 Metric JC (15) -0.80 -0.79 0.91

6 Metric JC (15) -.71 -.72 .84

10 Metric JC (15) -.77 -.72 .85

5 Metric All (22) -.71 -.74 --

6 Metric All (22) -.68 -.72 --

10 Metric All (22) -.76 -.75 --

2004 5 Metric JC (15) -.71 -.72 .81

6 Metric JC (15) -.75 -.74 .83

10 Metric JC (15) -.78 -.77 .87

5 Metric All (22) -.79 -.78 --

6 Metric All (22) -.80 -.78 --

10 Metric All (22) -.86 -.84 --

Assessment of Biological Conditions 33
of contaminants resulting from both urban nonpoint-source 

runoff and wastewater effluent sources. 

Nutrient concentrations in stream water were higher at 

the Indian Creek sites in Johnson County (sites IN3a, IN6) 

than at other sites because of the greater volume of wastewater effluent discharges (Lee and others, 2005). Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate is one of the breakdown products of commonly 

used detergents and is found in wastewater effluent and in 

bed sediment of receiving streams (Giger and others, 1984). 

Levels of this contaminant were not significantly correlated 

with 10-metric site scores, but this class of detergent metabolites has been known to cause estrogenic effects in fish (Soto 

and others, 1991). The type of secondary treatment process 

at upstream WWTFs also may affect biological conditions at 

the sampling sites. Lee and others (2005) found that discharges from WWTFs with trickling filter secondary treatment 

processes had the highest concentrations of many potential 

contaminants during base-flow conditions.

During base-flow conditions, fecal coliform densities 

were significantly higher at urban sites than agricultural sites 

in Johnson County (Lee and others, 2005). Levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria may not affect macroinvertebrate populations directly but commonly are used as an indicator of 

agricultural or urban-related sources such as sediment/water 

interactions, leaking sewage lines, and increases in domestic 

animal waste. This variable, along with the total concentration of organic wastewater compounds, was not significantly 

correlated with 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores. Correlations between macroinvertebrate site scores and all six 

of the water- and sediment-quality constituents in this study 

generated lower r values when the two Indian Creek sites 

downstream from wastewater discharges (sites IN3a, IN6) 

were omitted from the correlations. This pattern was most 

pronounced with total phosphorus, suggesting that some 

point-source effects from discharges at these sites may be 

substantial. Lee and others (2005) found that WWTFs were 

the primary source of phosphorus in Johnson County streams 

during base flow. However, nonpoint-source contaminants 

such as PAHs in sediment still correlated at approximately the 

same level when the sites downstream from wastewater effluent discharges were omitted. On the basis of this information, 

water- and sediment-quality constituents that are related to 

nonpoint-source urban runoff may have more negative effects 

on macroinvertebrate scores at urban sites that do not receive 

wastewater effluent. Although point-source contributions may 

have substantial effects based on proximity of the source to a 

site, land use (and the corresponding nonpoint contributions) 

had the most substantial effect on overall macroinvertebrate 

communities in Johnson County streams.

Site Groupings and Scoring 

Principal components analysis was used to determine the 

most important environmental variables that were measured 

in this study, including land use, water and sediment quality, 

and macroinvertebrate scores, for explaining variation among 

sampling sites. In addition, it was used to provide a basis for 

separating or clustering sites that have similar conditions or 

effects. Similarly, the environmental effects score was used 

as a multivariable indicator that could be compared directly 

to the integrated macroinvertebrate responses and that could 

provide some basis for qualitative assignment of sites to rating 

categories of relative stream quality. 

Principal Components Analysis

Principal components analysis (PCA) of all Johnson 

County sites indicated that three components, each consisting 

of the 10-metric scores and multiple environmental variables 

listed in table 8, comprised about 75 percent of the total variance of the data set. Every variable analyzed, including the 

10-metric site scores, contributed to component 1. Variables 

associated both with urban land use (percentage impervious 

surface, fecal coliform in stream water, total PAH concentration in streambed sediment, and cadmium, copper, and zinc in 

streambed sediment) and wastewater contamination (total concentrations of organic wastewater compounds in stream water, 

phosphorus in streambed sediment, nonylphenol diethoxylate in streambed sediment, and fecal coliform in streambed 

sediment) contributed the most to component 1. All of the 

land-use, stream-water, and streambed-sediment variables 

except percentage agricultural land use were negatively related 

to the 10-metric site scores (table 6). Component 2 did not 

include macroinvertebrate scores and was positively related 

to nutrients and some wastewater compounds associated with 

wastewater discharge and negatively related to some metals 

and impervious surface, which may be more linked to land 

use. Component 3 was positively related to macroinvertebrate 

scores and many metals in streambed sediment and negatively 

related to impervious surface and water- and sediment-quality 

constituents associated with both point and nonpoint sources 

of contamination.

The principal components analysis resulted in site separation that generally was based on urban-related factors in the 

form of both land use and the presence, absence, or proximity 

of WWTF discharges. Urban sites (greater than 32-percent 

urban land use and 10-percent impervious surface) without 

wastewater discharges were grouped together (lower right 

quadrant, fig. 15). Urban sites less than 3 mi downstream 

from wastewater discharges were grouped together (upper 

right quadrant, fig. 15). The six rural Johnson County sites, 

including sites without wastewater discharges (sites BL3, BL5, 

and CA1) and sites more than 3 mi downstream from wastewater discharges (sites CE6, KI5, and KI6b), were grouped 

together (upper left quadrant, fig. 15). There were two 

sites that were exceptions to the site-grouping results. The 

upstream Cedar Creek site (CE1), which is rural and has no 

municipal wastewater discharge, grouped with primarily urban 

sites without WWTF discharge (lower right quadrant, fig. 15). 

It is possible that the intermittent nature of the streamflow at 

site CE1 may lead to short periods of localized stresses related 

34 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
to flow duration and water quality. Similarly, the Big Bull 

Creek site (BI1), which is rural and has WWTF discharge less 

than 3 mi upstream, grouped with the urban sites in the upper 

right quadrant. However, this site could have been grouped 

with the two downstream Mill Creek sites (MI4, MI7), which 

were in close proximity within this quadrant (fig. 15). The site 

groupings resulting from principal components analysis confirms that, overall, a combination of prevailing land use within 

the watershed area upstream from the sites and the presence or 

absence and proximity of WWTF discharges are important in 

explaining the variation in macroinvertebrate site scores.

Environmental Effects Score 

Three environmental variables (percentage impervious surface, total nitrogen in stream water, and total PAHs 

in streambed sediment) were integrated (Appendix 6) so 

that their combined effects could be compared directly to 

the 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores and because this 

approach was similar to that resulting from the integration 

of multiple macroinvertebrate metrics. Although this study 

was not designed to provide a fully integrated measurement 

of environmental effects, the human-disturbance component 

of the Biological Condition Gradient concept (Davies and 

Jackson, 2006) can be defined by variables that are appropriate 

for describing the causes or sources of human-induced impacts 

in aquatic systems. The environmental effects score includes 

the best information available for defining a gradient in overall 

human-induced disturbances for the sampling sites evaluated 

in the study. Values for these scores are given in Appendix 6. 

The scores could not be calculated for the Missouri sampling 

sites because comparable data were not available for many of 

the environmental indicators examined. 

The environmental variables included in the environmental effects score were selected from the variables that 

showed significant correlations with the 10-metric site scores 

(table 6). The scores include one land-use variable (percentage impervious surface), one water-quality variable (total 

nitrogen), and one sediment-quality variable (total PAHs). 

Other significantly correlated indicators were not included 

Table 8. Sampling-site groupings based on principal component analysis of macroinvertebrate 10-metric scores and land-use, stream-water, and 

streambed-sediment quality data from sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 2004. 

[Larger absolute component values indicate increased importance of variable. --, not applicable]

Variable Component 1 

(42.7 percent)

Component 2 

(18.9 percent)

Component 3 

(13.9 percent)

10-metric site score -0.26 -- 0.27

Percentage impervious surface .24 -0.12 -.32

Percentage agricultural land use -.18 .17 .31

Dissolved solids (stream water) .11 -- .16

Total concentration of organic wastewater compounds (stream water) .23 -- --

Total nitrogen (stream water) .24 .27 -.17

Total phosphorus (stream water) .12 .38 --

Fecal coliform bacteria (stream water) .23 -.21 -.18

Nitrogen (streambed sediment) .15 .25 .34

Phosphorus (streambed sediment) .25 -- .27

Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (streambed sediment) .24 -- -.29

Arsenic (streambed sediment) .14 -.40 .16

Cadmium (streambed sediment) .28 -- .10

Copper (streambed sediment) .28 -- .12

Lead (streambed sediment) .20 -.32 --

Manganese (streambed sediment) .11 -.26 .28

Nickel (streambed sediment) .12 -.34 .24

Zinc (streambed sediment) .30 -- --

Organic carbon (streambed sediment) .16 .19 .37

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (streambed sediment) .26 .15 -.17

Para-cresol (streambed sediment) .19 .27 --

Fecal coliform bacteria (streambed sediment) .22 .15 --

Assessment of Biological Conditions 35
(percentage urban, percentage agricultural, and total phosphorus) because of possible redundancy with the other three 

environmental variables chosen. Even though the percentage 

agriculture land-use variable generated significant correlations 

with several metrics (table 6), the direction of the response 

was inconsistent (some were positive and some were negative) and, therefore, not incorporated into the environmental 

effects score. 

The environmental effects scores ranged from a minimum 

of 45 at both of the downstream Indian Creek sites (IN3a, 

IN6) to a maximum of 300 at the Kansas reference site (CA1, 

table 9). Among the environmental variables used in the 

environmental effects score, total PAHs showed the strongest 

correlation with the 10-metric scores in 2003, and percentage 

impervious surface showed the strongest correlation in 2004 

(table 6). Impervious surface area has been found to be highly 

correlated with urban intensity (McMahon and Cuffney, 2000). 

When impervious surface area is plotted in relation to the 

10-metric scores, the two downstream Indian Creek sites 

(IN3a and IN6) plot below the lines of best fit, probably 

because of the effects of WWTF discharge on macroinvertebrates at those sites (fig. 16). The Grand River reference 

site (GR19) in Missouri, with no WWTF discharge upstream 

and impervious surface percentage lower than most other 

sites, also plotted below this line. The 10-metric scores for 

this site were less than expected based on impervious surface 

area, indicating that other factors may be affecting the biological condition at the site. The downstream Brush Creek 

site (BR12), with more than double the impervious surface 

area of most other sites (fig. 16), stands alone as the site with 

the highest level of biological impacts among the 22 sites 

(table 9). In general, sites in the category with low biological 

impacts had percentage urban land-use estimates that were 

less than 32 and percentage impervious surface less than 10. 

These sites included the Kansas reference stream site on Captain Creek (site CA1), the two upstream Blue River sites (BL3, 

BL5), both Cedar Creek sites (CE1, CE6), and both Kill Creek 

sites (KI5, KI6b). 

Macroinvertebrate responses to total nitrogen in water 

(fig. 17) and total PAHs in streambed sediment (fig. 18) are 

most evident at sites affected either by WWTF discharges, 

urban land use, or both. WWTFs are a primary source of total 

nitrogen in streams during base flow (Wilkison and others, 

2002, 2006; Lee and others, 2005), and macroinvertebrate 

communities typically are affected by the resulting organic 

enrichment. Three of the sites included in the category with 

BL3

KI6b

CA1

KI5 CE6

BL5

TU1

MI7

MI4

TO2

MI1

CE1

IN6

IN3a

BI1

Rural sites with no WWTF 

discharge or discharge more 

than 3 miles upstream 

PCA component 2

(18.9 percent of total 

variance) 

PCA component 1 

(42.7 percent of total

variance) 

Urban sites with 

WWTF discharge more 

than 3 miles upstream 

Urban sites (except BI1) 

with WWTF discharge less 

than 3 miles upstream 

Urban sites (except CE1) 

with no WWTF discharge 

-6

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

WWTF = wastewater treatment facility

Figure 15. Results of principal component analysis (PCA) for 15 macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 

and 2004. Rural sites are those with 32 percent or less urban land use; urban sites are those with more than 32 percent urban land use 

and impervious surface greater than 10 percent. 

36  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Assessment of Biological Conditions 37

Table 9. Environmental effects scores, 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores, categories of relative biological impacts based on 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores, and sources of environmental effects for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), 2003 and 2004. 

[W1, wastewater discharge upstream, low volume (less than 4 million gallons per day); W2, wastewater discharge upstream more than 2 miles, high volume 

(greater than 10 million gallons per day); W3, wastewater discharge upstream less than 2 miles, high volume (greater than 10 million gallons per day); CU, 

cumulative urban, percentage impervious surface greater than 10, sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons greater than 1,470 micrograms per kilogram, 

and percentage urban land cover more than 32; CR, stream channelized with reveted banks; --, not applicable or unknown]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

Environmental 

effects 

score1

Site 

rank

10-metric score Site rank2 Site group3 Average 

10-metric 

score for 

2003 and 

2004

Category of 

biological 

impacts4

Source of 

environmental effects 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004

Kansas5

CA1 300 1 654 862 3 1 A A 758 Low --

BL3 292 2 639 734 4 4 A A 687 Low --

BL5 291 3 683 720 2 5 A A 702 Low --

BI1 290 4 484 527 10 8 B B 506 Moderate W1

KI5 287 5 695 738 1 2 A A 717 Low W1

KI6b 286 6 586 696 7 6 A A 641 Low W1

CE6 272 7 594 579 6 7 A A 587 Low W1

CE1 248 8 606 755 5 3 A A 681 Low --

MI7 239 9 434 390 12 11 B B 412 Moderate W1, CU

MI4 190 10 438 241 13 17 B C 340 High W1, CU

TO2 186 11 409 237 15 19 B C 323 High CU

MI1 185 12 491 321 9 14 B B 406 Moderate CU

TU1 170 13 299 266 18 16 C C 283 High CU

IN3a 45 14 118 193 21 20 C C 156 High W3, CU

IN6 45 15 117 55 20 21 C C 86 High W3, CU

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)6

BL2b -- -- 574 489 8 10 B B 532 Moderate W1, CU

IN1b -- -- 510 439 11 13 B B 475 Moderate CU

GR19 -- -- 447 576 14 9 B B 512 Moderate --

BL7 -- -- 417 384 16 15 C B 401 Moderate W2, CU

BL8 -- -- 373 466 17 12 C B 420 Moderate W2, CU 

BL13 -- -- 267 328 19 18 C C 298 High W2, CU, CR

BR12 -- -- 59 33 22 22 C C 46 High CU

1

Determined from percentage impervious surface area, total nitrogen in water, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment (Appendix 6). 

2

From Appendix 4.

3

From table 4.

4

Determined on the basis of average 10-metric scores. 

5

10-metric macroinvertebrate scores and ranks based on proportional scaling across 15 Johnson County sites (number of sites=15). 

6

10-metric macroinvertebrate scores and ranks based on proportional scaling across all 22 sites (number of sites=22). 
38  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri

2003

y = -12.7x + 652

R2 = 0.67

2004

y = -16.8x + 737

R2 = 0.80

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage impervious surface

10-metric macroinvertebrate score

BR12

IN6

IN3a

TU

MI1

1

BL13 IN1b

BL8 TO2

MI4

BL7

BL2b

MI7

CE1

KI5

BL5

CE6 KI6b

BI1 BL3 GR19 CA1

BL2b Site identifier (fig. 2)

2003 data

2004 data

Figure 16. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores for 2003 and 2004, and percentage impervious surface area for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005). 

2003

R2 = 0.67

2004

R2 = 0.44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0

10-metric macroinvertebrate score

KI5

Site identifier (fig. 2)

2003 data

2004 data

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Concentration of total nitrogen in water samples, in milligrams per liter IN3a IN6 MI4

MI7

MI1

TO2

TU1

BI1

CE6

CE1

KI6b KI5

BL5

BL

CA

3

1

Figure 17. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores for 2003 and 2004, and total nitrogen 

concentration in water from sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and 

Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005). 
low levels of biological impacts are downstream from WWTFs 

(sites CE6, KI5, and KI6b, tables 1 and 9). Among sites in the 

category representing a moderate level of biological impacts, 

the Big Bull Creek site (BI1) was the only one with WWTF 

discharges less than 3 mi upstream. Even though site BI1 was 

placed in the category of moderate levels of biological impacts 

(table 9), the percentage of impervious surface area and 

concentrations of total nitrogen and PAHs were low enough to 

attain an environmental effects score similar to the other sites 

in the low biological impact category. When total nitrogen in 

stream water is plotted in relation to 10-metric scores (fig. 17), 

lower metric scores at the two Indian Creek sites (IN3a and 

IN6) that are downstream from WWTF discharges correlate 

with higher concentrations of nitrogen. A similar pattern was 

observed with PAHs in streambed sediment, where 10-metric 

scores for both of the Indian Creek sites (IN3a, IN6) correlate 

with higher PAH concentrations (fig. 18). The upstream Cedar 

Creek site (CE1) plotted above the line of best fit, and the 

10-metric scores at this site place it in the category with low 

levels of biological impacts (table 9). However, the environmental effects score at site CE1 is lower than other sites in the 

low-impact category because of higher concentrations of PAHs 

in sediment (fig. 18). This may be related to the percentage of 

urban land use at site CE1, which is higher (31.9 percent) than 

any other sites in the category with low biological impacts 

(tables 1 and 9).

The two downstream Indian Creek sites (IN3a, IN6) were 

placed in the category representing high levels of biological 

impacts (table 9) and had environmental effects scores that 

were widely separated from other sites (fig. 19). Three of the 

Johnson County sites [including two of the Mill Creek sites 

(MI1, MI7) and the Big Bull Creek site (BI1)] fell into the 

category representing a moderate level of biological impacts 

(table 9). Even though the Big Bull Creek site had an environmental effects score that ranked fourth among the Johnson 

County sites (table 9), the placement of this site in the category with moderate levels of biological impacts indicates 

that the environmental effects score may not fully account for 

wastewater effects on macroinvertebrates. However, Spearman-rho rank correlation coefficients determined with the 

three multimetric macroinvertebrate scores and the environmental effects scores ranged from 0.81 to 0.91 (table 7), 

indicating that there was good concurrence in site arrangement 

between macroinvertebrate results (from highest to lowest in 

biological impacts as measured by ranks) and that defined by 

the environmental variables.

Macroinvertebrate Responses to Environmental 

Variables

Effects of Urbanization on Macroinvertebrates

The structure and diversity of macroinvertebrate communities can be negatively affected by urbanization (Giller and 

Malmqvist, 1998). Urbanization generally leads to increases in 

impervious surface areas and stream re-channelization within 

the watershed, which in turn increases the frequency and 

magnitude of stormflows (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). Larger 

variations in velocity and streamflow during stormwater runoff 

also may have negative effects on macroinvertebrate communities (Clausen and Biggs, 1997). Urban runoff and treated 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 39

2003

R2 = 0.79

2004

R2 = 0.61

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0

10-metric macroinvertebrate score

 BL3 Site identifier (fig. 2)

2003 data

2004 data

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Concentration of total PAHs in streambed sediment, in micrograms per milligram

IN6

IN3a

TO2

CE1

TU1

MI1

MI4

MI7

KI6b

CA1 CE6 BI1 KI5

BL5

BL3

Figure 18. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores for 2003 and 2004, and concentrations 

of total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in streambed sediment from sampling sites in Johnson 

County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005). 
wastewater, the primary sources of water in many urban areas, 

have increased concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, metals, 

and organic compounds (Heaney and Huber, 1984). Treated 

wastewater discharge also alters stream hydrology (Lee and 

others 2005; Wilkison and others, 2006). 

Effects of urbanization are known to include decreased 

macroinvertebrate diversity and result in communities dominated by more tolerant species (Milner and Oswood, 2000; 

Gray, 2004). Organic enrichment associated with WWTF 

discharges in particular has been found to reduce macroinvertebrate diversity (Seager and Abrahams, 1990). Less infiltration capacity of watersheds in urban environments with greater 

impervious surface area may inhibit the ability of streams to 

sustain base flow (Finkenbine and others, 2000; Dodds, 2002), 

but this effect may be offset by WWTF discharge (Wilkison 

and others, 2006). Impervious surfaces alter stream hydrology and convey contaminants into water bodies. Impervious 

surface area has been found to be highly correlated with urban 

intensity and a good integrator of urban land-use conditions 

(Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). Impervious surface area also 

is known to be negatively correlated with macroinvertebrate 

assemblages (Stepenuck and others, 2002). 

Cumulative urban is one of the impact types identified by Yoder and Rankin (1995) as a cause of impairment 

in flowing water and is described by situations when many 

different contaminants may be present from combinations of 

nonpoint-source urban runoff and point discharges of treated 

wastewater. In this study, estimates of impervious surface 

area, percentage urban, and percentage agricultural land use 

were strongly correlated with macroinvertebrate scores, and in 

general, these relations generated higher correlation coefficients (r values) than most of the water- and sediment-quality 

variables in both years (table 6). This indicates that the cumulative effects of land use on macroinvertebrate site scores were 

detected more easily than effects resulting from a particular 

chemical constituent.

Results of this study indicate that the biological condition of streams in Johnson County is being adversely affected 

by both urban land use and effects associated with wastewater discharges. The combined effects of these sources in 

Johnson County likely have altered the natural variability in 

flow regime and changed the inputs of contaminants and the 

quantity of available nutrients. These results are consistent 

with those reported in Wilkison and others (2006). Macroinvertebrate site scores and ranks for the Indian Creek sites 

in Johnson County that are less than 3 mi downstream from 

wastewater discharges (sites IN3a, IN6) were consistently 

rated among sites with the highest levels of biological impacts 

in one or both years. However, other urban sites in Johnson 

County and Missouri that do not receive wastewater discharges 

such as Tomahawk Creek (site TO2), Turkey Creek (site TU1), 

and Brush Creek (site BR12) have among the highest percentages of impervious surfaces in the watershed. These sites also 

consistently scored and ranked among those with the most 

impacts in terms of diversity metrics (TRich, EPTRich) and in 

overall site scores and ranks. 

The macroinvertebrate data also indicate that biological conditions may fluctuate from year to year at some sites. 

Where wastewater discharges are present and comprise the 

majority of streamflow during base-flow conditions, year-to2003

R2 = 0.86

2004

R2 = 0.73

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0

10-metric macroinvertebrate score

 IN3a Site identifier (fig. 2)

2003 data

2004 data

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Environmental effects score

IN6

IN3a

TU1

MI1 TO2

MI4

MI7

CE1

CE6

KI5

CA1

KI6b

BL3

BL5

BI1

Decreasing impacts from human disturbance

Decreasing adverse effects from environmental variables

Figure 19. Comparison of 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores and environmental effects scores for 

sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison 

and others, 2005), 2003 and 2004. 

40 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
year changes in weather likely have less pronounced effects 

during base-flow conditions at these sites (Lee and others, 

2005). Wastewater discharges are typically warmer, more 

nutrient rich (which increases algal production and causes 

decreased dissolved oxygen values and large diurnal fluctuations) and have increased dissolved solids that cause larger 

specific conductance readings (Masters, 1991; Sprague, 2005). 

Possible causes of decreased macroinvertebrate community diversity downstream from wastewater discharges 

include effects associated with nutrients and altered hydrology, 

contaminants resulting from urban nonpoint-source runoff, 

or a combination of these. Excess algae growth in riffles also 

retains fine particulates, resulting in greater substrate embeddedness and a corresponding decrease in interstitial living 

space for macroinvertebrates. This secondary effect of wastewater discharges may occur even when water-quality standards 

set for municipal wastewater discharges are met 100 percent 

of the time. However, macroinvertebrate data indicate that, 

overall, the effects of wastewater discharges and urbanization 

on biological communities cannot be fully separated from one 

another because metric scores for urban sites with no wastewater discharge often were as low as those for urban sites receiving wastewater discharge (table 9). Even though urban sites 

without WWTF discharges have slightly higher macroinvertebrate scores (fig. 12), future changes in wastewater treatment 

or modifications in stormwater pathways may not improve 

aquatic-life status to the levels observed at many of the rural 

sites. WWTF discharge volume (or percentage of base flow 

as effluent) and the location distance upstream from a site are 

both important factors that affect biological communities. 

Water-quality constituents that could contribute to 

decreased macroinvertebrate diversity in urban streams also 

include specific conductance, which is usually positively 

correlated with chloride concentrations (Hem, 1992). Elevated 

chloride concentrations have been found at site IN6 and likely 

are related to road-salt application (concentration in one 

sample was higher than KDHE acute aquatic-life criteria) (Lee 

and others, 2005). Elevated chloride concentrations may be 

adversely affecting macroinvertebrate communities at other 

urban sites as well. Other urban-related water-quality factors 

also may be affecting macroinvertebrate communities, such 

as increased temperature from wastewater discharge and low 

dissolved oxygen associated with large diurnal fluctuations 

caused by increased algal production and decay.

Previous studies have found that macroinvertebrate 

community-level attributes decline to a maximum degradation level at a specific threshold of impervious surface 

area (Schueler, 1994). Degradation thresholds for impervious surface areas ranging from 10 to 20 percent have been 

described (Paul and Meyer, 2001). Even though specific 

thresholds in impervious surface area were not identified 

during this study, sites with impervious surface area greater 

than 10 percent were among those with the highest levels of 

impacts on the basis of both macroinvertebrate response and 

measurements of variables related to urbanization.

Macroinvertebrate Response to Gradients in 

Environmental Variables

Generally, it is assumed that the composition of resident aquatic communities reflects an integration of exposure 

to the combined effects of all disturbances measured. The 

Biological Condition Gradient concept, which is a model that 

describes biological responses to increasing levels of human 

disturbance, has been supported by USEPA as an effective tool 

for classifying stream condition and managing water-resource 

objectives (Davies and Jackson, 2006; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2006). The foundation behind this concept 

is the expectation that the quality or condition as measured 

by biological indicators can be represented by categories or 

tiers that are defined on the basis of a gradient in degree of 

impacts resulting from a variety of human disturbances. In 

this study, changes in water quality, contaminant concentrations, and physical variables such as streamflow and habitat 

modifications, are all associated with a gradient in the degree 

of biological impacts for the sites evaluated. The different 

rating methods used to evaluate relative site quality in this 

study yielded similar rankings and groupings for most of the 

sites. The relative site rankings and groupings that were based 

on 10-metric macroinvertebrate site scores (table 4) were similar to those developed using the environmental effects score 

(table 9). These results indicate that an integrated macroinvertebrate score developed as a grading system for relative stream 

quality, although meaningless by itself, is a useful tool for 

comparing overall biological impacts at sites across gradients 

in environmental conditions that occur in rapidly changing 

landscapes such as Johnson County, Kansas. 

Macroinvertebrate scores confirm that a combination 

of environmental variables is affecting the macroinvertebrate communities at the sampling sites used in this study. 

In general, the seven sampling sites included in site group 

A (table 4) were placed in the category with low levels of 

biological impacts (table 9). These sites also had the least 

urbanization and low values for variables related to organic 

enrichment (nutrients, and presence, volume, and proximity 

of WWTF discharges upstream). This is substantiated further 

by the analysis of the two urban site groups that were based 

on both land use and wastewater discharge (with and without 

WWTF discharges upstream) in which the mean macroinvertebrate scores were not significantly different from one another 

(fig. 12). Because both of these factors also have a direct 

effect on many of the individual variables that were measured 

at the Johnson County sites, there is a potential for developing 

land-use models and estimating the cumulative effects of these 

variables on biological communities in urban streams.

Spearman-rho rank correlations with the three multimetric scoring solutions also indicated strong relations between 

the site ranks generated by macroinvertebrate scores and with 

the site ranks that were based on estimates of percentage urban 

land use and percentage impervious surface (table 7). This 

pattern was observed both among the 15 Johnson County 

sites and when all 22 sites were included in the correlations 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 41
(table 7). In addition, the site ranks derived from the environmental effects score were significantly correlated with site 

ranks resulting from all three of the multimetric scoring combinations in both years (table 7). These results indicate that, 

when the sites are ranked according to a gradient in the degree 

of adverse environmental effects as described by land use and 

water- and sediment-quality variables, the ranking of sites 

according to multimetric macroinvertebrate scores correlated 

well with this site arrangement (in other words, from high to 

low across the study sites). Further, when sites with similar 

known impact sources are grouped together in a subjective 

manner on the basis of qualitative site knowledge, the resulting estimates of relative biological condition correspond well 

with site groups derived from combinations of environmental 

variables. These results also suggest that multimetric scoring and ranking of sites according to biological data derived 

from screening-level protocols, such as those used by KDHE 

for macroinvertebrates, provide a good measurement of the 

biological condition and relative quality of Johnson County 

streams. 

Even though a lack of within-site replication precluded 

discriminating between individual sites, results suggest that 

the combinations of macroinvertebrate metrics selected for this 

evaluation were effective in discriminating between groups 

of sites with similar degrees of human disturbance. Although 

aquatic-life status determined for the sites did not identify 

any that were fully supporting, one of the main goals was to 

determine site quality relative to other sites as a whole and to 

provide comparisons with the reference sites. The Captain 

Creek reference site (CA1) attained the highest average score 

for the four KDHE metrics (table 5), the highest value for the 

environmental effects score (table 9), and among the highest 

biological condition based on the 10-metric macroinvertebrate 

scores (table 9). Therefore, the upstream Kill Creek site (KI5) 

and the two upstream sites on the Blue River (sites BL3, BL5) 

can be considered similar to the reference site in biological quality even though they did not meet fully supporting 

aquatic-life status according to KDHE evaluation criteria. 

Least- and Most-Impacted Stream Sites

Both of the upstream Blue River sites in Johnson County 

(sites BL3, BL5) consistently scored among the least-impacted 

sites. Both sites are surrounded by primarily rural land use 

(rural land use 32 percent or less and percentage of impervious surface of 10 percent or less) and contain a large diversity 

of macroinvertebrates dominated by clean-water organisms. 

These sites had among the three highest values for EPTRich, 

TRich, and SWDI in both 2003 and 2004 (Appendix 3). 

These noteworthy results indicate that in Johnson County, 

there is a remaining segment of the Blue River system that 

has a biological condition comparable to sites with the lowest 

levels of human disturbance that were included in this study. 

Even though urban development has moved progressively 

upstream in this watershed over the last 20 years, these sites 

presently are located upstream from most urban development. 

The data also indicate that the Cedar and Kill Creek 

watersheds contain sampling sites that represent conditions 

similar to that of reference quality because some of these 

sites consistently ranked very close to the Captain Creek site 

(CA1). The upstream Kill Creek site (KI5) had the highest 

rank among all sites in Johnson County according to all the 

rating methods in 2003 and the second or third highest rank 

in 2004. In contrast, Johnson County sites on Indian Creek 

(sites IN3a, IN6) and downstream sites on the Blue River 

(site BL13) and Brush Creek (site BR12) in Missouri ranked 

among sites with the highest levels of biological impacts 

regardless of which rating method was used in the evaluation. 

These sites had very similar rankings among the different 

rating methods, with the Brush Creek site in Missouri being 

ranked most often as the lowest in biological quality. Turkey 

Creek (TU1) and Tomahawk Creek (TO2) sites also ranked 

among the lowest of the Johnson County sites according to 

multimetric macroinvertebrate scores in one or both years. 

All sites in Johnson County showed some level of 

impairment on the basis of their ability to support an acceptable level of aquatic life as defined in the KDHE assessment 

protocol for macroinvertebrate communities (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2000). Downstream sites 

on Indian (sites IN6, IN3a), Turkey (site TU1), and Tomahawk (site TO2) Creeks in Johnson County also have the 

lowest biological condition relative to other sites included 

in this study according to 10-metric scores and site ranks. 

The Indian Creek (IN6, IN3a) and Turkey Creek (TU1) sites 

also had among the highest levels of adverse environmental 

effects from known or suspected sources of contaminants 

(table 9). Previous studies have shown that, at many of these 

sites, a significant percentage of the total streamflow consists 

of large-volume municipal wastewater discharges and urban 

runoff (Lee and others, 2005). Combined sewer overflows, 

PAHs, high BODs (biochemical oxygen demands), and many 

potentially toxic compounds associated with urban stormwater 

runoff and municipal discharges have been documented at the 

Indian Creek and (or) downstream Blue River sites (Blevins, 

1986; Ryon and others, 2000; Wilkison and others, 2002, 

2006; Lee and others, 2005). 

Comparison to Downstream Sites in Missouri

Although the focus of this study was on sampling sites 

in Johnson County, Kansas, previously published data from 

the downstream seven sites in Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison 

and others, 2005, 2006) also were evaluated in some parts of 

this report because of the consistency in the sampling protocol and time period sampled, and their inclusion enabled a 

watershed-based evaluation with a continuum of impacts at 

sites related to urban and rural land use, and point and nonpoint-source runoff within selected watersheds in the southern 

part of the Kansas City metropolitan area (fig. 2, table 1). In 

addition, many of the assessment results can be strengthened 

by the inclusion of more than one reference stream site and a 

larger total number of sites. Methods used for enumeration 

42 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
of metrics for the seven Kansas and Missouri sites were the 

same as those used for the 15 Johnson County, Kansas, sites. 

The results of this study generally concur with relative site 

comparisons and identification of sites with the highest and 

lowest relative stream quality reported in Wilkison and others 

(2005, 2006).

The downstream Blue River sites and Brush Creek site 

in Missouri consistently scored among sites with the highest 

levels of biological impacts according to individual metric 

values and in multimetric scores. Similarly, all of the Blue 

River sites in Missouri, which are all downstream from one 

or more WWTF discharges (sites BL2b, BL7, BL8, BL13), 

scored and ranked lower than the two upstream Blue River 

sites in Johnson County (sites BL3, BL5). When Missouri 

sites were included in the site rankings, both intensely urbanized sites without WWTF discharges (site BR12) and the Blue 

River sites downstream from the confluence with Indian Creek 

(sites BL8, BL13) ranked among the most-impacted sites. The 

Missouri sites are affected by several WWTFs that discharge 

directly upstream from the Kansas State line (upstream from 

sites BL2b, BL7, and BL8). The most downstream Blue River 

site (BL13) has multiple potential sources of contaminants, 

including WWTF discharge from all upstream sources and 

tributaries, channelization for flood control, industrial discharges, and cumulative urban runoff, in addition to being 

located downstream from the confluence with Brush Creek 

(site BR12). All of the downstream Blue River sites were 

similar in ranks to the most-impacted Johnson County sites, 

including the two most downstream Indian Creek sites 

(IN3a, IN6), Tomahawk Creek (site TO2), and Turkey Creek 

(site TU1). In contrast, the upstream Blue River sites (BL3, 

BL5) in Johnson County, Kansas, ranked among the highest 

quality of sites that were included in this study, indicating 

clear upstream-to-downstream changes in biological condition 

within this watershed. This is also an indication that within 

the Blue River watershed, there is a potential for biological 

recovery of downstream Missouri segments if improvements 

in water quality and stream restoration techniques are implemented in the future. 

Evaluation of Metrics for Bioassessments in 

Urban Streams

In urban streams, response patterns for many macroinvertebrate metrics are poorly known. In this study, it was 

assumed that metrics often applied successfully in other 

regions of the United States would respond to changes in environmental variables that are related to urbanization. However, 

many of these metrics have not undergone rigorous validation procedures for use in evaluation of urban streams, and 

they have not been applied to data generated from particular 

types of sampling methods. When screening-level sampling 

protocols such as those used in this study are applied to a 

relatively small number of sites that are affected by a wide 

range of environmental variables, response patterns may not 

be readily detected.

The selection of metrics to be included in biological 

assessment studies is partly a subjective process, which can 

introduce uncertainty in evaluation results. These uncertainties may be greater when cumulative effects are involved, as 

is the case for urban streams. To increase the chance that an 

integrated score or rating system would accurately assess the 

relative quality of sites examined, a number of metrics were 

chosen that generated an expected biological response to 

amounts of human-induced stream degradation on the basis 

of existing site information. A similar situation exists for the 

selection of environmental variables that are the most important in explaining the biological results. Because the exact 

sources and causes of environmental effects are rarely known, 

the response expectations can only be inferred by available 

literature and the underlying assumptions associated with the 

numerous indicators used for stream-quality assessments.

In this study, clear response patterns were not evident in 

some commonly used metrics including percentage Chironomidae (%Chir), percentage COP (Cricotopus, Orthocladius, 

Paratrissocladius) midges (%COP), percentage filterers 

(%Fil), percentage filtering Trichoptera (%FT), and percentage dominant taxon (PDT). Other commonly reported 

macroinvertebrate metrics, such as %EPT, responded differently than expected, with higher values at some of the 

urban sites included in this study. In particular, the three 

downstream Blue River sites in Missouri (sites BL7, BL8, 

BL13) had %EPT values of 37 percent or higher in one or both 

years (fig. 20A). These sites have more than 50 percent urban 

land cover and greater than 18 percent impervious surface in 

addition to being located downstream from WWTF discharges 

(table 1). Even though %EPTs at these sites were among the 

highest percentages observed in this study, the pollutiontolerant caddisfly Cheumatopsyche spp. (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) accounted for 55 to 79 percent of EPT organisms 

in the samples (fig. 20B). The data from this study indicate 

that this metric may not be a good indicator for evaluating 

streams in urban landscapes especially when abundances 

of EPT taxa are dominated by one or two tolerant species. 

The dominance of tolerant filter-feeding Trichoptera species 

observed at some of the most impacted sites included in this 

study (fig. 20, Appendix 3) may result in high EPT abundances at sites in other urban areas as well. 

Several metrics included in this study appear to have 

strong potential as indicators of relative biological conditions 

and effects related to the degree of urbanization in Johnson 

County. All of the metrics except %Tany were significantly 

correlated with one or more land-use or water- or sedimentquality variables (table 6). The MBI and %Olig metrics 

responded well throughout the ranges in conditions that 

occurred among the sites. Both of these metrics also had the 

strongest correlations with some water- and sediment-quality 

variables, including total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and PAHs 

(table 6). However, neither MBI nor %Olig was significantly 

correlated with percentage of impervious surface or percentage 

Assessment of Biological Conditions 43
BR12

KI5

BL5

CA1

BL3

IN6

KI6b

CE1

CE6

IN1b

GR19

MI1

BI1

MI7

MI4

TO2

BL2b

TU1

BL13

BL7

BL8

IN3a

Rank in 10-metric macroinvertebrate scores

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

EPT abundance (%EPT) minus Cheumatopsyche spp.

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

EPT abundance (%EPT)

1

2

2003

2004

2

5

3

1

4

4

5

3

6

7

7

6

8

10

9

14

10

8

11

13

12

11

13

17

14

9

15

19

16

15

17

12

18

16

19

18

20

21

21

20

22

22

Sampling sites (fig. 2)

(A)

(B)

Urban site

Rural site

2003 data

2004 data

BL5

BL7

Sites identified in black analyzed for this study

Sites identified in blue analyzed in previous study

(Wilkison and others, 2005)

EXPLANATION

Figure 20. (A) EPT abundance (%EPT) and (B) EPT abundance (%EPT) minus the tolerant filter-feeding caddisfly 

Cheumatopsyche spp., and annual rankings in 10-metric site scores, for sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), 2003 and 2004. 

44 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
of agricultural land use. Even though the two taxa richness 

metrics (TRich, EPTRich) were significantly correlated with 

only two of the land-use variables during one of the sampling 

years (percentage impervious surface and percentage agricultural land use, 2004), they were selected for all three of the 

multimetric scoring solutions, and their inclusion as indicator 

metrics for biological assessment studies is widespread in the 

literature (Barbour and others, 1999). Furthermore, the information content that can be gathered from these two metrics as 

related to species presence or absence, species loss, and linkages to stream biodiversity make them important components 

in the evaluation of both rural and urban stream systems.

Individual metrics provide specific information on stream 

attributes and often are used as indicators for developing 

stream restoration guidelines or management goals. However, 

some metrics do not respond the same way in every watershed 

and stream type, or in regions outside the geographic area 

where they were originally developed. One example is the 

MBI goal of 4.5 or less for development of TMDLs in the Mill 

Creek watershed. This metric, which was originally developed 

in Illinois, relies on family-level tolerances of stream taxa, 

with values less than 4.51 indicating no adverse effects from 

excess nutrients or low dissolved oxygen levels (Davenport 

and Kelly, 1983). Kansas considers this metric appropriate 

for aquatic-life evaluations because Illinois has a very similar 

macroinvertebrate sampling protocol for evaluating stream 

quality. Even though this metric responded to relative stream 

conditions at Johnson County sites, it does not consider overall 

species diversity or effects on individual functional groups of 

macroinvertebrates. Specifically, some taxa included in the 

index (unionid mollusks, crayfish, non-insect invertebrates) 

may be less commonly encountered at smaller headwater 

stream sites, such as those upstream sites on Cedar, Kill, and 

Mill Creeks, thus affecting evaluation results. For this reason, 

the MBI goal of 4.5 or less may be an unrealistic guideline for 

developing TMDLs in some watersheds of Johnson County. 

An integrated score containing many metrics known to 

respond to environmental variables may be a better approach 

than relying on targets or goals for specific metrics.

Summary and Conclusions

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 

15 selected stream sites representing 11 different watersheds 

in Johnson County, Kansas, in 2003 and 2004. Data were 

collected to assess biological conditions as part of a larger 

study to characterize water quality of Johnson County streams 

and provide comprehensive information for municipalities in 

developing effective water-quality management plans. Comparable data from an additional seven sites (one in Johnson 

County, Kansas, and six in adjacent downstream Cass and 

Jackson Counties in Missouri), collected and analyzed as 

part of a separate study, also were evaluated. The results of 

this study can be used to develop water-quality management 

strategies and to establish current information for comparing 

future conditions and changes at individual sites and within 

the watersheds being studied. In addition, the data can help 

direct water-quality measures required by National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the State 

total maximum daily load (TMDL) program.

Relative biological conditions in Johnson County streams 

were evaluated by: (1) examining community composition 

and relative abundance of resident aquatic macroinvertebrate 

communities, (2) scoring, ranking, and grouping the sites 

using combinations of macroinvertebrate metrics, (3) describing statistical relations between macroinvertebrate results and 

environmental variables, (4) assigning stream sites to impairment categories on the basis of ability to support aquatic life, 

(5) evaluating the effects of urbanization on macroinvertebrate 

communities, (6) identifying sites with the lowest levels of 

biological impacts due to human disturbance, (7) comparing data from Johnson County sites to published data from 

selected downstream sites in Missouri, and (8) providing an 

initial evaluation of the suitability of additional macroinvertebrate metrics that have potential for bioassessments in urban 

streams. Samples were collected using Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment (KDHE) protocol. Individual metric 

values and various multimetric scores were evaluated. 

Values for 22 metrics resulting from both 2003 and 2004 

sampling periods were calculated. Ten of those metrics were 

selected for combination because they are used in the State 

water-quality assessment for determining aquatic-life-support 

status, they demonstrated a distinct visual response pattern 

among the sites, or they were chosen by statistical analysis 

as the best metrics for correctly placing sites into meaningful groups. Environmental data, including land-use data and 

water- and sediment-quality data, also were used in correlation analyses and principal component analysis to evaluate 

relations between macroinvertebrate metrics and variables that 

may affect them. An environmental effects score was developed to relate environmental variables to macroinvertebrate 

site scores. 

Among the three dominant orders of insects that normally are associated with streams (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, 

and Trichoptera; EPT), most sites contained abundances of 

between 10 and 50 percent of the total number of organisms, 

and the total number of taxa ranged from 0 to 11 species at 

all sites. In general, most of the rural sites included in this 

study contained a diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates, with 

good representation of the insect orders normally associated 

with healthy communities such as mayflies (Ephemeroptera), 

stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), dragonflies 

and damselflies (Odonata), and riffle beetles (Coleoptera: 

Elmidae). Several of the rural sites in Johnson County, including the reference site on Captain Creek, both Kill Creek sites, 

the two upstream Blue River sites, and the two Cedar Creek 

sites contained at least 23 taxa in 2003 and more than 40 taxa 

in 2004. In contrast, the more urban sites had none or very 

few EPT taxa and were dominated by pollution-tolerant organisms such as leeches [Hirudinea: Mooreobdella microstoma 

Summary and Conclusions 45
(Moore)], planarians (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria), Oligochaeta worms (Annelida: Oligochaeta), and midges in the 

Cricotopus and Orthocladius groups (Diptera: Chironomidae). 

These sites included the two Indian Creek sites downstream 

from discharges of municipal wastewater treatment facilities 

(WWTFs). 

Each sampling site in the study was evaluated on the 

basis of KDHE’s defined categories of aquatic-life support. 

The State evaluation used the average of four metric values—

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), Kansas Biotic Index 

(KBI–NO), EPT taxa richness (EPTRich), and EPT abundance 

(%EPT)—to score sites and place them into one of three support categories. Captain Creek (the State reference site) and 

the upstream sites on Cedar, Kill, and Mill Creeks were the 

only sites in Johnson County assigned scores indicating full 

support of aquatic-life use for any of the individual metrics in 

either sampling year. However, no sites had an average score 

that would have met the fully supporting category in 2003 or 

2004. Captain Creek had the highest average score of the four 

KDHE metrics in both 2003 and 2004, yet did not score high 

enough to fall into the fully supporting category. Ten of the 

16 Johnson County sites scored in the nonsupporting category 

for both years, and these included eight of the urban sites and 

six sites receiving wastewater discharge. Most rural sites were 

partially supporting, whereas most of the urban sites in Johnson County were assigned a nonsupporting status in one or 

both years. The data indicate that the EPTRich metric had the 

most negative effect on the aquatic-life-support status results.

Several water-quality variables were significantly correlated with macroinvertebrate community metrics. Variables 

associated with land use and nonpoint contamination [percentage impervious surface, percentage urban land, percentage 

agricultural land, total concentration of polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) in streambed sediment] generally had 

the strongest relations with 10-metric macroinvertebrate 

scores. Although point-source contributions may have substantial effects on the basis of proximity to the site, land use 

(and the corresponding nonpoint contributions) had the most 

substantial effect on overall macroinvertebrate communities in 

Johnson County.

The environmental effects score was calculated for 15 of 

the 16 Johnson County stream sites using data for percentage 

impervious surface, total nitrogen in stream water, and total 

PAHs in streambed sediment. The continuum in the amount 

of land-use-related adverse effects ranged from mostly urban 

sites negatively affected by wastewater treatment facility 

(WWTF) discharges, urban with no WWTF discharge, mixed 

urban and rural, rural with WWTF discharge, to rural sites. 

Sites less than 3 mi downstream from WWTF discharges (the 

two Indian Creek sites) and sites with no WWTF discharge but 

with large impervious surface areas (Tomahawk and Turkey 

Creeks) consistently scored and ranked among sites with the 

highest levels of biological impacts.

Results indicate that site rankings using environmental 

factors and the 10-metric site scores were strongly correlated, 

indicating that multimetric macroinvertebrate indices derived 

from screening-level protocols (KDHE) such as those used 

in this study can provide a meaningful measurement of site 

quality on the basis of the cumulative effects of multiple 

environmental variables. Similar sites were grouped together 

according to 10-metric scores and level of adverse environmental effects. Sites that consistently scored among those 

with the lowest levels of biological impacts included the two 

upstream Blue River sites, the two Cedar Creek sites, and the 

two Kill Creek sites, which demonstrated conditions similar to 

that of the State reference site on Captain Creek. In contrast, 

Johnson County sites on Indian Creek and downstream sites 

on the Blue River and Brush Creek in Missouri ranked among 

the most impacted. Turkey Creek in Johnson County also was 

grouped with the most-impacted sites. The diversity of macroinvertebrate communities, the levels of biological impacts, and 

the site rankings generated in this study generally reflected a 

gradient in the overall degree of adverse effects related to predominant land-use factors upstream from the sampling sites. 

Both of the upstream Blue River sites in Johnson County 

consistently scored among the highest quality sites even 

though KDHE aquatic-life-use support guidelines identified 

both sites as having some level of impairment. Both Blue 

River sites are still surrounded by primarily rural land use and 

contain a high diversity of macroinvertebrates dominated by 

clean-water organisms. These results indicate that in Johnson County there is a remaining segment of the Blue River 

system that has a biological condition comparable to the leastimpacted sites that were included in this study. Even though 

urban development has moved progressively upstream in this 

watershed over the last 20 years, these two sites presently are 

located upstream from most urban development. 

The downstream Blue River sites and Brush Creek site in 

Missouri consistently scored among sites with the highest levels of biological impacts based on individual metric values and 

multimetric scores. The Missouri sites are affected by several 

WWTF discharges that enter both directly downstream from 

the Kansas State line and through tributaries such as Indian 

Creek. The most downstream Blue River site in Missouri has 

multiple potential source of contaminants, including WWTF 

discharge from all upstream sources and tributaries, channelization for flood control, industrial discharges, and cumulative 

urban runoff, in addition to being located downstream from 

the confluence with Brush Creek.

In general, the different rating methods used to evaluate 

relative biological quality of sites in this study yielded similar 

ranks for most of the sites except the KDHE aquatic-life-use 

support method. The data indicated that an integrated macroinvertebrate score that includes appropriate metrics developed as a grading system for relative stream quality, although 

meaningless by itself, is a useful tool for measuring overall 

biological conditions for streams located in rapidly developing 

landscapes such as Johnson County, Kansas. Several individual metrics included in this study including MBI, KBI-NO, 

total taxa richness (TRich), and EPT richness (EPTRich) 

appear to have potential as indicators of relative biological 

impacts as related to changing environmental conditions and 

46  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
the degree of urbanization in Johnson County. Some commonly used metrics did not show a clear response pattern, 

including percentage Chironomidae (%Chir), percentage 

COP (Cricotopus, Orthocladius, Paratrissocladius) midges 

(%COP), percentage filterers (%Fil), percentage filtering Trichoptera (%FT), and percentage dominant taxon (PDT). One 

possible reason for this is that many commonly used macroinvertebrate metrics have not been subjected to validation or 

rigorous evaluation procedures for use in assessing effects 

on urban stream systems or for use with data generated from 

specific sampling protocols. 

References Cited

Arnold, C.A., and Gibbons, J.C., 1996, Impervious surface 

coverage—the emergence of a key environmental indicator: 

Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 22, no. 2, 

p. 243–257.

Barbour, M.T., Bowman, M.L., and White, J.S., 1994, Evaluation of the biological condition of streams in the middle 

rockies—Central Ecoregion: Prepared for Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, 36 p.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 

1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and 

wadeable rivers—periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, 

and fish (2d ed.): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Report, EPA 841/B–99/002, 18 p.

Barbour, M.T., Plafkin, J.L., Bradley, B.P., Graves, C.G., and 

Wisseman, R.W., 1992, Evaluation of EPA’s rapid bioassessment benthic metrics—metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 11, p. 437–449.

Barbour, M.T., Stribling, J.B., and Karr, J.R., 1995, Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring 

biological condition, in Davis, W.S., and Simon, T.P., eds., 

Biological assessment and criteria—tools for water resource 

planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis 

Publishers, chap. 6, p. 63–77.

Blevins, D.W., 1986, Quality of stormwater runoff in the Blue 

River basin, Missouri and Kansas, July–October 1981 and 

April–July 1982: U.S.Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 84–4226, 131 p.

Camargo, J.A., 1992, Macroinvertebrate responses along the 

recovery gradient of a regulated river (Spain) receiving an 

industrial effluent: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 23, p. 324–334.

Clausen, B., and Biggs, B.J., 1997, Relationship between benthic biota and hydrological indices in New Zealand streams: 

Freshwater Biology, v. 38, p. 327–342.

Cuffney, T.F., Zappia, Humbert, Giddings, E.M.P., and Coles, 

J.F., 2005, Urbanization effects on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in contrasting environmental settings—

Boston, Birmingham, and Salt Lake City, in Brown, L.R., 

Gray, R.H., Hughes, R.M., and Meador, M.R., eds., Effects 

of urbanization on stream ecosystems: Bethesda, Maryland, 

American Fisheries Society, Symposium XX, p. 361–407.

Davenport, T.E., and Kelly, M.H., 1983, Water resource data 

and preliminary trend analysis for the Highland Silver Lake 

Monitoring and Evaluation Project, Madison County, IL, 

phase II: Springfield, Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency, Report No. IEPA/WPC/83–013, variously paged.

Davies, S.P., and Jackson, S.K., 2006, The Biological Condition Gradient—a conceptual model for interpreting detrimental change in aquatic ecosystems: Information availableon Web, accessed June 10, 2006, at

http://www.ci.uri.edu/Projects/RIMonitoring/Docs/

DaviesJacksonBCG_MasterOct12’04.pdf

DeShon, J.E., 1995, Development and application of the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), in Davis, W.S., and Simon, 

T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria—tools for 

water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, 

Florida., Lewis Publishers, p. 217–243. 

Dodds, W.K., 2002, Freshwater ecology: San Diego, Academic Press, p. 69–111.

Draper, N.R., and Smith, H., 1998, Applied regression analysis 

(3d ed.): New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 706 p.

Feminella, J.W., 1996, Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams along a gradient of flow 

permanence: Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, v. 15, no. 4, p. 651–669.

Ferrington, L.C., 1987, Collection and identification of floating exuviae of Chironomidae for use in studies of surface 

water quality: Kansas City, Kansas, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region VII, SOP No. FW130A, 39 p.

Finkenbine, J.K., Atwater, J.W., and Mavinic, D.S., 2000, 

Stream health after urbanization: Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, v. 36, p. 1149–1160.

Fore, L.S., Karr, J.R., and Conquest, L.L., 1994, Statistical properties of an index of biological integrity used to 

evaluate water resources: Canada Journal of Fish Aquatic 

Science, v. 51, p. 1077–1087.

Frey, D.G., 1977, Biological integrity of water—an historical 

approach, in Ballentine, R.K., and Guarraia, L.J., eds., The 

integrity of water—a symposium: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, p. 127–140. 

References Cited 47
Giger, W., Brunner, P.H., and Schaffner, C., 1984, 4-Nonylphenol in sewage sludge—accumulation of toxic metabolites from non-ionic surfactants: Science, v. 225, p. 623–

625.

Giller, P.S., and Malmqvist, B., 1998, The biology of streams 

and rivers: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 215–244.

Gray, L., 2004, Changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate communities resulting from urban stormflows in the 

Provo River, Utah, U.S.A: Hydrobiologia, v. 518, no. 1–3, 

p. 33–46.

Hayslip, G.A., 1993, EPA Region 10 in-stream biological 

monitoring handbook (for wadeable streams in the Pacific 

Northwest): Seattle, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Environmental Services 

Division, EPA–910–9–92–013, variously paged.

Heaney, J.P., and Huber, W.C., 1984, Nationwide assessment 

of urban runoff on receiving water quality: Water Resources 

Bulletin, v. 20, p. 35–42.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier, 522 p.

Hem, J.D., 1992, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987, An improved biotic index of organic 

stream pollution: Great Lakes Entomology, v. 20, p. 31–39.

Huggins, D.G., and Moffett, M.F., 1988, Proposed biotic and 

habitat indices for use in Kansas streams: Lawrence, Kansas, Kansas Biological Survey Report 35, 183 p.

Johnson, D.E., 1998, Applied multivariate methods for data 

analysis: Pacific Grove, California, Brooks/Cole Publ. Co., 

567 p.

Johnson County, 2003, Park & Recreation District—park 

administration and history, Johnson County Kansas: 

Information available on Web, accessed November 2003, at 

http://jcprd.com/park_admin/history.cfm

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2000, Division of Environment, quality management plan, part III—

Stream Biological Monitoring Program, Quality Assurance 

Management Plan: Topeka, Kansas, Bureau of Environmental Field Services, Technical Services section, 42 p. 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2004, Kansas 

surface water quality standards: Topeka, Kansas, Kansas 

Register, article 28–16–28e, 10 p.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006a, 

Kansas-Lower Republican Basin total maximum daily load, 

waterbody—Mill Creek watershed, water quality impairment—biology: Information available on the Web, accessed 

October 10, 2006, at http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/2006/new_

mill_creek_bio_tmdl.pdf

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006b, Kansas water quality assessment, 305b report: Topeka, Kansas. 

20 p.

Karr, J.R., 1993, Defining and assessing ecological integrity—beyond water quality: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 12, p. 1521–1531.

Kerans, B.L., and Karr, J.R., 1994, A benthic index of biotic 

integrity (B–IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley: Ecology Applications, v. 4, no. 4, p. 768–785.

Klemm, D.J., Lewis, P.A., Fulk, F., and Lazorchak, J.M., 1990, 

Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring 

Series, USEPA–ORD, EPA/600/4–90/030, 256 p.

Kreis, R.G., Jr., 1988, Integrated study of exposure and biological effects of in-place sediment pollutants in the Detroit 

River, Michigan—an upper Great Lakes connecting channel: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, final report to 

the EPA Office of Research and Development, EPA ERLDuluth, Minn., and EPA LLRS-Grosse Ile, Mich., 153 p.

Lee, C.J., Mau, D.P., and Rasmussen, T.J., 2005, Effects 

of nonpoint and selected point contaminant sources on 

Johnson County streams, northeastern Kansas, October 

2002 through June 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005–5144, 186 p.

Lenat, D.L.,1983, Chironomid taxa richness—natural variation 

and use in pollution assessment: Freshwater Invertebrate 

Biology, v. 2, no. 4, p. 192–198.

Lenat, D.L., 1988, Water quality assessment of streams using 

a qualitative collection method for benthic invertebrates: 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 7, 

p. 222–233.

Lenat, D.L., 1993, A biotic index for the southeastern United 

States—derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria 

for assigning water-quality ratings—1993: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 12, p. 279–290.

Mahler, G.J., Van Metre, P.C., Bashara, T.J., Wilson, J.T., and 

Johns, D.A., 2005, Parking lot sealcoat—an unrecognized 

source of urban polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 39, no. 15, p. 5560–

5566.

48  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Masters, G.M., 1991, Introduction to environmental engineering and science: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice 

Hall, p. 110–111.

McMahon, G., and Cuffney, T.F., 2000, Quantifying urban 

intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological 

condition: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 36, no. 6, p. 1247–1261.

Meyer, A., and Meyer, E.I., 2000, Discharge regime and the 

effect of drying on macroinvertebrate communities in a 

temporary karst stream in Westphalia (Germany): Aquatic 

Sciences, v. 62, p. 216–231.

Mid-America Regional Council, 2002, Long-range forecast for the Kansas City metropolitan area, 2002: Information available on the Web, accessed December 17, 

2004, at http://www.metrodataline.org/Forecasts/

2002%20Long%Range%20Forecast.slx

Milner, A.M., and Oswood, M.W., 2000, Urbanization gradients in streams of Anchorage, Alaska—a comparison of 

multivariate and multimetric approaches to classification: 

Hydrobiologia, v. 422–23, p. 209–233.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2001a, Semiquantitative macroinvertebrate stream bioassessment project 

procedure: Jefferson City, Missouri, Division of Environmental Quality, Environmental Services Program, 37 p.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2001b, Biological criteria for wadeable perennial streams of Missouri: 

Jefferson City, Missouri, Air & Land Protection Division, 

Environmental Services Program, 22 p.

Moulton, S.R., II, Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, 

T.F., and Short, T.M., 2000, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic 

macroinvertebrate samples: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2000–212, 49 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1966–98, 

Climatological data annual summary—east-central Kansas: Asheville, North Carolina, National Weather Service 

Climatic Data Center, published monthly.

Paul, M.J., and Meyer, J.L., 2001, Streams in the urban landscape: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 32, 

p. 333–365.

Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and 

Hughes, R.M., 1989, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use 

in streams and rivers—benthis macroinvertebrates and fish: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA 440–4–89–

001, variously paged.

Poulton, B.C., Monda, D.P., Woodward, D.F., Wildhaber, 

M.L., and Brumbaugh, W.G., 1995, Relations between 

benthic community structure and metals concentrations in 

aquatic macroinvertebrates—Clark Fork River, Montana: 

Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 10, no. 3, p. 277–293.

Ryon, M.J., Stewart, A.J., Roy, W.K., Smith, J.G., Korte, N.E., 

and Stites, M., 2000, Habitat, water quality, and aquatic 

community assessment of Indian Creek and Blue River at 

the U.S. Department of Energy’s Kansas City Plant: Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Publication No. 5001, ORNL/TM–2000/79, 84 p. 

Schauer, J.J., Kleeman, M.J., Cass, G.R., and Simoneit, 

B.R.T., 2001, Measurement of emissions from air pollution 

sources, C1–C29 organic compounds from fireplace combustion of wood: Environmental Science and Technology, 

v. 35, p. 1716–1728.

Schauer, J.J., Kleeman, M.J., Cass, G.R., and Simoneit, 

B.R.T., 2002, Measurement of emissions from air pollution 

sources, C1–C32 organic compounds from gasolinepowered motor vehicles: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, p. 1169–1180.

Schloesser, D.W., Edsall, T.A., Manny, B.A., and Nichols, 

S.J., 1991, Distribution of Hexagenia nymphs and visible oil 

in sediments of the upper Great Lakes connecting channels: 

Hydrobiologia, v. 219, p. 345–352.

Schueler, T.R., 1994, The importance of imperviousness: 

Watershed Protection Technologies, v. 1, p. 100–111.

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic unit maps, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply 

Paper 2294, 47 p.

Seager, J., and Abrahams, R.G., 1990, The impact of storm 

sewage discharges on the ecology of a small urban river: 

Water Science Technology, v. 22, p. 163–171.

Shackleford, B., 1988, Rapid bioassessments of lotic macroinvertebrate communities—biocriteria development: Little 

Rock, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 44 p.

Simon, T.J., and Lyons, J., 1995, Application of the index 

of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in 

freshwater ecosystems, chap. 16 of Davis, W.S., and Simon, 

T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria—tools for 

water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, 

Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 245–262.

Soto, A.M., Justica, H., Wray, J.W., and Sonnenschein, C., 

1991, p-nonylphenol—an estrogenic xenobiotic released 

from “modified” polystyrene: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 92, p. 167–173.

References Cited 49
Southerland, M.T., and Stribling, J.B., 1995, Status of biological criteria development and implementation, in Davis, 

W.S., and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria—tools for water resource planning and decision making: 

Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 81–96.

Sprague, L.A., 2005, Drought effects on water quality in the 

South Platte River Basin, Colorado: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 41, no. 1, p. 11–24.

Stepenuck, K.F., Crunkilton, R.L., and Wang, L., 2002, 

Impacts of urban landuse on macroinvertebrate communities 

in southeastern Wisconsin streams: Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, v. 38, no. 4, p. 1041–1051.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, State and county quickfacts: Information available on the Web, accessed July 20, 2006, at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20000.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990, Biological criteria—national program guidance for surface waters: Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA–440/5–90–004, 57 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, The incidence 

and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters 

of the United States, volume 1—national sediment survey: 

Washington, D.C., Report 823–R–97–006, variously paged.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Preliminary data 

summary of urban storm water best management practices: 

Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA–821–R–99–012, 

49 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, Biological 

indicators of watershed health: Information available on 

the Web, accessed June 16, 2005, at http://www.epa.gov/

bioiweb1/index.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, Biological 

Condition Gradient: Information available on Web, accessed 

July 18, 2006, at http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/

bcg.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, The National Map: Information 

available on the Web, accessed April 23, 2007, at 

http://nationalmap.gov/

VanMetre, P.C., Mahler, B.J., and Furlong, E.T., 2000, Urban 

sprawl leaves its PAH signature: Environmental Science and 

Technology, v. 34, no. 19, p. 4064–4070.

Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., Bunnerman, R., and Emmons, 

E., 2000, Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams: Journal of the 

American Waterworks Research Association, v. 36, no. 5, 

p. 1173–1189.

Washington, H.G., 1984, Diversity, biotic and similarity 

indices—a review with special reference to aquatic systems: 

Water Resources, v. 18, no. 6, p. 653–694.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., and Blevins, D.W., 2002, 

Effects of wastewater and combined sewer overflows on 

water quality in the Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri 

and Kansas, July 1998–October 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4107, 162 p.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., Brown, R.E., Poulton, B.C., 

Cahill, J.D., and Zaugg, S.D., 2005, Water-quality and 

biologic data for the Blue River Basin, Kansas City metropolitan area, Missouri and Kansas, October 2000 to October 

2004: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 127, 158 p.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., Norman, R.D, Poulton, B.C., 

Furlong, E.T., and Zaugg, S.D., 2006, Water-quality in the 

Blue River Basin, Kansas City metropolitan area, Missouri 

and Kansas, July 1998 to October 2004: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5147, 170 p.

Yoder, C.O., and Rankin, E.T., 1995, Biological response 

signatures and the area of degradation value—new tools for 

interpreting multimetric data, in Davis, W.S., and Simon, 

T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria—tools for 

water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, 

Florida, Lewis Publishers, chap. 17, p. 263–286.

Yunker, M.B., Macdonald, R.W., Vingarzan, R., Mitchell, 

R.H., Goyette, D., and Sylvestre, S., 2002, PAHs in the 

Fraser River basin—a critical appraisal of PAH ratios as 

indicators of PAH source and composition: Organic Geochemistry, v. 33, p. 489–515.

50 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Appendixes

Appendixes  51
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.

[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae -- Hydra Hydra sp.Platyhelminthes Turbellaria -- -- -- -- TurbellariaNematoda -- -- -- -- -- NematodaNematomorpha Gordioida -- -- -- -- GordioidaBryozoa -- -- -- -- -- BryozoaMollusca Gastropoda -- -- -- -- GastropodaMollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae -- -- HydrobiidaeMollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae -- -- AncylidaeMollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae -- Ferrissia Ferrissia sp.Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Lymnaeidae Lymnaeinae Fossariad Fossaria sp.Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physinae Physa Physa sp.Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physinae Physella Physella sp.Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae -- -- PlanorbidaeMollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae -- Gyraulus Gyraulus sp.Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae -- Micromenetus Micromenetus dilatatus (Gould)Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae -- Planorbella Planorbella sp.Mollusca Bivalvia -- -- -- -- BivalviaMollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae -- Corbicula Corbicula sp.Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae -- -- SphaeriidaeMollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidiinae Pisidium Pisidium sp.Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriinae Musculium Musculium sp.Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriinae Sphaerium Sphaerium sp.Annelida Oligochaeta -- -- -- -- MegadrileAnnelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae -- -- LumbriculidaeAnnelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae -- -- NaididaeAnnelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae -- Dero Dero sp.Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae -- -- TubificidaeAnnelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae -- Branchiura Branchiura sowerbyi (Beddard)Annelida Oligochaeta Enchytraeida Enchytraeidae -- -- EnchytraeidaeAnnelida Hirudinea -- -- -- -- Hirudinea

52 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—

Continued[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae -- Helobdella Helobdella sp.Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae -- Helobdella Helobdella stagnalis (Linnaeus)Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae -- Placobdella Placobdella rnate (Verrill)Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Piscicolidae -- -- PiscicolidaeAnnelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae -- -- ErpobdellidaeAnnelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae -- -- Mooreobdella microstoma (Moore)Arthropoda Arachnida -- -- -- -- AcariArthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae -- -- CambaridaeArthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarinae Orconectes Orconectes sp.Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae -- Caecidotea Caecidotea sp.Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae -- Lirceus Lirceus sp.Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae -- Crangonyx Crangonyx sp.Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Hyalellidae -- Hyalella Hyalella azteca (Saussure)Arthropoda Insecta Collembola -- -- -- CollembolaArthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae -- Leptophlebia Leptophlebia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae -- Hexagenia Hexagenia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae -- Caenis Caenis sp.Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae -- Tricorythodes Tricorythodes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae -- Acerpenna Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen)Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae -- Baetis Baetis intercalaris McDunnoughArthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae -- Fallceon Fallceon quilleri (Dodds)Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae -- -- HeptageniidaeArthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae -- Stenacron Stenacron sp.Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae -- Stenacron Stenacron interpunctatum (Say)Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae -- Stenonema Stenonema sp.Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae -- Stenonema Stenonema femoratum (Say)Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae -- Stenonema Stenonema terminatum (Walsh)Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae -- Calopteryx Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois)Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae -- Hetaerina Hetaerina americana (Fabricius)Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- -- Coenagrionidae

Appendix 1  53
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—

Continued[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- Argia Argia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- Argia Argia apicalis (Say)Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- Argia Argia plana CalvertArthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- Argia Argia translata HagenArthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- Enallagma Enallagma sp.Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae -- Ischnura Ischnura sp.Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae -- Basiaeschna Basiaeschna janata (Say)Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae -- Nasiaeschna Nasiaeschna pentacantha (Rambur)Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae -- Epitheca Epitheca princeps HagenArthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae -- Somatochlora Somatochlora sp.Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Libellulidae -- -- LibellulidaeArthropoda Insecta Odonata Libellulidae -- Libellula Libellula sp.Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Libellulidae -- Plathemis Plathemis lydia (Drury)Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Capniidae Capniinae Allocapnia Allocapnia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Capniidae Capniinae Allocapnia Allocapnia vivipara (Claassen)Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae -- -- PerlidaeArthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae -- Perlesta Perlesta sp.Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae -- -- PerlodidaeArthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperlinae Isoperla Isoperla sp.Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Belostomatidae Belostomatinae Belostoma Belostoma flumineum (Say)Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Corixinae Palmacorixa Palmacorixa sp. Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Corixinae Sigara Sigara sp.Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Corixinae Trichocorixa Trichocorixa sp.Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Gerrinae Aquarius Aquarius sp.Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Notonectidae -- Notonecta Notonecta sp.Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae -- Ranatra Ranatra nigra Herrich-SchaefferArthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus Corydalus cornutus (Linnaeus)Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Sialidae -- Sialis Sialis sp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila Hydroptila sp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae -- Rhyacophila Rhyacophila sp.

54 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—

Continued[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae -- Rhyacophila Rhyacophila lobifera BettenArthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche spp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche sp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche betteni RossArthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropodinae -- Cernotina/Polycentropus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Phryganeidae Phryganeinae Ptilostomis Ptilostomis sp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae Limnephilinae Pycnopsyche Pycnopsyche sp.Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Helicopsychidae -- Helicopsyche Helicopsyche borealis (Hagen)Arthropoda Insecta Lepidoptera -- -- -- LepidopteraArthropoda Insecta Coleoptera -- -- -- ColeopteraArthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae -- -- CarabidaeArthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Colymbetinae Agabus Agabus sp. 1Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Colymbetinae Agabus Agabus sp. 2Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporinae -- Hydroporini sp. 1Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporinae -- Hydroporini sp. 2Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Neoporus Neoporus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae -- Dineutus Dineutus assimilis (Kirby)Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae -- Gyrinus Gyrinus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Haliplidae -- Peltodytes Peltodytes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae -- -- StaphylinidaeArthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae -- Cymbiodyta Cymbiodyta sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae -- Enochrus Enochrus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae -- Tropisternus Tropisternus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae -- Tropisternus Tropisternus lateralis (Fabricus)Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Scirtidae -- -- ScirtidaeArthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae -- Helichus Helichus basalis LeConteArthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae -- Helichus Helichus lithophilus (Germar)Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae -- Dubiraphia Dubiraphia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae -- Stenelmis Stenelmis sp. 1Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae -- Stenelmis Stenelmis sp. 2

Appendix 1  55
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—

Continued[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae -- Stenelmis Stenelmis sexlineata SandersonArthropoda Insecta Diptera -- -- -- NematoceraArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae -- -- Chironomidae sp. AArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae -- -- Chironomidae sp. BArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae -- ChironominaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae -- ChironominiArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae -- Phaenopsectra/Tribelos sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Axarus Axarus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomus Chironomus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Cryptotendipes Cryptotendipes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Microtendipes Microtendipes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paralauterborniella Paralauterborniella nigrohalterale (Malloch)Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Parachironomus Parachironomus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paracladopelma Paracladopelma sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paratendipes Paratendipes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Polypedilum Polypedilum sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Stictochironomus Stictochironomus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Tribelos Tribelos sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Pseudochironomus Pseudochironomus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae -- TanytarsiniArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae -- Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Micropsectra Micropsectra sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus sp.

56  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—

Continued[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesinae Diamesa Diamesa sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae -- OrthocladiinaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae -- Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Corynoneura Corynoneura sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus Cricotopus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus Cricotopus bicinctus group sp. 1Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus Cricotopus bicinctus group sp. 2Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus Cricotopus (Isocladius) sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Diplocladius Diplocladius cultriger KiefferArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Limnophyes Limnophyes sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Nanocladius Nanocladius sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Parakiefferiella Parakiefferiella sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Paraphaenocladius Paraphaenocladius sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Paratrichocladius Paratrichocladius sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Psectrocladius Psectrocladius sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella Thienemanniella sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Tvetenia Tvetenia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae -- TanypodinaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Natarsia Natarsia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae -- PentaneuriniArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae -- Thienemannimyia gp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Procladius Procladius sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae -- -- SimuliidaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae -- Simulium Simulium sp. 1

Appendix 1  57
Appendix 1. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—

Continued[--, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxa reported as

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae -- Simulium Simulium sp. 2Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae -- -- TipulidaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipulinae Tipula Tipula sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Limoniinae Hexatoma Hexatoma sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera -- -- -- BrachyceraArthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae -- -- EmpididaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae Clinocerinae Clinocera Clinocera sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Stratiomyidae Stratiomyinae Stratiomys Stratiomys sp.Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tabanidae -- -- TabanidaeArthropoda Insecta Diptera Tabanidae -- Tabanus Tabanus sp.

58  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Appendix 2. List of the four most dominant macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.

Site identifier 

(fig. 2) Stream site

Four most dominant taxa

2003

Kansas

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) Caenis sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp.BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road Hyalella azteca, Caenis sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp. IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. Turbellaria, Musculium sp., Naididae, Mooreobdella microstomaIN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road Naididae, Cheumatopsyche spp., Chironomus sp., Cricotopus bicinctusTO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street Stenacron sp., Argia sp., Cheumatosyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Thienemannimyia gp.MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street Stenacron sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Thienemannimyia gp.MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane Physella sp., Corbicula sp., Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp.MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp.CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 Lirceus sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp.CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) Stenacron sp., Stenonema sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street Stenonema sp., Allocapnia sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp.KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street Tubificidae, Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp., Simulium sp.BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road Stenacron sp., Argia sp., Cheumatosyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street Fossaria sp., Allocapnia sp., Stenelmis sp., Hydrobaenus sp.

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension Physella sp., Stenacron sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) Stenacron sp., Argia sp., Cheumatosyche spp, Hydrobaenus sp.BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway Corbicula sp., Stenacron sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Simulium sp.BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive Corbicula sp., Naididae, Stenacron sp., Cheumatopsyche spp.IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 Physella sp., Calopteryx sp., Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp.BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue Physella sp., Naididae, Helobdella sp., Glyptotendipes sp.GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman Stenacron sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Simulium sp.

Appendix 2  59
Appendix 2. List of the four most dominant macroinvertebrate taxa collected at stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson 

Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004.—Continued

Site identifier 

(fig. 2) Stream site

Four most dominant taxa

2004

Kansas

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) Stenacron sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Simulium sp.BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road Crangonyx sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Simulium sp.IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. Turbellaria, Naididae, Mooreobdella microstoma, Argia sp.IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road Naididae, Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Cricotopus bicinctusTO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Thienemannimyia gp., Simulium sp.TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street Physa sp., Morreobdella microstoma, Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Thienemannimyia gp.MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street Argia sp., Ischnura sp., Thienemannimyia gp., Simulium sp.MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane Naididae, Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive Hyalella azteca, Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp., Simulium sp.CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) Physa sp., Stenacron sp., Argia sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street Physa sp., Caenis sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street Stenacron sp., Stenonema sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Simulium sp.BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road Stenacron sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Hydrobaenus sp., Thienemannimyia gp.CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street Leptophlebia sp., Stenonema sp., Allocapnia sp., Hydrobaenus sp.

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension Naididae, Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) Tubificidae, Morreobdella microstoma, Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp.BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway Stenacron sp., Argia sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive Corbicula sp., Stenacron sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Chironomus sp.IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 Physella sp., Morreobdella microstoma, Chironomus sp., Thienemannimyia gp.BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue Physa sp., Naididae, Tubificidae, Chironomus sp.GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman Stenonema sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp., Simulium sp.

60 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Appendix 3. Macroinvertebrate metric values for 15 stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 7 selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 

2005), calculated for 2003 and 2004.[MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index; EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; COP, Cricotopus, Orthocladius, and Paratrissocladius; <, less than]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

Stream site

General 

land classification1

Benthic macroinvertebrate metric value

MBI KBI–NO EPT taxa richness EPT abundance (percent) Total taxa rich- ness

2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004

Kansas

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) Rural 5.47 5.22 2.71 2.68 6 9 24.7 32.8 42 56BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road Rural 5.27 5.36 2.78 2.84 7 10 26.5 32.0 47 52IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. Urban 7.17 7.14 2.79 2.80 2 1 1.6 1.0 20 22IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road Urban 7.68 8.12 3.76 3.50 1 2 12.0 7.0 24 26TO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street Urban 5.72 6.10 3.29 3.38 5 2 19.9 12.1 29 25TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street Urban 5.94 6.44 3.19 3.35 3 2 14.2 3.8 24 29MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street Urban 4.71 5.98 3.32 2.94 4 3 53.0 2.8 24 22MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane Urban 5.46 6.27 2.36 3.32 6 5 27.0 22.8 21 22MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive Urban 5.83 5.77 3.17 3.21 5 5 22.3 23.1 35 30CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 Rural 5.02 5.43 2.35 2.50 4 8 35.9 30.0 23 47CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) Rural 5.55 6.00 3.10 3.10 6 7 31.2 17.6 40 50KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street Rural 4.87 5.49 2.42 2.85 4 9 36.7 26.5 29 47KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street Rural 5.83 5.15 2.90 2.81 6 7 11.8 35.6 36 46BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road Rural 5.34 5.71 3.14 3.11 5 4 30.0 26.5 28 28CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street Rural 4.02 4.98 1.61 2.23 3 11 47.7 36.5 24 55

Kansas and Missouri Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension Urban 5.36 6.12 3.17 3.19 6 4 45.5 20.6 29 37BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) Urban 5.68 6.71 2.91 2.92 4 3 37.1 19.9 23 22BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway Urban 5.08 5.26 2.95 3.40 2 3 53.1 46.4 22 23BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive Urban 5.70 7.11 3.23 3.74 2 4 47.5 26.9 21 26IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 Urban 6.18 6.68 2.70 3.25 5 4 17.6 8.0 25 34BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue Urban 7.88 9.16 4.55 4.50 0 0 0 0 20 17GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman Rural 5.51 5.57 3.04 3.14 5 7 30.2 31.6 28 35

Appendix 3  61
62 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri Appendix 3. Macroinvertebrate metric values for 15 stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 7 selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), calculated for 2003 and 2004.—Continued [MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index; EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; COP, Cricotopus, Orthocladius, and Paratrissocladius; <, less than] Site identi- fier (fig. 2) Stream site Benthic macroinvertebrate metric value Chironomidae taxa richness Percentage of Chironomidae Percentage of filterers Percentage of scrapers Ratio of abundances EPT/Chironomidae 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Kansas BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) 8 15 33.8 29.2 7.1 13.0 29.8 15.8 0.7 1.1 BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road 15 18 34.6 34.0 12.8 15.2 24.8 18.4 .8 .9 IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. 6 6 6.1 13.0 12.6 9.6 1.6 1.4 .3 .1 IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road 9 11 44.2 29.4 16.7 11.3 5.2 4.9 .3 .2 TO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street 11 9 48.5 52.8 16.0 25.1 7.4 3.0 .4 .2 TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street 7 11 54.1 56.7 15.0 4.3 7.3 12.5 .3 .1 MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street 10 10 29.7 40.5 10.4 14.0 10.8 2.8 1.8 .1 MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane 2 8 4.5 43.6 26.6 25.3 16.2 9.5 6.0 .5 MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive 14 11 49.6 40.7 12.9 22.6 18.8 11.8 .4 .6 CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 7 18 27.6 32.7 6.9 14.8 41.9 28.3 1.3 .9 CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) 12 19 35.7 38.2 19.0 12.6 19.0 12.2 .9 .5 KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street 14 15 46.4 38.0 10.1 12.7 38.3 17.1 .8 .7 KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street 9 13 48.6 25.8 15.9 21.2 26.4 21.2 .2 1.4 BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road 10 11 26.8 45.1 22.2 20.4 12.1 22.6 1.1 .6 CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street 3 17 24.8 26.1 4.7 9.5 23.4 23.7 1.9 1.4 Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005) BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension 5 16 21.2 40.9 21.2 19.8 21.6 13.5 2.1 .5 BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) 7 10 24.9 25.3 31.8 21.5 14.3 8.6 1.5 .8 BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway 10 10 17.9 21.1 55.8 29.4 6.3 1.0 3.0 2.2 BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive 6 11 11.0 42.3 54.2 27.5 3.4 2.2 4.3 .6 IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 7 11 16.2 35.7 10.6 20.1 27.3 12.6 1.1 .2 BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue 6 7 35.9 29.8 2.5 4.6 9.6 7.3 0 0 GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman 8 13 23.6 31.6 41.7 35.2 13.2 11.9 1.3 1.0
Appendix 3. Macroinvertebrate metric values for 15 stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 7 selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 

2005), calculated for 2003 and 2004.—Continued[MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index; EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; COP, Cricotopus, Orthocladius, and Paratrissocladius; <, less than]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

Stream site

Benthic macroinvertebrate metric value

Ratio of 

abundances of 

scrapers/

filterers

Percentage of COP 

midges

Percentage of 

Oligochaeta

Ratio of abundances EPT/Oligochaeta Percentage of Ephemeroptera

2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004

Kansas

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) 4.2 1.2 8.6 10.3 3.0 2.8 8.2 11.9 20.7 20.2

BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road 1.9 1.2 12.4 12.7 2.6 1.6 10.3 19.5 24.4 23.0IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. .1 .1 .3 8.9 40.0 29.8 0 0 .3 0IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road .3 .4 0 20.2 20.6 44.7 .6 .2 0 .3TO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street .5 .1 28.1 32.7 2.2 2.0 9.2 6.0 10.8 .5TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street .5 2.9 23.2 26.4 2.8 2.4 5.0 1.6 .4 0MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street 1.0 .2 7.6 3.3 1.6 4.2 33.0 .7 50.2 2.3MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane .6 .4 0 34.9 .5 10.0 60.0 2.3 2.7 1.7MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive 1.5 .5 32.8 27.1 5.9 4.1 3.8 5.7 12.1 8.1CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 6.1 1.9 12.4 7.2 0 .9 0 33.5 25.3 16.6CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) 1.0 1.0 19.0 20.2 4.1 5.0 7.6 3.5 19.0 9.9KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street 3.8 1.4 18.1 15.9 1.2 2.9 30.3 9.3 20.6 19.2KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street 1.7 1.0 25.0 10.2 5.0 3.8 2.4 9.3 7.3 25.8BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road .5 1.1 16.7 11.9 .8 1.3 38.5 20.0 19.5 19.5CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street 5.0 2.5 3.7 3.7 4.2 6.2 11.3 5.9 .5 14.9

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension 1.0 .7 16.7 16.3 1.4 8.7 33.7 2.4 28.8 7.5BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) .4 .4 7.3 10.2 7.8 15.6 4.8 1.3 11.8 6.5BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway .1 0 .9 8.2 1.3 3.6 39.7 12.9 13.8 29.4BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive .1 .1 4.2 3.3 11.9 9.9 4.0 2.7 11.9 12.6IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 2.6 .6 5.1 4.0 1.4 1.5 12.7 5.3 8.8 2.0BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue 3.9 1.6 0 4.0 31.7 48.7 0 0 14.1 14.7GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman .3 .3 14.5 21.3 1.2 2.5 24.3 12.8 14.0 15.0

Appendix 3  63
64 Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri Appendix 3. Macroinvertebrate metric values for 15 stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 7 selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), calculated for 2003 and 2004.—Continued [MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index; EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; COP, Cricotopus, Orthocladius, and Paratrissocladius; <, less than] Site identifier (fig. 2) Stream site Benthic macroinvertebrate metric value Percentage of filtering Trichoptera Percentage of Tanytarsini midges Percentage of intolerant organisms (MBI<6) Percentage of intolerant organ- isms (KBI<3) Percentage of dominant taxon 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Kansas BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) 0 4.3 0 0.8 47.5 53.2 55.3 43.2 15.7 8.7 BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road 1.3 4.1 .4 .8 48.9 47.2 41.7 40.6 15.4 12.7 IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. 1.3 1.0 0 0 45.0 41.4 35.7 44.1 38.1 28.1 IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road 12.0 6.7 0 .3 19.2 12.9 10.3 13.4 24.5 39.1 TO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street 9.1 11.6 .4 0 36.7 28.1 21.1 13.4 28.1 25.1 TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street 13.8 3.8 .4 0 32.9 21.2 14.7 12.5 25.2 22.6 MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street 2.8 .5 1.2 1.4 60.5 42.3 17.8 29.2 39.8 16.7 MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane 18.5 21.2 0 0 84.0 34.9 64.7 15.2 43.2 34.4 MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive 10.2 14.9 0 1.4 37.3 41.8 32.0 17.0 32.8 27.1 CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 0 3.6 .5 1.8 56.0 46.6 65.9 49.5 23.5 13.0 CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) 12.3 6.1 1.1 3.8 45.9 36.3 27.4 28.1 19.0 20.2 KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street 0 2.0 1.6 6.5 39.8 43.4 60.2 30.1 20.6 15.1 KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street 0 4.2 1.4 .4 21.4 50.7 37.8 44.6 25.0 12.7 BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road 10.5 7.1 .8 3.5 55.1 35.7 25.1 24.7 16.7 11.9 CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street 0 4.6 .9 .4 58.6 55.0 87.9 66.2 46.3 10.8 Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005) BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension 16.7 13.1 .9 1.6 60.1 34.1 26.7 20.0 18.5 15.9 BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) 25.3 13.4 0 0 56.0 40.0 35.4 40.0 21.2 16.7 BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway 39.3 16.5 .4 3.1 66.2 61.2 19.5 11.8 39.3 29.4 BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive 35.6 14.3 0 .6 66.3 36.1 9.1 8.9 35.6 23.6 IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 8.8 5.5 .5 .5 54.3 30.3 48.4 14.8 21.3 14.1 BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue 0 0 0 0 8.2 2.7 .8 0 31.3 35.1 GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman 16.9 12.3 0 2.9 43.3 39.7 21.2 20.8 19.4 20.9
Appendix 3. Macroinvertebrate metric values for 15 stream-sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and 7 selected 

sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), calculated for 2003 and 2004.—Continued[MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; KBI–NO, Kansas Biotic Index; EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; COP, Cricotopus, Orthocladius, and Paratrissocladius; <, less than]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

Stream site

Benthic macroinvertebrate metric value

Percentage of EP Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index

2003 2004 2003 2004

Kansas

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) 21.2 23.7 3.3 3.6BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road 25.2 26.2 3.3 3.4IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd. .3 0 1.9 2.3IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road 0 .3 2.4 2.2

TO2 Tomahawk Creek near 111th Street 10.8 .5 2.7 2.6TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street .4 0 2.3 2.5MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street 50.2 2.3 2.1 2.5

MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane 2.7 1.7 2.0 2.2MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive 12.1 8.1 2.6 2.7CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 32.3 21.1 2.4 3.3CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) 19.0 10.3 3.0 3.3

KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street 36.7 24.5 2.5 3.4KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street 11.4 31.4 2.7 3.3BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road 19.5 19.5 2.7 2.9

CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street 47.7 29.5 2.0 3.5

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b Blue River at Blue Ridge Blvd Extension 28.8 7.5 2.6 3.0BL7 Blue River near Kansas City, MO (Bannister Road) 11.8 6.5 2.7 2.6

BL8 Blue River at Blue Parkway 13.8 29.4 2.2 2.5BL13 Blue River at Stadium Drive 11.9 12.6 2.2 2.6IN1b Indian Creek at Highway 69 8.8 2.0 2.6 3.0

BR12 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue 0 0 2.0 2.1GR19 South Fork Grand River near Freeman 12.0 18.9 2.7 2.8

1Urban sites have greater than 32 percent urban land use and greater than 10 percent impervious surface.

Appendix 3  65
66  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri

Appendix 4. Sampling-site rankings based on proportional scaling of metric values for three multimetric combinations in 2003 and 2004, for 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005).

[n, number of sites; --, not applicable]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

2003 site rankings 2004 site rankings

Johnson County sampling 

sites (n = 15) All sampling sites (n = 22) Johnson County sampling sites (n = 15) All sampling sites (n = 22)

5-metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

5-metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

5-

metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

5-

metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

Kansas

BL3 3 2 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 5 4

BL5 2 4 2 2 4 2 5 4 5 5 4 5

IN3a 14 14 14 19 20 21 12 13 14 18 18 20

IN6 15 15 15 21 21 20 14 14 15 20 19 21

TO2 12 12 12 14 14 15 15 15 13 21 22 19

TU1 13 13 13 17 17 18 9 9 11 10 11 16

MI1 11 11 8 12 13 9 11 12 10 15 16 14

MI4 10 9 10 13 12 13 13 11 12 17 15 17

MI7 8 8 11 10 10 12 10 10 9 12 12 11

CE1 7 3 5 7 2 5 3 2 2 3 2 3

CE6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7

KI5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 2

KI6b 4 5 7 4 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 6

BI1 9 10 9 11 11 10 8 8 8 9 8 8

CA1 5 6 3 5 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b -- -- -- 8 9 8 -- -- -- 11 10 10

BL7 -- -- -- 16 16 16 -- -- -- 14 14 15

BL8 -- -- -- 18 18 17 -- -- -- 16 17 12

BL13 -- -- -- 22 22 19 -- -- -- 19 20 18

IN1b -- -- -- 9 8 11 -- -- -- 13 13 13

BR12 -- -- -- 20 19 22 -- -- -- 22 21 22

GR19 -- -- -- 15 15 14 -- -- -- 8 9 9
Appendix 5. Sampling-site rankings based on percentile site scoring for three multimetric combinations in 2003 and 2004 for sites in Johnson 

County, Kansas, and selected sites in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005).

[n, number of sites; --, not applicable]

Site 

identifier

(fig. 2)

2003 site rankings 2004 site rankings

Johnson County sampling 

sites (n = 15)

All sampling sites 

(n = 22)

Johnson County sampling 

sites (n = 15)

All sampling sites 

(n = 22)

5-metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

5-metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

5-

metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

5-metric 

combination

6-

metric 

combination

10-

metric 

combination

Kansas

BL3 3 2.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 4 3.5 4 2.5 3.5 4.5 2

BL5 3 2.5 2 5.5 6.5 2 5.5 4 2.5 5.5 4.5 2

IN3a 14.5 14.5 14.5 19.5 19.5 19 12 12 11.5 20 20.5 20

IN6 14.5 14.5 14.5 21 21 21 13.5 13.5 15 17 16 21

TO2 11.5 12 11.5 12.5 13.5 15 15 15 13 22 22 18

TU1 13 13 13 16 17 18 10.5 10 11.5 14 13 15

MI1 9 10 9.5 12.5 12 12.5 10.5 11 10 14 16 14

MI4 9 8.5 9.5 14 13.5 12.5 13.5 13.5 14 17 16 18

MI7 9 8.5 11.5 11 10.5 12.5 9 9 9 10.5 11.5 10

CE1 7 6.5 3.5 9.5 9 4 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1 2

CE6 3 5 5 2.5 3.5 6.5 5.5 7 8 5.5 6.5 8

KI5 3 2.5 1 2.5 2 1 3.5 4 6 1.5 2.5 5.5

KI6b 3 2.5 6 1 1 4 7.5 7 5 7 6.5 5.5

BI1 11.5 11 8 9.5 10.5 8.5 7.5 7 7 8.5 8 7

CA1 6 6.5 7 5.5 6.5 8.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 4

Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005)

BL2b -- -- -- 5.5 6.5 6.5 -- -- -- 10.5 9.5 11.5

BL7 -- -- -- 16 15.5 17 -- -- -- 17 16 16

BL8 -- -- -- 19.5 19.5 16 -- -- -- 14 16 13

BL13 -- -- -- 22 22 20 -- -- -- 20 20.5 18

IN1b -- -- -- 8 6.5 10 -- -- -- 12 11.5 11.5

BR12 -- -- -- 18 18 22 -- -- -- 20 19 22

GR19 -- -- -- 16 15.5 12.5 -- -- -- 8.5 9.5 9

Appendix 5  67
Appendix 6. Environmental variables used to develop environmental effects scores for 15 sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas, 2003 and 

2004.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; μg/mg, micrograms per milligram; <, less than]

Site 

identifier 

(fig. 2)

Stream and location

Impervious 

surface 

(percent)

Impervious 

surface, 

proportionally 

scaled

Total 

nitrogen 

in water 

samples 

(mg/L)1

Total 

nitrogen, 

proportionally 

scaled

Total 

PAHs in 

sediment 

samples 

(μg/mg)1

Total 

PAHs, 

proportionally 

scaled

Environmental 

effects 

score

BL3 Blue River near Stanley (Highway 69) 3.1 96.1 0.57 96.1 11 99.9 292

BL5 Blue River at Kenneth Road 3.5 95.0 .59 95.9 30 99.7 291

IN3a Indian Creek at College Blvd 28.7 26.9 14 1.0 8,270 17.4 45

IN6 Indian Creek at State Line Road 27.6 29.9 13 13.8 9,917 1.0 45

TO2 Tomahawk Creek at 111th Street 21.6 46.3 1.3 91.2 5,127 48.8 186

TU1 Turkey Creek at 67th Street 38.3 1.0 .90 93.8 2,463 75.4 170

MI1 Mill Creek at 127th Street 34.2 12.1 .82 94.4 2,134 78.7 185

MI4 Mill Creek at 87th Street Lane 20.9 48.0 6.1 57.6 1,600 84.0 190

MI7 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive 15.0 63.9 1.5 89.7 1,471 85.3 239

CE1 Cedar Creek at Old Highway 56 9.6 78.6 1.5 89.8 2,063 79.4 248

CE6 Cedar Creek near DeSoto (83rd Street) 6.1 88.2 2.2 84.6 91 99.1 272

KI5 Kill Creek at 135th Street 4.7 91.7 .74 94.9 <50 100.0 287

KI6b Kill Creek at 95th Street 3.9 93.9 .60 95.9 423 95.8 286

BI1 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton Road 2.4 98.1 1.2 91.8 15 99.9 290

CA1 Captain Creek at 119th Street 1.7 100.0 <.05 100.0 24 99.8 300

1

Average of two samples.

68  Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri
Prepared by Lawrence Publishing Service Center.

Edited by Lanna Combs.

Illustrations and cover design by Jeff Hartley and Mike Kemppainen.

Layout and design by Kristi Hartley.

For more information concerning the research described in this 

report, contact:

U.S. Geological Survey

4821 Quail Crest Place

Lawrence, KS 66049

(785) 842-9909

http://ks.water.usgs.gov
Poulton and others—Assessment of Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson

Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004—Scientific Investigations Report 2007−5108

Printed on recycled paper