U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5248

Prepared in cooperation with Johnson County Wastewater

Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and 

Treatment Facility Upgrades on Environmental and 

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River, 

Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, 

January 2003 through March 2009
Front cover.

1.  Upper Blue River near Blue Ridge Boulevard in Jackson County, Missouri, July, 2008.

2.  Upper Blue River near Kenneth Road in Johnson County, Kansas, June, 2008.

1

2

1

2

4

3

Back cover. 

1.  Sediment sample collection,

2.  habitat assessment,

3.  invertebrate sample collection, and

4.  monitor installation at upper Blue River study sites in Johnson County, Kansas and

    Jackson County, Missouri.
Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge 

and Treatment Facility Upgrades on 

Environmental and Biological Conditions 

of the Upper Blue River, Johnson County, 

Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, 

January 2003 through March 2009

By Jennifer L. Graham, Mandy L. Stone, Teresa J. Rasmussen, and 

Barry C. Poulton

Prepared in cooperation with Johnson County Wastewater

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5248

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

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

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

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:

Graham, J.L., Stone, M.L., Rasmussen, T.J., and Poulton, B.C., 2010, Effects of wastewater effluent discharge and 

treatment facility upgrades on environmental and biological conditions of the upper Blue River, Johnson County, 

Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, January 2003 through March 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5248, 85 p.
iii

Contents

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

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

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

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................4

Description of Study Area ............................................................................................................................4

Previous Investigations.................................................................................................................................5

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................6

Data Collection......................................................................................................................................6

Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Effluent Data ....................6

Previously Collected Data ..........................................................................................................7

Discrete Water-Quality Samples...............................................................................................7

Continuous Water-Quality Monitoring......................................................................................7

Streambed-Sediment Samples..................................................................................................8

Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................................................8

Periphyton.....................................................................................................................................8

Periphyton Communities....................................................................................................8

Summer Periphyton Biomass ...........................................................................................9

Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................................................9

Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................................9

Stream-Water Chemistry Data ..................................................................................................9

Periphyton Data .........................................................................................................................10

Macroinvertebrate Data...........................................................................................................10

Stream Metabolism Data..........................................................................................................11

Quality-Assurance and Quality-Control ..........................................................................................11

Stream-Water Chemistry Data ................................................................................................11

Streambed-Sediment Chemistry Data....................................................................................12

Periphyton Data .........................................................................................................................12

Macroinvertebrate Data...........................................................................................................12

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River................................................................................13

Streamflow...........................................................................................................................................13

Stream-Water Chemistry...................................................................................................................15

Specific Conductance, pH, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen.....................................15

Turbidity, Suspended Solids, and Suspended Sediment.....................................................21

Dissolved Solids and Major Ions.............................................................................................21

Nutrients......................................................................................................................................22

Nutrients Concentrations Upstream and Downstream from the 

Wastewater Treatment Facility.........................................................................22

Nutrients in Wastewater Effluent...................................................................................22

Computed Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Concentrations, 

Loads, and Yields.................................................................................................26

Biochemical Oxygen Demand .................................................................................................29

Indicator Bacteria......................................................................................................................29

Organic Wastewater Effluent and Pharmaceutical Compounds.......................................29
iv

Streambed-Sediment Chemistry ......................................................................................................30

Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................30

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River........................................................................................33

Periphyton............................................................................................................................................34

Periphyton Community Composition ......................................................................................34

Periphyton Metrics....................................................................................................................34

Oxygen Tolerance .............................................................................................................35

Saprobity ............................................................................................................................35

Trophic Condition..............................................................................................................37

Nitrogen-Uptake Metabolism .........................................................................................37

Bahls Index ........................................................................................................................37

Periphyton Chlorophyll, Abundance, and Biovolume ..........................................................38

Summer Periphyton Biomass ..................................................................................................38

Macroinvertebrate Communities .....................................................................................................39

Macroinvertebrate Community Composition ........................................................................39

Macroinvertebrate Metrics .....................................................................................................40

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI)..........................................................................40

Kansas Biotic Index (KBI-NO) ........................................................................................41

EPT Taxa Richness............................................................................................................41

Percentage of EPT............................................................................................................41

Aquatic-Life-Support Status ...........................................................................................41

Total Taxa Richness..........................................................................................................41

Percentage of Intolerant Organisms .............................................................................42

Percentage of Scrapers ..................................................................................................42

Percentage of Oligochaeta .............................................................................................43

Percentage of Tanytarsini ...............................................................................................43

Percentage of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera...........................................................43

Shannon Diversity Index..................................................................................................43

Stream Metabolism ............................................................................................................................43

Gross Primary Production (GPP).............................................................................................44

Community Respiration (CR) ....................................................................................................46

Net Ecosystem Production (NEP) and Production to Respiration 

Ratio (P/R ratio).............................................................................................................46

Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge on Environmental and Biological 

Conditions of the Upper Blue River.............................................................................................46

Summary........................................................................................................................................................50

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................52

Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................61
v

Figures

1. Map showing location of municipal wastewater treatment facilities and rural 

and urban land use in the Blue River basin, and sample sites, the Blue River 

Main Wastewater Treatment Facility, and privately owned wastewater 

treatment facilities located in the upper Blue River basin ....................................................3

2. Graph showing streamflow duration curves based on mean daily streamflow 

at the Kenneth (April 2003 through March 2009) and Blue Ridge (January 2003 

through March 2009) sites on the upper Blue River; below-normal, normal, 

and above-normal streamflow conditions as determined by percentiles; and 

mean Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility wastewater effluent 

discharge before (January 2003 through March 2007) and after (April 2007 

through March 2009) capacity upgrades and capacity upgrade mean daily 

design flow...................................................................................................................................15

3. Graph showing the percent contribution of wastewater effluent to streamflow 

during below normal, normal, and above normal streamflows at the Blue Ridge 

site on the upper Blue River before (January 2003 through March 2007) and 

after (April 2007 through March 2009) capacity upgrades and potential 

maximum contribution based on capacity upgrade mean daily design flow...................16

4. Graphs showing duration curves for hourly measured specific conductance, 

pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity at the Kenneth and 

Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, April 2008 through March 2009.......................20

5. Graphs showing relations between nutrient concentrations and streamflow 

at the Kenneth, 151st, and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during 

January 2003 through March 2009...........................................................................................23

6. Graphs showing nitrate and orthophosphorus concentrations and percent 

contribution to total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations during belownormal and normal streamflows and above-normal streamflows at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during January 2003 

through March 2009 ...................................................................................................................24

7. Graphs showing annual mean wastewater effluent concentrations of total 

nitrogen and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

target wastewater effluent concentration, annual mean wastewater effluent 

concentrations of total phosphorus and NPDES permit target wastewater 

effluent concentration, annual total nitrogen loads and potential load at 

maximum upgraded capacity, and annual total phosphorus loads and 

potential load at maximum upgraded capacity from the Blue River Main 

Wastewater Treatment Facility during 2003 through 2008...................................................25

8. Graphs showing comparison between measured and computed total 

nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations at the Kenneth and 

Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River...............................................................................29

9. Graph showing nutrient loads from contributing upstream areas as a 

percentage of total load at the Blue Ridge site located downstream from 

the wastewater treatment facility on the upper Blue River during April 2008 

through March 2009 ...................................................................................................................31

10. Graphs showing computed monthly total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads 

originating from wastewater effluent discharge and nonpoint sources in the 

upper Blue River during April 2008 through March 2009 .....................................................32

11. Graphs showing total habitat score and scores of selected individual habitat 

variables at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during 

June 2008 .....................................................................................................................................33
vi

Tables

1. Location and description of upper Blue River sampling sites in Johnson County, 

Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, including drainage area, land cover, 

and distance from the Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility 

wastewater effluent discharge ..................................................................................................5

2. Streamflow statistics for the Stanley, Kenneth, and Blue Ridge sites on the 

upper Blue River, flow statistics for the Blue River Main Wastewater 

Treatment Facility, and the percent contribution of wastewater effluent to 

annual streamflow at the Blue Ridge site during January 2003 through 

March 2009 and for the period of record at each site..........................................................14

3. Summary statistics for water-quality constituents measured continuously 

(hourly) at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during 

below-normal, normal, and above-normal streamflow conditions, April 2008 

through March 2009 ...................................................................................................................17

4. Results of analyses in discrete water-quality samples collected at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, January 2003 

through March 2009 ...................................................................................................................18

5. Nitrogen composition of wastewater effluent in weekly samples from the 

Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility, 2003 through 2008.................................26

6. Regression models and summary statistics for computing total nitrogen and 

total phosphorus concentrations in water at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites 

on the upper Blue River.............................................................................................................27

7. Computed concentration percentiles for total nitrogen and total phosphorus 

at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, April 2008 

through March 2009 ...................................................................................................................30

8. Computed total loads and yields for total nitrogen and phosphorus at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, April 2008 through 

March 2009 ..................................................................................................................................31

12. Graphs showing percent low and moderate oxygen tolerant diatoms, oligosaprobic and beta-mesosaprobic diatoms, eutrophic diatoms, nitrogenheterotrophic diatoms, and Bahls Index values at each biological sampling 

site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008 .................................................36

13. Graph showing chlorophyll concentrations and streamflow at the Kenneth 

and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during June through 

September 2008...........................................................................................................................39

14. Graphs showing relative abundance of selected macroinvertebrate taxa at 

each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and 

August 2008..................................................................................................................................40

15. Graph showing multimetric aquatic-life-support scores (Kansas Department 

of Health and Environment, 2008) at each biological sampling site on the 

upper Blue River during April and August 2008.....................................................................44

16. Graphs showing seasonal patterns in gross primary production, community 

respiration, net ecosystem production, and production to respiration ratio at 

the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during April 2008 

through March 2009 ...................................................................................................................47
vii

9. Percent contributions of each algal periphyton division to total abundance 

and biovolume at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River 

during April and August 2008....................................................................................................35

10. Mean and standard deviation of chlorophyll concentration, algal abundance, 

and biovolume at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River 

during April and August 2008....................................................................................................38

11. Macroinvertebrate metric scores and statistically significant differences 

among sites at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during 

April and August 2008 ................................................................................................................42

12. Criteria for four macroinvertebrate metrics used in Kansas to evaluate 

aquatic-life-support status of streams (Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2008)......................................................................................................................43

13. Framework and ratio criteria proposed by Young and others (2008) for 

assessing functional stream health using stream metabolism data..................................45

14. Seasonal and overall summary of stream metabolism results at the Kenneth 

and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during April 2008 through 

March 2009 ..................................................................................................................................45

Appendixes

1. Sample collection dates, streamflow conditions, and sample collection 

methods for discrete water-quality samples included in regression model 

development for the Kenneth (July 2003 through March 2009) and Blue Ridge 

(April 2008 through March 2009) sites on the upper Blue River..........................................62

2. Mean, median, and range of the physical stream reach parameters used in 

metabolism calculations for the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper 

Blue River during April 2008 through March 2009.................................................................63

3. Water-quality conditions at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue 

River during April 1–2, 2008 and August 26, 2008 ..................................................................64

4. Regression models and summary statistics for computing selected constituent 

concentrations and densities in water at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on 

the upper Blue River...................................................................................................................65

5. Regression models and summary statistics for computing selected constituent 

concentrations and densities in water from suspended-sediment concentration 

at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River............................................67

6. Wastewater-effluent and pharmaceutical compounds detected in stream 

water samples collected April 1–2, 2008 at the biological sampling sites on 

the upper Blue River...................................................................................................................68

7. Carbon, nutrients, and trace elements in streambed sediment samples 

collected April 1–2, 2008 at the biological sampling sites on the upper 

Blue River.....................................................................................................................................69

8. Wastewater-effluent compounds detected in streambed sediment samples 

collected April 1–2, 2008 at the biological sampling sites on the upper 

Blue River.....................................................................................................................................70

9. Habitat assessment variables and site scores at each biological sampling site 

on the upper Blue River during June 2008..............................................................................71

10. Periphyton taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper 

Blue River during April and August 2008 ................................................................................72
viii

 11. Four most dominant algal taxa based on percentage of total abundance and 

biovolume at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during 

April and August 2008 ................................................................................................................76

 12. Periphyton metrics, conditions associated with each metric, and metric 

scores at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during 

April and August 2008 ................................................................................................................77

13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the 

upper Blue River during April and August 2008.....................................................................78

14. Four most dominant macroinvertebrate taxa based on relative abundance at 

each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and 

August 2008..................................................................................................................................84

15. Macroinvertebrate metric scores at each biological sampling site on the 

upper Blue River during April and August 2008.....................................................................85
ix

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.2808 foot (ft) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in)

micrometer (μm) 0.001 millimeter (mm)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

square meter (m2) 10.76 square feet (ft2)

Volume

milliliter (mL) 0.0338 ounce, fluid (oz)

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

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

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

milligrams per liter (mg/L) 1 parts per million (ppm)

milligrams per square meter (mg/m2) 0.000001 kilogram per square meter (kg/m2)

microgram per kilogram (μg/kg) 1 parts per billion (ppb)

microgram per liter (μg/L) 1 parts per billion (ppb)

Mass

kilogram (kg) 2.204 pounds (lb)

milligram (mg) 0.001 gram (g)

microgram (μg) 0.000001 gram (g)

ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 metric ton per year

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

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

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

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

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment 

Facility Upgrades on Environmental and Biological 

Conditions of the Upper Blue River, Johnson County, 

Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, January 2003 

through March 2009

By Jennifer L. Graham1, Mandy L. Stone1, Teresa J. Rasmussen1, and Barry C. Poulton2

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Kansas Water Science Center, Lawrence, Kansas.

2

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

Columbia, Missouri.

Abstract

The Johnson County Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility discharges into the upper Blue River near the 

border between Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, 

Missouri. During 2005 through 2007 the wastewater treatment facility underwent upgrades to increase capacity and 

include biological nutrient removal. The effects of wastewater 

effluent on environmental and biological conditions of the 

upper Blue River were assessed by comparing an upstream 

site to two sites located downstream from the wastewater 

treatment facility. Environmental conditions were evaluated 

using previously and newly collected discrete and continuous 

data, and were compared with an assessment of biological 

community composition and ecosystem function along the 

upstream-downstream gradient. This evaluation is useful for 

understanding the potential effects of wastewater effluent on 

water quality, biological community structure, and ecosystem 

function. In addition, this information can be used to help 

achieve National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) wastewater effluent permit requirements after additional studies are conducted.

The effects of wastewater effluent on the water-quality 

conditions of the upper Blue River were most evident during 

below-normal and normal streamflows (about 75 percent of 

the time), when wastewater effluent contributed more than 

20 percent to total streamflow. The largest difference in waterquality conditions between the upstream and downstream sites 

was in nutrient concentrations. Total and inorganic nutrient 

concentrations at the downstream sites during below-normal 

and normal streamflows were 4 to 15 times larger than at the 

upstream site, even after upgrades to the wastewater treatment 

facility were completed. However, total nitrogen concentrations decreased in wastewater effluent and at the downstream 

site following wastewater treatment facility upgrades. Similar 

decreases in total phosphorus were not observed, likely 

because the biological phosphorus removal process was not 

optimized until after the study was completed. 

Total nitrogen and phosphorus from the wastewater 

treatment facility contributed a relatively small percentage 

(14 to 15 percent) to the annual nutrient load in the upper Blue 

River, but contributed substantially (as much as 75 percent) 

to monthly loads during seasonal low-flows in winter and 

summer. During 2007 and 2008, annual discharge from the 

wastewater treatment facility was about one-half maximum 

capacity, and estimated potential maximum annual loads 

were 1.6 to 2.4 times greater than annual loads before capacity upgrades. Even when target nutrient concentrations are 

met, annual nutrient loads will increase when the wastewater 

treatment facility is operated at full capacity. Regardless of 

changes in annual nutrient loads, the reduction of nutrient 

concentrations in the Blue River Main wastewater effluent will 

help prevent further degradation of the upper Blue River. 

The Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility 

wastewater effluent caused changes in concentrations of 

several water-quality constituents that may affect biological 

community structure and function including larger concentrations of bioavailable nutrients (nitrate and orthophosphorus) 

and smaller turbidities. Streambed-sediment conditions were 

similar along the upstream-downstream gradient and measured 

constituents did not exceed probable effect concentrations. 

Habitat conditions declined along the upstream-downstream 

gradient, largely because of decreased canopy cover and riparian buffer width and increased riffle-substrate fouling. Algal 

biomass, primary production, and the abundance of nutrienttolerant diatoms substantially increased downstream from 

the wastewater treatment facility. Likewise, the abundance of 

intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa and Kansas Department of 
2 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Health and Environment aquatic-life-support scores, derived 

from macroinvertebrate data, significantly decreased downstream from the wastewater treatment facility. Ecosystem 

functional health, evaluated using a preliminary framework 

based on primary production and community respiration, 

downstream from the wastewater treatment facility was mildly 

impaired relative to the upstream site during summer 2008 but 

not during other times of the year.

Upgrades to the Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment 

Facility improved wastewater effluent quality, but the wastewater effluent discharge still had negative effects on the water 

quality and biological conditions at the downstream sites. 

Wastewater effluent discharge into the upper Blue River likely 

contributed to changes in measures of ecosystem structure 

(streamflow, water chemistry, algal biomass, algal periphyton 

and macroinvertebrate community composition) and primary 

production, a measure of ecosystem function, along the 

upstream-downstream gradient. Because the Blue River Main 

Wastewater Treatment Facility is located in a rapidly urbanizing area, urbanization effects also may play a role in the 

decline in environmental and biological conditions along the 

upstream-downstream gradient. Despite these differences in 

environmental and biological conditions, ecosystem functional 

health was not impaired downstream from the WWTF during 

most times of the year, indicating the declines in environmental and biological conditions along the upstream-downstream 

gradient were not substantial enough to cause persistent 

changes in ecosystem function.

Introduction

Johnson County is the fastest growing county in Kansas, 

with a current (2010) population of about 543,000 people. The 

population in Johnson County has increased by approximately 

20 percent every decade, a growth trajectory that is expected 

to continue for at least the next 20 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010). Infrastructure needs will continue to increase with 

ongoing population growth and urban development. Urban 

growth and development can have substantial effects on water 

quality (Walsh and others, 2005), and streams in Johnson 

County are affected by nonpoint-source pollutants from stormwater runoff and point-source discharges such as municipal 

wastewater effluent (Lee and others, 2005). Understanding 

of current (2010) water-quality conditions and the effects of 

urbanization is critical for the protection and remediation of 

aquatic resources in Johnson County, Kansas and downstream 

reaches located elsewhere.

Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, are 

considered one of the leading causes of water-quality impairment in Kansas and the nation (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2004; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2009). Nutrients are essential for the growth of all 

organisms; however, excessive concentrations in aquatic 

environments may cause nuisance algal growth. Overly 

abundant algal growth causes aesthetic concerns, degrades 

habitats, and decreases dissolved oxygen stability. There are 

point and nonpoint sources of nutrient pollution, but point 

sources, such as wastewater effluent discharges, are easily 

identified and provide targeted opportunities to reduce nutrient 

loads in the environment (Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2004).

The Johnson County Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is a point-source wastewater effluent discharge on the Blue River in Johnson County, Kansas 

(fig. 1). In April 2007, upgrades to increase capacity and 

include biological nutrient removal at the Blue River Main 

WWTF were completed (Johnson County Wastewater, written 

commun., 2010). Biological nutrient removal is a modification 

of traditional biological treatment processes that enhances the 

removal of nitrogen and phosphorus by selecting for specific 

microorganisms within the wastewater (Tchobanoglous and 

others, 2003). Wastewater treatment is subject to local, State, 

and Federal regulations to help protect water quality and 

aquatic life, though regulations only apply to limited jurisdictional areas. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit for the expansion and upgrades to 

the Blue River Main WWTF defines target wastewater effluent concentrations for total nitrogen and phosphorus (TN 

and TP, respectively) of less than 8.0 and 1.5 milligrams per 

liter (mg/L), respectively, as an annual mean (NPDES permit 

number KS0092738; Kansas permit number M-MO26-0006). 

These targets were established by the Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment (KDHE) based on typical removal 

efficiencies for nutrients by biological nutrient removal 

processes as part of the Kansas Surface Water Nutrient 

Reduction Plan (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2004). The NPDES permit also requires an evaluation 

of wastewater effluent effects on the receiving stream after 

upgrades are complete (NPDES permit number KS0092738).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with Johnson County Wastewater, conducted a study to assess 

the effects of post-expansion wastewater effluent discharges 

on the upper Blue River. Water-quality and biological data 

were collected to allow assessment of chemical and resulting ecological effects of the wastewater effluent discharge 

before and after WWTF upgrades. This study improves the 

understanding of the effects of wastewater effluent on stream 

quality, biological community composition, and ecosystem 

function. In addition, this information can be used to help 

achieve NPDES wastewater effluent permit requirements after 

additional studies are conducted.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the effects of 

wastewater effluent discharge and treatment facility upgrades 

on environmental and biological conditions in the upper Blue 

River, downstream from the Blue River Main WWTF. Data 
Figure 1. Location of municipal wastewater treatment facilities and rural and urban land use in the Blue River basin, and sample 

sites, the Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility, and privately owned wastewater treatment facilities located in the 

upper Blue River basin.

JACKSON COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

KANSAS

MISSOURI

151st

Stanley

(0693080)

Kenneth

(06893100)

Tomahawk 

WWTF

Middle Basin 

WWTF

Blue River 

Main WWTF

Blue River Basin

Blue Ridge

(06893150)

CASS COUNTY

MIAMI COUNTY

WYANDOTTE COUNTY

Mill

Creek

Negro Creek

Hart Grove Creek

James Branch

151st

Stanley (06893080)

Kenneth (06893100)

Blue River Main WWTF

Urban land use

Nonurban land use (rural)

Subwatershed included in this study

Municipal wastewater treatment facility

Private wastewater discharge—less than 0.31 cubic feet per second (0.2 million gallons per day)

Discrete environmental and biological sample site and identifier

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station, continuous water-quality monitoring, 

 and discrete environmental and biological sample site, and identifier

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station and identifier

94°50' 94°40' 94°30' 94°20'

39°

38°50'

KANSAS

MISSOURI

Blue River

Indian Creek

Wolf Creek

Coffee Creek

Tomahawk Creek

Mill Creek

Camp

Branch

Dyke Branch

Round Grove Creek

Kansas City 

metropolitan area

Land-use data from Mid-America Regional Council, 2008

EXPLANATION

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° 0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Purpose and Scope 3
4 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

collected by the USGS from the upper Blue River during 

January 2003 through March 2009, including data from before 

and after the upgrade, were used to evaluate environmental 

and biological conditions. Streamflow, discrete and continuously measured stream-water chemistry, streambed-sediment 

chemistry, and habitat data were used to: evaluate differences 

in environmental conditions upstream and downstream from 

the wastewater effluent discharge; develop relations between 

continuously measured water-quality variables and discrete 

water-quality samples to define mean annual concentrations 

and loads of total and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in 

the upper Blue River; and determine the percent contribution 

of nutrients in wastewater effluent discharge to total annual 

nutrient loads in the upper Blue River. Periphyton, macroinvertebrate, and stream metabolism (primary productivity 

and respiration of biological communities) data were used to 

evaluate differences in biological conditions upstream and 

downstream from the wastewater effluent discharge. Evaluation of environmental and biological data allow assessment 

of the physical, chemical, and resulting ecological effects of 

wastewater effluent discharge in the upper Blue River.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Susan Pekarek and John Metzler of 

Johnson County Wastewater for technical assistance and 

providing data and information about wastewater treatment 

at the Blue River Main WWTF. The authors also thank Tony 

Holt of the Johnson County Environmental Laboratory for 

support in coordination of water-sample analysis. The authors 

appreciate the assistance of Donald Wilkison of the USGS 

Missouri Water Science Center, with the compilation of previously collected data from the upper Blue River basin. The 

authors thank Andrea Repinsky of the Mid-America Regional 

Council for providing land-use data and appreciate the help 

of Keith Landgraf of the USGS Mid-Continent Geographic 

Science Center with the analysis and interpretation of land use 

data. The authors thank Jackline Gatotho of the USGS Kansas 

Water Science Center for assistance with data analysis and 

model development. The authors also appreciate the assistance 

of Mark Ellersick, University of Missouri, with the statistical 

analyses of periphyton and macroinvertebrate data. And last, 

but not least, the authors thank the USGS field staff, including Patrick Finnegan, William Holladay, Heidi Mehl, and 

Mark Sedarous. 

Description of Study Area

The Blue River Basin is 280 square miles (mi2) and 

includes portions of Johnson and Wyandotte Counties in 

Kansas and Jackson and Cass Counties in Missouri. The 

headwaters of the Blue River are located in Johnson County, 

Kansas (fig. 1) and flow northeast into the Missouri River 

(not shown). Land use in the headwaters of the Blue River 

is predominantly rural and includes a combination of agricultural land uses and forested areas; however, urban land 

use increases in the downstream direction as the river flows 

through the Kansas City metropolitan area. For the purposes 

of this report, the upper Blue River is defined as the area 

above the confluence with Indian Creek (fig. 1). There are 

three WWTFs, all located in Johnson County, Kansas, in the 

Blue River basin: the Blue River Main WWTF discharges into 

the upper reaches of the Blue River, and the Middle Basin 

and Tomahawk WWTFs discharge into Indian Creek, which 

discharges to the middle reaches of the river (fig. 1).

The Blue River Main WWTF, the only municipal treatment facility in the upper Blue River basin, discharges into 

Negro Creek, which discharges to the upper Blue River 

(fig. 1). The WWTF underwent upgrades during 2005–2007 to 

increase treatment capacity and implement biological nutrient 

removal. Upgrades increased average daily design flow from 

5.1 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) to 16.2 ft3/s (3 to 10.5 million 

gallons per day) and extended aeration activated sludge was 

replaced with a biological nutrient removal activated sludge 

system (NPDES permit number KS0092738). Expansion and 

upgrades were officially completed in April 2007, but the 

WWTF began using biological nutrient removal in October 

2006. Before capacity upgrades, Blue River Main was the 

smallest municipal WWTF in Johnson County, contributing 

about 16 percent of the total wastewater effluent discharged 

(Wilkison and others, 2009). Blue River Main is currently 

(2010) the second largest WWTF in Johnson County and 

contributed about 25 percent of the total wastewater effluent 

discharged during 2007 and 2008 (Johnson County Wastewater, 2007, 2008). 

To characterize environmental and biological responses 

to wastewater effluent discharge, three sites along a 6.4-mile 

reach of the upper Blue River were sampled: Blue River at 

Kenneth Road (Kenneth) in Johnson County, Kansas (approximately 2.0 miles upstream from the WWTF wastewater effluent discharge); Blue River at 151st Street (151st) in Jackson 

County, Missouri (approximately 0.25 miles downstream from 

the wastewater effluent discharge); and Blue River at Blue 

Ridge Boulevard (Blue Ridge) in Jackson County, Missouri 

(approximately 4.1 miles downstream; table 1, fig. 1). There 

are three small private wastewater effluent discharges (less 

than 0.31 ft3/s or 0.2 million gallons per day) upstream from 

the Kenneth site (fig. 1) and several thousand septic systems 

throughout the basin (Johnson County Automated Information 

Mapping System, written commun., 2009).

The Kenneth site basin drains approximately 65.4 mi2

(23 percent of the entire Blue River Basin), the 151st site 

approximately 84.0 mi2 (30 percent), and the Blue Ridge site 

approximately 92.5 mi2 (33 percent; table 1). For consistency across county and state boundaries, 2008 regional land 

use data from the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) 

(MARC, written commun., 2009) were used to characterize 
Table 1. Location and description of upper Blue River sampling sites in Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, 

including drainage area, land cover, and distance from the Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility wastewater effluent 

discharge.

[--, not applicable]

Site 

identifier

(fig. 1)

Site description Approximate land cover 

(percent)

Site name

U.S. Geological 

Survey streamflowgaging station 

number

County

Drainage 

area 

(miles2)

Distance from Blue River 

main wastewater 

discharge (miles)

Urban Impervious 

surface

Kenneth Blue River at 

Kenneth Road

6893100 Johnson 65.4 2.0 above 20.7 5.8

-- Intervening Area -- Johnson/

Jackson

18.6 -- 39.8 11.4

151st Blue River at 

151st Street

385137094362200 Jackson 84.0 .25 below 24.9 7.1

-- Intervening Area -- Jackson 8.5 -- 34.3 13.7

Blue Ridge Blue River and 

Blue Ridge 

Boulevard

6893150 Jackson 92.5 4.1 below 25.8 7.7

Previous Investigations 5

basin land use in the study reach. Urban land use (defined as 

commercial, industrial, residential, right of way, or public/

semi-public land uses) and impervious surface area (defined 

as right of ways, parking lots, and buildings) increase along 

the study reach (table 1, fig. 1). Differences in overall basin 

land use are relatively minimal among sites (table 1) and all 

three sites are classified as rural based on the criteria used 

by Poulton and others (2007) (urban sites have greater than 

32 percent urban land use and greater than 10 percent impervious surface). Among-site differences along this upstreamdownstream urbanization gradient are more evident when only 

land use in the intervening basin area between sites (land use 

in the area most proximate to the sample sites) is described. 

Using this approach, the 151st and Blue Ridge sites are classified as urban, with urban land use and impervious surface area 

nearly double that of the Kenneth site (table 1, fig. 1).

KDHE and the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources have listed several Johnson County, Kansas and 

Jackson County, Missouri streams as impaired waterways 

under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment, 2010; Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 2010). KDHE has listed 

five pollutants impairing designated uses for the upper Blue 

River in Johnson County, starting at the State line and traveling upstream to the headwaters. Dissolved oxygen, biology, 

and diazinon are listed as impairments for aquatic life, 

mercury is listed as an impairment for food procurement, and 

fecal coliform bacteria (including the Camp Branch, Coffee 

Creek, and Wolf Creek tributaries, fig. 1) is listed as an impairment for contact recreation (Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2010). In Jackson County, bacteria is listed as 

an impairment for whole body contact recreation in the Blue 

River from the State line to the confluence with the Missouri 

River (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2010). 

Previous Investigations

The Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue 

River have been included in several studies of water quality in 

Johnson County streams or large-scale assessments of water 

quality in the Blue River Basin (Lee and others 2005; Wilkison and others 2002, 2006, 2009; Poulton and others, 2007; 

Rasmussen and others, 2008, 2009a). Continuous streamflow 

and water-quality data have been collected at the Kenneth site 

since 2004 and streamflow data have been collected at the 

Blue Ridge site since 2001. Current and previously collected 

streamflow and continuous water-quality data are available 

online at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

Studies in Johnson County and the Blue River Basin indicate that most streamflow at sites located downstream from 

wastewater effluent discharges is composed of wastewater 

effluent during base-flow conditions. During below-normal 

streamflows, wastewater effluent may represent more than 

99 percent of streamflow (Wilkison and others, 2002; Lee and 

others, 2005). During below-normal and normal streamflows, 

nutrient concentrations are commonly an order of magnitude 

larger at sites located immediately downstream from wastewater effluent discharges than at sites unaffected by wastewater effluent discharge. Concentrations of dissolved solids, 

pharmaceuticals, and organic wastewater effluent compounds 

also are larger downstream from wastewater effluent discharges. Because of the diluting effect of wastewater efflu-
6 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

ent, sediment and bacteria concentrations typically are lower 

downstream from wastewater effluent discharges (Lee and 

others, 2005; Wilkison and others, 2006, 2009; Rasmussen and 

others, 2008).

Wilkison and others (2006) estimated wastewater effluent 

contributions to total nutrient loads in the Blue River Basin 

during July 2002 through September 2004 by comparing 

median instantaneous WWTF loads to median instantaneous 

downstream loads (composed of point and nonpoint sources). 

More than 70 percent of the TN and TP loads in the upper 

Blue River Basin were contributed by nonpoint sources during 

runoff events; the Blue River Main WWTF contributed about 

28 percent and 16 percent to TN and TP loads, respectively 

(Wilkison and others, 2006). By comparison, in some stream 

reaches located in the lower portions of the Blue River Basin 

where there are two additional WWTF discharges (fig. 1), 

wastewater effluent discharges contributed as much as 90 percent of total annual nutrient loads (Wilkison and others, 2006, 

2009; Rasmussen and others, 2008). Previous studies indicate 

that the majority (more than 90 percent) of sediment, bacterial, 

and biochemical oxygen demand loads in the Blue River Basin 

are contributed from nonpoint sources (Wilkison and others, 

2006, 2009; Rasmussen and others, 2008).

To determine acutely toxic effects of water and bottom 

sediment on aquatic organisms, Wilkison and others (2009) 

conducted toxicity tests on samples collected from several 

sites throughout the Blue River Basin during October through 

December 2007. Acute toxicity was not observed in samples 

from upper Blue River Basin sites, and few responses were 

observed elsewhere in the basin. In general, toxicity test 

results indicated that negative effects on aquatic organism 

health through exposure to contaminants are more likely 

because of chronic long-term exposure, rather than short-term 

acute toxicity.

Sites located in the upper Blue River Basin, including the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites, consistently have among the 

greatest habitat assessment scores in Johnson County and the 

Blue River Basin (Rasmussen and others, 2009a; Wilkison and 

others, 2009), indicating habitat at these sites has been affected 

to a lesser extent by human activities. In the Blue River Basin, 

habitat scores decline in the downstream direction as the basin 

becomes increasingly urban. Declines in habitat quality were 

associated with increased channel disturbance and alteration, 

loss of riparian vegetation, and increased sedimentation, which 

are factors that tend to increase with urbanization (Wilkison 

and others, 2009).

Rasmussen and others (2009a) included algal periphyton 

as part of an overall assessment of water-quality conditions in 

Johnson County streams. Periphyton taxa in Johnson County 

streams generally were indicative of somewhat degraded conditions with small to moderate amounts of organic enrichment. 

Chlorophyll concentrations, an estimate of algal biomass, 

exceeded the nuisance threshold of 100 milligrams per meter 

squared (mg/m2) at about one-half of the sites in Johnson 

County during spring, including the Kenneth site; the Blue 

Ridge site was not included in this study because it is located 

in Jackson County, Missouri. Nuisance chlorophyll concentrations occurred at rural and urban sites and there were no 

statistically significant associations with physical or chemical conditions. 

Bioassessments using macroinvertebrates have been 

regularly conducted in the Blue River Basin since 2002 

(Wilkison and others, 2006, 2009) and in Johnson County 

streams since 2003 (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen 

and others, 2009a). These studies indicate that the biological 

condition of streams is negatively related to several urbanization factors including percent urban land use, percent 

impervious cover, and wastewater effluent discharges from 

domestic and industrial sources. Sites located in the upper 

Blue River Basin above the Blue River Main WWTF, including the Kenneth site, consistently have among the greatest 

bioassessment scores in Johnson County and the Blue River 

Basin. However, macroinvertebrate communities at almost all 

sampling sites are indicative of some level of impairment and 

none consistently meet the KDHE fully supporting criteria. 

The Blue Ridge site typically has lower bioassessment scores 

than sites located above the WWTF wastewater effluent 

discharge, but scores are larger than at sites located further 

downstream in the increasingly urban portions of the basin 

(Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009a).

Methods

Environmental and biological conditions were assessed at 

one upstream site (Kenneth) and two sites located downstream 

(151st and Blue Ridge) from the Blue River Main WWTF 

wastewater effluent discharge into the Blue River (fig. 1). Two 

downstream sites were assessed to evaluate the differences 

in conditions immediately downstream from the discharge 

(151st), and further downstream (Blue Ridge), where there has 

been more time for dilution, sedimentation, degradation, and 

assimilation of nutrients and other contaminants characteristic of wastewater effluent. Data collected by the USGS from 

the upper Blue River during the period January 2003 through 

March 2009 were used to evaluate environmental and biological conditions upstream and downstream from the wastewater 

effluent discharge.

Data Collection

Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility 

Wastewater Effluent Data

The Blue River Main WWTF keeps a daily record of 

wastewater effluent discharge volume. In addition, wastewater effluent is monitored for several water-quality variables, 

including nutrients, once per week. All wastewater effluent 

samples are analyzed by the Johnson County Environmental Laboratory, Olathe, Kansas. Daily wastewater effluent 

volume and weekly water-quality data were obtained from 
Methods 7

Johnson County Wastewater for the years 2003 through 2008. 

These data were used to describe annual wastewater effluent 

discharge volume, average annual TN and TP concentrations 

in wastewater effluent, and TN and TP loads contributed by 

the WWTF. The period 2003 through 2008 was selected for 

analysis because it allowed an evaluation of changes in wastewater effluent discharge volume, nutrient concentrations, and 

nutrient loads after capacity and biological nutrient removal 

upgrades were completed. In addition, previously collected 

water-quality data for the upper Blue River are available 

during the period 2003 through 2008.

Previously Collected Data

Streamflow data from the Blue River near Stanley, 

Kansas site (fig. 1), continuously operated since 1974, were 

used to compare streamflow conditions during the January 

2003 through March 2009 study period to historical streamflow conditions. Streamflow gages have been operated at the 

Blue Ridge and Kenneth sites since October 2001 and April 

2003, respectively. Continuous water-quality monitors have 

been operated at the Kenneth site since March 2004. Discrete 

water-quality data have been collected at the Blue Ridge 

site since 2000 and the Kenneth site since 2003. These data 

facilitated comparison of water-quality conditions in the upper 

Blue River before and after upgrades to the Blue River Main 

WWTF. For parity, Blue Ridge data collected before 2003 

were not used in this report. Previously collected samples were 

analyzed for a variety of water-quality constituents; analyses 

were most commonly conducted by the USGS National Water 

Quality Laboratory (NWQL), Lakewood, Colorado, and the 

Johnson County Environmental Laboratory (Lee and others, 

2005; Wilkison and others, 2006; Rasmussen and others, 2008, 

2009a). Samples were collected by several methods, including equal-width-increment (EWI) methods, grab samples, and 

autosampler-collected samples. Streamflow and water-chemistry data were downloaded from the USGS National Water 

Information System website (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis).

Streambed-sediment, habitat, algal periphyton, and 

macroinvertebrate data have been collected less frequently 

than water-quality data at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites. 

These data are used for descriptive comparisons and are not 

used in statistical analyses in this report. Streambed-sediment, 

habitat, and algal periphyton and macroinvertebrate community data were compiled from report tables and appendixes 

(Lee and others, 2005; Wilkison and others, 2006; Poulton and 

others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2008, 2009a).

Discrete Water-Quality Samples

Stream-water samples were collected from the Kenneth 

and Blue Ridge sites in a range of streamflow conditions 

during April 2008 through March 2009 (appendix 1). In 

addition, samples were collected concurrent with biological 

samples from all three study sites (Kenneth, 151st, and Blue 

Ridge; fig. 1) during April 1–2, 2008 and August 26, 2008. 

Water samples were collected following USGS EWI methods 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). All water samples were 

analyzed for suspended sediment, dissolved solids, major ions, 

nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and indicator bacteria. Samples 

collected during April 1–2, 2008 also were analyzed for 

organic wastewater-effluent and pharmaceutical compounds. 

Suspended-sediment concentration was analyzed at the 

USGS Iowa Sediment Laboratory, Iowa City, Iowa, according to methods described in Guy (1969). Dissolved solids, 

major ions, nutrients, organic carbon, biological oxygen 

demand, and indicator bacteria were analyzed by the Johnson 

County Environmental Laboratory according to standard 

methods (American Public Health Association and others, 

1995); selected replicate samples were sent to the NWQL 

and analyzed according to methods presented in Fishman and 

Friedman (1989). Chemical oxygen demand was analyzed at 

the NWQL according to methods presented in Fishman and 

Friedman (1989). 

Organic wastewater effluent and pharmaceutical 

compounds were analyzed at the NWQL using methods 

described by Zaugg and others (2002) and Furlong and others 

(2008), respectively. These methods are sensitive and detect 

compounds at minimal concentrations, often less than the 

microgram per liter (μg/L) level. Reported values may be 

denoted as estimated (E) for some constituents when values 

are reported outside of instrument calibration range, performance of the analyte does not meet acceptable method-specific 

criteria, or matrix interference conditions occurred. Values 

reported as estimated are considered detections, although the 

precision of the value is frequently less than for values without 

this qualifier (Childress and others, 1999).

Continuous Water-Quality Monitoring

Continuous water-quality data were collected from 

the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites (fig. 1). Streamflow was 

measured using methods presented in Buchanan and Somers 

(1969) and Oberg and others (2005). Continuous water-quality 

monitors have been operated at the Kenneth site since March 

2004; monitors were installed at the Blue Ridge site in March 

2008. The continuously monitored sites were equipped with 

YSI 6600EDS water-quality monitors that measured specific 

conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity (YSI 6136 

optical turbidity sensor), and dissolved oxygen (YSI optical 

dissolved oxygen sensor). 

Monitors were installed near the centroid of the stream 

cross-section to best represent conditions across the width of 

the stream and were maintained in accordance with standard 

USGS procedures (Wagner and others, 2006; Rasmussen and 

others, 2008). Continuous water-quality data were recorded 

at 15-minute intervals. The 15-minute interval data were used 

to compute stream metabolism; hourly values were used for 

all other data analyses in this report. Continuous streamflow 

and water-quality data are available on the USGS website at 
8 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ks/nwis. In this report, results are 

presented for both sites for the period April 1, 2008 through 

March 31, 2009.

Streambed-Sediment Samples

Streambed-sediment samples were collected concurrent with biological sampling at all three sample sites (fig. 1) 

during April 1–2, 2008. Streambed-sediment samples were 

collected from the upper 2 centimeters (cm) of deposition 

using stainless-steel spoons. Only the most recently deposited 

fine material was removed from several depositional zones 

along the streambed at each site. Samples were collected in 

a large glass container, homogenized, and field-sieved using 

a 2 millimeter (mm) stainless steel sieve into glass sample 

bottles (Shelton and Capel, 1994; Radtke, 2005). Streambedsediment samples were analyzed for total organic carbon, 

total carbon, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, and organic 

wastewater effluent compounds. 

Sediment carbon, nutrient, and trace element analyses 

were performed at the USGS Sediment Chemistry Laboratory, 

Atlanta, Georgia using digestion after homogenization and 

passage through a 63-micrometer (μm) sieve (Horowitz and 

others, 2001). Analysis was done only on the fraction of the 

sediment sample with particles less than 63 μm in diameter 

(silt and clay size) to minimize sediment-size effects on chemical concentrations. Organic wastewater effluent compounds 

were analyzed at the NWQL using methods described by 

Burkhardt and others (2006). These methods are sensitive and 

detect compounds at minimal concentrations in the environment, often less than the microgram per kilogram (μg/kg) 

level. Reported values may be denoted as estimated (E) for 

some constituents when values are reported outside of instrument calibration range, performance of the analyte does not 

meet acceptable method-specific criteria, or matrix interference conditions occurred. Values reported as estimated are 

considered detections, although the precision of the value is 

frequently less than for values without this qualifier (Childress 

and others, 1999).

Habitat Assessment

Physical-habitat characteristics were evaluated at 

all three sample sites (fig. 1) during June 2008 using the 

methods described in Rasmussen and others (2009a). A total 

of 17 habitat variables in three categories (channel conditions and characteristics, bank and riparian conditions, and 

aquatic habitat availability) were evaluated. Data collection was completed using a combination of field measurements and surveys, and available aerial photography and 

topographic maps.

Each habitat variable was assigned a score on a scale of 

1 to 12 (Rasmussen and others, 2009a); all habitat data were 

integrated into one total site score by summing each of the 

scores from individual variables. To simplify comparisons and 

graphic presentations, all scores were normalized to a scale 

of 0 to 100 by dividing each score by the total possible score 

and then multiplying by 100. Four rating categories (based on 

those described by Rasmussen and others, 2009a) of relative 

quality were used to evaluate habitat conditions at each site 

(score 80 to 100 is optimal; 55 to 79 is suboptimal; 30 to 64 is 

marginal; less than 30 is poor). Normalized scores of individual habitat variables and normalized total habitat scores were 

used to describe among-site differences in habitat conditions.

Periphyton

Periphyton Communities

Periphyton community samples were collected from all 

three sample sites (fig. 1) during April 1–2, 2008 (spring) and 

August 27, 2008 (summer), after a period of at least 2 weeks 

without any substantial streamflow events. The streambed along the study reach is dominated by coarse-grained 

substrates (gravel and cobbles); therefore, cobble substrate 

in riffles and runs were sampled for periphyton at each site. 

This single habitat sampling approach for periphyton helps 

to minimize variability among sites because of differences 

in habitat (Stevenson and Bahls, 1999; Moulton and others, 

2002). Triplicate samples were collected at each site to more 

accurately compare differences among sites while accounting 

for within-site variability. 

Periphyton samples were collected from a composite of 

cobbles collected from three adjacent riffles at each site. Four 

cobbles were collected randomly from each of the three riffles 

(a total of 12 cobbles per sample), placed in a plastic dishpan, 

and transported to an onsite processing station. Using a scouring sampler (Davies and Gee, 1993), periphyton samples were 

scraped from a known area on each cobble and rinsed into a 

beaker using 0.7-μm filtered stream water. This process was 

repeated several times until all of the visible periphyton was 

removed from the known area. After all cobbles were scraped, 

periphyton material was rinsed from the beaker into a graduated cylinder. Sample volume was recorded and the sample 

was poured into a 1-liter high density polyethylene (HDPE) 

bottle. After vigorous shaking, the sample was split into three 

aliquots. Two aliquots were processed for chlorophyll and one 

for taxonomic identification and enumeration. Chlorophyll 

samples were processed as described in Hambrook-Berkman 

and Canova (2007). Samples for taxonomic identification and 

enumeration were preserved with a 9:1 Lugol’s iodine:acetic 

acid solution. The known areas for all 12 cobbles in a sample 

were summed to determine total surface area sampled. 

Chlorophyll was analyzed at the USGS Kansas Water 

Science Center. Total chlorophyll (uncorrected for degradation products) was extracted in heated ethanol (Sartory and 

Grobbelar, 1986) and analyzed fluorometrically using EPA 

Method 445.0 (Knowlton, 1984; Arar and Collins, 1997). 

Samples were analyzed in duplicate and the results reported as 

an average of the two.
Methods 9

Periphyton samples were analyzed for taxonomic identification, enumeration, and biovolume of soft algae and diatoms 

by BSA Environmental Services, Inc., Beachwood, Ohio. The 

soft algae in the periphyton samples were first enumerated to 

the lowest possible taxonomic level using membrane-filtered 

slides (McNabb, 1960). A minimum of 400 natural units were 

counted. Diatoms were counted by natural unit as a general 

category, and then examined more closely in permanent 

diatom mounts. Diatom slides were made using the traditional 

nitric acid digestion method (Patrick Center for Environmental 

Research, 1988). A minimum of 400 valves were identified to 

the lowest possible taxonomic level. Biovolume, calculated 

using mean measured cell dimensions, is an estimate of algal 

biomass. Biovolume factors for soft algae and diatoms were 

calculated using the methods described in Hillebrand and 

others (1999). Diatom biovolumes were calculated from the 

permanent slides. A mean biovolume measurement per cell 

was calculated for each sample, and that value was used as the 

biovolume measurement in the general diatom category.

Summer Periphyton Biomass

Periphyton biomass may change rapidly because of 

changing environmental conditions, such as scouring during 

high flow events, and repeated sampling is necessary to 

evaluate among-site differences. Periphyton samples were 

collected at least weekly during June through September 2008 

at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites (fig. 1) and analyzed 

for chlorophyll, an indicator of algal biomass. Periphyton 

samples for chlorophyll analysis were a composite of three 

cobbles collected from one riffle. Cobbles were processed and 

chlorophyll was analyzed in the same manner as described for 

periphyton communities. 

Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrate community samples were collected 

from all three sample sites (fig. 1) during April 1-2, 2008 

(spring) and August 26-28, 2008 (summer), after a period of 

at least 2 weeks without any substantial streamflow events. 

Triplicate samples were collected at each site to more accurately compare differences among sites while accounting for 

within site variability. Triplicates corresponded with three 

separate riffle-pool sequences, except at the Blue Ridge site 

where one of the two available riffles was separated by a 

gravel island with a riffle on each side. In this case, the area 

was divided into two separate riffles, with associated pool and 

shoreline habitats upstream and downstream, one on each side 

of the island. 

A semi-quantitative method using timed sampling 

from multiple habitat types (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2000) was followed for sample collection. Two independent 100-organism samples were collected 

and counted in the field by two scientists for approximately 

one hour each. Sampling ended if 100 organisms were not 

obtained in that hour. All of the 100-organism samples were 

field preserved in 125-milliliter (mL) polyethylene bottles 

containing 80-percent ethanol. Macroinvertebrate samples 

were analyzed for taxonomic identification and relative 

abundance at the NWQL using the methods described in 

Moulton and others (2000). Data from the two independent 

samples collected within the same riffle were combined into 

one 200-organism sample after laboratory enumeration and 

identification were completed. 

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected with standard 

rectangular frame kicknets (500-micron mesh) by physical disturbance of the substrate upstream from the net. In 

standing-water habitats, the net was used with a sweeping or 

scooping motion. A streamside white sorting tray was used 

to enhance the visibility of the organisms during sorting. As 

organisms were removed from the tray with forceps, a hand 

counter was used to count the organisms. Any organisms 

appearing different (size, shape, color) compared to those 

previously sorted were included in the sample to maximize 

diversity of organisms. Generally, no more than 25 percent of 

the organisms sorted came from any one of the available habitats, which 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 around snags and pool margins, and large moveable 

objects such as logs or rocks. 

Data Analysis

Stream-Water Chemistry Data

Water-quality conditions were compared between the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites and before (January 2003 

through October 2006) and after (November 2006 through 

March 2009) the WWTF upgrade at the Blue Ridge (downstream) site with respect to below-normal, normal, and 

above-normal streamflows. Below-normal, normal, and abovenormal streamflows were defined using streamflow duration 

curves for each site and percentile classes. Streamflow conditions were classified using the percentile classes defined on 

the USGS WaterWatch website (http://waterwatch.usgs.gov); 

below-normal streamflows are less than the 25th percentile, 

normal streamflows are between the 25th and 75th percentiles, and above-normal streamflows are greater than the 

75th percentile. 

Duration curves were used to compare streamflows 

between the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites during January 

2003 through March 2009 and water-quality conditions for 

continuously measured variables during April 2008 through 

March 2009, when monitors at both sites were operating 

simultaneously. Duration curves are cumulative distribution 

functions and were constructed using hourly values to evaluate and compare frequency and magnitude characteristics at 

the two sites (Rasmussen and Ziegler, 2003; Rasmussen and 

others, 2005). The curves indicate the percentage of time 

that specified conditions were equaled or exceeded, or the 

frequency of exceedance (Maidment, 1993). Although several 
10 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

similar formulas exist for calculating plotting position, the 

Weibull formula (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002) was used in this 

study. Streamflow and water-quality condition duration curves 

for both sites are available for the period of record on the 

USGS website at: http://nrtwq.usgs.gov/ks/.

Ordinary least squares analysis was used to develop 

regression models for the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites 

using continuous water-quality data and concurrent discrete 

sample data (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002; Christensen and others, 

2000; Rasmussen and others, 2008). Models for the Kenneth 

site, previously published by Rasmussen and others (2008), 

were updated to include sample data through March 2009; a 

total of 32 samples collected from July 2003 through March 

2009 were included (appendix 1). All available data were 

used for models at the Kenneth site because continuous data 

were available and no substantial changes in water quality 

occurred that would affect relations between explanatory and 

response variables. The dataset used to develop regression 

models for the Blue Ridge site included 20 samples collected 

between April 2008 and March 2009 (appendix 1). Two of 

the samples were collected as part of a different study by 

the USGS Missouri Water Science Center using sampling 

methods consistent with those used in this study. Although 

other discrete samples were collected during previous studies 

(Wilkison and others, 2009), data from those samples were not 

included in model development because continuous waterquality data were not available and upgrades to the WWTF 

may have affected relations between explanatory and response 

variables. 

For each response variable, all continuously measured 

variables and seasonal components (sine and cosine variables) 

were tested for significance. Continuous data used in regression models were obtained from the monitor deployed at the 

site (after applying appropriate data corrections, computations, and review) and expressed as time-weighted averages 

(average of the start, middle, and end time) during discrete 

sample collection. Models were evaluated based on diagnostic 

statistics (R2, coefficient of determination; RMSE, root mean 

square error; PRESS, prediction error sum of squares), patterns 

in residual plots, and the range and distribution of discrete 

and continuous data. The best model for each constituent was 

selected to maximize variability in the response variable that 

is explained by the model (R2) and to minimize heteroscedasticity (irregular scatter) in the residual plots and uncertainty associated with computed values (RMSE and PRESS). 

Regression methods used in this study are described in detail 

in Cohn and others (1989), Helsel and Hirsch (2002), and 

Rasmussen and others (2008, 2009b). A bias correction factor 

(Duan, 1983) was used to correct for log-transformation bias 

in load estimation.

Regression models were used to calculate hourly concentrations of TN and TP at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites for 

the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. Continuous 

(hourly) loads were calculated using hourly concentration 

(in mg/L), hourly streamflow (in ft3/s), and a unit conversion 

factor (0.22427). Monthly and total loads were calculated by 

summing hourly calculations. Yields were calculated for each 

site by dividing total loads by the corresponding drainage area. 

No documented wastewater effluent overflow events occurred 

during the study period.

Periphyton Data

A total of 277 periphyton community metrics were 

calculated using the Algal Data Analysis System v. 2.4.8a 

(ADAS) developed for the USGS National Water-Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) Program (Cuffney, 2003). During 

analysis with ADAS, rare taxa were not deleted, and lowest 

taxonomic levels were used. Abundance was selected for these 

calculations rather than biovolume because abundance is used 

in the calculation of most published bioassessment metrics 

for periphyton and interpretation of biovolume results can be 

ambiguous (Stevenson and Bahls, 1999). The ADAS program 

uses a common logarithm (log10) base to calculate the Shannon 

Diversity Index; however, previous studies in Johnson County 

and the Blue River Basin used a natural logarithm base (ln) for 

Index calculation. To allow direct comparison among studies, 

ADAS calculated Index values were converted to a natural 

logarithm base by multiplying by 2.3026 (Brower and others, 

1990). A subset of 24 metrics in five categories (oxygen tolerance, saprobity, trophic condition, nitrogen-uptake metabolism, and other indices) was selected for additional analyses to 

determine among-site differences. These metrics were chosen 

to minimize redundancy and represent water-quality variables 

of particular interest. Some, such as TN, TP, specific conductance, and chloride tolerances, were excluded because less 

than 50 percent of the taxa present had autecological classifications in ADAS with respect to these variables. 

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for 

statistical differences in periphyton chlorophyll, abundance, 

biovolume, and community metrics among sites. ANOVA tests 

indicate whether two or more means are significantly different 

from each other and the F-value represents the test statistic. 

The F-value, also called the sample variance ratio, is calculated as the ratio of the variance between means to the error 

variance. When comparing more than two means ANOVA 

does not identify which means are significantly different. 

Least-squares means and simultaneous confidence intervals 

were used to make pairwise comparisons among site means to 

determine which were significantly different (Sokal and Rohlf, 

1995). Analyses were performed independently for the April 

and August 2008 sampling periods. Significance for these 

analyses was set at a probability value (p-value) of less than 

0.05. Analyses were conducted using SAS® 9.2 (SAS Institute, 

Inc., 2009).

Macroinvertebrate Data

A total of 34 metrics were initially chosen to represent the 

macroinvertebrate data. These included the 4 KDHE aquaticlife-support status metrics (Kansas Department of Health and 
Methods 11

Environment, 2008a), 7 metrics that were used for multimetric 

site scoring in Poulton and others (2007) and Rasmussen and 

others (2009a), and an additional 23 metrics selected from the 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP; Barbour and others, 

1999). These metrics represent core metrics used in many 

State evaluation programs, those known to be sensitive and 

reliable for measuring degradation of stream assemblages, 

and those that allow determination of stream impairment 

status and comparisons with data from previous Blue River 

studies. Twenty-eight metrics were generated by the Invertebrate Data Analysis System v. 4.2.19 (IDAS) developed for 

NAWQA (Cuffney, 2003). During analysis with IDAS, rare 

taxa were not deleted, lowest taxonomic levels were used, and 

taxonomic ambiguities were resolved by retaining ambiguous taxa. Shannon Diversity Index values were converted 

as described for periphyton. The six metrics not included in 

the IDAS program (Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index, Kansas 

Biotic Index, Percentage of Intolerant Organisms, Clinger 

Richness, and Percentage of Clingers) were calculated as 

described in Barbour and others (1999) or Poulton and others 

(2007). Statistical differences in macroinvertebrate community composition among sites were determined as described 

for periphyton.

To determine the aquatic-life-support status and relative degree of impairment for the sampling sites, scores were 

determined using the 4 KDHE aquatic-life-support status 

metrics used by the State of Kansas. The State metrics include 

the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI; Davenport and 

Kelly, 1983), the Kansas Biotic Index (KBI-NO; Huggins and 

Moffet, 1988), Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera 

(EPT) taxa richness, and relative abundance of EPT taxa. Each 

metric was scored on a three-point system that was based on 

State criteria (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

2008a). Impairment status for each site was determined by 

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

Stream Metabolism Data

Stream metabolism at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites 

was determined using the whole stream metabolism program 

developed for the USGS NAWQA Nutrient Enrichment 

Effects Team (NEET; Bales and Nardi, 2007). The calculations and assumptions in the stream metabolism program are 

described in detail in Bales and Nardi (2007) and are based 

on standard approaches (Odum, 1956; Marzolf and others, 

1994; Mulholland and others, 2001). Stream metabolism was 

calculated using the diurnal oxygen curve method. Using this 

method, oxygen changes in a 24-hour period are indicative of 

the dissolved oxygen additions by photosynthesis and reaeration, and dissolved oxygen losses by community respiration. 

Estimates of community respiration are based on nighttime 

measurements (when there is no light and hence, no photosynthesis) and are assumed to be equal to daytime respiration. 

Each site had one continuous water-quality monitor; however, 

the stream metabolism program has an increased amount of 

output information for estimates based on the two-monitor 

method. The one-monitor method output calculates only gross 

primary production, whereas the two-monitor method output 

calculates gross primary production, community respiration, 

and net ecosystem metabolism. The one-monitor method was 

modified to simulate a two-monitor method by entering the 

continuous data from each site into the program twice, with 

the second entry offset by 15 minutes (Bales and Nardi, 2007; 

J.D. Bales, written commun., 2009). 

Daily estimates of gross primary production (GPP), 

community respiration (CR), net ecosystem production (NEP), 

and the production to respiration ratio (P/R) were calculated 

for the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. Because 

stream metabolism variables should only be calculated during 

stable flow conditions, 24-hour periods having flow that varied 

by more than 10 ft3/s were excluded from the analysis. Mean 

daily discharge and 15-minute dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductance, and temperature data were used in stream 

metabolism calculations. The program also required estimates 

of several physical variables including velocity, wetted 

width, depth, area, reach length, channel slope, and a reaeration coefficient. Velocity, wetted width, depth, and area were 

determined using the rating curves developed for each site 

to determine streamflow. Reach length was estimated based 

on how far a parcel of water would travel during a 15-minute 

time interval (J.D. Bales, written commun., 2009). Channel 

slope was estimated from USGS 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scale 

topographical maps (U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a, b) by 

measuring the stream distance where the contour lines cross 

the stream channel and dividing that distance into the contour 

interval. The reaeration coefficient was estimated by the 

Energy Dissipation Model (EDM; Tsivoglou and Neal, 1976). 

Conditions for each of these variables during the study period 

are presented in appendix 2.

Statistical differences in stream metabolism variables 

among sites were determined for the entire study period 

(April 2008 through March 2009) and seasonally. Seasons 

were defined as spring (April through June), summer (July 

through September), fall (October through December), and 

winter (January through March). A two-sided nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis was used to determine 

statistical differences among sites (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995). 

The analysis tests whether median differences between ranks 

of paired values is 0 (the null hypothesis). Significance for 

this analysis was set at a p-value of less than 0.05 and was 

conducted using SAS® 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., 2009). 

Quality-Assurance and Quality-Control

Stream-Water Chemistry Data

Quality-assurance and quality-control samples were 

collected within a range of streamflow conditions. Six sequential replicate samples were analyzed for suspended sediment, 

dissolved solids, major ions, nutrients, carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, and indicator bacteria. One sequential 
12 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

replicate sample was analyzed for organic wastewater effluent compounds and pharmaceutical compounds. Relative 

percentage difference (RPD) was used to evaluate differences 

in analyte concentrations detected in replicate water samples. 

The RPD was calculated using the following equation:

RPD A B A B = −  +



 



 



 



 / ×

2

100 (1)

where A and B are concentrations in each replicate pair. The 

median RPD between replicate pairs was less than 10 percent 

for all constituents except ammonia plus organic nitrogen 

(12 percent), Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria (12 percent), 

and the wastewater effluent compound isophorone (12 percent). Generally, larger RPDs occurred when values were near 

the reporting level.

Comparison with cross-section measurements provided 

verification that minimum bias occurred as a result of sonde 

location within the stream cross-section. The median RPD 

between cross-section and continuous monitor measurements 

at the Kenneth site was previously determined to be about 

1 percent for all measurements (Rasmussen and others, 2008). 

At the Blue Ridge site, the largest median RPD of 7 percent 

occurred for turbidity measurements. The larger differences 

between cross-section and continuous monitor measurements 

occurred during stormwater runoff when conditions were 

changing rapidly.

Continuous data during the study period generally 

required corrections of less than 10 percent which classifies 

the data quality as good according to established guidelines 

(Wagner and others, 2006). Time-series measurements occasionally were missing or deleted from the dataset because of 

equipment malfunction or excessive fouling caused by environmental conditions. Poor turbidity data at the Blue Ridge 

site during October 2008 was deleted during a 5-day period 

(representing about 1.5 percent of the total record); streamflow 

was returning to normal conditions during this 5-day period 

and turbidity values decreased from about 20 formazin nephelometric units (FNU) to about 4 FNUs. In addition, hourly 

streamflow data at the Blue Ridge site were missing during 

a 3-day below-normal streamflow period in December 2008. 

Data during those periods were interpolated between measured 

values to minimize bias in load calculations. Three hourly 

turbidity values at the Kenneth and the Blue Ridge sites may 

have exceeded the maximum values the sensors are capable of 

measuring during the study period. No adjustments were made 

to those values. 

Streambed-Sediment Chemistry Data

One sequential replicate streambed-sediment sample was 

analyzed for carbon, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, 

and organic wastewater effluent compounds. RPD values for 

carbon, major ions, nutrients, and most trace elements were 

less than 10 percent; antimony, vanadium, and mercury had 

RPD values of about 12, 13, and 67 percent, respectively. 

Most organic wastewater effluent compound data were either 

below the laboratory reporting level or estimated concentrations. Where concentrations were measured or estimated, the 

RPD between replicate pairs ranged from about 3 percent to 

164 percent (median: 25 percent). Poor replication and large 

RPD values are likely because of the low detection levels for 

these compounds and matrix interference conditions. 

Periphyton Data

Samples for periphyton community and chlorophyll 

analyses were collected in triplicate. Because of the patchy 

nature of periphyton communities within streams (Stevenson, 

1997), the variability among replicate samples may be much 

greater than for water-chemistry data. Concurrent field-replicate samples for periphyton abundance and chlorophyll had 

smaller coefficients of variation (CVs) (37 and 23 percent, 

respectively; both number of pairs=6) (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) 

than biovolume (median: 66 percent; number of pairs=6). 

The CVs for the 24 individual periphyton community metrics 

ranged from 0 to 173 percent (median: 26 percent); however 

65 percent of metric comparisons (number of pairs=144) had 

CVs less than 40 percent. Those metric comparisons with 

CVs greater than 75 percent (11 percent of metric comparisons) were strongly affected by rare taxa that composed less 

than 10 percent of the overall community and occurred in 

some replicates but not others. Metrics affected by rare taxa 

included those indicative of very low dissolved oxygen, polysaprobic conditions, and oligo-mesotrophic, mesotrophic, and 

meso-eutrophic conditions. Large CVs are likely because of 

the natural variation of periphyton communities and the effect 

of relatively rare taxa that did not occur in all samples. The 

large variance in some metrics because of the natural spatial 

variation in periphyton communities precludes the statistical 

detection of small differences among sites (Morin and Cattaneo, 1992).

Field-split replicate samples for chlorophyll analysis were 

collected from all samples. Most field-split replicate chlorophyll samples (90 percent, number of pairs=50) had CVs less 

than 10 percent, although CVs ranged from 0 to 26 percent 

(median: 4 percent). Field-split replicate samples with large 

CVs likely were caused by clumps of periphytic material that 

could not be homogenized by vigorous shaking. 

Macroinvertebrate Data

The CVs for the 34 individual macroinvertebrate community metrics ranged from 0 to 173 percent (median 11 percent; 

number of pairs=204); however, 91 percent of metric comparisons had CVs less than 40 percent. Those metric comparisons 

with CVs greater than 75 percent (4 percent of metric comparisons) were strongly affected by rare taxa that composed less 

than 10 percent of the overall community and occurred in 

some replicates but not others. Metrics affected by rare taxa 

included percent Tanytarsini midges, percent Plecoptera, 
Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 13

Plecoptera richness, percent Oligochaeta, and percent Corbicula. An additional source of variability was likely differences 

in habitat among the three riffle-pool sampling locations at 

each site. The large variance in some metrics because of the 

natural spatial variation in macroinvertebrate communities 

precludes the statistical detection of small differences among 

sites (Miller and others, 2008).

Quality-assurance and quality-control measures for 

macroinvertebrate identification, enumeration, and data entry 

followed those outlined in Moulton and others (2000) and 

included within-laboratory cross checking of specimen identification. Updated taxonomic keys and voucher specimens are 

kept on file at the NWQL. 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.

Environmental Conditions of the Upper 

Blue River

The environmental conditions evaluated include streamflow, stream-water chemistry, streambed-sediment chemistry, 

and habitat. Conditions were evaluated at one site located 

upstream and two sites located downstream from the Blue 

River Main WWTF. Data collected from the upper Blue 

River during January 2003 through March 2009, a period that 

includes data from before and after the WWTF upgrade, were 

used to evaluate environmental conditions.

Streamflow

Streamflow is one of the key variables that shape the 

structure and function of stream ecosystems. Alterations to the 

natural streamflow regime may affect water quality, physical habitat, biological communities, and ecosystem function 

(Poff and others, 1997, 2010). Wastewater effluent discharge 

may substantially alter natural streamflow regimes, especially 

during periods when streamflow is naturally low. 

Streamflows at the Stanley site (fig. 1) were lowest 

during 2003, with annual median streamflow about one-third 

of the period of record (September 1974 through March 

2009) median, and highest during 2008, with annual median 

streamflows about 3 times greater than the period-of-record 

median (table 2). Median streamflow during 2008 was the 

third highest on record. The highest streamflows typically 

occur during May and June and the lowest in August. Similar 

patterns in streamflow were observed at the Kenneth and Blue 

Ridge sites, with the lowest annual median streamflows occurring in 2003 and the highest in 2008 (table 2). Median streamflow at the Blue Ridge site (29.0 cubic feet per second, ft3

/s) 

was about 2 times larger than the median streamflow at the 

Kenneth site (15.0 ft3/s) during the study period (January 2003 

through March 2009; table 2). Based on streamflow duration 

curves for the study period, normal streamflows ranged from 

5.5 to 36 ft3/s at the Kenneth site and 12 to 62 ft3/s at the Blue 

Ridge site (fig. 2).

Upgrades increased the capacity of the Blue River 

Main WWTF by about 220 percent (from 5.1 to 16.2 ft3/s). 

On average, the volume of wastewater effluent discharge 

increased by 26 percent during 2007 and by 71 percent during 

2008 relative to 2003 through 2006. Despite these increases, 

annual wastewater effluent discharge from the Blue River 

Main WWTF during 2008 was about one-half of the maximum 

capacity of the upgraded facility (table 2). Continued increases 

in wastewater effluent discharge approaching maximum 

capacity will substantially change the contribution of wastewater effluent to streamflow in the upper Blue River. Potential 

wastewater effluent contributions to streamflow at maximum 

capacity were estimated using mean daily streamflows at the 

Blue Ridge site during January 2003 through March 2009 

and the mean daily design flow (16.2 ft3/s) of the upgraded 

WWTF. This approach assumes that the WWTF is always 

discharging at maximum capacity and represents maximum 

potential contributions of wastewater effluent to streamflow.

Wastewater effluent contribution to total annual streamflow volume at the Blue Ridge site below the Blue River Main 

WWTF ranged from 4.6 percent during relatively wet years 

to 14 percent during relatively dry years. Overall, wastewater effluent contributed about 6.6 percent to total streamflow 

volume during the study period. By comparison, based on 

potential wastewater effluent contributions at maximum capacity, wastewater effluent contribution to total annual streamflow 

volume may range from 11 to 49 percent (table 2). 

The contribution of wastewater effluent to streamflow 

at the Blue Ridge site ranged from negligible (less than 

1 percent) during large runoff events to nearly 100 percent 

during the lowest streamflows (fig. 3). Wastewater effluent 

contributed more than 20 percent to total streamflow during 

below-normal and normal streamflows (75 percent of the time) 

during the study period. More than 90 percent of total streamflow was contributed by wastewater effluent about 6 percent 

of the time. Before capacity upgrades (January 2003 through 

March 2007) wastewater effluent contributed between 6.4 and 

51 percent (median: 16 percent) to total streamflow during 

normal streamflows (fig. 3). After capacity upgrades (April 

2007 through March 2009), the wastewater effluent contribution to streamflow during normal flow conditions increased by 

about 30 percent (range: 8.3 to 68 percent, median: 23 percent; 

fig. 3). By comparison, based on potential wastewater effluent contributions at maximum capacity, wastewater effluent 

may contribute between 26 and nearly 100 percent (median: 

56 percent) to total streamflow during normal flow conditions 

(fig. 3).
Table 2. Streamflow statistics for the Stanley, Kenneth, and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, flow statistics for the Blue River Main Wastew

the percent contribution of wastewater effluent to annual streamflow at the Blue Ridge site during January 2003 through March 2009 and for the perio[Streamflow and flow statistics are based on mean daily values for each site; Blue River streamflow data are available on the USGS National Water Information website (http://wft3/s, cubic feet per second; min, minimum; max, maximum; --, not applicable]

Time period

Upper Blue River sites (fig. 1) Blue River Main Wastew

Stanley streamflow (ft3/s) Kenneth streamflow (ft3/s) Blue Ridge streamflow (ft3/s) Flow (ft3/s) 

median mean min max median mean min max median mean min max median mean min max

2003 2.00 10.3 0.00 1,000 6.20 20.6 0.00 1,340 6.10 33.3 1.10 2,880 4.18 4.54 2.13 8.72004 13.0 64.6 .80 4,450 22.0 81.8 2.20 4,830 41.0 118 4.00 5,800 5.11 5.48 3.38 9.52005 7.60 42.3 .10 2,810 12.0 64.8 .40 3,770 25.0 89.8 4.20 5,030 4.97 5.48 2.73 9.52006 4.10 16.8 .20 1,200 6.60 20.7 .03 1,270 17.0 43.0 4.80 1,470 4.48 4.82 2.56 14.2007 10.0 48.8 .10 2,170 17.0 69.8 .40 3,600 31.0 114 3.40 5,240 3.71 6.38 3.15 23.6 2008 16.0 70.8 .40 4,030 27.0 91.3 1.10 4,160 49.0 145 8.30 5,350 8.04 8.74 5.68 20.9 

January 2003 to 

March 2009

8.10 42.4 .00 4,450 15.0 60.1 .00 4,830 29.0 91.2 1.10 5,800 5.37 5.99 2.13 23.6 

Period of 

record3

5.50 36.5 .00 5,520 15.0 61.0 .00 4,830 27.0 87.4 .70 5,800 -- -- -- -

1Calculated as the total annual effluent volume divided by the total annual streamflow volume at the Blue Ridge site.2Calculated as the potential total annual effluent volume divided by the total annual streamflow volume at the Blue Ridge site. Potential total annual effluent volume was calcu

capacity (16.2 ft3/s) of the upgraded Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility.

3The period of record for the Stanley site is September 1974 through March 2009; the period of record for the Kenneth site is April 2003 through March 2009; the period of re

is June 2002 through March 2009.

4Maximum flow exceeded mean daily design flow in all years.
Figure 2. Streamflow duration curves based on mean daily streamflow at the Kenneth (April 2003 through March 2009) 

and Blue Ridge (January 2003 through March 2009) sites on the upper Blue River; below-normal, normal, and above-normal 

streamflow conditions as determined by percentiles; and mean Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment Facility wastewater 

effluent discharge before (January 2003 through March 2007) and after (April 2007 through March 2009) capacity upgrades 

and capacity upgrade mean daily design flow.

FREQUENCY OF EXCEEDENCE, IN PERCENT

0 20 40 60 80 100

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

Wastewater treatment 

facility discharge 

before capacity upgrade

Wastewater treatment 

facility discharge 

after capacity upgrade

Wastewater treatment facility

capacity upgrade 

mean daily design flow

Above normal

(greater than

75th percentile)

Normal

(25th–75th percentile)

Below normal

(less than 25th percentile)

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 15

Stream-Water Chemistry

Stream-water chemistry at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge 

sites was evaluated using discrete water-quality data collected 

during January 2003 through March 2009 and continuous 

water-quality data collected during April 2008 through March 

2009. Water samples also were collected at the Kenneth, 

151st, and Blue Ridge sites during April and August 2008 

when periphyton and macroinvertebrate samples were 

collected. Discrete samples were analyzed for physical properties, nutrients, suspended solids and sediment, biochemical 

oxygen demand, indicator bacteria, dissolved solids, major 

ions, and organic carbon. Samples collected during April 

2008 also were analyzed for wastewater-effluent and pharmaceutical compounds. Continuous water-quality data included 

specific conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity, and 

dissolved oxygen.

Specific Conductance, pH, Temperature, and 

Dissolved Oxygen

Specific conductance, pH, temperature, and dissolved 

oxygen are described using the continuous data collected at 

the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites during April 2008 through 

March 2009 (table 3). Data for these properties in discrete 

water-quality samples are presented in table 4 and appendix 3.

Specific conductance is an indirect measure of dissolved 

solids in water (Hem, 1992). Some dissolved solids, such as 

chloride and some nutrients, may have elevated concentrations 

in wastewater effluent. Thus, wastewater effluent generally has 

larger specific conductance values than receiving stream water 

(Cheremisinoff, 1995). Specific conductance was consistently 

greater at the Blue Ridge site, downstream from the WWTF, 

than at the Kenneth site (fig. 4A). The difference between 

sites was most pronounced during below-normal streamflows, 
Figure 3. The percent contribution of wastewater effluent to streamflow during below normal, normal, and above normal 

streamflows at the Blue Ridge site on the upper Blue River before (January 2003 through March 2007) and after (April 

2007 through March 2009) capacity upgrades and potential maximum contribution based on capacity upgrade mean daily 

design flow.

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

CONTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENT TO STREAMFLOW, IN PERCENT

0

20

40

60

80

100

Capacity upgrade mean daily design flow

Before capacity upgrade

After capacity upgrade

Above normal

(greater than 75th percentile)

Normal

(25th–75th

percentile)

Below normal

(less than 25th percentile)

16 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

with the median value at the Blue Ridge site (706 μS/cm) 

about 20 percent larger than at the Kenneth site (567 μS/cm). 

However, during normal and above-normal streamflows, 

maximum specific conductance values at the Blue Ridge 

site were approximately twice as large as maximum values 

at the Kenneth site (table 3). Road salt may substantially 

affect specific conductance in streams during winter months, 

particularly in more urban locations (Rasmussen and others, 

2008). The Blue Ridge site is more urban than the Kenneth 

site with substantially more impervious surface cover (table 

1, fig. 1). The largest specific conductance values at the Blue 

Ridge site all occurred during December 2008 and January 

2009, indicating road salt likely affected specific conductance. 

Winter increases in specific conductance were not observed at 

the Kenneth site.

pH is a measure of the effective hydrogen ion concentration and is often used to evaluate chemical and biological 

reactions in water (Hem, 1992). Kansas aquatic-life-support 

criteria require that pH in streams not measure less than 

6.5 or more than 8.5 standard units (Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment, 2008b). pH was consistently larger 

at the Blue Ridge site than at the Kenneth site (fig. 4B). The 

difference between sites ranged from 0.1 to 1 standard units 

(median: 0.2). Measured pH was never lower than 6.5 at either 

site, but exceeded the maximum aquatic-life-support criterion 

of 8.5 standard units about 5 percent of the time at the Blue 

Ridge site (fig. 4B). Exceedances primarily occurred during 

normal streamflows in April and May 2008 and likely are 

caused by increased algal photosynthesis. 

Water temperature affects biological activity and the 

solubility of chemicals in water. Kansas water-quality criteria 

require that discharges to streams not raise the water temperature more than 3 degrees Celsius (°C) or raise the temperature 

above 32°C (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2008b). Water temperatures at both sites ranged from 

about zero to 31°C, with the coldest temperatures occurring 

in December 2008 and January 2009 and the warmest in 

July and August 2008. Water temperature at the Blue Ridge 

site tended to exceed temperature at the Kenneth site during 

colder months, when temperatures were in the lower one-half 
Table 3. Summary statistics for water-quality constituents measured continuously (hourly) at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the 

upper Blue River during below-normal, normal, and above-normal streamflow conditions, April 2008 through March 2009.

[Continuous real-time water-quality data are available on the USGS National Real-Time Water-Quality website (http://nrtwq.usgs.gov/ks); 

n, number of measurements; min, minimum; max, maximum; med, median; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; 

FNU, formazin nephelometric units; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Below-normal streamflow conditions1

Water-quality property

Kenneth Blue Ridge

n min max mean med n min max mean med

Specific conductance (μS/cm) 1,159 495 644 571 567 358 540 827 706 706

pH 1,159 7.8 8.5 8.1 8.0 358 7.8 8.6 8.3 8.3

Water temperature (°C) 1,159 15.0 30.9 23.2 24.2 358 15.6 30.8 24.0 24.0

Turbidity (FNU) 1,159 6.60 44 14 14 358 .60 12 2.7 2.0

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1,159 3.8 12 7.6 7.5 358 5.4 12 8.0 7.6

Normal streamflow conditions2

Specific conductance (μS/cm) 4,876 355 813 593 601 5,338 446 1,820 699 682

pH 4,876 7.5 8.5 7.9 7.9 5,338 7.8 9.0 8.3 8.2

Water temperature (°C) 4,876 -.10 29.7 11.4 10.1 5,338 -.10 31.0 13.4 13.3

Turbidity (FNU) 4,876 .80 86.0 11.7 9.4 5,266 .40 190 6.0 3.9

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 4,876 4.8 16 11 11 5,338 5.0 18 11 10

Above-normal streamflow conditions3

Specific conductance (μS/cm) 2,516 114 771 474 492 3,000 181 1,270 526 537

pH 2,725 7.0 8.3 7.9 7.9 3,000 7.6 8.5 8.0 8.0

Water temperature (°C) 2,725 0 20.2 13.6 13.6 3,000 -.10 28.9 14.1 14.2

Turbidity (FNU) 2,725 1.50 1,290 89 35 2,938 2.40 1,660 91 31

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 2,725 5.5 13.7 9.6 9.6 3,000 5.4 17 9.6 9.5

1

Below-normal streamflow conditions were defined as streamflows less than the 25th percentile using streamflow duration curves for the period January 2003 

through March 2009. Below-normal streamflows were less than 5.5 and less than 12 cubic feet per second for the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites, respectively.

2

Normal streamflow conditions were defined as streamflows between the 25th and 75th percentiles using streamflow duration curves for the period January 

2003 through March 2009. Normal streamflows were between 5.5 and 36 and between 12 and 62 cubic feet per second for the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites, 

respectively.

3

Above-normal streamflow conditions were defined as streamflows greater than the 75th percentile using streamflow duration curves for the period January 

2003 through March 2009. Above-normal streamflows were greater than 36 and greater than 62 cubic feet per second for the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites, 

respectively.

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 17

of the temperature range (about 0 to 15°C; fig. 4C). The 

warmest temperatures at both sites generally occurred during 

below-normal streamflows, with median values nearly double 

those observed during normal and above-normal streamflows 

(table 3); this pattern reflects seasonal low-flows during 

summer months. Measured temperatures never exceeded 

32°C at either site, but water temperatures at the Blue Ridge 

site exceeded temperatures at the Kenneth site by more than 

the water-quality criterion of 3°C about 2 percent of the time. 

Temperature differences of more than 3°C occurred during 

normal streamflow conditions when temperatures were less 

than about 10°C (fig. 4C) and likely reflect the effect of the 

wastewater effluent discharge.

Dissolved oxygen is an important factor for the survival 

of aquatic organisms and concentrations in surface water are 

related primarily to photosynthesis, respiration, atmospheric 

reaeration, and water temperature (Lewis, 2006). Dissolved 

oxygen concentrations were slightly larger at the Blue Ridge 

site than the Kenneth site most of the time, indicating that 

the wastewater effluent is not having a negative effect on 

dissolved oxygen concentrations in the upper Blue River 

(fig. 4D). The lowest dissolved oxygen concentrations at both 

sites occurred during below-normal streamflows (table 3), 

reflecting increased water temperatures during seasonal 

low-flows in summer. Kansas aquatic-life-support criteria 

require that dissolved oxygen concentrations are not less than 

5.0 mg/L (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

2008b). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were less than the 

minimum aquatic-life-support criterion less than 1 percent of 

the time at the Kenneth site, but were never less than 5.0 mg/L 
Table 4. Results of analyses in discrete water-quality samples collected at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, 

January 2003 through March 2009.

[n, number of samples; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; %, percent; --, not applicable; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; FNU, formazin 

nephelometric units; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 ml, colonies per 100 milliliters of sample; <, less than]

Water-quality property or 

chemical (unit of measure)

Below normal and normal flow conditions

Kenneth Blue Ridge before upgrade Blue Ridge after upgrade

n Range Median n Range Median n Range Median

Physical properties, suspended solids, and sediment

Streamflow (ft3/s) 10 0.2–36 11 12 3.5–44 12 10 6.3–61 25

Wastewater effluent 

(% streamflow)

-- -- -- 12 10.2–158 41.1 10 7.13–89.7 23.6

Dissolved oxygen, field (mg/L) 10 3.1–13.8 7.1 12 6.4–15.2 9.9 10 6.9–14.3 10.7

pH, field (standard units) 10 7.5–8.2 7.9 12 7.6–8.5 8.0 10 8.1–8.4 8.3

Specific conductance, field 

(μS/cm)

10 434–698 590 12 509–1,150 717 10 564–825 668

Water temperature, field 

(degrees Celsius)

10 1.4–27.3 17.1 12 1.1–30.3 16.0 10 .4–29.7 10.4

Turbidity, laboratory (FNU) 10 5.3–33 15.0 1 14 14 8 2.5–18 6.0

Total suspended solids (mg/L) 10 <10–28 19.0 3 5–18 5 3 4–11 8

Suspended sediment (mg/L) 10 7.0–91 23.0 12 3.0–57 41 8 4.0–110 16

Dissolved solids and major ions

Dissolved solids (mg/L) 10 260–440 355 0 -- -- 3 397–464 457

Calcium (mg/L) 10 57.6–110 87.8 6 65.5–97.0 79.0 5 76.3–95.9 90.3

Magnesium (mg/L) 10 6.6–13.3 9.5 6 8.7–20.1 14.4 5 10.1–12.9 11.0

Potassium (mg/L) 10 2.2–4.3 3.2 2 7.2–13.2 10.2 3 4.0–9.8 6.1

Sodium (mg/L) 10 12.0–28.9 24.2 3 47.4–113 54.3 5 33.2–63.2 40.7

Chloride (mg/L) 10 22.0–55.0 32.5 11 30.4–144.3 58.6 10 38.3–98.0 59.2

Sulfate (mg/L) 10 24.0–74.0 44.0 3 90.8–154 141 4 56.2–82.0 62.5

Nutrients and carbon

Ammonia plus organic, total, as 

nitrogen (mg/L)

9 0.30–0.70 0.50 12 0.52–3.1 0.67 9 0.48–1.0 0.60

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, 

dissolved (mg/L)

10 .06–.86 .30 12 1.71–12.3 4.57 10 1.19–4.00 1.86

Ammonia, as nitrogen (mg/L) 10 <.02–.13 .05 12 <.04–1.9 .02 10 <.02–.09 .01

Total nitrogen (mg/L)1 10 .43–1.16 .68 12 2.26–15.4 5.25 10 1.29–4.84 2.40

Orthophosphorus, as phosphorus 

(mg/L)

10 <.01–.19 .03 12 .11–2.42 .49 10 .16–1.06 .41

Dissolved phosphorus (mg/L) 10 <.01–.12 .03 12 .13–2.33 .51 10 .17–1.08 .43

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 10 <.1–.34 .09 12 .17–2.46 .55 10 .21–1.36 .46

Particulate phosphorus (mg/L)2 10 .00–.22 .05 12 .00–.13 .04 10 .00–0.28 .02

Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L) 2 2.8–4.6 3.7 11 4.0–8.0 5.6 10 3.1–6.1 4.3

Total organic carbon (mg/L) 2 3.2–7.1 5.2 11 4.4–10.5 6.7 10 4.4–7.1 5.4

Biochemical and bacteria

Biochemical oxygen demand 

(mg/L)

2 <2.0–3.0 2.0 11 4.0–8.0 5.6 10 3.1–6.1 4.3

Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 2 15–17 16 12 <10–30 16 10 10–21 14

Enterococci (col/100 mL) 10 <4.0–620 21 0 -- -- 3 <4.0–10 5.0

Escherichia coli (col/100 mL) 10 <20–790 54 12 5.1–250 44 9 15–98 45

Fecal coliform (col/100 mL) 10 <10–1,900 40 12 <10–1,600 130 9 20–110 70

18 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009
Table 4. Results of analyses in discrete water-quality samples collected at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, 

January 2003 through March 2009.—Continued

[n, number of samples; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; %, percent; --, not applicable; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; FNU, formazin 

nephelometric units; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 ml, colonies per 100 milliliters of sample; <, less than]

Water-quality property or 

chemical (unit of measure)

Above normal flow conditions

Kenneth Blue Ridge before upgrade Blue Ridge after upgrade

n Range Median n Range Median n Range Median

Physical properties, suspended solids, and sediment

Streamflow (ft3/s) 22 47–10,950 848 12 81–1,990 635 19 63–10,100 972

Wastewater effluent 

(% streamflow)

-- -- -- 12 .12–9.79 3.97 19 .30–10.7 2.28

Dissolved oxygen, field (mg/L) 22 6.3–12.7 7.8 0 -- -- 15 6.7–10.5 8.0

pH, field (standard units) 22 7.4–8.2 7.8 5 8.0–8.3 8.1 19 7.7–8.2 7.9

Specific conductance, field 

(μS/cm)

22 170–580 326 6 272–620 366 19 166–900 391

Water temperature, field 

(degrees Celsius)

21 5.6–24.3 18.2 5 14.1–22.9 19.2 17 9.0–23.1 16.2

Turbidity, laboratory (FNU) 22 46–1,270 320 0 -- -- 15 19–1,080 510

Total suspended solids (mg/L) 22 44–4,470 586 0 -- -- 15 20–4,100 810

Suspended sediment (mg/L) 22 57–4,170 628 12 101–1,940 1,140 19 60–3,990 817

Dissolved solids and major ions

Dissolved solids (mg/L) 22 125–350 230 0 -- -- 14 159–387 228

Calcium (mg/L) 22 20.8–76.5 40.3 1 47.5 47.5 15 23.1–73.0 46.4

Magnesium (mg/L) 22 2.5–8.6 4.7 1 4.3 4.3 15 2.8–11.8 5.2

Potassium (mg/L) 22 2.6–4.7 3.9 1 4.3 4.3 15 2.7–6.5 3.7

Sodium (mg/L) 22 4.9–35.3 12.6 1 10.9 10.9 15 6.0–40.8 16.9

Chloride (mg/L) 22 6.0–45.0 16.8 12 14.5–65.4 40.1 18 7.0–162 30.0

Sulfate (mg/L) 21 9.0–48.0 24.0 1 19.3 19.3 15 9.0–58.0 24.0

Nutrients and carbon

Ammonia plus organic, total, as 

nitrogen (mg/L)

22 0.70–7.60 2.0 12 0.96–4.69 2.84 18 0.74–5.60 2.45

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, 

dissolved (mg/L)

22 .44–1.15 .66 12 .51–3.48 1.25 18 .38–3.22 .66

Ammonia, as nitrogen (mg/L) 21 <.02–0.32 .08 12 <.04–.14 .07 18 <.02–.32 .07

Total nitrogen (mg/L)1 22 1.47–8.75 2.58 12 2.03–5.64 4.94 18 1.99–6.21 3.31

Orthophosphorus, as phosphorus 

(mg/L)

22 .01–.12 .06 12 .06–.52 .11 18 .01–.97 .06

Dissolved phosphorus (mg/L) 22 <.05–.19 .09 12 .07–.58 .13 18 .05–.96 .10

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 22 .15–2.45 .54 12 .21–1.54 1.14 18 .18–2.05 .73

Particulate Phosphorus (mg/L)2 22 .09–2.37 .45 12 .09–1.38 .93 17 .06–2.00 .54

Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L) 5 3.8–7.2 6.3 12 5.2–7.7 6.3 18 4.5–7.6 5.8

Total organic carbon (mg/L) 5 8.7–55.4 15.3 12 8.9–46.0 19.8 18 6.6–85.9 21.8

Biochemical and bacteria

Biochemical oxygen demand 

(mg/L)

4 4.0–9.0 4.5 12 5.2–7.7 6.3 18 4.5–7.6 5.8

Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 3 101–240 200 12 21–112 56 17 18–308 101

Enterococci (col/100 mL) 22 200–370,000 14,000 0 -- -- 14 1,100–65,000 21,000

Escherichia coli (col/100 mL) 22 250–46,000 10,700 12 1,530–24,400 16,800 18 305–48,400 14,500

Fecal coliform (col/100 mL) 21 500–90,000 20,000 11 3,330–45,000 21,000 18 325–52,000 12,200

1

Calculated as the sum of nitrite plus nitrate and dissolved and ammonia plus organic, total.

2

Calculated as the difference between total phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus.

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 19
Figure 4. Duration curves for hourly measured specific conductance (A), pH (B), water temperature (C), dissolved oxygen (D), and 

turbidity (E) at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River, April 2008 through March 2009.

FREQUENCY OF EXCEEDENCE, IN PERCENT

0 20 40 60 80 100

FREQUENCY OF EXCEEDENCE, IN PERCENT

0 20 40 60 80 100

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMENS

PER CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

A

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment aquatic-life-support criterion

Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment aquatic-life-support criterion

B

WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

0

10

20

30

C

DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

5

10

15

20

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

D

TURBIDITY, IN FORMAZIN NEPHELOMETRIC UNITS

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Level III Ecoregion 40 guideline

E

20 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009
Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 21

at the Blue Ridge site (fig. 4D). The larger dissolved oxygen 

concentrations at the Blue Ridge site are likely because of 

increased algal photosynthesis and possibly larger streamflows 

and increased stream reaeration because of better riffle-pool 

sequences. In addition, low dissolved oxygen concentrations at 

the Kenneth site may occur during low-flow periods because 

the monitor is located at the downstream end of a large pool 

that lacks riffles where atmospheric reaeration can take place.

Turbidity, Suspended Solids, and Suspended 

Sediment

Suspended solids and sediment in stream water typically are from erosion and subsequent transport of surface and 

channel bank soils. Suspended solids are effectively removed 

by most wastewater treatment processes and in the Blue River 

Basin total suspended solids and sediment concentrations 

typically are lower downstream from wastewater effluent 

discharges than upstream during below-normal streamflows 

(Lee and others, 2005; Wilkison and others, 2006; Rasmussen 

and others, 2008, 2009a). Increased suspended sediment in 

streams reduces light penetration and photosynthesis, smothers 

benthic habitats, and interferes with feeding activities (Wetzel, 

2001). In addition, these suspended particulates provide 

attachment sites for nutrients, organic compounds, and other 

potential contaminants. Turbidity, caused by suspended and 

dissolved matter such as clay, silt, fine organic matter, microscopic organisms, organic acids, and dyes (ASTM International, 2003), is often used as a surrogate for suspended solids 

and sediment. 

Turbidity at the Kenneth site was greater than at the Blue 

Ridge site about 85 percent of the time during April 2008 

through March 2009 (fig. 4E). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) guidelines for turbidity (based on reference 

conditions) list 15.5 FNUs for level III ecoregion 40 streams, 

which includes the Blue River (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000a). Guidelines are non-enforceable criteria 

developed for the protection of water quality, aquatic life, 

and human health. Turbidity at the Kenneth site exceeded 

the USEPA guideline of 15.5 FNU about 50 percent of the 

time, compared to about 30 percent of the time at the Blue 

Ridge site (fig. 4E). Exceedances occurred within the range of 

streamflows at the Kenneth site, but only during normal and 

above-normal streamflows at the Blue Ridge site (table 3). 

Differences in turbidity between sites were most pronounced 

during below-normal streamflows; the median at the Kenneth 

site (14 FNU) was 7 times larger than at the Blue Ridge site 

(2.0 FNU). Turbidity downstream from the WWTF is artificially low during below-normal streamflows because of the 

clarity of wastewater effluent discharge relative to natural 

conditions in the receiving stream. 

Patterns in total suspended solids and suspended sediment upstream and downstream from the WWTF match 

patterns in turbidity during below-normal and normal streamflows, with median concentrations between 44 and 138 percent 

larger at the Kenneth site (medians: 19 and 23, respectively) 

than the Blue Ridge site (medians: 8 and 16, respectively). 

During above-normal streamflows, total suspended solids and 

suspended sediment concentrations span similar ranges at both 

sites (about 20 mg/L to 4,000 mg/L), but median concentrations are about 20 to 30 percent larger at the Blue Ridge site 

(810 and 817 mg/L, respectively) than the Kenneth site (586 

and 628 mg/L, respectively; table 4). 

Dissolved Solids and Major Ions

The major constituents of dissolved solids generally are 

calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, carbonate, sulfate, and chloride ions. The amount of dissolved solids 

in stream water is primarily determined by the amount of 

groundwater contributing to streamflow, the amount of urbanization, and effluent discharges from wastewater and industrial 

sites (Hem, 1992; Pope and Putnam, 1997). Water use often 

results in the addition of dissolved solids to the wastewater 

effluent stream; for example, when chloride is added through 

chlorination of drinking water and sodium and chloride are 

added through water softeners. 

Dissolved solids and major ions were consistently larger 

at the sites located downstream from the WWTF than at the 

Kenneth site during below-normal and normal streamflows 

(table 4, appendix 3). The largest difference among sites was 

in the concentrations of the potassium, sodium, and chloride 

ions; median concentrations at the Blue Ridge site (40.7, 6.1, 

and 59.2 mg/L, respectively) were between 40 and 50 percent 

larger than median concentrations at the Kenneth site (24.2, 

3.2, and 32.5, respectively). Increasing streamflow dilutes 

dissolved solids concentrations because of low concentrations in rainfall and runoff. In general, concentrations of 

dissolved solids and major ions were about 50 percent lower 

at both sites during above-normal streamflows, and differences 

between sites were relatively small (less than 30 percent) 

for dissolved solids and most major ions. However, median 

chloride concentration at the Blue Ridge site (30.0 mg/L) was 

79 percent larger than the median concentration at the Kenneth 

site (16.8 mg/L) during above-normal streamflows (table 4). 

Greater chloride concentrations at the Blue Ridge site during 

above-normal streamflows are likely the result of runoff from 

urban areas during winter road de-icing periods. When data 

from the period of peak road-salt application (late November 

to early March) are excluded, median chloride concentration at 

the Blue Ridge site (20.0 mg/L) is about 48 percent larger than 

at the Kenneth site (13.5 mg/L). 

Of the chemicals that make up dissolved solids, chloride 

is the only one with an established criterion for protection of 

aquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988). 

The USEPA acute exposure criterion is 860 mg/L and the 

chronic exposure criterion is 230 mg/L. The chronic exposure criterion is the concentration that may cause effects after 

exposure throughout an extended period of time. Based on 

discrete samples (table 4, appendix 3) and continuous data 

developed from regression models (http://nrtwq.usgs.gov), 
22 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

chloride concentrations did not exceed the acute or chronic 

criteria at any of the upper Blue River study sites, regardless 

of streamflows.

Nutrients

Data from discrete stream-water and wastewater effluent samples were used to describe nutrient concentrations 

upstream and downstream from the WWTF and before and 

after WWTF upgrades. Continuous data, developed from 

regression models that utilized discrete data, were used to 

compute total nutrient loads and yields during April 2008 

through March 2009.

Nutrient Concentrations Upstream and Downstream from 

the Wastewater Treatment Facility

In 2000, the USEPA recommended ecoregion-based 

nutrient criteria for streams. Reference conditions for TN 

and TP in level III, ecoregion 40 streams are defined as 

0.855 and 0.0925 mg/L, respectively (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000a). These criteria were intended as 

a preliminary attempt to describe the nutrient concentrations 

that would protect designated uses and mitigate the effects of 

nutrient enrichment and are not used for regulatory purposes. 

Measured total nutrient concentrations at the Blue Ridge site 

always exceeded reference conditions (TN range: 1.29 to 

15.4 mg/L; TP range: 0.17 to 2.46 mg/L). By comparison, total 

nutrient concentrations at the Kenneth site (TN range: 0.43 to 

8.75 mg/L; TP range: less than 0.1 to 2.45 mg/L) were lower 

than reference conditions in about 60 percent of the samples 

(number of samples=10) collected during below-normal and 

normal streamflows, but always exceeded reference conditions 

during above-normal streamflows (fig. 5A, B; table 4). 

Nutrients in wastewater effluent typically occur in 

inorganic forms (for example, nitrate and orthophosphorus) 

and are dissolved. At stream sites influenced by wastewater 

effluent, concentrations of dissolved constituents typically 

decrease as streamflow increases because of dilution, and 

concentrations of suspended constituents increase with streamflow because of transport. At stream sites affected by nonpoint 

sources, concentrations of all constituents tend to increase 

with increased streamflow. Changes in nutrient concentrations 

with streamflow at the upper Blue River sites reflect the effect 

of dominant sources. At the Kenneth site, nutrient concentrations generally increased with increasing streamflow, indicating the relative contribution of nonpoint sources to overall 

nutrient loads (fig. 5). In contrast, at the WWTF affected Blue 

Ridge site, dissolved nutrient concentrations decreased and 

suspended organic nutrient concentrations increased with 

increasing streamflow. Total nutrient concentrations initially 

decreased with streamflow as the nutrient contribution from 

wastewater effluent was diluted, and then increased as the 

proportion of nutrients contributed by nonpoint sources during 

runoff increased (fig. 5).

Total and dissolved nutrient concentrations downstream 

from the WWTF were 4 to 15 times larger than at the Kenneth 

site during below-normal and normal streamflows, even after 

the addition of biological nutrient removal to the treatment 

process (table 4, appendix 3). At the Blue Ridge site, nitrate 

plus nitrite (hereinafter referred to as nitrate) and orthophosphorus comprised most (65 to 100 percent) of the total nutrient 

concentrations during below-normal and normal streamflows. 

During above-normal streamflows, nutrient concentrations 

were generally similar between sites, with nitrate and orthophosphorus comprising about 25 and 10 percent of total 

concentrations, respectively, at both sites (fig. 6).

Nutrients in Wastewater Effluent

Annual mean TN concentration in the Blue River Main 

WWTF wastewater effluent, calculated from weekly wastewater effluent sample data, decreased by about 50 percent 

between the periods 2003 through 2006 (15 to 16 mg/L) and 

2007 through 2008 (9.1 and 7.7 mg/L, respectively). Annual 

mean wastewater effluent concentrations were below the 

NPDES permit target (less than or equal to 8 mg/L) in 2008 

(fig. 7A). Total phosphorus concentrations decreased by 

about 30 percent between the periods 2003 through 2006 and 

2007 (1.8 to 2.2 mg/L and 1.4 mg/L, respectively) and about 

10 percent between the periods 2003 through 2006 and 2008 

(1.8 mg/L); however, TP concentrations increased by about 

27 percent between 2007 and 2008. Annual mean wastewater effluent TP concentration was below the NPDES permit 

target (less than or equal to 1.5 mg/L) in 2007, but was about 

17 percent larger than the target in 2008 (fig. 7B).

The Blue River Main WWTF began using biological nutrient removal in October 2006; however, the WWTF 

experienced several challenges in achieving phosphorus 

removal sufficient to meet the annual mean targets established 

by the NPDES permit. After a year of successful operation, 

the biological phosphorus removal (BPR) process stopped 

working during the summer of 2007. It was determined that 

the level of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) required to drive 

the BPR process were substantially reduced in the influent 

wastewater, but the reason for this change could not be identified. A pilot study conducted during April through September 

2009 determined that BPR could be achieved with an external carbon source, with mean results less than the 1.5 mg/L 

target concentration. The pilot study was discontinued during 

the winter because of freezing and was restarted in spring 

2010. Total wastewater effluent phosphorus concentrations 

during 2010 continue to be below the NPDES permit target 

of 1.5 mg/L (Johnson County Wastewater, written commun., 

2010). Thus, TP concentrations in wastewater effluent during 

2008 were anomalous, and wastewater effluent concentrations 

during 2007 are a more accurate reflection of the BPR process. 

Nitrate plus nitrite contributed the largest percentage 

to TN concentrations in all years; however, the percentage 

decreased from about 90 percent during 2003 through 2006 to 
Figure 5. Relations between nutrient concentrations and streamflow at the Kenneth, 151st, and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue 

River during January 2003 through March 2009.

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0.01

0.1

1

10

TOTAL NITROGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

0.1

1

10

100

ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

NITRATE PLUS NITRITE, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

TOTAL AMMONIA PLUS ORGANIC NITROGEN,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0.1

1

10

100

PARTICULATE PHOSPHORUS,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Level III Ecoregion 40

Reference Conditions

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Level III Ecoregion 40 

Reference Conditions

Kenneth

151st

Blue Ridge before upgrade

Blue Ridge after upgrade

EXPLANATION

A B

C D

E F

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 23
Figure 6. Nitrate and orthophosphorus concentrations and percent contribution to total nitrogen and 

phosphorus concentrations during below-normal and normal streamflows and above-normal streamflows 

at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during January 2003 through March 2009.

KENNETH 

75th percentile

90th percentile

Median

25th percentile

10th percentile

Outside of 10th percentile

BLUE RIDGE KENNETH BLUE RIDGE

ORTHOPHOSPHORUS CONTRIBUTION TO 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, IN PERCENT

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below-normal and normal streamflow Above-normal streamflow

NITRATE PLUS NITRITE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

NITRATE PLUS NITRITE CONTRIBUTION

TO TOTAL NITROGEN, IN PERCENT

ORTHOPHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Outside of 90th percentile

EXPLANATION

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

* *

*

Indicates statistically 

significant differences 

(p-value less than 0.05) 

in median values 

between sites

24 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009
Figure 7. Annual mean wastewater effluent concentrations of total nitrogen and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit target wastewater effluent concentration (A), annual mean wastewater effluent concentrations of total phosphorus and NPDES permit target wastewater effluent concentration (B), annual total nitrogen loads and potential load at maximum 

upgraded capacity (C), and annual total phosphorus loads and potential load at maximum upgraded capacity (D) from the Blue River 

Main Wastewater Treatment Facility during 2003 through 2008.

ANNUAL MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD, IN TONS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Potential load at maximum upgraded capacity

Potential load at maximum upgraded capacity

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

ANNUAL TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD, IN TONS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ANNUAL MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

5

10

15

20

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System permit 

target effluent concentration

A B

C D

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System permit 

target effluent concentration

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 25

about 80 percent during 2007 and 2008. The approximately 

10 percent decrease in nitrate during 2007 and 2008 was 

accompanied by a similar increase in the amount of organic 

nitrogen (table 5). The shift in percent contribution of nitrate 

plus nitrite to TN is likely a result of the biological nutrient 

removal process, which may have increased the conversion of 

inorganic forms of nitrogen to organic forms. Data to allow a 

similar comparison for phosphorus were not available.

Nitrogen concentrations during below-normal and normal 

streamflows at the Blue Ridge site reflect decreases in wastewater effluent nitrogen concentration after implementation 

of biological nutrient removal. The median TN concentration of samples collected after the upgrade (2.40 mg/L) was 

about 54 percent less than in samples collected before the 

upgrade (5.25 mg/L) and median nitrate concentration was 

about 59 percent less (after: 1.86 mg/L; before: 4.57 mg/L). 

In addition, maximum concentrations of TN and nitrate after 

the upgrade were between 60 and 70 percent less than before 

the upgrade (table 4). Differences in TP and orthophosphorus concentrations were not as great, likely due, in part, to 

issues with the BPR process. Median TP and orthophosphorus 

concentrations in samples collected after the upgrade (0.46 

and 0.41 mg/L, respectively) were about 16 percent less than 

in samples collected before the upgrade (0.55 and 0.49 mg/L, 

respectively). Samples collected before and after the upgrades 

to the WWTF were collected in a similar range of belownormal and normal streamflows, but median streamflow of the 

before-upgrade samples (12 ft3/s) was about one-half that of 

the after-upgrade samples (25 ft3/s; table 4). This discrepancy 

is because of increased streamflows during 2007 through 2009 

(table 2). Because increased streamflow dilutes wastewater 

effluent, decreases in nutrient concentrations may not be as 

great as suggested by direct comparison; however, decreases 

in TN and nitrate concentrations after the upgrade are evident 

across the range of below-normal and normal streamflows 

(fig. 5A, C).

Annual TN loads from the WWTF reflected patterns 

in discharge volume and nutrient concentration (table 2, 

fig. 7). Total nitrogen loads in 2007 and 2008 were about 

20 percent less than during 2003 through 2006 (fig. 7C). 

Overall decreases in TN loads despite substantial increases 

in wastewater effluent discharge volume reflect the addition 
Table 5. Nitrogen composition of wastewater effluent in weekly samples from the Blue River Main Wastewater Treatment 

Facility, 2003 through 2008.

[Values may not add to 100 because of rounding errors; Data courtesy of Johnson County Wastewater; n, number of samples]

Year Percent nitrate plus nitrite Percent ammonia Percent organic nitrogen

n Mean Median Range n Mean Median Range n Mean Median Range

2003 51 88 90 69–93 48 4.7 0.92 0.26–38 47 8.4 8.0 5.6–15

2004 50 86 87 63–93 48 1.8 .65 .26–18 48 11 11 4.9–19

2005 51 90 90 74–100 46 1.1 .60 .26–6.3 46 8.8 8.8 0.0–25

2006 48 91 91 81–100 44 1.2 .57 .24–7.2 44 8.3 8.2 0.0–19

2007 52 82 83 68–92 47 1.1 .68 .43–5.9 47 17 17 9.3–31

2008 52 80 80 25–100 48 1.1 .71 .49–7.0 46 20 19 10–71

26 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

of biological nutrient removal at the facility. Annual TP loads 

in 2007 were about 10 percent less than the period 2003 

through 2006. In contrast, annual TP load in 2008 was about 

80 percent larger than in 2007 and 65 percent larger than the 

period 2003 through 2006 because of increased wastewater 

effluent discharge volume and issues with the BPR process 

(table 2, fig. 7D). Annual wastewater effluent discharge from 

the Blue River Main WWTF was about one-half of maximum 

capacity in 2008 (table 2). Based on annual mean wastewater effluent TN concentrations in 2008, potential maximum 

annual TN loads are about 1.6 times larger than the annual 

loads before capacity upgrades. Potential maximum annual TP 

loads, based on annual mean wastewater effluent TP concentrations in 2007 because of the BPR issues that occurred in 

2008, are about 2.4 times larger than the annual loads prior 

to capacity upgrades (fig. 7C, D). Thus, while the addition of 

biological nutrient removal to the WWTF decreased wastewater effluent nutrient concentrations, nitrogen in particular, 

operation at full capacity would increase nitrogen and phosphorous loads relative to pre-capacity upgrade loads.

Computed Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 

Concentrations, Loads, and Yields 

Regression models and summary statistics for computing nutrient concentrations in the upper Blue River at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites are provided in table 6. Models 

for additional water-quality constituents including suspended 

sediment, major ions, and bacteria, are provided in appendix 4. 

Models were included if at least one significant (p-value less 

than 0.05) explanatory variable was determined. Only nutrient models (nitrogen and phosphorus) and calculated data are 

discussed in detail in this report.

The regression models for TN and TP at both upper Blue 

River sites included turbidity as the only explanatory variable 

(table 6). Larger uncertainties are associated with the downstream Blue Ridge models (R2

 of 0.48 for TN and 0.56 for TP, 

table 6) compared to the upstream Kenneth models (R2 of 0.79 

for TN and 0.94 for TP). The differences between the models 

can be attributed to increased urbanization and additional 

nutrient sources, particularly wastewater effluent discharge, at 

the downstream site. Previous studies in Johnson County have 

indicated that models developed for less urban sites were less 

variable than models for more urban sites because of multiple 

sources and altered pathways in urban areas (Rasmussen and 

others, 2008). 

Both nitrogen and phosphorus models for the Blue 

Ridge site generally improved when particulate and dissolved 

forms were considered separately. Turbidity was the single 

explanatory variable for particulate forms of nitrogen and 

phosphorus. Streamflow was the single explanatory variable 

for dissolved nutrient forms, except phosphorus at the Kenneth 

site, which used specific conductance. The Blue Ridge model 

for ammonia plus organic nitrogen (TON), which represents 

particulate nitrogen, had an R2 of 0.63 (table 6), and the model 

for nitrate plus nitrite, which represents dissolved nitrogen, 

had an R2 of 0.71. The Blue Ridge model for particulate phosphorus (calculated by subtracting dissolved phosphorus from 

TP) had an R2 of 0.78, but the dissolved phosphorus model 

was poor with an R2 of 0.42. The orthophosphate model for the 

Blue Ridge site includes streamflow as the explanatory variable and also was poor (R2

 of 0.34). An acceptable orthophosphate model was not determined for the Kenneth site.

The regression models for total and particulate nitrogen 

and phosphorus at both upper Blue River sites included turbidity as the single explanatory variable because particulate forms 

of nutrients often attach to sediment particles, which can result 

in strong relations with turbidity. Regression models in appendix 5 demonstrate the statistical relations between suspended 

sediment concentration and TN, TP, and other water-quality 

constituents that often are associated with particulates. At 

the Kenneth site, where nutrients primarily originate from 

nonpoint sources, strong relations exist between suspended 

sediment, and TN (R2 of 0.82, appendix 5) and TP (R2 of 0.92). 

In contrast, at the Blue Ridge site, where nutrients are affected 

by wastewater effluent as well as more variable urban sources, 

relations are not as strong between suspended-sediment 
Table 6. Regression models and summary statistics for computing total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in water at the Kenneth and B

Blue River.[Discrete sample data for the Kenneth site were collected from July 2003 through March 2009. Discrete sample data for the Blue Ridge site were collected from April 2008 throof determination; RMSE, root mean square error; MSPE, model standard percentage error; n, number of discrete samples; mg/L, milligrams per liter; log, log10; SC, specific concentimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; Q, streamflow, in cubic feet per second (ft3/s); TBY, turbidity (YSI model 6136), in formazin nephelometric units (FNUs)]

Site Regression model R 2 RMSE MSPE (upper) MSPE (lower)

Bias 

correction 

factor 

(Duan, 1983)

Standard 

error for 

calculated 

parameter 

intercept

Standard 

error for first 

dependent 

variable

Covariance 

for calculated 

parameter and 

first dependent 

variable

Discre

n

Range of values 

in variable 

measurements

Nitrogen, total (TN), mg/L

Kenneth logTN=0.373logTBY-0.483 0.79 0.1458 40 29 1.06 0.0748 0.0349 -0.9387 32 TN 0.53–8.75

TBY 3–1,270

Blue Ridge TN=0.0023TBY+2.32 .48 .9342 88 30 1.00 .2957 .0006 -.7078 20 TN 1.29–6.21

TBY 2–1,480

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic (TON), total, mg/L

Kenneth TON=0.0047TBY+0.495 0.87 0.5776 74 33 1.00 0.1372 0.0003 -0.6678 32 TON 0.1–7.6

TBY 3–1,270

Blue Ridge logTON=0.331logTBY-0.471 .63 .2498 78 44 1.12 .1342 .0596 -.9093 20 TON.1–5.6

TBY 2–1,480

Nitrogen nitrate plus nitrite, (NO3), dissolved, mg/L

Kenneth logNO3=0.189logQ-0.747 0.51 0.2266 69 41 1.13 0.0876 0.0339 -0.8895 32 NO3 0.06–1.15

Q 1–10,900

Blue Ridge logNO3=-0.238logQ+0.547 .71 .1407 38 28 1.05 .0987 .0357 -.9478 20 NO3 0.10–5.60

Q 8–10,000

Phosphorus, total (TP), mg/L

Kenneth TP=0.0016TBY+0.0754 0.94 0.1274 34 25 1.00 0.0303 0.0001 -0.6678 32 TP 0.05–2.45

TBY 3–1,270

Blue Ridge TP=0.0009TBY+0.484 .56 .3158 52 39 1.00 .1000 .0002 -.7078 20 TP 0.28–2.05

TBY 2–1,480

Phosphorus, particulate (Ppart), mg/L as phosphate

Kenneth logPpart=0.670logTBY-1.99 0.84 0.2210 66 40 1.12 0.1186 0.0547 -0.9423 32 Ppart 0.02–2.37

TBY 3–1,270

Blue Ridge Ppart=0.0013TBY+0.0586 .78 .2570 49 45 1.00 .0813 .0002 -.7078 20 Ppart 0.01–2.00

TBY 2–1,480

Phosphorus, dissolved (Pdiss), mg/L as phosphate

Kenneth logPdiss=-1.01logSC+1.41 0.25 0.3342 116 54 1.26 0.8297 0.3205 -0.9975 32 Pdiss 0.005–0.19

SC 175–708

Blue Ridge logPdiss=-0.307logQ+0.0866 .42 .3373 117 54 1.50 .2366 .0856 -.9478 20 Pdiss 0.05–1.08

Q 8–10,000

Orthophosphate, dissolved (OrthoP), mg/L as phosphate

Kenneth Poor modelBlue Ridge logOrthoP=-0.402 logQ+0.209 0.34 0.4857 206 67 1.80 0.3407 0.1232 -0.9478 20 OrthoP 0.01–1.06

Q 8–10,000
28 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

concentration and either TN (R2 of 0.39, appendix 5) or TP 

(R2 of 0.54). 

TN and TP concentrations and loads in this report were 

calculated by adding the computed values for particulate 

and dissolved forms rather than using the TN and TP models 

directly because the separate models generally explained more 

variability than the combined models. This was particularly 

true for the Blue Ridge site, but the same approach was used 

at the Kenneth site to be consistent. A comparison between 

measured and computed TP and TN values (fig. 8) provides an 

indication of model performance, in addition to the individual 

model statistics located in table 6. Using this approach, upperrange concentrations of TN and TP are likely underestimated 

at both upper Blue River sites. 

Computed TN concentrations during the study 

period ranged from 0.74 mg/L to 7.6 mg/L at the Kenneth 

site and 1.4 mg/L to 5.0 mg/L at the Blue Ridge site 

(table 7). Computed TN at the downstream Blue Ridge site 

(median: 2.3 mg/L) was nearly always greater than at the 

Kenneth site (median 0.91 mg/L), except for the largest value 

(table 7). Computed TP concentrations during the study period 

ranged from about 0.05 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L at the Kenneth site 

and 0.33 mg/L to 2.4 mg/L at the Blue Ridge site (table 7). 

Computed TP at the downstream Blue Ridge site (median 

0.66 mg/L) was greater throughout the frequency range than at 

the Kenneth site (median: 0.12 mg/L, table 7). 

Total nitrogen load for the study period was about 

1.6 times larger at the downstream Blue Ridge site (409 tons, 

table 8) than the upstream Kenneth site (251 tons). Generally the largest TN loads originated from nonpoint sources 

during stormwater runoff rather than from the Blue River 

Main WWTF. About 63 tons (15 percent) of the nitrogen 

at the downstream site during the study period originated 

from the WWTF (table 8, fig. 9). Wilkison and others (2009) 

estimated that the annual total nitrogen load at the Blue 

Ridge site originating from the WWTF ranged from 15 to 

53 percent during 2003 through 2007, with an average of 

16 percent. During 2004, when median streamflow (41.0 ft3/s, 

table 2) was most similar to median streamflow during 2008 

(49.0 ft3/s), the estimated contribution from the WWTF was 

16 percent (Wilkison and others, 2009), similar to the 2008 

contribution of 15 percent estimated by this study. Monthly 

loads from the WWTF decreased from about 7 tons in April 

and May 2008 to about 4 tons in March 2009 (fig. 10A), in 

part, as a result of optimization of nutrient removal treatment 

processes. The largest monthly nitrogen load occurred in June 

2008, corresponding with a large rainfall event and streamflow volume originating upstream from the Kenneth site, 

and accounting for about 25 percent of the total load for the 

1-year period (fig. 10A). Monthly nitrogen loads originating 

from the WWTF ranged from about 5 percent during months 

when streamflow was dominated by stormwater runoff (June 

2008) to about 75 percent during drier months (August 2008; 

fig. 10A). 

Total nitrogen yield at the downstream Blue Ridge site 

(4.4 tons per mi2, table 8) was about 1.2 times greater than the 

yield at the upstream Kenneth site (3.8 tons per mi2). Nitrogen yield from the intervening area between Kenneth and 

Blue Ridge was 5.8 tons per mi2 when wastewater effluent 

from the Blue Main WWTF was included in the computation; 

however, nitrogen yield from the intervening land area without 

including wastewater effluent (3.5 tons per mi2) was similar 

to nitrogen yield from the land area upstream from Kenneth 

(3.8 tons per mi2), indicating that increased urbanization has 

had a negligible effect on yields. 

Total phosphorus load for the study period was about 

2 times larger at the downstream Blue Ridge site (105 tons, 

table 8) than the upstream Kenneth site (54 tons). The largest 

TP loads originated from nonpoint sources during stormwater 

runoff. About 15 tons (14 percent) of the phosphorus load 

at the downstream site originated from the WWTF (table 8, 

fig. 9). Wilkison and others (2009) estimated that the annual 

total phosphorus load at the Blue Ridge site originating from 

the WWTF ranged from 7 to 39 percent during 2003 through 

2007, with an average of 18 percent. During 2004, when 

median streamflow (41.0 ft3/s, table 2) was most similar to 

median streamflow during 2008 (49.0 ft3/s), the estimated 

contribution from the WWTF was 7 percent (Wilkison and 

others, 2009), about one-half of the 2008 contribution of 

14 percent estimated by this study. Monthly loads from the 

WWTF remained about the same during the study period 

(fig. 10B). Like nitrogen, the largest phosphorus loads 

occurred in June 2008 (fig. 10B), corresponding with the 

largest rainfall and streamflow volume. Monthly phosphorus loads originating from the WWTF ranged from about 

5 percent during months dominated by storm water runoff 

(June 2008) to about 85 percent during drier months (August 

2008; fig. 10B). 

Total phosphorus yield at the downstream Blue Ridge site 

(1.1 tons per mi2, table 8) was about 1.4 times larger than yield 

at the Kenneth site (0.8 tons per mi2). The phosphorus yield 

for the intervening area, including wastewater effluent, was 

1.9 tons per mi2. Phosphorus yield from the intervening land 

area without including wastewater effluent (1.3 tons/sq mi) 

was about 1.6 times larger than the phosphorus yield at the 

Kenneth site. Larger phosphorus yields in the intervening 

area may be related to urbanization factors such as increased 

stream channel erosion, stormwater runoff from impervious 

surface areas, and application of lawn fertilizers. Urbanization 

may result in substantial increases in phosphorus yield relative 

to nitrogen yields (Wickham and others, 2008), as seen in 

the upper Blue River watershed; the mechanisms behind this 

difference have not been well described but are likely because 

of the differences in the supply and transport properties of 

nitrogen and phosphorus (Alexander and others, 2008).
Figure 8. Comparison between measured and computed total 

nitrogen (A) and total phosphorus (B) concentrations at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River.

TOTAL NITROGEN, MEASURED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0 2 4 6 8 10

TOTAL NITROGEN, COMPUTED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

2

4

6

8

10

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

1:1 Line

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, MEASURED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, COMPUTED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1:1 Line

A

B

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 29

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) measures organic 

matter which can support the growth of aquatic microorganisms and is commonly used to describe water-quality conditions (Cheremisinoff, 1995). Large concentrations of oxygen 

demanding substances substantially can reduce oxygen 

concentrations in streams, thereby adversely affecting aquatic 

organisms. Relatively pristine streams typically have a low 

BOD (less than 2.0 mg/L) and streams polluted by organic 

matter have increased BOD (greater than 13 mg/L; Van Dam 

and others, 1994; Porter, 2008). BOD never exceeded 13 mg/L 

at any of the upper Blue River sites (range: less than 2 to 

9.0 mg/L), even during above-normal streamflows. BOD was 

measured in relatively few (number of samples=6) samples 

from the Kenneth site, but available data indicate concentrations typically are lower than at the sites located downstream 

from the WWTF (table 4, appendix 3).

Indicator Bacteria

Fecal coliform, Escherichia coli, and enterococci are 

the three most common types of bacteria used as indicators 

of pathogens in surface water. Indicator bacteria are used to 

evaluate the sanitary quality of water and its use as a public 

water supply and for recreational activities such as swimming, wading, boating, and fishing (American Public Health 

Association and others, 1995). These indicator bacteria and 

pathogens may cause human diseases ranging from mild diarrhea to respiratory disease, septicemia, meningitis, and polio 

(Durfour, 1977; Cheremisinoff, 1995). Reducing the number 

of fecal indicator and other potentially pathogenic bacteria and 

microorganisms in wastewater effluent requires disinfection. 

All modern wastewater treatment facilities include disinfection 

as part of the treatment process. The Blue River Main WWTF 

uses ultraviolet (UV) radiation for disinfection. UV disinfection is a physical, rather than chemical, process and there is no 

residual effect that can be harmful to humans or aquatic life 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). As a result 

of the disinfection process, most of the fecal indicator bacteria and other pathogenic microorganisms in streams usually 

come from nonpoint sources and concentrations are orders of 

magnitude greater during runoff events than below-normal or 

normal streamflows (Rasmussen and others, 2008; Wilkison 

and others, 2009). Nonpoint sources are likely the primary 

source of fecal indicator bacteria at the upper Blue River sites. 

Median concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria were 1 to 

3 orders of magnitude larger during above-normal streamflows 

than below-normal and normal streamflows at the Kenneth and 

Blue Ridge sites (table 4). 

Organic Wastewater Effluent and 

Pharmaceutical Compounds

Organic wastewater effluent compounds are used in 

commercial, industrial, and residential processes and activities 

(such as detergents, plasticizers, and fragrances). Pharmaceutical compounds include over-the-counter and prescription 

medications. Many of these compounds are released into the 

environment through wastewater treatment processes, albeit in 

minimal concentrations, and occurrence is prevalent in surface 

waters throughout the United States (Kolpin and others, 2002). 

The long-term effects of exposure of natural biota and humans 

to mixtures of organic wastewater effluent and pharmaceutical compounds currently (2010) are largely unknown, though 

individual compounds have been determined to negatively 

affect physiological processes, impair reproductive processes, 

and increase incidences of cancer (Daughton and Ternes, 

1999; Kolpin and others, 2002; Pomati and others, 2008).

Water samples collected from the Kenneth, 151st, 

and Blue Ridge sites during April 2008 were analyzed for 

a total of 58 organic wastewater effluent compounds and 

13 pharmaceutical compounds. Fourteen organic wastewater effluent compounds and two pharmaceutical compounds 
Table 7. Computed concentration percentiles for total nitrogen and total phosphorus at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper 

Blue River, April 2008 through March 2009.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Site

Number 

of 

values

Sample 

standard 

deviation

Measurement at indicated frequency of exceedance

Minimum1 percentile5 percentile10 percentile25 percentile

50 percentile 

(median)

75 percentile90 percentile 95 percentile99 percentileMaximum

Nitrogen, total (TN), mg/L

Kenneth 8,760 0.54 0.74 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.91 1.0 1.3 1.7 3.6 7.6

Blue Ridge 8,760 .32 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.7 5.0

Phosphorus, total (TP), mg/L

Kenneth 8,760 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.25 0.38 0.87 1.5

Blue Ridge 8,760 .15 .33 .44 .47 .50 .57 .66 .76 .83 .91 1.1 2.4

30 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

were detected. The antibiotic sulfamethoxyzole, detected at 

the 151st site immediately downstream from the WWTF, 

was the only compound that was detected at concentrations 

greater than the laboratory reporting level. Most (75 percent) 

of the organic wastewater effluent and pharmaceutical 

compounds detected in the upper Blue River study reach were 

detected only at sites located downstream from the WWTF 

(appendix 6). 

Streambed-Sediment Chemistry

Some compounds are hydrophobic and have an affinity for sediment. Thus, some compounds occur in greater 

concentrations in sediment than in the overlying water column 

(Horowitz, 1991). Contaminated sediment can be toxic to 

benthic organisms, including periphyton and macroinvertebrates, and contaminants may bioaccumulate in fish and 

mammals (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000b). 

Streambed-sediment samples were collected at the Kenneth, 

151st, and Blue Ridge sites during April 2008 and analyzed 

for carbon, nutrients, trace elements, and organic wastewater 

effluent compounds (appendixes 7 and 8). 

Nutrient concentrations at all upper Blue River sites were 

below mean background levels in the conterminous United 

States (Horowitz and Stephens, 2008). Carbon concentrations were approximately one-half of the mean background 

levels and were relatively similar between sites. Phosphorus 

concentrations ranged from 18 to 47 percent less than background levels and were smallest at the Kenneth site and largest 

at the 151st site. Background concentrations for nitrogen are 

not available for comparison. Concentrations of most trace 

elements at all upper Blue River sites were similar to (within 

25 percent) or below (greater than 25 percent less) mean background levels in the conterminous United States (Horowitz 

and Stevens, 2008). Barium and titanium were between about 

30 to 40 percent above mean background levels at all upper 

Blue River sites. Arsenic, chromium, lead, and nickel were 

similar to mean background levels at the Kenneth site, but 

were generally between 30 to 66 percent above background 

levels at the sites located downstream from the WWTF. 

Carbon, nutrient, and trace-element concentrations were 

within the range observed in previous Johnson County studies 

(Lee and others, 2005; Rasmussen and others, 2009a). Fiftyeight organic wastewater effluent compounds were analyzed 

in streambed sediment, and 21 were detected (appendix 8). 

Concentrations of all detected organic wastewater effluent 

compounds were an order of magnitude smaller than concentrations at the most urban sites in Johnson County (Lee and 

others, 2005; Rasmussen and others, 2009a) and the Blue 

River (Wilkison and others, 2009). 

There are no criteria for trace elements or organic 

wastewater effluent compounds in sediments, but probable effect concentrations (PEC) have been developed for 

some compounds (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1998; MacDonald and others, 2000). The PEC represents the 

concentration of a contaminant in streambed sediment that 

is expected to adversely affect benthic biota. None of the 

measured compounds exceeded PEC guidelines (appendixes 7 

and 8).

Habitat

Habitat-quality evaluations integrate several factors that 

directly or indirectly affect the water-quality and biological condition of streams, and are a critical part of assessing 

ecological integrity (Barbour and others, 1996; Barbour and 

others, 1999). Degraded habitat conditions are one of the 

primary stressors affecting the diversity and abundance of 

aquatic organisms in streams (Karr and others, 1986). Total 

habitat scores were indicative of suboptimal conditions at all 

sites; however, total scores were about 10 percent lower at the 

downstream sites than the upstream site (fig. 11A). The habitat 
Figure 9. Nutrient loads from contributing upstream areas as a percentage of total load at the Blue 

Ridge site located downstream from the wastewater treatment facility on the upper Blue River during 

April 2008 through March 2009. ANNUAL LOAD AS A PERCENTAGE OF BLUE RIDGE ANNUAL LOAD

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total nitrogen

Total phosphorus

KENNETH

(65.4 square miles)

BLUE RIVER

MAIN WASTEWATER

TREATMENT

FACILITY (WWTF)

INTERVENING AREA

BETWEEN KENNETH

AND BLUE RIDGE

(27.1 square miles)

Table 8. Computed total loads and yields for total nitrogen and phosphorus at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper 

Blue River, April 2008 through March 2009. 

[mi2, square miles; WWTF, wastewater treatment facility; --, not applicable]

Kenneth 

(65.4 mi2)

Blue River 

Main WWTF

Intervening area between 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge 

(27.1 mi2) Blue Ridge 

(92.5 mi2)

Percent 

wastewater 

Not including at Blue Ridge

wastewater

Including 

wastewater

Total nitrogen load, tons 251 63 95 158 409 15

Total phosphorus load, tons 54 15 35 51 105 14

Total nitrogen yield, tons per mi2 3.8 -- 3.5 5.8 4.4 --

Total phosphorus yield, tons per mi2 .8 -- 1.3 1.9 1.1 --

Environmental Conditions of the Upper Blue River 31
Figure 10. Computed monthly total nitrogen (A) and total phosphorus (B) loads originating from wastewater effluent discharge (WWTF) and nonpoint sources in the upper Blue River during April 2008 through 

March 2009. COMPUTED TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD, IN TONS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

COMPUTED TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD, IN TONS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Kenneth (nonpoint sources)

Blue River Main wastewater treatment facility (WWTF)

Intervening area between Kenneth and 

 Blue Ridge (nonpoint sources) 

Blue Ridge (WWTF and nonpoint sources)

Kenneth (nonpoint sources)

Blue River Main wastewater treatment facility (WWTF)

Intervening area between Kenneth and 

 Blue Ridge (nonpoint sources) 

Blue Ridge (WWTF and nonpoint sources)

A

B

32 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009
Figure 11. Total habitat score (A) and scores of selected individual habitat variables (B–D) at each biological sampling site on 

the upper Blue River during June 2008.

Optimal

Suboptimal

Marginal

Poor

Optimal

Suboptimal

Marginal

Poor

Optimal

Suboptimal

Marginal

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

TOTAL HABITAT SCORE CANOPY COVER SCORE BUFFER WIDTH SCORE RIFFLE SUBSTRATE FOULING SCORE

80

100

Poor

Optimal

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Suboptimal

Marginal

Poor

A

B

C

D

DOWNSTREAM

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 33

variables with the largest among-site differences in score 

were canopy cover, buffer width, and riffle-substrate fouling 

(fig. 11B-D). Habitat assessment scores for all 17 habitat variables are provided in appendix 9.

Canopy cover is the degree to which a stream is shaded 

by overhanging vegetation. Stream shading is important 

because it decreases light availability and helps to keep water 

temperatures cool, which limits excessive algae and vegetation growth (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998). 

Buffer width is a measure of natural vegetation (including forest, shrubs, and native grasses) from the edge of the 

streambank out through the riparian zone. A wide buffer acts 

as an erosion control and allows runoff more time to percolate 

into soils or to be filtered by vegetation before entering the 

stream (Barbour and others, 1999). Canopy cover and buffer 

width scores decreased in the downstream direction from 

optimal at the Kenneth site to suboptimal at the 151st and Blue 

Ridge sites (fig. 11B, C), likely because of the increasingly 

urban nature of the watershed. Urban land use and impervious 

surface area nearly doubled in the intervening area between 

the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites (table 1, fig. 1). Canopy 

cover also may decrease in the downstream direction as stream 

order increases (Vannote and others, 1980); however, bankfull 

channel width was similar (about 90 feet) at all sites. 

Riffle-substrate fouling scores also decreased in the 

downstream direction, with scores indicative of optimal 

conditions at the Kenneth site, suboptimal conditions at the 

151st site and marginal conditions at the Blue Ridge site 

(fig. 11D). Riffle-substrate fouling is an estimate of the amount 

of periphyton growth and accumulation of fine materials that 

are covering the substrate in riffles. Excessive amounts of 

periphyton, sediment, and fine materials may clog interstitial 

spaces in gravel and cobble substrates, reducing the amount of 

habitat available for benthic organisms and riffle-dwelling fish 

(Rasmussen and others, 2009a). Several factors affected by 

urbanization and wastewater effluent discharge affect periphyton growth and the accumulation of fine materials including 

canopy cover, riparian buffer width, water clarity, nutrient 

concentrations, and streamflow. 

Biological Conditions of the Upper 

Blue River

Biological conditions evaluated include periphyton and 

macroinvertebrate communities and stream metabolism. 

Periphyton and macroinvertebrate samples were collected 

during below-normal (August) and normal (April) streamflows 

and among-site differences in water-quality were similar to 

those observed in the long-term data set.
34 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Periphyton

The attached algae that grow on submerged surfaces 

in streams, such as rocks and woody debris, commonly are 

referred to as periphyton. Periphyton are at the base of the 

food web in stream ecosystems and serve as a primary link 

between abiotic (nonliving) factors, such as nutrients, and 

higher trophic levels (higher place in the food web), such as 

macroinvertebrates. Algae have short life cycles and respond 

rapidly to changes in environmental conditions; thus, periphyton communities often are the first to respond to and recover 

from floods or contaminant pulses (Allan, 1995; Rosen, 1995; 

Lowe and Pan, 1996; Lowe and LaLiberte, 2007). Physical, chemical, and pollution tolerances and growth optima 

(autecological data) have been described for many periphytic 

algal species, which allows periphytic communities to be 

used as indicators of ecological conditions. Several states, 

including Kentucky (Kentucky Division of Water, 1993), 

Montana (Bahls, 1993), and Oklahoma (Oklahoma Conservation Commission, 1993) use periphyton in their bioassessment 

programs, but Kansas currently (2010) does not.

Periphyton Community Composition 

Overall, 158 periphyton taxa were identified from the 

three upper Blue River sites (appendix 10). Most taxa (124) 

were in the division Bacillariophyta (diatoms); taxa in the 

divisions Chlorophyta (green algae), Cyanophyta (blue-green 

algae), Euglenophyta (euglenoids), and Cryptophyta (cryptomonads) also were present. About 60 percent of the taxa 

observed were relatively rare (contributing less than 1 percent 

to total periphyton abundance and/or biovolume), and only 

23 taxa (14 percent) contributed more than 10 percent to total 

abundance and biovolume. Diverse communities with abundance and/or biovolume dominated by relatively few taxa are 

a common occurrence in Johnson County streams and streams 

throughout the nation (Bahls, 1973; Brown and Olive, 1995; 

Kutka and Richards, 1996; Rasmussen and others, 2009a).

Based on algal periphyton divisions, the largest difference in community composition among sites was the abundance and biovolume of the green algae. During April 2008, 

diatoms dominated (greater than 95 percent of total) and green 

algae represented less than 3 percent of periphyton abundance and biovolume at the Kenneth and 151st sites. Diatoms 

also were numerically dominant (about 90 percent of total) 

at the Blue Ridge site in April 2008, and green algae represented about 10 percent of total abundance; however, green 

algae represented a substantial part (about 23 percent) of the 

biovolume (table 9). During August 2008, green algae were 

more abundant at the Kenneth and 151st sites than at the Blue 

Ridge site; green algae represented 18 and 28 percent of total 

abundance at these sites, respectively and 36 and 50 percent 

of biovolume. In contrast, green algae contributed less than 

2 percent of periphyton abundance and biovolume at the Blue 

Ridge site and diatoms were dominant (greater than 90 percent 

of the total; table 9). 

In streams, green algae and cyanobacteria are most likely 

to occur during summer when temperatures are warmer and 

flows tend to be at seasonal lows (Allan, 1995; Stevenson and 

Rollins, 2007). The filamentous green algae Cladophora may 

become a nuisance under nutrient-rich conditions because of 

excessive growth (Dodds and Gudder, 1992). Cladophora

occurred at the Blue Ridge site in April 2008 and at 151st 

in August 2008, but was never predominant. Cyanobacteria 

generally are considered a nuisance when present because 

of the potential for production of toxins and taste-and-odor 

compounds (Graham and others, 2008). Dominance by cyanobacteria typically is indicative of enrichment by nutrients and 

organic compounds (Stevenson and Rollins, 2007). Cyanobacteria contributed less than 2 percent to total periphyton and 

abundance at all upper Blue River sites (table 9). 

In April 2008, the four dominant taxa at each site 

comprised 45 to 60 percent of total abundance and biovolume. 

Of the dominant taxa, the diatom Surirella brebissonii was 

the only one that occurred at all sites. In August 2008, the 

four dominant taxa at each site comprised 57 to 77 percent of 

total abundance and biovolume. As in April 2008, only one 

dominant taxa, the diatom Cocconeis placentula, occurred at 

all sites (appendix 11). These two taxa are generally indicative 

of somewhat degraded, mesoeutrophic to eutrophic conditions 

with small to moderate amounts of organic enrichment (Porter, 

2008). In general, community composition at the upper 

Blue River sites seems similar to other streams throughout 

Johnson County. Surirella bresbissonii was among the most 

common taxa in spring and Cocconeis placentula among the 

most common in summer during a 2007 study of 11 Johnson 

County streams (Rasmussen and others, 2009a). 

Periphyton Metrics

Autecological data define physical, chemical, and pollution tolerances and provide information about how organisms 

may respond to changing environmental conditions (Rosen, 

1995; Van Dam and others, 1994). Metrics based on autecological information can provide insight into the environmental 

stresses experienced by organisms or be used to define organism response along an environmental gradient (Stevenson and 

Bahls, 1999). Among the algal periphyton, diatoms frequently 

are used as indicators of environmental change because they 

are known to be sensitive to many factors (for example, 

light, nutrients, oxygen, and organic carbon) (Porter, 2008). 

Among-site differences in periphyton community metrics were 

evaluated for 24 metrics in 5 categories (oxygen tolerance, 

saprobity, trophic condition, nitrogen-uptake metabolism, 

and other indices). The metrics calculated in four of the five 

categories (oxygen tolerance, saprobity, trophic condition, 

nitrogen-uptake metabolism) are indicative of a range of 

conditions from good to poor water quality, but interpretation is similar for all metrics. Thus, either a single metric or a 

combination of two metrics from each category are discussed 
Table 9. Percent contributions of each algal periphyton division to total abundance and biovolume at each biological sampling site on 

the upper Blue River during April and August 2008. 

[Percentages based on the mean of three samples; ± 1 standard deviation in parentheses; ±, plus or minus; Bacillariophyta, diatoms; Chlorophyta, green algae; 

Cyanophyta, blue-green algae or cyanobacteria; Cryptophyta, cryptomonads; Euglenophyta, euglenoids]

Month Site

Percentage contributions to abundance1 Percentage contributions to biovolume1

 BacillariophytaChlorophytaCryptophytaCyanophytaEugleophytaBacillariophytaChlorophytaCryptophyta Cyanophyta Euglenophyta

April Kenneth 96.1 

(4.14)

1.96 

(3.12)

1.00

(.341)

0.797 

(1.38)

0.153 

(.00265)

98.6 

(1.14)

0.909 

(1.33)

0.234 

(.253)

0.0347 

(.060)

0.189 

(.328)

151st 97.1 

(3.71)

2.73 

(3.33)

0 

(0)

.224 

(.384)

0 

(0)

98.9 

(1.04)

1.11 

(1.01)

0 

(0)

.0182 

(.0312)

0 

(0)

Blue Ridge 90.4 

(4.22)

9.60 

(4.22)

0 

(0)

0 

(0)

0 

(0)

76.8 

(31.5)

23.2 

(31.5)

0 

(0)

0 

(0)

0 

(0)

August Kenneth 78.7 

(13.6)

17.8 

(11.3)

2.23 

(2.69)

1.05 

(1.53)

.239

(.00143)

62.4 

(32.0)

35.9 

(31.5)

.628 

(.618)

.0899 

(.0497)

.971 

(.606)

151st 68.2 

(22.4)

27.6 

(22.6)

4.24 

(3.68)

0 

(0)

0

(0)

49.4 

(40.0)

50.2 

(40.3)

.343 

(.579)

0 

(0)

0 

(0)

Blue Ridge 90.6 

(8.52)

1.53 

(1.83)

7.89 

(6.70)

.0136 

(.0236)

0

(0)

98.3 

(1.16)

.442 

(.219)

1.25 

(1.28)

0 

(0)

0 

(0)

1

Total percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding errors.

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 35

direction may reflect the increase in nutrient concentrations 

rather than a decrease in oxygen concentrations. 

August 2008 communities were dominated (85 percent 

or greater) by the low and moderate categories at all sites 

and among-site differences were not statistically different 

(ANOVA: F=1.34, p=0.33; fig. 12A). Increased dominance 

by low to moderate oxygen-tolerant diatoms during August 

2008 may be due to the lower dissolved oxygen concentrations 

during summer months or may reflect poorer water-quality 

conditions during summer low-flow conditions. 

Saprobity

Saprobes are organisms that live in and derive nourishment from decaying organic matter. The saprobien index, 

a measure of saprobity, was developed to evaluate diatom 

communities with respect to sensitivity to organic pollution, and combines organism tolerance to the presence of 

biodegradable organic matter and oxygen concentrations 

(Van Dam and others, 1994). The five saprobity categories 

calculated by ADAS are: oligosaprobic, beta-mesosaprobic, 

alpha-mesosaprobic, alpha-mesosaprobic/polysaprobic, and 

polysaprobic. These categories represent a gradient of conditions ranging from relatively pristine, with increased oxygen 

and decreased concentrations of biodegradable organic matter 

(oligosaprobic) to highly polluted, with decreased oxygen 

and increased concentrations of organic matter (polysaprobic; 

Van Dam and others, 1994; Porter, 2008). The percentage of 

diatoms in the oligosaprobic and beta-mesosaprobic categories 

were summed, treated as one category, and are discussed in 

this section. These two categories are indicative of relatively 

in this section. The metrics discussed indicated the largest 

differences among sites. All 24 metric scores, the environmental conditions associated with each metric, and statistical 

comparisons among sites are presented in appendix 12. 

Oxygen Tolerance

Oxygen tolerance defines the oxygen conditions where 

targeted organisms frequently occur. The Algal Data Analysis 

System (ADAS) program calculates the percentage of diatoms 

in each of five oxygen tolerance categories: always high (near 

100 percent saturation), fairly high (greater than 75 percent), 

moderate (greater than 50 percent), low (greater than 

30 percent), and very low (less than 10 percent; Porter, 2008; 

Cuffney, 2003). The percentage of diatoms in the low and 

moderate categories were summed, treated as one category, 

and are discussed in this section. 

During April 2008, the percentage of diatoms in the low 

and moderate oxygen tolerance categories more than doubled 

between the Kenneth (20 percent of total) and Blue Ridge 

sites (47 percent; fig. 12A); these differences were statistically significant (ANOVA: F=10.79, p=0.01). The increase in 

low and moderate oxygen tolerant diatoms in the downstream 

direction during April 2008 does not appear to be directly 

related to oxygen concentration because dissolved oxygen 

concentrations typically were greater at the downstream site 

(table 3, fig. 4D). In a national assessment, the low-oxygentolerance metric was one of the best indicators of nutrient 

enrichment (Porter and others, 2008); thus, the increase in 

low and moderate oxygen tolerant diatoms in the downstream 
Figure 12. Percent low and moderate oxygen tolerant diatoms (A), oligosaprobic and beta-mesosaprobic diatoms (B), eutrophic 

diatoms (C), nitrogen-heterotrophic diatoms (D), and Bahls Index values (E) at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River 

during April and August 2008. PERCENT LOW AND MODERATE OXYGEN TOLERANT DIATOMS 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

APRIL AUGUST

PERCENT NITROGEN-HETEROTROPHIC

DIATOMS 

PERCENT EUTROPHIC DIATOMS

PERCENT OLIGOSAPROBIC AND

BETA-MESOSAPROBIC DIATOMS

C D

APRIL AUGUST

BAHLS INDEX

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

a

b

a, b

a

b

a, b

a, b

a

b

a, b

a

a

b

a

b

a

a, b

a

b

a a

b a a

b

Kenneth

Different letters indicate Standard deviation

statistically significant 

differences Mean (three replicate samples)

EXPLANATION

151st

Blue Ridge

A B

C D

E

36 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009
Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 37

unpolluted conditions, with BOD less than 4 mg/L and percent 

oxygen saturation greater than 70 (appendix 12). 

During April 2008, oligosaprobic and beta-mesosaprobic 

diatoms dominated (about 60 percent or greater of total) at 

all sites, but the relative abundance of these groups decreased 

from 81 percent at the Kenneth site to about 60 percent at the 

Blue Ridge site; these differences were statistically significant (ANOVA: F=7.94, p=0.02; fig. 12B). Overall, diatom 

community composition in April 2008 reflected water-quality 

conditions when samples were collected. BOD was relatively 

small (less than or equal to 3 mg/L) and dissolved oxygen was 

relatively large (greater than 10 mg/L) at all sites (appendix 3). 

Water-quality conditions were conducive to dominance by 

oligosaprobic and beta-mesosaprobic diatoms (Van Dam and 

others, 1994; Porter, 2008). 

During August 2008, the percentage of oligosaprobic 

and beta-mesosaprobic diatoms declined by 32 to 55 percent 

at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites but the 151st site was 

still dominated (about 62 percent) by oligosaprobic and 

beta-mesosaprobic taxa (fig. 12B). These among-site differences in community composition were statistically significant 

(ANOVA: F=11.93, p-value less than 0.01; fig. 12B). The 

decrease in oligosaprobic and beta-mesosaprobic taxa at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites in August 2008 does not match 

patterns in water quality; BOD was low (less than 2 mg/L) and 

dissolved oxygen was moderate (greater than 6 mg/L) at all 

sites during August 2008 (fig. 4D; appendix 3).

Trophic Condition

Trophic condition indicates productivity of aquatic 

ecosystems with respect to concentrations of nitrogen and 

phosphorus and associated levels of primary productivity. 

Oligotrophic ecosystems have low levels of nutrients and 

productivity, mesotrophic systems have moderate levels of 

nutrients and productivity, and eutrophic systems have high 

levels of nutrients and productivity (Graham and others, 

2008). The seven trophic condition categories that ADAS 

uses to classify diatoms are: oligotrophic, oligo-mesotrophic, 

mesotrophic, meso-eutrophic, eutrophic, hypereutrophic, and 

ubiquitous. With the exception of ubiquitous, these categories 

represent a gradient in tolerance to trophic conditions. Ubiquitous diatoms have a wide range of nutrient tolerance and may 

be found under a range of trophic conditions. The eutrophic 

category is discussed in this section. 

Diatom community composition is indicative of eutrophic conditions at all sites (fig. 12C), despite the large differences in total and inorganic nutrient concentrations between 

the Kenneth site and the 151st and Blue Ridge sites during 

below-normal and normal streamflows (table 4, fig. 5). During 

April 2008, more than 56 percent of diatoms collected at all 

sites were classified as eutrophic, with the percentage about 

10 percent larger at the Blue Ridge site than the Kenneth and 

151st sites (fig. 12C). The percentage of eutrophic diatoms 

increased by about 30 percent at all sites in August 2008, but 

the relative pattern among sites was similar to April 2008 

(fig. 12C). Among-site differences were statistically significant 

in August 2008 (ANOVA: F=5.35, p=0.05), but not April 2008 

(ANOVA: F=2.43, p=0.17). The increase in eutrophic diatoms 

along the upstream-downstream gradient reflects the downstream increase in nutrient concentrations, but dominance 

at all sites indicates nutrients are replete for algal growth 

throughout the study reach.

Nitrogen-Uptake Metabolism

Nitrogen-uptake metabolism refers to the source of nitrogen that periphyton or diatoms require for growth. Nitrogenautotrophic diatoms require inorganic nitrogen sources (such 

as nitrate or ammonia) for growth and nitrogen-heterotrophic 

diatoms require organic nitrogen sources (such as amino acids; 

Werner, 1977). Obligate nitrogen heterotrophs require organic 

sources of nitrogen, whereas facultative nitrogen heterotrophs 

may utilize inorganic and organic sources of nitrogen. The 

four categories of nitrogen-uptake metabolism calculated 

by ADAS are: nitrogen autotrophs with a low tolerance for 

organic nitrogen, nitrogen autotrophs with a high tolerance 

for organic nitrogen, facultative heterotrophs, and obligate 

heterotrophs. In general, nitrogen autotrophs with a low tolerance for organic nitrogen develop optimally in oligotrophic 

waters and obligate nitrogen heterotrophs develop optimally 

in eutrophic waters (Werner, 1977). The percentage of diatoms 

in the facultative and obligate nitrogen-heterotroph categories 

were summed, treated as one category, and are discussed in 

this section.

During April 2008, the percentage of nitrogen heterotrophs increased in the downstream direction, nearly tripling 

between the Kenneth site and the Blue Ridge site (fig. 12D). 

This increase reflects the substantial increase (double to an 

order of magnitude difference depending on streamflow 

conditions) in nitrogen concentrations at the downstream 

sites (table 4; appendix 3). In August 2008, the percentage of 

nitrogen-heterotrophic diatoms increased at all sites; however, 

patterns did not reflect increases in nitrogen concentrations 

along the upstream-downstream gradient. The percentage of 

nitrogen-heterotrophic diatoms at the 151st site was nearly 

half that of the other two sites (fig. 12D). These among-site 

differences were statistically significant (April 2008 ANOVA: 

F=6.89, p=0.03; August 2008 ANOVA: F=12.11, p-value less 

than 0.01). 

Bahls Index

Bahls index is a multimetric score based on the relative 

abundance of diatoms in three categories: sensitive, somewhat tolerant, and tolerant. For this metric, diatom tolerance 

was based on nutrients, organics, salts, temperature, toxics, 

substrate stability, and suspended solids. The resulting score 

is a scaled value ranging from 1 to 3, with 3 representing a 

community composed of sensitive taxa and 1 representing 

a community composed of tolerant taxa. Thus, values of 3 

indicate relatively good water-quality conditions and values 

of 1 represent relatively poor water-quality conditions (Porter, 

2008; Bahls, 1993).
Table 10. Mean and standard deviation of chlorophyll concentration, algal abundance, and biovolume at each biological 

sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008. 

[Means and standard deviations are based on three replicate samples; mg, milligram; m2, square meter; mm3/m2, cubic millimeters per 

square meter]

Month Site

Chlorophyll (mg/m2) Abundance (billion cells/m2) Biovolume (mm3/m2)

Mean Standard 

deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

April Kenneth 208 58.7 33.6 8.22 21,800 12,000

151st 276 51.0 17.6 2.03 11,400 3,790

Blue Ridge 415 234 28.7 6.28 24,000 17,200

August Kenneth 33.8 9.10 3.04 1.50 956 571

151st 43.0 4.92 2.36 1.23 8,910 13,700

Blue Ridge 48.4 4.01 17.0 24.6 6,570 8,690

38 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

During April 2008, Bahls Index values decreased in the 

downstream direction and were significantly less (ANOVA: 

F=9.95, p=0.01) at the Blue Ridge site than at the Kenneth 

or 151stsites. In contrast, Index values in August 2008 were 

significantly larger (ANOVA: F=9.47, p=0.01) at the 151st site 

than the Kenneth or Blue Ridge sites (fig. 12E). Despite these 

patterns, Bahls Index values spanned a relatively narrow range 

(2.0 to 2.5), indicative of moderately tolerant diatom communities at all sites during April and August 2008.

Periphyton Chlorophyll, Abundance, and 

Biovolume

Chlorophyll, a light-gathering pigment present in all 

photosynthetic organisms, often is used to describe algal 

communities because it is simpler and less time consuming 

than identifying, counting, and measuring algal cells. Periphyton abundance reflects the total number of cells present, 

whereas chlorophyll concentrations and biovolume are indicators of periphyton biomass. Nuisance algal conditions have 

been suggested to occur when periphytic chlorophyll concentrations exceed 100 milligrams per square meter (mg/m2

; 

Horner and others, 1983; Welch and others, 1988; Lohman and 

others, 1992); similar threshold concentrations have not been 

established for periphytic algal abundance and biovolume. 

In April 2008, mean chlorophyll concentrations ranged 

from 208 to 415 mg/m2, and increased in the downstream 

direction (table 10). Mean concentration at the Blue Ridge site 

was double that observed at the Kenneth site, though differences were not statistically significant (April 2008 ANOVA: 

F=1.63, p=0.27). August 2008 mean chlorophyll concentrations were nearly an order of magnitude less, ranging from 

33.8 mg/m2 at the Kenneth site to 48.4 mg/m2 at the Blue 

Ridge site (table 10). As observed in April 2008, chlorophyll concentrations increased in the downstream direction, 

though differences were not statistically significant (August 

2008 ANOVA: F=3.98, p=0.08). Chlorophyll concentrations 

exceeded the nuisance threshold value of 100 mg/m2 at all 

sites in April 2008. 

Seasonal patterns in periphyton abundance and biovolume were similar to chlorophyll concentrations; April 2008 

mean concentrations were generally 2 to 11 times greater 

than August 2008 mean concentrations at all sites (table 10). 

However, among-site patterns were not as clear as patterns 

in chlorophyll. In April 2008, periphyton abundance and 

biovolume at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites were nearly 

double that observed at the 151st site (table 10). Abundance 

was significantly less at 151st than at the other sites (ANOVA: 

F=5.41, p=0.04), though differences in biovolume were not 

significant (ANOVA: F=0.89, p=0.46). Periphyton abundance in August 2008 was about 6 to 7 times greater at the 

Blue Ridge site than at the Kenneth and 151st sites, while 

biovolume at the Kenneth site was about 7 to 9 times less 

than observed at the 151st and Blue Ridge sites (table 10). 

Despite patterns among sites, differences were not significant 

(abundance ANOVA: F=1.0, p=0.42; biovolume ANOVA: 

F=0.57, p=0.59). The discrepancy between abundance and 

biovolume in August 2008 is likely because of the presence of 

Cladophora at the 151st site. Cladophora is relatively large, 

and though not numerically abundant contributed substantially 

to algal biovolume (appendix 10).

Summer Periphyton Biomass

Algal biomass in streams may change rapidly in response 

to runoff events or changing environmental conditions (Stienmann and others, 2006; Lohman and others, 1992; Murdock 

and others, 2004). Because of these rapid changes, drawing 

conclusions about differences in algal biomass among sites 

based only on a few samples can be misleading (Stienmann 

and others, 2006). Therefore, during June through September 2008 weekly chlorophyll samples were collected at the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites to determine longer-term 
Figure 13. Chlorophyll concentrations and streamflow at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during 

June through September 2008.

SUMMER 2008

JUNE 1 

JUNE 8

JUNE 15 

JUNE 22 JUNE 29 

JULY 6

JULY 13

JULY 20 

JULY 27 

AUG. 3 

AUG. 10 

AUG. 17 

AUG. 24 

AUG. 31 

SEPT. 7 

SEPT. 14

SEPT. 21 

SEPT. 28 

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

PERIPHYTON CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER SQUARE METER (mg/m2

)

1

10

100

1,000

Welch and others (1988) suggested

Chlorophyll Nuisance Threshold (100 mg/m2

)

Blue Ridge chlorophyll

Kenneth chlorophyll

Kenneth streamflow

Blue Ridge streamflow

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 39

patterns in algal biomass in a range of streamflow conditions. 

Chlorophyll concentrations were consistently larger at the 

Blue Ridge site than the Kenneth site during summer 2008 

(fig. 13). Summer mean and maximum concentrations at the 

Blue Ridge site (57 and 230 mg/m2, respectively) were three 

to four times larger than at the Kenneth site (17 and 59 mg/m2, 

respectively). Increased periphyton abundance likely contributed to the increase in riffle-substrate fouling that occurred at 

the Blue Ridge site (fig. 11D).

Flow regime has a substantial effect on algal biomass 

because the frequency between floods dictates the amount of 

time available for algal accumulation (Lohman and others, 

1992; Murdock and others, 2004). However, algal biomass 

may recover rapidly (within days) after flooding (Murdock 

and others, 2004). Several runoff events with streamflows 

greater than 1,000 ft3/s occurred during summer 2008, but no 

clear patterns between streamflow and periods of chlorophyll 

decline and increase were evident (fig. 13). 

Macroinvertebrate Communities

Macroinvertebrate community-level responses are 

commonly used for evaluating biological conditions, longterm monitoring, diagnosis of specific sources and causes 

of stream impairment, measuring the success of restoration 

activities, and developing biological criteria in support of 

water-quality compliance and regulation (Rosenberg and Resh, 

1993; Southerland and Stribling, 1995). Macroinvertebrate 

communities have also been widely used as an indicator of 

stream quality in urban basins (Paul and Meyer, 2001). Macroinvertebrate community evaluations include examination of 

changes in dominance or abundance of ecologically important 

taxa and/or sensitive taxa that have been eliminated or reduced 

as a result of changes in stream conditions. Abundance, richness, and diversity are used to calculate specific indicator 

metrics. These metrics provide diagnostic information related 

to stressor responses and effects on community function. 

Macroinvertebrate Community Composition

Overall, 210 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified from 

the three upper Blue River sites (appendix 13). Most taxa 

(179) were insects (Insecta); non-insect taxa included mollusks 

(Bivalvia and Gastropoda), worms (Enopla, Nematoda, Oligochaeta, and Turbellaria), leeches (Hirudinea), and crustaceans 

(Malacostraca). About 21 percent of the insect taxa were 

in the three dominant orders of insects typically associated 

with healthy stream communities (Ephemeroptera, mayflies; 

Plecoptera, stoneflies; and Trichoptera, caddisflies; referred to 

as EPT taxa). Between 14 and 22 EPT taxa occurred at each 

site and relative abundance ranged from about 33 to 42 percent 

in April 2008 and 20 to 28 percent in August 2008. In addition 

to EPT taxa, other aquatic insects including midges (Diptera: 

Chironomidae), dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata), riffle 

beetles (Coleoptera: Elmidae), and aquatic heteropterans 

(Hemiptera) were common. 

In April 2008, midges in the Cricotopus/Orthocladius

species complex occurred the most frequently and, among the 
Figure 14. Relative abundance of selected macroinvertebrate taxa at each biological sampling site on the upper 

Blue River during April (A) and August (B) 2008.

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

0

2

4

6

8

10

Corydalus (sensitive)

Heptageniidae (sensitive) 

Dicrotendipes (tolerant)

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, IN PERCENT

0

5

10

15

20

25

Total Plecoptera (sensitive) 

Rhyacophila (sensitive)

Cricotopus/Orthocladius (tolerant)

Hydropsychidae (tolerant) 

DOWNSTREAM

A

B

Mean (three replicate samples)

Standard deviation

EXPLANATION

40 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

four most dominant organisms, were the only taxa present at 

all sites (appendix 14). Cricotopus/Orthocladius taxa are tolerant to a wide range of anthropogenic effects and relative abundance increased in the downstream direction, nearly doubling 

between the Kenneth (11 percent) and Blue Ridge (20 percent) 

sites (fig. 14A). In general, community composition shifted 

from more sensitive taxa at the Kenneth site to more tolerant 

taxa at the downstream sites. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and the 

caddisfly Rhyacophila, relatively sensitive taxa, were most 

abundant at the Kenneth site and completely absent from the 

Blue Ridge site (fig. 14A). In contrast, tolerant net-spinning 

caddisflies (Hydropsychidae) were most abundant immediately downstream from the wastewater effluent discharge 

(151st; fig. 14A). 

In August 2008, the midge Polypedilum, the caddisfly 

Cheumatopsyche, and the riffle beetle Stenelmis were among 

the most dominant taxa at all sites, comprising between 24 

and 32 percent of total abundance (appendix 14). As in April 

2008, among-site differences in community composition 

were largely because of shifts from more sensitive taxa at the 

Kenneth site to more tolerant taxa at the downstream sites. 

Mayfly (family Heptageniidae) abundance was less at the 

downstream sites than the Kenneth site, whereas the midge 

Dicrotendipes (Chironomidae) increased (fig. 14B). In addition, four caddisflies present at the Kenneth site were absent at 

both downstream sites, and four mayflies and the hellgrammite 

Corydalus (Megaloptera) were present at the Kenneth and 

151st sites, but not the Blue Ridge site (appendix 13). 

Macroinvertebrate Metrics

Of the 34 calculated metrics, results for 11 metrics are 

summarized in this section. Selected metrics include the four 

KDHE aquatic-life metrics (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2008a) plus those used by Rasmussen and 

others (2009a) to describe among-site differences in Johnson 

County streams (table 11). These metrics represent core 

metrics used in many State evaluation programs, and those 

known to be sensitive and reliable for measuring degradation of stream assemblages based on available literature. 

The KDHE aquatic-life status metrics (MBI, KBI-NO, EPT 

richness, and percent EPT) and aquatic-life-support status are 

described first and the others are discussed in the order they 

are listed in table 11. The ranges used for scoring the four 

aquatic-life status metrics are based on the statewide KDHE 

database for all streams in Kansas (Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment, 2008a) and are shown in table 12. 

Metric values and statistical comparisons among sites for all 

calculated metrics are presented in appendix 15.

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI)

The MBI is used to evaluate the effects of oxygendemanding substances, nutrients, and organic enrichment on 

macroinvertebrate populations. It is a family level biotic index 

that uses tolerance values ranging from 1 to 11 for insect and 

mollusk taxa, with smaller values corresponding to less tolerance and a lesser degree of stream degradation (Davenport 

and Kelly, 1983). MBI values were consistently smaller at 

the Kenneth site than the two downstream sites and ranged 

from 5.05 to 5.65. None of the sites met KDHE criteria for 

fully supporting aquatic life for MBI. Based on the MBI, the 

Kenneth site was partially supporting of aquatic life and the 

151st and Blue Ridge sites were non-supporting of aquatic life 

during April and August 2008 (tables 11 and 12). MBI scores 

during 2008 were within the range of those observed in previous studies. The Kenneth site consistently scored as partially 

supporting during assessments conducted in 2003, 2004, 

and 2007 (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 

2009a). Similarly, the Blue Ridge site scored as partially 
Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 41

supporting in 2003 and non-supporting in 2004 (Wilkison and 

others, 2006; Poulton and others, 2007). 

Kansas Biotic Index (KBI-NO)

The KBI-NO was specifically developed for Kansas 

and is based on aquatic organism tolerances to nutrients and 

oxygen-demanding substances (Huggins and Moffet, 1988). It 

is a genus-level biotic index calculated in a similar manner as 

the MBI, with a scoring range of 0 to 5. Small values indicate 

less tolerance and minimal biological degradation. KBI-NO 

values were consistently smallest at the Kenneth site and 

largest at the 151st site during April and August 2008, with 

values ranging from 2.48 to 2.85 (table 11). Based on the 

KBI-NO, the Kenneth site was fully supporting of aquatic life 

and the 151st and Blue Ridge sites were partially supporting 

of aquatic life in April 2008. During August 2008, all sites 

were partially supporting of aquatic life and metric values and 

differences among sites were relatively small (tables 11 and 

12). KBI-NO scores at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites were 

generally larger than previously reported. The Kenneth site 

scored as partially supporting aquatic life for this metric in 

2003, 2004, and 2007, and in 2003 and 2004 the Blue Ridge 

site scored as non-supporting (Wilkison and others, 2006; 

Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009a).

EPT Taxa Richness

EPT taxa richness is the sum of the number of species 

belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). Most species 

belonging to each of these orders are considered to be intolerant of stressors and larger numbers of these species indicate 

greater stream quality (Barbour and others, 1999). EPT taxa 

richness was largest at the Kenneth site and smallest at the 

Blue Ridge site during April and August 2008, with values 

ranging from 8.67 to 13.3. Based on EPT taxa richness, 

the Kenneth site was fully supporting of aquatic life and 

the 151st and Blue Ridge sites were partially supporting of 

aquatic life during April and August 2008 (tables 11 and 12). 

EPT taxa richness at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites was 

generally larger than previously reported. The Kenneth site 

scored as non-supporting aquatic life for this metric in 2003 

and as partially supporting in 2004 and 2007; in 2003 and 

2004 the Blue Ridge site scored as non-supporting (Wilkison 

and others, 2006; Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and 

others, 2009a).

Percentage of EPT

The percentage of EPT metric is the number of organisms 

belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) expressed as 

a percentage of the total number of organisms. It provides 

information about the relative abundance of the three intolerant orders of aquatic insects, so large populations of a few 

species can result in large values. The percentage of EPT 

taxa was the only KDHE aquatic-life status metric that was 

significantly different among sites during April and August 

2008 (table 11). During April 2008, percent EPT was significantly larger at the Kenneth site (42.2 percent) than at the Blue 

Ridge site (32.9 percent) and the 151st site was intermediate between the two (39.2 percent). In August 2008, percent 

EPT at the Kenneth and 151st sites (28.0 and 26.5 percent, 

respectively) was significantly larger than at the Blue Ridge 

site (20.5 percent). Despite among-site differences, based on 

percentage EPT, all sites were partially supporting of aquatic 

life during April and non-supporting of aquatic life in August 

2008 (tables 11 and 12). The percentage of EPT at the Kenneth 

and Blue Ridge sites during 2008 was consistent with previous studies; previously both sites scored as either partially 

supporting or non-supporting of aquatic life (Wilkison and 

others, 2006; Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and 

others, 2009a). 

Aquatic-Life-Support Status

Aquatic-life-support categories are determined by the 

numeric mean of scores attained by each of the four KDHE 

metrics, and the mean value is used as an indication of the 

ability of a stream to support an acceptable level of aquatic 

life. During April 2008, all three sites attained a score indicative of partially supporting aquatic-life status, though scores at 

the two downstream sites (151st and Blue Ridge) were significantly lower than the score at the upstream (Kenneth) site 

(fig. 15). Scores at all sites were less in August 2008 than in 

April 2008; however, the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites were 

partially supporting of aquatic-life status, while the site immediately downstream from the wastewater effluent discharge 

(151st) was non-supporting (fig. 15).

Aquatic-life status results for the Kenneth site were 

similar to previous studies; a partially supporting status was 

reported in 2003, 2004, and 2007 (Poulton and others, 2007; 

Rasmussen and others, 2009a). In contrast, the Blue Ridge 

site was reported as partially supporting in 2003 and nonsupporting in 2004 (Wilkison and others, 2006; Poulton and 

others, 2007). Previous studies indicate that biological conditions in the upper Blue River are generally among the least 

affected by human disturbance as compared to other stream 

sites in Johnson County, Kansas and in the Blue River Basin 

(Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009a; 

Wilkison and others, 2009); however, in the most recent 

assessment of Johnson County streams (2007), only 1 of the 

20 stream sites examined was rated as fully supporting based 

on the KDHE multimetric score, and that site (Camp Branch, 

fig. 1) is located in the upper Blue River basin (Rasmussen 

and others, 2009a). 

Total Taxa Richness

Total taxa richness represents the number of distinct taxa 

within a sample. The presence of relatively large numbers 

of distinct taxa indicates that the habitats and food sources 

present at a site can support many species (Barbour and others, 
Table 11. Macroinvertebrate metric scores and statistically significant (p-value less than 0.05) differences among sites at each 

biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008. 

[Metric scores in bold indicate significant differences among sites (all p-values less than 0.05); Metric scores are based on the mean score of three replicate 

samples; ± 1 standard deviation in parentheses; ±, plus or minus; KDHE, Kansas Department of Health and Environment; E, Ephemeroptera; P, Plecoptera; 

T, Trichoptera; >, greater than; =, equals; <, less than; NS, not statistically significant; 1, Kenneth site; 2, 151st site; 3, Blue Ridge site]

Metric

April August

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Statistically 

significant 

differences 

among sites

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Statistically 

significant 

differences 

among sites

KDHE Aquatic Life Support Score Metrics

Macroinvertebrate 

Biotic Index

5.23 (0.25) 5.47 (0.02) 5.65 (0.16) NS 5.05 (0.17) 5.58 (0.09) 5.45 (0.19) 1 < 3 only

Kansas Biotic Index 2.48 (.05) 2.81 (.01) 2.72 (.03) 1 < 2 < 3 2.76 (.03) 2.85 (.06) 2.77 (.01) NS

EPT taxa richness 13.3 (1.15) 10.33 (.58) 9.33 (1.15) 1 > 2 = 3 12.3 (1.53) 9.00 (2.65) 8.67 (1.53) NS

EPT, percent 42.2 (3.26) 39.24 (4.40) 32.9 (4.21) 1 > 3 only 28.0 (1.55) 26.5 (.75) 20.5 (.62) 1 = 2 > 3

Other metrics

Total taxa richness 45.0 (4.36) 42.3 (1.53) 41.7 (9.24) NS 54.7 (2.89) 49 (3.61) 52.3 (6.03) NS

Intolerant organisms, percent

37.9 (2.85) 21.1 (3.80) 27.2 (3.00) 1 > 2 = 3 18.1 (2.11) 10.5 (2.61) 12.1 (2.59) 1 > 2 = 3

Scrapers, percent 27.1 (1.15) 25.9 (1.17) 22.6 (5.07) NS 21.2 (1.38) 16.3 (1.45) 14.0 (2.67) 1 > 2 = 3

Oligochaeta, 

percent

.63 (.55) 3.33 (1.01) 2.20 (.82) NS .69 (.25) .14 (.25) .44 (.04) 2 < 1 = 3

Tanytarsini midges, 

percent

.92 (.78) .57 (.23) .49 (.47) NS 1.90 (.80) 1.98 (.73) 2.47 (.29) NS

Ephemeroptera 

and Plecoptera, 

percent

30.2 (4.27) 27.9 (2.99) 28.1 (4.56) NS 15.0 (.70) 12.9 (2.44) 9.42 (1.51) 1 = 2 > 3

Shannon Diversity 

Index

3.29 (.094) 3.16 (.040) 3.12 (.18) NS 3.43 (.012) 3.37 (.045) 3.45 (.096) NS

42 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

1999). Total taxa richness ranged from 42 to 54 organisms, 

with between 7 and 10 more taxa occurring at each site in 

August 2008 than in April 2008. The increase in taxa richness 

in August 2008 was largely because of an increase in tolerant 

taxa. Richness was slightly larger at the Kenneth site (between 

2 and 6 more taxa) than the downstream sites, though amongsite differences were not significant (table 11). 

Percentage of Intolerant Organisms

This metric represents the relative abundance of organisms that have KBI-NO tolerance values less than 3.0 

(Huggins and Moffett, 1988). The percentage of intolerant 

organisms was significantly larger at the Kenneth site than 

at the two downstream sites during April and August 2008 

and was the only calculated individual metric to indicate a 

consistent, statistically significant pattern among sites and 

months (table 11; appendix 15). During April 2008, intolerant 

taxa were most abundant at the Kenneth site (37.9 percent of 

organisms) and least abundant at the 151st site (21.1 percent); 

the Blue Ridge site was intermediate (27.2 percent). Intolerant 

taxa were about 10 to 20 percent less abundant at all sites in 

August 2008, but among-site patterns were similar, with intolerant taxa most abundant at the Kenneth site (18.1 percent) 

and least abundant at the 151st site (10.5 percent; table 11). 

Percentage of Scrapers

Measures of functional groups associated with specific 

feeding strategies provide information on community balance 

and shifts in composition may be indicative of altered energy 

pathways (Cummins, 1974; Barbour and others, 1999). Scrapers, those taxa that remove periphyton and fungal communities from surfaces by scraping, represent one example of a 

functional group. Scrapers represented between 22.6 and 

27.1 percent of organisms during April 2008 and 14.0 and 

21.2 percent in August 2008. Scraper abundance declined 

in the downstream direction, with the largest values at the 

Kenneth site and smallest values at the Blue Ridge site. 

During August 2008, the percentage of scrapers at the Kenneth 

site was significantly larger than at the downstream sites 

(table 11).
Table 12. Criteria for four macroinvertebrate metrics used in Kansas to evaluate aquatic-life-support 

status of streams (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2008). 

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

substances; EPTRich, Ephemoeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) species richness; %EPT, percentage of EPT species; 

<, less than, >, greater than]

Aquatic-life-support Score MBI KBI-NO EPTRich %EPT Mean score

Fully supporting 3 < 4.51 < 2.61 > 12 > 48 > 2.49

Partially supporting 2 4.51–5.39 2.61–2.99 8–12 31–47 1.5–2.49

Non-supporting 1 > 5.39 > 2.99 < 8 < 31 1.0–1.49

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 43

Percentage of Oligochaeta

Many oligochaete taxa are pollution tolerant. During 

April 2008, oligochaetes were most abundant at the 151st site 

(3.33 percent of organisms) and least abundant at the Kenneth 

site (0.63 percent). In August 2008, oligochaetes represented 

less than 1 percent of organisms at all sites (table 11). Oligochaetes typically represent a small percentage of organism 

abundance in Johnson County and the upper Blue River, 

though values of nearly 50 percent have occasionally been 

reported from some of the most urban sites (Poulton and 

others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009a; Wilkison and 

others, 2009).

Percentage of Tanytarsini

Tanytarsini, an intolerant tribe of midges (Diptera: 

Chironomidae) indicative of unpolluted waters, made up less 

than 1 percent of the organisms at all three sites in April 2008 

and less than 3 percent in August 2008 (table 11). Tanytarsini midges typically represent a small percentage of organism abundance in Johnson County and the Blue River, and 

values larger than 3 percent are rarely reported (Poulton and 

others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009a; Wilkison and 

others, 2009).

Percentage of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera

This metric represents a modification of the percent EPT 

metric and omits the Trichoptera to account for the effect of 

larger relative abundances of tolerant net-spinning caddisflies 

often encountered in macroinvertebrate samples from larger 

urban streams (Poulton and others, 2007). In April 2008, the 

percentage of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera was similar 

among sites and ranged from 27.9 to 30.2 percent. Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera represented a smaller percentage of 

organisms during August 2008, and values were significantly 

larger at the Kenneth and 151st sites (15.0 and 12.9 percent, 

respectively) than the Blue Ridge site (9.42 percent; table 11).

Shannon Diversity Index

The Shannon Diversity Index is a core metric that 

measures community diversity and evenness. Larger values 

indicate more diversity and evenness of species. Shannon 

Diversity Index values ranged from 3.12 to 3.45 and values 

were relatively similar among sites and months (table 11).

Stream Metabolism

Measures of ecosystem function, such as stream metabolism, can be indicators of stream health because function is 

affected by a combination of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, all of which are embedded in metabolism 

rate (Mulholland and others, 2005; Fellows and others, 2006; 

Young and others, 2008). Stream metabolism is an estimate 

of how much organic carbon is produced and/or consumed 

in a given period of time. Diel variation in dissolved oxygen 

concentration is commonly used to estimate stream metabolism. Under steady flow conditions, the changes in dissolved 

oxygen concentration are the result of photosynthesis (primary 

productivity), respiration (cellular processes that require 

oxygen to generate energy), and gas exchange with the atmosphere (reaeration; Lewis, 2006). The stream metabolism variables calculated by the NAWQA Nutrient Enrichment Effects 

Team (NEET) whole-stream metabolism program include 

gross primary production (GPP), community respiration (CR), 

net ecosystem production (NEP), and production to respiration 

ratio (P/R; Bales and Nardi, 2007). Combined, these variables 

give an indication of ecosystem response to changing environmental conditions. GPP, CR, and NEP are expressed as grams 

of oxygen per meter squared per day (g O2/m2/d). There is 

some uncertainty associated with estimating reaeration coefficients; therefore, emphasis is placed on the relative differences 

in metabolism rate among sites rather than on the absolute 

values of GPP, CR, and NEP. 

There are no established procedures or criteria for using 

stream metabolism data to assess stream health. However, 

Young and others (2008) proposed a preliminary framework, 

based on meta-analysis of data available in the scientific literature, for assessing functional stream health using GPP and CR 

(table 13). The framework proposes criteria-based ratios that 

describe the relative difference in GPP or CR between a test 

site and a reference site. Young and others (2008) define a test 

site as a site that is potentially impacted and a reference site as 
Figure 15. Multimetric aquatic-life-support scores (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

2008) at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AQUATIC-LIFE-SUPPORT SCORE

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

April August

a

a

b

b

a

b b

Fully supporting

Partially supporting

Non-supporting

DOWNSTREAM

Mean (three replicate samples)

Standard deviation

EXPLANATION

Different letters indicate 

statistically significant 

differences (p less than 

0.05) in median values 

between sites

Kenneth

151st

Blue Ridge

44 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

a site that is more pristine. For the upper Blue River study the 

Blue Ridge site was considered the test site and the Kenneth 

site was considered the reference site. Whereas the preliminary criteria proposed by the framework are based on a global 

range of data and additional research is required to develop 

more region-specific criteria, the framework provides a useful 

method of comparing functional stream health upstream and 

downstream from the wastewater effluent discharge into the 

upper Blue River.

Gross Primary Production (GPP)

Gross primary production is net primary productivity 

by autotrophs minus respiration losses. Annual (April 2008 

through March 2009) median GPP at the Blue Ridge site 

was about 2.5 times larger than at the Kenneth site (table 14, 

fig. 16A), a pattern that matches the larger chlorophyll concentrations at the downstream site (fig. 13). Seasonal differences 

among sites were similar to the overall annual difference. 

Seasonal median GPP was about 1.5 to 7 times larger at 

the Blue Ridge site than the Kenneth site, with the smallest 

difference occurring in fall and the largest during summer. 

Differences among sites were statistically significant during 

all seasons except spring, when seasonal GPP maxima were 

observed at both sites (table 14). The spring GPP maxima 

corresponds with the spring maxima in chlorophyll observed 

at all upper Blue River sites (table 10). Annual median and 

seasonal median GPP ratios between sites were indicative 

of normal ecosystem function at the Blue Ridge site, except 

during summer when the GPP ratio was indicative of mild 

impairment (tables 13 and 14). Other studies have documented that larger rates of GPP tend to occur at sites that 

receive wastewater effluent discharges (Bott and others, 2006; 

Gücker and others, 2006), likely because of increased growth 

of aquatic plants and algae stimulated by elevated nutrient 

concentrations.

Gross primary production was about 2 to 30 times larger 

in May 2008 than during other months at both upper Blue 

River sites. Monthly median GPP at the Kenneth site was 

about 1.5 times larger than at the Blue Ridge site during May 

2008, the only period where GPP at the Kenneth site was 

greater than at the downstream site (fig. 16A). The seasonal 

minima in GPP occurred during January 2009 at the Blue 

Ridge site. GPP at the Kenneth site was relatively small in 

January 2009, and also during July through October 2008 

(fig. 16A). Uehlinger (2006) documented similar results with 

15 years of stream metabolism data, where GPP typically 

reached annual maxima in May and declined to seasonal 

minima in January. Houser and others (2005) and Acuna and 

others (2004) also found maximum GPP values typically occur 

during spring. Seasonal spring maxima in GPP are likely 

because of longer day length and associated increases in light 
Table 13. Framework and ratio criteria proposed by Young and 

others (2008) for assessing functional stream health using stream 

metabolism data. 

[GPP, gross primary production; CR, community respiration; t, test site; 

r, reference site; <, less than; >, greater than]

Ecosystem function GPPt/GPPr CRt/CRr

No impairment <2.5 0.4–1.6

Mildly impaired 2.5–5.0 .2–.4 or 1.6–2.7

Severly impaired >5.0 <.2 or >2.7

Table 14. Seasonal and overall summary of stream metabolism results at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River 

during April 2008 through March 2009. 

[Two-sample Wilcoxon tests were used to compare median values among sites; p-values in bold indicate values were significantly different (less than 0.05). 

Impact assessment based on Young and others (2008) proposed ratio criteria; n, number of observatons; g O2/m2/day, grams of oxygen per meter squared per day; 

<, less than; --, not applicable]

Time period

Kenneth Blue Ridge pvalueRatio (Blue Ridge:Kenneth) Ecosystem funcn Range Median n Range Median n Range Median tion

Gross primary production (g O2/m2/day)

Spring 25 0.10–4.50 0.60 25 0.50–2.70 1.30 0.28 25 0.28–5.00 1.55 No impairment

Summer 54 0–1.80 .10 54 .20–1.10 .70 <.01 43 .50–11.0 5.00 Mildly impaired

Fall 53 0–.40 .20 53 0–.90 .30 <.01 46 0–6.00 2.00 No impairment

Winter 59 0–.70 .10 59 .10–1.10 .30 <.01 56 .75–5.00 1.33 No impairment

April 2008– 

March 2009

191 0–4.50 .20 191 0–2.70 .50 <.01 170 0–11.0 2.00 No impairment

Community respiration (g O2/m2/day)

Spring 25 0.06–4.92 2.10 25 0.34–3.18 2.08 0.60 25 0.20–37.2 0.88 No impairment

Summer 54 .01–3.68 .74 54 .49–3.02 1.39 <.01 54 .57–133 1.96 Mildly impaired

Fall 53 .04–4.82 .91 53 .02–2.28 .67 .13 53 .02–21.3 .78 No impairment

Winter 59 .07–2.21 .59 59 .01–2.48 .55 .39 59 .02–8.38 .87 No impairment

April 2008– 

March 2009

191 .01–4.92 .80 191 .01–3.18 1.00 .1 191 .02–133 1.01 No impairment

Net ecosystem productivity (g O2/m2/day)

Spring 25 3.37–0.89 -0.23 25 -2.27–1.36 -0.72 0.72 25 -43.3–3.87 -0.60 --

Summer 54 -2.33–.07 -.56 54 -2.22–.05 -.65 .28 54 -37.5–63.0 1.11 --

Fall 53 -4.62–.12 -.77 53 -2.18–.21 -.27 <.01 53 -14.0–16.3 .45 --

Winter 59 -1.71–.43 -.41 59 -1.83–.91 -.21 .07 58 -18.5–9.50 .50 --

April 2008–

March 2009

191 -4.62–.89 -.54 191 -2.27–1.36 -.46 .10 190 -43.3–63.0 .54 --

Production/respiration ratio

Spring 25 0.13–7.14 0.92 25 0.18–5.00 0.69 0.85 25 0.67–7.32 0.83 --

Summer 54 0–3.33 .19 54 .14–1.07 .51 <.01 43 .18–9.09 2.48 --

Fall 53 0–2.50 .14 53 0–.90 .30 <.01 46 0–64.0 3.67 --

Winter 59 0–3.53 .34 59 .11–10.0 .51 <.01 56 .30–16.8 1.71 --

April 2008– 

March 2009

191 0–7.14 .24 191 0–10.0 .53 <.01 170 0–64.0 2.05 --

Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 45
46 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

and temperature. Light limitation because of canopy cover, 

photoinhibition of photosynthesis, and high temperatures may 

all contribute to reduced GPP during summer months (Allan, 

1995; Hill and others, 2001; Franklin and others, 2003).

Community Respiration (CR)

Community respiration is respiration by autotrophs 

(photosynthetic organisms such as algae) and heterotrophs 

(non-photosynthetic organisms such as fish, macroinvertebrates, and bacteria). Annual median CR values were generally similar at the Blue Ridge and Kenneth sites (table 14).

Seasonal differences between sites corresponded with the 

overall annual difference, with the exception of summer. 

During summer, seasonal median CR was about 2 times larger 

at the Blue Ridge site than the Kenneth site. The significant 

difference in CR between sites during summer is likely due, in 

part, to the 7-fold difference in GPP between sites (table 14). 

Annual median and seasonal median CR ratios between sites 

were indicative of normal ecosystem function at the Blue 

Ridge site, except during summer when the CR ratio was 

indicative of mild impairment (tables 13 and 14). 

CR was about 1.8 to 16 times greater in May 2008 than 

during other months at both upper Blue River sites, likely in 

response to the peak in GPP (fig. 16B). Minima occurred in 

February 2009 at the Kenneth site and November 2008 at the 

Blue Ridge site (fig. 16B). Seasonal CR patterns in the upper 

Blue River generally are similar to what Uehlinger (2006) 

observed in 15 years of stream metabolism data, where CR 

typically reached annual maxima in May and declined to 

seasonal minima in December. Seasonal patterns in CR are 

closely related to temperature conditions because metabolic 

activity generally increases with increasing water temperature, 

though seasonal temperature maxima may stress some aquatic 

organisms (Sinsabaugh, 1997; Hill and others, 2000).

Net Ecosystem Production (NEP) and Production 

to Respiration Ratio (P/R ratio)

Net ecosystem productivity is the net gain or loss of 

carbon from the stream as a result of biological activity and is 

the difference between GPP and CR. The production to respiration ratio (P/R) is the ratio of GPP to CR and is a measure 

of the amount of respiration that may be supported by autotrophic production. If NEP is greater than 0 and P/R is greater 

than 1, autotrophic production of carbon supports respiration 

and carbon is accumulating in the system, and if NEP is less 

than 0 and the P/R ratio is less than 1, autotrophic production and/or allochthonous inputs of carbon support respiration and carbon is being consumed (Odum, 1956; Meyer and 

Edwards, 1990).

NEP was less than 0 and P/R less than 1 about 80 percent 

of the time during April 2008 through March 2009 at both 

study sites, indicating autotrophic carbon production usually 

is not sufficient to support respiration in the upper Blue River 

(table 14, fig. 16D). P/R is generally a better measure of the 

extent to which respiration is supported by autotrophic carbon 

production because it compares the relative difference between 

gross primary production and community respiration (Meyer 

and Edwards, 1990). Therefore, P/R is used to compare the 

amount of respiration supported by autotrophic carbon production upstream and downstream from the WWTF wastewater 

effluent discharge on the upper Blue River.

Annual median P/R at the Blue Ridge site was about 

2.2 times larger than at the Kenneth site (table 14, fig. 16D). 

Seasonal differences between sites corresponded with the 

overall annual difference, with the exception of spring. During 

spring, seasonal median P/R was about 1.3 times larger at the 

Kenneth site than the Blue Ridge site, though the difference 

was not statistically significant (table 14). P/R at both sites 

was about 1.5 to 6.5 times larger during the spring than other 

seasons, a pattern that matches the seasonal peak in GPP.

Larger P/R ratios during most of the year may indicate 

that more autotrophic carbon production supported respiration 

at the Blue Ridge site than at the Kenneth site, a finding that 

is consistent with differences in chlorophyll and GPP between 

sites (table 10, figs. 13 and 16A). However, because P/R ratios 

usually were less than 1 at both sites, both relied on external 

carbon sources to support respiration. Organic material from 

upstream or the surrounding basin is likely maintaining the 

food web for both sites (Meyer, 1989). 

Effects of Wastewater Effluent 

Discharge on Environmental and 

Biological Conditions of the Upper 

Blue River

A key goal of the Kansas nutrient reduction plan is a 

30-percent reduction in annual total nitrogen and phosphorus 

loads exported from the state (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2004). Therefore, KDHE established target 

nutrient concentrations in wastewater effluent as part of the 

Kansas Surface Water Nutrient Reduction Plan. After the 

addition of biological nutrient removal to the Blue River Main 

WWTF, target total nitrogen concentrations were achieved and 

annual total nitrogen loads from the WWTF decreased despite 

capacity upgrades. During the study period, biological nutrient 

removal did not substantially affect total phosphorus concentrations and annual loads increased with discharge volume; 

however, the biological phosphorus removal process was 

optimized after the study was complete, and target total phosphorus concentrations in wastewater effluent were achieved 

during summer 2009. During 2007 and 2008 annual discharge 

from the WWTF was about one-half maximum capacity, 

and estimated potential maximum nutrient loads are 1.6 to 

2.4 times larger than annual loads before capacity upgrades. 

Even when target nutrient concentrations are met, annual 
Figure 16. Seasonal patterns in gross primary production (A), community respiration (B), net ecosystem production (C), and 

production to respiration ratio (D) at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during April 2008 through March 2009.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

1

0

2

3

4

5

1

0

2

3

4

5

GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTION, IN GRAMS OF 

OXYGEN PER METER SQUARED PER DAY

NET ECOSYSTEM PRODUCTION, IN GRAMS OF 

OXYGEN PER METER SQUARED PER DAY

0

1

2

3

4

5

PRODUCTION TO RESPIRATION RATIO

Apr. 08

May 08

June 08

July 08

Aug. 08

Sept. 08

Oct. 08

Nov. 08

Dec. 08

Jan. 09

Feb. 09

Mar. 09

Apr. 08

May 08

June 08

July 08

Aug. 08

Sept. 08

Oct. 08

Nov. 08

Dec. 08

Jan. 09

Feb. 09

Mar. 09

COMMUNITY RESPIRATION, IN GRAMS OF 

OXYGEN PER METER SQUARED PER DAY

A B

C D

Mean

Standard deviation

EXPLANATION

Kenneth

Blue Ridge

Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge on Environmental and Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 47

nutrient loads from the WWTF will increase when operated at 

full capacity.

Annual nutrient loads are important when considering 

effects on downstream areas where nutrients are sequestered, 

such as impoundments or, on a national scale, the Gulf of 

Mexico. Reducing overall nutrient loads to reduce or prevent 

eutrophication effects on downstream areas is important. 

However, biological communities respond to the concentration 

of nutrients and other water-quality constituents rather than 

overall loads (Welch and Lindell, 1992). Biological community responses to excess nutrients typically include loss of 

biodiversity and shifts to more tolerant taxa (Carpenter and 

others, 1998; Wetzel, 2001). The effect of wastewater effluent on ecosystem processes, such as primary productivity and 

community respiration, are less well understood (Gücker and 

others, 2006). The reduction of nutrient concentrations in the 

Blue River Main wastewater effluent will help prevent further 

degradation of the receiving stream regardless of changes in 

annual nutrient loads.

The effect of wastewater effluent on the water-quality of 

the upper Blue River was most evident during below-normal 

and normal streamflows (about 75 percent of the time), when 

wastewater effluent represented about 20 percent or more of 

total streamflow. The Blue River Main WWTF wastewater 

effluent caused changes in the concentration of some waterquality constituents that may affect biological community 

structure and ecosystem processes, including greater concentrations of bioavailable nutrients (nitrate and orthophosphorus) 

and smaller turbidities. These wastewater effluent effects on 

water quality were evident before and after upgrades to the 
48 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Blue River Main WWTF. Concentrations of nutrients downstream from the Blue River Main WWTF always exceeded 

ecoregion-based criteria, even after biological nutrient 

removal substantially reduced wastewater effluent total 

nitrogen concentrations. Concentrations of nutrients and other 

water-quality constituents downstream from the Blue River 

Main WWTF are in the mid-range of conditions reported from 

other stream sites in Johnson County and the lower reaches 

of the Blue River (Lee and others, 2005; Wilkison and others, 

2006, 2009; Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 

2008, 2009a).

With the possible exception of increased riffle-substrate 

fouling, wastewater effluent did not have a measurable effect 

on in-stream habitat conditions at the downstream sites. 

Canopy cover and riparian buffer width declined along the 

upstream-downstream gradient, likely because of increased 

urban land use and impervious cover. Algal biomass, primary 

production, and the percentage of eutrophic (nutrient-tolerant) 

diatoms significantly increased and the abundance of intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa and KDHE aquatic-life-support 

scores significantly decreased downstream from the WWTF. 

Though KDHE aquatic-life-support scores decreased along the 

upstream-downstream gradient, all scores, with the exception 

of the 151st site in August 2008, were indicative of conditions partially supporting of aquatic life. By comparison, 

sites located further downstream in the increasingly urban 

portions of the basin typically are indicative of conditions nonsupporting of aquatic life (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009a; Wilkison and others, 2009). Ecosystem 

functional health downstream from the WWTF was mildly 

impaired relative to the upstream site during summer 2008 but 

not during other times of the year.

Periphyton community composition at all study sites was 

indicative of somewhat degraded, meso-eutrophic conditions with small to moderate amounts of organic enrichment 

(Bahls, 1993; Porter, 2008). Eutrophic diatoms, indicative 

of nutrient enrichment, were dominant at all study sites, but 

relative abundance increased in the downstream direction, 

reflecting nutrient increases at the downstream sites. Excessive growth of notorious nuisance taxa, such as cyanobacteria 

and Cladophora, which tend to proliferate under nutrient-rich 

conditions, was not observed during the study. 

Algal biomass and primary production increased along 

the upstream-downstream gradient, indicating conditions 

were more favorable for algal growth downstream from the 

WWTF. The increase in primary production downstream from 

the WWTF was substantial enough during summer to indicate 

mild impairment of ecosystem functional health. Algal growth 

commonly increases downstream from WWTFs because of the 

relatively constant source of bioavailable nutrients (Welch and 

others, 1992; Lewis and others, 2002; Dyer and others, 2003; 

Bott and others, 2006; Gücker and others, 2006). Increased 

algal growth and primary production along the upstreamdownstream gradient in the upper Blue River may be a direct 

result of nutrient enrichment. However, there are other factors 

that affect algal biomass and primary production in streams 

that may have affected algal growth in the upper Blue River, 

including light, streamflow, and grazer abundance (Welch and 

Lindell, 1992; Allan, 1995; Young and others, 2008).

Light is a key factor limiting algal growth and primary 

production in temperate streams (Allan, 1995; Hill and 

others, 2001; Young and others, 2008) and may have played 

a role in limiting algal biomass and primary production at 

the upstream site during summer 2008. Canopy cover and 

turbidity decreased along the upstream-downstream gradient, likely resulting in increased light availability. Algal 

biomass exceeded the nuisance threshold at all sites during 

April 2008 and primary production was about 1.5 times larger 

at the upstream site than the downstream site in May 2008. 

By comparison, algal biomass and primary production were 

consistently lower at the upstream site during summer 2008 

and annual minima in primary production occurred during 

July through October 2008 when streamside trees were fully 

leafed out.

During relatively low-flow conditions, increases in 

streamflow may enhance nutrient uptake and growth of algal 

periphyton (Welch and Lindell, 1992). Streamflow at the 

downstream site was always greater than the upstream site 

because of wastewater effluent contributions, and may have 

been sufficient to enhance uptake and stimulate algal growth. 

Macroinvertebrate grazers may effectively reduce algal 

biomass in streams, even under nutrient enriched conditions 

(Welch and Lindell, 1992). Some macroinvertebrates have 

developed a specific feeding strategy to remove algae and 

other periphyton from surfaces by scraping (Cummins, 1974; 

Barbour and others, 1999). Within the upper Blue River study 

reach the relative abundance of scrapers decreased along 

the upstream-downstream gradient. The greater abundance 

of scrapers at the upstream site may have played a role in 

keeping algal biomass low relative to the downstream site.

Macroinvertebrate communities were indicative of 

some level of impairment at all sites in the upper Blue River; 

however, macroinvertebrate metrics were indicative of 

declines in stream quality along the upstream-downstream 

gradient. There were distinct shifts from sensitive to more 

tolerant taxa along the study reach and some sensitive taxa 

were absent from downstream sites. The abundance of 

intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa and KDHE aquatic-lifesupport scores significantly decreased downstream from the 

WWTF. Several macroinvertebrate metric responses reflect 

the greater nutrient concentrations downstream from the 

WWTF. The KBI-NO and MBI biotic indices are calculated 

based on macroinvertebrate tolerances to nutrients (Huggins 

and Moffet, 1988; Davenport and Kelly, 1983). These indices 

reflected nutrient conditions along the upstream-downstream 

gradient (metric scores increased with increasing nutrient 

concentrations) and were indicative of the negative effect of 

high nutrient concentrations on macroinvertebrate communities. Individual macroinvertebrate taxa known to be tolerant 

of high nutrient concentrations, including the tendipid midge 

Dicrotendipes, and orthoclad midges in the Cricotopus/

Orthocladius species complexes (Adamus and Brandt, 1990; 
Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge on Environmental and Biological Conditions of the Upper Blue River 49

Davies and Tsomides, 2002; Jacobsen, 2008), also increased in 

abundance downstream from the WWTF. 

Nutrients may affect macroinvertebrates directly by 

disrupting or altering physiological processes (Carmago and 

Alonso, 2006) or indirectly by stimulating algal growth. 

Increased algal biomass likely caused some degradation of 

macroinvertebrate habitats downstream from the WWTF, as 

evidenced by the decline in riffle-substrate fouling scores 

along the upstream-downstream gradient. Excessive algal 

growth may degrade habitats, become embedded with fine 

substrate particles making it a less palatable food source for 

macroinvertebrate scrapers, and decrease dissolved oxygen 

concentrations during decay, thereby affecting macroinvertebrate communities (Garie and McIntosh, 1986; Adamus and 

Brandt, 1990; Davies and Tsomides, 2002; Jacobsen, 2008).

In addition to nutrients, other factors associated with 

wastewater effluent and increased urban land use that affect 

water quality, habitat quality, and hydrology likely also 

affected macroinvertebrate community composition along the 

upstream-downstream gradient. Several studies have indicated 

that common wastewater effluent constituents such as chloride, trace metals, or organic wastewater effluent compounds 

in water and sediments may be important in structuring 

macroinvertebrate community composition downstream 

from WWTFs (Birge and others, 1989; Dickson and others, 

1992; Diamond and Daley, 2000; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000b; Dyer and Wang, 2002). Concentrations 

of measured constituents in water and sediments did not 

exceed probable effects concentrations; however, the effects 

of exposure to mixtures of potentially toxic compounds on 

macroinvertebrate communities are largely unknown. Macroinvertebrate communities also are sensitive to nonpoint 

source effects of urbanization on streams, and loss of sensitive taxa begin to occur at relatively low levels of urban land 

use (Booth and Jackson, 1997; Richards and others, 1996; 

Roth and others, 1996; Roy and others, 2003; Rasmussen and 

others, 2009a).

Patterns in periphyton community metrics along the 

upstream-downstream gradient reflected changes in waterquality conditions downstream from the WWTF during April 

2008, but were indicative of relatively poor conditions at all 

sites in August 2008. Many of the macroinvertebrate community metrics also were indicative of poorer conditions at all 

sites in August than April 2008, likely because of the stress 

associated with seasonal low-flow conditions and high temperatures. Natural seasonal variation in the life-cycles of aquatic 

organisms may affect the sensitivity of some metrics used to 

evaluate biological conditions (Barbour and others, 1999). 

Comparison of biological metrics among years and studies 

need to consider when samples were collected and the natural 

seasonal variation that occurs in biological communities.

Whereas periphyton metrics were able to discriminate 

among sites along the upstream-downstream gradient in 

April 2008, all metrics likely reflected seasonal stressors in 

August 2008. By comparison, the KDHE aquatic-life-support 

score was able to discriminate among sites during April and 

August 2008. Indices based on multimetric combinations, such 

as the KDHE aquatic-life-support score, minimize the bias that 

might occur when relying on individual metrics for evaluation 

(Karr and Kerans, 1991; Karr, 1993; Fore and others, 1994; 

Barbour and others, 1995). In addition, the KDHE aquaticlife-support score was developed using macroinvertebrate 

autecological data specific to the State of Kansas. The periphyton metrics were developed using autecological data from 

throughout the world—autecological data were not available 

for all taxa identified in the upper Blue River (Porter, 2008; 

Porter and others, 2008), and multimetric indices specific 

to the region have not been developed. Development of 

region-specific autecological periphyton data and multimetric 

periphyton indices may improve the ability to contrast among 

sites through a broad range of seasonal and water-quality 

conditions.

Evaluation of ecosystem functional health is complementary to traditional water-quality and biological monitoring 

approaches because measures of ecosystem function, such 

as stream metabolism, integrate the influence of physical, 

chemical, and biological stressors. Environmental stressors 

may affect habitat, water quality, and/or biological communities (ecosystem structure) but not overall ecosystem function, ecosystem function but not structure, or both; therefore, 

comprehensive assessments of stream impairment need to 

include measures of ecosystem structure and function (Mullholland and others, 2005; Fellows and others, 2006; Young 

and others, 2008). Stream metabolism was calculated for most 

days during April 2008 through March 2009, allowing the 

evaluation of primary production and community respiration 

along the upstream-downstream gradient at a temporal resolution that is not feasible for more traditional biological monitoring approaches.

Summer was the only season when ecosystem functional 

health was mildly impaired downstream from the WWTF. 

Biological communities typically experience increased stress 

during summer because of seasonal low-flow conditions 

and high temperatures, as indicated by the relatively poor 

biological conditions that occurred at all sites in August 2008. 

Wastewater effluent likely represented more than 20 percent of 

total streamflow during most of the summer, thereby having a 

substantial influence on water-quality conditions and causing 

additional stress on biological communities. Differences in 

environmental and biological conditions along the upstreamdownstream gradient likely were more extreme during 

summer than other times of the year, resulting in seasonal 

impairment of ecosystem functional health.

A complex range of physical, chemical, and biological 

factors may potentially affect biological community composition and ecosystem processes, and these factors may vary 

seasonally (Robinson and Minshall, 1986; Allan, 1995; Welch 

and Lindell, 1992; Linke and others, 1999; Hill and others, 

2001). Cause-and-effect relations are difficult to determine 

without conducting manipulative field and/or laboratory 

experiments through a range of spatial and temporal conditions. This complexity makes it difficult to determine which 
50 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

environmental factors most affect biological conditions and 

ecosystem function in the upper Blue River. For example, 

results from this study indicate nutrients, light, streamflow, 

and macroinvertebrate grazers may all play a role in controlling periphyton biomass and primary production in the upper 

Blue River. Wastewater effluent may directly affect algal 

biomass and primary production through increased nutrient 

concentrations, improved water clarity, and increased streamflow, or may have indirect effects by influencing the abundance of macroinvertebrate grazers; however, urbanization 

factors that reduce riparian cover also may have a direct effect 

by increasing light availability.

Upgrades to the Blue River Main WWTF improved 

wastewater effluent quality, but the wastewater effluent 

discharge still had negative effects on the environmental and 

biological conditions at the downstream sites. Wastewater 

effluent discharge into the upper Blue River likely contributed 

to the changes in measures of ecosystem structure (streamflow, 

water chemistry, algal biomass, algal periphyton and macroinvertebrate community composition) and primary production, 

a measure of ecosystem function, along the upstreamdownstream gradient. Because the Blue River Main WWTF is 

located in a rapidly urbanizing area, urbanization effects also 

may play a role in the decline in environmental and biological 

conditions along the upstream-downstream gradient. Despite 

these differences in environmental and biological conditions, 

ecosystem functional health was not impaired downstream 

from the WWTF during most times of the year, indicating the 

declines in environmental and biological conditions along the 

upstream-downstream gradient were not substantial enough to 

cause persistent changes in ecosystem function. 

Summary

The Johnson County Blue River Main Wastewater 

Treatment Facility (WWTF) discharges into the upper Blue 

River near the border between Johnson County, Kansas and 

Jackson County, Missouri. During 2005 through 2007 the 

WWTF underwent upgrades to increase capacity and include 

biological nutrient removal. The purpose of this report is 

to describe the effects of wastewater effluent discharge and 

treatment facility upgrades on environmental and biological conditions in the upper Blue River, downstream from the 

Blue River Main WWTF. This report includes: (1) an evaluation of streamflow and water-quality conditions upstream and 

downstream from the WWTF and before and after upgrades 

using previously and newly collected discrete and continuous 

data, (2) estimates of total nutrient concentrations, loads, and 

yields at an upstream and a downstream site based on regression models developed using previously and newly collected 

discrete and continuous data, (3) evaluation of streambedsediment chemistry, (4) habitat assessment, and (5) a comparison of algal periphyton and macroinvertebrate community 

metrics and ecosystem function (primary production and 

community respiration) along the upstream-downstream 

gradient. This information can be used to help achieve NPDES 

wastewater effluent permit requirements after additional 

studies are conducted.

Three sites along a 6.4-mile reach of the upper Blue 

River were included in the study. One site (Kenneth) was 

located about 2.0 miles upstream from the wastewater effluent discharge and two sites were located downstream from 

the wastewater effluent discharge; the downstream sites were 

about 0.25 and 4.1 miles downstream from the wastewater 

effluent discharge (the 151st and Blue Ridge sites, respectively). Previously collected streamflow and water-quality data 

(discrete and continuous), stream-bed sediment, habitat, algal 

periphyton, and macroinvertebrate data were available for the 

Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites. Continuous water-quality monitors were operated and discrete water-quality samples were 

collected at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites from April 1, 

2008 through March 31, 2009. Water-quality, algal periphyton, 

and macroinvertebrate samples were collected from all three 

sites during normal streamflow conditions in April 2008 and 

below-normal streamflow conditions in August 2008. In addition, sediment-quality samples were collected in April 2008 

and habitat conditions were assessed in June 2008.

The contribution of wastewater effluent to streamflow 

at the Blue Ridge site ranged from negligible (less than 

1 percent) during large runoff events to nearly 100 percent 

during the lowest streamflows. Wastewater effluent represented more than 90 percent of total streamflow about 

6 percent of the time during the study period (January 2003 

through March 2009). After capacity upgrades, the wastewater 

effluent contribution to streamflow during normal streamflows 

increased from about 16 percent to about 23 percent of total 

streamflow.

The Blue River Main WWTF wastewater effluent caused 

changes in the concentration of some water-quality constituents that may affect biological community structure and function including smaller turbidities and greater concentrations 

of bioavailable nutrients (nitrate and orthophosphorus). The 

effects of wastewater effluent on the water-quality conditions 

of the upper Blue River were most evident during belownormal and normal streamflows (about 75 percent of the time), 

when wastewater effluent contributed more than 20 percent to 

total streamflow. Turbidities were about 7 times larger at the 

upstream site than the downstream sites during below-normal 

and normal streamflows because of the increased clarity of 

wastewater effluent discharge relative to natural conditions 

in the upper Blue River. Nutrients changed more than other 

measures of water chemistry as a result of the effect of wastewater effluent. Total and inorganic nutrient concentrations at 

the downstream sites during below-normal and normal streamflows were 4 to 15 times larger than at the upstream site. 

After the addition of biological nutrient removal to 

the Blue River Main WWTF, annual mean total nitrogen 

concentrations were below the NPDES wastewater effluent 

permit target in 2008, and annual total nitrogen loads from 

the WWTF decreased despite capacity increases. NPDES 
Summary 51

wastewater effluent permit target total phosphorus concentrations were achieved in 2007 but not 2008, and annual 

loads increased with wastewater effluent discharge volume; 

however, the biological phosphorus removal process was 

optimized after the study was complete, and target total phosphorus concentrations in wastewater effluent were achieved 

during summer 2009. During 2007 and 2008 annual wastewater effluent discharge from the WWTF was about one-half 

maximum capacity, and estimated potential maximum annual 

nutrient loads are 1.6 to 2.4 times larger than annual loads 

before capacity upgrades. Nitrogen concentrations at the 

downstream site decreased after WWTF upgrades, indicating 

the addition of biological nutrient removal to the wastewater 

treatment process resulted in reduced nitrogen concentrations in the upper Blue River during below-normal and 

normal streamflows. 

Nutrient loads at the sites were estimated during April 

2008 through March 2009 based on regression models developed using discrete and continuous data. During this period 

total nitrogen and phosphorus from the WWTF contributed a 

relatively small percentage (14 to 15 percent) to the annual 

nutrient load in the upper Blue River, but contributed substantially (as much as 85 percent) to monthly loads during 

seasonal low-flows in winter and summer. Urbanization had 

a negligible effect on nitrogen yields; however, when wastewater effluent contributions were excluded, phosphorus yields 

from the more urban portions of the study area were about 

1.6 times larger than rural areas. 

Streambed-sediment conditions were similar along the 

upstream-downstream gradient and measured constituents did 

not exceed probable effect concentrations. Total habitat scores 

were indicative of suboptimal conditions at all sites; however, 

total scores were about 10 percent lower at the downstream 

sites than the upstream site. The individual habitat variables 

with the largest among-site differences in score were canopy 

cover, buffer width, and riffle-substrate fouling. Scores for 

these variables decreased from optimal at the upstream site 

to suboptimal at the downstream sites. Decreases in canopy 

cover and buffer width are likely because of the increasingly 

urban nature of the watershed. 

Periphyton community composition at all study sites was 

indicative of somewhat degraded, meso-eutrophic conditions with small to moderate amounts of organic enrichment. 

Eutrophic diatoms, indicative of nutrient enrichment, were 

dominant at all study sites, but relative abundance increased 

in the downstream direction, reflecting nutrient increases at 

the downstream sites. Algal periphyton biomass, as estimated 

by chlorophyll, and primary production increased in the 

downstream direction, indicating conditions for algal growth 

were more favorable at the downstream sites. Increased algal 

biomass at the downstream sites likely caused the decrease 

in riffle substrate fouling scores observed in the upstreamdownstream direction. Increased algal biomass and primary 

production at the downstream sites may be a direct response 

to nutrient enrichment at these sites; however, many other 

environmental factors also affect algal growth. Increased light 

because of reduced canopy cover and turbidity, increased 

streamflow, and decreased scraper abundance at the downstream sites all may have contributed to the increases in algal 

biomass and primary production at the downstream sites. 

Macroinvertebrate metrics are indicative of declines in 

stream quality along the upstream-downstream gradient. There 

were distinct shifts from sensitive to more tolerant taxa along 

the study reach and some sensitive taxa were absent from the 

two downstream sites. The abundance of intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa and KDHE aquatic-life-support scores significantly decreased downstream from the WWTF. During August 

2008 the site immediately downstream from the WWTF was 

classified as non-supporting of aquatic life. Macroinvertebrate 

community responses are likely because of a combination of 

stressors related to changes in water quality, habitat quality, 

and hydrology, which are, in turn, affected by wastewater 

effluent discharge and land-use practices.

Primary production was typically larger at the downstream site than the upstream site, with the smallest difference 

between sites occurring in fall and the largest during summer. 

Community respiration was generally similar along the 

upstream-downstream gradient with the exception of summer, 

when community respiration was about 2 times larger at the 

downstream site than the upstream site. Ecosystem functional 

health, evaluated using a preliminary framework based on 

primary production and community respiration, downstream 

from the wastewater treatment facility was mildly impaired 

relative to the upstream site during summer 2008 but not 

during other times of the year. Differences in environmental 

and biological conditions along the upstream-downstream 

gradient likely were more extreme during summer than 

other times of the year, resulting in seasonal impairment of 

ecosystem functional health. Net ecosystem production and 

production to respiration ratio indicated that both upper Blue 

River sites relied on external carbon sources to maintain the 

food web.

Upgrades to the Blue River Main WWTF improved 

wastewater effluent quality, but the wastewater effluent 

discharge still had negative effects on the environmental and 

biological conditions at the downstream sites. Wastewater 

effluent discharge into the upper Blue River likely contributed 

to changes in measures of ecosystem structure (streamflow, 

water chemistry, algal biomass, algal periphyton, and macroinvertebrate community composition) and primary production, 

a measure of ecosystem function, along the upstreamdownstream gradient. Because the Blue River Main WWTF is 

located in a rapidly urbanizing area, urbanization effects also 

may play a role in the decline in environmental and biological 

conditions along the upstream-downstream gradient. Despite 

these differences in environmental and biological conditions, 
52 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

ecosystem functional health was not impaired downstream 

from the WWTF during most times of the year, indicating the 

declines in environmental and biological conditions along the 

upstream-downstream gradient were not substantial enough to 

cause persistent changes in ecosystem function. 

References Cited

Acuna, V., Giorgi, A., Munoz, I., Uehlinger, U., and Sabater, 

S., 2004, Flow extremes and benthic organic matter shape 

the metabolism of a headwater Mediterranean stream: 

Freshwater Biology, v. 49, p. 960–971.

Adamus, P., and Brandt, K., 1990, Impacts on quality of inland 

wetlands of the United States—A survey of indicators, 

techniques, and applications of community-level biomonitoring data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 

EPA/600/3-90/073, 406 p.

Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., Boyer, E.W., 

Nolan, J.V., and Brakebill, J.W., 2008, Differences in phosphorus and nitrogen delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from 

the Mississippi River Basin: Environmental Science and 

Technology, v. 42, p. 822–830.

Allan, J.D., 1995, Stream ecology—Structure and function of 

running waters: Boston, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 388 p.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works 

Association, and Water Environment Federation, 1995, 

Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (19th ed.): Washington D.C., American Public Health 

Association, 905 p.

Arar, E.J., and Collins, G.B., 1997, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Method 445.0, In vitro determination of 

chlorophyll-a and pheophytin a in marine and freshwater 

algae by fluorescence, Revision 1.2: Office of Research and 

Development, 22 p.

ASTM International, 2003, D1889-00 standard test method 

for turbidity of water, in ASTM International, Annual book 

of ASTM standards, water and environmental technology: 

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, American Society for 

Testing and Materials, v. 11.01, 6 p.

Bahls, L.L., 1973, Diatom community response to primary 

wastewater effluent: Journal of the Water Pollution Control 

Federation, v. 45, p. 134–144.

Bahls, L.L., 1993, Periphyton bioassessment methods for 

Montana streams: Water Quality Bureau, Department of 

Health and Environmental Sciences, 69 p.

Bales, J.D., and Nardi, M.R., 2007, Automated routines for 

calculation of whole-stream metabolism—Theoretical 

background and user’s guide: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 4-C2, 33 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., Diamond, J.M., and Yoder, C.O., 1996, Biological assessment strategies: Applications and Limitations, in

Grothe, D.R., Dickson, K.L, and Reed-Judkins, D.K., (eds), 

Whole effluent toxicity testing—An evaluation of methods 

and prediction of receiving system impacts: Pensacola, 

Florida, SETAC Press, p. 245–270. 

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 

Publication, chap. 6, p. 63–77.

Birge, W., Black, J., Short, T., and Westerman, A., 1989, A 

comparative ecological and toxicological investigation of 

a secondary wastewater treatment plant effluent and its 

receiving stream: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 8, p. 437–450.

Booth, D.B., and Jackson, C.R., 1997, Urbanization of aquatic 

systems-impacts, solutions, and prognoses: Northwest Environmental Journal, v. 7, p. 93–118.

Bott, T.L., Montgomery, D.S., Newbold, J.D., Arscott, D.B., 

Dow, C.L., Aufdenkampe, A.K., Jackson, J.K., and Kaplan, 

L.A., 2006, Ecosystem metabolism in streams of the 

Catskill Mountains (Delaware and Hudson River basins) 

and Lower Hudson Valley: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 25, p. 1,018–1,044. 

Brower, J.E., Zar, J.H., and vonEnde, C.N., 1990, Field and 

laboratory methods for general ecology (3d ed.): Dubuque, 

Ia., Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 237 p.
References Cited 53

Brown, B.J., and Olive, J.H., 1995. Diatom communities in 

the Cuyahoga River (USA)—Changes in species composition between 1974 and 1992 following renovations in 

wastewater management: Ohio Journal of Science, v. 95, 

p. 254–260.

Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P., 1969, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A8, 

65 p.

Burkhardt, M.R., Zaugg, S.D., Smith, S.G., and ReVello, R.C., 

2006, Determination of wastewater compounds in sediment and soil by pressurized solvent extraction, solid-phase 

extraction, and capillary-column gas chromatography/

mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods, book 5, chap. B2, 33 p.

Carmago, J.A., and Alonso, Á., 2006, Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic 

ecosystems—A global assessment: Environment International, v. 32, p. 831–849.

Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.L., Howarth, R.W., 

Sharpley, A.N., and Smith, V.H., 1998, Nonpoint pollution 

of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen: Ecological 

Applications, v. 8, p. 559–568.

Cheremisinoff, P.N., 1995, Handbook of water and wastewater treatment technology: New York, New York, Marcell 

Dekker, Inc., 833 p.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on longterm method detection levels and some considerations for 

interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water-Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p.

Christensen, V.G., Jian, X., and Ziegler, A.C., 2000, Regression analysis and real-time water-quality monitoring to 

estimate constituent concentrations, loads, and yields, in 

the Little Arkansas river, south-central Kansas, 1995–99: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00–4126, 36 p.

Cohn, T.A., DeLong, L.L., Gilroy, E.J., Hirsch, R.M., and 

Wells, D., 1989, Estimating constituent loads: Water 

Resources Research, v. 25, no. 5, p. 937–942.

Cuffney, T.F., 2003, User’s manual for the National WaterQuality Assessment Program Invertebrate Data Analysis 

System (IDAS) software: Version 3: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–172, 103 p.

Cummins, K.W., 1974, The structure and function of stream 

ecosystems: Bioscience, v. 24, p. 631–641. 

Daughton, C.G, and Ternes, T.A., 1999, Pharmaceuticals and 

personal care products in the environment—Agents of 

subtle change: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 107 

(supplement 6), p. 907–938.

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, Ill., 

phase II: Springfield, Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency, Report No. IEPA/WPC/83-013, variously paged.

Davies, A.L., and Gee, J.H.R., 1993, A simple periphyton 

sampler for algal biomass estimates in streams: Freshwater 

Biology, v. 30, p. 47–51.

Davies, S.P., and Tsomides, L., 2002, Methods for Biological Sampling and Analysis of Maine’s Rivers and Streams. 

(3d ed.): Augusta, Maine, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, DEP LW0387-B2002, 31 p.

Dickson, K., Waller, W., Kennedy, J., and Amman, L., 1992, 

Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and 

instream biological response: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 11, p. 1,307–1,322.

Diamond, J., and Daley, C., 2000, What is the relationship 

between whole effluent toxicity and instream biological 

condition?: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 19, 

p. 158–168.

Dodds, W.K., and Gudder, D.A., 1992, The ecology of 

Cladophora: Journal of Phycology, v. 28, p. 415–427.

Duan, N., 1983, Smearing estimate—A nonparametric retransformation method: Journal of the American Statistical 

Association, v. 78, p. 605–610.

Dufour, A.P., 1977, Escherichia coli—Fecal colifrom, in

Hoadley, A.W., and Dutka, B.J., eds., Bacterial indicator/

health hazards associated with water, 1977: American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 635, p. 48–58.

Dyer, S.D., and Wang, X., 2002, A comparison of stream 

biological responses to discharge from wastewater treatment 

plants in high and low population density areas: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 21, p. 1,065–1,075.
54 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Dyer, S.D., Peng, C., McAvoy, D.C., Fendinger, N.J., Masscheleyn, P., Castillo, L.V., and Lim, J.M.U., 2003, the 

influence of untreated wastewater to aquatic communities 

in the Balatuin River, the Philippines: Chemosphere, v. 52, 

p. 43–53.

Fellows, C.S., Clapcott, J.E., Udy, J.W., Bunn, S.E., Harch, 

B.D., Smith, M.J., and Davies, P.M., 2006, Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health: Hydrobiologia, v. 572, p. 71–87.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water 

Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

Fore, L.S., Karr, J.R., and Conquest, L.L., 1994, Statistical properties of an index of biological integrity used to 

evaluate water resources: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, v. 51, p. 1,077–1,087.

Franklin, L.A., Osmond, C.B., and Larkum, 2003, Photoinhibition, UV-B, and algal photosynthesis, in Larkum, A.W.D., 

Douglas, S.E., and Raven, J.A., eds., Photosynthesis in 

algae: Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration, v. 14, 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

p. 351–384.

Furlong, E.T., Werner, S.L., Anderson, B.D., and Cahill, 

J.D., 2008, Determination of human-health pharmaceuticals in filtered water by chemically modified styrenediviinylbenzene resin-based solid-phase extraction and 

high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, 

book 5, sec. B, chap. B5, 56 p.

Garie, H.L., and McIntosh, A. 1986, Distribution of benthic 

macroinvertebrates in a stream exposed to urban runoff: 

Water Resources Bulletin, v. 22, p. 447–455.

Graham, J.L., Loftin, K.A., Ziegler, A.C., and Meyer, M.T., 

2008, Cyanobacteria in lakes and reservoirs: toxin and 

taste-and-odor sampling guidelines (ver. 1.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A7, section 7.5.

Gücker, B., Brauns, M., and Pusch, M.T., 2006, Effects of 

wastewater treatment plant discharge on ecosystem structure and function of lowland streams: Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, v. 25, p. 313–329.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water 

Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, 58 p.

Hambrook-Berkman, J.A., and Canova, M.G., 2007, Algal 

biomass indicators (ver. 1.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A7, 

section 7.4, August: Information available on Web, accessed 

March 2010, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A/.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources—Hydrologic analysis and interpretation: 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, chap. A3, book 4, 510 p. 

Hem, J.D., 1992, Study and interpretation of chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Hill, B.H., Hall, R.K., Husby, P., Herlihy, A.T., and Dunne, 

M., 2000, Interregional comparisons of sediment microbial 

respiration in streams: Freshwater Biology, v. 44, 

p. 213–222.

Hill, W.R., Mulholland, P.J., and Marzolf, E.R., 2001, Stream 

ecosystem responses to forest leaf emergence in spring: 

Ecology, v. 82, p. 2,306–2,319.

Hillebrand, H., Duerselen, C.D., Kirschtel, D.B., Pollingher, U., and Zohary, T., 1999, Biovolume calculation for 

pelgic and benthic microalgae: Journal of Phycology, v. 35, 

p. 403–424.

Horner, R.R., Welch, E.B., and Veenstra, R.B., 1983, Development of nuisance periphytic algae in laboratory streams in 

relation to enrichment and velocity, in Wetzel, R.G., ed., 

Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems: The Hague, The 

Netherlands, Dr. W. Junk Publishers, p. 121–131.

Horowitz, A.J., 1991, A primer on trace-metal sediment 

chemistry (2d ed.): Ann Arbor, Michigan, Lewis Publishing 

Company, 136 p.

Horowitz, A.J., Elrick, K.A., and Smith, J.J., 2001, Estimating suspended sediment and trace element fluxes in large 

river basins-methodological considerations as applied to the 

NASQAN programme: Hydrological Processes, v. 15, 

p. 1,169–1,208.

Horowitz, A.J., and Stephens, V.C., 2008, The effects of land 

use on fluvial sediment chemistry for the conterminous 

U.S. – results from the first cycle of the NAWQA Program—Trace and major elements, phosphorus, carbon, and 

sulfur: Science of the Total Environment, v. 400, 

p. 290–314.

Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J., and Maloney, K.O., 2005, 

Catchment disturbance and stream metabolism—Patterns 

in ecosystem respiration and gross primary production 

along a gradient of upland soil and vegetation disturbance: 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 24, 

p. 538–552. 
References Cited 55

Huggins, D.G., and Moffett, M.F., 1988, Proposed biotic and 

habitat indices for use in Kansas streams: Report 35, Lawrence, Kansas, Kansas Biological Survey, 183 p.

Jacobsen, R.E., 2008, Midge (Diptera: Chironomidae and 

Ceratopogonidae) community response to canal discharge 

into Everglades National Park, Florida: Proceedings of the 

16th international Chironomid symposium, v. 13, p. 39–50.

Johnson County Wastewater, 2007, Statistical report, 20 p.: 

Information available on Web, accessed April 2010, at 

http://www.jcw.org/pdf/auannualpdf/StatisticalReport2007.

pdf.

Johnson County Wastewater, 2008, Annual report. 30 p.: 

Information available on Web, accessed April 2010, at

http://www.jcw.org/pdf/auannualpdf/JCWAnnReprt–

StatReprt10.30.09web2up.pdf. 

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, Surface 

water nutrient reduction plan: Topeka, Kansas, Bureau 

of Water, 47 p.: Information available on Web, accessed 

March 2010, at http://www.kdheks.gov/water/download/

ks_nutrient_reduction_plan_12_29_final.pdf.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2008a, Kansas integrated water quality assessment, Information available on the Web, accessed June 2009, at http://www.kdheks.

gov/befs/download/2008IR_040108FINAL.pdf.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2008b, Kansas Administrative Regulations (KAR), Title 28, Article 16, 

Surface water quality standards 2008: Topeka, Kansas, 

Secretary of State, multiple pagination.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2010, 2010 

303(d) list of impaired waters: Information available on 

Web, accessed July 2010, at http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/

download/2010_303_d_List_of_All_Imaired_Waters.pdf.

Karr, J.R., 1993, Defining and assessing ecological integrity—Beyond water quality: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 12, p. 1,521–1,531.

Karr, J.R., and Kerans, B.L., 1991, Components of biological 

integrity—Their definition and use in development of an 

invertebrate IBI: Chicago, Ill., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 905-R-92-003 Environmental Sciences 

Division, 16 p.

Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., and 

Schlosser, L.J., 1986, Assessing biological integrity in running waters—A method and its rationale: Illinois Natural 

History Survey, Special Publication 5, 28p.

Kentucky Division of Water, 1993, Methods for assessing 

biological integrity of surface waters: Frankfurt, Kentucky, 

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, 182 p.

Knowlton, M.F., 1984, Flow-through microcuvette for fluorometric determination of chlorophyll: Water Resources 

Bulletin, v. 20, p. 1,198–1,205.

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., 

Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., and Buxton, H.T., 2002, Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999–2000—A national reconnaissance: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, 

p. 1,202–1,211.

Kutka, F.J., and Richards, C., 1996, Relating diatom assemblage structure to stream habitat quality: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 15, no. 4, 

p. 469–480.

Lee, C.J., Mau, D.P., and Rasmussen, T.J., 2005, Effects of 

nonpoint and selected point contaminant sources on streamwater quality and relation to land use in Johnson County, 

northeastern Kansas, October 2002 through June 2004: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5144, 104 p.

Lewis, M.A., Weber, D.L., and Moore, J.C., 2002, An evaluation of the use of colonized periphyton as an indicator 

of wastewater impact in near-coastal areas of the Gulf of 

Mexico: Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 43, p. 11–18.

Lewis, M.E., 2006, Dissolved oxygen: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A6, section 6.2: Information available on 

Web, accessed February 2010, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/

twri9A6.

Linke, S., Bailey, R.C., and Schwindt, J., 1999, Temporal variability of stream bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates: Freshwater Biology, v. 42, p. 575–584.

Lohman, K., Jones, J.R., and Perkins, B.D., 1992, Effects 

of nutrient enrichment and flood frequency on periphyton 

biomass in northern Ozark streams: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 49, no. 6, p. 1,198–1,205.

Lowe, R.L., and LaLiberte, G.D., 2007, Benthic stream 

algae—Distribution and structure, in Hauer, F.R., and 

Lamberti, G.A., eds., Methods in Stream Ecology (2d ed.): 

Boston, Mass., Academnic Press, p. 327–380, 877 p.
56 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Lowe, R.L., and Pan, Y., 1996, Benthic Algal Communities 

as Biological Monitors, in Stevenson, R.J., Bothwell, M.L., 

and Lowe, R.L., eds., Algal Ecology: San Diego, Academic 

Press, p. 705–739.

MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T.A., 2000, 

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment 

quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems: Archives of 

Environmental Conaminants, v. 30, p. 20–31.

Maidment, D.R., 1993, Handbook of hydrology: New York, 

McGraw-Hill, Inc., variously paged.

Marzolf, E.R., Mulholland, P.J., and Steinman, A.D., 1994, 

Improvements to the diurnal upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining wholestream metabolism in small streams: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 51, p. 1,591–1,599.

McNabb, C.D., 1960, Enumeration of freshwater phytoplankton concentrated on the membrane filter: Limnology and 

Oceanography, v. 5, no. 1, p. 57–61.

Meyer, J.L., 1989, Can P/R ratio be used to assess the food 

base of stream ecosystems? A comment on Rosenfeld and 

Mackay (1987): Oikos, v. 54, p. 119–121.

Meyer, J.L., and Edwards, R.T., 1990, Ecosystem metabolism 

and turnover of organic carbon along a blackwater river 

continuum: Ecology, v. 71, p. 668–677.

Miller, A.T., Hanson, M.A., Church, J.O., Palik, B., Bowe, 

S.E., and Butler, M.G., 2008, Invertebrate community variation in seasonal forest wetlands: implications for sampling 

and analyses: Wetlands, v. 28, p. 874–881.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2010, Proposed 

2010 Missouri 303(d) list: Information available on Web, 

accessed July 2010, at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/

waterquality/303d/2010-proposed-303d-list.pdf.

Morin, A. and Cattaneo, A., 1992, Factors affecting sampling variability of freshwater periphyton and the power 

of periphyton studies: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, v. 49, p. 1,695–1,703.

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 Open-File 

Report 2000–212, 49 p.

Moulton, S.R., II, Kennen, J.G., Goldstein, R.M., Hambrook, 

J.A., 2002, Revised protocols for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National WaterQuality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open 

File Report 02–150.

Mulholland, P.J., Fellows, C.S., Tank, J.L., Grimm, N.B., 

Webster, J.R., Hamilton, S.K., Marti, E., Ashkenas, L., 

Bowden, W.B., Dodds, W.K., McDowell, W.H., Paul, M.J., 

and Peterson, B.J., 2001, Inter-biome comparison of factors 

controlling stream metabolism: Freshwater Biology, v. 46, 

p. 1,503–1,517.

Mullholland, P.J., Houser, J.N., and Maloney, K.O., 2005, 

Stream diurnal dissolved oxygen profiles as indicators of instream metabolism and disturbance effects—Fort Benning 

as a case study: Ecological Indicators, v. 5, p. 243–252.

Murdock, J., Roelke, D., and Gelwick, F., 2004, Interactions between flow, periphyton, and nutrients in a heavily 

impacted urban stream—Implications for stream restoration 

effectiveness: Ecological Engineering, v. 22, p. 197–207.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998, Stream visual 

assessment protocol: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Water and Climate Center Technical Note 99-1, 

36 p.

Oberg, K.A., Morlock, S.E., and Caldwell, W.S., 2005, 

Quality-assurance plan for discharge measurements using 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5183, 35 p.

Odum, H.T., 1956, Primary production in flowing waters: 

Limnology and Oceanography, v. 1, p. 102–117.

Oklahoma Conservation Commission, 1993, Development 

of rapid bioassessment protocols for Oklahoma utilizing 

characteristics of the diatom community: Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, 104 p. 

Patrick Center for Environmental Research, 1988, Diatom 

cleaning by nitric acid digestion: The Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia, Protocol No. P-13-02, 39 p.

Paul, M.J., and Meyer, J.L., 2001, Streams in the urban landscape: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 32, 

p. 333–365.

Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, 

K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E., and Stromberg, J.C., 

1997, The natural flow regime: BioScience, v. 47, 

p. 769–784.

Poff, N.L., and Zimmerman, J.K.H., 2010, Ecological 

responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to 

inform the science and management of environmental 

flows: Freshwater Biology, v. 55, p. 194–205.

Pomati, F., Orlandi, C., Clerici, M., Luciani, F., and Zuccato, 

E., 2008, Effects and interactions in an environmentally relevant mixture of pharmaceuticals: Toxicological Sciences, 

v. 102, p. 129–137.
References Cited 57

Pope, L.M. and Putnam, J.E., 1997, Effects of urbanization 

on water quality in the Kansas River, Shunganunga Creek 

Basin and Soldier Creek, Topeka, Kansas, October 1993 

through September 1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97–4045, 84 p.

Porter, S.D., 2008, Algal attributes—An autecological 

classification of taxa collected by the National WaterQuality Assessment Program U.S. Geological Survey 

Data Series 329: Information available on Web, accessed 

March 2020, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds329.

Porter, S.D., Mueller, D.K., Spahr, N.E., Munn, M.D., and 

Dubrovsky, N.M., 2008, Efficacy of algal metrics for 

assessing nutrient and organic enrichment in flowing waters: 

Freshwater Biology, v. 53, p. 1,036–1,054.

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.

Radtke, D.B., Revised 2005, Bottom-material samples: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A8: Information available on Web, 

accessed April 2010, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A8/.

Rasmussen, P.P., and Ziegler, A.C., 2003, Comparison and 

continuous estimates of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli

bacteria in selected Kansas streams, May 1999 through 

April 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4056, 80 p.

Rasmussen, T.J., Ziegler, A.C., and Rasmussen, P.P., 2005, 

Estimation of constituent concentrations, densities, loads, 

and yields in lower Kansas River, northeast Kansas, using 

regression models and continuous water-quality monitoring, January 2000 through December 2003: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5165, 117 p.

Rasmussen, T.J., Lee, C.J., and Ziegler, A.C., 2008, Estimation 

of constituent concentrations, loads, and yields in streams of 

Johnson County, northeast Kansas, using continuous waterquality monitoring and regression models, October 2002 

through December 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2008–5014, 103 p.

Rasmussen, T.J., Poulton, B.C., and Graham, J.L., 2009a, 

Quality of streams in Johnson County, Kansas, and relations to environmental variables, 2003–07: USGS Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5235, 95 p.

Rasmussen, P.P., Gray, J.R., Glysson, G.D., and Ziegler, A.C., 

2009b, Guidelines and procedures for computing timeseries suspended-sediment concentrations and loads from 

in-stream turbidity-sensor and streamflow data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods book 3, chap. C4, 

53 p.

Richards, C., Johnson, L.B., and Host, G.E., 1996, Landscapescale influences on stream habitats and biota: Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 53, 

p. 295–311.

Robinson, C.T., and Minshall, G.W., 1986, Effects of disturbance frequency on stream benthic community structure in 

relation to canopy cover and season: Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, v. 5, p. 237–248.

Rosen, B.H., 1995, Use of Periphyton in the Development of 

Biocriteria, in Davis, W.S., and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological Assessment and Criteria: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis 

Publishers, p. 209–215.

Rosenberg, D.M, and Resh, V.H., 1993, Introduction to freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates, in

Rosenberg, D.M, and Resh, V.H., eds., Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates: New York, Chapman 

and Hall, Inc., p. 1–9.

Roth, N.E., Allen, J.D., and Erickson, D.L., 1996, Landscape 

influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple 

spatial scales: Landscape Ecology v. 11, p. 141–156.

Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S., and 

Wallace, J.B., 2003, Stream macroinvertebrate response to 

catchment urbanization (Georgia, USA): Freshwater Biology, v. 48, p. 329–346.

Sartory, D.P., and Grobbelar, J.U., 1986, Extraction of chlorophyll-a from freshwater phytoplankton for spectrophotometric analysis: Hydrobiologia, v. 114, p. 117–187.

SAS Institute, Inc., 2009, SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s Guide 

(2d ed.): Cary, N.C., SAS Institute Inc, 7,889 p.

Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for collected 

and processing samples of stream bed sediment for analysis 

of trace elements and organic contaminants for the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–458, 31 p.

Sinsabaugh, R.L., 1997, Large-scale trends for stream benthic 

respiration, p. 119–122 in Webster, J.R., Meyer, J.L., eds., 

Stream organic matter budgets: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 16, p. 119–121.

Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J., 1995, Biometry—The principles 

and practice of statistics in biological research (3d ed.): 

New York, W.H. Freeman and Company, 887 p.
58 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

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.

Stevenson, R.J., 1997, Scale-dependent determinants and 

consequences of benthic algal heterogeneity: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 16, no. 1, 

p. 248–262.

Stevenson, R.J., and Bahls, L.L., 1999, Periphyton protocols, 

in Barbour, M.T., Gerritson, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, 

J.B., eds., Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams 

and wadeable rivers—Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish (2d ed.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 841-B-99-002, 

p. 6/1-6/23.

Stevenson, R.J., and Rollins, S.L., 2007, Ecological Assessments with Benthic Algae, in Hauer, F.R., and Lamberti, 

G.A., eds., Methods in Stream Ecology (2d ed.): Burlington, 

Mass., Academic Press, p. 785–804, 877 p.

Stienmann, A.D., Lamberti, G.A., and Leavitt, P.R., 2006, 

Biomass and pigments of benthic algae in Haver, F.R., and 

Lamberti, G.A., eds., Methods in stream ecology (2d ed.): 

Burlington, Mass., Academic Press, 877 p.

Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., and Stensel, H.D., 2003, 

Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse (4th ed.): 

Boston, McGraw-Hill, 1,819 p.

Tsivoglou, H.C., and Neal, L.A., 1976, Tracer measurement of 

reaeration: III. Predicting the reaeration capacity of inland 

streams: Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 

v. 489, p. 2,669–2,689.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, State and county quickfacts: Information available on Web, accessed March 2010, at http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20000.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Ambient 

water quality criteria for chloride – 1988: Office of Water, 

Regulations and Standards Criteria and Standards Division, 

Washington, D.C., 20460.

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: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 823-R-97-

006, various pagination.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Wastewater 

technology fact sheet—Ultraviolet disinfection: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, EPA 832-F-99-064. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000a, Ambient water 

quality criteria recommendations—Information supporting 

the development of state and tribal nutrient criteria, rivers 

and streams in nutrient ecoregion IX: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

EPA/822/B-00-019.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000b, Methods for 

measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sedimentassociated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates 

(2d ed.): Information available on the Web, accessed 

May 12, 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/freshmanual.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, National water 

quality inventory: Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

EPA 841-R-08-001, various pagination. Information available on the Web, accessed June 22, 2010 at http://www.epa.

gov/owow/305b/2004report/report2004pt1.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a, Belton Quadrangle MissouriKansas: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map, 

7.5-minute series, scale 1:24,000.

 U.S. Geological Survey, 1975b, Grandview Quadrangle Missouri-Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle 

Map, 7.5-minute series, scale 1:24,000.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples 

(ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, September: 

Information available on the Web, accessed April 2010, at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/.

Uehlinger, U., 2006, Annual cycle and inter-annual variability 

of gross primary production and ecosystem respiration in a 

floodprone river during a 15-year period: Freshwater Biology, v. 51, p. 938–950.

Van Dam, H., Mertens, A., and Sinkeldam, J., 1994, A coded 

checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands: Netherlands Journal of Aquatic 

Ecology, v. 28, no. 1, p. 117–133.

Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., 

and Cushing, C.E., 1980, The river continuum concept: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 37, 

p. 130–137.

Wagner, R.J., Boulger, R.W., Jr., Oblinger, C.J., and Smith, 

B.A., 2006, Guidelines and standard procedures for continuous water-quality monitors—Station operation, record 

computation, and data reporting: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods 1-D3, 96 p.
References Cited 59

Walsh, C.R., Roy, A.H., Feminella, J.W., Cottingham, P.D., 

Groffman, P.M., and Morgan, R.P., II, 2005, The urban 

stream syndrome—Current knowledge and a search for a 

cure: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 

v. 24, p. 706–723.

Welch, E.B., and Lindell, T., 1992, Ecological effects of 

wastewater (2d ed.): London, Spon Press, 425 p.

Welch, E.B., Quinn, J.M., and Hickey, C.W, 1992, Periphyton 

biomass related to point-source nutrient enrichment in seven 

New Zealand streams: Water Research, v. 26, p. 669–675.

Welch, E.B., Jacoby, J.M., Horner, R.R., and Seeley, M.R, 

1988, Nuisance biomass levels of periphytic algae in 

streams: Hydrobiologia, v. 157, p. 161–168.

Werner, D., ed., 1977, The biology of diatoms: Berkeley, Uni-

versity of California Press, v. 13, 498 p.

Wetzel, R.G., 2001, Limnology of lake and river ecosystems: 

New York, Academic Press, 1,006 p.

Wickham, J.D., Wade, T.G., and Riitters, K.H., 2008, Detect-

ing temporal change in watershed nutrient yields: Environ-

mental Management, v. 42, p. 223–231.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., and Hampton, S.A., 2009, 

Character and trends of water quality in the Blue River 

Basin, Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Missouri and Kan-

sas, 1998 through 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5169, 211 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.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., and Blevins, D.B., 2002, 

Effects of wastewater and combined sewer overflows on 

water quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Mis-

souri and Kansas, July 1998–October 2000: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4107, 

162 p.

Young, R.G., Matthaei, C.D., and Townsend, C.R., 2008, 

Organic matter breakdown and ecosystem metabolism—

Functional indicators for assessing river ecosystem health: 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 27, 

p. 605–625.

Zaugg, S.D., Smith, S.G., Schroeder, M.P., Barber, L.B., and 

Burkhardt, M.R., 2002, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of wastewater compounds by polystyrenedivinylbenzene solid-phase extraction and capillary-column 

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4186, 

37 p.

Appendixes
62 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Sampling 

date

Collecting 

agency

Streamflow 

(ft3/s)

Streamflow 

condition

Sample 

collection 

method

Kenneth

7/18/2003 KSWSC 0.16 BN SV

3/4/2004 KSWSC 3,370 AN EWI

3/28/2004 KSWSC 825 AN EWI

5/18/2004 KSWSC 47.0 AN EWI

5/19/2004 KSWSC 10,945 AN EWI

5/25/2004 KSWSC 872 AN EWI

6/10/2004 KSWSC 1,452 AN EWI

9/8/2004 KSWSC 19.0 N SV

12/7/2004 KSWSC 129 AN EWI

12/21/2004 KSWSC 23.0 N EWI

1/3/2005 KSWSC 865 AN SV

3/22/2005 KSWSC 28.0 N EWI

5/13/2005 KSWSC 346 AN EWI

6/4/2005 KSWSC 9,770 AN SLPP

6/11/2005 KSWSC 830 AN EWI

7/13/2005 KSWSC .41 BN EWI

8/25/2005 KSWSC 1,650 AN EWI

4/24/2006 KSWSC 118 AN EWI

6/16/2006 KSWSC 2.90 BN SV

7/12/2006 KSWSC 348 AN EWI

8/28/2006 KSWSC 92.0 AN EWI

11/15/2006 KSWSC .67 BN SV

3/14/2007 KSWSC 27.0 N EWI

5/7/2007 KSWSC 5,690 AN EWI

6/29/2007 KSWSC 4,990 AN EWI

3/17/2008 KSWSC 787 AN EWI

4/2/2008 KSWSC 36.0 N EWI

4/18/2008 KSWSC 224 AN EWI

4/22/2008 KSWSC 1,450 AN EWI

6/4/2008 KSWSC 3,850 AN EWI

8/26/2008 KSWSC 2.70 BN EWI

3/10/2009 KSWSC 717 AN EWI

Sampling 

date

Collecting 

agency

Streamflow 

(ft3/s)

Streamflow 

condition

Sample 

collection 

method

Blue Ridge 

4/1/2008 KSWSC 47.0 N EWI

4/8/2008 KSWSC 900 AN EWI

4/18/2008 KSWSC 373 AN EWI

4/22/2008 KSWSC 3,380 AN EWI

5/2/2008 KSWSC 3,020 AN EWI

6/4/2008 KSWSC 10,100 AN EWI

6/6/2008 KSWSC 3,110 AN EWI

6/9/2008 KSWSC 1,700 AN EWI

6/24/2008 MOWSC 30.0 N EWI

7/3/2008 KSWSC 840 AN EWI

7/30/2008 KSWSC 4,940 AN EWI

8/12/2008 MOWSC 15.0 N EWI

8/26/2008 KSWSC 6.30 BN EWI

9/4/2008 KSWSC 152 AN EWI

9/12/2008 KSWSC 1,710 AN EWI

10/15/2008 KSWSC 446 AN EWI

10/22/2008 KSWSC 63.0 AN EWI

11/6/2008 KSWSC 568 AN EWI

12/17/2008 KSWSC 27.0 N EWI

3/10/2009 KSWSC 1,200 AN EWI

Appendix 1. Sample collection dates, streamflow conditions, and sample collection methods for discrete water-quality samples 

included in regression model development for the Kenneth (July 2003 through March 2009) and Blue Ridge (April 2008 through March 

2009) sites on the upper Blue River.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; KSWSC, Kansas Water Science Center; BN, below normal; AN, above normal; N, normal; SV, single vertical; EWI, equal width 

increment; SLPP, suction lift peristaltic pump; MOWSC, Missouri Water Science Center]
Appendixes 63

Appendix 2. Mean, median, and range of the physical stream reach parameters used in metabolism calculations for the Kenneth and 

Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River during April 2008 through March 2009.

[n, number of observations; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft, feet; s, second; m, meter, K2(20°C), oxygen exchange coefficient at 20 degrees Celsius; 

--, not applicable]

Parameter

Kenneth Blue Ridge

n Mean Median Range Mean Median Range

Discharge (ft3/s) 191 15.1 13.7 1.47–61.6 30.5 28.0 8.30–97.0

Velocity (ft/s) 191 .17 .16 .02–.55 .30 .28 .10–.79

Wetted width (ft) 191 51.0 51.1 47.7–55.2 74.7 74.7 73.1–77.7

Depth (ft) 191 1.62 1.63 1.29–2.04 1.32 1.32 1.09–1.73

Area (ft2) 191 83.0 83.5 61.6–113 98.6 98.3 79.7–134

Reach length (ft) 191 154 147 21.4–493 270 254 88.9–710

Reaeration coefficient K2(20°C) 191 .003 .003 .0005–.006 .003 0 .001–.007

Slope (m/m) 1 -- -- .004 -- -- .003
64 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 3. Water-quality conditions at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April 1–2, 2008 and 

August 26, 2008. 

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; %, percent; --, not applicable; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; 

μg/L, micrograms per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 ml, colonies per 100 milliliters of sample; <, less than]

Water-quality property or chemical 

(unit of measure)

April 1–2, 2008 August 26, 2008

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Physical properties, suspended solids, and sediment

Streamflow (ft3/s) 36 40 47 2.7 7.6 6.3

Wastewater effluent (% streamflow) -- 22 18 -- 73 63

Dissolved oxygen, field (mg/L) 10.2 11.3 10.6 6.1 7.5 10.8

pH, field (standard units) 8.2 8.3 8.3 7.9 7.9 8.4

Specific conductance, field (μS/cm) 577 664 666 591 714 737

Water temperature, field (degrees Celsius) 10.1 10.4 10.3 22.2 21.5 23.8

Turbidity, laboratory (FNU) 18 12 9.3 9.2 7.2 3.3

Total suspended solids (mg/L) 27 10 11 12 <10 10

Suspended sediment (mg/L) 87 95 110 91 36 30

Dissolved solids and major ions

Dissolved solids (mg/L) 347 402 397 364 442 457

Calcium (mg/L) 89.2 90.3 91.6 86.6 67.9 76.3

Magnesium (mg/L) 8.6 11 10.6 11.1 12.6 12.9

Potassium (mg/L) 2.6 4.2 4 3.9 10.5 9.8

Sodium (mg/L) 23.7 35 34.8 24.7 58.8 58.5

Chloride (mg/L) 39 54 51 30 63 65

Sulfate (mg/L) 37 61 62 45 80 82

Nutrients and carbon

Ammonia plus organic, total, as nitrogen 

(mg/L)

0.44 0.48 0.47 0.56 0.82 0.74

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, dissolved 

(mg/L)

.43 1.31 1.19 .06 4 2.52

Ammonia, as nitrogen (mg/L) .03 .08 .09 <.02 <.02 .02

Total nitrogen (mg/L)1 .87 1.79 1.66 .62 4.82 3.26

Orthophosphorus, as phosphorus (mg/L) <.01 .23 .18 <.01 1.18 1.06

Dissolved phosphorus (mg/L) <.01 .31 .26 .02 1.26 1.08

Total phosphorus (mg/L) .05 .33 .29 .06 1.26 1.13

Particulate phosphorus (mg/L)2 <.01 .02 .03 .04 0 .05

Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L) 2.8 3.3 3.1 4.6 5.1 5.2

Total organic carbon (mg/L) 3.2 3.9 4.9 7.1 7.2 5.9

Bacteria and biochemical

Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 3 2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 15 21 18 17 19 14

Enterococci (col/100 mL) <4 8 4 210 74 <10

Escherichia coli (col/100 mL) 20 10 31 180 130 58

Fecal coliform (col/100 mL) 20 20 40 280 240 70

1

Calculated as the sum of nitrite plus nitrate and dissolved and ammonia plus organic, total.

2

Calculated as the difference between total phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus.
Appendix 4. Regression models and summary statistics for computing selected constituent concentrations and densities in water at the Kenneth anupper Blue River. [Discrete sample data for the Kenneth site were collected from July 2003 through March 2009. Discrete sample data for the Blue Ridge site were collected from April 2008 throof determination; RMSE, root mean square error; MSPE, model standard percentage error; n, number of discrete samples; mg/L, milligrams per liter; log, log10; SC, specific concentimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; TBY, turbidity, in formazin nephelometric units (FNUs)]

Site Regression model R 2 RMSE MSPE (upper) MSPE (lower) Bias correc- tion factor (Duan, 1983)

Standard 

error for 

calculated 

parameter 

intercept

Standard 

error 

for first 

dependent 

variable

Covariance 

for calculated 

parameter and 

first dependent 

variable

Discret

n

Range of values 

in variable measurements 

Suspended-sediment concentration (SSC), mg/L

Kenneth logSSC=0.973logTBY+0.352 0.93 0.2007 59 37 1.11 0.1029 0.0480 -0.9387 32 SSC 7–4,170 

TBY 3–1,270 

Blue Ridge logSSC=.761logTBY+.896 .88 .2590 82 45 1.15 .1667 .0706 -.9305 18 SSC 5-3,990 

TBY 2– 1,480 

Total suspended solids (TSS), mg/L

Kenneth logTSS=1.13logTBY-0.085 0.98 0.1252 33 25 1.05 0.0642 0.0300 -0.9387 32 TSS 3–4,470 

TBY 3–1,270 

Blue Ridge logTSS=.982logTBY+.273 .94 .2239 67 40 1.10 .1441 .0610 -.9305 18 TSS 4–4,100 

TBY 2– 1,480 

Escherichia coli bacteria (ECB), colonies per 100 milliliters

Kenneth logECB=1.32logTBY+0.572 0.72 0.6318 328 77 1.97 0.3241 0.1513 -0.9387 32 ECB 10–46,000 

TBY 3–1,270 

Blue Ridge logECB=.995logTBY+1.42 .84 .4346 172 63 1.52 .2467 .1079 -.9097 18 ECB 31–22,000 

TBY 2– 1,480 

Acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), mg/L as calcium carbonate

Kenneth logANC=0.905logSC-0.203 0.91 0.0561 14 12 1.01 0.1391 0.0538 -0.9975 32 ANC 65–270 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logANC=.720logSC+.186 .75 .0821 21 17 1.02 .2741 .1051 -.9975 18 ANC 60–195 

SC 182–832 

Dissolved solids (DS), mg/L

Kenneth logDS=0.735logSC+0.514 0.92 0.0424 10 9 1.00 0.1052 0.0406 -0.9975 32 DS 125–440 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logDS=.765logSC+.441 .98 .0244 6 5 1.00 .0816 .0313 -.9974 17 DS 159–464 

SC 182–832 

Calcium (Ca), dissolved, mg/L

Kenneth logCa=1.07logSC-1.05 0.95 0.0453 11 10 1.01 0.1125 0.0435 -0.9975 32 Ca 2.8–110 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logCa=.902logSC-.657 .92 .0534 13 12 1.01 .1782 .0683 -.9975 18 Ca 23.1–95.9 

SC 182–832 
Appendix 4. Regression models and summary statistics for computing selected constituent concentrations and densities in water at the Kenneth anupper Blue River.—Continued [Discrete sample data for the Kenneth site were collected from July 2003 through March 2009. Discrete sample data for the Blue Ridge site were collected from April 2008 throof determination; RMSE, root mean square error; MSPE, model standard percentage error; n, number of discrete samples; mg/L, milligrams per liter; log, log10; SC, specific concentimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; TBY, turbidity, in formazin nephelometric units (FNUs)] Site Regression model R2 RMSE MSPE (upper) MSPE (lower) Bias correc- tion factor (Duan, 1983) Standard error for calculated parameter intercept Standard error for first dependent variable Covariance for calculated parameter and first depen- dent variable Discret

n Range of values in variable measurements 

Chloride (Cl), dissolved, mg/L Kenneth logCl=1.29logSC-2.01 0.79 0.1279 34 26 1.04 0.3174 0.1226 -0.9975 32 Cl 6–55 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logCl=1.59logSC-2.71 .86 .1267 34 25 1.04 .4025 .1531 -.9975 20 Cl 7–98 

SC 182–832 

Magnesium (Mg), dissolved, mg/L Kenneth logMg=1.08logSC-2.02 0.97 0.0369 9 8 1.00 0.0916 0.0354 -0.9975 32 Mg 2.5–13.3 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logMg=1.05logSC-1.93 .95 .0476 12 10 1.01 .1589 .0609 -.9975 18 Mg 2.8–12.9 

SC 182–832 

Sodium (Na), dissolved, mg/L Kenneth logNa=1.20logSC-1.94 0.87 0.0902 23 19 1.02 0.2238 0.0865 -0.9975 32 Na 4.9–35.3 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logNa=1.53logSC-2.67 .89 .1043 27 21 1.03 .3484 .1335 -.9975 18 Na 6–63.2 

SC 182–832 

Sulfate (SO4), dissolved, mg/L Kenneth logSO4=1.21logSC-1.71 0.92 0.0679 17 14 1.01 0.1779 0.0685 -0.9976 31 SO4 9–74 

SC 175–708 

Blue Ridge logSO4=1.44logSC-2.30 .93 .0778 20 16 1.01 .2600 .0997 -.9975 18 SO4 9–82 

SC 182–832 
Appendixes 67

Appendix 5. Regression models and summary statistics for computing selected constituent concentrations and densities in water 

from suspended-sediment concentration at the Kenneth and Blue Ridge sites on the upper Blue River. 

[Discrete sample data for the Kenneth site were collected from July 2003 through March 2009; discrete sample data for the Blue Ridge site were collected from 

April 2008 through March 2009. R2, coefficient of determination; RMSE, root mean square error; MSPE, model standard percentage error; n, number of discrete 

samples; mg/L, milligrams per liter; log, log10; SC, specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; Q, streamflow, in cubic feet per 

second (ft3/s); TBY, turbidity, in formazin nephelometric units (FNUs)]

Site Regression model R 2 RMSE MSPE 

(upper)

MSPE 

(lower)

Bias correction factor 

(Duan, 1983)

Discrete sample data

n

Range of values in 

variable measurementsMean Median Standard 

deviation

Total suspended solids (TSS), mg/L

Kenneth logTSS=1.10logSSC-0.36 0.95 0.197 57 36 1.08 32 TSS 3–4,470 549 274 874

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge logTSS=1.20logSSC-.66 .93 .246 76 43 1.12 18 TSS 4–4,100 804 705 961

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925

Nitrogen, total (TN), mg/L

Kenneth TN=0.0019SSC+1.25 0.82 0.745 455 82 1.00 32 TN 0.53–8.75 2.36 2.10 1.75

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge TN=.0008SSC+2.47 .39 .928 746 88 1.00 18 TN 1.29–6.21 3.16 3.02 1.19

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925

Phosphorus, total (TP), mg/L

Kenneth TP=0.0006SC+0.17 0.92 0.140 38 28 1.00 18 TP 0.05–2.45 0.51 0.39 0.51

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge TP=.0004SSC+.51 .54 .323 110 52 1.00 18 TP .28–2.05 .83 .73 .48

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic (TON), total, mg/L

Kenneth logTON=0.44logSSC-0.93 0.72 0.210 62 38 1.08 32 TON 0.1–7.6 1.78 1.40 1.56

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge TON=.0011SSC+1.35 .54 .912 716 88 1.00 18 TON .1–5.6 2.24 2.10 1.34

SSC–3,990 818 686 925

Orthophosphate, filtered (OrthoP), mg/L as phosphate

Kenneth logOrthoP=0.14logSSC-1.69 0.04 0.397 150 60 1.37 32 OrthoP 0.005–.19 0.06 0.06 0.04

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge logOrthoP=-.48logSSC+.32 .29 .501 217 68 1.89 18 OrthoP .01–1.06 .27 .08 .33

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925

Phosphorous, filtered (Pdiss), mg/L as phosphate

Kenneth logPdiss=0.21logSSC-1.68 0.14 .352 125 56 1.26 32 Pdiss 0.05–.19 0.08 0.08 0.05

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge logPdiss=-.35logSSC+.14 .32 .352 125 56 1.50 18 Pdiss .05–1.08 .28 .13 .31

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925

Total organic carbon (TOC), mg/L

Kenneth logTOC=0.0004logSSC+0.82 0.73 0.212 63 39 1.08 7 TOC 3.2–55.4 19 15 18

SSC 87–2,210 695 385 807

Blue Ridge logTOC=.43logSSC+.12 .81 .145 40 28 1.05 18 TOC 4.9–85.9 22 20 19

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925

Escherichia coli bacteria (ECB), colonies per 100 milliliters

Kenneth logECB=1.26logSSC+0.33 0.65 0.697 398 80 2.31 32 ECB 10–46,000 10,007 5,200 12,699

SSC 7–4,170 595 311 850

Blue Ridge logECB=.98logSSC+.89 .74 .537 244 71 1.80 18 ECB 31–22,000 10,257 13,500 7,963

SSC 5–3,990 818 686 925
68 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 6. Wastewater-effluent and pharmaceutical compounds detected in stream water samples collected April 1–2, 2008 at 

the biological sampling sites on the upper Blue River. 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated]

Compound General use1

Laboratory 

reporting level 

(μg/L)

Site

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Wastewater indicator compounds (μg/L)

4-Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO) Detergent 5.00 E1.44 E2.52 E2.42

Tributyl phosphate Fire retardant .20 <.20 <.20 E.014

Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate Fire retardant .40 <.40 <.40 E.098

Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (Fyrol CEF) Fire retardant .10 <.10 E.075 E.084

Tris (dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (Fyrol PCF) Fire retardant .12 <.12 E.079 E.078

Acetyl-hexamethyl-tetrahydro-napthalene 

(AHTN)

Fragrance .50 <.50 E.031 E.022

Hexahydro-hexamethyl-cyclopentabenzopyran 

(HHCB)

Fragrance .50 <.50 E.226 E.176

1, 4-Dichlorobenzene Pesticide .08 <.08 E.013 <.08

Metalochlor Pesticide .08 E.021 E.020 E.018

N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) Pesticide .10 E.029 E.064 E.054

Triethyl citrate Plastics .20 <.20 E.047 E.047

Triphenyl phosphate Plastics .10 <.10 E.015 <.10

Isophorone Solvent .08 E.011 E.008 E.009

Caffeine Stimulant .10 <.10 <.10 E.025

Pharmaceutical compounds (μg/L)

Carbamazepine Anticonvulsant, 

mood stabilizer

0.04 <0.04 E0.024 E0.022

Sulfamethoxazole Sulfonamide 

antibiotic

.10 <.10 E.106 E.072

1

Compound uses and sources from Zaugg and others, 2002, Lee and others, 2005, and Wilkison and others, 2006.
Appendixes 69

Appendix 7. Carbon, nutrients, and trace elements in streambed sediment samples collected April 1–2, 2008 

at the biological sampling sites on the upper Blue River. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; --, not applicable; <, less than]

Compound

Probable effect 

concentration1

(mg/kg)

Background 

concentration2

(mg/kg)

Site

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Nutrients and carbon (mg/kg)

Nitrogen -- -- 1,000 1,000 1,000

Phosphorus -- 1,000 530 820 710

Organic carbon -- 24,000 12,000 12,000 11,000

Total carbon -- 33,000 14,000 14,000 13,000

Trace elements (mg/kg)

Aluminum -- 59,000 53,000 58,000 58,000

Antimony -- .7 .9 .9 .9

Arsenic 33.0 6.6 7.4 11 9.7

Barium -- 490 640 700 680

Beryllium -- 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.7

Cadmium 4.98 .4 .3 .4 .5

Chromium 111 58 64 68 75

Cobalt -- 12 10 13 12

Copper 149 20 19 24 22

Iron -- 29,000 24,000 30,000 28,000

Lead 128 20 22 27 23

Lithium -- 30 29 33 35

Manganese -- 840 630 800 820

Mercury 1.06 .4 .02 .02 .02

Molybdenum -- 1 1 1 1

Nickel 48.6 23 25 30 32

Selenium -- .7 .4 .4 .3

Silver 1.77 .2 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium -- 150 130 140 140

Sulfur -- 800 280 270 240

Thallium -- -- <50 <50 <50

Titanium -- 3,300 4,100 4,200 4,300

Uranium -- -- <50 <50 <50

Vanadium -- 83 70 85 80

Zinc 459 91 74 90 84

1

From MacDonald and others, 2000, with the exception of silver which is from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.

2

From Horowitz and Stevens, 2008; background concentrations for the conterminous United States.
70 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 8. Wastewater-effluent compounds detected in streambed sediment samples collected April 1–2, 2008 at the biological 

sampling sites on the upper Blue River. 

[All concentrations are in micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg); μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; --, not applicable; 

E, estimated; <, less than]

Compound General use1

Laboratory 

Reporting 

Level 

(μg/kg)

Probable 

effect concentration2

Site

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

1-Methylnapthalene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 -- E6.7 <30 <30

2,6-Dimethylnapthalene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 -- E9.7 E6.6 E6.1

2-Methylnapthalene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 -- E9.7 <30 <30

3-Beta-coprostanol Sterol or stanol 300 -- <300 E62 E78

3-Methyl-1(H)-indole (Skatol) Fragrance 30.0 -- E6.8 E5.5 <30

9,10-Anthraquinone Bird repellant 30.0 -- E12 E8.6 E16

Acetyl-hexamethyl-tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN)Fragrance 30.0 -- <30.0 E1.3 <30

Anthracene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 845 92 <30.0 E5.9

Benzo [a] pyrene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 1,450 89 E12 36

beta-Sitosterol Sterol or stanol 300 -- E1,300 E1,400 E1,200

beta-Stigmastanol Sterol or stanol 300 -- E260 E21 E250

Carbazole PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 -- E27 E7.2 E12

Cholesterol Sterol or stanol 150 -- E44 E52 E610

Fluoranthene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 2,230 280 E20 130

Hexahydro-hexamethyl-cyclopentabenzopyran (HHCB)Fragrance 30.0 -- <30.0 E4.8 <30

Indole Fragrance 60.0 -- 72 86 E19

Napthalene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 561 E10 <30 <30

para-Cresol PAH or combustion by-product 150 -- E37 E24 E13

Phenanthrene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 1,170 270 <30 67

Phenol Disinfectant 30.0 -- E87 E46 E50

Pyrene PAH or combustion by-product 30.0 1,520 220 E18 98

1

Compound uses and sources from Zaugg and others, 2002, Lee and others, 2005, and Wilkison and others, 2006.

2

From MacDonald and others, 2000.
Appendixes 71

Appendix 9. Habitat assessment variables and site scores at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during 

June 2008. 

[Raw scores of 10–12 indicate optimal conditions, 7–9 are suboptimal, 4–6 are marginal, and 1–3 are poor; Normalized scores are based on a 

scale of 0–100 and scores of 80–100 indicate optimal conditions, 55–79 are suboptimal, 30–54 are marginal, and less than 30 are poor]

Raw score Normalized score

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Channel conditions

A. Flow status 10 7 9 83 58 75

B. Channel slope and morphological status (reach) 7 7 9 58 58 75

C. Sinuosity (segment) 5 4 5 42 33 42

D. Pool status (reach) 9 10 10 75 83 83

E. Riffle frequency (segment) 5 5 3 42 42 25

Bank/riparian conditions

A. Bank stability (reach) 5 5 7 42 42 58

B. Canopy cover (reach) 11 10 7 92 83 58

C. Bank/riparian protection (reach) 5 3 3 42 25 25

D. Length and extent of buffers (segment) 9 8 7 75 67 58

E. Average buffer width (reach) 11 7 8 92 58 67

F. Percent (%) altered banks (reach) 10 11 11 83 92 92

In-stream habitat conditions

A. Riffle-substrate fouling (reach) 10 8 6 83 67 50

B. Velocity/depth combinations (reach) 10 9 10 83 75 83

C. Riffle-substrate embeddedness (reach) 8 7 8 67 58 67

D. Sediment deposition (reach) 10 9 8 83 75 67

E. Substrate and cover diversity (reach) 11 9 10 92 75 83

F. Riffle-substrate composition (reach) 7 8 8 58 67 67

Site total 143 127 129 70 62 63
72 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 10. Periphyton taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.

[Bacillariophyta, diatoms; Chlorophyta, green algae; Chryptophyta, cryptomonads; Cyanophyta, blue-green algae or cyanobacteria; Euglenophyta, euglenoids; 

--, not identified; X, taxa present]

Division Taxa April August

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Bacillariophyta Achnanthes conspicua -- -- -- X -- --

Achnanthes sp. -- -- -- -- X --

Achnanthidium exiguum -- -- -- -- -- X

Achnanthidium minutissimum X X X -- -- --

Actinocyclus normanii -- -- -- X X X

Amphipleura pellucida -- -- -- X -- --

Amphora delicatissima -- X -- -- -- --

Amphora inariensis X X X X X X

Amphora montana -- -- -- -- -- X

Amphora ovalis -- -- -- X X X

Amphora pediculus X X X -- -- X

Asterionella formosa X X X -- -- --

Aulacoseira alpigena -- -- -- X -- --

Aulacoseira granulata -- -- -- X -- --

Aulacoseira sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Caloneis hyalina X X -- -- --

Caloneis molaris -- -- -- -- X X

Cocconeis pediculus -- -- -- -- -- X

Cocconeis placentula X X X X X X

Cyclostephanos dubius -- X -- -- -- --

Cyclostephanos tholiformis -- -- -- -- -- X

Cyclotella atomus -- -- -- X X --

Cyclotella bodanica X -- -- -- -- --

Cyclotella distinguenda -- -- -- X X --

Cyclotella glabriuscula X -- -- -- -- X

Cyclotella meneghiniana -- -- X -- -- --

Cyclotella pseudostelligera -- -- X X X --

Cyclotella sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Cyclotella stelligera -- -- -- X -- --

Cymatopleura solea -- -- -- X X X

Cymbella caespitosa X -- X -- X X

Cymbella elginensis -- -- -- -- -- X

Cymbella lacustris -- X -- -- -- --

Cymbella prostrata -- X X -- -- --

Cymbella silesiaca X X -- X X X

Cymbella sp. -- X -- X X X

Cymbella tumida -- -- -- -- X X

Diatoma vulgaris X X X -- -- X

Diploneis parma -- -- -- X X X

Diploneis peterseni -- -- -- -- X --

Eunotia incisa -- -- X -- -- --
Appendixes 73

Appendix 10. Periphyton taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—

Continued

[Bacillariophyta, diatoms; Chlorophyta, green algae; Chryptophyta, cryptomonads; Cyanophyta, blue-green algae or cyanobacteria; Euglenophyta, euglenoids; 

--, not identified; X, taxa present]

Division Taxa

April August

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Bacillariophyta—Continued Fragilaria capucina X X X -- X X

Fragilaria famelica X -- X -- -- --

Fragilaria fasciculata -- X -- -- -- --

Fragilaria pinnata -- -- X -- -- --

Gomphonema angustatum X X X X X X

Gomphonema angustum X X -- -- -- --

Gomphonema augur -- -- -- -- -- X

Gomphonema clevei -- -- -- X X X

Gomphonema grovei -- -- -- X X X

Gomphonema minutum -- -- X -- -- --

Gomphonema olivaceum X X X X X X

Gomphonema parvulum X X X X X X

Gomphonema sphaerophorum -- X -- -- -- --

Gomphonema truncatum -- X -- -- -- --

Gyrosigma acuminatum -- -- -- -- X --

Gyrosigma attenuatum -- -- -- X -- X

Gyrosigma nodiferum -- X -- -- -- --

Gyrosigma scalproides -- -- -- -- X X

Gyrosigma sp. -- -- -- -- X X

Gyrosigma wansbeckii -- X -- X X --

Hippodonta capitata -- -- -- -- -- X

Melosira varians X X X X X X

Meridion circulare X X X -- -- --

Navicula absoluta -- -- -- X -- --

Navicula bryophila -- -- -- X -- --

Navicula capitatoradiata X X X X X X

Navicula cari -- -- -- X -- X

Navicula cryptocephala -- -- -- X X X

Navicula cryptotenella X X X X X X

Navicula difficillima -- -- -- -- -- X

Navicula digitulus -- -- -- -- X --

Navicula exigua -- -- -- X X X

Navicula festiva -- -- -- X -- --

Navicula gregaria -- -- X -- -- --

Navicula impexa -- -- -- X -- --

Navicula joubaudii X -- -- -- -- --

Navicula margalithii X X X X X --

Navicula menisculus X X X X X X

Navicula minima X X X X X X

Navicula phyllepta X X X X -- X

Navicula pseudobryophila -- -- -- -- X --

Navicula pseudolanceolata -- -- X -- -- --
74 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 10. Periphyton taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—

Continued

[Bacillariophyta, diatoms; Chlorophyta, green algae; Chryptophyta, cryptomonads; Cyanophyta, blue-green algae or cyanobacteria; Euglenophyta, euglenoids; 

--, not identified; X, taxa present]

Division Taxa April August

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Bacillariophyta—Continued Navicula recens -- -- -- X X X

Navicula stankovicii -- -- -- X -- --

Navicula subminuscula X X X X X X

Navicula subrhynchocephala -- -- -- X -- --

Navicula subtilissima -- -- -- -- X --

Navicula suchlandtii -- -- -- -- X X

Navicula tripunctata -- X -- -- -- --

Navicula trivialis -- -- X X -- --

Navicula veneta X X X X X --

Navicula viridula -- -- -- -- -- X

Nitzschia acicularis -- X -- -- -- --

Nitzschia amphibia -- X -- X X X

Nitzschia compressa -- -- -- X X X

Nitzschia constricta -- X X X X X

Nitzschia dissipata X X X X X X

Nitzschia dubia -- X X -- -- --

Nitzschia inconspicua X X X X X X

Nitzschia linearis -- -- -- X -- X

Nitzschia palea -- X X X X X

Nitzschia paleacea X -- -- -- -- --

Nitzschia perminuta X X X X X X

Nitzschia sp. X -- -- -- -- --

Nitzschia vermicularis -- X -- -- -- --

Pinnularia brevicostata -- -- X -- -- --

Pinnularia gibba -- -- -- -- -- X

Pinnularia sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Pinnularia stomatophora -- -- -- -- X X

Planothidium lanceolata -- -- X -- -- --

Planothidium lanceolatum X X X -- X X

Pleurosira laevis -- -- -- -- X X

Reimeria sinuata -- -- -- X X X

Rhoicosphenia curvata X X X X X --

Stauroneis anceps -- -- X -- -- --

Stauroneis producta -- -- -- X X X

Staurosirella pinnata X -- -- -- X --

Stephanocyclus meneghiniana -- -- -- X X X

Stephanodiscus alpinus -- -- X -- -- --

Stephanodiscus hantzschii X X X -- -- --

Stephanodiscus niagarae -- -- X -- -- --

Stephanodiscus parvus X X X -- -- --

Stephanodiscus sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Surirella angusta X -- -- X X --
Appendixes 75

Appendix 10. Periphyton taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—

Continued

[Bacillariophyta, diatoms; Chlorophyta, green algae; Chryptophyta, cryptomonads; Cyanophyta, blue-green algae or cyanobacteria; Euglenophyta, euglenoids; 

--, not identified; X, taxa present]

Division Taxa April August

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Bacillariophyta—Continued Surirella brebissonii X X X X X X

Surirella minuta -- -- -- X -- --

Surirella robusta -- -- -- X -- --

Surirella sp. -- -- -- X -- X

Synedra fasciculata -- X -- -- -- --

Synedra pulchella X X -- -- -- --

Synedra tenera -- X -- -- -- --

Synedra ulna X X X -- X X

Chlorophyta Characium sp. -- -- -- -- -- X

Chlamydomonas sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Cladophora glomerata -- -- X -- X --

Closterium sp. X -- -- X -- --

Coelastrum astroideum -- -- -- -- X --

Coelastrum microporum -- -- -- -- -- X

Cosmarium sp. -- -- -- X X X

Dictyosphaerium pulchellum -- -- -- X -- --

Kirchneriella contorta -- -- -- X -- --

Oedogonium sp. -- X -- -- -- --

Pandorina sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Pediastrum duplex -- -- -- -- X --

Pediastrum simplex -- -- -- -- X --

Pediastrum tetras -- -- -- X -- --

Pyramimonas tetrarhynchus -- X -- -- -- --

Scenedesmus bijuga -- -- -- -- X X

Scenedesmus brasiliensis -- -- -- -- X X

Scenedesmus incrassatulus -- -- -- -- X

Scenedesmus sp. -- -- -- X X X

Sphaerocystis schroeteri X X X X -- --

Stichococcus subtilis X X X -- -- --

Stigeoclonium sp. -- -- -- -- -- X

Stigeoclonium tenue X X X X X --

Tetraedron minimum -- -- -- -- X --

Ulothrix subtilissima -- X X -- -- --

Westella botryoides -- -- -- X -- --

Cryptophyta Rhodomonas sp. X -- -- X X X

Cyanobacteria Aphanocapsa holsatica -- -- -- X -- --

Anabaenopsis sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Phormidium lividium X X -- -- -- --

Merismopedia sp. -- -- -- -- -- X

Oscillatoria tenuis -- -- -- X -- --

Euglenophyta Phacus sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Trachelomonas sp. -- -- -- X -- --

Trachelomonas volvocina X -- -- -- -- --
76 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 11. Four most dominant algal taxa based on percentage of total abundance and biovolume at each biological sampling site 

on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008. 

[Percentages based on the mean of three samples.]

Month Site Measure Four most dominant taxa (percentage of total)

April Kenneth Abundance Gomphonema olivaceum (23), Surirella brebissonii (20), Nitzschia perminuta (11), Gomphonema angustatum (4)

151st Nitzschia perminuta (15), Surirella brebissonii (14), Gomphonema olivaceum (13), Nitzschia inconspicua (9)

Blue Ridge Navicula subminuscula (14), Nitzschia perminuta (13), Surirella brebissonii (12), Rhoicosphenia curvata (6)

Kenneth Biovolume Surirella brebissonii (25), Gomphonema olivaceum (20), Synedra ulna (8), Meridion circulare (7)

151st Surirella brebissonii (17), Diatoma vulgaris (16), Rhoicosphenia curvata (11), Synedra ulna (10)

Blue Ridge Cladophora glomerata (19), Surirella brebissonii (18), Diatoma vulgaris (9), Rhoicosphenia curvata (8)

August Kenneth Abundance Stigeoclonium tenue (19), Navicula minima (17), Nitzschia amphibia (13), Cocconeis placentula (12)

151st Stigeoclonium tenue (27), Cocconeis placentula (26), Rhodomonas sp. (9), Navicula minima (5)

Blue Ridge Nitzschia amphibia (20), Cocconeis placentula (15), Rhodomonas sp. (15), Nitzschia inconspicua (7)

Kenneth Biovolume Stigeoclonium tenue (42), Stephanocyclus meneghiniana (8), Cocconeis placentula (7), Rhoicosphenia curvata (5)

151st Cladophora glomerata (32), Stigeoclonium tenue (22), Cocconeis placentula (13), Actinocyclus normanii (10)

Blue Ridge Pleurosira laevis (20), Cocconeis pediculus (19), Actinocyclus normanii (10), Cocconeis placentula (10)
Appendix 12. Periphyton metrics, conditions associated with each metric, and metric scores at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue RivAugust 2008. [Metric scores in bold indicate significant differences among sites (all p-values less than 0.05); metric scores are based on the mean score of three samples; ± 1 standard error in %, percent; DO, dissolved oxygen; >, greater than; <, less than; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen]

Metric Conditions April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 

Oxygen tolerance

Always high Nearly 100% DO saturation 21.6 (2.48) 17.9 (5.45) 20.3 (4.11) 5.08 (0.69) Fairly High >75% DO Saturation 58.0 (4.95) 46.2 (16.4) 32.6 (3.74) 5.61 (2.36) Moderate >50% DO Saturation 13.0 (4.75) 23.3 (5.98) 17.9 (.80) 47.5 (12.5) Low >30% DO Saturation 7.42 (4.22) 12.6 (6.69) 29.1 (.80) 38.4 (12.1) Very low About 10% DO Saturation or less 0 (0) 0 (0) .11 (.20) 3.46 (3.55) 

Saprobity

Oligosaprobic >85% oxygen saturation/BOD<2 mg/L 19.7 (3.03) 15.8 (5.38) 17.7 (5.12) 2.82 (0.68) Beta-mesosaprobic 70–85% oxygen saturation/ BOD 2–4 mg/L 61.6 (5.88) 54.5 (13.9) 41.9 (8.70) 34.2 (7.39) Alpha-mesosaprobic 25–70% oxygen saturation/ BOD 4–13 mg/L 9.69 (4.48) 16.9 (3.72) 12.0 (2.50) 22.3 (6.35) Alpha-mesosaprobic/polysaprobic 10–25% oxygen saturation/BOD 13–22 mg/L 8.99 (1.33) 12.7 (6.21) 28.0 (2.64) 37.8 (12.1) Polysaprobic <10% oxygen saturation/BOD>22% 0 (0) .22 (.37) .29 (.50) 2.9 (2.53) 

Trophic condition

Oligotrophic Low nutrient concentrations 10.1 (5.15) 4.47 (1.39) 3.01 (1.28) 5.94 (0.81) Oligo-mesotrophic Low to moderate nutrient concentrations 9.90 (6.41) 14.1 (6.56) 12.6 (6.36) 2.06 (1.57) Mesotrophic Moderate nutrient concentrations 4.24 (4.01) 2.72 (2.66) 2.05 (1.25) 1.83 (.99) Meso-eutrophic Moderate to high nutrient concentrations 6.57 (11.1) 5.64 (4.56) 4.59 (1.07) .87 (1.04) Eutrophic High nutrient concentrations 56.3 (10.0) 57.6 (2.32) 67.7 (6.16) 83.4 (3.12) Hypereutrophic Very high nutrient concentrations 2.03 (1.47) 1.66 (.47) 2.89 (.73) 2.74 (2.39) Ubiquitous Widespread across nutrient concentrations 10.9 (.55) 13.8 (8.71) 7.13 (4.07) 3.15 (1.22) 

Nitrogen uptake metabolism

Autotroph, low tolerance Low tolerance for organic N 20.8 (2.61) 17.4 (5.69) 19.3 (4.16) 3.03 (0.88) Autotroph, high tolerance High tolerance for organic N 67.1 (6.03) 59.4 (15.9) 45.8 (2.17) 38.0 (7.36) Facultative heterotroph Needing periodically elevated N 8.24 (5.58) 13.9 (5.56) 8.76 (3.48) 53.0 (8.80) Obligate heterotroph Needing constantly elevated N 3.83 (1.09) 9.38 (5.66) 26.1 (1.39) 6.01 (2.30) 

Other indices

Bahls Index 2.44 (0.06) 2.39 (0.08) 2.22 (0.04) 2.05 (0.14) Shannon Diversity Index 2.48 (.12) 2.88 (.11) 2.87 (.11) 2.63 (.21) Siltation Index 36.7 (5.51) 40.1 (6.45) 40.4 (2.71) 17.0 (6.44) 
Appendix 13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—Continued [X, taxa present; --, not identified] Phylum Class Order Family Taxa April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge 

Annelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae X X X Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Glossiphoniidae -- -- X Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Helobdella stagnalis (Linnaeus) X -- -- Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Placobdella papillifera (Verrill) -- -- -- Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Placobdella parasitica (Say) -- X -- Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Piscicolidae Piscicolidae X -- -- Annelida Oligochaeta -- -- Megadrile X X X Annelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae -- -- -- Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naididae -- X X Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Branchiura sowerbyi (Beddard) -- -- -- Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae X X X Arthropoda Arachnida -- -- Acari -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus basalis (LeConte) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Copelatus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporinae X X X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Neoporus sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus glabratus (Say) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis sexlineata (Sanderson) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae Dineutus assimilis (Kirby) -- X -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae Gyrinus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Haliplidae Haliplus sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Paracymus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Tropisternus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Scirtidae Scirtidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae Staphylinidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Collembola -- Collembola -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera -- Brachycera -- -- -- 
Appendix 13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—Continued [X, taxa present; --, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Taxa

April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia sp. X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Axarus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomidae -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomus sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarsus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Coelotanypus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus bicinctus group X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptochironomus sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptotendipes sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diplocladius cultriger (Kieffer) X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Endochironomus sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Glyptotendipes sp. X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Labrundinia sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nanocladius sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parachironomus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paralauterborniella nigrohalterale 

(Malloch)

-- X X 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratendipes sp. X X -- 
Appendix 13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—Continued [X, taxa present; --, not identified] Phylum Class Order Family Taxa April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pentaneura sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Phaenopsectra sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Phaenopsectra/Tribelos sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum ontario (Walley) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Procladius sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pseudochironomus sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stenochironomus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stictochironomus sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus sp. X -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group sp. (Coffman and Ferrington, 1996) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tribelos sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Xestochironomus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Culicidae Anopheles sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae Clinocera sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simuliidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Stratiomyidae Odontomyia sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tabanidae Tabanus sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Helius sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis intercalaris (McDunnough) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Callibaetis sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Centroptilum sp. -- -- X 
Appendix 13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—Continued [X, taxa present; --, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Taxa

April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge 

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Centroptilum/Procloeon sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Fallceon quilleri (Dodds) X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procloeon sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata (Serville) X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Heptageniidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron interpunctatum (Say) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema femoratum (Say) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes sp. -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Choroterpes sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebia sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera -- Heteroptera -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Belostomatidae Belostoma flumineum (Say) X -- X Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Belostomatidae Belostoma sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Corixidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Sigara sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Trichocorixa sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Gerridae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Gerrinae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Metrobates hesperius (Uhler) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Rheumatobates hungerfordi (Wiley) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Rheumatobates palosi (Blatchley) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Rheumatobates sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Trepobates sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Mesoveliidae Mesovelia mulsanti (White) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Mesoveliidae Mesovelia sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Naucoridae Pelocoris femoratus (Palisot de Beauvois) -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae Ranatra fusca (Palisot de Beauvois) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae Ranatra nigra (Herrich-Schaeffer) -- -- X 
Appendix 13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—Continued [X, taxa present; --, not identified] Phylum Class Order Family Taxa April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge 

Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae Ranatra sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Pleidae Neoplea striola (Fieber) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Microvelia sp. -- X -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Rhagovelia oriander (Parshley) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Rhagovelia sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Lepidoptera -- Lepidoptera -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus (Linnaeus) X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata -- Corduliidae/Libellulidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae Basiaeschna janata (Say) X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae Nasiaeschna pentacantha (Rambur) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Hetaerina americana (Fabricius) X X X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Hetaerina sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia plana (Calvert) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia translata (Hagen) X -- X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Coenagrionidae X X X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Enallagma sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Corduliidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Epitheca princeps (Hagen) X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Gomphus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Libellula sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Libellulidae -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Plathemis lydia (Drury) -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Macromiidae Macromia sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia vivipara (Claassen) X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Leuctridae Zealeuctra sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta sp. X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Hydroperla sp. X -- -- 
Appendix 13. Macroinvertebrate taxa identified at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008.—Continued [X, taxa present; --, not identified]

Phylum Class Order Family Taxa

April 

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge 

Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla sp. X X -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis (Hagen) -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni (Ross) -- X X Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. -- -- X Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Ceraclea sp. X -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae Ironoquia sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sp. X X X Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus sp. -- -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila lobifera (Betten) X X -- Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. X X X Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella azteca (Saussure) X X X Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Cambaridae X X -- Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes sp. X -- X Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Lirceus sp. X -- -- Bryozoa -- -- -- Bryozoa -- -- -- Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. X X X Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Musculium sp. X X -- Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. -- X -- Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium sp. X X -- Mollusca Gastropoda -- -- Gastropoda -- X -- Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia sp. -- X X Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Lymnaeidae Fossaria sp. -- -- X Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physa sp. X X X Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Micromenetus dilatatus (Gould) X -- -- Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Planorbella sp. -- -- -- Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Hydrobiidae X -- X Nematoda -- -- -- Nematoda -- -- -- Nemertea Enopla Hoplonemertea Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma sp. -- X -- Platyhelminthes Turbellaria -- -- Turbellaria X X X 
84 Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades—Kansas and Missouri, 2003–2009

Appendix 14. Four most dominant macroinvertebrate taxa based on relative abundance at each biological sampling site on the 

upper Blue River during April and August 2008. 

[Percentages based on the mean of three samples.]

Month Site Four most dominant taxa (percentage of total abundance)

April Kenneth Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. (11 ), Stenelmis sp. (9), Rhyacophila lobifera (7), Acerpenna pygmaea (6)

151st Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. (16), Stenonema femoratum (10), Cheumatopsyche sp. (7), Stenelmis sp. (6)

Blue Ridge Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. (20), Acerpenna pygmaea (8), Caenis sp.(6), Stenonema femoratum (6)

August Kenneth Stenelmis sp. (11), Polypedilum sp. (11),Cheumatopsyche sp. (10), Enallagma sp. (5)

151st Polypedilum sp. (12), Cheumatopsyche sp. (9), Stenelmis sp. (8), Baetis sp. (7)

Blue Ridge Enallagma sp. (10), Cheumatopsyche sp. (9), Polypedilum sp. (8), Stenelmis sp. (7)
Appendixes 85

Appendix 15. Macroinvertebrate metric scores at each biological sampling site on the upper Blue River during April and August 2008. 

[Metric scores in bold indicate significant differences among sites (all p-value less than 0.05); Metric scores are based on the mean score of three replicate 

samples; ± 1 standard error in parentheses; ±, plus or minus; E, Ephemeroptera; P, Plecoptera; T, Trichoptera]

Metric April August

Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge Kenneth 151st Blue Ridge

Richness metrics

Chironomidae richness 12.0 (2.65) 12.0 (2.00) 11.3 (5.51) 9.33 (0.58) 9.67 (1.15) 13.3 (3.21)

Clinger richness 12.7 (2.89) 14.7 (2.08) 15.3 (2.31) 25.3 (.58) 22.7 (4.04) 24.3 (2.89)

Diptera richness 15.0 (2.65) 13.7 (1.53) 13.7 (5.86) 11.7 (.58) 11.3 (1.53) 15.0 (3.61)

Ephemeroptera richness 6.00 (0) 6.00 (1.00) 6.67 (1.15) 7.33 (1.53) 6.33 (2.08) 5.67 (.58)

EPT taxa richness 13.3 (1.15) 10.3 (.58) 9.33 (1.15) 12.3 (1.53) 9.00 (2.65) 8.67 (1.53)

Plecoptera richness 3.33 (1.15) .67 (.58) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Trichoptera richness 4.00 (0) 3.67 (1.53) 2.67 (1.15) 5.00 (1.00) 2.67 (.57) 3.00 (1.00)

Total taxa richness 45.0 (4.36) 42.3 (1.53) 41.7 (9.24) 54.7 (2.89) 49.0 (3.61) 52.3 (6.03)

Taxonomic percentage abundance metrics

Chironomidae, percent 24.4 (3.44) 26.2 (1.77) 30.2 (6.42) 20.7 (2.57) 25.6 (3.17) 24.5 (4.04)

Corbicula, percent .15 (.26) 2.46 (.91) 1.70 (.37) .41 (.41) 1.69 (.74) 3.09 (.82)

Diptera, percent 31.9 (2.05) 32.6 (2.40) 35.3 (5.33) 22.6 (3.68) 29.3 (3.21) 26.5 (3.19)

Dominant taxon, percent 11.4 (.45) 15.6 (1.12) 20.0 (2.49) 12.9 (1.07) 12.0 (1.26) 11.2 (1.67)

Ephemeroptera, percent 24.3 (3.38) 27.6 (3.23) 28.1 (4.56) 15.0 (.70) 12.9 (2.44) 9.42 (1.51)

Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera, percent 30.2 (4.27) 27.9 (2.99) 28.1 (4.56) 15.0 (.70) 12.9 (2.44) 9.42 (1.51)

EPT, percent 42.2 (3.26) 39.2 (4.40) 32.9 (4.21) 28.0 (1.55) 26.5 (.75) 20.5 (.62)

Five dominant taxa, percent 39.6 (2.58) 46.3 (3.94) 47.2 (3.58) 42.5 (1.62) 41.8 (4.35) 38.8 (.46)

Hydropsychidae Trichoptera, percent .26 (.15) .84 (.09) .88 (.10) .89 (.04) .95 (.06) .91 (.02)

Oligochaeta, percent .63 (.55) 3.33 (1.01) 2.20 (.82) 0.69 (.25) .14 (.25) .44 (.04)

Other Diptera1 and non-insects, percent 17.2 (2.94) 20.1 (3.25) 19.4 (3.00) 12.7 (1.88) 20.3 (3.06) 16.5 (1.49)

Plecoptera, percent 5.95 (2.65) .29 (.25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Tanytarsini midges, percent .92 (.78) .57 (.23) .49 (.47) 1.90 (.80) 2.48 (.73) 2.47 (.29)

Trichoptera, percent 12.0 (1.02) 11.4 (1.49) 4.79 (2.40) 13.0 (1.15) 13.6 (1.84) 11.1 (2.03)

Two dominant taxa, percent 20.1 (1.77) 26.1 (1.83) 29.3 (2.48) 23.5 (1.19) 21.5 (.94) 20.4 (1.77)

Functional group percentage abundance metrics

Clingers, percent 0.27 (0.01) 0.28 (0.02) 0.27 (0.01) 0.39 (0.01) 0.41 (0.04) 0.44 (0.07)

Filterers, percent 11.0 (1.66) 19.7 (1.36) 10.6 (2.76) 17.8 (1.66) 21.2 (2.41) 17.1 (1.75)

Predators, percent 25.6 (3.64) 13.6 (.55) 17.2 (4.71) 30.4 (3.53) 27.0 (3.61) 34.2 (4.26)

Scrapers, percent 27.1 (1.15) 25.9 (1.17) 22.6 (5.07) 21.2 (1.38) 16.3 (1.45) 14.0 (2.67)

Shredders, percent 4.68 (1.43) 4.05 (.27) 2.37 (1.33) 11.5 (2.24) 13.6 (.65) 10.2 (3.06)

Multiple indicator metrics

Kansas Biotic Index 2.48 (0.05) 2.81 (0.01) 2.72 (0.03) 2.76 (0.03) 2.85 (0.06) 2.77 (0.01)

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index 5.23 (.25) 5.47 (.02) 5.65 (.16) 5.05 (.17) 5.58 (.09) 5.45 (.19)

Other metrics

EPT / Chironomidae ratio 1.75 (0.26) 1.50 (0.20) 1.14 (0.34) 1.37 (0.20) 1.04 (0.11) 0.86 (0.16)

Intolerant Taxa, percent 37.9 (2.85) 21.1 (3.80) 27.2 (3.00) 18.1 (2.11) 10.5 (2.61) 12.1 (2.59)

Scraper/filtering collector ratio 2.50 (.47) 1.32 (.13) 2.16 (.22) 1.20 (.11) 0.78 (.10) .84 (.24)

Shannon Diversity Index 3.29 (.094) 3.16 (.040) 3.12 (.180) 3.43 (.012) 3.37 (.045) 3.45 (.096)

1

Diptera other than Chironomidae.
Publishing support provided by:

Rolla Publishing Service Center 

For additional information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Kansas Water Science Center 

4821 Quail Crest Place 

Lawrence, KS 66049 

(785) 842–9909 

Or visit the Kansas Water Science Center Web site at:

http://ks.water.usgs.gov

Graham and others—Effects of Wastewater Effluent Discharge and Treatment Facility Upgrades on Environmental and Biological Conditions of the 

Upper Blue River, Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, January 2003 through March 2009—Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5248

Printed on recycled paper