U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5046

Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, 

Parks and Tourism and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cover photograph: Chapman Creek near Chapman, Kansas (photograph 

taken by Dirk Hargadine, U.S. Geological Survey, on January 7, 2014).
Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in 

Kansas

By Kyle E. Juracek and Ken Eng

Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, 

Parks and Tourism and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5046

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017

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 https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

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

visit https://store.usgs.gov/.

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Juracek, K.E., and Eng, Ken, 2017, Streamflow alteration at selected sites in Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2017–5046, 75 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175046.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

This study was made possible with the support of the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and 

Tourism and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For the collection and provision of groundwaterlevel data, the authors thank Western Kansas Groundwater Management District #1, Equus

Beds Groundwater Management District #2, Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management 

District #3, Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District #4, Big Bend Groundwater 

Management District #5, the Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources, 

and the Kansas Geological Survey. For the collection of the many decades of streamflow data, 

the authors thank the past and current U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic technicians and 

hydrologists and acknowledge the support of the many Federal, State, Tribal, and local partner 

agencies that made this data collection and analysis possible.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Description of Kansas..........................................................................................................................1

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................2

Streamflow Alteration in Kansas ................................................................................................................8

Mean Monthly Flows............................................................................................................................8

Annual Low-Flow Metrics ...................................................................................................................8

Annual High-Flow Metrics.................................................................................................................10

Other Annual Flow Metrics ...............................................................................................................11

Effects of Human Disturbances on Streamflow and Habitat Implications.........................................11

Groundwater Pumping from the High Plains Aquifer ...................................................................12

Agricultural Land-Management Practices.....................................................................................12

Reservoirs ............................................................................................................................................12

Urbanization.........................................................................................................................................15

Habitat Implications............................................................................................................................15

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................15

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................16

Figures 3–31..................................................................................................................................................21

Appendix 1. Observed/Expected (O/E) Ratio Values for Streamflow Metrics Assessed in This 

Study.................................................................................................................................................51

Figures

1. Map showing land use (2011) and selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages 

in Kansas........................................................................................................................................2

2. Map showing groundwater-level changes in the High Plains aquifer from 

predevelopment to 2013...............................................................................................................3

32. Map showing large reservoirs and selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages

in Kansas......................................................................................................................................14

Figures at the back of this report

3. Map showing condition of mean January flow normalized by drainage area for 

129 streamgages in Kansas ......................................................................................................22

4. Map showing condition of mean February flow normalized by drainage area for 

129 streamgages in Kansas ......................................................................................................23

5. Map showing condition of mean March flow normalized by drainage area for 

129 streamgages in Kansas ......................................................................................................24

 6. Map showing condition of mean April flow normalized by drainage area for 

129 streamgages in Kansas ......................................................................................................25

7. Map showing condition of mean May flow normalized by drainage area for 

129 streamgages in Kansas ......................................................................................................26

8. Map showing condition of mean June flow normalized by drainage area for 

129 streamgages in Kansas ......................................................................................................27
v

 9. Map showing condition of mean July flow normalized by drainage area for 
vi

Tables

1. Streamflow metrics used in this study......................................................................................4

2. U.S. Geological Survey streamgages used in this study to examine streamflow 

alteration in Kansas......................................................................................................................5

3. Model performance criteria........................................................................................................9

4. Summary of alteration of mean monthly flows for 129 streamgages in Kansas..............10

5. Summary of alteration of annual low-flow metrics for 129 streamgages in Kansas ......10

6. Summary of alteration of annual high-flow metrics for 129 streamgages in Kansas .....11

7. Summary of alteration of other annual flow metrics for 129 streamgages in Kansas....11

8. Summary of streamflow alteration downstream from 20 large reservoirs in Kansas. ...13

Appendix Tables

1–1. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the January, February, March, and 

April flow metrics assessed in this study ...............................................................................52

1–2. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the May, June, July, and August 

flow metrics assessed in this study.........................................................................................55

1–3. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the September, October, November, 

and December flow metrics assessed in this study .............................................................58

1–4. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 10th percentile flow metrics 

assessed in this study................................................................................................................61

1–5. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 25th percentile flow metrics 

assessed in this study................................................................................................................64

1–6. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 75th percentile flow metrics 

assessed in this study................................................................................................................67

1–7. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 90th percentile flow metrics 

assessed in this study................................................................................................................70

1–8. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for five annual flow metrics assessed in 

this study ......................................................................................................................................73
vii

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

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

Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

By Kyle E. Juracek and Ken Eng

Abstract

An understanding of streamflow alteration in response to 

various disturbances is necessary for the effective management 

of stream habitat for a variety of species in Kansas. Streamflow alteration can have negative ecological effects. Using 

a modeling approach, streamflow alteration was assessed 

for 129 selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in the 

State for which requisite streamflow and basin-characteristic 

information was available. The assessment involved a comparison of the observed condition from 1980 to 2015 with the 

predicted expected (least-disturbed) condition for 29 streamflow metrics. The metrics represent various characteristics of 

streamflow including average flow (annual, monthly) and low 

and high flow (frequency, duration, magnitude). 

Streamflow alteration in Kansas was indicated locally, 

regionally, and statewide. Given the absence of a pronounced 

trend in annual precipitation in Kansas, a precipitation-related 

explanation for streamflow alteration was not supported. Thus, 

the likely explanation for streamflow alteration was human 

activity. Locally, a flashier flow regime (typified by shorter 

lag times and more frequent and higher peak discharges) was 

indicated for three streamgages with urbanized basins that had 

higher percentages of impervious surfaces than other basins in 

the State. The combination of localized reservoir effects and 

regional groundwater pumping from the High Plains aquifer 

likely was responsible, in part, for diminished conditions indicated for multiple streamflow metrics in western and central 

Kansas. Statewide, the implementation of agricultural landmanagement practices to reduce runoff may have been responsible, in part, for a diminished duration and magnitude of high 

flows. In central and eastern Kansas, implemented agricultural 

land-management practices may have been partly responsible 

for an inflated magnitude of low flows at several sites.

Introduction

The physical habitat of streams and the type, distribution, 

and abundance of resident aquatic organisms are fundamentally determined by streamflow (Poff and others, 1997; Bunn 

and Arthington, 2002). The ecological integrity of streams can 

be adversely affected if the natural flow regime is altered (Poff 

and Zimmerman, 2010; Carlisle and others, 2011). The flow 

regime of a stream is determined by the magnitude, frequency, 

duration, timing, and rate of change of flows (Poff and others, 

1997). Effective management to protect aquatic organism 

populations and habitats in Kansas requires an understanding 

of streamflow conditions and how those conditions may have 

changed in response to various disturbances. Throughout the 

State, the use and management of water resources to satisfy 

human needs have directly or indirectly affected streamflow. 

Examples of human activity that affect streamflow include 

surface-water diversions, reservoir construction and operation, 

groundwater pumping from aquifers, agricultural land-management practices, and urbanization.

A 1.5-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks 

and Tourism (KDWPT) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), was begun in 2016 to assess streamflow alteration at 

USGS streamgage sites throughout Kansas. The assessment, 

which provides an indication of where and how streamflow 

conditions have changed, can aid in management decisions for 

stream habitat prioritization, conservation, and restoration. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the 

USGS study to assess streamflow alteration at 129 selected 

USGS streamgage sites throughout Kansas. For each site, 

streamflow alteration was assessed by comparing the observed 

condition from 1980 to 2015 with the predicted expected 

(least-disturbed) condition for 29 metrics that account for various aspects of streamflow.

Results presented in this report are intended to provide 

some of the information needed by the KDWPT and FWS 

to support more effective management of stream habitats for 

various aquatic organisms. Nationally, the methods and results 

presented in this report can provide guidance and perspective 

for future studies concerned with streamflow alteration and the 

habitat implications thereof.

Description of Kansas

The study covered the entire State of Kansas, an area 

of about 82,000 square miles. Within the State, major rivers 

include the Arkansas, Cimarron, Kansas, Marais des Cygnes, 

Neosho, Republican, Saline, Smoky Hill, Solomon, Verdigris, 
2 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

and Walnut (fig. 1). Terrain varies across the State and 

includes flat plains, rolling hills, sandhills, and steep slopes 

(Moody and others, 1986). Land use is predominantly cropland and grassland (fig. 1; Jin and others, 2013).

The climate in Kansas is characterized by well-defined 

seasons and variable precipitation. On average, annual precipitation ranges from about 15 inches (in.) in extreme western 

Kansas to about 45 in. in the southeast (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2016). From 1950 to 2000, 

there was not a pronounced trend in annual precipitation for 

Kansas (Brunsell and others, 2010). Moreover, from 1951 

to 2013, a pronounced trend in annual precipitation was not 

evident for southwestern and south-central Kansas (Juracek, 

2015). During the 21st century, global warming is projected 

to result in minimal change in average annual precipitation in 

the State, although the amount of precipitation in individual 

storm events may increase (Walsh and others, 2014). Increased 

temperatures may result in increased evapotranspiration. 

The High Plains aquifer underlies much of western and 

central Kansas (fig. 2). The aquifer is characterized as a watertable aquifer that primarily consists of near-surface sand and 

gravel deposits (Weeks and others, 1988). Extensive use of 

groundwater from the aquifer, primarily for irrigated agriculture, began in the 1950s and continues to the present (Kansas 

Water Resources Board, 1958, 1960; Gutentag and others, 

1984; Kenny and Juracek, 2013). Groundwater withdrawals 

for irrigation far in excess of natural recharge are the primary 

cause of groundwater-level declines in the aquifer (Gutentag 

and others, 1984; Young and others, 2005; Whittemore and 

others, 2016). In some locations, groundwater-level declines 

of 50 to 150 feet or more have occurred (fig. 2; McGuire, 

2014).

Methods

Streamflow alteration was assessed using the reference 

condition approach (Bailey and others, 2004; Carlisle and 

others, 2010), which is based on the principle that expected 

reference conditions for basins influenced by hydrologic modifications (for example, groundwater withdrawals or land-use 

change) can be predicted using statistical models developed 

for a population of reference (least-disturbed) basins. With 

this approach, streamflow alteration at selected streamgages 

was quantified as the difference between the observed flow 

conditions and the predicted expected reference conditions. 

In this study, the period from 1980 to 2015 was examined to 

provide an assessment of flow alteration for recent conditions 

in Kansas.

Figure 1. Land use (2011) and selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in Kansas. 

k

ChikaskiaRiver

Cimarron River

R vi e r

CottonwoodRiver

Arkansas River

Walnut River

Neosh o Ri ver

Pawnee River

Little Ar kansas Rive r

Solomon River

Kansas Rive

Saline River

r

SmokyHill River

South Fork Ninnescah River

Smoky Hill River

North Fork Solomon River

South Fork Solomon River

Medicine Lodge River

118

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

16

17

18

19 20

21

22 23

24

25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70 71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78 79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90 91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100 101

102

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119

120

121

122

123 124

125

126

127

128 129

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 2011 National Land Cover Dataset 30-meter resolution

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

Land-use class

Water

Wetlands

Shrubland

Grassland

Developed Cropland

U.S. Geological Survey

 streamgage and identifier

 (table 2)

102

fig01

North Fork Cimarron River

Republican River

62

Marais des 

Cygnes River

Verdigris
Methods 3

To assess streamflow alteration various flow metrics were 

used that were computed from daily-flow time series and are 

indicative of key aspects of the flow regime (Carlisle and others, 2010). Twenty-nine metrics that represent various characteristics of flow, including median or mean flow (annual, 

monthly), daily flow variability, low and high flow (frequency, 

duration, magnitude), and base flow, were selected (table 1).

Two criteria were used in the selection of USGS 

streamgages to be included in the assessment of streamflow 

alteration in Kansas. First, the streamgages were required to 

have a minimum of 12 years of complete daily streamflow 

record from 1980 to 2015. This minimum was used instead 

of the 15 years recommended by Kennard and others (2010) 

because of the additional number and spatial coverage of 

streamgages that could be included in the analysis by lowering the threshold. Moreover, the differences in bias, precision, and accuracy for 12 years as compared to 15 years were 

minimal (Kennard and others, 2010). Second, the streamgages 

also needed to be listed in the Geospatial Attributes of Gages 

for Evaluating Streamflow, version 2 (GAGES–II) database 

(Falcone, 2011) so that the associated basin characteristics 

required for the analysis could be used. The GAGES–II 

database provides more than 300 basin characteristics for 

streamgages with a basin size of 50,000 square kilometers 

(about 19,300 square miles) or less. Use of the two criteria 

resulted in the selection of 129 streamgages (fig. 1; table 2). 

Each of the streamgages provides long-term daily flow data 

that were collected as part of the USGS national streamgaging network using standard USGS methods (Turnipseed and 

Sauer, 2010). The flow data are available from the USGS 

National Water Information System (NWIS; U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2016). The observed values of the 29 flow metrics for 

each streamgage were calculated using daily flow data downloaded from NWIS using a program by Granato (2009).

Estimates of the expected reference value for each flow 

metric for each streamgage were predicted with statistical 

models that used basin characteristics, such as climate, topography, and soils, as explanatory variables (Carlisle and others, 

Figure 2. Groundwater-level changes in the High Plains aquifer from predevelopment to 2013 (Source: McGuire, 2014).

118

1

2 3

4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25 26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61

64 63

64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90 91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100 101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 2014 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N.

Central meridian 96°00'W.

North American Datum of 1983

Declines

Groundwater-level changes (McGuire, 2014) in the High Plains aquifer, from predevelopment (about 1950) 

 to 2013, in feet

Rises

102° 101° 100° 97 96° 99° 98° ° 95° 40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2) 102

More than 150

100 to 150

50 to 100

25 to 50

10 to 25

5 to 10

5 to 10

10 to 25

Area with little or no

 saturated thickness −5 to 5

fig02

No substantial change

62

112299

Verdigris

ChikaskiaRiver

Cimarron River

R vi e r

CottonwoodRiver

Arkansas River

Walnut River

Pawnee River

Little Ar kansas Rive r

Solomon River

Kansas Rive

Saline River

r

SmokyHill River

South Fork Ninnescah River

Smoky Hill River

North Fork Solomon River

South Fork Solomon River

Medicine Lodge River

North Fork Cimarron River

Republican River Neosh o Ri ver
4 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

2010). Statistical models were developed using 1,443 previously identified streamgages (Falcone and others, 2010) with 

least-disturbed basins (that is, reference quality) on perennial, 

intermittent, and ephemeral streams across the contiguous 

United States. For each reference site, 176 geospatial characteristics representing natural (that is, excluding land cover 

and other anthropogenic activities) physical attributes of the 

contributing basin were computed (Falcone, 2011).

Separate random forest (Cutler and others, 2007) models 

were developed for each flow metric using the 1,443 reference 

sites, with the observed metric as the dependent variable and 

the natural geospatial characteristics as predictors. The random 

forest models were implemented in Matlab using a script by 

Jaiantilal (2009). Modeling proceeded as follows: First, 30 

random forest models, each with 1,000 trees, were fit using 

all 176 basin characteristics and a randomly selected subset of 

90 percent of the reference sites. Then, for each random forest 

model, the importance of each predictor variable was computed by measuring the decrease in model performance as that 

variable was randomly permuted (Cutler and others, 2007). 

The 20 predictors with the highest average importance among 

the 30 initial models were selected for the final model (Eng 

and others, in press). For each flow metric, the final model 

included 100 random forest fits, each with 1,000 trees, trained 

on a randomly selected subset of 90 percent of the reference 

sites. For each random forest model fit, 10 percent of the sites 

were set aside for validation of model performance and were 

selected in equal numbers from nine aggregated ecoregions of 

the contiguous United States (Falcone, 2011) to ensure even 

geographic distribution.

Model performance was evaluated using four independent (Pearson r < 0.3) criteria. These were Nash-Sutcliffe 

Table 1. Streamflow metrics used in this study.

Metric Description

P50 Median annual flow normalized by drainage area.

CV_FLOW Coefficient of variation of daily flows.

AVG_JAN Mean January flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_FEB Mean February flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_MAR Mean March flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_APR Mean April flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_MAY Mean May flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_JUN Mean June flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_JUL Mean July flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_AUG Mean August flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_SEP Mean September flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_OCT Mean October flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_NOV Mean November flow normalized by drainage area.

AVG_DEC Mean December flow normalized by drainage area.

PUL_NO_P90 Average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile.

PUL_NO_P75 Average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile.

PUL_NO_P25 Average annual number of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile.

PUL_NO_P10 Average annual number of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile.

P10 10th percentile flow normalized by drainage area.

P90 90th percentile flow normalized by drainage area.

PER_BSFLa Percentage of flow that is base flow.

PUL_LEN_P10 Average duration of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile.

PUL_LEN_P25 Average duration of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile.

PUL_LEN_P75 Average duration of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile.

PUL_LEN_P90 Average duration of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile.

PUL_FLOW_P10 Average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile, normalized by drainage area.

PUL_FLOW_P25 Average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile, normalized by drainage area.

PUL_FLOW_P75 Average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile, normalized by drainage area.

PUL_FLOW_P90 Average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile, normalized by drainage area.

a

Renamed from metric ML20 in Olden and Poff (2003).
Methods 5

Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey streamgages used in this study to examine streamflow alteration in Kansas.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer]

Site

 identifier

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage 

number

USGS streamgage name Drainage areaa

(km2

)

Complete years 

of record 

(since 1980)

1 06814000 Turkey Creek near Seneca, Kansas 713.8 36

2 06827000 South Fork Republican River near Colorado-Kansas State line, Kansas 5,313.8 13

3 06844900 South Fork Sappa Creek near Achilles, Kansas 1,153.5 29

4 06845110 Sappa Creek near Lyle, Kansas 3,782.1 20

5 06846000 Beaver Creek at Ludell, Kansas 3,729 14

6 06846500 Beaver Creek at Cedar Bluffs, Kansas 4,357.8 36

7 06847900 Prairie Dog Creek above Keith Sebelius Lake, Kansas 1,536.2 36

8 06848000 Prairie Dog Creek at Norton, Kansas 1,808.4 22

9 06848500 Prairie Dog Creek near Woodruff, Kansas 2,575.4 36

10 06853800 White Rock Creek near Burr Oak, Kansas 589.4 36

11 06854000 White Rock Creek at Lovewell, Kansas 895.6 22

12 06860000 Smoky Hill River at Elkader, Kansas 9,033.4 36

13 06861000 Smoky Hill River near Arnold, Kansas 12,897.8 36

14 06862700 Smoky Hill River near Schoenchen, Kansas 14,327.7 36

15 06862850 Smoky Hill River below Schoenchen, Kansas 14,460.8 34

16 06863500 Big Creek near Hays, Kansas 1,417.3 36

17 06864050 Smoky Hill River near Bunker Hill, Kansas 18,025.1 31

18 06864500 Smoky Hill River at Ellsworth, Kansas 19,334.8 36

19 06865500 Smoky Hill River near Langley, Kansas 20,074.1 36

20 06866500 Smoky Hill River near Mentor, Kansas 20,903.3 36

21 06866900 Saline River near WaKeeney, Kansas 1,801.6 34

22 06867000 Saline River near Russell, Kansas 3,857 36

23 06868200 Saline River at Wilson Dam, Kansas 4,995.3 36

24 06869500 Saline River at Tescott, Kansas 7,215.1 36

25 06869950 Mulberry Creek near Salina, Kansas 671.7 13

26 06870200 Smoky Hill River at New Cambria, Kansas 29,925.4 27

27 06871000 North Fork Solomon River at Glade, Kansas 2,424.4 36

28 06871500 Bow Creek near Stockton, Kansas 903.7 36

29 06871800 North Fork Solomon River at Kirwin, Kansas 3,609.5 22

30 06872500 North Fork Solomon River at Portis, Kansas 6,217.1 34

31 06873000 South Fork Solomon River above Webster Reservoir, Kansas 2,698.8 36

32 06873200 South Fork Solomon River below Webster Reservoir, Kansas 3,014.5 22

33 06873460 South Fork Solomon River at Woodston, Kansas 4,080.1 36

34 06874000 South Fork Solomon River at Osborne, Kansas 5,102.3 36

35 06875900 Solomon River near Glen Elder, Kansas 13,705.5 36

36 06876700 Salt Creek near Ada, Kansas 1,056.4 36

37 06876900 Solomon River at Niles, Kansas 17,487.5 36

38 06877600 Smoky Hill River at Enterprise, Kansas 49,592.2 36

39 06878000 Chapman Creek near Chapman, Kansas 776.4 36

40 06879650 Kings Creek near Manhattan, Kansas 11.5 36

41 06882510 Big Blue River at Marysville, Kansas 12,371.3 31

42 06884025 Little Blue River at Hollenberg, Kansas 7,172 35

43 06884200 Mill Creek at Washington, Kansas 908.4 36
6 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey streamgages used in this study to examine streamflow alteration in Kansas.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer]

Site 

identifier

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage 

number

USGS streamgage name Drainage areaa

(km2

)

Complete years 

of record 

(since 1980)

44 06884400 Little Blue River near Barnes, Kansas 8,656 36

45 06885500 Black Vermillion River near Frankfort, Kansas 1,062.9 36

46 06887000 Big Blue River near Manhattan, Kansas 24,991.8 36

47 06888000 Vermillion Creek near Wamego, Kansas 609.7 13

48 06888500 Mill Creek near Paxico, Kansas 842.3 36

49 06889140 Soldier Creek near Soldier, Kansas 44.1 18

50 06889160 Soldier Creek near Circleville, Kansas 129 21

51 06889200 Soldier Creek near Delia, Kansas 385.7 36

52 06889500 Soldier Creek near Topeka, Kansas 748.6 36

53 06890100 Delaware River near Muscotah, Kansas 1,132 36

54 06890900 Delaware River at Perry, Kansas 2,923.2 27

55 06891260 Wakarusa River near Richland, Kansas 426.1 13

56 06891500 Wakarusa River near Lawrence, Kansas 1,103.7 36

57 06892000 Stranger Creek near Tonganoxie, Kansas 1,092.7 36

58 06892360 Kill Creek at 95th Street near DeSoto, Kansas 124.1 12

59 06892495 Cedar Creek near DeSoto, Kansas 151.1 13

60 06892513 Mill Creek at Johnson Drive, Shawnee, Kansas 150.5 13

61 06893080 Blue River near Stanley, Kansas 117.8 36

62 06893100 Blue River at Kenneth Road, Overland Park, Kansas 170.8 12

63 06893300 Indian Creek at Overland Park, Kansas 68.7 36

64 06893390 Indian Creek at State Line Road, Leawood, Kansas 167.5 12

65 06910800 Marais des Cygnes River near Reading, Kansas 444.6 36

66 06911490 Salt Creek at Lyndon, Kansas 248.1 16

67 06911500 Salt Creek near Lyndon, Kansas 282.2 19

68 06911900 Dragoon Creek near Burlingame, Kansas 293.1 36

69 06912500 Hundred and Ten Mile Creek near Quenemo, Kansas 836.9 36

70 06913000 Marais des Cygnes River near Pomona, Kansas 2,727.1 36

71 06913500 Marais des Cygnes River near Ottawa, Kansas 3,242.4 36

72 06914000 Pottawatomie Creek near Garnett, Kansas 862.2 21

73 06914100 Pottawatomie Creek near Scipio, Kansas 892 14

74 06914950 Big Bull Creek near Edgerton, Kansas 74.9 22

75 06915000 Big Bull Creek near Hillsdale, Kansas 378.9 36

76 06915800 Marais des Cygnes River at La Cygne, Kansas 7,026.9 31

77 06916600 Marais des Cygnes River near Kansas-Missouri State Line, Kansas 8,387 36

78 06917000 Little Osage River at Fulton, Kansas 765.8 36

79 06917240 Marmaton River near Uniontown, Kansas 213.4 14

80 06917380 Marmaton River near Marmaton, Kansas 761 28

81 07140850 Pawnee River near Burdett, Kansas 2,971 34

82 07141175 Buckner Creek near Burdett, Kansas 2,045.6 17

83 07141200 Pawnee River at Rozel, Kansas 5,767.9 36

84 07141770 Walnut Creek near Alexander, Kansas 2,892.8 18

85 07141780 Walnut Creek at Nekoma, Kansas 3,320 36

86 07141900 Walnut Creek at Albert, Kansas 4,169.3 36

87 07142020 Walnut Creek below Cheyenne Bottoms Diversion near Great Bend, Kansas 4,393.5 15
Methods 7

Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey streamgages used in this study to examine streamflow alteration in Kansas.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer]

Site

 identifier

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage 

number

USGS streamgage name Drainage areaa

(km2

)

Complete years 

of record 

(since 1980)

88 07142300 Rattlesnake Creek near Macksville, Kansas 1,819.9 36

89 07142575 Rattlesnake Creek near Zenith, Kansas 2,685.8 36

90 07142620 Rattlesnake Creek near Raymond, Kansas 3,166.1 18

91 07143300 Cow Creek near Lyons, Kansas 1,872.9 36

92 07143665 Little Arkansas River at Alta Mills, Kansas 1,923.9 36

93 07143672 Little Arkansas River at Highway 50 near Halstead, Kansas 2,003.4 20

94 07144100 Little Arkansas River near Sedgwick, Kansas 3,200.4 22

95 07144200 Little Arkansas River at Valley Center, Kansas 3,377.3 36

96 07144480 Cowskin Creek at 119th Street at Wichita, Kansas 221.8 14

97 07144780 North Fork Ninnescah River above Cheney Reservoir, Kansas 2,078.9 36

98 07144795 North Fork Ninnescah River at Cheney Dam, Kansas 2,575.9 35

99 07144910 South Fork Ninnescah River near Pratt, Kansas 321.5 35

100 07145200 South Fork Ninnescah River near Murdock, Kansas 1,555.2 36

101 07145500 Ninnescah River near Peck, Kansas 5,527.6 36

102 07145700 Slate Creek at Wellington, Kansas 399.8 36

103 07147070 Whitewater River at Towanda, Kansas 1,096.5 36

104 07147800 Walnut River at Winfield, Kansas 4,864.7 36

105 07149000 Medicine Lodge River near Kiowa, Kansas 2,291.2 36

106 07151500 Chikaskia River near Corbin, Kansas 2,109 36

107 07155590 Cimarron River near Elkhart, Kansas 7,554.3 33

108 07156220 Bear Creek near Johnson, Kansas 2,132.4 18

109 07156900 Cimarron River near Forgan, Oklahoma 17,944.5 35

110 07157500 Crooked Creek near Englewood, Kansas 3,515.7 36

111 07166500 Verdigris River near Altoona, Kansas 2,874.2 36

112 07167500 Otter Creek at Climax, Kansas 319.6 36

113 07169500 Fall River at Fredonia, Kansas 2,097.5 36

114 07169800 Elk River at Elk Falls, Kansas 565 36

115 07170060 Elk River below Elk City Lake, Kansas 1,650.2 22

116 07170500 Verdigris River at Independence, Kansas 7,358.4 36

117 07170700 Big Hill Creek near Cherryvale, Kansas 94.8 33

118 07170990 Verdigris River at Coffeyville, Kansas 8,548.4 13

119 07172000 Caney River near Elgin, Kansas 1,110.2 36

120 07179500 Neosho River at Council Grove, Kansas 686 36

121 07179730 Neosho River near Americus, Kansas 1,600.3 36

122 07179795 North Cottonwood River below Marion Lake, Kansas 534.6 36

123 07180400 Cottonwood River near Florence, Kansas 1,935.7 36

124 07180500 Cedar Creek near Cedar Point, Kansas 275.5 36

125 07182250 Cottonwood River near Plymouth, Kansas 4,477 36

126 07182510 Neosho River at Burlington, Kansas 7,882.4 36

127 07183000 Neosho River near Iola, Kansas 9,917.6 36

128 07183500 Neosho River near Parsons, Kansas 12,544.2 36

129 07184000 Lightning Creek near McCune, Kansas 510.8 36

a

Drainage areas from Falcone (2011).
8 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

efficiency (NSE, Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970), percent bias 

(Moriasi and others, 2007), mean observed-to-expected (O/E) 

values (Carlisle and others, 2011), and the standard deviation 

(SD) of O/E values. These criteria were calculated on each 

randomly chosen set of 100 validation sites and then averaged for each flow metric. For simplicity, a single composite 

performance measure also was calculated by standardizing the 

four criteria to a 0-to-1 scale and computing their sum, with 

the highest scores indicating superior performance. All NSE 

negative values were set to zero so that the range was bound 

between 0 and 1. Values for percent bias were bound between 

±100, divided by 100, and their absolute values were subtracted from 1. The bounds for mean O/E were 0 and 2. Values 

between 0 and 1 were unscaled, and values from 1 to 2 were 

subtracted from 2. The bounds for the SD of O/E were set at 0 

and 0.5 and scaled from 0 to 1, where a value of 1 corresponds 

to a SD of 0 and a value of 0 corresponds to a SD of 0.5 or 

greater.

For the majority of the models (21 of 29) for the flow 

metrics, performance was either good or very good (table 3) 

and these were the most predictable metrics (as defined by 

Eng and others, in press). Model performance was fair for 7 

metrics (table 3). The model for the baseflow metric (PER_

BSFL) performed poorly. Poor model performance for low 

flow estimation has been reported elsewhere by Eng and Milly 

(2007) and Newman and others (2015). Based on an assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance 

for the contiguous United States, Newman and others (2015) 

concluded that the main factors affecting the variation in 

model performance were aridity, precipitation intermittency, 

snowmelt contribution, and runoff seasonality. In addition, 

other factors that contribute to poor model performance for 

low and base flow estimation include the inherent measurement error for low flows and a lack of good subsurface metrics 

that describe aquifer hydraulic properties.

Flow alteration at the streamgages for each of the 29 flow 

metrics (table 1) was quantified by the ratio of the observed 

value to the predicted expected value (O/E). The error bounds 

of each model were determined by taking the 10th and 90th 

percentile values from histograms of all validation O/E values. 

These bounds represent thresholds beyond which anthropogenic alteration could be reliably distinguished from model 

error. Thus, for this study, a flow metric was considered 

anthropogenically altered only if the O/E value was equal to 

or greater than the 90th percentile threshold (considered to be 

inflated) or equal to or less than the 10th percentile threshold 

(considered to be diminished).

Streamflow Alteration in Kansas

Results of the analysis that used 29 flow metrics to assess 

streamflow alteration at 129 selected streamgages in Kansas 

are presented in this section. The order of presentation is mean 

monthly flows, annual low-flow metrics, annual high-flow 

metrics, and other annual flow metrics. In the results presented, a minimally altered condition indicates that the O/E 

value for the flow metric is within the model error and is considered least disturbed. A diminished condition indicates that 

the O/E value for the flow metric is less than what would be 

expected for a least-disturbed condition. An inflated condition 

indicates that the O/E value for the flow metric is greater than 

what would be expected for a least-disturbed condition. Complete O/E results for all streamgages are provided in tables 1–1 

to 1–8 in the appendix at the back of this report.

Mean Monthly Flows

In Kansas, a minimally altered condition for mean 

monthly flow was indicated for every month for the majority of the streamgages. The percentage of streamgages with 

a minimally altered condition ranged from 59 percent for 

March and December to 81 percent for July, with an all-month 

average of 66 percent (table 4). A diminished condition for 

mean monthly flow was indicated for a substantial number of 

streamgages, ranging from 14 percent for August to 39 percent 

for March, with an all-month average of 28 percent. With one 

exception, streamgages with an inflated condition for mean 

monthly flow were uncommon. The exception was August for 

which 24 percent of the streamgages had an inflated condition. For most months, the percentage of streamgages with an 

inflated condition was 5 percent or less.

Geographically, a pronounced pattern was evident for the 

distribution of streamgages with a diminished condition for 

mean monthly flows. In general, such streamgages were in the 

western half of Kansas (figs. 3–14, at the back of this report). 

Twelve streamgages in western Kansas (sites 4, 6, 9, 12–15, 

29, 88, 90, 107, and 110) had a diminished condition for all 

12 months (figs. 3–14; tables 1–1 to 1–3 in the appendix). 

Major river basins in western Kansas with diminished flows 

for multiple months and multiple streamgages were the Arkansas, Cimarron, Republican, Saline, Smoky Hill, and Solomon 

(figs. 3–14).

Annual Low-Flow Metrics

Annual low-flow metrics assessed were the average number, duration, and magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th 

and 25th percentiles. For average duration and magnitude, the 

assessment was limited for western Kansas because it was not 

possible to compute those two metrics for several streamgages 

given an absence of flow.

Alteration of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile 

was evident across the State. For the average annual number of such pulses, the indicated conditions were minimally 

altered for 41 percent, diminished for 22 percent, and inflated 

for 36 percent of the streamgages (table 5). Reductions in the 

number of such pulses typically were for streamgages in the 

western half of Kansas, whereas increases typically were for 

streamgages in central and eastern Kansas (fig. 15, at the back 
Streamflow Alteration in Kansas 9

of this report). For the average duration of such pulses, the 

indicated conditions were minimally altered for 47 percent, 

diminished for 26 percent, inflated for 5 percent, and not computed for 22 percent of the streamgages (table 5). For the average magnitude of such pulses, the indicated conditions were 

minimally altered for 43 percent, diminished for 16 percent, 

inflated for 19 percent, and not computed for 22 percent of the 

streamgages. A pronounced statewide pattern for the distribution of streamgages with a diminished or inflated condition 

for the average duration and magnitude of flow pulses less 

than the 10th percentile was not apparent (figs. 16 and 17, at 

the back of this report). Although, a diminished condition for 

average duration was indicated for a cluster of 13 streamgages 

in extreme east-central Kansas (fig. 16).

Table 3. Model performance criteria.

[Bias, percent bias (unstandardized values); O/E, observed (O) divided by expected (E) values (that is, O/E ratio; unstandardized values); 

SD, standard deviation; NSE, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (unstandardized values); Comp, composite performance criterion (0 to 4, higher score 

indicates superior performance); ModelPerf, model performance (very good [comp≥3.40], good [3.10≤comp<3.40], fair [2.70≤comp<3.10], 

and poor [comp<2.70])]

Metric (table 1) Biasa Mean O/Eb SD O/E NSEc Comp ModelPerfd

P50 0.37 0.92 0.43 0.93 3.419 Very good.

CV_FLOW -0.58 0.99 0.23 0.78 3.531 Very good.

AVG_JAN -1.06 0.95 0.48 0.96 3.413 Very good.

AVG_FEB -0.53 0.96 0.45 0.95 3.46 Very good.

AVG_MAR -0.6 0.97 0.56 0.94 3.356 Good.

AVG_APR -1.31 0.95 0.35 0.93 3.512 Very good.

AVG_MAY -1.49 0.95 0.39 0.87 3.409 Very good.

AVG_JUN -1.26 0.95 0.44 0.88 3.385 Good.

AVG_JUL 1.51 0.96 0.47 0.87 3.355 Good.

AVG_AUG 3.45 0.97 0.53 0.8 3.202 Good.

AVG_SEP 2.52 0.97 0.55 0.79 3.18 Good.

AVG_OCT 0.93 0.97 0.48 0.88 3.362 Good.

AVG_NOV -0.42 0.94 0.43 0.95 3.459 Very good.

AVG_DEC -1.37 0.94 0.46 0.95 3.417 Very good.

PUL_NO_P90 0.25 0.98 0.26 0.82 3.54 Very good.

PUL_NO_P75 0.43 0.98 0.26 0.81 3.529 Very good.

PUL_NO_P25 2.22 1.01 0.55 0.57 2.985 Fair.

PUL_NO_P10 0.77 1.01 0.8 0.54 2.712 Fair.

P10 2.15 0.87 0.63 0.77 2.997 Fair.

P90 -1.59 0.94 0.32 0.94 3.55 Very good.

PER_BSFL -5.96 0.89 0.85 0.07 2.051 Poor.

PUL_LEN_P10 -3.03 0.96 0.38 0.45 3 Fair.

PUL_LEN_P25 -4.85 0.95 0.35 0.49 3.049 Fair.

PUL_LEN_P75 -3.04 0.96 0.36 0.69 3.269 Good.

PUL_LEN_P90 -2.79 0.96 0.36 0.72 3.293 Good.

PUL_FLOW_P10 2.04 0.85 0.63 0.76 2.964 Fair.

PUL_FLOW_P25 2.39 0.89 0.58 0.8 3.09 Fair.

PUL_FLOW_P75 -1.17 0.97 0.33 0.94 3.572 Very good.

PUL_FLOW_P90 -1.22 0.97 0.33 0.94 3.573 Very good.

a

Moriasi and others (2007).

b

Carlisle and others (2011).

c

Nash and Sutcliffe (1970).

d

Eng and others (in press, table 1).
10 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Alteration of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile was 

less evident. For the average annual number of such pulses, 

a minimally altered condition was indicated for 74 percent of 

the streamgages. The remaining 26 percent was split equally 

between streamgages with a diminished and an inflated condition (table 5). Streamgages with a decreased number of such 

pulses typically were in the western half of Kansas (fig. 18, at 

the back of this report). For the average duration and average 

magnitude of pulses less than the 25th percentile, similar conditions were indicated, as follows: minimally altered, mean of 

61.5 percent; diminished, mean of 13 percent; inflated, mean 

of 12.5 percent; and not computed, 13 percent (table 5). The 

locations of streamgages with a diminished, inflated, or minimally altered condition for the duration and magnitude of flow 

pulses less than the 25th percentile are provided in figures 19 

and 20, at the back of this report.

Annual High-Flow Metrics

Annual high-flow metrics assessed were the average 

number, duration, and magnitude of flow pulses greater than 

the 75th and 90th percentiles. In Kansas, there was considerable alteration of flow pulses greater than both percentiles.

For the average annual number of pulses greater than 

the 75th percentile, a diminished condition was indicated for 

26 percent of the streamgages, most of which were in the 

western half of Kansas. Conversely, an inflated condition was 

indicated for 25 percent of the streamgages, most of which 

were in the eastern half of Kansas (fig. 21, at the back of this 

report; table 6). For the remaining streamgages, a minimally 

altered condition was indicated.

The average duration of flow pulses greater than the 

75th percentile was minimally altered for 71 percent of the 

streamgages. An inflated and diminished condition was indicated for 23 percent and 6 percent of the streamgages, respectively (table 6). Frequently, especially in western Kansas, 

streamgages with an inflated condition for average duration 

also had a diminished condition for the average annual number 

of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile (figs. 21 and 

22, at the back of this report). Thus, at those sites, such flow 

pulses occurred less often but lasted longer compared with 

what would be expected for a least-disturbed condition.

Table 4. Summary of alteration of mean monthly flows for 

129 streamgages in Kansas.

[%, percent rounded to nearest whole number. As a result of rounding error, 

the percentages for a given month may not sum to 100]

Month

Number of streamgages

Diminished 

condition

Minimally

altered 

condition

Inflated 

condition

January 44 (34%) 80 (62%) 5 (4%)

February 37 (29%) 89 (69%) 3 (2%)

March 50 (39%) 76 (59%) 3 (2%)

April 37 (29%) 83 (64%) 9 (7%)

May 35 (27%) 88 (68%) 6 (5%)

June 39 (30%) 83 (64%) 7 (5%)

July 19 (15%) 104 (81%) 6 (5%)

August 18 (14%) 80 (62%) 31 (24%)

September 39 (30%) 84 (65%) 6 (5%)

October 38 (29%) 88 (68%) 3 (2%)

November 39 (30%) 86 (67%) 4 (3%)

December 40 (31%) 76 (59%) 13 (10%)

12-month mean 36 (28%) 85 (66%) 8 (6%)

Table 5. Summary of alteration of annual low-flow metrics for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

[%, percent rounded to nearest whole number. As a result of rounding error, the percentages for a given flow metric may 

not sum to 100. na, not applicable]

Metric (table 1)

Number of streamgages

Diminished 

condition

Minimally altered 

condition

Inflated 

condition

Not 

computed

PUL_NO_P10a 29 (22%) 53 (41%) 47 (36%) na

PUL_LEN_P10b 33 (26%) 60 (47%) 7 (5%) 29 (22%)

PUL_FLOW_P10c 20 (16%) 56 (43%) 24 (19%) 29 (22%)

PUL_NO_P25d 17 (13%) 95 (74%) 17 (13%) na

PUL_LEN_P25e 18 (14%) 79 (61%) 15 (12%) 17 (13%)

PUL_FLOW_P25f 15 (12%) 80 (62%) 17 (13%) 17 (13%)

aAverage annual number of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile.

bAverage duration of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile.

cAverage magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile, normalized by drainage area.

dAverage annual number of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile.

eAverage duration of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile.

fAverage magnitude of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile, normalized by drainage area.
Effects of Human Disturbances on Streamflow and Habitat Implications 11

The average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 

75th percentile was minimally altered for 61 percent of the 

streamgages. A diminished condition was indicated for 37 percent of the streamgages (table 6). Most of the streamgages 

with a diminished condition were in the western half of Kansas (fig. 23, at the back of this report). An inflated condition 

was indicated for the remaining 2 percent of the streamgages 

(table 6).

Considerable alteration also was evident for flow pulses 

greater than the 90th percentile. For the average annual 

number of such pulses, streamgages with a minimally altered, 

diminished, and inflated condition accounted for 48, 35, and 

17 percent, respectively (fig. 24, at the back of this report; 

table 6). For the average duration of such pulses, streamgages 

with a minimally altered, diminished, and inflated condition 

accounted for 36, 58, and 6 percent, respectively (fig. 25, at 

the back of this report; table 6). For the average magnitude of 

such pulses, the indicated conditions were minimally altered, 

58 percent; diminished, 40 percent; and inflated, 2 percent 

(table 6). Most of the streamgages with a diminished condition for average magnitude were in the western half of Kansas 

(fig. 26, at the back of this report).

Other Annual Flow Metrics

Five additional annual flow metrics that were assessed 

were percentage of flow that is base flow, 10th percentile flow 

normalized by drainage area, median flow normalized by 

drainage area, 90th percentile flow normalized by drainage 

area, and coefficient of variation of daily flows. For the percentage of flow that is base flow, a minimally altered condition was indicated for 81 percent of the streamgages (fig. 27, 

at the back of this report; table 7). Indicated conditions for 

the 10th percentile flow were minimally altered, 72 percent 

of streamgages; diminished, 12 percent; and inflated, 16 percent (table 7). For median flow, the indicated conditions were 

minimally altered, 73 percent; diminished, 20 percent; and 

inflated, 7 percent. Streamgages with a diminished condition for 10th percentile and median flow typically were in the 

western half of Kansas (figs. 28 and 29, at the back of this 

report). Throughout the State, 90th percentile flow typically 

was decreased as evidenced by a diminished condition that 

was indicated for 81 percent of the streamgages (fig. 30, at the 

back of this report; table 7). For the coefficient of variation 

of daily flows, a minimally altered condition was indicated 

for 73 percent of the streamgages (fig. 31, at the back of this 

report; table 7).

Effects of Human Disturbances on 

Streamflow and Habitat Implications

Human disturbances that have altered streamflow in 

Kansas can be categorized as regional and local. Regional disturbances include groundwater pumping from the High Plains 

aquifer and agricultural land-management practices. Local disturbances include reservoirs and urbanization. In the following 

sections, streamflow alteration in response to each of these 

disturbances is discussed and the possible habitat implications 

are briefly described.

Table 6. Summary of alteration of annual high-flow metrics for 

129 streamgages in Kansas.

[%, percent rounded to nearest whole number. As a result of rounding error, 

the percentages for a given flow metric may not sum to 100]

Metric (table 1)

Number of streamgages

Diminished 

condition

Minimally 

altered 

condition

Inflated 

condition

PUL_NO_P75a 33 (26%) 64 (50%) 32 (25%)

PUL_LEN_P75b 8 (6%) 91 (71%) 30 (23%)

PUL_FLOW_P75c 48 (37%) 79 (61%) 2 (2%)

PUL_NO_P90d 45 (35%) 62 (48%) 22 (17%)

PUL_LEN_P90e 75 (58%) 46 (36%) 8 (6%)

PUL_FLOW_P90f 52 (40%) 75 (58%) 2 (2%)

a

Average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile.

b

Average duration of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile.

c

Average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile, 

normalized by drainage area.

d

Average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile.

e

Average duration of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile.

f

Average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile, normalized by drainage area.

Table 7. Summary of alteration of other annual flow metrics for 

129 streamgages in Kansas.

[%, percent rounded to nearest whole number. As a result of rounding error, 

the percentages for a given flow metric may not sum to 100]

Metric (table 1)

Number of streamgages

Diminished 

condition

Minimally 

altered 

condition

Inflated 

condition

PER_BSFLa 11 (9%) 105 (81%) 13 (10%)

P10b 15 (12%) 93 (72%) 21 (16%)

P50c 26 (20%) 94 (73%) 9 (7%)

P90d 104 (81%) 25 (19%) 0 (0%)

CV_FLOWe 20 (16%) 94 (73%) 15 (12%)

a

Percentage of flow that is base flow.

b

Tenth percentile flow normalized by drainage area.

c

Median annual flow normalized by drainage area.

d

Ninetieth percentile flow normalized by drainage area.

e

Coefficient of variation of daily flows.
12 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Groundwater Pumping from the High Plains 

Aquifer

Groundwater withdrawals can cause groundwater-level 

declines and decreased groundwater contributions to streams, 

which can result in a reduction of streamflow (Winter, 2007; 

Barlow and Leake, 2012). Long-term and extensive pumping 

from the High Plains aquifer for irrigation is the primary cause 

of substantial groundwater-level declines in parts of western 

and central Kansas (Gutentag and others, 1984; Young and 

others, 2005; Whittemore and others, 2016) (fig. 2).

Groundwater pumping from the High Plains aquifer 

likely was responsible, in part, for the regional pattern of 

diminished streamflow conditions indicated for western and 

central Kansas. Support for this statement is twofold. First, 

the geographic distribution of streamgages with a diminished 

condition for multiple flow metrics generally corresponded 

with the area underlain by the High Plains aquifer and adjacent 

downstream areas (for example, see figs. 3, 7, 20, and 29). 

Second, there was no pronounced decreasing trend in annual 

precipitation (see the “Description of Kansas” section) that 

could account for the regional pattern of diminished streamflow conditions in western and central Kansas. A decreasing 

streamflow trend for several western Kansas streams has been 

documented (Rasmussen and Perry, 2001; Dodds and others, 

2004; Gido and others, 2010; Juracek, 2015).

Agricultural Land-Management Practices

Historically, agricultural land-management practices 

have had a pronounced effect on streamflow. In response to 

the initial conversion of grassland and forest to cropland, 

infiltration decreased and surface runoff increased, resulting in 

an increased magnitude of high flows (Knox, 2001). Subsequently, as land-management practices improved in response 

to the need to decrease soil erosion and loss, infiltration 

increased and surface runoff decreased, resulting in increased 

base flow and a decreased magnitude of high flows (Potter, 

1991; Gebert and Krug, 1996; Kramer and others, 1999; Knox, 

2001). Included among the practices implemented to decrease 

runoff and increase infiltration were terraces, contour plowing, 

and conservation tillage (Zhang and Schilling, 2006; Juckem 

and others, 2008).

In Kansas, agricultural land-management practices likely 

have affected streamflows. In a study of rainfall-runoff relations, Jordan (1982) cited farm ponds, terraces, and changes in 

tillage methods as likely contributing factors for decreases in 

streamflow in several western Kansas streams. More recently, 

Putnam and others (2008) cited practices such as contour 

plowing and terraces as possible contributing factors for a 

progressive decrease in the runoff-to-precipitation ratio during 

historical droughts in the State. The effect of changing landmanagement practices possibly was indicated by several flow 

metrics. Case in point, for a number of streamgages in central 

and eastern Kansas, an inflated condition was indicated for the 

average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile 

(fig. 17). The inflated condition for this metric may, in part, 

be attributable to increased base flow. A diminished condition 

for the average duration of flow pulses greater than the 90th 

percentile (fig. 25) and the magnitude of 90th percentile flow 

(fig. 30) was indicated for the majority of streamgages statewide. The diminished condition for these two metrics may, 

in part, be attributable to increased infiltration and decreased 

surface runoff associated with the implementation of improved 

land-management practices.

Reservoirs

A large reservoir can substantially alter the natural flow 

regime downstream from the dam. Typically, the magnitude of peak flows is reduced (Graf, 2006). Other possible 

downstream changes include an increase or decrease in the 

magnitude of low flows, an artificial flow regime characterized by abrupt increases and decreases in flow, a change in 

the temporal distribution of flows, and extended periods of no 

flow (Williams and Wolman, 1984; Kondolf, 1997; Magilligan 

and Nislow, 2005).

In this study, streamflow alteration downstream from 

20 large reservoirs in Kansas was assessed using the first 

streamgage downstream from each dam (fig. 32). The assessment revealed pronounced differences in downstream flow 

alteration between reservoirs in western and eastern Kansas. 

Thus, for the purpose of discussion, the reservoirs were split 

into a western group (consisting of 8 reservoirs) and an eastern 

group (consisting of 12 reservoirs) (fig. 32).

In general, mean monthly flows downstream from the 

8 western reservoirs were diminished, whereas such flows 

were minimally altered downstream from the 12 eastern reservoirs. For the western reservoirs, the percentage of downstream streamgages with a diminished condition ranged from 

37 percent for July and August to 100 percent for March, with 

an all-month average of 68 percent. Conversely, for the eastern 

reservoirs, the percentage of downstream streamgages that 

were minimally altered ranged from 58 percent for September 

to 100 percent for four different months, with an all-month 

average of 86 percent (table 8).

Comparison of the western and eastern reservoirs using 

the annual low-flow metrics was constrained as the average 

duration and magnitude of low-flow pulses could not be computed downstream from several western reservoirs because 

of an absence of flow. For the eastern reservoirs, a minimally 

altered condition typically was indicated for the downstream 

streamgages for the average magnitude of pulses less than the 

10th percentile (67 percent of streamgages). Likewise, for flow 

pulses less than the 25th percentile, a minimally altered condition typically was indicated for the average number (83 percent), average duration (67 percent), and average magnitude 

(75 percent). For the average duration of flow pulses less than 

the 10th percentile, a diminished condition typically (67 percent) was indicated for the eastern reservoirs (table 8).
Effects of Human Disturbances on Streamflow and Habitat Implications 13

Table 8. Summary of streamflow alteration downstream from 20 large reservoirs in Kansas.

[%, percent rounded to nearest whole number. As a result of rounding error, the percentages for a given flow metric may not sum to 100]

Metric (table 1)

Streamgages downstream from eight western 

Kansas reservoirs (fig. 32)

Streamgages downstream from twelve eastern 

Kansas reservoirs (fig. 32)

Diminished 

condition

Minimally 

altered condition

Inflated 

condition

Diminished 

condition

Minimally 

altered condition

Inflated 

condition

AVG_JAN 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 10 (83%) 1 (8%)

AVG_FEB 7 (88%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%) 0 (0%)

AVG_MAR 8 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 9 (75%) 0 (0%)

AVG_APR 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 11 (92%) 0 (0%)

AVG_MAY 7 (88%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%) 0 (0%)

AVG_JUN 7 (88%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 (92%) 1 (8%)

AVG_JUL 3 (37%) 5 (63%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 (92%) 1 (8%)

AVG_AUG 3 (37%) 3 (37%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 8 (67%) 4 (33%)

AVG_SEP 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%) 0 (0%)

AVG_OCT 5 (63%) 3 (37%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%) 0 (0%)

AVG_NOV 5 (63%) 3 (37%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%) 0 (0%)

AVG_DEC 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 8 (67%) 3 (25%)

PUL_NO_P10 4 (50%) 1 (12%) 3 (37%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 7 (58%)

PUL_LEN_P10a 1 (12%) 2 (25%) 1 (12%) 8 (67%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%)

PUL_FLOW_P10a 1 (12%) 3 (37%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 8 (67%) 2 (17%)

PUL_NO_P25 2 (25%) 5 (63%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 10 (83%) 2 (17%)

PUL_LEN_P25a 1 (12%) 3 (37%) 2 (25%) 3 (25%) 8 (67%) 1 (8%)

PUL_FLOW_P25a 3 (37%) 2 (25%) 1 (12%) 2 (17%) 9 (75%) 1 (8%)

PUL_NO_P75 6 (75%) 1 (12%) 1 (12%) 3 (25%) 8 (67%) 1 (8%)

PUL_LEN_P75 2 (25%) 1 (12%) 5 (63%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%)

PUL_FLOW_P75 7 (88%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%) 0 (0%)

PUL_NO_P90 7 (88%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 8 (67%) 4 (33%) 0 (0%)

PUL_LEN_P90 1 (12%) 4 (50%) 3 (37%) 0 (0%) 9 (75%) 3 (25%)

PUL_FLOW_P90 7 (88%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 11 (92%) 0 (0%)

PER_BSFL 0 (0%) 8 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (83%) 2 (17%)

P10 4 (50%) 3 (37%) 1 (12%) 2 (17%) 9 (75%) 1 (8%)

P50 5 (63%) 3 (37%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 11 (92%) 0 (0%)

P90 8 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 9 (75%) 0 (0%)

CV_FLOW 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 (0%) 11 (92%) 1 (8%)

a

Metric not computed for some streamgages because of an absence of flow.
14 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

For the annual high-flow metrics, a comparison of the 

western and eastern reservoirs revealed similarities and differences. In terms of the average number of flow pulses greater 

than the 75th percentile, a diminished condition typically 

(75 percent) was indicated for streamgages downstream from 

the western reservoirs, whereas a minimally altered condition 

typically (67 percent) was indicated for streamgages downstream from the eastern reservoirs. For the average duration of 

such pulses, an inflated condition was indicated for the majority of streamgages downstream from the western and eastern 

reservoirs (63 percent and 58 percent, respectively). The 

increased duration may be reflective of reservoir operational 

practices intended to manage downstream flood risk by releasing high flows over an extended period of time. The average 

magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile was 

minimally altered for the eastern reservoirs (100 percent of 

downstream streamgages) and typically diminished for the 

western reservoirs (88 percent of downstream streamgages) 

(table 8).

Flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile were similar 

for the western and eastern reservoirs in terms of the average 

number and duration of pulses but divergent for the average 

magnitude. For the average number of such pulses, a diminished condition typically (88 and 67 percent, respectively) was 

indicated for streamgages downstream from the western and 

eastern reservoirs. For the average duration, the indicated condition for both the western and eastern reservoirs typically was 

either minimally altered (largest percentage of downstream 

streamgages) or inflated. The average magnitude of flow 

pulses greater than the 90th percentile typically was minimally 

altered (92 percent) for streamgages downstream from the 

eastern reservoirs and typically diminished (88 percent) for 

streamgages downstream from the western reservoirs (table 8).

A minimally altered condition typically was indicated for 

the streamgages downstream from the eastern reservoirs for 

the base flow, 10th percentile flow, median flow, 90th percentile flow, and coefficient of variation annual metrics (table 8). 

For the western reservoirs, streamflow alteration was apparent. 

Of particular note was the diminished condition indicated for 

annual median flow (63 percent of downstream streamgages) 

and annual 90th percentile flow (100 percent) (table 8).

Overall, the assessment of streamflow alteration downstream from the 20 large reservoirs indicated a diminished 

condition for the 8 western reservoirs and a minimally altered 

condition for the 12 eastern reservoirs. At least two factors 

may, in part, account for the diminished condition downstream 

from the western reservoirs. One factor is diversion of water 

for irrigation and (or) municipal use at and (or) upstream from 

Verdigris Ri ver

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican River

NeoshoRiver

Solomon River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

EXPLANATION

Western

Eastern

Reservoir

U.S. Geological Survey

 streamgage and identifier

 (table 2)

fig32

8 11

14

19

23

29

32

35

46

54

69 75

98

113

115

120

122

126

Big Hill Lake

K Lovewell Reservoir eith Sebelius Lake

Kirwin Reservoir

Waconda Lake Webster Reservoir

Wilson Lake

Cedar Bluff Reservoir Kanopolis Lake

Tuttle Creek Lake

Perry Lake

Clinton Lake

Council Grove Lake

Pomona Lake

Marion Lake

John Redmond Reservoir

Fall River Lake

Elk City Lake

Cheney Reservoir

Kansas

8 11

14

19

23

29

32

35

46

54

56

69

98

113

115

117

117

120

122

126

Hillsdale 

Lake

Figure 32. Large reservoirs and selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in Kansas.
Summary and Conclusions 15

the reservoirs. A second factor is reservoir operational practices (for example, suppression of high flows by controlled 

releases).

Urbanization

The effects of urbanization on streamflow can be pronounced. In general, the increased percentage of impervious 

surfaces and more efficient drainage systems characteristic 

of urban areas result in an increased volume of runoff for a 

given rainfall and a flashier flow regime typified by shorter lag 

times and more frequent and higher peak discharges (Knighton, 1998; Rose and Peters, 2001). Heterogeneity in hydrologic response to urbanization also has been documented. For 

example, in a study of hydrological changes associated with 

urbanization in nine major cities in the United States, Hopkins 

and others (2015) determined that hydrologic response in similarly urbanized areas varied in relation to basin physical characteristics. Specifically, they found that urbanized basins with 

level slopes and high soil permeability, compared to similarly 

urbanized basins with steep slopes and low soil permeability, 

had fewer high-flow events, lower peak magnitudes, longer 

high-flow durations, and a less flashy flow regime.

Of all the streamgages included in this streamflow alteration study, only three were within basins that were predominantly urbanized. The three streamgages, all in the Kansas 

City metropolitan area in Johnson County, Kansas, were 

site 60 (about 70 percent urban) and sites 63 and 64 (both 

nearly 100 percent urban; fig. 1; Peterson and others, 2010). 

Site 60 is on Mill Creek and sites 63 and 64 are along Indian 

Creek.

Streamflow alteration, when indicated, was consistent 

among the three urbanized sites. The alteration included an 

inflated condition for mean monthly flows, especially for 

sites 63 and 64 (tables 1–1 to 1–3). For these two sites, an 

inflated condition was indicated for at least one and typically 

both of the sites for all 12 months. The inflated condition at 

these two sites may, in part, be attributable to discharges from 

municipal wastewater treatment facilities (Rasmussen and 

Gatotho, 2014) as well as other possible factors, including 

leaky infrastructure (for example, water-supply and sewage 

pipes; Bhaskar and others, 2016).

Flow pulses were substantially altered. For flow pulses 

less than the 10th and 25th percentiles, an inflated condition 

was indicated for the average number and average magnitude 

and a diminished condition was indicated for the average duration for all three sites (tables 1–4 and 1–5). Likewise, for flow 

pulses greater than the 75th and 90th percentiles, an inflated 

condition was indicated for the average number and a diminished condition was indicated for the average duration for all 

three sites (tables 1–6 and 1–7). However, an inflated condition for the average magnitude was only indicated for sites 63 

and 64. Overall, a flashier flow regime was indicated for the 

three urbanized sites compared with what would be expected 

for a least-disturbed condition. Other changes indicated for all 

three sites were an inflated condition for the 10th percentile 

flow and median flow and a diminished condition for the coefficient of variation of daily flows (table 1–8).

Habitat Implications

A natural flow regime is essential to provide the diversity of habitat conditions necessary to maintain the ecological integrity of streams (Poff and others, 1997; Bunn and 

Arthington, 2002). Alteration of the natural flow regime can 

have adverse consequences for resident aquatic organisms. For 

example, in an extensive review of flow alteration and ecological response, Poff and Zimmerman (2010) determined that fish 

abundance and diversity consistently decreased in response to 

flow alteration (both increased and decreased flow magnitude) 

and the risk of ecological change increased as the magnitude 

of flow alteration increased. In a study of about 250 sites 

throughout the conterminous United States, Carlisle and others 

(2011) concluded that the likelihood of impairment for fish 

and macroinvertebrate communities doubled with increasing 

severity of reduced minimum and maximum flows.

For Kansas, the evidence provided by this study indicated 

that multiple human disturbances, singly and in combination, 

have caused widespread streamflow alteration. In general, 

streamflow alteration has negative ecological effects, including 

a loss of habitat and (or) a decline in the quality of available 

habitat. Possible consequences of lost and degraded habitat 

include a loss of native species, an increase in nonnative species, and a less diverse assemblage of aquatic biota dominated 

by disturbance-tolerant species (Walsh and others, 2005; Gido 

and others, 2010; Hoagstrom and others, 2011; Perkin and 

others, 2015). For the State-listed threatened Arkansas darter 

(Etheostoma cragini) (Haslouer and others, 2005), streamflow 

alteration, in particular flow depletion, likely has adversely 

affected the availability and quality of habitat in the State 

(Juracek and others, 2017). 

Summary and Conclusions

A 1.5-year modeling study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, 

Parks and Tourism and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was 

begun in 2016 to assess streamflow alteration at 129 selected 

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage sites in Kansas for which 

requisite streamflow and basin-characteristic information was 

available. The purpose of the assessment was to quantify and 

explain streamflow alteration through a comparison of the 

observed condition (1980 to 2015) with the predicted expected 

(least-disturbed) condition using 29 metrics that accounted 

for various aspects of streamflow. For each metric at each 

streamgage, the determined condition was characterized as 

diminished, minimally altered, or inflated. Results of the 

assessment are summarized below:
16 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

•	 For mean monthly streamflow, a minimally altered 

condition was indicated for an average of 66 percent 

of the streamgages for every month. On average, a 

diminished condition was indicated for 28 percent of 

the streamgages each month. Typically, streamgages 

with a diminished condition for mean monthly flow 

were in the western half of Kansas.

•	 Alteration of the average annual number, duration, and 

magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile 

was evident statewide. For the average annual number of such pulses, streamgages with a diminished 

condition typically were in the western half of Kansas 

and streamgages with an inflated condition typically 

were in central and eastern Kansas.

•	 For the average annual number, duration, and magnitude of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile, a 

minimally altered condition typically was indicated. 

Streamgages with a diminished condition for the 

average annual number of such pulses typically were 

in the western half of Kansas.

•	 Pronounced alteration was indicated for flow pulses 

greater than the 75th percentile. For the average 

annual number of such pulses, streamgages with a 

diminished condition typically were in the western 

half of Kansas and streamgages with an inflated 

condition typically were in the eastern half of Kansas. 

A diminished condition for the average magnitude of 

such pulses typically was indicated for streamgages 

in the western half of Kansas.

•	 Pronounced alteration was indicated for flow pulses 

greater than the 90th percentile. For the average duration of such pulses, streamgages with a diminished 

condition were throughout the State. For the average magnitude of such pulses, streamgages with a 

diminished condition mostly were in the western half 

of Kansas.

•	 A minimally altered condition typically was indicated 

for the following annual flow metrics: percentage of 

flow that is base flow, 10th percentile flow normalized by drainage area, median flow normalized by 

drainage area, and coefficient of variation of daily 

flows. Although, for median flow, a diminished 

condition was indicated for multiple streamgages in 

western Kansas.

•	 For 90th percentile flow normalized by drainage area, 

a diminished condition was indicated for the majority 

(81 percent) of streamgages throughout the State.

•	 Given the absence of a pronounced trend in annual precipitation in Kansas, a precipitation-related explanation for streamflow alteration was not supported.

•	 Groundwater pumping from the High Plains aquifer 

likely was responsible, in part, for diminished flow 

conditions in western and central Kansas.

•	 The implementation of agricultural land-management 

practices to reduce runoff may have been responsible, 

in part, for the diminished duration and magnitude of 

high flows indicated for many streamgages throughout the State. In addition, such practices may have 

been partly responsible for an inflated magnitude 

of low flows at several streamgages in central and 

eastern Kansas.

•	 In general, for streamgages downstream from 20 large 

reservoirs, a diminished flow condition was indicated 

for the 8 western reservoirs and a minimally altered 

flow condition was indicated for the 12 eastern reservoirs.

•	 For the three streamgages within a predominantly 

urban basin, a flashier flow regime was indicated 

compared with what would be expected for a leastdisturbed condition.

References Cited

Bailey, R.C., Norris, R.H., and Reynoldson, T.B., 2004, Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems—Using the reference 

condition approach: Norwell, Mass., Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, 170 p.

Barlow, P.M., and Leake, S.A., 2012, Streamflow depletion by 

wells—Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1376, 84 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/publication/cir1376.]

Bhaskar, A.S., Beesley, L., Burns, M.J., Fletcher, T.D., Hamel, 

P., Oldham, C.E., and Roy, A.H., 2016, Will it rise or will 

it fall?—Managing the complex effects of urbanization on 

base flow: Freshwater Science, v. 35, no. 1, p. 293–310.

Brunsell, N.A., Jones, A.R., Jackson, T.L., and Feddema, J.J., 

2010, Seasonal trends in air temperature and precipitation in 

IPCC AR4 GCM output for Kansas, USA—Evaluation and 

implications: International Journal of Climatology, v. 30, 

no. 8, p. 1178–1193.

Bunn, S.E., and Arthington, A.H., 2002, Basic principles and 

ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic 

biodiversity: Environmental Management, v. 30, no. 4, 

p. 492–507.
References Cited 17

Carlisle, D.M., Falcone, James, Wolock, D.M., Meador, 

M.R., and Norris, R.H., 2010, Predicting the natural flow 

regime—Models for assessing hydrological alteration in 

streams: River Research and Applications, v. 26, no. 2, 

p. 118–136.

Carlisle, D.M., Wolock, D.M., and Meador, M.R., 2011, 

Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences—A multiregional assessment: Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment, v. 9, no. 5, p. 264–270.

Cutler, D.R., Edwards, T.C., Jr., Beard, K.H., Cutler, Adele, 

Hess, K.T., Gibson, Jacob, and Lawler, J.J., 2007, Random 

forests for classification in ecology: Ecology, v. 88, no. 11, 

p. 2783–2792.

Dodds, W.K., Gido, Keith, Whiles, M.R., Fritz, K.M., and 

Matthews, W.J., 2004, Life on the edge—The ecology 

of Great Plains prairie streams: BioScience, v. 54, no. 3, 

p. 205–216.

Eng, Ken, Grantham, T.E., Carlisle, D.M., and Wolock, D.M., 

in press, Predictability and selection of hydrologic metrics 

in riverine ecohydrology: Freshwater Sciences. 

Eng, Ken, and Milly, P.C.D., 2007, Relating low-flow characteristics to the base flow recession time constant at partial 

record stream gauges: Water Resources Research, v. 43, 

no. 1, W01201, accessed March 23, 2016, at https://doi.

org/10.1029/2006WR005293.

Falcone, J.A., 2011, GAGES–II—Geospatial attributes of 

gages for evaluating streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey 

dataset, accessed June 23, 2016, at https://water.usgs.gov/

GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/gagesII_Sept2011.xml.

Falcone, J.A., Carlisle, D.M., Wolock, D.M., and Meador, 

M.R., 2010, GAGES—A stream gage database for evaluating natural and altered flow conditions in the conterminous 

United States: Ecology, v. 91, no. 2, p. 621.

Gebert, W.A., and Krug, W.R., 1996, Streamflow trends in 

Wisconsin’s driftless area: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 32, 

no. 4, p. 733–744.

Gido, K.B., Dodds, W.K., and Eberle, M.E., 2010, Retrospective analysis of fish community change during a 

half-century of landuse and streamflow changes: Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society, v. 29, no. 3, 

p. 970–987.

Graf, W.L., 2006, Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic 

effects of large dams on American rivers: Geomorphology, 

v. 79, nos. 3–4, p. 336–360.

Granato, G.E., 2009, Computer programs for obtaining and 

analyzing daily mean streamflow data from the U. S. Geological Survey National Water Information System web site: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1362, 8 p., 

appendixes, 1 CD–ROM. [Also available at https://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20081362.]

Gutentag, E.D., Heimes, F.J., Krothe, N.C., Luckey, R.R., and 

Weeks, J.B., 1984, Geohydrology of the High Plains aquifer 

in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1400–B, 63 p. [Also available at 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1400B.]

Haslouer, S.G., Eberle, M.E., Edds, D.R., Gido, K.B., Mammoliti, C.S., Triplett, J.R., Collins, J.T., Distler, D.A., Huggins, D.G., and Stark, W.J., 2005, Current status of native 

fish species in Kansas: Transactions of the Kansas Academy 

of Science, v. 108, p. 32–46. 

Hoagstrom, C.W., Brooks, J.E., and Davenport, S.R., 2011, A 

large-scale conservation perspective considering endemic 

fishes of the North American plains: Biological Conservation, v. 144, no. 1, p. 21–34.

Hopkins, K.G., Morse, N.B., Bain, D.J., Bettez, N.D., Grimm, 

N.B., Morse, J.L., Palta, M.M., Shuster, W.D., Bratt, A.R., 

and Suchy, A.K., 2015, Assessment of regional variation in 

streamflow responses to urbanization and the persistence of 

physiography: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 49, 

no. 5, p. 2724–2732.

Jaiantilal, Abhishek, 2009, randomforest-matlab: Google Code 

open source, accessed June 2, 2011, at http://code.google.

com/p/randomforest-matlab/.

Jin, Suming, Yang, Limin, Danielson, Patrick, Homer, Collin, Fry, Joyce, and Xian, George, 2013, A comprehensive 

change detection method for updating the National Land 

Cover Database to circa 2011: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 132, p. 159–175.

Jordan, P.R., 1982, Rainfall-runoff relations and expected 

streamflow in western Kansas: Kansas Water Office Bulletin 

25, 42 p.

Juckem, P.F., Hunt, R.J., Anderson, M.P., and Robertson, 

D.M., 2008, Effects of climate and land management 

change on streamflow in the driftless area of Wisconsin: 

Journal of Hydrology, v. 355, nos. 1–4, p. 123–130.

Juracek, K.E., 2015, Streamflow characteristics and trends at 

selected streamgages in southwest and south-central Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2015–5167, 20 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/

sir20155167.]
18 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Juracek, K.E., Eng, Ken, Carlisle, D.M., and Wolock, D.M., 

2017, Streamflow alteration and habitat ramifications for a 

threatened fish species in the central United States: River 

Research and Applications. [Also available at https://doi.

org/10.1002/rra.3148. ]

Kansas Water Resources Board, 1958, State water plan studies; Part A—Preliminary appraisal of Kansas water problems; Section 2—Cimarron unit: Kansas Water Resources 

Board, 124 p.

Kansas Water Resources Board, 1960, State water plan 

studies; Part A—Preliminary appraisal of Kansas water 

problems; Section 4—Lower Arkansas unit: Kansas Water 

Resources Board, 177 p.

Kennard, M.J., Mackay, S.J., Pusey, B.J., Olden, J.D., and 

Marsh, Nick, 2010, Quantifying uncertainty in estimation 

of hydrologic metrics for ecohydrological studies: River 

Research and Applications, v. 26, no. 2, p. 137–156.

Kenny, J.F., and Juracek, K.E., 2013, Irrigation trends in 

Kansas, 1991–2011: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

2013–3094, 4 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/

fs20133094.]

Knighton, David, 1998, Fluvial forms and processes—A new 

perspective: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 383 p.

Knox, J.C., 2001, Agricultural influence on landscape sensitivity in the upper Mississippi River valley: Catena, v. 42, 

nos. 2–4, p. 193–224.

Kondolf, G.M., 1997, Hungry water—Effects of dams and 

gravel mining on river channels: Environmental Management, v. 21, no. 4, p. 533–551.

Kramer, L.A., Burkart, M.R., Meek, D.W., Jaquis, R.J., and 

James, D.E., 1999, Field-scale watershed evaluations on 

deep-loess soils—II. Hydrologic responses to different 

agricultural land management systems: Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation, v. 54, no. 4, p. 705–710.

Magilligan, F.J., and Nislow, K.H., 2005, Changes in hydrologic regime by dams: Geomorphology, v. 71, nos. 1–2, 

p. 61–78.

McGuire, V.L., 2014, Water-level changes and change in water 

in storage in the High Plains aquifer, predevelopment to 

2013 and 2011–13: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5218, 14 p., data, accessed March 24, 

2016, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20145218.

Moody, D.W., Chase, E.B., and Aronson, D.A., comps., 1986, 

National water summary 1985—Hydrologic events and 

surface-water resources: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2300, 506 p. [Also available at https://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2300.]

Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., 

Harmel, R.D., and Veith, T.L., 2007, Model evaluation 

guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in 

watershed simulations: Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, v. 50, no. 3, 

p. 885–900.

Nash, J.E., and Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970, River flow forecasting 

through conceptual models; Part 1—A discussion of principles: Journal of Hydrology, v. 10, no. 3, p. 282–290.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016, 

1981–2010 U.S. climate normals: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration data, accessed April 2016 at 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-stationdata/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data.

Newman, A.J., Clark, M.P., Sampson, K., Wood, A., Hay, L.E., 

Bock, A., Viger, R.J., Blodgett, D., Brekke, L., Arnold, J.R., 

Hopson, T., and Duan, Q., 2015, Development of a largesample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for 

the contiguous USA—data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, v. 19, no. 1, 

p. 209–223.

Olden, J.D., and Poff, N.L., 2003, Redundancy and the choice 

of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes: 

River Research and Applications, v. 19, no. 2, p. 101–121.

Perkin, J.S., Gido, K.B., Cooper, A.R., Turner, T.F., Osborne, 

M.J., Johnson, E.R., and Mayes, K.B., 2015, Fragmentation 

and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities: Ecological Monographs, v. 85, no. 1, p. 73–92.

Peterson, D.L., Whistler, J.L., Egbert, S.L., and Martinko, 

E.A., 2010, 2005 Kansas land cover patterns; Phase II—

Final report: Kansas Biological Survey Report 167, 49 p.

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—A paradigm for river 

conservation and restoration: BioScience, v. 47, no. 11, 

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, no. 1, p. 194–205.

Potter, K.W., 1991, Hydrological impacts of changing land 

management practices in a moderate-sized agricultural 

catchment: Water Resources Research, v. 27, no. 5, 

p. 845–855.
References Cited 19

Putnam, J.E., Perry, C.A., and Wolock, D.M., 2008, Hydrologic droughts in Kansas—Are they becoming worse?: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3034, 6 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

fs20083034.]

Rasmussen, T.J., and Gatotho, Jackline, 2014, Water-quality 

variability and constituent transport in streams of Johnson 

County, Kansas, using continuous monitoring and regression models, 2003–11: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2013–5221, 53 p., accessed April 

2016 at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20135221.

Rasmussen, T.J., and Perry, C.A., 2001, Trends in peak flows 

of selected streams in Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 2001–4203, 62 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wri014203.]

Rose, Seth, and Peters, N.E., 2001, Effects of urbanization on 

streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA)—A comparative hydrological approach: Hydrological Processes, v. 15, 

no. 8, p. 1441–1457.

Turnipseed, D.P., and Sauer, V.B., 2010, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 3, chap. A8, 87 p. [Also available 

at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/tm3A8.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, USGS water data for the 

nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information 

System web interface, accessed June 1, 2016, at https://doi.

org/10.5066/F7P55KJN.

Walsh, C.J., 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 the search for a 

cure: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 

v. 24, no. 3, p. 706–723.

Walsh, John; Wuebbles, Donald; Hayhoe, Katharine; Kossin, 

James; Kunkel, Kenneth; Stephens, Graeme; Thorne, Peter; 

Vose, Russell; Wehner, Michael; Willis, Josh; Anderson, 

David; Doney, Scott; Feely, Richard; Hennon, Paula; Kharin, Viatcheslav; Knutson, Thomas; Landerer, Felix; Lenton, 

Tim; Kennedy, John; and Somerville, Richard, 2014, Our 

changing climate, chap. 2 of Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., 

and Yohe, G.W., eds., Climate change impacts in the United 

States: U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 19–67. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.7930/J0KW5CXT.]

Weeks, J.B., Gutentag, E.D., Heimes, F.J., and Luckey, R.R., 

1988, Summary of the High Plains regional aquifer-system 

analysis in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400–A, 30 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

pp1400A.]

Whittemore, D.O., Butler, J.J., Jr., and Wilson, B.B., 2016, 

Assessing the major drivers of water-level declines—New 

insights into the future of heavily stressed aquifers: Hydrological Sciences Journal, v. 61, no. 1, p. 134–145.

Williams, G.P., and Wolman, M.G., 1984, Downstream effects 

of dams on alluvial rivers: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286, 83 p. [Also available at https://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1286.]

Winter, T.C., 2007, The role of ground water in generating 

streamflow in headwater areas and in maintaining base flow: 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 43, 

no. 1, p. 15–25.

Young, D.P., Macfarlane, P.A., Whittemore, D.O., and Wilson, 

B.B., 2005, Hydrogeologic characteristics and hydrologic 

changes in the Cimarron River Basin, southwestern Kansas: 

Kansas Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–26, 41 p.

Zhang, Y.-K., and Schilling, K.E., 2006, Increasing streamflow 

and baseflow in Mississippi River since the 1940s—Effect 

of land use change: Journal of Hydrology, v. 324, nos. 1–4, 

p. 412–422.

Figures 3–31
22 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 3. Condition of mean January flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

129

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

EXPLANATION

102° 101° 100° 97 96° 99° 98° ° 95° 40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

106

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 January flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig03

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 23

Figure 4. Condition of mean February flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

129

1

2 3

4 5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12 13 14 15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100 101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

EXPLANATION 0 30 60 KILOMETERS

109

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 February flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig04

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
24 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 5. Condition of mean March flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican River

i

Solomon River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 March flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig05

1

2

3

4 5

6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13

14 15

16

17 18 19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36 37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54 55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70 71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96 97 98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 25

Figure 6. Condition of mean April flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

109

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean 

 April flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig06

1

2

3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61

62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90 91

92

93

94 95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
26 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 7. Condition of mean May flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

105

110 119

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 May flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig07

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25 26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62 63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70 71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 27

Figure 8. Condition of mean June flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

r

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 119

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 June flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig08

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85

86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105 106

107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
28 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 9. Condition of mean July flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 118

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 July flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig09

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85

86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 29

Figure 10. Condition of mean August flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 102

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 August flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig10

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65

66

67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96 97 98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
30 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 11. Condition of mean September flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 September flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96 97 98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

fig11

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 31

Figure 12. Condition of mean October flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

109

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 October flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66

67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85

86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94 95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

fig12

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
32 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 13. Condition of mean November flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 November flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100 101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

118 119

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

fig13

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 33

Figure 14. Condition of mean December flow normalized by drainage area for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

110 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Mean

 December flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 13 14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61

62

63 64

65 66

67

68 69

70 71

72

73

74 75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

fig14

112299

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
34 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 15. Condition of the average annual number of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

105

107 109

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 annual number of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983

fig15

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100 101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

118 119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 35

Figure 16. Condition of the average duration of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

110

109 119

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 duration of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

117 Not computed due to absence of flow

fig16

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

124

123 125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
36 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 17. Condition of the average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

110

119 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average 

 flow of pulses less than the 10th percentile, normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

107 Not computed due to absence of flow

fig17

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36 37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51 52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70 71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

99 98

100 101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 37

Figure 18. Condition of the average annual number of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

107 109

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 annual number of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

fig18

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32

33

34 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
38 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 19. Condition of the average duration of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

113 114

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 duration of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig19

Inflated flow condition

107 Not computed due to absence of flow

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13

14 15

16

17 18 19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37 38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 39

Figure 20. Condition of the average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican River

e

Solomon River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

110

117 104

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 flow of pulses less than the 25th percentile, normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig20

Inflated flow condition

107 Not computed due to absence of flow

1

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
40 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 21. Condition of the average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile metric for 129 streamgages 

in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

109

110 104

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 annual number of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile

Diminished flow condition

fig21

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

High Plains 

aquifer

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19 20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46 47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70 71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82 83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 41

Figure 22. Condition of the average duration of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

110

108 117

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 duration of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile

Diminished flow condition

fig22

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4 5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74 75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82 83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
42 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 23. Condition of the average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

109 64

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 flow of pulses greater than the 75th percentile, normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

fig23

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

High Plains 

aquifer

1

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19

20

21

22 23 24 25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 43

Figure 24. Condition of the average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile metric for 129 streamgages 

in Kansas.

r

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

110 106

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 annual number of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile

Diminished flow condition

fig24

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

6566 67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
44 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 25. Condition of the average duration of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

110

105 107

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 duration of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70 71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90 91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109

fig25

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 45

Figure 26. Condition of the average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile metric for 129 streamgages in 

Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Saline River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

110 64

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—Average

 flow of pulses greater than the 90th percentile, normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig26

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

16

17 18

19

20

21

22 23 24 25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69 70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85

86 87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

119 118

120

121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
46 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 27. Condition of the percentage of flow that is base flow metric for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

109 102

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—

 Percentage of flow that is base flow

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig27

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61

62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85

86 87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 47

Figure 28. Condition of the 10th percentile flow normalized by drainage area metric for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

107 99

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—

 10th percentile flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig28

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

16

17 18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68

69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90 91

92

93

94

95

96

97

99 98

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
48 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 29. Condition of the median flow normalized by drainage area metric for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

107 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—

 Median annual flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig29

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34 35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66

67

68

69

70 71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89

90 91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100 101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Figures 3–31 49

Figure 30. Condition of the 90th percentile flow normalized by drainage area metric for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

107 100

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—

 90th percentile flow normalized by drainage area

Diminished flow condition Minimally altered flow condition

fig30

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16

17 18 19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85

86 87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100 101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112 113

114 115

116

117

118 119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
50 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Figure 31. Condition of the coefficient of variation of daily flows metric for 129 streamgages in Kansas.

Wa nl utRiver

Rep u blican Rive

Solom

r

on River

Rive

Sa

r

line River

Smoky Hill River

Arkansas River

CimarronRiver

102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

40°

39°

38°

37°

0 30 60 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N

Central meridian 96°00'W

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

105

109 122

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage and identifier (table 2)—

 Coefficient of variation of daily flows

Diminished flow condition

Minimally altered flow condition

fig31

Inflated flow condition

1

2 3

4 5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36 37 38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68 69

70

71

72 73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82

83

84 85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 99

100

101

102

103

104

105

107 106

108

109 110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

119 118

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

High Plains 

aquifer Kansas

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River
Appendix 1. Observed/Expected (O/E) Ratio 

Values for Streamflow Metrics Assessed in This 

Study
52 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–1. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the January, February, March, and April flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_JAN2 AVG_FEB3 AVG_MAR4 AVG_APR5

1 06814000 1 0.919 0.992 1.009 1.174

2 06827000 2 1.207 0.876 0.166 0.407

3 06844900 2 0.091 0.068 0.167 0.066

4 06845110 2 0.514 0.399 0.199 0.274

5 06846000 2 0.210 0.129 0.058 0.176

6 06846500 1 0.076 0.075 0.036 0.102

7 06847900 1 0.588 0.531 0.534 0.548

8 06848000 2 0.023 0.042 0.031 0.038

9 06848500 2 0.147 0.223 0.156 0.235

10 06853800 1 0.717 0.794 0.639 0.749

11 06854000 2 0.437 0.306 0.314 0.882

12 06860000 2 0.062 0.042 0.011 0.064

13 06861000 2 0.145 0.146 0.040 0.201

14 06862700 2 0.148 0.143 0.073 0.126

15 06862850 2 0.115 0.107 0.074 0.151

16 06863500 2 0.419 0.494 0.520 0.825

17 06864050 2 0.534 0.642 0.433 1.056

18 06864500 2 0.600 0.767 0.562 1.508

19 06865500 2 0.526 0.686 0.341 0.952

20 06866500 2 0.670 0.697 0.472 1.053

21 06866900 2 0.398 0.558 0.170 0.587

22 06867000 2 0.526 0.649 0.652 1.274

23 06868200 2 0.758 0.453 0.317 0.620

24 06869500 2 0.762 0.606 0.577 0.850

25 06869950 1 0.299 0.244 0.234 0.622

26 06870200 2 0.640 0.752 0.685 1.201

27 06871000 2 0.408 0.435 0.363 0.703

28 06871500 2 0.549 0.612 0.482 1.084

29 06871800 2 0.281 0.230 0.143 0.121

30 06872500 2 0.629 0.645 0.615 0.683

31 06873000 2 0.825 0.899 0.627 1.336

32 06873200 2 0.348 0.392 0.275 0.450

33 06873460 2 0.347 0.317 0.228 0.632

34 06874000 2 0.428 0.389 0.307 0.703

35 06875900 2 0.694 0.447 0.300 0.381

36 06876700 1 0.536 0.823 0.694 1.029

37 06876900 2 0.761 0.631 0.420 0.556

38 06877600 2 0.633 0.598 0.446 0.832

39 06878000 1 0.842 0.989 0.813 1.108

40 06879650 1 0.664 0.789 0.987 1.144

41 06882510 2 0.616 0.540 0.630 0.514

42 06884025 2 0.686 0.674 0.571 0.524

43 06884200 2 0.623 0.893 0.754 1.007

44 06884400 2 0.735 0.688 0.584 0.617

45 06885500 1 0.921 1.000 0.881 1.118

46 06887000 2 0.724 0.714 0.496 0.736

47 06888000 1 0.790 0.661 0.599 0.851

48 06888500 1 0.925 0.972 0.992 1.209

49 06889140 1 0.803 0.933 0.939 1.090
Appendix 1 53

Table 1–1. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the January, February, March, and April flow metrics assessed in this study.—

Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_JAN2 AVG_FEB3 AVG_MAR4 AVG_APR5

50 06889160 1 0.771 0.931 0.967 1.150

51 06889200 1 0.799 0.898 0.883 1.081

52 06889500 1 0.773 0.916 0.941 1.096

53 06890100 2 0.765 0.764 0.711 0.903

54 06890900 2 0.586 0.754 0.598 0.946

55 06891260 2 0.882 0.779 0.814 0.934

56 06891500 2 0.878 0.687 0.685 0.801

57 06892000 1 0.885 0.969 0.875 1.155

58 06892360 2 1.023 1.074 1.122 0.954

59 06892495 2 1.176 1.216 1.335 1.146

60 06892513 2 1.149 1.266 1.258 1.395

61 06893080 2 0.811 1.114 0.889 1.022

62 06893100 2 0.962 1.010 1.040 0.916

63 06893300 2 2.019 1.929 1.508 1.750

64 06893390 2 1.672 1.752 1.623 1.564

65 06910800 1 0.803 0.986 0.903 0.998

66 06911490 1 0.646 0.940 0.860 0.901

67 06911500 2 0.808 0.975 1.038 1.301

68 06911900 1 0.739 0.915 0.929 1.067

69 06912500 2 1.029 0.679 0.668 0.719

70 06913000 2 1.141 0.871 0.823 0.948

71 06913500 2 1.054 0.861 0.798 0.934

72 06914000 2 0.780 1.302 1.147 1.338

73 06914100 2 0.606 0.652 0.842 1.038

74 06914950 2 0.702 1.070 0.816 1.031

75 06915000 2 1.383 0.786 0.776 0.499

76 06915800 2 1.032 0.984 0.942 0.959

77 06916600 2 0.915 0.940 0.966 1.089

78 06917000 1 0.807 1.104 1.073 1.316

79 06917240 2 0.764 0.656 0.956 1.251

80 06917380 1 0.883 1.121 0.925 1.183

81 07140850 2 0.030 0.058 0.053 0.157

82 07141175 2 0.193 0.103 0.092 0.208

83 07141200 2 0.054 0.043 0.098 0.249

84 07141770 2 0.192 0.169 0.175 0.319

85 07141780 2 0.132 0.155 0.288 0.580

86 07141900 2 0.164 0.244 0.344 0.717

87 07142020 2 0.155 0.180 0.212 0.601

88 07142300 1 0.331 0.314 0.301 0.391

89 07142575 2 0.564 0.535 0.529 0.540

90 07142620 2 0.317 0.429 0.465 0.537

91 07143300 2 0.238 0.476 0.497 0.570

92 07143665 2 0.319 0.829 1.071 0.854

93 07143672 2 0.360 0.693 0.908 0.792

94 07144100 2 0.430 0.718 0.801 0.683

95 07144200 2 0.455 0.936 0.917 0.827

96 07144480 2 0.522 0.579 0.760 0.845

97 07144780 1 1.110 1.122 0.971 0.926

98 07144795 2 0.583 0.678 0.567 0.872
54 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–1. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the January, February, March, and April flow metrics assessed in this study.—

Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_JAN2 AVG_FEB3 AVG_MAR4 AVG_APR5

99 07144910 2 0.894 0.677 0.697 0.858

100 07145200 2 2.437 2.203 1.642 1.595

101 07145500 2 1.295 1.180 1.014 1.211

102 07145700 1 1.067 1.131 1.140 1.135

103 07147070 2 0.746 0.965 0.942 0.996

104 07147800 2 0.974 1.024 1.212 1.235

105 07149000 1 1.212 1.120 1.125 1.182

106 07151500 1 1.247 1.161 1.287 1.312

107 07155590 2 0.020 0.004 0.002 0.008

108 07156220 1 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.017

109 07156900 2 2.104 1.265 0.470 1.005

110 07157500 2 0.256 0.216 0.207 0.375

111 07166500 2 0.918 0.968 1.154 1.267

112 07167500 1 0.916 1.210 1.218 1.272

113 07169500 2 1.171 0.972 1.183 1.287

114 07169800 2 0.830 0.982 1.171 1.136

115 07170060 2 1.609 1.000 1.455 1.117

116 07170500 2 1.107 0.989 1.213 1.257

117 07170700 2 0.799 0.717 0.865 0.976

118 07170990 2 1.057 0.696 1.031 1.044

119 07172000 2 0.984 1.080 1.412 1.672

120 07179500 2 0.658 0.725 0.677 0.810

121 07179730 2 0.707 0.881 0.871 0.997

122 07179795 2 0.580 0.655 0.512 0.710

123 07180400 2 0.851 0.861 0.764 0.856

124 07180500 1 1.091 1.167 1.134 1.349

125 07182250 2 0.876 0.895 0.914 1.203

126 07182510 2 1.003 0.765 0.925 1.112

127 07183000 2 0.924 0.797 0.903 1.161

128 07183500 2 0.898 0.843 0.857 1.020

129 07184000 1 0.879 1.020 0.943 1.011

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010).

2

Mean January flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.580. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.550.

3

Mean February flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.560. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.420.

4

Mean March flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.580. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.470.

5

Mean April flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.660. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.330. 
Appendix 1 55

Table 1–2. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the May, June, July, and August flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_MAY2 AVG_JUN3 AVG_JUL4 AVG_AUG5

1 06814000 1 1.211 1.071 1.169 0.741

2 06827000 2 0.132 0.107 0.092 0.258

3 06844900 2 0.214 0.215 0.708 0.385

4 06845110 2 0.233 0.220 0.200 0.228

5 06846000 2 0.048 0.048 0.099 0.546

6 06846500 1 0.079 0.128 0.200 0.237

7 06847900 1 0.405 0.415 0.532 0.440

8 06848000 2 0.008 0.087 0.919 0.433

9 06848500 2 0.231 0.129 0.321 0.330

10 06853800 1 1.084 0.648 1.030 0.719

11 06854000 2 0.525 0.279 0.462 1.225

12 06860000 2 0.076 0.065 0.315 0.221

13 06861000 2 0.146 0.171 0.412 0.289

14 06862700 2 0.085 0.070 0.236 0.219

15 06862850 2 0.092 0.080 0.263 0.220

16 06863500 2 0.648 0.413 0.761 1.272

17 06864050 2 0.590 0.466 1.154 0.945

18 06864500 2 0.764 0.607 1.345 1.134

19 06865500 2 0.655 0.977 0.796 1.854

20 06866500 2 0.844 1.233 0.942 2.118

21 06866900 2 0.400 0.238 0.555 0.631

22 06867000 2 0.720 0.450 1.377 1.021

23 06868200 2 0.520 0.524 0.613 0.974

24 06869500 2 0.690 0.632 1.155 1.023

25 06869950 1 1.310 0.569 0.119 0.779

26 06870200 2 0.892 0.985 1.175 1.649

27 06871000 2 0.814 0.275 0.366 0.728

28 06871500 2 0.861 0.471 0.704 0.809

29 06871800 2 0.172 0.126 0.099 0.004

30 06872500 2 0.907 0.540 1.026 0.692

31 06873000 2 0.759 0.314 0.581 0.815

32 06873200 2 0.258 0.495 1.389 1.523

33 06873460 2 0.405 0.328 0.755 0.533

34 06874000 2 0.500 0.456 1.204 0.747

35 06875900 2 0.375 0.535 0.850 1.132

36 06876700 1 0.983 0.818 1.258 0.886

37 06876900 2 0.630 0.623 1.043 1.147

38 06877600 2 0.763 0.821 1.258 1.283

39 06878000 1 1.083 0.824 1.140 1.132

40 06879650 1 1.140 1.077 1.032 0.683

41 06882510 2 0.714 0.850 1.077 1.025

42 06884025 2 0.741 0.712 1.002 1.112

43 06884200 2 0.982 1.158 1.060 0.812

44 06884400 2 0.813 0.857 0.989 1.134

45 06885500 1 1.116 1.082 1.254 0.940

46 06887000 2 0.690 0.883 1.268 1.685

47 06888000 1 0.930 0.834 0.417 0.475

48 06888500 1 1.260 1.093 1.235 1.177

49 06889140 1 1.387 1.032 1.612 0.775
56 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–2. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the May, June, July, and August flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_MAY2 AVG_JUN3 AVG_JUL4 AVG_AUG5

50 06889160 1 1.286 1.082 1.426 0.744

51 06889200 1 1.170 1.102 1.118 0.841

52 06889500 1 1.235 1.028 1.110 0.921

53 06890100 2 1.204 1.120 1.263 0.946

54 06890900 2 0.823 1.065 1.564 1.799

55 06891260 2 1.219 1.043 0.787 1.183

56 06891500 2 1.020 1.084 1.225 1.322

57 06892000 1 1.280 1.133 1.056 0.945

58 06892360 2 1.079 1.391 0.537 1.431

59 06892495 2 1.539 1.465 0.821 2.030

60 06892513 2 1.446 1.669 1.183 3.524

61 06893080 2 1.658 1.426 0.838 0.878

62 06893100 2 1.248 1.796 0.611 1.506

63 06893300 2 2.430 2.554 2.141 5.009

64 06893390 2 1.971 2.418 1.862 6.254

65 06910800 1 1.182 0.857 0.966 0.831

66 06911490 1 1.324 1.137 0.546 0.596

67 06911500 2 1.272 1.023 0.995 0.632

68 06911900 1 1.274 0.923 0.878 0.694

69 06912500 2 0.881 1.297 1.176 1.124

70 06913000 2 1.031 1.241 1.180 1.018

71 06913500 2 1.052 1.217 1.140 0.942

72 06914000 2 1.012 0.866 1.234 1.329

73 06914100 2 1.422 1.292 1.228 0.947

74 06914950 2 1.497 1.524 0.529 0.966

75 06915000 2 0.747 1.695 1.064 1.363

76 06915800 2 1.255 1.203 1.298 1.082

77 06916600 2 1.226 1.241 1.192 0.921

78 06917000 1 1.315 1.056 1.177 1.231

79 06917240 2 1.419 1.657 1.267 1.493

80 06917380 1 1.194 1.032 1.218 1.064

81 07140850 2 0.180 0.190 1.067 0.685

82 07141175 2 0.201 0.307 0.886 1.331

83 07141200 2 0.228 0.378 1.137 0.712

84 07141770 2 0.211 0.352 0.696 1.112

85 07141780 2 0.201 0.376 1.161 1.180

86 07141900 2 0.380 0.563 0.956 1.536

87 07142020 2 0.589 0.668 0.562 1.465

88 07142300 1 0.370 0.304 0.371 0.264

89 07142575 2 0.560 0.506 0.743 0.272

90 07142620 2 0.516 0.419 0.326 0.136

91 07143300 2 0.899 0.811 1.130 1.612

92 07143665 2 1.050 0.880 1.304 2.021

93 07143672 2 0.949 1.154 1.051 2.329

94 07144100 2 1.060 1.101 0.979 2.022

95 07144200 2 0.940 0.934 1.284 1.795

96 07144480 2 0.935 1.378 1.386 2.501

97 07144780 1 1.141 1.029 1.220 1.243

98 07144795 2 0.660 0.780 1.056 0.497
Appendix 1 57

Table 1–2. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the May, June, July, and August flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_MAY2 AVG_JUN3 AVG_JUL4 AVG_AUG5

99 07144910 2 0.901 0.734 1.294 1.750

100 07145200 2 1.511 1.310 1.686 2.176

101 07145500 2 1.029 1.047 1.264 1.305

102 07145700 1 1.172 1.305 1.234 1.612

103 07147070 2 1.031 1.276 1.242 2.043

104 07147800 2 1.197 1.307 1.191 1.597

105 07149000 1 1.137 1.039 1.387 1.225

106 07151500 1 1.106 1.153 1.103 1.284

107 07155590 2 0.161 0.065 0.044 0.179

108 07156220 1 0.146 0.017 1.016 0.920

109 07156900 2 0.337 0.136 0.179 0.152

110 07157500 2 0.245 0.221 0.275 0.279

111 07166500 2 1.191 1.254 1.054 1.624

112 07167500 1 1.261 1.346 0.822 1.374

113 07169500 2 1.147 1.143 1.419 1.700

114 07169800 2 1.272 1.338 0.712 0.681

115 07170060 2 0.940 1.424 1.058 0.923

116 07170500 2 1.234 1.280 1.340 1.756

117 07170700 2 1.312 1.338 0.931 0.958

118 07170990 2 1.658 1.534 2.124 2.922

119 07172000 2 1.852 2.070 1.019 0.830

120 07179500 2 0.847 1.010 0.935 1.376

121 07179730 2 0.964 1.030 1.047 1.387

122 07179795 2 0.831 0.740 0.912 1.139

123 07180400 2 0.999 0.960 1.131 1.422

124 07180500 1 1.277 1.136 1.118 1.665

125 07182250 2 1.067 0.975 0.967 1.751

126 07182510 2 0.905 1.208 1.202 1.999

127 07183000 2 0.878 1.067 1.159 1.919

128 07183500 2 0.992 1.080 1.236 1.690

129 07184000 1 1.284 1.220 1.323 1.348

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010).

2

Mean May flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.600. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.530. 

3

Mean June flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.550. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.600. 

4

Mean July flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.490. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.510. 

5

Mean August flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.440. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.510. 
58 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–3. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the September, October, November, and December flow metrics assessed in this 

study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_SEP2 AVG_OCT3 AVG_NOV4 AVG_DEC5

1 06814000 1 0.768 0.723 0.943 1.292

2 06827000 2 0.361 0.796 1.357 1.944

3 06844900 2 0.068 0.011 0.029 0.057

4 06845110 2 0.104 0.175 0.301 0.479

5 06846000 2 0.178 0.071 0.116 0.143

6 06846500 1 0.120 0.053 0.089 0.077

7 06847900 1 0.149 0.226 0.381 0.626

8 06848000 2 0.011 0.015 0.018 0.024

9 06848500 2 0.100 0.230 0.162 0.201

10 06853800 1 0.333 0.602 0.846 0.799

11 06854000 2 0.519 0.558 0.521 0.370

12 06860000 2 0.434 0.177 0.101 0.067

13 06861000 2 0.249 0.138 0.238 0.216

14 06862700 2 0.104 0.056 0.219 0.164

15 06862850 2 0.126 0.055 0.216 0.148

16 06863500 2 0.768 0.521 0.636 0.401

17 06864050 2 0.521 0.520 1.101 0.609

18 06864500 2 0.703 0.796 1.065 0.707

19 06865500 2 1.273 1.188 0.928 1.034

20 06866500 2 1.635 1.540 1.039 1.028

21 06866900 2 0.460 0.266 0.242 0.373

22 06867000 2 0.511 0.643 0.702 0.490

23 06868200 2 0.691 0.728 0.917 1.127

24 06869500 2 0.629 0.585 0.889 1.001

25 06869950 1 0.312 0.369 0.209 0.337

26 06870200 2 1.006 0.795 0.934 0.794

27 06871000 2 0.266 0.534 0.474 0.435

28 06871500 2 0.328 0.610 0.648 0.603

29 06871800 2 0.039 0.048 0.047 0.145

30 06872500 2 0.467 0.518 0.601 0.554

31 06873000 2 0.502 0.434 0.708 0.920

32 06873200 2 0.102 0.152 0.280 0.700

33 06873460 2 0.208 0.340 0.394 0.478

34 06874000 2 0.426 0.414 0.506 0.493

35 06875900 2 0.570 0.435 0.709 0.825

36 06876700 1 0.514 0.445 0.642 0.665

37 06876900 2 0.731 0.497 0.784 0.936

38 06877600 2 0.801 0.611 0.836 0.830

39 06878000 1 0.702 0.682 1.093 1.274

40 06879650 1 0.348 0.776 0.901 0.921

41 06882510 2 0.905 0.809 0.720 0.606

42 06884025 2 0.744 0.844 0.699 0.573

43 06884200 2 0.758 0.683 0.676 0.625

44 06884400 2 0.719 0.825 0.742 0.637

45 06885500 1 0.839 0.831 1.059 1.374

46 06887000 2 0.941 0.868 0.833 1.260

47 06888000 1 0.143 0.300 0.344 0.826

48 06888500 1 0.626 0.781 1.002 1.067
Appendix 1 59

Table 1–3. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the September, October, November, and December flow metrics assessed in this 

study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_SEP2 AVG_OCT3 AVG_NOV4 AVG_DEC5

49 06889140 1 0.801 0.780 1.149 0.988

50 06889160 1 0.697 0.773 1.151 0.836

51 06889200 1 0.742 1.023 0.893 0.955

52 06889500 1 0.830 0.968 0.957 0.964

53 06890100 2 0.670 0.697 0.793 0.910

54 06890900 2 0.510 1.306 0.935 1.504

55 06891260 2 0.501 0.508 0.389 0.585

56 06891500 2 0.604 0.914 0.912 1.318

57 06892000 1 0.824 1.176 0.897 1.217

58 06892360 2 0.404 0.738 0.497 0.862

59 06892495 2 0.744 0.915 0.671 1.122

60 06892513 2 0.973 1.183 0.772 1.340

61 06893080 2 0.738 0.952 0.974 1.228

62 06893100 2 0.369 0.715 0.525 0.841

63 06893300 2 2.478 2.471 2.174 2.601

64 06893390 2 1.792 2.107 1.398 2.032

65 06910800 1 0.684 0.933 0.981 0.970

66 06911490 1 0.829 0.451 0.319 0.657

67 06911500 2 0.619 1.583 1.483 1.331

68 06911900 1 0.581 0.816 0.966 0.987

69 06912500 2 0.447 0.675 1.208 1.882

70 06913000 2 0.614 0.815 1.261 1.964

71 06913500 2 0.603 0.833 1.187 1.774

72 06914000 2 0.594 1.479 1.592 1.785

73 06914100 2 1.054 0.788 0.611 0.531

74 06914950 2 0.833 1.022 1.068 0.948

75 06915000 2 0.395 0.923 0.851 2.282

76 06915800 2 0.634 1.174 1.352 1.731

77 06916600 2 0.518 0.896 1.165 1.662

78 06917000 1 0.900 1.129 1.107 1.268

79 06917240 2 0.763 0.672 0.510 0.634

80 06917380 1 0.891 1.143 1.001 1.090

81 07140850 2 0.521 0.124 0.070 0.024

82 07141175 2 1.688 0.578 0.693 0.135

83 07141200 2 0.571 0.222 0.198 0.032

84 07141770 2 0.455 0.255 0.363 0.183

85 07141780 2 0.327 0.210 0.254 0.115

86 07141900 2 0.471 0.377 0.417 0.153

87 07142020 2 0.591 0.563 0.447 0.141

88 07142300 1 0.200 0.203 0.304 0.292

89 07142575 2 0.150 0.238 0.397 0.477

90 07142620 2 0.081 0.138 0.246 0.339

91 07143300 2 0.581 0.516 0.357 0.313

92 07143665 2 0.506 0.972 1.087 0.672

93 07143672 2 0.648 0.922 1.153 0.529

94 07144100 2 0.763 0.955 1.201 0.647

95 07144200 2 0.735 1.007 1.092 0.819

96 07144480 2 1.685 1.258 0.504 0.538

97 07144780 1 0.632 0.709 0.994 1.086
60 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–3. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the September, October, November, and December flow metrics assessed in this 

study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 AVG_SEP2 AVG_OCT3 AVG_NOV4 AVG_DEC5

98 07144795 2 0.415 0.526 0.554 0.434

99 07144910 2 0.852 0.827 0.881 0.950

100 07145200 2 1.697 1.815 2.431 2.656

101 07145500 2 1.027 1.145 1.531 1.320

102 07145700 1 1.105 1.107 1.234 1.263

103 07147070 2 1.024 1.293 1.527 1.253

104 07147800 2 1.122 1.025 1.450 1.246

105 07149000 1 0.969 0.974 1.205 1.243

106 07151500 1 1.027 1.175 1.293 1.389

107 07155590 2 0.046 0.001 0.004 0.019

108 07156220 1 0.585 0.342 0.001 0.000

109 07156900 2 0.457 1.051 2.271 3.526

110 07157500 2 0.265 0.465 0.462 0.309

111 07166500 2 0.839 0.967 1.186 1.377

112 07167500 1 0.720 0.929 1.138 1.176

113 07169500 2 0.931 0.998 1.126 1.472

114 07169800 2 0.454 0.886 0.955 1.140

115 07170060 2 0.283 1.513 1.198 1.405

116 07170500 2 0.789 1.076 1.119 1.369

117 07170700 2 0.738 1.148 0.798 0.734

118 07170990 2 1.245 0.586 0.673 0.571

119 07172000 2 0.505 1.431 1.094 1.211

120 07179500 2 0.568 0.685 0.908 0.770

121 07179730 2 0.611 0.725 0.938 0.848

122 07179795 2 0.411 0.681 0.832 1.894

123 07180400 2 0.899 0.941 1.406 1.596

124 07180500 1 1.022 1.103 1.368 1.333

125 07182250 2 0.830 0.932 1.307 1.181

126 07182510 2 0.784 0.803 1.192 1.252

127 07183000 2 0.865 0.903 1.169 1.202

128 07183500 2 0.857 0.960 1.059 1.353

129 07184000 1 1.209 1.335 0.959 1.146

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010). 

2

Mean September flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.460. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.490. 

3

Mean October flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.520. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.680. 

4

Mean November flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.530. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.560. 

5

Mean December flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.580. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.650. 
Appendix 1 61

Table 1–4. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 10th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; -999, metric could not be computed]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P10 3PUL_LEN_P10 4PUL_FLOW_P10

1 06814000 1 1.291 0.742 0.817

2 06827000 2 1.118 3.225 0.016

3 06844900 2 0 -999 -999

4 06845110 2 1.322 1.886 0.023

5 06846000 2 0 -999 -999

6 06846500 1 0 -999 -999

7 06847900 1 0 -999 -999

8 06848000 2 0 -999 -999

9 06848500 2 0 -999 -999

10 06853800 1 0.842 1.455 0.105

11 06854000 2 1.613 0.498 0.006

12 06860000 2 0 -999 -999

13 06861000 2 0 -999 -999

14 06862700 2 0 -999 -999

15 06862850 2 0 -999 -999

16 06863500 2 4.513 0.750 0.007

17 06864050 2 4.034 0.898 0.611

18 06864500 2 3.315 1.051 0.994

19 06865500 2 2.223 1.585 1.332

20 06866500 2 3.924 0.638 2.615

21 06866900 2 0 -999 -999

22 06867000 2 3.260 0.845 0.369

23 06868200 2 2.948 0.868 0.862

24 06869500 2 2.191 0.777 1.963

25 06869950 1 1.165 0.942 0.014

26 06870200 2 4.094 0.542 2.265

27 06871000 2 0 -999 -999

28 06871500 2 2.681 2.410 0.066

29 06871800 2 0 -999 -999

30 06872500 2 2.360 0.757 0.384

31 06873000 2 0 -999 -999

32 06873200 2 0 -999 -999

33 06873460 2 2.846 1.060 0.030

34 06874000 2 2.206 0.699 0.596

35 06875900 2 1.124 0.775 0.431

36 06876700 1 1.038 1.016 0.552

37 06876900 2 1.901 0.458 1.690

38 06877600 2 1.541 0.826 2.502

39 06878000 1 1.347 0.702 1.652

40 06879650 1 0 -999 -999

41 06882510 2 1.310 0.941 1.635

42 06884025 2 1.441 0.660 1.973

43 06884200 2 1.699 0.572 0.536

44 06884400 2 1.623 0.681 1.808

45 06885500 1 1.199 0.808 1.910

46 06887000 2 1.843 0.721 0.847

47 06888000 1 1.186 0.673 1.429

48 06888500 1 0.945 1.163 2.176

49 06889140 1 1.535 0.760 1.242
62 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–4. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 10th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; -999, metric could not be computed]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P10 3PUL_LEN_P10 4PUL_FLOW_P10

50 06889160 1 1.232 0.775 1.053

51 06889200 1 1.130 0.927 1.046

52 06889500 1 0.957 1.088 1.553

53 06890100 2 1.246 0.858 1.022

54 06890900 2 1.128 1.003 2.218

55 06891260 2 0.904 1.175 0.091

56 06891500 2 1.886 0.475 1.201

57 06892000 1 1.322 0.860 1.248

58 06892360 2 1.797 0.543 1.380

59 06892495 2 2.243 0.381 4.716

60 06892513 2 2.371 0.351 6.592

61 06893080 2 0.818 1.247 0.118

62 06893100 2 1.419 0.626 0.511

63 06893300 2 2.466 0.230 23.867

64 06893390 2 4.197 0.205 25.039

65 06910800 1 0.881 1.307 0.054

66 06911490 1 0 -999 -999

67 06911500 2 1.366 0.721 0.095

68 06911900 1 0 -999 -999

69 06912500 2 2.096 0.319 5.365

70 06913000 2 2.716 0.313 3.717

71 06913500 2 2.641 0.301 3.115

72 06914000 2 0.927 0.979 0.014

73 06914100 2 0.845 0.923 0.027

74 06914950 2 1.876 0.486 0.521

75 06915000 2 1.404 0.544 1.249

76 06915800 2 1.544 0.534 1.720

77 06916600 2 1.808 0.534 0.962

78 06917000 1 0.915 0.886 0.078

79 06917240 2 0 -999 -999

80 06917380 1 1.082 0.855 0.092

81 07140850 2 0 -999 -999

82 07141175 2 0 -999 -999

83 07141200 2 0 -999 -999

84 07141770 2 4.009 0.887 0.109

85 07141780 2 0 -999 -999

86 07141900 2 0 -999 -999

87 07142020 2 0 -999 -999

88 07142300 1 0 -999 -999

89 07142575 2 2.100 0.407 0.166

90 07142620 2 2.477 0.362 0.065

91 07143300 2 1.886 0.632 0.503

92 07143665 2 1.150 0.612 0.317

93 07143672 2 0.803 0.867 0.469

94 07144100 2 0.884 0.777 0.625

95 07144200 2 1.205 0.592 0.813

96 07144480 2 1.969 0.485 1.225

97 07144780 1 0.932 0.886 0.746

98 07144795 2 1.635 0.519 0.003
Appendix 1 63

Table 1–4. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 10th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; -999, metric could not be computed]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P10 3PUL_LEN_P10 4PUL_FLOW_P10

99 07144910 2 2.429 0.479 2.850

100 07145200 2 1.703 0.695 5.682

101 07145500 2 0.932 1.043 1.334

102 07145700 1 1.147 0.871 0.613

103 07147070 2 1.160 0.847 1.444

104 07147800 2 1.390 0.721 2.663

105 07149000 1 0.985 1.095 1.299

106 07151500 1 1.186 0.954 1.351

107 07155590 2 0 -999 -999

108 07156220 1 0 -999 -999

109 07156900 2 3.724 0.577 0.875

110 07157500 2 4.237 1.230 0.520

111 07166500 2 1.521 0.689 0.771

112 07167500 1 2.002 0.803 0.193

113 07169500 2 2.891 0.326 1.248

114 07169800 2 0.652 1.493 0.150

115 07170060 2 1.285 0.582 0.164

116 07170500 2 1.804 0.402 0.609

117 07170700 2 0 -999 -999

118 07170990 2 1.581 0.418 0.585

119 07172000 2 0.632 1.610 0.042

120 07179500 2 1.456 0.667 1.235

121 07179730 2 2.022 0.381 2.146

122 07179795 2 2.070 0.403 0.639

123 07180400 2 1.437 0.713 3.572

124 07180500 1 1.417 0.943 1.878

125 07182250 2 0.801 0.997 2.313

126 07182510 2 1.829 0.432 0.904

127 07183000 2 2.147 0.513 1.217

128 07183500 2 1.415 0.633 1.424

129 07184000 1 0.750 1.426 0.003

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010). 

2

Average annual number of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.000. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.550. 

3

Average duration of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.620. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.440. 

4

Average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 10th percentile, normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.110. Ninetieth percentile error 

bound is 1.710.
64 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–5. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 25th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; -999, metric could not be computed]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P25 3PUL_LEN_P25 4PUL_FLOW_P25

1 06814000 1 1.106 0.738 0.869

2 06827000 2 0.991 1.473 0.086

3 06844900 2 0 -999 -999

4 06845110 2 1.152 1.022 0.060

5 06846000 2 0 -999 -999

6 06846500 1 0 -999 -999

7 06847900 1 0.999 0.957 0.018

8 06848000 2 1.058 1.014 0

9 06848500 2 0 -999 -999

10 06853800 1 0.896 0.931 0.397

11 06854000 2 1.872 0.387 0.009

12 06860000 2 0 -999 -999

13 06861000 2 1.667 0.666 0.007

14 06862700 2 0.732 1.817 0.017

15 06862850 2 0 -999 -999

16 06863500 2 1.741 0.469 0.716

17 06864050 2 1.267 0.786 1.193

18 06864500 2 1.032 0.892 1.737

19 06865500 2 0.719 1.387 2.599

20 06866500 2 1.096 0.883 3.264

21 06866900 2 0.899 2.360 0

22 06867000 2 0.780 1.277 0.735

23 06868200 2 0.907 1.077 0.838

24 06869500 2 1.015 0.757 1.384

25 06869950 1 0.727 1.509 0.058

26 06870200 2 1.009 0.863 2.245

27 06871000 2 0 -999 -999

28 06871500 2 0.890 1.627 1.336

29 06871800 2 0 -999 -999

30 06872500 2 1.080 1.385 0.346

31 06873000 2 0.669 1.861 0.054

32 06873200 2 0 -999 -999

33 06873460 2 0.771 1.867 0.080

34 06874000 2 1.318 0.893 0.564

35 06875900 2 0.809 0.929 0.434

36 06876700 1 1.044 0.822 0.722

37 06876900 2 1.064 0.615 1.043

38 06877600 2 1.029 0.837 1.925

39 06878000 1 0.972 0.774 1.313

40 06879650 1 0 -999 -999

41 06882510 2 1.141 0.473 1.687

42 06884025 2 1.401 0.423 1.436

43 06884200 2 1.141 0.619 0.583

44 06884400 2 1.386 0.471 1.577

45 06885500 1 1.141 0.747 1.301

46 06887000 2 1.296 0.548 1.010

47 06888000 1 1.155 0.826 0.989

48 06888500 1 0.950 0.855 1.412

49 06889140 1 1.049 0.934 1.298
Appendix 1 65

Table 1–5. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 25th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; -999, metric could not be computed]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P25 3PUL_LEN_P25 4PUL_FLOW_P25

50 06889160 1 0.939 1.049 1.068

51 06889200 1 0.972 1.006 1.057

52 06889500 1 1.077 0.992 1.311

53 06890100 2 1.074 0.858 1.144

54 06890900 2 1.138 1.485 1.093

55 06891260 2 0.798 1.298 0.238

56 06891500 2 1.475 0.499 1.184

57 06892000 1 1.098 0.856 1.321

58 06892360 2 1.199 0.543 1.571

59 06892495 2 2.080 0.336 3.416

60 06892513 2 1.951 0.355 4.703

61 06893080 2 1.226 0.784 0.457

62 06893100 2 1.458 0.546 1.017

63 06893300 2 2.647 0.212 12.649

64 06893390 2 2.921 0.225 11.077

65 06910800 1 0.891 0.900 0.531

66 06911490 1 1.071 1.021 0.184

67 06911500 2 1.111 0.837 0.281

68 06911900 1 0.957 0.970 0.439

69 06912500 2 1.401 0.493 4.020

70 06913000 2 1.723 0.434 2.736

71 06913500 2 1.633 0.478 2.183

72 06914000 2 0.763 1.456 0.160

73 06914100 2 0.974 0.808 0.226

74 06914950 2 1.584 0.448 0.755

75 06915000 2 1.076 0.737 1.119

76 06915800 2 1.157 0.594 1.539

77 06916600 2 1.052 0.761 1.263

78 06917000 1 0.870 1.057 0.491

79 06917240 2 0.800 0.990 0.205

80 06917380 1 1.028 1.063 0.460

81 07140850 2 0 -999 -999

82 07141175 2 0 -999 -999

83 07141200 2 0 -999 -999

84 07141770 2 1.303 0.707 0.438

85 07141780 2 0 -999 -999

86 07141900 2 0 -999 -999

87 07142020 2 0.607 1.520 0.008

88 07142300 1 0.710 1.434 0.048

89 07142575 2 1.322 0.655 0.748

90 07142620 2 1.340 0.486 0.210

91 07143300 2 1.606 0.670 0.552

92 07143665 2 1.171 0.713 0.455

93 07143672 2 1.223 0.692 0.673

94 07144100 2 1.426 0.622 0.861

95 07144200 2 1.192 0.565 0.902

96 07144480 2 1.578 0.491 1.239

97 07144780 1 0.899 1.012 1.332

98 07144795 2 1.432 0.655 0.004

99 07144910 2 1.808 0.483 2.154
66 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–5. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 25th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; -999, metric could not be computed]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P25 3PUL_LEN_P25 4PUL_FLOW_P25

100 07145200 2 1.196 0.934 4.641

101 07145500 2 1.157 0.979 1.528

102 07145700 1 1.148 0.832 0.796

103 07147070 2 0.962 0.941 1.249

104 07147800 2 1.107 0.690 1.810

105 07149000 1 0.980 0.986 1.557

106 07151500 1 1.027 0.989 1.391

107 07155590 2 0 -999 -999

108 07156220 1 0 -999 -999

109 07156900 2 2.641 0.603 1.194

110 07157500 2 1.595 0.931 1.085

111 07166500 2 1.334 0.670 0.752

112 07167500 1 0.795 1.154 0.746

113 07169500 2 1.548 0.426 1.121

114 07169800 2 0.733 1.471 0.435

115 07170060 2 1.378 0.565 0.445

116 07170500 2 1.189 0.615 0.688

117 07170700 2 1.523 0.609 0.004

118 07170990 2 1.010 0.660 0.913

119 07172000 2 0.620 1.232 0.610

120 07179500 2 1.310 0.740 0.599

121 07179730 2 1.407 0.530 0.916

122 07179795 2 1.330 0.627 0.497

123 07180400 2 1.063 0.855 2.005

124 07180500 1 1.000 1.005 1.453

125 07182250 2 0.727 1.181 1.431

126 07182510 2 1.296 0.537 0.515

127 07183000 2 0.966 0.727 0.782

128 07183500 2 0.939 0.823 1.231

129 07184000 1 0.877 1.201 0.193

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010). 

2

Average annual number of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.540. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.520.

3

Average duration of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.500. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.280.

4

Average magnitude of flow pulses less than the 25th percentile, normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.150. Ninetieth percentile error 

bound is 1.590. 
Appendix 1 67

Table 1–6. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 75th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P75 3PUL_LEN_P75 4PUL_FLOW_P75

1 06814000 1 1.136 1.019 0.965

2 06827000 2 0.727 2.562 0.113

3 06844900 2 0.774 0.968 0.357

4 06845110 2 0.468 1.279 0.173

5 06846000 2 0.323 1.320 0.621

6 06846500 1 0.794 0.900 0.141

7 06847900 1 0.700 1.170 0.502

8 06848000 2 1.284 0.609 0.158

9 06848500 2 0.697 0.921 0.375

10 06853800 1 1.024 0.971 0.908

11 06854000 2 1.984 0.478 0.212

12 06860000 2 0.931 0.718 0.096

13 06861000 2 0.869 1.243 0.196

14 06862700 2 0.470 1.760 0.118

15 06862850 2 0.358 2.813 0.132

16 06863500 2 0.994 0.820 0.654

17 06864050 2 0.937 1.142 0.539

18 06864500 2 0.808 1.447 0.489

19 06865500 2 0.371 1.871 0.497

20 06866500 2 0.647 1.234 0.562

21 06866900 2 0.521 1.713 0.402

22 06867000 2 0.461 2.407 0.815

23 06868200 2 0.561 1.959 0.537

24 06869500 2 1.139 1.796 0.868

25 06869950 1 1.506 0.857 0.570

26 06870200 2 0.776 1.725 0.862

27 06871000 2 0.455 1.434 0.728

28 06871500 2 0.675 0.855 0.863

29 06871800 2 0.539 0.872 0.067

30 06872500 2 0.695 1.508 0.712

31 06873000 2 0.433 1.285 0.827

32 06873200 2 0.116 6.001 1.003

33 06873460 2 0.697 1.266 0.313

34 06874000 2 0.572 1.580 0.447

35 06875900 2 0.418 1.845 0.573

36 06876700 1 1.192 1.298 0.819

37 06876900 2 0.843 2.019 0.710

38 06877600 2 0.879 1.946 0.740

39 06878000 1 1.043 1.032 0.905

40 06879650 1 0.565 1.291 1.054

41 06882510 2 1.323 1.114 0.637

42 06884025 2 1.554 0.859 0.496

43 06884200 2 1.892 0.863 0.900

44 06884400 2 1.689 0.861 0.571

45 06885500 1 1.223 0.941 0.967

46 06887000 2 1.038 1.499 0.797

47 06888000 1 1.047 1.076 0.625

48 06888500 1 0.955 1.044 1.024

49 06889140 1 1.235 0.820 0.952
68 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–6. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 75th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P75 3PUL_LEN_P75 4PUL_FLOW_P75

50 06889160 1 1.094 0.830 0.989

51 06889200 1 1.108 0.938 0.974

52 06889500 1 1.175 0.929 0.919

53 06890100 2 1.366 0.969 0.807

54 06890900 2 1.312 1.811 1.085

55 06891260 2 1.104 1.131 0.839

56 06891500 2 0.821 1.314 1.021

57 06892000 1 1.183 0.927 0.977

58 06892360 2 1.562 0.847 0.809

59 06892495 2 1.718 0.735 1.055

60 06892513 2 2.445 0.491 1.289

61 06893080 2 1.313 0.833 0.981

62 06893100 2 1.380 0.833 1.011

63 06893300 2 2.720 0.402 1.994

64 06893390 2 3.039 0.379 1.875

65 06910800 1 1.055 0.968 0.924

66 06911490 1 1.055 1.049 0.831

67 06911500 2 1.131 0.942 1.083

68 06911900 1 1.055 0.980 0.942

69 06912500 2 0.609 1.912 1.142

70 06913000 2 1.311 1.078 1.022

71 06913500 2 1.320 1.114 1.004

72 06914000 2 1.107 0.929 1.060

73 06914100 2 1.038 1.030 0.937

74 06914950 2 1.585 0.823 0.959

75 06915000 2 0.682 1.876 1.104

76 06915800 2 1.307 1.125 1.008

77 06916600 2 1.304 1.174 0.969

78 06917000 1 1.138 0.918 1.098

79 06917240 2 0.864 1.127 1.097

80 06917380 1 1.171 0.926 1.052

81 07140850 2 0.533 1.985 0.185

82 07141175 2 0.475 1.533 0.400

83 07141200 2 0.486 1.627 0.236

84 07141770 2 0.944 0.704 0.264

85 07141780 2 0.683 1.309 0.357

86 07141900 2 0.713 1.178 0.434

87 07142020 2 0.586 1.347 0.409

88 07142300 1 0.522 1.493 0.330

89 07142575 2 0.720 0.844 0.415

90 07142620 2 0.497 1.508 0.415

91 07143300 2 1.362 1.281 0.745

92 07143665 2 1.790 0.837 0.861

93 07143672 2 1.742 0.791 0.887

94 07144100 2 1.918 0.852 0.837

95 07144200 2 1.839 0.924 0.836

96 07144480 2 2.454 0.821 1.026

97 07144780 1 1.081 0.887 0.955

98 07144795 2 0.720 1.673 1.160
Appendix 1 69

Table 1–6. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 75th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P75 3PUL_LEN_P75 4PUL_FLOW_P75

99 07144910 2 2.929 0.357 0.584

100 07145200 2 1.871 0.611 1.283

101 07145500 2 1.272 0.858 1.047

102 07145700 1 1.331 0.743 1.154

103 07147070 2 1.396 0.780 0.918

104 07147800 2 1.536 0.827 1.070

105 07149000 1 0.936 0.978 1.073

106 07151500 1 1.205 0.926 1.084

107 07155590 2 0.891 1.910 0.132

108 07156220 1 0.461 0.269 1.304

109 07156900 2 1.115 0.647 0.132

110 07157500 2 0.705 0.998 0.163

111 07166500 2 1.444 1.163 1.126

112 07167500 1 1.109 1.027 1.190

113 07169500 2 1.287 0.929 1.220

114 07169800 2 0.975 1.202 0.976

115 07170060 2 0.932 1.123 1.133

116 07170500 2 1.420 1.316 1.110

117 07170700 2 0.603 1.752 1.061

118 07170990 2 1.660 1.082 1.240

119 07172000 2 0.818 1.136 1.189

120 07179500 2 1.143 0.979 1.023

121 07179730 2 1.388 0.972 0.816

122 07179795 2 0.824 1.533 0.942

123 07180400 2 1.564 0.987 0.778

124 07180500 1 1.148 0.949 1.207

125 07182250 2 1.509 1.153 0.898

126 07182510 2 1.363 1.136 1.063

127 07183000 2 1.711 0.968 1.036

128 07183500 2 1.481 1.019 1.037

129 07184000 1 1.185 0.884 1.099

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010). 

2

Average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.710. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.360.

3

Average duration of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.640. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.350.

4

Average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 75th percentile, normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.750. Ninetieth percentile 

error bound is 1.560.
70 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–7. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 90th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P90 3PUL_LEN_P90 4PUL_FLOW_P90

1 06814000 1 0.979 0.481 1.038

2 06827000 2 0.229 1.707 0.105

3 06844900 2 0.409 0.503 0.237

4 06845110 2 0.481 0.736 0.138

5 06846000 2 0.388 0.897 0.442

6 06846500 1 0.475 0.713 0.192

7 06847900 1 0.594 0.547 0.416

8 06848000 2 1.020 0.504 0.178

9 06848500 2 0.815 0.389 0.285

10 06853800 1 0.733 0.507 0.812

11 06854000 2 0.178 1.599 0.951

12 06860000 2 0.882 0.478 0.097

13 06861000 2 0.823 0.535 0.191

14 06862700 2 0.571 0.618 0.121

15 06862850 2 0.473 0.749 0.155

16 06863500 2 0.527 0.438 0.574

17 06864050 2 0.803 0.497 0.514

18 06864500 2 0.845 0.557 0.510

19 06865500 2 0.291 1.586 0.570

20 06866500 2 0.593 0.711 0.578

21 06866900 2 0.583 0.944 0.469

22 06867000 2 0.490 0.931 0.722

23 06868200 2 0.644 1.224 0.678

24 06869500 2 0.683 0.743 0.825

25 06869950 1 0.686 0.311 0.567

26 06870200 2 0.482 1.062 0.834

27 06871000 2 0.286 0.638 0.478

28 06871500 2 0.373 0.492 0.667

29 06871800 2 0.278 0.752 0.051

30 06872500 2 0.769 0.648 0.537

31 06873000 2 1.310 0.667 0.661

32 06873200 2 0.337 2.188 0.649

33 06873460 2 0.399 1.003 0.441

34 06874000 2 0.851 0.956 0.456

35 06875900 2 0.339 1.218 0.513

36 06876700 1 0.624 0.610 0.860

37 06876900 2 0.584 0.860 0.668

38 06877600 2 0.581 0.996 0.586

39 06878000 1 1.049 0.359 0.832

40 06879650 1 0.458 0.642 0.977

41 06882510 2 1.101 0.566 0.584

42 06884025 2 1.250 0.446 0.481

43 06884200 2 0.820 0.388 0.938

44 06884400 2 1.169 0.454 0.557

45 06885500 1 1.137 0.457 0.999

46 06887000 2 0.467 1.264 0.660

47 06888000 1 1.133 0.492 0.638

48 06888500 1 0.943 0.603 0.981

49 06889140 1 1.244 0.473 1.127
Appendix 1 71

Table 1–7. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 90th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P90 3PUL_LEN_P90 4PUL_FLOW_P90

50 06889160 1 1.222 0.533 1.112

51 06889200 1 1.081 0.550 1.014

52 06889500 1 0.910 0.544 0.978

53 06890100 2 1.070 0.507 0.853

54 06890900 2 0.917 1.403 0.898

55 06891260 2 1.901 0.542 0.813

56 06891500 2 0.637 0.942 0.888

57 06892000 1 1.079 0.594 1.027

58 06892360 2 1.428 0.487 0.860

59 06892495 2 1.722 0.432 1.023

60 06892513 2 1.825 0.307 1.182

61 06893080 2 2.016 0.454 1.005

62 06893100 2 1.026 0.434 0.933

63 06893300 2 2.365 0.271 1.849

64 06893390 2 2.237 0.264 1.739

65 06910800 1 1.071 0.495 0.914

66 06911490 1 1.677 0.542 0.839

67 06911500 2 1.776 0.465 1.146

68 06911900 1 1.500 0.503 0.948

69 06912500 2 0.545 1.477 0.900

70 06913000 2 2.620 0.741 0.974

71 06913500 2 2.263 0.690 0.936

72 06914000 2 1.081 0.527 1.115

73 06914100 2 2.038 0.539 0.950

74 06914950 2 2.230 0.442 1.120

75 06915000 2 0.376 1.565 0.977

76 06915800 2 1.276 0.835 0.867

77 06916600 2 1.161 0.869 0.821

78 06917000 1 1.060 0.482 1.096

79 06917240 2 1.173 0.605 0.966

80 06917380 1 0.944 0.494 1.027

81 07140850 2 0.726 0.591 0.179

82 07141175 2 0.567 0.649 0.348

83 07141200 2 0.415 0.561 0.195

84 07141770 2 0.971 0.590 0.213

85 07141780 2 0.817 0.535 0.271

86 07141900 2 0.695 0.570 0.401

87 07142020 2 1.210 0.703 0.378

88 07142300 1 0.546 0.628 0.297

89 07142575 2 1.395 0.541 0.331

90 07142620 2 0.603 0.718 0.330

91 07143300 2 0.842 0.466 0.819

92 07143665 2 1.044 0.440 0.947

93 07143672 2 1.427 0.470 0.966

94 07144100 2 2.973 0.524 0.917

95 07144200 2 0.904 0.537 0.932

96 07144480 2 0.878 0.528 1.042

97 07144780 1 0.569 0.537 0.756

98 07144795 2 0.548 1.051 0.896
72 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–7. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for the 90th percentile flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 2

PUL_NO_P90 3PUL_LEN_P90 4PUL_FLOW_P90

99 07144910 2 0.774 0.324 0.417

100 07145200 2 0.910 0.395 0.973

101 07145500 2 0.550 0.591 0.941

102 07145700 1 0.881 0.418 1.214

103 07147070 2 1.055 0.382 0.912

104 07147800 2 2.281 0.437 0.974

105 07149000 1 1.232 0.441 0.833

106 07151500 1 1.340 0.443 0.975

107 07155590 2 1.015 1.587 0.071

108 07156220 1 0.457 0.348 0.701

109 07156900 2 1.248 0.458 0.083

110 07157500 2 0.356 0.885 0.094

111 07166500 2 1.456 0.751 0.971

112 07167500 1 1.215 0.499 1.080

113 07169500 2 1.323 0.622 1.168

114 07169800 2 0.617 0.658 0.930

115 07170060 2 0.661 1.265 1.080

116 07170500 2 1.549 0.863 0.961

117 07170700 2 0.820 1.002 0.981

118 07170990 2 1.298 0.643 0.969

119 07172000 2 0.866 0.602 1.104

120 07179500 2 0.406 0.855 0.850

121 07179730 2 0.698 0.654 0.927

122 07179795 2 0.371 1.128 1.030

123 07180400 2 1.100 0.497 0.829

124 07180500 1 0.983 0.394 1.062

125 07182250 2 1.942 0.558 0.824

126 07182510 2 0.734 0.944 0.887

127 07183000 2 1.100 0.731 0.898

128 07183500 2 1.159 0.698 0.837

129 07184000 1 1.268 0.472 1.139

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010). 

2

Average annual number of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.690. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.340.

3

Average duration of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.610. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.280.

4

Average magnitude of flow pulses greater than the 90th percentile, normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.730. Ninetieth percentile 

error bound is 1.430.
Appendix 1 73

Table 1–8. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for five annual flow metrics assessed in this study.

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 PER_BSFL2 3

P10 4P50 5P90 CV_FLOW6

1 06814000 1 1.091 1.055 1.066 0.567 1.062

2 06827000 2 0.042 0.261 1.131 0.375 0.434

3 06844900 2 0.237 0.043 0.046 0.024 1.064

4 06845110 2 0.283 0.295 0.306 0.116 0.877

5 06846000 2 0.093 0.013 0.138 0.072 1.023

6 06846500 1 0.954 0 0.099 0.065 0.993

7 06847900 1 0.753 0.388 0.357 0.243 0.938

8 06848000 2 0.650 0.055 0.014 0.093 0.853

9 06848500 2 1.078 0.189 0.146 0.075 0.957

10 06853800 1 0.850 0.619 0.874 0.361 1.084

11 06854000 2 0.998 0.007 0.253 0.518 1.966

12 06860000 2 2.411 0.017 0.074 0.084 1.155

13 06861000 2 1.718 0.169 0.215 0.132 0.969

14 06862700 2 1.018 0.404 0.203 0.079 0.985

15 06862850 2 1.309 0.351 0.179 0.085 1.081

16 06863500 2 1.077 1.965 0.602 0.179 0.997

17 06864050 2 1.327 3.590 0.531 0.478 0.742

18 06864500 2 1.124 7.737 0.900 0.607 0.866

19 06865500 2 0.528 7.086 1.301 0.683 0.901

20 06866500 2 0.548 8.914 1.358 0.667 0.927

21 06866900 2 0.559 0.521 0.240 0.166 1.300

22 06867000 2 0.767 2.351 0.806 0.271 1.282

23 06868200 2 0.444 0.776 0.729 0.372 1.568

24 06869500 2 0.541 1.700 0.982 0.361 1.413

25 06869950 1 0.050 0.373 0.325 0.190 1.261

26 06870200 2 0.479 3.288 1.341 0.439 1.105

27 06871000 2 0.506 1.047 0.552 0.228 0.854

28 06871500 2 0.739 2.296 0.708 0.247 0.775

29 06871800 2 0.224 0.001 0.052 0.115 1.874

30 06872500 2 0.498 0.894 0.773 0.266 1.099

31 06873000 2 0.714 1.320 0.628 0.293 1.002

32 06873200 2 0.331 0.029 0.349 0.484 1.051

33 06873460 2 0.737 0.511 0.388 0.213 1.654

34 06874000 2 0.654 1.348 0.537 0.215 1.852

35 06875900 2 0.271 0.886 0.867 0.309 1.489

36 06876700 1 1.061 0.928 0.645 0.537 1.169

37 06876900 2 0.381 1.672 0.875 0.365 1.315

38 06877600 2 0.445 2.821 1.233 0.407 1.165

39 06878000 1 0.752 1.307 0.963 0.498 0.981

40 06879650 1 13.167 0.217 0.870 0.570 1.110

41 06882510 2 0.595 1.226 0.873 0.569 0.917

42 06884025 2 0.757 1.108 0.939 0.457 0.870

43 06884200 2 1.292 0.682 0.672 0.608 1.120

44 06884400 2 0.729 1.270 0.941 0.550 0.818

45 06885500 1 1.014 1.249 0.965 0.608 1.063

46 06887000 2 0.533 0.782 1.244 0.788 0.995

47 06888000 1 0.017 0.698 0.790 0.426 0.941

48 06888500 1 0.789 1.285 1.159 0.593 0.903

49 06889140 1 0.709 1.437 1.145 0.555 1.133

50 06889160 1 0.942 1.222 1.085 0.565 1.033
74 Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas

Table 1–8. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for five annual flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 PER_BSFL2 3

P10 4P50 5P90 CV_FLOW6

51 06889200 1 1.416 1.084 1.069 0.543 0.999

52 06889500 1 1.076 1.165 1.035 0.532 0.933

53 06890100 2 1.153 1.274 1.084 0.563 0.992

54 06890900 2 0.669 1.255 1.323 0.976 0.896

55 06891260 2 0.067 0.653 0.769 0.468 1.014

56 06891500 2 0.491 1.013 1.076 0.848 1.019

57 06892000 1 1.226 1.256 1.080 0.642 0.917

58 06892360 2 0.169 1.797 1.160 0.514 0.828

59 06892495 2 0.228 2.946 1.855 0.571 0.757

60 06892513 2 0.476 4.185 1.905 0.720 0.602

61 06893080 2 6.483 0.513 0.748 0.476 0.823

62 06893100 2 1.553 1.085 0.982 0.532 0.729

63 06893300 2 2.321 13.038 3.120 0.956 0.498

64 06893390 2 0.879 11.417 2.887 1.009 0.364

65 06910800 1 1.839 0.797 0.851 0.514 0.981

66 06911490 1 0.703 0.532 0.477 0.380 1.129

67 06911500 2 1.253 0.444 0.693 0.540 0.812

68 06911900 1 1.894 0.626 0.763 0.455 0.974

69 06912500 2 0.573 2.747 0.958 0.974 0.952

70 06913000 2 0.633 2.620 1.525 0.966 0.958

71 06913500 2 0.641 2.300 1.501 0.885 0.972

72 06914000 2 0.294 0.296 0.677 0.711 0.946

73 06914100 2 0.175 0.529 0.570 0.622 1.069

74 06914950 2 0.068 0.806 0.542 0.359 0.813

75 06915000 2 0.453 1.620 0.912 0.716 1.057

76 06915800 2 0.565 2.115 1.780 0.814 0.989

77 06916600 2 0.572 1.710 1.566 0.779 0.899

78 06917000 1 1.148 0.865 1.016 0.588 0.864

79 06917240 2 0.377 0.516 0.892 0.599 0.797

80 06917380 1 1.236 0.672 0.894 0.509 0.919

81 07140850 2 1.527 0.061 0.124 0.066 1.335

82 07141175 2 1.082 0.848 0.331 0.148 1.378

83 07141200 2 3.210 0.241 0.104 0.110 1.051

84 07141770 2 0.779 1.574 0.555 0.136 0.709

85 07141780 2 1.198 1.419 0.398 0.132 1.171

86 07141900 2 1.096 1.698 0.517 0.176 1.063

87 07142020 2 0.536 0.711 0.528 0.276 0.734

88 07142300 1 0.873 0.356 0.441 0.161 0.827

89 07142575 2 1.054 0.699 0.668 0.222 0.888

90 07142620 2 0.692 0.230 0.296 0.229 0.761

91 07143300 2 0.898 0.627 0.319 0.348 1.197

92 07143665 2 3.355 0.419 0.307 0.642 1.054

93 07143672 2 1.862 0.557 0.356 0.574 0.722

94 07144100 2 1.547 0.708 0.443 0.534 0.716

95 07144200 2 1.568 0.850 0.503 0.672 0.974

96 07144480 2 0.236 1.340 0.529 0.497 0.713

97 07144780 1 0.952 1.209 1.096 0.517 0.701
Appendix 1 75

Table 1–8. Observed/Expected (O/E) ratio values for five annual flow metrics assessed in this study.—Continued

[Diminished values are shown in bold. Inflated values are shown in italics. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

streamgage number Site type1 PER_BSFL2 3

P10 4P50 5P90 CV_FLOW6

98 07144795 2 1.815 0.007 0.126 0.781 0.876

99 07144910 2 0.830 2.143 0.914 0.332 0.653

100 07145200 2 0.655 4.092 2.689 0.892 0.364

101 07145500 2 0.891 1.458 1.503 0.848 0.579

102 07145700 1 2.603 0.822 0.820 0.546 0.904

103 07147070 2 0.971 1.172 0.768 0.515 0.972

104 07147800 2 0.748 1.515 1.177 0.818 0.905

105 07149000 1 0.853 1.464 1.269 0.617 0.826

106 07151500 1 0.950 1.387 1.256 0.627 0.783

107 07155590 2 0.164 0 0.001 0.008 1.610

108 07156220 1 0.102 0 0 0 1.039

109 07156900 2 0.146 3.528 4.241 0.404 0.184

110 07157500 2 0.510 7.200 0.770 0.139 0.413

111 07166500 2 0.778 0.930 1.535 0.993 0.836

112 07167500 1 1.354 0.943 0.975 0.585 0.922

113 07169500 2 0.687 1.115 1.610 1.154 0.886

114 07169800 2 1.091 0.729 0.992 0.640 0.898

115 07170060 2 0.642 0.457 0.652 1.207 0.870

116 07170500 2 0.558 1.296 1.763 1.060 0.849

117 07170700 2 1.960 0.131 0.522 0.589 1.177

118 07170990 2 0.596 1.775 2.190 1.049 0.919

119 07172000 2 1.053 0.693 1.377 0.980 0.926

120 07179500 2 1.014 0.437 0.445 0.760 1.128

121 07179730 2 0.820 0.918 0.851 0.803 1.081

122 07179795 2 0.963 0.362 0.481 0.514 1.403

123 07180400 2 0.570 1.887 1.123 0.598 1.020

124 07180500 1 1.058 1.400 1.240 0.606 0.898

125 07182250 2 0.660 1.628 1.332 0.700 0.843

126 07182510 2 0.597 0.679 1.348 1.025 0.903

127 07183000 2 0.552 1.034 1.590 0.911 0.890

128 07183500 2 0.498 1.598 1.885 0.813 0.837

129 07184000 1 2.140 0.329 0.626 0.581 1.004

1

Site type “1” indicates a reference (least-disturbed) site and site type “2” indicates a nonreference site (Falcone and others, 2010). 

2

Percentage of flow that is baseflow. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.180. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.810.

3

Tenth percentile flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.200. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.900.

4

Median annual flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.370. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.770.

5

Ninetieth percentile flow normalized by drainage area. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.720. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.600.

6

Coefficient of variation of daily flows. Tenth percentile error bound is 0.780. Ninetieth percentile error bound is 1.220.
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 website at:

https://ks.water.usgs.gov

Juracek and Eng—Streamflow Alteration at Selected Sites in Kansas—Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5046

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175046