U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5188

Prepared in cooperation with the

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the 

Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001– 

August 2002, and Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative 

Capacity and Bacteria Transport During Low Flow

COLORADO 

NEBRASKA 

Kansas

River

Basin

KANSAS Study

area
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in

the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, 

November 2001–August 2002, and 

Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative 

Capacity and Bacteria Transport During 

Low Flow

By Patrick P. Rasmussen and Victoria G. Christensen

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5188
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Rasmussen, P.P., and Christensen, V.G., 2005, Hydrologic and water-quality conditions in the Kansas River, northeast 

Kansas, November 2001–August 2002, and simulation of ammonia assimilative capacity and bacteria transport during 

low flow: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5188, 111 p.

Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence, Kansas (http://ks.water.usgs.gov)
 iii

Contents

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

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

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

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

Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

HydrologicConditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Physical Water-Quality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SpecificConductance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

pH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Water Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Dissolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chemical and Biological Constituent Concentration and Comparison of Measured and Calculated 

Constituent Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Ammonia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Fecal Coliform Bacteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Discussion of Water-Quality Conditions During Low Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Data for Model Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

River Bathymetry and Model Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Streamflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Water Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

WaterChemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Meteorological Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Model Calibration and Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Simulated Hydrodynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Simulated Water Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Simulated Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Dissolved Oxygen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Ammonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Fecal Coliform Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Model Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Hypothetical Simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
iv 

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected 

tributaries,and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, 

November 2001 through August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

2. List of wastewater-treatment facilities that discharge effluent to the Kansas River and its

tributary streams in northeast Kansas and design limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

3. Hypothetical simulations using 30-day, 10-year, low-flow conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Figures

1–3. Maps showing:

1. Location of Kansas River Basin and study area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2. Location of streamflow-gaging stations, continuous water-quality monitoring sites, 

and synoptic surface-water sampling sites along Kansas River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3. Land use in study area, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

4. Graph showing accumulated monthly precipitation from November 2001 through 

August 2002 and 30-year mean monthly precipitation measured at Topeka Philip Billard 

Municipal Airport and Kansas City International Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

5. Hydrograph showing long-term, average monthly streamflow, 1971–2000, and observed 

average monthly streamflow, November 2001 through August 2002, for Kansas River at 

Topeka andDeSoto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Hydrographs showing daily mean and hourly streamflow in Kansas River at Topeka, 

Lecompton, and DeSoto, November 2001 through August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7. Graph showing streamflow duration curves, 30-day, 10-year low flows, and mean daily 

streamflow for 1971 through 2000 and for synoptic surveys from November 2001 through 

August 2002 for Kansas River at Topeka and DeSoto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Photograph of Bowersock Dam on Kansas River at Lawrence, Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

9. Map showing location of U. S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations, continuous

water-quality monitors, and wastewater discharge sites in study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10–23. Graphs showing:

10. Comparison of measured streamflow in Kansas River with cumulative streamflow 

calculated from measured inputs and withdrawals during synoptic surveys I, II, and III, 

November 2001 through August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

11. Mean daily values for streamflow, specific conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity, 

and dissolved oxygen in Kansas River at Wamego, Topeka, and DeSoto, November 2001–

August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

12. Duration curve for pH in Kansas River at Topeka, October 2000 through September 2003, and 

average pH for each synoptic survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

13. Acute and chronic aquatic-life criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

14. Duration curve for water temperature in Kansas River at Topeka, October 2000 through 

September 2003, and mean daily water temperature for each synoptic survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

15. Duration curve for dissolved-oxygen concentration in Kansas River at Topeka, October 2000 

through September 2003, and average dissolved-oxygen concentration for each synoptic

survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

16. Chloride concentrations in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River,

tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic survey I and 

synoptic survey II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 v

17. Calculated measured and cumulative chloride loads in Kansas River during synoptic

survey I and synoptic survey II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

18. Concentrations of total nitrogen in samples collected from main-stem 

Kansas River, tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic

survey I, synoptic survey II, and synoptic survey III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

19. Concentrations of total phosphorus in samples collected from main-stem 

Kansas River, tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic

survey I, synoptic survey II, and synoptic survey III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

20. Concentrations of ammonia in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River, 

tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic survey I, synoptic

survey II, and synoptic survey III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

21. Calculated measured and cumulative ammonia loads in Kansas River

during synoptic survey I, synoptic survey II, and synoptic survey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

22. Fecal coliform bacteria densities in samples collected from main-stem 

Kansas River, tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic

survey I, synoptic survey II, and synoptic survey III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

23. Calculated measured and cumulative loads of fecal coliform bacteria in 

Kansas River for synoptic survey I, synoptic survey II, and synoptic survey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

24. Schematic diagram showing plan view of top layer of computational grid for Kansas River

water-quality model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

25. Schematic diagram showing computational layers at model segment 14 for Kansas River

water-quality model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

26–36. Graphs showing:

26. Measured and simulated hourly streamflows in Kansas River at Lecompton

and DeSoto for synoptic survey II and synoptic survey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

27. Measured and simulated hourly water temperatures in Kansas River at 

Lecompton and DeSoto for synoptic survey II and synoptic survey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

28. Measured and simulated hourly dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River at 

Lecompton andDeSoto for synoptic survey II and synoptic survey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

29. Measured and simulated ammonia concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to confluence with Missouri River for synoptic survey II and 

synoptic survey III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

30. Measured and simulated fecal coliform bacteria densities in Kansas River at

Lecompton and DeSoto for synoptic survey II and synoptic survey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

31. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to Kansas City during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for

calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

32. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to Kansas City during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for

calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

33. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to Kansas City during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for

calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

34. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to Kansas City during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow conditions for

30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

35. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to Kansas City during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow conditions for

30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
vi 

36. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from

Topeka to Kansas City during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow conditions for

30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Tables

1. Basin characteristics of the Kansas River and major tributaries in northeast Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2. Population of counties adjacent to the Kansas River in northeast Kansas in 2000 

and projected for 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3. Data-collection sites in the Kansas River Basin, northeast Kansas, sampled during synoptic

surveys, November 2001–August 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

4. Calculated 30-day, 10-year low flows for the Kansas River at selected U.S. Geological Survey 

streamflow-gaging stations in northeast Kansas, 1971–2000 and 1968–97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Statistical summary of chloride concentrations in samples collected from the 

Kansas River, northeast Kansas, its tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmentfacility

effluent for synoptic surveys I and II, November 27–29, 2001, and February 25–March 1, 2002. . . . . . .22

6. Statistical summary of total nitrogen concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas River, 

northeast Kansas, its tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001–August 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

7. Statistical summary of total phosphorus concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas 

River, northeast Kansas, its tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001- August 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8. Statistical summary of ammonia concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas River, 

northeast Kansas, its tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001- August 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

9. Estimated rates of ammonia decay in the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, during winter, 

February 25–March 1, 2002, and summer, July 22–August 8, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

10. Statistical summary of fecal coliform densities in samples from the Kansas River, northeast

Kansas, its tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic

surveys I, II, and III, November 2001–August 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

11. Model parameters and calculated values specified as input for water-quality model of 

Kansas River in northeastKansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

12. Boundary conditions used in CE–QUAL–W2 model for various hypothetical simulations 

describing possible effects on water quality in Kansas River in northeast Kansas during winter

and summer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 vii

Conversion Factors, Water-Quality Abbreviations, 

and Datum

Conversion Factors

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

°F = (1.8 x °C) + 32.

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

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8.

Water-Quality Abbreviations

col/100 mL—colonies per 100 milliliters of water

μS/cm—microsiemens per centimeter at 25 oC

mg/L—milligrams per liter

Datum

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

Multiply By To obtain

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

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

gram per cubic meter (g/m3) 0.00006243 pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

kilogram per day (kg/d) 2.205 pound per day (lb/d)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

meter per day (m/d) 3.281 foot per day (ft/d)

micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch (in.)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

milligram per liter (mg/L) 1.0 part per million (ppm)

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

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

watt per square meter (W/m2) 0.859845 kilocalorie (kcal)
viii 
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas 

River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002, 

and Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and 

Bacteria Transport During Low Flow

By Patrick P. Rasmussen and Victoria G. Christensen

Abstract

Large concentrations of ammonia and densities of bacteria 

have been detected in reaches of the Kansas River in northeast 

Kansas during low streamflow conditions, prompting the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to list 

these reaches as water-quality limited with respect to ammonia 

and fecal coliform bacteria. Sources for ammonia and bacteria 

in the watershed consist of wastewater-treatment facilities 

(WWTFs) and agricultural and urban runoff. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with KDHE, conducted an 

investigation of the Kansas River to characterize hydrologic 

and water-quality conditions and to simulate ammonia assimilative capacity and bacteria transport during low streamflow. 

This report characterizes the water-quality conditions, documents the calibration of a two-dimensional water-quality 

model, and presents results of hypothetical simulations of existing and future WWTFs discharging to the Kansas River during 

low streamflow.

Water samples were collected during low streamflow conditions at 50 sampling sites along and near the Kansas River 

between Wamego and Kansas City, Kansas, during three synoptic surveys conducted between November 2001 and August 

2002. The analytical results from these samples indicated that 

ammonia and other nutrient concentrations and fecal coliform 

bacteria densities increased in the Kansas River from Wamego 

to Kansas City. Point sources were the primary contributors of 

ammonia and fecal coliform bacteria during low-flow conditions. Generally, ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River 

were largest at sampling sites just downstream from WWTFs. 

Overall, ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River, tributaries, and WWTF effluent were larger in the winter than during 

the summer. None of the main-stem sample concentrations 

exceeded the State of Kansas pH- and temperature-dependent 

chronic aquatic-life criteria for ammonia during the sampling 

periods. Other nutrients, such as total nitrogen and total phosphorus, indicated a similar, but less variable, spatial pattern 

along the main stem of the Kansas River, with concentrations 

increasing slightly downstream from major WWTFs. The temporal variance defined by the results of synoptic survey III 

(July 22–August 8, 2002) indicated that ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River sometimes varied daily by as much as 

155 percent at a single site.

Samples analyzed for densities of fecal coliform bacteria 

illustrated a seasonal, spatial, and temporal pattern slightly different from that of nutrients. Overall, the bacteria densities measured during the summer were larger than the densities measured in the winter. The only fecal coliform bacteria density to 

exceed the former State water-quality, single-sample criteria of 

2,000 col/100 mL (colonies per 100 milliliters of water) was 

measured at 4,000 col/100 mL during synoptic III (summer 

2002) on the main stem of the Kansas River at Kansas City. 

Temporal variability measured during synoptic survey III indicated up to a 263-percent difference in bacteria density over a 

12-day period. 

Instantaneous loads of ammonia and bacteria were computed to determine primary inputs to the Kansas River and 

ammonia and bacteria decay rates in the river. The Oakland 

WWTF in Topeka was the largest contributor of both ammonia 

and bacteria on the basis of samples collected during the three 

synoptic surveys, except for fecal coliform bacteria collected 

during synoptic survey III when the DeSoto WWTF was discharging the largest concentration of bacteria. The ammonia 

assimilative process was about twice as effective during the 

summer synoptic survey than it was during the winter survey. 

Decay of fecal coliform bacteria density was less evident and 

appeared to have little seasonal effect on the basis of data collected for this report. The summer low-streamflow water-quality conditions were suitable for nitrification, algae that consume 

ammonia, and consequently, decaying organic matter that consume oxygen. The consumption of dissolved oxygen due to 

nitrification and decaying algae contributed to three measurements of dissolved oxygen that were less than the State of Kansas aquatic-life-support use criteria of 5.0 milligrams per liter. 

CE–QUAL–W2, a two-dimensional, hydrodynamic and 

water-quality model, was used to simulate ammonia and bacteria transport in the Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City. 

The model was calibrated and verified using data from the three 

synoptic surveys. The calibrated model successfully simulated 

the hydrodynamics, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, 
2 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

ammonia, and fecal coliform bacteria in the Kansas River. Simulated in-stream ammonia concentrations were compared to 

measured concentrations upstream to downstream along the 

Kansas River. The simulated in-stream ammonia concentrations mostly overestimated the measured values for both winter 

and summer, with a few exceptions. Comparisons between 

measured and simulated in-stream ammonia concentrations 

indicated ammonia assimilation was simulated more accurately 

in the summer than during the winter. 

Four hypothetical simulations of varied effluent discharges from existing WWTFs and addition of a proposed 

WWTF near DeSoto were simulated to better understand future 

water-quality conditions in the Kansas River. Results indicated 

that ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the Kansas River will decrease from the conditions observed during 

synoptic surveys II (February 25 through March 1, 2002) and III 

(July 22 through August 8, 2002) except near the proposed 

WWTF where concentrations of ammonia would be near or 

exceed criteria for waterborne species. Effects of the proposed 

WWTF on dissolved oxygen would result in concentrations less 

than the State of Kansas aquatic-life-support use criteria of 5.0 

milligrams per liter for 1 to 2 miles downstream from either of 

the proposed sites. 

Introduction

In Kansas, elevated concentrations of nutrients and densities of bacteria are two of the most common contaminants 

responsible for causing a stream segment to be designated as 

water-quality impaired (Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2004). In response to the Federal Clean Water 

Act of 1972, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

(KDHE) has listed segments of the Kansas River as water-quality impaired with respect to ammonia and fecal coliform bacteria. The term “water-quality limited” defines stream segments 

that do not meet established water-quality criteria and, therefore, are limited to a lesser designated use. Once a stream has 

been designated as water-quality limited and appears on the 

water-quality limited (303d) list, the Federal Clean Water Act 

requires that States establish total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) to meet those water-quality criteria. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a contaminant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water-quality standards. 

Point and nonpoint sources of dissolved solids, nutrients, 

and bacteria may cause water to be unsuitable for growth, reproduction, and diversity of aquatic organisms; pose potential public health problems in processed drinking water; and reduce the 

recreational desirability of the stream (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). Treatment facility upgrades and bestmanagement practices within the watershed are possible solutions for improving water quality.

The effects of rapid population growth and urban development on water quality are a concern along the Kansas River 

between Topeka and Kansas City. Wastewater-treatment facilities (WWTFs) discharging large concentrations of ammonia 

and densities of bacteria are of particular concern during low 

streamflow conditions when the quantity of water in the stream 

does not sufficiently dilute the ammonia. Large ammonia concentrations can cause excessive algal production and in-stream 

nitrification during the summer, which can result in small dissolved-oxygen concentrations downstream from WWTFs and 

nonpoint sources of contaminants. Small dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations are a concern because dissolved oxygen is 

vitally important for the survival of fish and other aquatic species. Large densities of fecal coliform bacteria indicate elevated 

risks to people using the stream because contact with the water 

could increase the risk of contracting human diseases ranging 

from mild diarrhea to respiratory disease, septicemia, meningitis, and polio (Dufour, 1977; Pepper and others, 1996). As urban 

growth continues along the Kansas River, capacities of existing 

WWTFs will increase, and new WWTFs will discharge to the 

river. The assimilative capacity for ammonia and bacteria in the 

Kansas River need to be assessed so that river resources can be 

better managed to incorporate future population growth without 

exceeding water-quality criteria. 

In July 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with KDHE and support from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, began an investigation of that part of the 

Kansas River Basin in northeast Kansas to characterize and 

simulate water-quality conditions in the river during low 

streamflow conditions. Three synoptic streamflow and waterquality surveys were conducted from November 2001 through 

August 2002. A total of 147 samples were collected at 50 sites 

within and along the Kansas River between Wamego and Kansas City, Kansas. Continuous water-quality monitors also were 

installed in the Kansas River at Wamego, Topeka, and DeSoto. 

The data from the samples collected and the hourly measurements from the water-quality monitors were used to calibrate 

and verify a two-dimensional water-quality model of the Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City, Kansas.

Purpose and Scope

The primary purpose of this report is to describe hydrologic and water-quality conditions and the assessment of the 

assimilative capacity of ammonia and bacteria transport in the 

Kansas River during low streamflow conditions. For this report, 

low-flow conditions in the Kansas River were defined as 

streamflows less than 2,500 ft3

/s. 

The specific objectives of the report are to (1) characterize 

ambient hydrologic and water-quality conditions during the 

study period from November 2001 to August 2002, (2) document calibration of the CE–QUAL–W2 water-quality model, 

and (3) present the results of model simulations for selected 

hypothetical situations describing the effects of an additional 

WWTF and changes in WWTF effluent discharges on water 

quality of the Kansas River during low streamflow conditions. 

The results presented in this report provide KDHE with information necessary for making decisions regarding effects from 

existing and proposed WWTFs on water-quality conditions in 

the Kansas River.
Introduction 3

Description of Study Area

The Kansas River is formed by the confluence of the 

Smoky Hill and Republican Rivers near Junction City, Kansas 

(fig. 1). From there, the river flows 170 mi to Kansas City where 

it discharges to the Missouri River. The entire drainage area for 

the Kansas River Basin at Kansas City is 60,097 mi2 (table 1) 

encompassing the northern half of Kansas and extending into 

Nebraska and Colorado. Streamflow in the Kansas River is regulated by seven large reservoirs—Kanopolis, Wilson, 

Waconda, Milford, Tuttle Creek, Perry, and Clinton Lakes, 

operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For this study, 

a stream was considered regulated if 20 percent or more of its 

drainage area is upstream from an impoundment. Low streamflow in the Kansas River downstream from Lawrence also is 

affected by a low-water dam operated by Bowersock Mills and 

Power Company (Lawrence, Kansas).

There are five major tributaries of the Kansas River that 

are gaged by USGS (Smoky Hill, Republican, Big Blue, Delaware, and Wakarusa Rivers), and each of their corresponding 

drainage areas are at least 71 percent regulated (table 1). About 

85 percent of the entire Kansas River Basin is regulated. Seven 

nonregulated tributaries, with drainage areas ranging from 70 to 

533 mi2

 (Clarks, Vermillion, Mill, Cross, Soldier, Shunganunga, and Stranger Creeks, see fig. 2 for location), have a 

cumulative total drainage area of 2,296 mi2. The remaining 

drainage area consist of several smaller unregulated tributaries 

(drainage areas less than 70 mi2) totaling about 1,600 mi2

. 

Land use throughout the study area (5,555 mi2) is primarily agricultural (cropland and grassland) with some urban areas 

including Junction City, Manhattan, Topeka, Lawrence, and 

Kansas City, Kansas (fig. 3). Counties adjacent to the Kansas 

River support a growing population of nearly 800,000 people 

(Policy Research Institute, 2002; table 2). WWTFs in the counties along the main stem of the Kansas River discharge directly 

into the river or into a tributary immediately upstream from the 

Kansas River (M.E. Gerard, KDHE, written commun., 2004).

The climate of the Kansas River Basin is affected by the 

movement of frontal air masses over the open, inland plains, 

and seasonal precipitation extremes are common. About 65 percent of the mean annual precipitation falls from April through 

September. During the summer months, the weather is dominated by warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico or by hot, dry 

air from the Southwest. Summer precipitation generally occurs 

as high-intensity thunderstorms. Generally, the climatic characteristics vary in an east-west direction, with little north-south 

variation. The general climate of the western part of the Kansas 

River Basin is semiarid with hot, dry summer months and cold, 

windy winter months. The general climate of the eastern part of 

the basin tends to be more humid, with sultry summer months 

and cold winter months.

Mean annual precipitation in the Kansas River Basin varies from about 16 in. in the extreme western part of the basin to 

about 42 in. in the east (Daly and others, 1997). Mean annual 

precipitation for the period 1971 through 2000 for the downstream part of the Kansas River Basin as measured by the 

National Weather Service at the Topeka Philip Billard

Table 1. Basin characteristics of the Kansas River and major tributaries in northeast Kansas.

[mi2, square miles; --, not determined]

Stream name

(fig. 2)

Miles upstream from confluence 

with Missouri River

Total drainage area

(mi2

)

Total regulated drainage area1 (mi2) 

[percentage of drainage area that is regulated]

1For this study, a stream was considered regulated if 20 percent or more of its drainage area is upstream from an impoundment.

Smoky Hill River 170.4 19,950 14,850 [74.4]

Republican River 170.4 24,912 24,880 [99.9]

Clarks Creek 163.4 280 --

Big Blue River 147.5 9,681 9,628 [99.4]

Vermillion Creek 121.4 521 --

Mill Creek 104.1 408 --

Cross Creek 102.5 180 --

Soldier Creek 80.5 304 --

Shunganunga Creek 75.7 70 --

Delaware River 64.7 1,144 1,117 [97.6]

Wakarusa River 41.7 516 367 [71.1]

Stranger Creek 34.6 533 --

Small tributaries Various locations along the 

Kansas River

1,598 --

Kansas River 0 60,097 50,842 [84.6]
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -96°Latitude of origin 23°Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

COLORADO

COLORADO

Kansas 

River

Basin

Boundary ofKansas RiverBasin 

41°

103°

102°

40°

39°

101°

100°

99°

98°

97°

96°

Milford Lake

Tuttle CreekLake

C

Wilson Lake

Waconda Lake

Kanopolis Lake Smoky Hill River

Republican

River

Big Blue

Rive

r

0 40 40 20 60 

20

Solomon

Rive Saline r River Junction City

Wamego

Tope

Manhattan 

Kansas River

Wakarusa Rive

D

Figure 1. Location of Kansas River Basin and study area.
Boundary of 

study area 

39° 

39°30' 

96°30' 

30' 

96° 

95° 

0 10 0 10 5 15 

5 

Fort Riley 

Military 

Reservation 

Junction 

City 

Manhattan 

Wamego 

Topeka Lawrence 

06890100 

06892000 

06889500 

06888000 

06889170 

06889200 

06891500 

06889000 06892350 

06889000

06879650 

06887500 

06888350 

06888500 

06888500

06879100 

Urban area

Nonurban area

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

 station and number

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station with

continuous water-quality monitor–

Number is station

 identification number

Synoptic surface-water sampling site and map

number (table 4)

EXPLANATION 

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

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -96°Latitude of origin 23°Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

2 

1 4 

6 

9 

10 

16 17 

18 19 

20 

21 22 

24 

29 

28 

27 

31 

35 

30 26 25 

23 

23

11 

15 13 14 8 

7 

5 

3 

12 

Bowersock 

Dam 

Riley 

Pottawatomie 

Geary 

Morris 

Wabaunsee 

Shawnee 

Osage 

Douglas 

Jefferson 

Jackson 

Nemaha 

Brown 

Atchison 

Leavenworth 

Johnson 

Wy

Mill Creek

Clarks Creek

Wakarusa

Delaware

River

Rock Creek

Vermillion Creek

Cross Creek

Kansas

River

Clinton 

Lake 

Perry 

Lake 

Stranger Creek

Elk Creek

River

Tonganoxie 

Creek 

Shunganunga 

Creek Whetstone Creek 

Stinson 

Creek 

Ensign 

Creek 

Doyle 

Creek 

Kill 

Creek 

Ninemile 

Creek 

Mud Creek 

Buck 

Creek 

Deer Creek

Mission Creek

Soldier Creek

Little Soldier Creek

Muddy Creek

Captain Creek

Mc Dowell 

Creek 

Kings 

Creek 

06891000 

06890900 

33 34 

37 

36 

38 42 

41 

39 40 

32 

Wildcat Creek

0689

06

Figure 2. Location of streamflow-gaging stations, continuous water-quality monitoring sites, and synoptic surface-water sampling sites alo
6 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

0 10 20 30 MILES

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

KANSAS

MISSOURI

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2004, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection

Zone 15N

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Land use from Kansas Applied Remote Sensing , Data Access and Support Center, 

 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery, 1993

39o

39o 30’

96o 30’

96o

30’

95o

MORRIS

GEARY

RILEY

WABAUNSEE

POTTAWATOMIE

NEMAHA MARSHALL

JACKSON

SHAWNEE

OSAGE

DOUGLAS JOHNSON

WYANDOTTE

LEAVENWORTH

JEFFERSON

ATCHISON

BROWN

Cropland

Grassland

Woodland

Urban

Water

Roads and other

EXPLANATION

Land use

Boundary of lower Kansas River Basin

Kansas City

Topeka

Manhattan

Junction City

Lawrence

Figure 3. Land use in study area, 1993.

Municipal and Kansas City International Airports (fig. 4) was 

36 and 38 in., respectively (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002 and 2003). 

Monthly precipitation during the 10-month study period 

generally was less than normal. The monthly totals for the three 

synoptic surveys (November 2001, February 2002, and July 

2002) ranged between 19 and 71 percent less than normal. 

These dry conditions led to low streamflow conditions that were 

favorable for collecting samples for this type of study. A trace 

of precipitation occurred during synoptic surveys I 

(November 27–29, 2001) and II (February 25–March 1, 2002). 

A widespread storm of about 0.75 in. of rain occurred during 

synoptic survey III (July 22–August 8, 2002). 

Data Collection and Analysis

Water-quantity and -quality measurements and samples 

were collected during three synoptic surveys of the Kansas 

River. Fifty sampling sites were established within the study 

area; 24 along the Kansas River, 18 on tributaries to the Kansas 

River, and 8 at the effluent of WWTFs (fig. 2, table 3). Onehundred and forty-seven water-quality samples were collected 

during the synoptic surveys; 24 samples were collected from 

24 sites during November 27–29, 2001, for synoptic survey I; 

49 samples were collected from 49 sites during the period February 25 through March 1, 2002, for synoptic survey II; and 

74 samples were collected from 50 sites during July 22 through 

August 8, 2002, for synoptic survey III (table 3). Streamflow 
Data Collection and Analysis 7

and water-quality measurements were recorded at each sampling site during sample collection. Continuous water-quality 

measurements were collected throughout the study period at 

USGS streamflow-gaging stations at Wamego, Topeka, and 

DeSoto, Kansas (fig. 2). 

Sample collection for each survey began at downstream 

sampling sites near Kansas City and progressed up the Kansas 

River to sites near Wamego. Samples were collected in this 

manner to ensure that the most important segments (downstream main stem, tributaries, and WWTFs) near Kansas City 

were sampled before possible rain and runoff might disrupt the 

ideal low streamflow conditions.

Depending on streamflow conditions, samples were collected either manually using a dip sampling method or using 

isokinetic, depth-integrated sampling methods (Wilde and others, 1999). Samples for the analysis of bacteria were collected 

by dipping a sterile sampling bottle at the center of streamflow. 

Samples were analyzed for all or some of the following properties and constituents: water-quality properties (specific conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen), 

major ions, nutrients, suspended sediment, bacteria, 7-day biological oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), and biovolume and algal species. 

The USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado, provided the analytical services for most constituents, with the exception of BOD, CBOD, bacteria, and algal 

species. Water samples were analyzed for BOD and CBOD at 

the KDHE Environmental Laboratory, Topeka, Kansas, according to methods presented in Eaton and others (1995). Samples 

for bacteria were analyzed at the USGS office in Lawrence, 

Kansas, according to methods presented in Myers and Sylvester 

(1997). Samples for algal species were identified and enumerated by BSA Environmental Services Laboratory, Inc. (BSA), 

Table 2. Population of counties adjacent to the Kansas River in 

northeast Kansas in 2000 and projected for 2030 (data from Policy 

Research Institute, 2002). 

County

(fig. 3) 2000 population 2030 projected population

Percentage 

change from 

2000 to 2030

Douglas 95,849 104,199 8.7

Geary 33,258 40,322 21.2

Jefferson 16,746 17,996 7.5

Johnson 465,124 655,447 40.9

Leavenworth 73,616 87,236 18.5

Pottawatomie 17,722 22,279 25.7

Riley 70,970 81,265 14.5

Shawnee 169,632 166,809 -1.7

Wabaunsee 6,391 5,960 -6.7

Wyandotte 160,461 160,026 -.3

0 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

Precipitation, in inches 5.0 

6.0 

7.0 

8.0

Nov. Dec. 

2001 2002 

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 

Monthly accumulation, Topeka Philip Billard 

 Municipal Airport 

Monthly accumulation, Kansas City 

 International Airport 

Topeka Philip Billard Municipal Airport 30-year 

 mean monthly precipitation (1971–2000)

Kansas City International Airport 30-year

 mean monthly precipitation (1971–2000)

Figure 4. Accumulated monthly precipitation from November 2001 through August 2002 and 30-year mean 

monthly precipitation (1971–2000) measured at Topeka Philip Billard Municipal Airport and Kansas City International Airport (data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, 2003).
8 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Table 3. Data-collection sites in the Kansas River Basin, northeast Kansas, sampled during synoptic surveys, November 2001–

August 2002.

[Shading indicates USGS streamflow-gaging station with continuous water-quality monitor; 1, sample collected; --, no sample collected]

Map 

number

(fig. 2)

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

identification 

number

Miles 

upstream 

from the 

Missouri 

River

Site name

Number of samples 

collected for

synoptic surveys1

I II III

1 06887500 124.0 Kansas River at Wamego -- -- 1

2 06888000 119.2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego -- 1 1

3 06888300 118.2 Rock Creek near Louisville -- 1 1

4 06888350 113.0 Kansas River at Belvue -- 1 1

5 06888400 103.7 Kansas River near Maple Hill -- 1 1

6 06888650 101.7 Mill Creek near Maple Hill -- 1 1

7 06888700 100.1 Cross Creek near Rossville -- 1 1

8 06888705 98.9 Kansas River at Willard -- 1 1

9 06888800 91.6 Mission Creek near Valencia -- 1 1

10 06888980 86.0 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 1 1 1

11 06888985 85.0 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility, Topeka 1 1 1

12 06889000 83.0 Kansas River at Topeka -- 1 5

13 06889002 81.7 Topeka Oakland sewage treatment effluent 1 1 1

14 06889010 81.1 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka -- 1 2

215 06889504 80.5 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 1 1 1

16 06889700 76.0 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 1 1 1

17 06889750 73.7 Kansas River near Grantville -- 1 1

18 06889800 72.3 Muddy Creek near Grantville 1 1 1

19 06889850 68.6 Kansas River near Grover -- 1 2

20 06890900 65.1 Delaware River below Perry Dam 1 1 1

2

21 06891000 64.0 Kansas River at Lecompton 1 1 5

22 06891060 58.6 Buck Creek at Williamstown -- 1 1

23 06891070 57.5 Kansas River near Midland -- 1 1

24 06891080 51.9 Kansas River at Lawrence -- 1 1

25 06891090 51.1 Lawrence sewage treatment effluent 1 1 1

26 06891093 50.6 Kansas River between Lawrence and Farmland effluent -- 1 2

27 06891095 50.1 Farmland nitrogen plant effluent, Lawrence 1 1 1

28 06891096 48.6 Kansas River below Farmland effluent -- 1 1

29 06891098 47.6 Mud Creek near Lawrence 1 1 1

30 06891100 43.4 Kansas River at Eudora 1 1 1
Data Collection and Analysis 9

Table 3. Data-collection sites in the Kansas River Basin, northeast Kansas, sampled during synoptic surveys, November 2001–

August 2002.—Continued

[Shading indicates USGS streamflow-gaging station with continuous water-quality monitor; --, no sample collected]

Map 

number

(fig. 2)

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

identification 

number

Miles 

upstream 

from the 

Missouri 

River

Site name

Number of samples 

collected for

synoptic surveys1

1Synoptic survey I occurred November 27–29, 2001; synoptic survey II occurred February 25–March 1, 2002; synoptic survey III occurred 

July 22–August 8, 2002.

I II III

231

2

Sampling site where a continuous water-quality monitor was installed for 1 to 10 days during synoptic survey III.

06891675 42.6 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 1 1 1

32 06892200 35.4 Stranger Creek above Linwood 1 1 1

33 06892350 31.7 Kansas River at DeSoto -- 1 7

34 06892358 31.0 DeSoto sewage treatment effluent -- 1 1

35 06892360 31.0 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 1 1 1

36 06892380 30.8 Kansas River near Cedar -- 1 2

37 06892490 26.7 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 1 1 1

38 06892500 20.7 Kansas River at Bonner Springs -- 1 1

39 06892502 20.3 Bonner Springs sewage treatment effluent 1 1 1

40 06892504 19.4 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest -- 1 1

41 06892505 16.6 Kansas River near Edwardsville -- 1 1

242 06892515 16.1 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 1 1 1

43 06892518 15.4 Kansas River near I-435 bridge -- 1 1

44 06892520 15.0 Johnson County Mill Creek Regional sewage treatment effluent 1 1 1

45 06892525 14.8 Kansas City sewage treatment effluent no. 20 1 1 1

46 06892527 11.2 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City sewage treatment effluent 

no. 14

1 1 1

47 06892530 9.7 Kansas River at Turner Bridge -- 1 3

48 06892540 6.0 Kansas River at West Kansas Avenue Bridge 1 1 2

49 06892942 3.2 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 1 1 1

50 06892960 1.1 Kansas River above Missouri River confluence 1 1 4

Total 24 49 74

Beachwood, Ohio, using a Leica inverted compound microscope with 150X, 300X, 600X, and 1,000X objectives and epifluorescence. The magnification used depended on the size of 

the dominant taxa and the size and number of particulates. The 

goal was to count at multiple magnifications to correctly enumerate and identify taxa present that varied in size by several 

orders of magnitude. If the sample was dominated by cells or 

natural units less than 10 to 20 μm or if the cells were fragile and 

difficult to identify, the majority of counting was completed at 

600X to 1,000X magnification.

Natural units enumerated included single cells, filaments, 

or colonies. The abundance of all phytoplankton taxa was calculated as cells per liter and then multiplied by the biovolume 

for one cell of that species. The abundance of common taxa was 

estimated by random field counts. The goal, regardless of magnification, was to enumerate and identify a minimum of 

400 natural units per sample exclusive of miscellaneous 

microflagellates. Extremely sparse samples or samples with 

high particulates yielded less than 400 natural units. For samples with common colonies or filaments, the counts included 

several thousand cells because total cell numbers of multicell 

units (colonies, filaments) were quantified. In accord with Lund 

and others (1958), the data were accurate to within 90-percent 

confidence limits.
10 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Duplicate and blank samples were analyzed to provide 

quality assurance of laboratory analytical precision and reproducibility, and cleaning techniques. The percentage difference 

of duplicate samples was calculated using equation 1:

percentage difference = , (1)

where 

C1 is the concentration or density for the first sample; and

C2 is the concentration or density for the duplicate sample.

The percentage difference for all the chemical and bacteria 

duplicate samples ranged from 0.09 to 27 percent and 12 to 

20 percent, respectively. Differences of less than 20 percent for 

chemical analysis were acceptable. However, differences 

greater than 20 percent may indicate analytical or sampling 

deficiencies. Possible causes for the large uncertainty in the 

bacteria results are discussed in a USGS report by Rasmussen 

and Ziegler (2003).

Eighteen USGS streamflow-gaging stations were located 

within the study area during the study period, 6 on the Kansas 

River and 12 on various tributaries (fig. 2). A continuous record 

of stream stage (water-surface elevation) was recorded at each 

station using pressure transducers and electronic data-collection 

platforms. Daily mean streamflow was calculated at the stations 

by relating stream stage to measured streamflow using methods 

presented by Kennedy (1984). 

Continuously recording (60-minute intervals) waterquality monitors were installed at USGS streamflow-gaging 

stations on the Kansas River at Wamego (station 06887500), 

Topeka (station 06889000), and DeSoto (station 06892350) 

during the study surveys. Water-quality properties measured 

with the monitors included specific conductance, pH, water 

temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. Measurements 

were logged hourly and transmitted every 4 hours via satellite 

to the USGS office in Lawrence, Kansas, and were made available in real time on the World Wide Web 

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/rtqw/). The water-quality 

monitors were inspected onsite by USGS personnel approximately monthly to maintain calibration. Guidelines and standard procedures for maintaining the sites and reporting the data 

are described in Wagner and others (2000). These continuous 

data can be used to develop surrogate relations between realtime data and samples collected to provide continuous estimates 

for selected constituents (Christensen and others, 2000; Rasmussen and Ziegler, 2003).

During synoptic survey III (July 22–August 8, 2002), continuously recording water-quality monitors were temporarily 

installed for several days in the Kansas River at Lecompton 

(station 06891000) and Kansas City (station 06892960) and for 

about 24 hours near the mouth of Soldier Creek, Wakarusa 

River, and Mill Creek in Johnson County. The data from these 

monitors were used to verify input values for the water-quality 

model. Measurements of specific conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen were logged hourly. 

All of the temporarily installed monitors were cleaned and calibrated prior to installation, and the monitors at Lecompton and 

Kansas City also were cleaned and calibrated 1 week after 

installation and prior to removal. 

Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions

Hydrologic and water-quality conditions during the study 

period are summarized in this section. Analytical results of the 

water samples collected are listed in Appendix 1 at the back of 

this report. Spatial variations in water quality for the three synoptic surveys are described as well as seasonal variation 

between winter (synoptic surveys I and II) and summer (synoptic survey III) conditions. Some temporal comparisons are made 

for synoptic survey III. Comparison of analytical results to State 

water-quality criteria also are provided.

Hydrologic Conditions

Long-term (1971–2000) average monthly streamflows for 

the Kansas River at Topeka (station 06889000) and DeSoto 

(station 06892350) indicated that January had the smallest 

flows and that May had the largest average monthly streamflows (fig. 5). Comparisons of average monthly streamflows for 

the Kansas River at Topeka and DeSoto from November 2001 

to August 2002 with long-term average monthly streamflow 

indicated that streamflows during the study period were from 17 

to 87 percent less than the long-term normal (1971–2000). 

KDHE uses the 30-day, 10-year low streamflow (30Q10) 

statistic for 1968–97 to determine mixing zones downstream 

from point-source discharges (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2002). The 30Q10 is defined as the streamflow below which the annual 30-day minimum falls in 1 year 

out of 10 as a long-term average. The recurrence interval of the 

30Q10 is 10 years; the chance that the annual 30-day minimum 

flow will be less than the 30Q10 is 10 percent in any given year. 

The 30Q10s for the Kansas River at Topeka, Lecompton, and 

DeSoto for 1971–2000 were calculated on the basis of streamflow data collected at USGS streamflow-gaging stations (fig. 2) 

and are compared to the 30Q10s that KDHE uses (1968–97) in 

table 4. 

Differences in streamflow between sites on the Kansas 

River at Topeka, Lecompton, and DeSoto were caused by 

various factors. Daily mean streamflow varied from 740 to 

9,600 ft3

/s at Topeka, 900 to 13,500 ft3/s at Lecompton, and 

950 to 15,800 ft3

/s at DeSoto during the study (fig. 6A). Hourly 

streamflow fluctuation during the three synoptic surveys were 

caused by reservoir and low-water dam operation and rainfall 

(figs. 6B–D). Comparison of hourly streamflows for the Kansas 

River at Topeka and Lecompton during steady, low streamflow 

conditions indicates a 300 to 400 ft3

/s increase at Lecompton, 

suggesting that the river is gaining streamflow from its tributaries, point sources, and ground water (Wolf and Helgesen, 

1992). The differences in hourly streamflows between 

C1 – C2

C1 + C2

2 ---------------------

---------------------
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 11

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

12,000 

14,000 

16,000 

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

Long-term average monthly 

streamflow at DeSoto, 1971–2000 Long-term average 

monthly streamflow at 

Topeka, 1971–2000 

Average monthly 

streamflow at Topeka 

Average monthly 

streamflow at Desoto 

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 

2001 2002 

Figure 5. Long-term, average monthly streamflow, 1971–2000, and observed average monthly streamflow, 

November 2001 through August 2002, for Kansas River at Topeka and DeSoto.

Lecompton and DeSoto were small, suggesting gains in streamflow from tributaries and point sources are offset by losses to 

withdrawals and ground- and surface-water interaction.

Mean daily streamflows varied from 340 to 170,000 ft3/s 

at Topeka and 520 to 170,000 ft3/s at DeSoto during the period 

1971 through 2000 (fig. 7). Median mean daily streamflows for 

the 30-year period were 3,200 ft3

/s at Topeka and 4,400 ft3/s at 

DeSoto. Mean daily streamflows for the Kansas River at 

Topeka and DeSoto during the synoptic surveys were 1,500 and 

2,100 ft3

/s, respectively, for survey I; 1,900 and 1,900 ft3/s, 

respectively, for survey II; and 1,100 and 1,300 ft3

/s, respectively, for survey III. In comparison with the long-term duration 

curve, the average mean daily streamflows for the three synoptic surveys were greater than or equal to streamflows with 

exceedance probabilities of 70 percent or greater for the 30-year 

period. Hourly streamflows during the three synoptic surveys 

were greater than both of the 30Q10 low flows at Topeka and 

DeSoto listed in table 4. 

Streamflow in the Kansas River downstream from 

Lawrence is affected by a low-water dam that is operated by the 

Bowersock Mills and Power Company and used to generate 

electricity (fig. 8). The dam maintains about 4 to 6 ft of head 

(the difference in elevation between the surface of the pool 

upstream from the dam and downstream from the dam) using 

baffles and boards to divert water to the powerplant to generate 

electrical output. The head and streamflow provide the energy 

necessary to turn the turbines of the generators to produce electricity. Maintenance and equipment failures are some of the 

reasons for lowering and raising the dam, creating extreme 

streamflow changes downstream from the dam during low-flow 

conditions.

The sum of the designed (maximum) discharges (Appendix 2) from the 37 wastewater discharge sites identified in 

figure 9, is 159 ft3

/s. The sum of the six largest WWTFs 

(Johnson County Mill Creek Regional (WWTF 33), Topeka 

Oakland (WWTF 8), Johnson County Nelson (WWTF 37), 

Table 4. Calculated 30-day, 10-year low flows for the Kansas River

at selected U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in 

northeast Kansas, 1971–2000 and 1968–97.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

U.S. 

Geological 

station 

number

(fig. 4)

Station name

Streamflow, 

30-day, 

10-year low 

(ft3

/s), 

1971–2000

Streamflow, 

30-day, 

10-year low 

(ft3

/s), 

1968–97

06887500 Kansas River at Wamego, 

Kansas

626 575

06889000 Kansas River at Topeka, 

Kansas

677 670

06891000 Kansas River at Lecompton, 

Kansas

802 765

06892350 Kansas River at DeSoto, 

Kansas

856 830
12 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

DeSoto 

DeSoto 

DeSoto Ice-affected 

streamflow 

DeSoto 

Topeka 

Topeka 

Topeka 

Topeka 

A. Period of study 

Lecompton 

Lecompton 

Lecompton 

Lecompton 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

20 21 22 23 24 25 

November 2001 

2001 2002 

19 

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

February March 2002 

July August 2002 

December 

26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Synoptic survey I

(Nov. 27–29)

B. Synoptic survey I 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Synoptic survey II

(Feb. 25–Mar. 1)

C. Synoptic survey II 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Synoptic survey III (July 22–Aug. 8)

D. Synoptic survey III 

Figure 6. Daily mean and hourly streamflow in Kansas River at Topeka, Lecompton, and DeSoto, November 2001 through 

August 2002.
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 13

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 

(median) 

60 70 80 90 100 

Percentage exceedance 

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

Mean daily streamflow for synoptic survey I (November 27–29, 2001)

Mean daily streamflow for synoptic survey II (February 25–March 1, 2001)

Mean daily streamflow for synoptic survey III (July 22–August 8, 2002) 

Low-flow criterion for synoptic surveys (2,500 cubic feet per second) 

Topeka (1971–2000) 

DeSoto 30-day, 10-year low flow (1968–97, 830 cubic feet per second)

Topeka 30-day, 10-year low flow (1968–97, 670 cubic feet per second)

DeSoto (1971–2000) 

Figure 7. Streamflow duration curves, 30-day, 10-year low flows, and mean daily streamflow for 1971 through 2000 and for

synoptic surveys from November 2001 through August 2002 for Kansas River at Topeka and DeSoto.

Lawrence (WWTF 16), North Topeka (WWTF 7), and Kansas 

City no. 20 WWTF (site 34) represents 79 percent of the total 

design flow. The cumulative design flow for the wastewater discharges upstream from Topeka (WWTF 8) and DeSoto 

(WWTF 27) are 24 and 82 ft3/s, respectively. Currently, (2004) 

48 percent of the cumulative WWTF design flow is discharged 

into the Kansas River downstream from DeSoto. The winter 

permitted ammonia loads are greatest for WWTFs serving large 

urban areas (Topeka, Lawrence, Kansas City; fig. 9). On the 

basis of projected population for the counties adjacent to the 

Kansas River (table 2), wastewater from the projected 2030 

population growth in Johnson County has the greatest potential 

to increase the ammonia load in the WWTF effluent and affect 

the water quality of the Kansas River downstream from DeSoto. 

Calculated cumulative streamflow values were compared 

to measured streamflow values on the main stem of the Kansas 

River to estimate surpluses and deficits of streamflow (fig. 10). 

Cumulative streamflow was calculated by starting with the 

streamflow of the Kansas River at Wamego or some site

downstream and adding the measured streamflows from tributaries and WWTFs. In some cases, when there was a large difference between flow values of the instantaneous measurements 

made during sample collection and those reported by WWTFs, 

the flow value reported by the WWTF was used in the 

calculation of cumulative streamflow. Inflow from small tributaries and withdrawals from the Kansas River and surface- and 

ground-water interaction during these periods were not measured. Withdrawals from the Kansas River for municipal water 

use typically are reported as a monthly value. These monthly 

values were not used in this comparison or in the model. 

Streamflows for tributaries and WWTFs (as reported by the 

facility) were assumed to be constant throughout each synoptic 

period. A surplus of streamflow occurred during synoptic 

survey I (fig. 10A) when main-stem measured streamflow 

values were greater than main-stem cumulative streamflow. Part 

of the reason for the apparent surplus was because the Kansas 

River flows were not in steady-state condition. Moreover, the 

measurements were made from downstream to upstream as 

streamflow in the Kansas River was decreasing (fig. 6B). The 

main-stem samples that were collected first near the confluence 

with the Missouri River were collected during streamflows of 

about 2,500 ft3

/s (fig. 10A). The last sample collected on the 

main stem near Topeka was at a streamflow of 1,400 ft3

/s (fig. 

10A). For this reason, conclusions about unmeasured tributary 

inflow and ground-water flux during synoptic survey I can not 

be made with certainty.

Streamflow in the Kansas River was more stable at the 

Topeka and Lecompton USGS gaging stations during synoptic 

survey II (fig. 6C). Streamflow at the DeSoto USGS gage fluctuated as a result of of operations of Bowersock Dam. Measured 

streamflow and cumulative streamflow for the main-stem sites 

upstream from Bowersock Dam indicated that flow in the river 

increased slightly from upstream to downstream as tributaries 

and WWTFs flowed into the river (fig. 10B). Downstream from 
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 14

Bowersock Dam, streamflow varied hourly indicating that the 

operation of Bowersock Dam greatly affected the streamflow 

and increased the uncertainty of the comparison for this portion 

of the main stem. 

During synoptic survey III (fig. 10C), streamflow in the 

Kansas River varied because of runoff from rainfall and operation of Bowersock Dam (fig. 6D). Samples and streamflow 

measurements for synoptic survey III on the main stem were 

collected either before or after the increased streamflow from 

runoff reached the sampling site. A few streamflow measurements on the Kansas River were made that were affected by the 

runoff. The variability of the main-stem streamflow was 

reflected at the sampling sites where more than one sample was 

collected. For instance, instantaneous streamflow for each sample collected at the USGS streamflow gage at Lecompton 

(site 21) ranged from 830 to 1,300 ft3/s. The hourly streamflow 

data from the DeSoto streamflow gage indicated that the operation of Bowersock Dam affected streamflow only for the first 3 

to 4 days of synoptic survey III (fig. 6D). Therefore, flows in 

the Kansas River measured during that period at sites downstream from Bowersock Dam (downstream from site 24) were 

affected by dam operations.

Streamflow contributed by all the measured tributaries 

(18) and WWTFs (8) during synoptic survey III was about 

140 ft3

/s and accounted for 13 percent of the total streamflow at 

the mouth. The measured main-stem streamflow decreased 

from Wamego (site 1) to Topeka (site 12) and then gradually 

increased from Topeka to just upstream from Bowersock Dam 

(site 24). This slight streamflow increase is similar to the rate of 

increase indicated by the main-stem cumulative streamflow for 

this reach. The comparison between measured and calculated 

main-stem cumulative streamflow demonstrates that, for the 

reach between Topeka (river mile 85) and Lawrence (river mile 

56), the Kansas River is gaining streamflow from tributaries, 

WWTFs, and ground water. 

The comparison between measured and calculated cumulative streamflow of the Kansas River downstream from Bowersock Dam to the confluence with the Missouri River indicated 

that, in general, streamflow increased. The rate of increase for 

main-stem measured streamflow exceeded the rate of increase 

for calculated main-stem cumulative streamflow. There are several possible explanations for this. The daily operation of Bowersock Dam coupled with the timing of the measurements could 

have created the variation between the measured and cumulative streamflow, or the river reach could be receiving ground 

water and, therefore, increasing the streamflow. Another explanation is that the assumption that the magnitude of the flow 

from the tributaries and WWTFs was constant was incorrect. 

The streamflow for the gaged tributaries indicated no evidence 

of an increase in streamflow. It is possible that the discharge 

from the WWTFs increased during this period, but even if every 

WWTF was discharging at full design capacity, the resulting 

increased streamflow is not enough to make up the difference. 

Of the possibilities, the timing of the streamflow measurements 

and the ground-water inflow increasing the streamflow in the 

Kansas River are the most likely causes of differences between 

measured and calculated cumulative streamflow.

Physical Water-Quality Characteristics

Physical water-quality characteristics (specific conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen) 

in the Kansas River are affected greatly by the magnitude of 

streamflow, amount of daily solar radiation available, and the 

clarity of the water. Fluctuations and extremes in physical 

water-quality characteristics can result in unfavorable conditions for the survival of fish and other aquatic species. This section discusses hourly measurements of these physical characteristics of water in the Kansas River at Wamego, Topeka, and 

DeSoto. 

SpecificConductance

Specific conductance describes the ability of water to conduct an electrical current and provides an indication of ion concentrations or dissolved solids. Pure water has a very small 

electrical conductance. Concentrations of dissolved solids 

increase as specific conductance increases (Hem, 1992). Measurements of specific conductance along the Kansas River can 

indicate point-source inflows and ground- and surface-water 

interaction. There are no water-quality criteria for specific conductance in Kansas.

Specific conductance generally varied inversely with 

streamflow (fig. 11). During low streamflow conditions, when 

reservoir releases were relatively small, streamflow was

Figure 8. Bowersock Dam on Kansas River at Lawrence, Kansas 

(photograph courtesy of Bowersock Mills and Power Company, 

Lawrence, Kansas).
Boundary of

study area

39 ̊

39 ̊30'

96 ̊30'

30'

96 ̊

95 ̊

0 10 0 10 5 15 2

5

06890100

06890900

06891500

06889000

06889000

06879650

06887500

06888350

06888500

06888500

06879100

Urban area

Nonurban area

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

 station and number

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

station with continuous water-quality

monitor–

Number is station identification

 number

Wastewater discharge site and num

 Winter permitted ammonia load, in 

 100–1,000

 5–100 

 0–5

EXPLANATION

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

Albers ConicEqual-Area projection,Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -96°Latitude of origin 23°Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

7

1

8

12

10

5

9

11

 13 

15

20

22

19

3

23

18

25

28 21

27

26

31

30

17

16 

4

3 2

29 

6

Belvue

Rossville

Topeka

Lecompton

Lawrence

DeSoto

24

 17 

Riley

Pottawatomie

Geary

Morris

Wabaunsee

Shawnee

Osage

Douglas

Jefferson

Jackson

Nemaha

Brown

Atchison

Leavenworth

Johnson

Wyan

Mill Creek

Clarks Creek

Wakarusa

River Delaware

Rock Creek

Vermillion Creek

Cross Creek

Kansas

River

Clinton

Lake

Perry

Lake

Stranger Creek

Elk Creek

Shunganunga River Creek Whetstone Creek

Stinson

Creek

Ensign

Creek

Doyle

Creek

Deer Creek

Mission Creek

Soldier Creek

Little Soldier Creek

Muddy Creek

Captain Creek

Mc Dowell

Creek

Kansas City

Kansas 

metropolita

area

06892350

14

Wildcat Creek Tonganoxie Creek

Kill

Creek

Ninemile

Creek

MudCreek

Buck

Creek

06892000

06889500

06888000

06889170

06889200

Kings

Creek

06892

068

06891000

Fort Riley

Military

Reservation

Junction

City

Ogden

Manhattan

Figure 9. Location of U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations, continuous water-quality monitors, and wastewater discharge sit
16 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

Measured streamflow

at synoptic sampling

site and map number

shown in figure 2

Calculated 

cumulative 

streamflow 

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

Mission Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

10 

4 

1 

4 

5 8 10 

12 

17 19 

21 

23 24 

30 

5 8 10 12 14 17 19 21 

23

26 

28 30 

33

36 38 40 41 

44 47 

48 

50 

21 30 

48 50 

14 26 

28 

33

36 40 

38 41 44 47 48 50 Johnson County Mill Creek Regional treatment facility 

Measured streamflow

at synoptic sampling

site and map number

shown in figure 2

Calculated 

cumulative 

streamflow 

Measured streamflow

at synoptic sampling

site and map number

shown in figure 2

Calculated 

cumulative 

streamflow 

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

Figure 10. Comparison of measured streamflow in Kansas River with cumulative streamflow calculated from measured inputs and withdrawals during synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002. Location of 

synoptic sampling sites shown in figure 2. Gray shading indicates multiple samples collected at a single site.
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 17

A. Kansas River at Wamego (station 06887500, fig. 2)

 

No data 

No data 

No 

data 

No 

data 

No 

data 

No 

data 

Synoptic survey I

(Nov. 27–29, 2001)

Synoptic survey II

(Feb. 25–Mar. 1, 2002)

Synoptic survey III

(July 22–Aug. 8, 2002)

B. Kansas River at Topeka (station 06889000, fig. 2)

C. Kansas River at DeSoto (station 06892350, fig. 2)

Mean daily streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

Specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 

Turbidity, in formazin nephelometric turbidity units 

Mean daily pH, in standard units 

Water temperature, in degrees Celsius 

Dissolved oxygen, in millgrams per liter 

1.0 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

1.0 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

1.0 

10 

100 

1,000 

100,000 

10,000 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. 

2001 2002 

Streamflow 

Specific conductance 

pH 

Water temperature 

EXPLANATION 

Turbidity 

Dissolved oxygen 

Figure 11. Mean daily values for streamflow, specific conductance, pH, water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved 

oxygen in Kansas River at (A) Wamego, (B) Topeka, and (C) DeSoto, November 2001–August 2002.
18 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

primarily from ground water and, therefore, contained large dissolved-solids concentrations (that is, large specific conductance 

values). When reservoir releases within the watershed 

increased, subsequent specific conductance values decreased. 

Mean daily specific conductance for the Kansas River at Topeka 

during the three synoptic periods ranged from 351 μS/cm at 

25 o

C during the largest streamflow to 1,101 μS/cm at 25 oC 

when streamflow in the Kansas River was less than 2,500 ft3/s 

(fig. 11B). 

pH

Hydrogen-ion activity or content is measured with pH. As 

the hydrogen-ion activity increases, pH values decrease to values less than 7.0 standard units and exhibit acidic properties. pH 

values greater than 7.0 standard units exhibit alkaline properties 

and a decrease in hydrogen activity. KDHE aquatic-life-support 

use criterion for pH is not less than 6.5 and not more than 

8.5 standard units (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2002). Hourly values of pH greater than 8.5 standard 

units occurred during 25 percent of the period October 2000 

through September 2003 (different from study period so that the 

plot is an annual exceedance curve) for the Kansas River at 

Topeka (fig. 12). Forty and 19 percent of the hourly pH values 

in the Kansas River at Topeka for synoptic surveys II and III, 

respectively, were greater than 8.5 standard units.

The pH of a stream is an important factor when considering the toxicity of ammonia for fish. KDHE aquatic-life criteria 

for ammonia reflect the relation of pH and ammonia toxicity 

(fig. 13). For example, the acute aquatic-life criterion for 

ammonia at a pH of 7.0 standard units is 36.1 mg/L, whereas, 

for a pH value of 8.5, the criterion is 3.2 mg/L (fig. 13A). These 

criteria indicate that as pH increases so does the toxicity of 

ammonia. 

In general, the pH of the Kansas River was slightly basic 

during the study period ranging from 8.0 to 9.0 standard units 

(fig. 11). Variations in pH are primarily diurnal, although there 

were some large streamflows that decreased the pH of the Kansas River. Diurnal fluctuation of pH is caused primarily by photosynthesis in aquatic organisms that take up dissolved carbon 

dioxide during the daylight and then release carbon dioxide at 

night by respiration (Hem, 1992). The amplitude of the diurnal 

variations increased during the summer months (synoptic 

survey III) when streamflow was small and water temperature 

was high. During the two large runoff periods (May 7 and 

May 13, 2002), mean daily pH decreased to values of 8.2 and 

7.9 standard units, respectively, in the Kansas River at Topeka. 

The smallest mean daily pH (7.8 standard units) occurred during minor runoff in the summer (August 17, 2002). The maximum mean daily pH value was 8.8 standard units and occurred 

June 26, 2002, during low streamflow conditions (less than 

2,500 ft3

/s). The average pH for the three synoptic surveys

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Hourly pH, in standard units 

Synoptic survey I (November 27–29, 2001)

Synoptic survey II (February 25–March 1, 2002)

Synoptic survey III (July 22–August 8, 2002)

Upper limit of Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment (2002) surface-water criterion for pH 

(6.5 to 8.5 standard units) 

Average pH for synoptic surveys 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

(median) 

60 70 80 90 100

Percentage exceedance 

Hourly pH

Figure 12. Duration curve for pH in Kansas River at Topeka (station 06889000, fig. 2), October 2000 through September 2003, and 

average pH for each synoptic survey.
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 19

Criteria 

A. pH-dependent acute aquatic-life criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen 

B. pH and water-temperature-dependent chronic aquatic-life criteria for 

 total ammonia as nitrogen with early life

C. pH and water-temperature-dependent chronic aquatic-life criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 

pH, in standard units 

0 

2.0 

4.0 

6.0 

8.0 

2.0 

4.0 

6.0 

8.0 

10 

12 

0 

10 

12 

0-14 

16 

18 

20 

24 

30 

Ammonia criteria 

for selected water 

temperatures, in 

degrees Celsius 

Ammonia criteria 

for selected water 

temperatures, in 

degrees Celsius 

Total ammonia as nitrogen, in milligrams per liter 

0–7

8

10

12

14

Figure 13. Acute and chronic aquatic-life criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen (criteria from Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment, 2002).
20 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

ranged from 8.3 to 8.5. The minimum and maximum observed 

during the synoptic surveys was 7.6 and 8.9 standard units, 

respectively, and both were observed during synoptic survey III. 

Water Temperature

Water temperature also is important when determining the 

chronic aquatic-life criteria for ammonia (fig. 13). At a pH of 

8.0 standard units, the ammonia criterion for early life stages 

present is 2.3 mg/L at a water temperature of 14 oC and 

0.90 mg/L at a water temperature of 30 o

C (Kansas Department 

of Health and Environment, 2002). These criteria suggest that 

as water temperature and pH increase so does ammonia toxicity 

in fish. 

Mean daily water-temperature data (fig. 11) from the Kansas River at Wamego, Topeka, and DeSoto indicated seasonal 

and daily variations. Water temperature variations during low 

streamflow conditions were related primarily to the amount of 

daily solar radiation available. Mean daily water temperatures 

varied from 0 oC in the winter (synoptic surveys I and II) to 

more than 30 o

C in the summer (synoptic survey III). The minimum, median, and maximum water temperatures in the Kansas 

River at Topeka for the study period were 0, 17.8, and 33.0 oC, 

respectively (fig. 14). The hourly water temperature of the Kansas River at Topeka varied from 2.5 to 29.2 oC during synoptic 

surveys II and III, respectively. Diurnal variations were as much 

as 5 oC. Synoptic surveys II and III were conducted during the 

low and high water temperature extremes, respectively, for the 

study period. 

Turbidity

Turbidity is the reduction in the transparency of a solution 

due to the presence of suspended and dissolved substances. Primary contributors to turbidity in water include clay, silt, finely 

divided organic and inorganic matter, soluble colored organic 

compounds, plankton, and microscopic organisms (American 

Public Health Association and others, 1992). Turbidity can 

inhibit light penetration into the water, reducing the photosynthesis of the aquatic organisms and plants and, therefore, affecting dissolved-oxygen and ammonia concentrations in the water. 

Turbidity in the Kansas River at Topeka ranged from 15 to 

greater than 1,000 formazin nephelometric turbidity units 

(FNU) (fig. 11B). The larger turbidity values generally were 

associated with increased streamflow usually due to rainfall and 

subsequent runoff. During low streamflow conditions, turbidity 

values generally were less than 100 FNU. During the three synoptic surveys, hourly turbidity in the Kansas River at Topeka 

ranged from 8 to 99 FNU.

Synoptic survey I (November 27–29, 2001)

Synoptic survey II (February 25–March 1, 2002)

Synoptic survey III (July 22–August 8, 2002)

Average water temperature for synoptic surveys 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

(median) 

60 70 80 90 100

Percentage exceedance 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

Temperature, in degrees Celsius 

Figure 14. Duration curve for water temperature in Kansas River at Topeka (station 06889000, fig. 2), October 2000 through 

September 2003, and mean daily water temperature for each synoptic survey.
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 21

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations are used extensively to 

evaluate the ability of a stream to support higher forms of 

aquatic life that require oxygen for survival (Hem, 1992). During the day, photosynthesizing biota can produce oxygen, elevating dissolved-oxygen concentrations. Conversely, at night, 

organisms die causing the concentration of dissolved oxygen to 

decrease. KDHE’s surface-water-quality criterion for dissolved 

oxygen is 5.0 mg/L (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2002). Stream segments with dissolved-oxygen concentrations less than 5.0 mg/L are considered impaired for aquatic 

life. 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations varied seasonally and 

diurnally (fig. 11) throughout the study period. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the Kansas River at Topeka (fig. 11B) 

reached minimum (4.2 mg/L) in late summer and maximum 

(16 mg/L) in the early spring, both during low streamflow conditions (streamflow less than 2,500 ft3

/s). The average dissolved-oxygen concentrations for the three synoptic surveys 

were 14 mg/L for synoptic survey I, 9.0 mg/L for synoptic survey II, and 7.5 mg/L for synoptic survey III (fig. 15). The maximum and minimum hourly dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

for the three synoptic surveys were 15 and 4.4 mg/L measured 

during synoptic survey I and III, respectively. The magnitude of 

the amplitude of diurnal variation increased during the summer 

when streamflow was low and water temperatures were highest. 

Some aquatic organisms thrive under such conditions, producing dissolved oxygen by photosynthesis during the day. At 

night, photosynthesis ceases, and dissolved oxygen is consumed by fish, sediment, and bacteria that consume organic 

material. During the summer, it was not uncommon for the daily 

maximum dissolved-oxygen concentration to reach 15 mg/L 

and the minimum to reach 5.0 mg/L. There were several days 

during synoptic survey III when some of the hourly dissolvedoxygen measurements were less than the KDHE aquatic-lifesupport use criterion (5.0 mg/L) (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2002).

Chemical and Biological Constituent Concentrations 

and Comparison of Measured and Calculated 

Constituent Loads

Water-quality conditions in the Kansas River are affected 

greatly by the magnitude and source of streamflow. During low 

streamflow conditions (less than 2,500 ft3/s at DeSoto), the 

sources of streamflow are primarily ground water and reservoir 

0 

2.0 

4.0 

6.0 

8.0 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20

Dissolved oxygen, in milligrams per liter (mg/L)

Average dissolved-oxygen concentration for synoptic surveys

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (2002) 

surface-water-quality criterion for dissolved oxygen, 

5.0 mg/L 

Synoptic survey I (November 27–29, 2001)

Synoptic survey II (February 25–March 1, 2002)

Synoptic survey III (July 22–August 8, 2002)

0 10 20 30 40 50 

(median) 

60 70 80 90 100 

Percentage exceedance 

Figure 15. Duration curve for dissolved-oxygen concentration in Kansas River at Topeka (station 06889000, fig. 2), October

2000 through September 2003, and average dissolved-oxygen concentration for each synoptic survey.
22 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

releases to major tributaries. In addition, point sources and tributary inflows can greatly affect water quality of the Kansas 

River during low streamflow conditions. 

For the purpose of spatial comparison of samples along the 

Kansas River, steady-state conditions were assumed for each 

synoptic survey period. Steady-state condition for this report is 

defined as a time when the local physical and chemical properties of the river system do not vary. Specifically, the water 

quantity and quality of inputs to the river system are stable over 

the specified period. Statistics and loads for selected constituents were computed from the results of water-quality analyses 

of samples collected during the three synoptic surveys (Appendix 1 at the back of this report) and are presented in this section. 

Selected constituent loads were calculated by multiplying 

instantaneous streamflow (cubic feet per second) by the 

concentration (milligrams per liter) and by a conversion factor 

of 2.44 to convert the values to kilograms per day. Of particular 

concern to water managers in Kansas, and detailed in the following sections, are concentrations of chloride, total nitrogen 

and phosphorus, and ammonia, and fecal coliform bacteria 

densities.

Chloride

Chloride is considered conservative and not involved in 

processes of interaction or loss as it moves through the river 

system (Feth, 1981). Given its conservative nature, chloride 

generally is considered a good tracer and can be used to identify 

streamflow or ground-water inputs, measured and not measured. The comparison of measured chloride load and calculated cumulative chloride load on the main stem of the Kansas 

River evaluates how representative the sampling was of the 

actual water-quality conditions. Similar measured and calculated cumulative chloride loads indicate that the sampling 

scheme used was adequate for representing water-quality conditions. Differences between measured and calculated 

cumulative loads indicate inadequate sampling of some part of 

the river system (ground water, small tributary input, and so 

forth).

Water samples collected during synoptic survey I 

(November 27–29, 2001) and II (February 25–March 1, 2002) 

were analyzed for chloride concentrations. A total of 73 

samples were analyzed; 30 samples were from tributaries, 

28 were from Kansas River main-stem sites, and 15 were from 

WWTFs. The mean chloride concentration of the tributary samples was less than one-half the mean concentrations of the mainstem samples and the WWTF samples (table 5). None of the 

samples collected from the Kansas River had chloride concentrations greater than 250 mg/L, the State of Kansas drinkingwater supply criterion for chloride (Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment, 2002).

Results indicated a slight decrease in concentration from 

upstream to downstream in the Kansas River (fig. 16). Mean 

concentrations of chloride during synoptic surveys I and II were 

largest in samples from WWTFs and smallest in samples from 

the tributaries (table 5). Chloride concentrations ranged from 

4.9 mg/L in the Delaware River below Perry Dam (site 20) to 

170 mg/L in the effluent of the North Topeka WWTF (site 11), 

Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 13), and Bonner Springs WWTF 

(site 39) (fig. 2; Appendix 1). 

Measured and cumulative chloride loads for the sampling 

sites along the Kansas River were plotted so that a line indicating accumulated mass per river mile could be compared to measured mass at specific main-stem sites (fig. 17). If the assumptions that chloride is conservative and the river system is at 

steady state are correct, the calculated measured load at any 

given site should equal the accumulated load. In reaches unaffected by WWTF discharges, differences between accumulated 

and measured chloride load provide an indication of groundwater discharge or recharge.

Calculation of measured and cumulative chloride loads 

provided a check of the hydrodynamics of the river system. 

Only inflows from tributaries and ground-water and surfacewater interaction can affect the concentration of chloride at 

Table 5. Statistical summary of chloride concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, its 

tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic surveys I and II, November 27–29, 2001, and 

February 25–March 1, 2002. 

[mg/L, milligram per liter]

Statistic

Kansas River main-stem 

sampling sites Tributary sampling sites Wastewater-treatment facility sampling sites

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Number of samples 5 23 12 18 7 8

Mean concentration (mg/L) 89 109 41 39 119 139

Median concentration (mg/L) 76 111 30 22 113 132

Range in concentrations (mg/L) 73–117 79–126 5–95 5–137 74–167 106–170

Number of values less than reporting level (0.02 

mg/L)

0 0 0 0 0 0
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 23

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

Mission Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewatertreatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

Chloride, in milligrams per liter 

B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

4 

2 3 6 

7 

9 

5 8 10 

12 

17 14 19 21 

23

24 26 

28 

30 

33

36 

34 

37 

38 

39 

39 

43

42 

46 

47 

48 

49 

15 16 

20 22 

31 

32 

35 

27 

25 

11 

11 

11 

13

10 

10 

21 

25 

27 30 

37 

42 46 48 50 

49 

44 

45 

35 

32 

31 

29 20 

18 

16 

15 

29 

18 

50 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

45 

40 

44 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001

4 

15 

11 

13

41 

15 

Figure 16. Chloride concentrations in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River, tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for (A) synoptic survey I and (B) synoptic survey II. Location of sampling sites 

shown by map number in figure 2.

various locations along the main-stem Kansas River. This was 

helpful in identifying and estimating ground-water inflow, 

which was not measured during the synoptic surveys. 

Results of chloride load calculations for synoptic survey II 

(fig. 17) indicated that calculated measured loads of chloride in 

the Kansas River decreased from Topeka to Kansas City, and 

most notably between Lawrence and Kansas City. The decrease 

in chloride load indicated that chloride left the stream, possibly 

through the Kansas River streambed into the ground water in 

the Kansas River alluvium. Such a loss in chloride also would 

indicate a proportional loss in streamflow. However, streamflow increased along this reach (except between sites 30 and 33) 

(fig. 10) indicating the opposite effect. Calculation of measured 

chloride loads was complicated by the daily operation of 

Bowersock Dam and the order in which the samples were collected, as discussed in the “Hydrologic Conditions” section of 

this report. The data collected during these two synoptic surveys 

were insufficient to explain the complexities of the river system 

with respect to chloride. 

Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Nitrogen commonly occurs in natural water in several different forms including dissolved molecular nitrogen (N2), 

organic compounds (amino acids, amines, proteins), ammonia 

[includes ammonia (NH3) and ammonium (NH4

+) ions], nitrite 

(NO2

-

), and nitrate (NO3

-

) (Chapra, 1997). Sources of nitrogen 

include fixation of atmospheric molecular nitrogen by bacteria 
24 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

10 

4 

5 8 

10 

12 

14 

17 19 

21 23

24 

30 

36 38 

41 

47 48 

33

21 

30 

48 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001

28 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

50 

50 

43

40 

26 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

Chloride load, in kilograms per day 

Measured

main-stem

load

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load

Measured

main-stem

load

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

Mission Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewatertreatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 17. Calculated measured and cumulative chloride loads in Kansas River during (A) synoptic survey I and 

(B) synoptic survey II. Location of sampling sites shown by map number in figure 2.

and algae, the decay of organic material such as algae or 

washed-in leaf material, animal wastes, improperly functioning 

septic systems, and urban runoff. Fertilizers applied to cropland 

provide both soluble nitrogen compounds, such as ammonium 

nitrate, and insoluble compounds, such as TKN (total Kjeldahl 

nitrogen, or total ammonia plus organic nitrogen). TKN is relatively immobile in soil because of its adsorption to soil surfaces. 

However, under oxygen-rich conditions, TKN can be converted 

to nitrite and nitrate and enter the ground- and surface-water 

systems (Horne and Goldman, 1994).

Nitrogen can be transformed from one form to another by 

a biologically catalyzed reaction. Bacteria and blue-green algae 

(cyanobacteria) can transform nitrogen gas to ammonia by an 

enzyme in a process known as nitrogen fixation (Horne and 

Goldman, 1994). Other bacteria catalyze the oxidation of 

ammonia to nitrite, then to nitrate by a process known as nitrification; the process occurs quickly in the oxygen-rich environments of most streams. Ammonia is the preferred form of algal 

uptake and is followed by nitrite and nitrate and then dissolved 

molecular nitrogen (Wetzel, 2001). Organisms can use these 

forms of nitrogen and incorporate the nitrogen into algal cells, 

which in turn decay and release nitrogen as ammonia. Currently 

(2005), there are no KDHE drinking-water or aquatic-life-support criteria for total nitrogen in Kansas. USEPA has recommended nutrient criteria for various ecoregions, spatially 

defined for the United States. Sampling sites for this study are 

located in ecoregions IV and IX and have recommended total 

nitrogen criteria of 0.56 and 0.69 mg/L, respectively (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003).
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 25

Phosphorus is a nutrient essential for the growth and reproduction of plants and animals. It is used as an energy source in 

the cells of plants and animals and can have a direct effect on 

the production of phytoplankton populations, an important 

component of the food chain. Phosphorus availability is often 

the limiting nutrient that controls biological production rates 

(Hem, 1992). Excessive phosphorus concentrations in soils 

from both natural and human-related sources can have detrimental effects on streams and lakes located downgradient from 

source areas and can promote excessive algal growth. Common 

sources of human-related phosphorus include inorganic phosphates added to agricultural soils as fertilizer, manure from confined animal-feeding operations, and treated wastewater discharged into receiving streams. Currently (2005), there are no 

established KDHE drinking-water criteria for total phosphorus; 

however, USEPA recommended criteria for total phosphorus in 

ecoregions IV and IX are 0.23 and 0.36 mg/L, respectively 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003).

Total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the Kansas River were generally the same from upstream to downstream within the study area with some slight variation between 

sites (figs. 18 and 19). Slight increases in concentrations were 

measured at sites downstream from major point-source discharges (WWTFs). Concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus in samples collected from the main-stem Kansas River 

ranged from 1.1 to 2.6 mg/L and 0.19 to 2.0 mg/L, respectively 

(tables 6 and 7). 

The five main-stem samples for synoptic survey I indicated little variability in total nitrogen concentrations from 

upstream to downstream. Samples varied from 1.1 mg/L just 

upstream from Topeka (site 10) to 1.8 mg/L just downstream 

from Topeka (site 21), with a mean for the five samples of 

1.5 mg/L (table 6). 

Nitrogen concentrations during synoptic survey II and III 

indicated some effect from point sources but were still mostly 

stable. Concentrations in the 23 main-stem samples collected 

during synoptic survey II had a mean of 1.5 mg/L and varied 

from 1.2 to 1.9 mg/L. Sample results from the third synoptic 

survey indicated the same spatial variability of nitrogen concentrations in the Kansas River. Multiple samples collected at 

selected sites during synoptic survey III indicated that daily 

nitrogen concentrations at a single site varied as much as 70 percent. Loads for total nitrogen and phosphorus were not calculated. 

The five main-stem samples for synoptic survey I indicated little variability in total phosphorus concentrations from 

upstream to downstream (fig. 19A). Samples varied from 

0.19 mg/L just upstream from Topeka (site 10) to 0.28 mg/L 

just downstream from Topeka (site 21), with a mean for the five 

samples of 0.25 mg/L (table 7). 

Total phosphorus concentrations during synoptic survey II 

and III indicated some effect from point-sources discharges but 

were mostly uniform through the reach. Concentrations for the 

18 main-stem samples collected during synoptic survey II had a 

mean of 0.26 mg/L and varied from 0.20 to 0.35 mg/L (table 7; 

fig. 19B). Sample results from the third synoptic survey indicated much greater spatial variability in phosphorus concentrations in the Kansas River (fig. 19C). Multiple samples collected 

at selected sites during synoptic survey III indicated that daily 

concentrations at a single site varied as much as one order of 

magnitude.

Ammonia

Ammonia is acutely toxic to freshwater organisms including fish and invertebrates at varying concentrations depending 

on the pH and temperature of the water (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1986). The effects of acutely toxic ammonia concentrations on fishes are loss of equilibrium, increased 

breathing, convulsions, coma, and possibly death. At smaller 

concentrations, the effects of ammonia on fish include reduction in hatching success, reduction in growth rate, and pathologic changes in tissues of gills, livers, and kidneys. 

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(1999) introduced revised criteria for ammonia with respect to 

aquatic life. These criteria were split into acute and chronic criteria that are based on fish species, early life of fish present or 

absent, and water pH and temperature. The acute criteria for 

ammonia are based on water pH and are split into categories for 

the presence of salmonids (more stringent) and the absence of 

salmonids. The chronic criteria are pH and water-temperature 

dependent and are split into categories of fish, early life present 

(more stringent), and early life absent. The current (2005) 

ammonia criteria for Kansas (fig. 13) are identical to USEPA 

criteria, except there are no acute criteria for the presence of 

salmonids because Kansas does not have natural populations of 

salmonid species.

Ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River varied during the three synoptic surveys, with increases in concentration 

at sites downstream from major point sources (fig. 20). A total 

of 147 samples were analyzed for ammonia as nitrogen; more 

than one-half (76) were samples from Kansas River main-stem 

sites, one-third (8) were from tributaries, and 23 were from 

WWTFs (table 8). Ammonia concentrations in 25 samples from 

the Kansas River and 5 samples from tributaries were less than 

the laboratory reporting level of 0.02 mg/L. For interpretation 

purposes, concentrations for these samples were assumed to be 

one-half the reporting level (0.01 mg/L). None of the samples 

collected from the Kansas River had ammonia concentrations 

greater than the State of Kansas pH- and temperature-dependent 

chronic aquatic-life criteria for ammonia with early-life stages 

present (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2002).

The five main-stem samples for synoptic survey I indicated ammonia concentrations increased an order of magnitude 

from Topeka (site 10) to the Delaware River (site 21) and then 

stabilized at about 0.10 mg/L to the confluence with the Missouri River (fig. 20A). Sample concentrations varied from 

0.03 mg/L just upstream from Topeka (site 10) to 0.19 mg/L 

just downstream from the confluence with the Delaware River 

(site 21), with a mean for the five samples of 0.10 mg/L 

(table 8). 
26 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002 Vermillion Creek Rock Creek Mill Creek Cross Creek Mission Creek North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Lawrence wastewater- treatment facility Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility Kill Creek Cedar Creek Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility Mill Creek Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility Unnamed tributary Turkey Creek 

2 

1 

3

4 5 8 

9 

7 

6 

10 

11 13

12 17 19 

18 

21 20 

23

22 24 

25 

27 

30 

31 32 

14 

15 

16 

26 

28 

29 

33

34 

37 

36 

35 

40 

38 

41 

39 

45 

44 

46 

49 

43

42 

47 48 50 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

Total nitrogen, in milligrams per liter 

11 

10 

13

15 

16 

18 

20 21 

25 

30 

37 

39 

46 

45 

44 

49 

48 50 

29 

31 32 

35 

3

4 5 8 

7 

6 9 

15 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

17 

19 

20 

21 

22 

11 

13

27 

25 

23

24 

28 

30 

29 

31 

32 

34 

33

36 

35 

37 

39 

45 

44 

49 

38 40 

47 

48 50 

46 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

10 

15 

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

42 

26 41 

43

42 

27 

Figure 18. Concentrations of total nitrogen in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River, tributaries, 

and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for (A) synoptic survey I, (B) synoptic survey II, and (C) synoptic

survey III. Location of sampling sites shown by map number in figure 2. Gray shading indicates multiple 

samples collected at a site.
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 27

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

Mission Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

2 

3

4 1 5 8 

9 

7 

6 

10 

11 13

12 

17 

19 

18 

21 

20 

23

22 

24 

25 

30 

31 

32 

14 

15 

16 

26 

28 

29 

33

34 

37 

36 

35 40 

38 41 

39 

45 

44 

46 

49 

43 42 

47 

48 50 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

11 

10 

13

15 

16 

18 

20 

21 

25 

27 

30 

37 

39 

42 

46 

45 

44 

49 

48 

29 

31 

32 35 

3

4 5 8 

7 

6 

9 

15 

10 14 16 

18 

17 19 

20 

22 

11 

13

25 

23

30 

29 

31 

32 

34 

33 36 

35 

37 

39 

45 

44 

49 

38 

40 41 

42 

43

47 48 

50 

46 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

27 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

50 

27 

Total phosphorus, in milligrams per liter

Figure 19. Concentrations of total phosphorus in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River, tributaries, and wastewater-treatment facility effluent for (A) synoptic survey I, (B) synoptic survey II, and 

(C) synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown by map number in figure 2. Gray shading 

indicates multiple samples collected at a site.
28 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Table 6. Statistical summary of total nitrogen concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, its 

tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001–August 2002.

[mg/L, milligram per liter]

Statistic

Total nitrogen concentrations (mg/L)

Kansas River main-stem sampling 

sites Tributary sampling sites Wastewater-treatment facility sampling sites

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Number of samples 5 23 48 12 18 18 7 8 8

Mean concentration (mg/L) 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.4 2.7 18 21 19.8

Median concentration (mg/L) 1.5 1.5 1.5 .67 .07 .80 15 16 21

Range in concentrations (mg/L) 1.1–1.8 1.2–1.9 1.1–2.6 0.36–15 0.37–13 0.45–17 1.9–52 2.6–57 9.1–27

Table 7. Statistical summary of total phosphorus concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, its 

tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001–August 2002. 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Statistic

Total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L)

Kansas River main-stem sampling 

sites Tributary sampling sites Wastewater-treatment facility sampling sites

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Number of samples 5 18 48 12 18 18 7 8 8

Mean concentration (mg/L) .25 .26 1.0 .58 .24 .44 3.0 2.5 3.4

Median concentration (mg/L) .26 .02 1.3 .12 .07 .14 2.2 2.8 3.8

Range in concentrations (mg/L) 0.19–0.28 0.20–0.35 0.21–2.0 0.06–3.3 0.02–2.6 0.05–2.8 0.78–5.9 0.09–3.8 0.39–6.3

Ammonia concentrations during synoptic survey II clearly 

indicated effects from point sources (fig. 20B). Concentrations 

in the 23 main-stem Kansas River samples during synoptic survey II had a mean of 0.05 mg/L and varied from 0.02 to 

0.16 mg/L. Ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River from 

Belvue (site 4) to Topeka (site 10) did not vary (0.02 mg/L, 

Appendix 1). Concentrations in main-stem samples at sites 

downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 13) 

indicated about an order of magnitude increase (0.10 mg/L) for 

about 18 mi to site 21. Concentrations in samples from two 

main-stem sites just upstream from the Lawrence WWTF 

(sites 23 and 24) indicated a decrease in ammonia concentrations to 0.02 mg/L. Immediately downstream from Lawrence 

(site 26), ammonia concentrations increased to 0.06 mg/L and 

then decreased to 0.02 mg/L at Bonner Springs (site 39). From 

Bonner Springs to the confluence with the Missouri River, 

ammonia concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.03 mg/L depending on the location relative to upstream WWTFs (Appendix 1).

Sample results from the third synoptic survey indicated 

spatial and temporal variability of ammonia concentrations in 

the Kansas River (fig. 20C). Forty-eight samples were collected 

at 23 main-stem sites. Ammonia concentrations in 25 of the 

48 main-stem samples were less than the reporting level. 

Ammonia concentrations in samples from the main-stem sites 

ranged from less than 0.02 to 0.27 mg/L, and the mean and 

median concentrations were 0.04 and less than 0.02 mg/L, 

respectively (table 8). 

Spatially, ammonia concentrations varied on the basis of 

sampling-site location in relation to upstream WWTFs. Generally, the nearer the sampling site was to an upstream WWTF, 

the larger the ammonia concentrations were. The maximum 

main-stem concentration (0.27 mg/L) was detected just downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 14).

The temporal variability defined by the results of multiple 

samples collected at selected sites during synoptic survey III 

indicated that ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River varied hourly. Twelve pairs of samples were collected within a 24-

hour period at eight sampling sites on the main stem 

(Appendix 1 at the back of this report). Concentrations in 6 of 

the 12 sample pairs were less than the reporting level and, 

therefore, had no detectable difference. The mean percentage 

difference between the other six sample pairs was 94 percent, 

and differences ranged from 11 to 155 percent. Of the six sample pairs, no temporal pattern was evident. The results from 

these six sample pairs indicated that there was a measurable difference in ammonia concentration over a 24-hour period and 
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 29

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

Mission Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

2 

1 

3 4 5 8 

9 

7 

6 

10 

11 

12 

17 

19 18 

21 

20 

22 23 24 

25 

30 

31 

32 

14 

15 

16 

26 

28 

29 

33

34 

37 

36 

35 

38 41 

39 

45 

44 

46 

49 

43

42 

47 

48 50 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

11 

10 

13

15 

16 

18 

20 

21 

25 

27 

30 

37 39 

42 

46 

45 

44 

49 

48 

29 

31 32 

35 

3

4 5 8 

6 7 9 

15 10 

14 

12 

16 

18 

17 19 

20 

22 

21 11 

13

13

27 

25 

23 26 

24 29 30 

31 

32 34 

33

36 

35 

37 

39 

45 

44 

49 

38 

40 

41 

43

46 

47 48 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

27 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

Laboratory reporting level

for ammonia concentration 

(0.02 mg/L)

0.001 

0.001 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

Laboratory reporting level

for ammonia concentration 

(0.02 mg/L)

0.001 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

10 

100 

Laboratory reporting level

for ammonia concentration 

(0.02 mg/L)

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

40 Johnson County Mill Creek Regional treatment facility 

50 

28 42 

50 

Ammonia, in milligrams per liter (mg/L) Figure 20. Concentrations of ammonia in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River, tributaries, and 

wastewater-treatment facility effluent for (A) synoptic survey I, (B) synoptic survey II, and (C) synoptic

survey III. Location of sampling sites shown by map numbers in figure 2. Gray shading indicates multiple 

samples collected at a site.
30 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Table 8. Statistical summary of ammonia concentrations in samples collected from the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, its tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001–August 2002. 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; <, less than]

Statistic

Ammonia concentrations (mg/L)

Kansas River main-stem sampling 

sites Tributary sampling sites Wastewater-treatment facility sample sites

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Number of samples 5 23 48 12 18 18 7 8 8

Mean concentration 

(mg/L)

.10 .05 .04 .36 .21 .19 7.4 8.6 5.9

Median concentration (mg/L).09 .02 <.02 .03 .02 .03 1.9 4.6 .25

Range in concentrations (mg/L)0.03–0.19 0.02–0.16 <0.02–0.27 0.01–3.9 <0.02–3.3 <0.02–1.9 0.04–25 0.06–30 0.12–24

Number of values less 

than laboratory 

reporting level 

(0.02 mg/L)

0 0 32 0 1 4 0 0 0

that the difference can be quite large. Variations could be due to 

varying WWTF flow and (or) variations in water temperature 

and dissolved-oxygen concentrations affecting ammonia assimilation. 

All samples collected at WWTFs or on tributaries downstream from WWTFs had ammonia concentrations that varied 

from less than 0.02 to 30 mg/L (table 8). For all three synoptic 

surveys, samples from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 13) 

and the Johnson County Mill Creek WWTF (site 44) had the 

largest ammonia concentrations of all the WWTFs. Mean 

ammonia concentrations for WWTFs were 74 to 172 times 

larger than the mean ammonia concentrations for the main-stem 

sites (table 8).

The “half-life,” or assimilation rate, for ammonia was 

determine on the basis of decreasing ammonia concentrations 

for three segments of the Kansas River between major WWTF 

discharges. The concentrations for samples collected between 

the Topeka Oakland and Lawrence WWTFs (sites 14 to 26), 

Lawrence and DeSoto WWTFs (sites 26 to 47), and Johnson 

County Mill Creek WWTF and the confluence of the Kansas 

River with the Missouri River (sites 47 to 50) were fitted with 

exponential equation 2.

, (2)

where Cd is the concentration of ammonia at some distance, d, 

downstream from the concentrations Co, in milligrams per liter;

d is the distance from the location where concentration 

Cowas measured to the downstream location of the 

desired concentration Cd, in miles;

Co is the initial concentration of ammonia at distance, d, 

upstream from Cd, in milligrams per liter;

e is the base of natural logarithms; and

k is the exponential rate of decrease of ammonia concentration, in miles-1.

The exponent (k) from this relation then was used in equation 3 

to determine the distance required for the ammonia concentration in the Kansas River to equal one-half the initial concentration just downstream from the WWTF. 

. (3)

Decreases in ammonia in the Kansas River are due primarily to nitrification and consumption by aquatic organisms by 

photosynthesis. During synoptic survey II, ammonia concentrations measured at various sites downstream from the Topeka 

Oakland WWTF (site 14), Lawrence WWTF (site 26), and 

Johnson County Mill Creek WWTF (site 47) indicated that the 

distances necessary to assimilate one-half of the initial ammonia concentration were 12, 20, and 28 miles, respectively 

(table 9). The increase in distances from up- to downstream 

indicated the Kansas River’s decreasing assimilative capacity 

for ammonia. It should be noted that these distances only apply 

to the conditions observed during synoptic survey II.

The variability of the ammonia concentrations measured in 

the main stem during synoptic survey III was such that an exponential curve could not be fitted to the data. This was most 

difficult at main-stem sites where multiple samples were collected and the differences in concentrations were so great that 

there was no reasonable exponential fit. For this reason, decay 

rates were calculated only for the river segment between the 

Cd Co e

–kd = ×

Half-life distance ln( ) k

k = ------------
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 31

Table 9. Estimated rates of ammonia decay in the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, during winter, February 25–March 1, 2002, and 

summer, July 22–August 8, 2002.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not determined]

River segment between 

sampling sites (fig. 2)

Synoptic survey II (winter) Synoptic survey III (summer)

Exponential rate 

of decrease of 

ammonia 

concentration, k 

(miles-1)

Distance 

required to 

assimilate onehalf ammonia 

concentration 

at 1,900 ft3/s 

(miles)

Time required to 

assimilate onehalf ammonia 

concentrations at 

1,900 ft3

/s

(hours)

Exponential rate 

of decrease of 

ammonia 

concentration, k 

(miles-1)

Distance 

required to 

assimilate onehalf ammonia 

concentrations 

at 1,900 ft3

/s 

(miles)

Time required to 

assimilate onehalf ammonia 

concentrations at 

1,900 ft3

/s 

(hours)

Sites 14–26 0.0642 12 7.8 0.1151 6 3.9

Sites 26–47 .0317 20 12 -- -- --

Sites 47–50 .0280 28 12 -- -- --

Topeka Oakland and Lawrence WWTFs. The rate of decrease in 

ammonia concentration for this reach was the largest of all, indicating that the assimilative capacity of the Kansas River is 

greater during the summer. 

Comparison of calculated measured and cumulative 

ammonia loads indicated that ammonia loads in the Kansas 

River varied greatly between Topeka and Kansas City (fig. 21). 

The largest loads of ammonia measured in the main-stem Kansas River during synoptic survey II were just downstream from 

the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 14). Measured ammonia 

loads were smallest at main-stem sites upstream from Topeka. 

Inputs of ammonia from the major WWTFs during synoptic 

survey III were smaller than the inputs during synoptic survey 

II, with the exception of the Johnson County WWTFs. Measured loads of ammonia during synoptic survey II in the Kansas 

River downstream from river mile 64 (distance upstream from 

confluence with Missouri River) were relatively small despite 

large inputs of ammonia from the Johnson County Mill Creek 

(site 44) and Johnson County Nelson WWTFs just upstream 

from sampling site 49 (640 and 105 kg/d, respectively). Large 

variability in loads of ammonia (ranging from 24 to 680 kg/d) 

were measured during synoptic survey III along the final 10 mi 

of the Kansas River just upstream from the confluence with the 

Missouri River.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Fecal coliform bacteria densities were measured in the 

Kansas River watershed and varied between two and three 

orders of magnitude during the three synoptic surveys, with 

increases in densities at sites downstream from major WWTFs 

(fig. 22). A total of 141 samples were analyzed for fecal 

coliform bacteria; 71 were samples from Kansas River mainstem sites, and 70 were from tributaries and WWTFs (table 10). 

Fecal coliform densities in these samples ranged from less than 

1 to 290,000 col/100 mL. Densities for samples with values less 

than 1 col/100 mL were assumed to be 1 col/100 mL. One of the 

main-stem samples, three of the tributary samples, and seven of 

the WWTF samples had fecal coliform bacteria densities 

greater than the former (2002) State of Kansas single-sample 

secondary contact recreational criterion of 2,000 col/100 mL 

(Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2002). 

The five main-stem samples for synoptic survey I indicated varying bacteria densities from upstream to downstream 

(fig. 22A). Densities varied from 45 col/100 mL at Eudora 

(site 30) to 1,000 col/100 mL near Kansas City (site 48), with a 

mean density for the five samples of 260 col/100 mL (table 10).

Fecal coliform bacteria densities in samples from the Kansas River watershed during synoptic survey II were generally 

less than the densities detected in synoptic survey I samples and 

indicated some variability between sites (fig. 22B). Densities in 

the 23 main-stem samples had a mean of 26 col/100 mL and 

varied from less than 1 to 250 col/100 mL (table 10). Fecal 

coliform bacteria densities in main-stem samples from the Belvue (site 4) to Lawrence (site 26) sampling sites were fairly 

stable, between less than 1 and 16 col/100 mL. Densities from 

samples collected downstream from Lawrence WWTF (site 28) 

and at Eudora (site 30) indicated about a two-order-of-magnitude increase to 250 col/100 mL. Main-stem samples from the 

remaining sites downstream from Eudora had fecal coliform 

densities that varied between 8 and 60 col/100 mL. 

Sample results from the third synoptic survey indicated 

spatial and temporal variability and the effect of point-source 

discharges on fecal coliform bacteria densities in the Kansas 

River (fig. 22C). Forty-three samples were collected at 18 mainstem sites with fecal coliform bacteria densities ranging from 

5 to 4,000 col/100 mL (table 10). The mean and median densities in the main-stem samples were 190 and 32 col/100 mL, 

respectively. Spatially, fecal coliform bacteria densities varied 

on the basis of sampling-site location in relation to upstream 

WWTFs. Generally, the closer the sampling site was to an 

upstream WWTF, the larger the densities were. Two of the 

largest densities occurred downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 14) and downstream from the Lawrence 

WWTF (site 30). A density of 4,000 col/100 mL occurred in a 

sample from the downstream-most Kansas River site (site 50). 
32 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002 Ammonia load, in kilograms per day Vermillion Creek Rock Creek Mill Creek Cross Creek Mission Creek North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Lawrence wastewater- treatment facility Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility Kill Creek Cedar Creek Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility Mill Creek Unnamed tributary Turkey Creek 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load 

Measured 

main-stem 

load 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load 

Measured 

main-stem 

load 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load 

Measured 

main-stem 

load 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

1 4 5 8 10 12 

17 

19 

21 

24 30 

14 

33

36 38 40 

41 

47 48 

10 

21 

30 

48 

4 5 8 

14 

10 12 

17 19 

21 

23 30 

26 

24 33 36 38 40 41 43

47 48 50 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

28 

23 26 28 43

50 

50 

Figure 21. Calculated measured and cumulative ammonia loads in Kansas River during (A) synoptic survey I, 

(B) synoptic survey II, and (C) synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown by map number in figure 2. 

Gray shading indicates multiple samples collected at a site.
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 33

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

Former (2002) secondary contact 

recreational criterion for fecal coliform 

bacteria (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2002) 

1.0 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1,000,000 

1.0 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1,000,000 

1.0 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1,000,000 

Former (2002) secondary contact 

recreational criterion for fecal coliform 

bacteria (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2002) 

Former (2002) secondary contact 

recreational criterion for fecal coliform 

bacteria (Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, 2002) 

1.0 

Mission Creek 

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

2 3

4 

8 

9 

7 

6 

10 

11 

13

17 

19 

21 

20 23

22 

24 

25 

30 

31 

32 

34 

14 

15 

16 

28 

29 

33

37 36 

35 

40 

38 

41 

39 

45 

44 

49 

43

42 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

11 

13

10 

15 

16 

18 

20 

21 

25 

27 

30 37 

39 

42 

45 

44 

49 

48 

46 

50 

29 31 

32 35 

3

4 

5 8 7 

6 

9 10 12 15 

14 16 

18 

17 

19 20 

21 

22 

11 

13

27 

25 

23

24 26 

30 

29 31 

32 

34 

33

36 

35 37 

39 

45 

44 

49 

38 

40 

41 

42 

43

47 

48 

46 

21 

15 

11 

27 

48 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

Main-stem sampling site and map number

Wastewater-treatment facility and map number

Tributary sampling site and map number

4 

3

11 

28 

26 

50 

12 

47 

50 

Fecal coliform bacteria density, in colonies per 100 milliliters 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Regional treatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 22. Fecal coliform bacteria densities in samples collected from main-stem Kansas River, tributaries, and 

wastewater-treatment facility effluent for (A) synoptic survey I, (B) synoptic survey II, and (C) synoptic

survey III. Location of sampling sites shown by map number in figure 2. Gray shading indicates multiple 

samples collected at a site.
34 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Table 10. Statistical summary of fecal coliform densities in samples collected from the Kansas River, northeast Kansas, its tributaries, 

and selected wastewater-treatment facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001–August 2002.

[col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters of water; <, less than]

Statistic

Kansas River main-stem sampling 

sites Tributary sampling sites Wastewater-treatment facility sampling sites

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Synoptic

survey I

Synoptic

survey II

Synoptic

survey III

Number of samples 5 23 43 12 18 17 7 8 8

Mean density (col/100 mL) 260 26 190 3,200 46 620 520 2,000 37,000

Median density (col/100 mL) 100 8 32 32 7 140 230 1,200 46

Range in densities 

(col/100 mL)

45–1,000 1–250 5–4,000 12–37,000 1–500 <1–5,000 7–2,500 6–7,300 16–290,000

Multiple samples were collected at 10 main-stem sites to 

assess temporal variance in fecal coliform bacteria densities 

during low streamflow conditions; two samples, respectively, 

were collected at 6 of the 10 sites, and 3, 4, 5, and 7 samples, 

respectively, were collected at each of the remaining four mainstem sites. The percentage differences between densities 

detected at each site ranged from 39 percent at Lecompton 

(site 21) to 263 percent at Kansas City (site 47). These samples 

indicated how great the variability of bacteria densities was during low streamflow conditions. 

Decay of fecal coliform bacteria in the Kansas River was 

not as evident as the ammonia decay. During synoptic survey II, 

first-order decay rates (from equations 2 and 3) indicated that 

downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 13) there 

was some decay, whereas densities downstream from the 

Lawrence (site 25) and Johnson County Mill Creek WWTFs 

(site 44) indicated no decay. The amount of fecal coliform bacteria being discharged from the Topeka Oakland, Lawrence, 

and Johnson County Mill Creek WWTFs was much smaller 

during synoptic survey III. The decay rate calculated for the 

densities downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF indicated some decay. Densities measured downstream from the 

Lawrence and Johnson County Mill Creek WWTFs indicated 

no decay. 

Comparison of calculated measured and cumulative loads 

of fecal coliform bacteria for all three synoptic surveys varied 

greatly between Topeka and Kansas City (fig. 23). Measured 

loads of fecal coliform bacteria in the Kansas River displayed 

variability similar to that shown in the density plots. Large loads 

of fecal coliform were computed for samples collected during 

synoptic survey I and III along the final 10 mi of the Kansas 

River just upstream from the confluence with the Missouri 

River. Loads of fecal coliform contributed by WWTFs during 

synoptic survey I were small relative to the other two synoptic 

surveys. The Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 13) and DeSoto 

WWTF (site 34) discharged the largest loads into the Kansas 

River during synoptic surveys II and III, respectively. 

Discussion of Water-Quality Conditions During Low 

Flow

The results from the three synoptic surveys indicated that 

concentrations of nutrients (total nitrogen and phosphorus and 

ammonia) and densities of fecal coliform bacteria during low 

streamflow conditions varied spatially and temporally and 

increased downstream from major point-source discharges 

(WWTFs). Concentrations and densities were relatively small 

at the sampling sites upstream from Topeka. Variability of concentrations and densities were largest from Topeka to the confluence with the Missouri River where WWTFs had a substantial effect on in-stream water quality. Assimilative processes 

typically reduced ammonia concentrations at distances downstream from the WWTFs and were about twice as effective during the summer synoptic survey (survey III) as during the winter 

synoptic survey (survey II). Decay of fecal coliform bacteria 

density was less evident and appeared to have little seasonal 

effect.

None of the ammonia concentrations in main-stem samples were greater than the pH- and temperature-dependent State 

of Kansas criteria for aquatic-life-support (Kansas Department 

of Health and Environment, 2002). However, two measurements of dissolved oxygen at sampling site 50 were less than the 

State’s aquatic-life-support use criterion (5.0 mg/L) during the 

summer. Low streamflow water-quality conditions in the summer were more suitable for nitrification and algae, which consumed the oxygen. Therefore, the more ammonia that was 

available during these conditions, the more dissolved oxygen 

was consumed. 
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions 35

10 

10 

10 

Fecal coliform bacteria load, in billion colonies per day 

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

 B. Synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

C. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

 A. Synoptic survey I, November 27–29, 2001 

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load 

Measured 

main-stem 

load 

4 

10 

12 

17 

19 

21 23

24 

14 30 

33

36 

38 40 

43 41 

47 

48 

50 

10 30 

21 

48 

50 

4 

5 

8 

14 

10 12 

17 

19 

21 23

30 

26 

26 

28 

24 

33

36 

38 

40 

41 43

47 

48 

50 

28 

0.001 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

100 

1,000 

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load 

Measured 

main-stem 

load 

0.001 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

100 

1,000 

Cumulative 

main-stem 

load 

Measured 

main-stem 

load 

0.001 

0.01 

0.10 

1.0 

100 

1,000 

Vermillion Creek 

Rock Creek 

Mill Creek 

Cross Creek 

Mission Creek 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 23. Calculated measured and cumulative loads of fecal coliform bacteria in Kansas River for (A) synoptic

survey I, (B) synoptic survey II, and (C) synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown by map number in 

figure 2. Gray shading indicates multiple samples collected at a site.
36 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative 

Capacity and Bacteria Transport

As urban growth continues along the Kansas River, 

increases in WWTF discharges and discharges from new 

WWTFs will affect the water quality of the river. Determination 

of the assimilative capacity for ammonia and bacteria densities 

in the Kansas River would provide the information needed to 

better manage the resource and to incorporate future population 

growth without exceeding water-quality criteria. To help with 

this effort, a water-quality model was developed to simulate the 

effects of hypothetical increases in WWTF discharges and new 

WWTFs along the Kansas River. The results of such hypothetical simulations will aid in planning and decisionmaking in the 

management of current and future output of WWTFs.

The numerical modeling code known as CE–QUAL–W2, 

version 3.1 (Cole and Wells, 2003), was configured for application to the Kansas River. The computer model is a two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water-quality 

model. The model was calibrated and tested using data from 

three synoptic surveys conducted between November 2001 and 

August 2002. 

Data for Model Application

Many types of data were required for CE–QUAL–W2 to 

simulate the streamflow and water quality in the Kansas River. 

Bathymetric cross sections were necessary to define the model 

grid. The quantity and quality of water flowing into the model 

grid were measured or estimated. Meteorological data were 

needed primarily for proper simulation of the heat budget. The 

paragraphs that follow describe these data. 

River Bathymetry and Model Grid

A numerical grid was constructed to represent the bathymetry of the Kansas River. The grid extended 83 mi along the 

main-stem Kansas River from the Sardou Bridge in Topeka, 

Kansas (site 12, model segment 2, fig. 24), to just upstream 

from the confluence of the Kansas River with the Missouri 

River (segment 134, fig. 24). The model domain included:

1. Primary inflow from the Kansas River upstream from 

Topeka.

2. Inflow from 12 major tributaries—Soldier Creek 

(segment 5), Shunganunga Creek (segment 13), Muddy 

Creek (segment 18), Delaware River (segment 30), Buck 

Creek (segment 40), Mud Creek (segment 58), Wakarusa 

River (segment 66), Stranger Creek (segment 78), Kill 

Creek (segment 85), Cedar Creek (segment 92), Mill 

Creek (segment 110), and Turkey Creek (segment 130).

3. Eight point sources—Topeka Oakland WWTF 

(segment 3), Lawrence WWTF (segment 53), Farmland 

effluent (segment 54), DeSoto WWTF (segment 85), 

Bonner Springs WWTF (segment 102), Johnson County 

Mill Creek Regional WWTF (segment 111), and Kansas 

City no. 20 WWTF (segment 112).

4. A main-stem low-water dam near Lawrence 

(segment 51). 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided an electronic 

file containing data for 129 surveyed cross sections of the Kansas River between Kansas City and Topeka (Kenneth A. Stark, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, written 

commun., 2003). Cross sections for each segment in the computational grid were calculated by interpolating between the 

nearest two surveyed cross sections. The resulting grid was 

made up of 134 segments, each 0.6-mi long, oriented along the 

longitudinal axis of the river. Variable water levels in the stream 

were represented by 1-ft thick computational layers that were 

stacked vertically and sloped at 0.0018 ft/mi. The layers were 

divided into cells that represented the width of the stream at 

each segment (fig. 25). The cells were 0.6 mi long, 1 ft thick, 

and varied from 16 to 1,400 ft wide. 

The model grid of the Kansas River was divided into two 

parts because of the operation of Bowersock Dam and its effect 

on the main-stem streamflow. The western part represented the 

grid from Topeka (site 12) to 2.2 mi upstream from Bowersock 

Dam (river mile 51), and the eastern part represented the grid 

from downstream from Bowersock Dam (river mile 51) to Kansas City (site 50, model segment 134). Simulations for each part 

of the grid were computed independently.

Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions generally were described as a time 

series of data that defined the input of flow, mass, and heat to 

the model domain and the output from the model. Data from 

synoptic surveys II and III were used to calibrate the model, and 

data from synoptic survey I were used for model verification.

Boundary conditions for each of the synoptic surveys were 

dependent on season. Synoptic surveys I and II represented very 

cold, low-flow conditions, whereas synoptic survey III represented hot, low-flow conditions. The boundary conditions were 

not continuous between synoptic surveys and only represented 

the conditions during the surveyed periods.

Streamflow

Streamflow input to the model was determined as follows:

Main-stem input—Hourly streamflow data provided by 

USGS streamflow-gaging station 06889000, Kansas River at 

Topeka (fig. 2). 

Gaged tributary input—Hourly streamflow data for the 

Delaware River and Stranger Creek were provided by USGS 

streamflow-gaging stations 06890900 and 06892200, respectively (fig. 2). 

Input from WWTFs—Instantaneous flow measurements 

made during sample collection or instantaneous values reported 

by the WWTF were used for the entire model period. 
545556575859 606162636465 6667 6869 70 7172 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 8182 83 848586 878889 9091 92 93949596979899 100 101 102103 104105 106107108109110 112 111 113114115116117 118119 120121122123 1241

Western part of model

Eastern part of model

0

0 1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

53

52

50

49

51

2

3 4 5 6 7

8

9

1011

12 1314

15 16 17 18 19

20

21

2223

24 25 26 27 28 29

31

32

33 34 35 36 37 383940 41 42

43

44

45

46 4748

30

Kansas River

Kansas River Sardou Bridge in Topeka, Kansas

Topeka Oakland

wastewater-treatment

facility

Lawrence

wastewater-treatment

facility

DeSoto

wastewater-treatment

facility

Bonner Springs

wastewater-treatment

facility

Johnson County

Mill Creek Regional

wastewater-treatment

facility

Kansas City no. 20

wastewater-treatment

facility

Farmland

effuent

Soldier Creek

Muddy Creek

Buck Creek

Main-stem low-water

dam (Bowersock)

near Lawrence,

Kansas

Mud Creek Stranger Creek

Kill Creek

Mill Creek

Turkey Cr

CedarCreek

Shunganunga

Creek

Delaware River

Wakarusa River

K

Numbers are model-segment numbers used in water-quality model.

Figure 24. Schematic diagram showing plan view of top layer of computational grid for Kansas River water-quality model.
38 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002 Computational layers

Riverbank Riverbank

Water level

Not to scale

Kansas River

Figure 25. Schematic diagram showing computational layers at model segment 14 for Kansas 

River water-quality model.

Flow from ungaged tributaries and ground water—Small 

tributaries and ground-water and surface-water interaction in 

the Kansas River Basin were not measured during any of the 

three synoptic surveys. The unmeasured flow of these two components was estimated from the difference between measured 

and accumulated flows along the main stem (fig. 10). When 

these differences exceeded 10 percent, these values were distributed along the entire reach of the model grid.

The streamflow resulting from operation of Bowersock 

Dam was estimated on the basis of the DeSoto hourly streamflow data. Daily operation of the dam caused large daily fluctuations in the streamflow downstream from the dam. The fluctuations were evident in the continuous streamflow data from the 

streamflow-gaging station at DeSoto (site 33; USGS streamflow-gaging station 06892350). Hourly streamflow data from 

the gaging station at DeSoto were adjusted for time of travel and 

used as the streamflow at the dam.

Water Temperature

Water temperature was measured for water flowing into 

the model domain during the three synoptic surveys. Water temperature in the main-stem Kansas River was measured hourly at 

Topeka (site 12). Water temperatures for each of the tributaries 

and WWTF effluent were estimated on the basis of the water 

temperature measured during sample collection. In some cases, 

water temperature of WWTF effluent was estimated from daily 

measurements obtained from KDHE. The water temperature of 

the distributed tributary flow was assumed to be 18 o

C, the 

annual average temperature of the Kansas River at DeSoto from 

October 2000 to September 2001 (Putnam and others, 2002). 

WaterChemistry

The analytical results for selected water-quality constituents included dissolved oxygen, carbonaceous biochemical 

oxygen demand, nitrite plus nitrate, orthophosphorus, ammonia 

as nitrogen, fecal coliform bacteria, algae, and suspended sediment and were used for input to the model domain for each synoptic survey. A constant value for each selected constituent for 

each modeling period was assumed on the basis of the measured 

value from samples collected during each synoptic survey at 

each input. When available, additional values for water-quality 

constituents from KDHE were used. The water chemistry for 

the unsampled tributaries was assumed to be the average of the 

values used for the sampled tributaries. Simulated water-quality 

constituents within and at the outflow of the model domain were 

compared with analytical results from water-quality samples. 

Average water-quality values were used to initialize the model.
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 39

Meteorological Conditions

The meteorological input for the model was measured 

hourly at Topeka Philip Billard Municipal Airport. These data 

included air temperature, dew-point temperature, wind speed, 

wind direction, and percentage of cloud cover estimated from 

qualitative descriptions. The original hourly cloud cover data 

were recorded as clear (CLR), few scattered clouds (FEW), 

scattered clouds (SCT), broken clouds (BKN), completely overcast with clouds (OVC), and no vertical visibility (VV). For the 

Kansas River model, cloud cover was translated into numerical 

values so that CLR = 0, FEW = 1.9, SCT = 4.4, BKN = 7.5, 

OVC = 10, and VV = 10. Any missing values were estimated by 

linear interpolation between two recorded values. 

Model Calibration and Testing

The Kansas River water-quality model was calibrated by 

adjusting the computational grid, model parameters, and in 

some cases, estimated boundary data. The model was calibrated 

for low streamflow conditions during winter and summer using 

data from synoptic surveys II and III, respectively. The calibration sequence was (1) water balance, (2) water temperature, and 

(3) water chemistry.

Two statistics were used to compare measured and simulated values. The absolute mean error (AME) is the average difference between measured and simulated values according to 

the following equation:

. (4)

For example, an AME of 100 ft3/s means that the simulated 

streamflows were within + 100 ft3/s. The root mean square error 

(RMSE) indicates the spread of how far simulated values deviated from the measured data, according to the following equation:

. (5)

Simulated Hydrodynamics

The initial model grid was adjusted to ensure reasonable 

flow conditions and numerical stability. The bottom of some 

segments were lowered by as much as 2 ft (or two layers) to 

smooth the transition between some of the segments. 

Simulated streamflow was compared to continuous 

streamflow during synoptic surveys II and III at USGS streamflow-gaging stations at Lecompton (site 21) and DeSoto 

(site 33). Key features of the comparison were the timing of 

notable runoff periods and the magnitude of streamflow. For 

synoptic survey III, a small runoff period provided a marker for 

assessing the timing of the streamflow from Topeka to DeSoto. 

The friction coefficient (Mannings n) for the segments along 

this reach of the river was adjusted within acceptable values 

(0.015–0.040) so that the timing of the simulated peak for that 

runoff period matched the timing of the measured peak. Once 

the friction was adjusted properly, the magnitude of flow was 

adjusted slightly to account for ground-water flux. For example, 

the simulated continuous streamflows for synoptic surveys II 

and III were about 180 and 280 ft3

/s, respectively, greater than 

the measured streamflows at Lecompton. The difference 

between the simulated and the measured values was used to 

estimate the total amount of streamflow lost to ground water for 

the segment from Topeka to Lawrence. The respective loss was 

uniformly distributed to each of the 0.6-mi segments for this 

reach in the model. 

AMEs of the simulated versus measured streamflow at 

Lecompton during synoptic surveys II and III were + 42 and 

46 ft3/s (or less than 3 percent) of the measured streamflow, 

respectively (fig. 26). The measured streamflow for Lecompton 

during synoptic survey II was affected by ice for the period 

February 26–27, 2002. The model did not simulate the effects 

of ice, and therefore, some of the largest differences between 

measured and simulated streamflow occurred during this 

period. The simulated streamflow at Lecompton for synoptic 

survey III fit the measured flow better than for synoptic survey 

II. The timing and magnitude of the simulated streamflow during the runoff period for synoptic survey III matched well with 

the measured streamflow, indicating that the hydrodynamics of 

the model were well calibrated. 

The differences between measured and simulated streamflow at DeSoto were greater than at Lecompton. The AMEs for 

streamflow at DeSoto during synoptic surveys II and III were 

46 and 60 ft3

/s (or less than 5 percent) (fig. 26), respectively. 

The primary reason for these differences is the unaccounted for 

operation of Bowersock Dam. 

Simulated Water Temperature

Water temperature was simulated using inflow water temperature, percentage of cloud cover (available solar radiation), 

air and dew-point temperature, wind speed, and heat exchange 

at the sediment-water interface. Simulated water temperature 

could have been adjusted to consider the effects of reduced light 

penetration due to suspended sediment. The effects of shading 

and suspended sediment on light penetration and thus water 

temperature during low streamflow were assumed to be negligible and were not included in the model.

Within the model domain, water temperature was measured hourly at DeSoto (site 33) during the three synoptic surveys. During synoptic survey III, water temperature was measured hourly at Lecompton (site 21) and Kansas City (site 50). 

The hourly data from these three main-stem sites provided a 

basis for comparison of simulated versus measured water temperatures. 

Hourly water temperature measured at Lecompton 

(site 21) was compared to simulated water temperature during 

synoptic survey III (fig. 27A). The AME was 2.4 oC, indicating 

that the model did well simulating hourly water temperature at 

this location. The magnitude and the timing of the diurnal

AME ∑ Simulated Me – asured

Number of observations = ------------------------------------------------------------------

RMSE ( ) Simulated Me – asured 2

∑

Number of observations = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

25 27 26

February March

March

28 1

25 27 26

February

28 1

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

July August

Measured streamflow

Simulated streamflow

A. Lecompton, synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

Simulated streamflow

Measured streamflow

Simulated streamflow

Measured streamflow

Simulated streamflow

Measured streamflow

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second (ft 3/s) 

Absolute mean error (AME) = 42 ft 3/s 

Root mean square error (RMSE) = 49 ft 3/s 

AME = 46 ft 3/s 

RMSE = 56 ft 3/s 

AME = 46 ft 3/s 

RMSE = 57 ft 3/s 

AME = 60 ft 3/s 

RMSE = 60 ft 3/s 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

B. DeSoto, synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

C. Lecompton, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002

D. DeSoto, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

July 

2002 

August 

Figure 26. Measured and simulated hourly streamflows in Kansas River at Lecompton (site 21) and DeSoto 

(site 33) for (A–B) synoptic survey II and (C–D) synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown in figure 2.
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 41

Measured water 

temperature Simulated water 

temperature 

Measured water 

temperature 

Simulated water 

temperature 

Measured water 

temperature 

Simulated water 

temperature 

Water temperature, in degrees Celsius (°C) 

25 27 26 

February March 

28 1 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

B. DeSoto, synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

July August 

5 

0 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

5 

0 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

A. Lecompton, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 

2002 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

July August 

C. DeSoto, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

Absolute mean error (AME) = 2.4 °C 

Root mean square error (RMSE) = 2.9 °C 

AME = 1.3 °C 

RMSE = 1.6 °C 

AME = 1.1 °C 

RMSE = 1.4 °C 

Figure 27. Measured and simulated hourly water temperatures in Kansas River at Lecompton (site 21) and DeSoto 

(site 33) for synoptic survey II and synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown in figure 2. 

fluctuations were similar to the measured fluctuations with a 

few exceptions. 

Hourly measured water temperature was compared to 

hourly simulated water temperature for synoptic surveys II and 

III at DeSoto (site 33). The AMEs were 1.3 oC for synoptic survey II (fig. 27B) and 1.1 oC for synoptic survey III (fig. 27C). 

Generally, the timing and the magnitude of daily temperature 

fluctuations were well simulated during synoptic survey II. One 

exception was when simulated water temperature overestimated the measured water temperature on February 27–28, 

2002. This was most likely due to ice forming on the surface of 

the river and insulating the water from the available solar radiation, in this case lowering the measured temperature of the 

water. The simulated water temperature was based on open 

water and, therefore, higher water temperatures. 

Simulated Water Quality

The model was calibrated for water quality by adjusting 

model parameters (table 11) to achieve acceptable agreement 
42 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Table 11. Model parameters and calculated values specified as input for water-quality model of Kansas River in northeast Kansas.

[--, not applicable]

Model parameter Unit of measurement

Calibrated value in 

lower Kansas River

water-quality model

Light extinction coeficient for water 1/meter 0.45 (winter)

.25 (summer)

Fraction of incident solar radiation absorbed at the water surface dimensionless .45

Group 1 algal light extinction 1/meter .1

First-order fecal coliform decay rate 1/day 1.4

Coliform decay rate temperature coefficient dimensionless 1.04

Suspended solids settling rate meter per day 1

Maximum algal growth rate 1/day 2

Maximum algal respiration rate 1/day .02

Maximum algal excretion rate 1/day .01

Maximum algal mortality rate 1/day .1

Algal settling rate meter per day .15

Algal half-saturation constant for phosphorus milligrams per liter .005

Algal half-saturation constant for nitrogen milligrams per liter .014

Algal half-saturation constant for silica milligrams per liter 0

Light saturation intensity at maximum photosynthetic rate watts per square meter 75

Lower temperature for algal growth degrees Celsius 1

Lower temperature for maximum algal growth degrees Celsius 15

Upper temperature for maximum algal growth degrees Celsius 35

Upper temperature for algal growth degrees Celsius 40

Fraction of maximum algal growth at lower temperature dimensionless .1

Fraction of algal growth at lower temperature dimensionless .99

Fraction of maximum algal growth at upper temperature dimensionless .99

Fraction of algal growth at upper temperature dimensionless .1

Stoichiometric equivalent between algal biomass and phosphorus dimensionless .005

Stoichiometric equivalent between algal biomass and nitrogen dimensionless .08

Stoichiometric equivalent between algal biomass and carbon dimensionless .45

Stoichiometric equivalent between algal biomass and silica dimensionless 0

Ratio between algal biomass and chlorophyll-a dimensionless 145

Fraction of algal biomass that is converted to particulate organic matter when 

algae die

dimensionless 0.8

Equation number for algal ammonium preference (1 or 2) -- 1

Algal half-saturation constant for ammonium preference dimensionless .001

Labile dissolved organic matter decay rate 1/day .1

Refractory dissolved organic matter decay rate 1/day .001

Labile to refractory dissolved organic matter decay rate 1/day .01

Labile particulate organic matter decay rate 1/day .08
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 43

Table 11. Model parameters and calculated values specified as input for water-quality model of Kansas 

River in northeast Kansas.—Continued

[--, not applicable]

Model parameter Unit of measurement

Calibrated value in 

lower Kansas 

River water-quality 

model

Refractory particulate organic matter decay rate 1/day 0.001

Labile to refractory particulate organic matter decay rate 1/day .01

Particulate organic matter settling rate 1/day .1

Stoichiometric equivalent between organic matter and phosphorus dimensionless .005

Stoichiometric equivalent between organic matter and nitrogen dimensionless .08

Stoichiometric equivalent between organic matter and carbon dimensionless .45

Stoichiometric equivalent between organic matter and silica dimensionless .18

Lower temperature for organic matter decay degrees Celsius 4

Upper temperature for organic matter decay degrees Celsius 30

Fraction of organic matter decay rate at lower temperature dimensionless .1

Fraction of organic matter decay rate at upper temperature dimensionless .99

5-day decay rate at 20 °C 1/day .2

Temperature coefficient dimensionless 1.047

Ratio of 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand to ultimate 

carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

dimensionless 1.85

Phosphorus stoichiometry for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand decay dimensionless .004

Nitrogen stoichiometry for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand decay dimensionless .004

Carbon stoichiometry for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand decay dimensionless .004

Silica stoichiometry for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand decay dimensionless --

Sediment release rate of phosphorus, fraction of sediment oxygen demand dimensionless .01

Phosphorus partitioning coefficient for suspended solids dimensionless 0

Sediment release rate of ammonium, fraction of sediment oxygen demand dimensionless .001

Ammonium decay rate 1/day 1

Lower temperature for ammonia decay degrees Celsius 1

Lower temperature for maximum ammonia decay degrees Celsius 25

Fraction of nitrification rate at lower temperature dimensionless .5

Fraction of nitrification rate at upper temperature dimensionless .99

Nitrate decay rate 1/day .15

Denitrification rate from sediment meter per day 1

Lower temperature for nitrate decay degrees Celsius 1

Lower temperature for maximum nitrate decay degrees Celsius 25

Fraction of denitrification rate at lower temperature dimensionless .1

Fraction of denitrification rate at upper temperature dimensionless .99

Dissolved silica sediment release rate, fraction of sediment oxygen demand dimensionless .1

Particulate biogenic settling rate meter per second 0

Particulate biogenic silica decay rate 1/day .3
44 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Dissolved silica partitioning coefficient dimensionless 0.2

Iron sediment release rate, fraction of sediment oxygen demand dimensionless .1

Iron settling velocity meter per day 2

Sediment carbon dioxide release rate, fraction of sediment oxygen demand dimensionless .1

Oxygen stoichiometry for nitrification dimensionless 4.57

Oxygen stoichiometry for organic matter decay dimensionless 1.4

Oxygen stoichiometry for algal respiration dimensionless 1.1

Oxygen stoichiometry for algal primary production dimensionless 1.4

Dissolved-oxygen concentration at which anaerobic processes begin gram per cubic meter .1

Initial sediment concentration gram per cubic meter 1

Sediment decay rate 1/day .1

Fraction of the zero-order sediment oxygen demand rate used dimensionless 0

Fraction of the first-order sediment rate used dimensionless .5

Lower temperature for zero-order sediment oxygen demand or first-order 

sediment decay

degrees Celsius 5

Upper temperature for zero-order sediment oxygen demand or first-order sediment 

decay

degrees Celsius 35

Fraction of sediment oxygen demand or sediment decay rate at lower temperature dimensionless .05

Fraction of sediment oxygen demand or sediment decay rate at upper temperature dimensionless .99

Sediment oxygen demand milligram per liter 1

Table 11. Model parameters and calculated values specified as input for water-quality model of Kansas 

River in northeast Kansas.—Continued

[--, not applicable]

Model parameter Unit of measurement

Calibrated value in 

lower Kansas 

River water-quality 

model

between measured and simulated dissolved oxygen, nitrite plus 

nitrate, ammonia as nitrogen, orthophosphorus, fecal coliform 

bacteria, and algal biomass. These model parameters were set to 

default values for the first simulation. Parameters then were 

adjusted on the basis of: (1) conceptual understanding of the 

system, (2) agreement with measured data, (3) values used for 

other CE–QUAL–W2 applications (Bales and others, 2001; 

Galloway and Green, 2002; Berger and others, 2003), and (4) 

defined limits of each parameter (Cole and Wells, 2003). These 

adjustments were kept to a minimum to avoid “overtuning” the 

model and creating a model that is only useful for the data used 

to calibrate the model. 

Accurate dissolved-oxygen simulation was emphasized 

during the model calibration. Hourly measured dissolved oxygen was available for comparison to hourly simulated dissolved 

oxygen. Other water-quality constituents were measured during 

discrete sample collection. During synoptic survey II, one measured value per site, per water-quality constituent, was compared to hourly simulated values. In an effort to define temporal 

fluctuations for synoptic survey III, multiple samples were collected at Lecompton (site 21), DeSoto (site 33), and Kansas City 

(site 50). 

Dissolved Oxygen

Comparisons of measured and simulated dissolvedoxygen concentrations indicated fair agreement for the Kansas 

River at Lecompton and DeSoto. During synoptic survey II, the 

AME was 0.9 mg/L for DeSoto (fig. 28A) (no measured dissolved-oxygen data were available for Lecompton). The AME 

for dissolved-oxygen concentrations at Lecompton and DeSoto 

for synoptic survey III were 2.8 and 1.9 mg/L, respectively 

(fig. 28B and 28C). The magnitudes of the daily maximum and 

minimum simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations at 

Lecompton closely agreed with several of the measured values, 

but the timing of the daily extremes was slightly out of phase 

(fig. 28B). The magnitudes of the minimum and maximum simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations at DeSoto were underestimated in comparison to the measured dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations (fig. 28C). Also, the simulated dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations were out of phase with the measured data by 

about 7 to 8 hours. Overall, the simulated dissolved oxygen for 

DeSoto for synoptic survey III underestimated the measured 

dissolved oxygen by as much as 4 mg/L. 
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 45

25 26 

February March 

27 28 1 

A. DeSoto, synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

Dissolved oxygen, in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

Measured dissolved

oxygen at Lecompton

Aquatic-life support criterion 

for dissolved oxygen, 5 mg/L

Aquatic-life support criterion 

for dissolved oxygen, 5 mg/L

Aquatic-life support criterion 

for dissolved oxygen, 5 mg/L

Simulated dissolved

oxygen at Lecompton

Simulated dissolved

oxygen at DeSoto

Simulated dissolved

oxygen at DeSoto

Measured dissolved

oxygen at DeSoto

Measured dissolved

oxygen at Lecompton

B. Lecompton, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

C. DeSoto, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

July August 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 

2002 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

July August 

Absolute mean error (AME) = 0.9 mg/L 

Root mean square error (RMSE) = 1.0 mg/L 

AME = 2.8 mg/L 

RMSE = 3.4 mg/L 

AME = 1.9 mg/L 

RMSE = 2.3 mg/L 

Figure 28. Measured and simulated hourly dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River at Lecompton (site 21) 

and DeSoto (site 33) for synoptic survey II and synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown in figure 2. 

Aquatic-life-support criterion from Kansas Department of Health and Environment (2002).

Adjustments to model parameters were required to 

improve simulation of measured dissolved-oxygen concentrations. Sources for dissolved-oxygen concentrations include 

reaeration and photosynthesis. Sinks include algal respiration, 

nitrification, decay of organic matter, and sediment oxygen 

demand. The reaeration rate algorithm was adjusted to improve 

simulation of the actual reaeration of the Kansas River at lower 

flows. Model parameters controlling algal respiration were 

adjusted to improve simulation of the diurnal fluctuations of 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations. The rate of nitrification was 

adjusted slightly with little effect on dissolved-oxygen concentrations. The decay rates for organic matter were set at their recommended (or default) values (Cole and Wells, 2003). The sediment oxygen demand was set at a constant rate of 1.0 mg/L for 

the entire length of the river.
46 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Ammonia

Simulated in-stream ammonia concentrations were compared to measured concentrations along the Kansas River 

(fig. 29). The simulations represented winter (synoptic 

survey II) and summer (synoptic survey III) conditions with 

results for midnight and noon, February 27, 2002, and July 29, 

2002, respectively. The time and date of collection for each 

measured value varied 9 days prior to and after the simulation 

dates.

The simulated in-stream ammonia concentrations were 

mostly larger than the measured values for both winter and summer, with a few exceptions. During the winter (synoptic 

survey II), the simulated values varied from being just slightly 

less than the measured concentration (site 26) to 5.6 times larger 

than the measured value (site 50, fig. 29A). Measured and simulated main-stem ammonia concentrations increased substantially just downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (at 

site 14). The measured ammonia concentration at the WWTF 

(site 13) on February 26, 2002, was 29.9 mg/L, the largest 

ammonia concentration measured for all the samples collected 

for this study. Ammonia concentrations decreased for the succeeding 25 mi. At site 23, the measured main-stem ammonia 

concentration was 0.05 mg/L, and the simulated value was 

0.14 mg/L. Discrepancies between measured and simulated 

ammonia concentrations downstream from Bowersock Dam 

(downstream from site 24) were indicated from about site 28 to

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

Measured 

ammonia 

concentration 

Simulated ammonia

concentration at noon,

February 27, 2002

Measured 

ammonia 

concentration 

Simulated ammonia

concentration at midnight,

February 27, 2002

Simulated ammonia

concentration at midnight,

February 27, 2002

Simulated ammonia

concentration at noon,

February 27, 2002

0 

0.10 

0.20 

0.30 

0.40 

0.50 

0.60 

0.70 

0 

0.10 

0.20 

0.30 

0.40 

0.50 

0.60 

0.70 

0.80 

0.80 

Ammonia as nitrogen, in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

12 40 

14 

10 

21 

23 24 

26 

28 30 41 44 

48 50 47 33 36 38 

17 19 

40 

12 

14 

10 

21 

23 24 

26 

28 

30 

41 44 

48 47 

36 38 

17 33

19 

A. Synoptic survey II, February25–March 1, 2002

50 

B. Synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002 

Figure 29. Measured and simulated ammonia concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to confluence with 

Missouri River for (A) synoptic survey II and (B) synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites shown in figure 2. 

Gray shading indicates multiple samples collected at a single site.
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 47

the confluence with the Missouri River. Measured concentrations along this reach varied from 0.02 to 0.03 mg/L. Simulated 

concentrations varied from 0.07 to 0.13 mg/L. For this reach, 

the model simulation indicated that some nitrification occurred, 

causing simulated ammonia concentration to slightly decrease. 

Measured values indicated that the actual rate of ammonia 

assimilation was greater than the modeled rate of assimilation, 

resulting in measured concentrations being equal to or less than 

0.03 mg/L. Winter simulation results at noon and midnight indicate little diurnal fluctuation.

Comparisons between measured and simulated in-stream 

ammonia concentrations during summer conditions indicated 

greater agreement between measured and simulated values than 

during winter conditions (fig. 29B). During the summer, measured ammonia concentrations were mostly near or less than the 

laboratory reporting level (0.02 mg/L). Simulated concentrations more accurately represented the variation and magnitude 

of measured values greater than 0.02 mg/L; for the reach from 

Topeka (site 12) to Bowersock Dam (river mile 51), measured 

and simulated ammonia concentrations varied from less than 

0.02 to 0.34 mg/L. The most substantial increase occurred near 

the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 14) where samples from the 

WWTF (site 13) indicated ammonia concentrations at 21 mg/L. 

Simulated in-stream noon concentrations decreased to 

0.01 mg/L within about 8 mi downstream from the Topeka 

Oakland WWTF. Simulated concentrations then varied from 

0.02 to 0.20 mg/L for the downstream 24 mi. The measured 

concentrations for the reach between Bowersock Dam and Kansas City varied spatially and temporally. The largest concentrations for this reach were from samples collected along the last 

10 mi, downstream from the Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional WWTF (site 44), Kansas City no. 14 (site 46), no. 20 

(site 45), and Nelson WWTFs (site 49). At sampling sites where 

multiple samples were collected, variations among ammonia 

concentration indicated how dynamic the system can be. Measured ammonia concentrations that were greater than the laboratory reporting level plotted between the simulated daily minimum (noon) and maximum (midnight) concentrations, 

indicating that the model’s simulated diurnal fluctuation in 

ammonia concentrations properly bracketed the measured concentration.

The discrepancies between the measured and simulated 

ammonia concentrations come from several possibilities. First, 

as indicated by the temporal sampling during synoptic 

survey III, ammonia concentrations can vary by as much as 

155 percent over a few days. Some of the measured values were 

collected 9 days before or after the simulated values. Another 

possible explanation for the large discrepancies between the 

measured ammonia concentrations is that the inputs to the river 

are not steady state and varied substantially during the synoptic 

period. It also could be possible that the dynamic nature of the 

chemical and biological components of the river are such that 

the data that were collected were not sufficient to completely 

quantify processes affecting actual in-stream nitrification. 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Hourly simulated fecal coliform bacteria densities for synoptic survey II (February 25 through March 1) were plotted for 

the period and compared to one measured value at Lecompton 

and DeSoto (fig. 30A and B). Simulated fecal coliform bacteria 

densities at Lecompton ranged from 22 to 34 col/100 mL, 

whereas the measured value on February 27, 2002, was 

7 col/100 mL. The measured value at DeSoto on February 25, 

2002, was 10 col/100 mL, and the hourly simulated values 

ranged from 9 to 22 col/100 mL (fig. 30B). 

Hourly simulated fecal coliform bacteria densities at 

Lecompton for synoptic survey III (July 22 through August 8, 

2002) varied between 6 and 20 col/100 mL. The measured densities in four discrete samples varied from less than 10 to 

13 col/100 mL (fig. 30C). Simulated values slightly overestimated the four discrete samples. At DeSoto, hourly simulated 

values for fecal coliform bacteria varied from 2 to 18 col/ 

100 mL. The seven samples collected had densities that ranged 

from 9 to 14 col/100 mL (fig. 30D). Variation of the hourly simulated fecal coliform bacteria densities is due primarily to variations in hydrodynamics and bacteria input.

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis was performed on the water-quality 

model by determining the effects of changes in calibrated model 

parameters and boundary conditions on simulated results. A 

complete sensitivity analysis of all the model parameters 

(table 11) was not performed. However, many of these parameters were adjusted during the calibration process for hydrodynamics, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia. 

Results of these simulations and previous modeling studies 

(Bales and others, 2001; Galloway and Green, 2002; Berger and 

others, 2003) using CE–QUAL–W2 formed the basis for the 

sensitivity analysis. 

Simulated streamflow was very sensitive to changes in 

channel slope and Manning’s friction factor. A slope change of 

0.0001 ft/mi or a 0.005 change in Manning’s friction factor 

resulted in streamflow that had either too much or too little 

velocity resulting in false traveltimes. This was evident in the 

timing of the measured changes in streamflow compared to the 

modeled changes. Simulations were generally insensitive to 

changes in other hydraulic parameters.

Simulations of water temperature were largely unaffected 

by changes in associated coefficients. The effects of changes in 

wind sheltering and resistance coefficients and dynamic shading were not modeled. Simulated water-quality constituents 

were affected by several of the 88 parameters and coefficients 

listed in table 11. Most of the parameters were adjusted to values only slightly different than the default values (Cole and 

Wells, 2003). Parameters that were adjusted outside the range 

of the default values were compared with values from previous 

studies (Bales and others, 2001; Galloway and Green, 2002; 

Berger and others, 2003). Still, other parameters were adjusted 

to better simulate measured values.
48 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

25 27 26

February March

28 1

25 27 26

February March

28 1

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

July August

A. Lecompton, synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Simulated fecal coliform bacteria density

Simulated fecal coliform bacteria density

Simulated fecal coliform bacteria density

Simulated fecal coliform bacteria density

Measured fecal coliform bacteria density

Measured fecal coliform bacteria density

Measured fecal coliform 

bacteria density

Measured fecal coliform 

bacteria density

B. DeSoto, synoptic survey II, February 25–March 1, 2002

C. Lecompton, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fecal coliform bacteria density, in colonies per 100 milliliters of water

D. DeSoto, synoptic survey III, July 22–August 8, 2002

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 

2002 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

July August 

Figure 30. Measured and simulated fecal coliform bacteria densities in Kansas River at Lecompton (site 21) 

and DeSoto (site 33) for (A–B) synoptic survey II and (C–D) synoptic survey III. Location of sampling sites 

shown in figure 2.
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 49

Simulated algal concentrations were most sensitive to 

algal growth rate and the associated temperature coefficients. 

These parameters were adjusted outside of their default range to 

so that the simulated algal concentrations would better match 

the measured concentrations in the winter. Saturation light 

intensity affected algal concentrations slightly. 

Simulated ammonia concentrations were most sensitive to 

algal concentration changes. The more algae available, the 

smaller the ammonia concentrations were. Simulated ammonia 

concentrations were less sensitive to the ammonia decay rate 

coefficient and its associated temperature coefficients. Simulated ammonia concentrations were affected only slightly by 

changes in nitrite decay rates and algal preference of ammonia 

or nitrite. 

Simulated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were 

affected only by the first-order decay rate (table 11) and settling 

coefficients. The default value for fecal coliform decay rate was 

used for these simulations.

Model Limitations

The model was calibrated on the basis of low-flow conditions measured in the Kansas River and its tributaries during the 

discrete periods of synoptic surveys II and III. The effects of 

changing the boundary conditions of the calibrated model are 

varied depending on which conditons are changed. Adjusting 

the model so that the streamflow in the Kansas River is much 

smaller or larger than the streamflows modeled for synoptic surveys II and III could produce results with greater uncertainty. 

Without measuring the inflow water quality of the Kansas River 

during hypothetically larger or smaller streamflow conditions, 

it is impossible to know if the assumed water-quality boundary 

conditions used in the calibrated model are reasonable enough 

estimates for the hypothetical simulations. Results of hypothetical adjustment of other boundary conditions such as tributary 

or WWTFs flows or ammonia concentrations are less uncertain 

because the inflow Kansas River conditions are unchanged. So 

if, for example, ammonia concentrations from a WWTF are 

increased, the model results of the effects in the Kansas River 

are accurate for those conditions.

Hypothetical Simulations

The calibrated Kansas River water-quality model was used 

to describe and evaluate hypothetical conditions. KDHE needed 

results from four hypothetical simulations using the calibrated 

model (table 12). The effluent of an additional proposed WWTF 

and hypothetical alterations to existing WWTF effluent discharges in combination with the existing calibrated model were 

used to determine the possible effects on water quality in the 

Kansas River. All of the hypothetical results were compared to 

the calibrated model results. Hypothetical simulations were 

made using boundary conditions from the winter and summer 

calibrated models with the exceptions of ammonia, nitrite plus 

nitrate, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, and carbonaceous 

biochemical oxygen demand (table 12). All simulated results 

were cross-sectional averages for noon and midnight on February 27, 2002, and July 31, 2002. The application of the calibrated model to hypothetical situations is valid so long as the 

hydrologic and meteorologic conditions and WWTF discharge 

characteristics are similar.

Hypothetical simulations also are provided for situations 

where the streamflow boundary condition for the Kansas River 

at Topeka (site 12) was reduced to the 30-day, 10-year low flow 

(30Q10) of 670 ft3

/s. KDHE determines WWTF permitted discharges of ammonia into the Kansas River on the basis of 

streamflow equal to 30Q10 flows (table 4). Therefore, KDHE 

needed the calibrated model and the hypothetical simulations 

also run using the 30Q10 streamflow instead of the streamflow 

measured in the Kansas River during synoptic surveys II and 

III. The results of the 30Q10 hypothetical simulations are presented in Appendix 3.

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 1

First, the calibrated model was altered so that the effluent 

discharges from three major main-stem WWTFs were equal to 

their design flow and current (2005) permitted limit for ammonia (table 12). In comparison to the calibrated results, simulated 

in-stream ammonia concentrations were usually larger in the 

hypothetical simulation 1, with the exception of concentrations 

immediately downstream from the Topeka Oakland WWTF 

(site 13) in the winter (fig. 31A). Simulated in-stream concentrations were larger for the calibrated model in winter because 

the ammonia concentration measured at the Topeka Oakland 

WWTF (30 mg/L) was 18 times larger than the current permitted limit (1.6 mg/L). The results from hypothetical simulation 1 

were plotted with the results from the other three hypothetical 

simulations for further comparison (figs. 31–33). 

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 2

The change for hypothetical simulation 2 was to discharge 

effluent from a proposed new WWTF that would serve the 

growing population of Johnson County, Kansas. The design 

flow for this proposed WWTF was 85 ft3/s (55 Mgal/d), more 

than two times larger than any of the existing WWTF design 

flows. The simulation was run for winter and summer conditions in two parts: (1) locating the proposed WWTF upstream 

from DeSoto (river mile 31) and (2) locating the proposed 

WWTF downstream from Cedar Creek (river mile 25). The two 

parts of the simulation were necessary to help determine the 

effects of the proposed WWTF’s effluent on the horizontal 

source-water wells located along the Kansas River near the confluence of Cedar Creek. These wells provide drinking water for 

the city of Olathe. 
Table 12. Boundary conditions used in CE–QUAL–W2 model for various hypothetical simulations describing possible effects on water quality in K

Kansas during winter and summer.

[Mgal/d, million gallons per day; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; n/a, not applicable or not determined]

Map 

number

(fig. 2)

Wastewater-treatment 

facility

Effluent discharge Ammonia concentrations Input concentra

Simulated 

(Mgal/d)

2004 design

(Mgal/d)

Simulated 

(ft3/s)

Simulated 

(mg/L)

Design limits

Nitrite plus 

nitrate as 

nitrogen 

(mg/L)

Total 

phosphorus 

(mg/L)

O

phos

(m

Winter

(mg/L)

Summer

(mg/L)

Calibration simulation

Winter

13 Topeka Oakland 16 16 15.8 30 7.8 n/a 0.65 3.0 

25 Lawrence 12.5 12.5 10.5 8.8 7 n/a 7.7 3.7 44 Johnson County Mill Creek 9 9 11.6 19 15 n/a .19 3.7 

Summer

13 Topeka Oakland 16 16 11.9 21 n/a 1.6 .2 3.6 

25 Lawrence 12.5 12.5 9.75 .2 n/a 7 15 3.9 

44 Johnson County Mill Creek 9 9 10.8 24 n/a 36 1.8 4.3 

Hypothetical simulation 1

13 Topeka Oakland 16 16 25 1.0 7.8 1.6 1.0 2.0 

25 Lawrence 12.5 12.5 19 1.0 7 7 1.0 2.0 44 Johnson County Mill Creek 9 9 14 1.0 15 36 1.0 2.0 

Hypothetical simulation 2

n/a Proposed DeSoto (river mile 

25 or 31) 

55 n/a 85 1.0 n/a n/a 1.0 2.0 

Hypothetical simulation 3

13 Topeka Oakland 16 16 25 1.0 7.8 1.6 1.0 2.0 

25 Lawrence 12.5 12.5 19 1.0 7 7 1.0 2.0 44 Johnson County Mill Creek 18.75 9 29 1.0 15 36 1.0 2.0 
Table 12. Boundary conditions used in CE–QUAL–W2 model for various hypothetical simulations describing possible effects on water quality in 

Kansas during winter and summer.—Continued

[Mgal/d, million gallons per day; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; n/a, not applicable or not determined]

Map 

number

(fig. 2)

Wastewater-treatment 

facility

Effluent discharge Ammonia concentrations Input concentra

Simulated 

(Mgal/d)

2004 

design 

(Mgal/d)

Simulated 

(ft3/s)

Simulated 

(mg/L)

Design limits

Nitrite plus 

nitrate as 

nitrogen 

(mg/L)

Total 

phosphorus 

(mg/L)

O

pho

(m

Winter

(mg/L)

Summer

(mg/L)

Hypothetical simulation 4

13 Topeka Oakland 16 16 25 1.0 1.6 7.8 1.0 2.0 25 Lawrence 20 12.5 31 1.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 

n/a Proposed DeSoto (river 

mile 25 or 31)

55 n/a 85 1.0 n/a n/a 1.0 2.0 

44 Johnson County Mill Creek 18.75 9.0 29 1.0 36 15 1.0 2.0 
52 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Ammonia concentration, in milligrams per liter

A. Simulated ammonia concentrations, winter conditions 

Simulated ammonia concentrations for 

 the synoptic survey II 

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 1 

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 2 with proposed treatment 

 facility upstream from Cedar Creek 

 (river mile 31)

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 2, with proposed treatment 

 facility downstream from Cedar Creek 

 (river mile 25) 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

B. Simulated ammonia concentrations, summer conditions 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Figure 31. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 2.
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 53

Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

 (calibrated model)

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 1

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 2, with proposed treatment facility

 upstream from Cedar Creek (river mile 31)

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 2, with proposed treatment facility

 downstream from Cedar Creek (river mile 25) 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion for dissolved oxygen 

 (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

D. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, summer conditions 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Dissolved-oxygen concentration, in milligrams per liter

C. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, winter conditions North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek Cedar Creek 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Figure 31. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 2.—Continued
54 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Results of hypothetical simulation 2, where the addition of 

the proposed WWTF was upstream from DeSoto or downstream from Cedar Creek, indicated similar increases in ammonia downstream from the proposed WWTF. In the winter, 

ammonia concentrations downstream from the proposed 

WWTF indicated similar characteristics but at different locations depending on its hypothetical location (fig. 31A). Results 

indicated a steady increase in ammonia concentrations in the 

Kansas River to about 0.04 mg/L greater than the calibrated 

results within about 2.5 mi downstream from both hypothetical 

locations for the proposed WWTF. None of the simulated instream values exceeded the Kansas chronic aquatic-life criteria 

for early-life stages of fish present. Water temperatures less 

than 5 oC minimized nitrification and had little effect on dissolved-oxygen concentrations (fig. 31C). None of simulated 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the winter were less than 

the Kansas aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L). 

Summer simulations indicated that ammonia concentrations increased substantially for about 5 mi downstream from 

the proposed WWTF and then maintained a steady concentration slightly greater than the concentrations for calibrated 

results (fig. 31B). The maximum simulated main-stem values 

for both proposed WWTF locations were within 0.2 mg/L of the 

Kansas chronic aquatic-life criterion for early-life stages of fish 

present. As a result of the increased ammonia concentrations, 

main-stem nitrification suppressed dissolved-oxygen concentrations to less than the Kansas aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L) 

for 1 to 2 mi downstream from the proposed WWTF (fig. 31D). 

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 3

As requested by KDHE, changes to the calibrated model 

for hypothetical simulation 3 were adjustments to three major 

WWTFs (Topeka Oakland, Lawrence, and Mill Creek) current 

design flows and permitted limits for ammonia (Appendix 2). In 

most cases, this meant that the magnitude of the effluent flow 

was increased and the concentration of ammonia was decreased 

from the WWTF values measured and used in the calibrated 

model. 

Results for hypothetical simulation 3 indicated that ammonia concentrations gradually increased from upstream to downstream along the Kansas River during winter and summer. 

Ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.20 mg/L in the 

winter and from 0.03 to 0.27 mg/L during the summer (figs. 32A

and 32B). In-stream ammonia concentrations incrementally 

increased downstream from each major WWTF. Ammonia concentration increased the most downstream from the Turkey 

Creek confluence (river mile 3.2). Nelson WWTF discharges 

into Turkey Creek just upstream from the confluence. The 

ammonia concentration of Turkey Creek (site 49, fig. 2) just 

downstream from the Nelson WWTF effluent (site 37, fig. 9) 

was not changed from the concentration used in the calibrated 

model and was the largest ammonia concentration of all the 

WWTF effluents for hypothetical simulation 3. Main-stem 

ammonia concentrations for hypothetical simulation 3 did not 

exceed the Kansas chronic aquatic-life criterion for early-life 

stages of fish present. 

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen for the hypothetical 

simulation 3 were similar to the dissolved-oxygen concentrations reported from the original calibrated model during both 

winter and summer (fig. 32C and 32D). None of the simulated 

main-stem dissolved-oxygen concentrations were less than the 

Kansas aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L).

Effects of Hypothetical Simulation 4

Adjustments to the calibrated model for hypothetical simulation 4 were a combination of adjustments from hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 2. Effluent from a proposed new WWTF was 

added to discharge in the Kansas River just downstream from 

the Cedar Creek confluence (river mile 25), and the design 

flows and ammonia concentrations for three major WWTFs 

(Topeka Oakland, Lawrence, Johnson County Mill Creek) were 

adjusted to the same values as in hypothetical simulation 2. All 

values for the other WWTFs were the same as the values used 

for the calibrated model.

Simulated results for hypothetical simulation 4 indicated 

main-stem concentrations of ammonia similar to those simulated for hypothetical simulation 3, with the exception of the 

concentrations found downstream from the proposed WWTF 

(fig. 33A and 33B). In the summer, the simulated results indicated that the proposed WWTF would have a profound effect on 

ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentration for about 3 mi 

downstream from its hypothetical location (fig. 33B and 33D). 

Ammonia concentrations remained slightly larger than the concentrations in hypothetical simulation 2 until about river mile 

10, where they were approximately equal. Main-stem ammonia 

concentrations were equal to or less than those simulated with 

the calibrated model except near the Lawrence and proposed 

WWTFs. Summer simulated ammonia concentrations near the 

proposed WWTF were the closest that any of the simulated values got to the Kansas chronic aquatic-life-support criterion for 

early-life stages of fish present.

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen for hypothetical simulation 4 were similar to the dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

reported from the original calibrated model during both winter 

and summer with some exceptions (fig. 33C and 33D). During 

the winter, downstream from the proposed new WWTF (river 

mile 25), simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations decreased 

slightly (about 0.5 mg/L) and gradually increased over the next 

5 mi to levels identical to the calibrated model. During the summer, simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations downstream 

from the Lawrence WWTF (river mile 50) decreased to 

5.0 mg/L before increasing gradually over the next 3 mi to concentrations similar to the calibrated model. Also, simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations downstream from the hypothetical WWTF (river mile 25) decreased to concentrations that 

were less than the Kansas aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L), 

reaching a minimum of about 4 mg/L before increasing over the 

next 4 mi back to the levels similar to the calibrated model.
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 55

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Ammonia concentration, in milligrams per liter

A. Simulated ammonia concentrations, winter conditions 

Simulated ammonia concentrations 

 (calibrated model) 

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 1 

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 3 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

B. Simulated ammonia concentrations, summer conditions 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

Figure 32. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 3.
56 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

 (calibrated model)

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 1

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 3 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion for dissolved oxygen 

 (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

 2002)

EXPLANATION 

D. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, summer conditions 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Dissolved-oxygen concentration, in milligrams per liter

C. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, winter conditions North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek Kill Creek Cedar Creek 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Figure 32. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City during winter

and summer low streamflow conditions for calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 3.—Continued
Simulation of Ammonia Assimilative Capacity and Bacteria Transport 57

0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Ammonia concentration, in milligrams per liter

A. Simulated ammonia concentrations, winter conditions 

EXPLANATION 

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

B. Simulated ammonia concentrations, summer conditions 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

North Topeka wastewatertreatment facility 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

Simulated ammonia concentrations 

 (calibrated model) 

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 1 

Ammonia concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 4 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 33. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer low streamflow conditions for calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 4.
58 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

 (calibrated model) 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 1 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical 

 simulation 4, with proposed treatment facility

 downstream from Cedar Creek (river mile 25) 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion for dissolved oxygen

 (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 

 2002)

EXPLANATION 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

D. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, summer conditions 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Dissolved-oxygen concentration, in milligrams per liter

C. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, winter conditions North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek Kill Creek Cedar Creek 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 33. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City during winter

and summer low streamflow conditions for calibrated model and hypothetical simulations 1 and 4. —Continued
Summary and Conclusions 59

Summary and Conclusions

Nutrients and bacteria are two of the most common waterquality contaminants in Kansas and are responsible for causing 

stream segments to be designated as water-quality impaired. 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) 

has listed the Kansas River in northeast Kansas as water-quality 

limited with respect to ammonia and fecal coliform bacteria. 

Once a stream has been designated as water-quality limited and 

appears on the water-quality limited (303d) list, the Federal 

Clean Water Act requires that States establish total maximum 

daily loads to meet those water-quality criteria. Treatment facility upgrades and best management practices within the watershed are possible solutions for improving water quality.

Concentrations of ammonia and fecal coliform bacteria 

associated with wastewater-treatment facility (WWTF) effluent 

from areas of rapid population growth and urban development 

are a particular concern along the Kansas River between 

Topeka and Kansas City. Large concentrations of ammonia during low streamflow conditions are of concern in this reach of the 

Kansas River. Large densities of fecal coliform bacteria indicate elevated risks of contracting human diseases for those 

using the stream. As urban growth continues along the Kansas 

River, capacities of existing WWTFs will increase, and new 

WWTFs will discharge to the Kansas River. 

In July 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with KDHE and support from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, conducted an investigation of the Kansas 

River in northeast Kansas to characterize and simulate waterquality conditions during low streamflow conditions. Three 

synoptic surveys were undertaken in November 2001 and February and July 2002. A total of 147 water samples were collected at 50 sites within and along the Kansas River between 

Wamego and Kansas City, Kansas. Water-quality monitors 

installed in the Kansas River at selected sites provided hourly 

measurements of specific conductance, pH, water temperature, 

turbidity, and dissolved oxygen during synoptic survey III 

(summer 2002). Results from discrete sample collection and 

hourly measurements were used to calibrate and verify a twodimensional water-quality model of the Kansas River.

Results from the samples collected during the three synoptic surveys indicated that WWTFs along the Kansas River 

increased ammonia concentrations and bacteria densities in the 

river during low streamflow conditions. The largest increases in 

ammonia concentrations on the main-stem Kansas River were 

detected immediately downstream from the Topeka Oakland 

WWTF, the Lawrence WWTF, and the Johnson County Mill 

Creek WWTF. The largest ammonia concentration (0.27 mg/L) 

on the main-stem Kansas River occurred just downstream from 

the Topeka Oakland WWTF and was less than the State of Kansas pH- and temperature-dependent chronic aquatic-life criterion for ammonia (0.30 mg/L). Ammonia concentrations in 

67 percent of the main-stem samples collected during the third 

synoptic survey (summer conditions) were less than the laboratory reporting level, whereas none of the concentrations in 

samples collected during the second synoptic survey (winter 

conditions) were. Overall, ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River, its tributaries, and WWTF effluent were larger during 

the winter than during the summer. None of the main-stem sample concentrations exceeded the State of Kansas pH- and temperature-dependent chronic aquatic-life criteria for ammonia. 

The temporal variance defined by the results of synoptic survey 

III indicated that ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River 

sometimes varied hourly by differences of as much as 155 percent. Other nutrient constituents, such as total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus, indicated a similar but muted spatial pattern along 

the main stem of the Kansas River with concentrations increasing slightly downstream from major WWTFs. 

Samples analyzed for densities of fecal coliform bacteria 

illustrate a spatial pattern slightly different from that of the 

nutrient constituents. Increased densities of bacteria were 

detected along the main stem downstream from major WWTFs. 

For instance, during synoptic surveys II and III, fecal coliform 

bacteria densities downstream from the Lawrence WWTF were 

more than an order of magnitude greater than upstream densities. The only fecal coliform bacteria density in the main-stem 

samples to exceed the former State water-quality, single-sample criterion (2,000 col/100 mL) was measured during synoptic 

survey III in the Kansas River upstream from the Missouri 

River confluence (site 50) at 4,000 col/100 mL. Temporal variation measured during synoptic survey III indicated up to a 

263-percent difference in densities during a 12-day period. 

Overall, fecal coliform bacteria densities were slightly larger 

during the summer.

The results from the three synoptic surveys indicated that 

concentrations of nutrients and densities of fecal coliform 

bacteria during low streamflow conditions varied spatially and 

temporally and increased downstream from major point-source 

(WWTF) discharges. Concentrations and densities were relatively small at the sampling sites upstream from Topeka. Variability of concentrations and densities was largest from Topeka 

to the confluence with the Missouri River where WWTFs had a 

substaintial effect on main-stem water quality. The Kansas 

River’s assimilative process for ammonia typically decreased 

the concentrations of ammonia downstream from WWTFs. The 

assimilative process was about twice as effective during the 

summer synoptic survey than it was during the winter survey. 

Decay of fecal coliform bacteria was less evident and appeared 

to have little seasonal effect on the basis of data collected for 

this report.

Measured loads for ammonia and bacteria were computed 

to determine primary inputs to the Kansas River. The Oakland 

WWTF in Topeka was the largest contributor of both ammonia 

and bacteria on the basis of samples collected during the three 

synoptic surveys except for fecal coliform bacteria during synoptic survey III when the DeSoto WWTF was discharging the 

largest load of bacteria. Estimated loads for the main stem were 

computed and compared to the measured loads to help determine if the synoptic survey sampling schemes adequately represented the water-quality of the river system.
60 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

None of the measured ammonia concentrations in the Kansas River were greater than the State of Kansas criteria. However, two measurements of dissolved oxygen at sampling sites 

nearest to the Missouri River were less than the State’s aquaticlife-support use criterion (5.0 mg/L) during the summer. Low 

streamflow conditions in the summer are more suitable for nitrification and the decay of organic matter that consume oxygen. 

Therefore, the more ammonia available during these conditions, 

the more dissolved oxygen is consumed, and the greater the risk 

to aquatic life. 

A two-dimensional, laterally averaged hydrodynamic and 

water-quality model, CE–QUAL–W2 version 3.1, was applied 

to the Kansas River. The model was calibrated and tested using 

data from three synoptic surveys conducted between November 

2001 and August 2002. 

Simulated hourly streamflow, water temperature, and dissolved-oxygen concentrations were compared with measured 

hourly streamflow, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen in 

the Kansas River at Topeka and DeSoto. Channel bathymetry, 

hydraulic and thermal parameters, and rate coefficients were 

adjusted to calibrate the model to minimize the difference 

between the measured and simulated hourly values. 

Simulated main-stem ammonia concentrations were compared to measured concentrations from upstream to downstream along the Kansas River. The simulated main-stem 

ammonia concentrations mostly overestimated the measured 

values for both winter and summer, with a few exceptions. 

Comparisons between measured and simulated main-stem 

ammonia concentrations indicated that ammonia concentrations 

were more accurately simulated during the summer than during 

the winter. A possible explanation for the large discrepancies 

between the measured and simulated ammonia concentrations 

is that the data used in the model were insufficient in defining 

the system, causing the model to underestimate the actual mainstem nitrification. Another explanation is that measured values 

from samples were collected over a period of days and the simulated concentration represented a single point in time. 

The calibrated Kansas River water-quality model was 

adjusted and used to describe and evaluate four hypothetical 

simulations needed by KDHE. Simulation 1 was used to indicate the water quality of the Kansas River if the three major 

WWTFs were discharging their design flow and maximum permitted ammonia. Other hypothetical simulations described the 

effects of an additional proposed WWTF at two different locations (simulation 2), hypothetical alterations to existing WWTF 

effluent discharges (simulation 3), and the effects of combining 

both hypothetical conditions (simulation 4) were used to determine the possible effects on water quality in the Kansas River. 

All of the results from the four hypothetical simulations were 

compared to the calibrated model results for synoptic surveys II 

(winter) and III (summer). Seasonal comparisons were made 

between winter and summer simulations. 

First, the calibrated model was altered so that the effluent 

discharges from three major main-stem WWTFs were equal to 

their design flow and current permitted limit for ammonia. In 

comparison to the calibrated results, simulated in-stream 

ammonia concentrations were usually larger in simulation 1, 

with the exception of concentrations immediately downstream 

from the Topeka Oakland WWTF (site 13) in the winter. Simulated in-stream concentrations were larger for the calibrated 

model because the ammonia concentration measured at the 

Topeka Oakland WWTF was 18 times larger than the current 

permitted limit.

The results of hypothetical simulation 2 with an additional 

proposed WWTF at two locations near DeSoto indicated 

increases in ammonia downstream from the proposed WWTF. 

The simulation was done in two parts to evaluate effects for the 

proposed WWTF at two different locations. In the winter, 

ammonia concentrations downstream from the proposed 

WWTF indicated a steady increase slightly greater than the calibrated model results. Summer simulation 2 indicated ammonia 

concentrations increased substantially, and dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations decreased to less than State of Kansas aquaticlife-support use criterion of 5.0 mg/L for about 1 to 2 mi downstream from the proposed WWTF and then maintained a steady 

concentration to the confluence with the Missouri River. These 

simulated main-stem ammonia concentrations were close to the 

Kansas chronic aquatic-life criteria for early-life stages of fish 

present.

In hypothetical simulation 3, changes to hypothetical simulation 1 were made to adjust the design flows from three major 

WWTFs (Topeka Oakland, Lawrence, and Mill Creek) and 

permitted ammonia limits. In most cases, this meant that the 

magnitude of the effluent flow was increased (beyond 2005 

design flows) and the concentration of ammonia was decreased 

from WWTF permitted values used in hypothetical 

simulation 1. Hypothetical values for nitrite plus nitrate, orthophosphorus, and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand 

also were used in place of the measured values that were used 

in the calibrated simulation for the three WWTFs. Simulated 

results for hypothetical simulation 3 indicated that ammonia 

concentrations were equal to or slightly less than the simulated 

concentrations from the calibrated model during both winter 

and summer. None of the simulated main-stem ammonia and 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations for hypothetical simulation 3 

were larger than the Kansas chronic aquatic-life criteria for 

early-life stages of fish present or less than the Kansas aquaticlife criterion for dissolved oxygen (5.0 mg/L), respectively. 

Simulated results for hypothetical simulation 4, a combination of hypothetical simulations 2 and 3, indicated in-stream 

concentrations of ammonia similar to those simulated for hypothetical simulation 3, with the exception of the concentrations 

found downstream from the proposed WWTF. Hypothetical 

simulation 4 indicated that ammonia concentrations for winter 

and summer were equal to or less than those simulated with the 

calibrated model except near the Lawrence WWTF and the proposed WWTF. Simulated main-stem ammonia and dissolvedoxygen concentrations downstream from the proposed WWTF 

were close to the Kansas chronic aquatic-life criteria for earlylife stages of fish present and less than the Kansas aquatic-life 

criterion for dissolved oxygen (5.0 mg/L), respectively.
References Cited 61

References Cited

American Public Health Association, American Water Works 

Association, and Water Environment Federation,1992, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater 

(18th ed.): Washington, D.C., American Public Health Association, p. 2–8 to 2–11.

Bales, J.D., Sarver, K.M., and Giorgino, M.J., 2001, Mountain 

Island Lake, North Carolina—analysis of ambient conditions 

and simulation of hydrodynamics, constituent transport, and 

water-quality characteristics, 1996–97: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4138, 

85 p.

Berger, C.J., Annear, R.L., Jr., and Wells, S.A., 2003, Upper 

Spokane river model—model calibration, 2001: Portland, 

Oregon, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Technical Report EWR–1–03, 

89 p.

Chapra, S.C., 1997, Surface water-quality modeling: Boston, 

Massachusetts, McGraw-Hill, 844 p.

Christensen, V.G., Jian, Xiaodong, and Ziegler, A.C., 2000, 

Regression analysis and real-time water-quality monitoring 

to estimate constituent concentrations, loads, and yields in 

the Little Arkansas River, south-central Kansas, 1995–99: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00–4126, 36 p.

Cole, T.M., and Wells, S.A., 2003, CE–QUAL–W2—a twodimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water 

quality model, version 3.1: Vicksburg, Mississippi, U.S. 

Army Engineering and Research Development Center, 

Instruction Report EL–03–1, 619 p.

Daly, C., Taylor, C.H., and Gibson, W.P., 1997, The PRISM 

approach to mapping precipitation and temperature, in

Reprints of 10th Conference on Applied Climatology, Reno, 

Nevada: American Meteorological Society, p. 10–12. 

Dufour, A.P., 1977, Escherichia coli—the fecal coliform, in

Hoadley, A.W., and Dutka, B.J., eds., Bacterial indicators/health hazards associated with water, 1977: American 

Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 635, p. 48–58.

Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., and Greenberg, A.E., eds.,1995, 

Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater, 

chapter 9: Washington, D.C., American Public Health 

Association, p. 117.

Feth, J.H., 1981, Chloride in natural continental water—a 

review: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2176, 

30 p.

Galloway, J.M., and Green, W.R., 2002, Simulation of hydrodynamics, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in Norfork 

Lake, Arkansas, 1994–1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02–4250, 23 p.

Hem, J.D., 1992, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Hendricks, C.W., 1972, Enteric bacterial growth rates in river 

water: Applied Microbiology, v. 24, no. 2, p. 168–174.

Horne, A.J., and Goldman, C.R., 1994, Limnology (2d ed.): 

New York, McGraw-Hill Inc., 576 p.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2002, Kansas 

register, article 16, surface water quality standards: Topeka, 

Kansas, Secretary of State, v. 21, no. 51, p. 2096–2109.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2004, 2004 

Kansas water quality assessment (305(b) report): Topeka, 

Kansas Secretary of State, information available on Web, 

accessed April 2004, at http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/ 

befs/download/ 305b04text12f.pdf, 48 p.

Kennedy, E.J., 1984, Discharge ratings at gaging stations: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A10, 59 p.

Lund, J.W.G., Kipling, C., and LeCren, E.D., 1958, The 

inverted microscope method of estimating algal numbers and 

the statistical basis of estimates by counting: Hydrobiologia, 

v. 11, p. 143–170.

Myers, D.N., and Sylvester, M.A., 1997, Fecal indicator bacteria, in Myers, D.N., and Wilde, F.D, eds., 1999, Biological 

indicators, in National field manual for the collection of 

water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A7, p. 3–38. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, Climatological data annual summary, North Carolina, 2001: 

Ashville, North Carolina, National Climatic Data Center, 

v. 115, no. 13, 25 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003, Climatological data annual summary, North Carolina, 2002: 

Ashville, North Carolina, National Climatic Data Center, 

v. 116, no. 13, 25 p.

Pepper, I.L., Gerba, C.P., and Brusseau, M.L., eds.,1996, Pollution science: New York, Academic Press, 397 p. 

Policy Research Institute, 2002, 2000 census data in Kansas: 

Lawrence, The University of Kansas, information available 

on Web, accessed June 2004, at http://www.ku.edu/pri/ 

ksdata/ksah/ KSA.pdf

Putnam, J.E., Lacock, D.L., and Schneider, D.R., 2002, Water 

resources data—Kansas, water year 2001: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Data Report KS–01–1, 532 p.

Rasmussen, P.P., and Ziegler, A. Z., 2003, Comparison and 

continuous estimates of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli

bacteria in selected streams, May 1999 through April 2002: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03–4056, p. 7–8.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Quality criteria 

for water, 1986: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Report 440/5–86–001, unnumbered pages.
62 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Report 822–R–99–014, 147 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Ecoregional 

nutrient criteria: Information available on Web, accessed 

July 9, 2003, at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/sumtable.pdf

Wagner, R.J., Mattraw, H.C., Ritz, G.F., and Smith, B.A., 2000, 

Guidelines and standard procedures for continuous waterquality monitors—site selection, field operations, calibration, record computation, and reporting: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4252, 

53 p.

Wetzel, R.G., 2001, Limnology lake and river ecosystems (3d 

ed): San Diego, California, Academic Press, 1006 p.

Wilde, F.D., Radke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 

eds., 1999, Collection of water samples, in National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap A4, p. 7–48. 

Wolf, R.J., and Helgesen, J.O., 1992, Ground- and surfacewater interaction between the Kansas River and the associated alluvial aquifer, northeastern Kansas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92–4137, 

49 p.
Appendixes
Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow 

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius) 

pH, onsite (standard units)

Air temperature (degrees Celsius)

Water temperature (degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU) 

Dissolved oxygen (milligrams per liter)

Synoptic survey I

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 11/29/01 1100 86.0 1,500 990 8.2 2.0 2.6 150 13.3 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment 

facility

6888985 11/28/01 1220 85.0 .12 1,200 7.3 -2.0 17.4 640 6.9 

13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment 

facility

6889002 11/28/01 1115 81.7 16 1,200 7.7 -- 18.6 9.6 8.2 

15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near 

Topeka

6889504 11/29/01 930 80.5 -- 760 7.8 -- -- 6.3 11.8 

16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, 

Topeka

6889700 11/29/01 1030 76.0 6.6 580 8.1 3.0 3.5 17 11.8 

18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 11/28/01 850 72.3 5.9 640 7.9 0 2.7 3.4 11.3 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 11/28/01 920 65.1 25 270 8.1 -1.5 9.6 94 10.8 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 11/28/01 1330 64.0 1,800 980 8.3 -2.0 3.8 20 12.8 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 11/28/01 920 51.1 9.9 900 7.4 -- 16.3 49 8.4 27 Farmland nitrogen wastewatertreatment facility, Lawrence 6891095 11/28/01 845 50.1 .26 1,700 7.6 -- 2.3 60 11.0 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 11/27/01 1145 47.6 2.0 610 7.7 4.5 6.5 17 10.8 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 11/28/01 1030 43.4 1,820 820 8.3 0 4.7 19 12.4 
Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)

Synoptic survey I—Continued

31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near 

Eudora

6891675 11/27/01 755 42.6 E7.0 500 7.3 -- 7.3 26 9.4 

32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 11/27/01 1240 35.4 53 570 8.1 10.5 7.8 17 11.5 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 11/27/01 1015 31.0 1.2 650 8.0 1.0 6.9 8.5 10.2 37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 11/27/01 830 26.7 4.7 990 8.0 1.0 7.2 22 10.0 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment 

facility

6892502 11/29/01 1010 20.3 1.1 1,300 7.4 -- 16.0 4.6 5.2 

42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 11/27/01 845 16.1 15 640 7.6 2.0 7.2 60 9.9 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 11/27/01 1215 15.0 E11 1,100 7.4 2.0 11.2 670 9.0 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment 

facility no. 20

6892525 11/27/01 930 14.8 5.2 1,200 7.2 -- 17.9 2.8 4.3 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater-treatment facility no. 14

6892527 11/27/01 1100 11.2 -- 570 8.0 -- 5.7 690 11.6 

48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue 

Bridge

6892540 11/28/01 1010 6.0 E2,600 750 8.3 -1.0 6.4 22 12.0 

49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 11/27/01 1030 3.2 20 980 7.6 3.5 13.8 17 7.5 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 11/27/01 1230 1.1 2,620 770 8.2 4.0 9.3 59 11.0 
Synoptic survey II

2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 2/28/02 1310 119.2 18 640 8.2 7.0 3.6 10 14.6 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 2/28/02 1215 118.2 10 570 8.3 7.5 1.6 11 14.4 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 2/28/02 1315 113.0 2,150 1,000 8.1 11.2 2.5 32 12.5 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 2/28/02 1135 103.7 1,700 1,100 8.3 11.0 1.8 41 15.9 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 2/28/02 1015 101.7 27 680 8.1 4.0 3.2 15 12.8 7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 2/28/02 1400 100.1 9.1 730 8.0 6.5 2.7 8.5 13.0 8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 2/28/02 950 98.9 -- 1,100 8.2 6.0 .1 34 15.8 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 2/28/02 900 91.6 10 610 8.1 0 1.4 9.8 14.2 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 2/28/02 1115 86.0 1,830 1,000 8.1 2.6 .4 37 12.6 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment 

facility

6888985 2/26/02 1130 85.0 13 1,200 7.0 -7.0 14.2 310 8.3 

12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 2/27/02 1320 83.0 1,800 1,000 8.2 -- .4 30 16.9 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment 

facility

6889002 2/26/02 1045 81.7 16 1,400 7.5 -7.0 14.2 11 10.9 

14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 2/28/02 855 81.1 1,820 1,000 8.0 -1.3 .1 34 13.2 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near 

Topeka

6889504 2/27/02 1215 80.5 48 780 8.0 -1.5 .9 12 14.7 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey II—Continued

16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, 

Topeka

6889700 2/27/02 1315 76.0 8.5 790 8.2 -1.5 2.2 25 14.1 

17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 2/28/02 1100 73.7 -- 1,100 8.2 12.0 .7 -- 12.2 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 2/27/02 900 72.3 3.9 680 8.0 E-8.0 .2 7.0 14.1 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 2/28/02 1330 68.6 -- 1,100 8.4 -- 2.2 -- 12.5 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 2/27/02 930 65.1 100 290 8.5 -5.0 3.4 86 14.2 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 2/27/02 1025 64.0 1,900 1,000 8.5 -5.0 1.7 36 16.5 22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 2/27/02 1015 58.6 .69 500 7.9 -1.0 .9 3.5 14.5 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 3/1/02 935 57.5 -- 980 8.1 2.2 1.6 34 13.9 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 2/27/02 1020 51.9 -- 990 8.4 -1.9 .3 31 13.5 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 2/25/02 1305 51.1 11 1,100 7.2 4.5 13.8 -- 11.2 26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 2/27/02 1115 50.6 -- 1,000 8.5 -3.0 .5 2.8 11.2 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewatertreatment facility, Lawrence 6891095 2/26/02 840 50.1 .62 2,000 7.3 -11.0 .2 39 16.7 28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 2/27/02 1300 48.6 -- 1,000 8.7 -5.0 2.0 2.6 13.5 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey II—Continued

29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 2/26/02 1045 47.6 E3.0 520 7.8 -4.0 3.3 33 12.0 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 2/25/02 930 43.4 2,260 980 8.8 1.0 7.4 41 12.7 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near 

Eudora

6891675 2/26/02 900 42.6 8.9 490 8.2 E-8.0 2.7 25 12.8 

32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 2/26/02 1145 35.4 40 550 8.1 -4.0 4.6 19 11.9 33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 2/25/02 1230 31.7 1,740 910 8.8 3.0 6.6 52 10.1 34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 2/25/02 830 31.0 1.0 870 7.2 1.0 12.6 .8 2.6 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 2/25/02 915 31.0 8.6 550 7.9 1.0 6.9 39 11.1 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 2/26/02 1230 30.8 -- 980 8.8 -7.0 1.2 -- -- 37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 2/25/02 1315 26.7 18.2 770 8.4 5.0 8.0 27 13.4 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 2/26/02 1030 20.7 -- 970 8.7 -5.0 1.9 55 12.8 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment 

facility

6892502 2/26/02 945 20.3 1.0 1,300 7.6 -8.0 11.7 .4 6.4 

40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 2/26/02 1005 19.4 -- 970 9.0 -8.0 2.3 85 13.6 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 2/26/02 1130 16.6 -- 920 8.6 -2.1 2.4 65 17.8 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 2/25/02 1015 16.1 20 930 8.2 4.5 7.3 27 12.7 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey II—Continued

43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 2/26/02 925 15.4 -- 910 8.5 -3.4 3.1 50 13.2 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 2/25/02 1150 15.0 12 1,200 7.2 4.5 10.5 24 7.7 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment 

facility no. 20

6892525 2/25/02 1000 14.8 5.4 1,200 6.9 4.5 13.2 .9 4.7 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater-treatment facility no. 14

6892527 2/25/02 1030 11.2 1.0 790 7.9 4.5 5.6 9.5 14.6 

47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 2/25/02 1235 9.7 -- 870 8.6 4.8 9.2 62 13.9 48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue 

Bridge

6892540 2/25/02 1050 6.0 2,220 850 8.5 1.9 9.0 65 13.0 

49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 2/25/02 1120 3.2 26.3 1,000 7.8 4.5 11.6 13 9.1 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 2/25/02 745 1.1 2,190 840 8.4 0 8.7 70 12.1 

Synoptic survey III

1 Kansas River at Wamego 6887500 7/31/02 1005 124.0 1,446 1,400 8.7 -- 28.0 65 8.9 2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 8/1/02 1020 119.2 1.0 510 7.9 31.5 29.1 38 6.3 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 8/1/02 945 118.2 1.7 420 8.3 35.0 28.8 55 6.2 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 7/31/02 1205 113.0 942 900 8.6 -- 29.2 67 10.0 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 7/31/02 750 103.7 -- 970 8.5 29.0 27.2 64 6.9 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 8/1/02 1130 101.7 12 610 8.1 34.5 30.2 12 8.7 7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 7/31/02 1155 100.1 3.0 630 7.7 31.0 28.2 52 5.1 8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 7/31/02 1020 98.9 -- 930 8.5 36.0 28.1 60 8.1 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 8/1/02 1210 91.6 .42 610 7.4 39.5 29.3 13 7.2 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 7/31/02 1220 86.0 -- 760 8.6 -- 29.9 62 11.1 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment 

facility

6888985 7/30/02 845 85.0 5 1,200 7.0 33.5 25.5 120 5.7 

12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 7/23/02 1005 83.0 1,090 790 8.0 33.0 26.2 48 7.4 

8/2/02 855 83.0 824 1,200 8.2 -- 27.3 63 5.7 8/2/02 1500 83.0 798 1,100 8.5 -- 30.1 -- 9.2 8/5/02 1515 83.0 -- 1,000 8.2 40.0 31.0 84 8.9 8/6/02 900 83.0 -- 1,000 7.9 29.0 29.1 52 5.6 

13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment 

facility

6889002 7/30/02 815 81.7 -- 1,300 7.6 26.5 25.5 41 6.9 

14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 7/31/02 1340 81.1 -- 730 8.6 -- 31.7 57 13.0 

8/1/02 735 81.1 -- 890 8.3 28.0 28.8 54 5.2 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near 

Topeka

6889504 7/31/02 1300 80.5 13.8 570 8.2 38.5 34.2 11 12.1 

16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, 

Topeka

6889700 7/31/02 1040 76.0 3.05 470 8.5 29.5 30.5 38 8.9 

17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 7/31/02 1100 73.7 -- 710 8.3 -- 30.3 41 7.8 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 7/31/02 1000 72.3 .5 490 7.8 26.0 26.8 18 5.1 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 7/31/02 900 68.6 -- 710 8.3 -- 28.3 38 7.1 

7/31/02 1400 68.6 -- 710 8.7 -- 31.4 38 10.7 

20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 7/30/02 1210 65.1 25 340 7.8 -- 23.7 74 8.3 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 7/22/02 1345 64.0 827 776 8.5 38.0 28.4 -- 11.7 

8/1/02 950 64.0 827 750 8.4 -- 28.7 45 9.3 8/1/02 1400 64.0 827 750 8.6 -- 32.4 50 16.2 8/6/02 1430 64.0 -- 900 8.2 -- 30.0 45 9.3 8/7/02 850 64.0 -- 800 8.0 27.0 26.4 43 6.5 

22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 7/31/02 900 58.6 .2 440 7.6 28.0 24.7 32 4.9 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 8/1/02 1120 57.5 -- 700 8.7 -- 29.6 38 11.3 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 8/1/02 1220 51.9 -- 670 8.7 -- 32.0 35 10.6 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 7/29/02 1120 51.1 -- 960 7.5 29.0 25.1 14 7.4 26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 8/1/02 830 50.6 -- 740 8.5 -- 30.2 56 5.8 

8/1/02 1100 50.6 -- 730 8.3 -- 31.1 54 6.2 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewatertreatment facility, Lawrence 6891095 7/29/02 1225 50.1 <1 1,300 8.6 36.5 30.7 74 11.2 28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 8/1/02 930 48.6 -- 750 8.3 -- 29.7 48 5.7 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 7/31/02 825 47.6 1 540 7.4 26.5 26.4 26 4.6 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 7/29/02 900 43.4 -- 880 8.0 -- 26.9 50 5.5 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near 

Eudora

6891675 7/30/02 820 42.6 21 350 7.8 24.5 27.9 79 5.5 

32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 7/30/02 1245 35.4 3.62 500 8.1 33.5 30.6 34 7.5 33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 7/25/02 1130 31.7 1,220 780 8.5 33.0 27.7 48 9.2 

7/29/02 1045 31.7 1,060 850 8.2 27.0 28.6 37 8.7 7/29/02 1330 31.7 1,020 850 8.6 -- 30.8 38 10.4 8/2/02 700 31.7 960 740 8.3 -- 27.1 36 -- 8/2/02 1300 31.7 960 720 8.4 -- 29.8 37 8.4 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 8/6/02 1300 31.7 -- 870 8.7 -- 31.0 50 13.1 

8/7/02 825 31.7 -- 863 8.3 -- 26.7 56 6.8 

34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 7/29/02 830 31.0 0.33 990 7.2 23.5 26.4 5.1 3.9 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 7/30/02 850 31.0 .01 570 7.7 25.0 24.3 31 7.3 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 7/30/02 1200 30.8 -- 870 8.5 -- 30.3 49 9.6 

7/30/02 1330 30.8 -- 870 8.6 -- 31.6 50 10.7 

37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 7/30/02 920 26.7 5.32 900 8.0 27.0 27.4 43 6.9 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 8/6/02 910 20.7 -- 910 7.9 -- 29.7 50 5.7 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment 

facility

6892502 7/29/02 1330 20.3 1.34 1,300 7.2 -- 25.1 3.0 7.3 

40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 7/30/02 945 19.4 -- 870 8.3 -- 28.6 4.4 6.2 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 7/30/02 900 16.6 -- 850 8.3 29.0 29.3 75 5.5 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 7/30/02 1000 16.1 10.2 880 7.9 30.5 27.8 24 7.2 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 7/30/02 745 15.4 -- 840 8.2 29.0 29.2 75 6.2 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 7/29/02 930 15.0 10.8 1,100 7.5 24.0 28.7 7.3 3.4 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment 

facility no. 20

6892525 7/29/02 835 14.8 -- 1,200 7.1 24.5 23.7 0.5 3.2 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater-treatment facility no. 14

6892527 7/29/02 900 11.2 0.07 970 7.9 24.5 24.4 55 6.6 

47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 7/26/02 850 9.7 -- 800 7.7 30.0 28.9 58 -- 

7/29/02 1030 9.7 -- 830 7.9 30.0 28.3 61 5.2 8/8/02 1055 9.7 -- 880 8.0 -- 27.3 79 6.0 

48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue 

Bridge

6892540 7/29/02 1135 6.0 -- 830 7.8 -- 28.9 46 5.7 

8/8/02 1150 6.0 -- 900 8.0 -- 27.6 67 7.5 

49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 7/30/02 1100 3.2 22 940 7.3 33.5 25.8 11 7.0 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 7/26/02 1035 1.1 -- 780 7.6 33.0 29.1 45 4.6 

7/29/02 830 1.1 -- 810 7.6 27.0 28.4 38 4.3 8/7/02 1325 1.1 -- 870 7.6 -- 21.4 71 8.1 8/8/02 900 1.1 -- 930 7.7 -- 27.9 78 5.7 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-t

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, d

chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Instantaneous streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

Specificconductance 

(microsiemens percentimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius)

pH, onsite 

(standard units)

Air temperature 

(degrees Celsius)

Water temperature 

(degrees Celsius) 

Turbidity, onsite 

(FNU)

Dissolved oxygen 

(illilit)
Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatm

synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 

Synoptic survey I

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 11/29/01 1100 86.0 0 230 190 610 <10 120 120 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 11/28/01 1220 85.0 0 170 140 728 14 130 150 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 11/28/01 1115 81.7 0 280 230 676 <10 120 140 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 11/29/01 930 80.5 0 310 250 418 <10 73 38 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 11/29/01 1030 76.0 0 180 150 360 <10 74 41 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 11/28/01 850 72.3 0 320 260 322 <10 51 13 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 11/28/01 920 65.1 0 120 100 162 36 13 4.9 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 11/28/01 1330 64.0 0 230 190 580 22 110 100 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 11/28/01 920 51.1 0 170 140 574 32 81 96 27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment 

facility, Lawrence

6891095 11/28/01 845 50.1 0 130 100 1152 44 500 74 

29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 11/27/01 1145 47.6 0 270 220 300 12 44 13 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 11/28/01 1030 43.4 0 230 190 496 10 94 76 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 11/27/01 755 42.6 0 240 190 268 18 30 21 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 11/27/01 1240 35.4 0 290 240 286 <10 28 13 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 11/27/01 1015 31.0 0 310 250 360 10 58 21 
Synoptic survey I—Continued

37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 11/27/01 830 26.7 0 240 190 614 26 140 92 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 11/29/01 1010 20.3 0 290 240 792 20 130 170 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 11/27/01 845 16.1 0 150 130 380 38 68 71 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 11/27/01 1215 15.0 0 210 180 634 20 180 96 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment 

facility no. 20

6892525 11/27/01 930 14.8 0 240 200 744 <10 160 110 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility no. 14 6892527 11/27/01 1100 11.2 0 330 270 544 712 73 72 48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 11/28/01 1010 6.0 0 230 190 460 10 86 73 49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 11/27/01 1030 3.2 0 140 120 618 10 170 95 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 11/27/01 1230 1.1 0 210 170 476 24 88 76 

Synoptic survey II

2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 2/28/02 1310 119.2 0 340 280 366 <10 64 11 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 2/28/02 1215 118.2 0 220 180 346 12 65 13 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 2/28/02 1315 113.0 0 250 210 636 32 150 130 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 2/28/02 1135 103.7 0 250 210 648 64 150 130 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 2/28/02 1015 101.7 0 310 250 410 16 100 17 7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 2/28/02 1400 100.1 0 320 270 458 <10 100 27 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey II—Continued

8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 2/28/02 950 98.9 0 250 210 636 54 150 120 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 2/28/02 900 91.6 0 330 270 338 <10 59 12 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 2/28/02 1115 86.0 0 200 170 632 48 150 130 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 2/26/02 1130 85.0 0 170 140 780 12 170 170 12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 2/27/02 1320 83.0 0 250 200 632 38 150 120 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 2/26/02 1045 81.7 0 370 300 748 12 170 170 14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 2/28/02 855 81.1 0 250 200 636 40 150 120 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 2/27/02 1215 80.5 0 340 270 496 14 84 61 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 2/27/02 1315 76.0 0 270 220 472 18 100 65 17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 2/28/02 1100 73.7 3.8 250 210 648 38 150 120 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 2/27/02 900 72.3 0 340 280 406 <10 70 18 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 2/28/02 1330 68.6 0 250 200 640 40 150 120 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 2/27/02 930 65.1 -- -- -- 172 12 16 5.0 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 2/27/02 1025 64.0 4.8 250 210 624 48 150 110 22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 2/27/02 1015 58.6 0 310 250 324 <10 41 8.3 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 3/1/02 935 57.5 0 240 200 616 38 140 110 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 2/27/02 1020 51.9 7.2 230 200 610 42 150 120 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 2/25/02 1305 51.1 0 170 140 636 18 150 130 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey II—Continued

26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 2/27/02 1115 50.6 12.5 230 210 610 30 140 110 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment 

facility, Lawrence

6891095 2/26/02 840 50.1 0 23 19 1,380 50 640 110 

28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 2/27/02 1300 48.6 7.7 240 210 610 30 140 110 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 2/26/02 1045 47.6 0 290 240 316 14 35 12 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 2/25/02 930 43.4 20.0 190 190 590 44 140 100 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 2/26/02 900 42.6 0 200 160 272 20 34 25 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 2/26/02 1145 35.4 0 250 210 322 14 33 15 33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 2/25/02 1230 31.7 13.4 200 190 570 66 130 98 34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 2/25/02 830 31.0 0 180 150 530 16 82 130 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 2/25/02 915 31.0 0 220 180 336 24 49 27 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 2/26/02 1230 30.8 13.4 190 180 580 56 130 100 37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 2/25/02 1315 26.7 3.8 210 180 484 22 100 64 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 2/26/02 1030 20.7 14.4 220 210 548 80 130 100 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 2/26/02 945 20.3 0 290 240 764 <10 130 150 40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 2/26/02 1005 19.4 12.5 190 170 558 82 130 100 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 2/26/02 1130 16.6 14.4 230 210 546 82 130 100 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey II—Continued

42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 2/25/02 1015 16.1 0 230 190 552 18 80 120 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 2/26/02 925 15.4 14.4 280 210 538 66 130 96 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 2/25/02 1150 15.0 0 270 220 652 28 140 130 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

no. 20

6892525 2/25/02 1000 14.8 0 270 220 744 <10 140 120 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater-treatment facility no. 14

6892527 2/25/02 1030 11.2 0 300 240 454 <10 56 62 

47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 2/25/02 1235 9.7 21.1 180 190 512 92 120 86 48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 2/25/02 1050 6.0 27.8 150 170 474 102 110 84 49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 2/25/02 1120 3.2 0 170 140 648 <10 130 140 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 2/25/02 745 1.1 -- -- -- 512 92 110 79 

Synoptic survey III

1 Kansas River at Wamego 6887500 7/31/02 1005 124.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 8/1/02 1020 119.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 8/1/02 945 118.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 7/31/02 1205 113.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 7/31/02 750 103.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 8/1/02 1130 101.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 7/31/02 1155 100.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 7/31/02 1020 98.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 8/1/02 1210 91.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 7/31/02 1220 86.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 7/30/02 845 85.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 7/23/02 1005 83.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

8/2/02 855 83.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/2/02 1500 83.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/5/02 1515 83.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/6/02 900 83.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 7/30/02 815 81.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 7/31/02 1340 81.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

8/1/02 735 81.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 7/31/02 1300 80.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 7/31/02 1040 76.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 7/31/02 1100 73.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 7/31/02 1000 72.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 7/31/02 900 68.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7/31/02 1400 68.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 7/30/02 1210 65.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 7/22/02 1345 64.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

8/1/02 950 64.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/1/02 1400 64.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/6/02 1430 64.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/7/02 850 64.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 7/31/02 900 58.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 8/1/02 1120 57.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 8/1/02 1220 51.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 7/29/02 1120 51.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 8/1/02 830 50.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

8/1/02 1100 50.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment 

facility, Lawrence

6891095 7/29/02 1225 50.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 8/1/02 930 48.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 7/31/02 825 47.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 7/29/02 900 43.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 7/30/02 820 42.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 7/30/02 1245 35.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 7/25/02 1130 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7/29/02 1045 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7/29/02 1330 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/2/02 700 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/2/02 1300 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/6/02 1300 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/7/02 825 31.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 7/29/02 830 31.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 7/30/02 850 31.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 7/30/02 1200 30.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7/30/02 1330 30.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 7/30/02 920 26.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 8/6/02 910 20.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 7/29/02 1330 20.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 7/30/02 945 19.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 7/30/02 900 16.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 7/30/02 1000 16.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 7/30/02 745 15.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 7/29/02 930 15.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

no. 20

6892525 7/29/02 835 14.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater treatment facility no. 14

6892527 7/29/02 900 11.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 7/26/02 850 9.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7/29/02 1030 9.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/8/02 1055 9.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 7/29/02 1135 6.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

8/8/02 1150 6.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 7/30/02 1100 3.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 7/26/02 1035 1.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7/29/02 830 1.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/7/02 1325 1.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8/8/02 900 1.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewater-treatmsynoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; oC, degrees C

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Dissolved carbonate

(milligrams per liter as CO

3) 

Dissolved bicarbonate

(milligrams per liter as HCO

3) 

Dissolved alkalinity 

(milligrams per liter as CaCO

3) 

Residue, dissolved 

180 

o

C (milligrams per liter)

Total residue

(milligrams per liter)

Sulfate, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as SO

4

)

Chloride, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as Cl) 
Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole water

(milligrams per liter as P)

Synoptic survey I

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 11/29/01 1100 86.0 0.02 0.27 0.51 1.1 0.15 0.19 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 11/28/01 1220 85.0 1.8 3.7 4.2 4.5 4.9 5.1 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 11/28/01 1115 81.7 E.72 15 18 18 1.9 2.0 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 11/29/01 930 80.5 .03 .19 .28 .54 .07 .10 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 11/29/01 1030 76.0 .02 .29 .48 .73 .14 .17 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 11/28/01 850 72.3 .03 .25 .30 .42 .08 .09 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 11/28/01 920 65.1 E.01 .30 .45 1.1 .07 .14 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 11/28/01 1330 64.0 .19 .47 .70 1.4 .19 .22 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 11/28/01 920 51.1 .37 1.5 3.1 15 5.5 5.9 27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment 

facility, Lawrence

6891095 11/28/01 845 50.1 3.7 20 22 52 .39 .80 

29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 11/27/01 1145 47.6 .06 .18 .25 .36 .02 .08 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 11/28/01 1030 43.4 .09 .41 .70 1.6 .21 .26 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 11/27/01 755 42.6 E.01 .44 .57 .61 .03 .06 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 11/27/01 1240 35.4 E.01 .21 .42 .53 .05 .10 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 11/27/01 1015 31.0 .03 .28 .39 .40 .05 .08 
Synoptic survey I—Continued

37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 11/27/01 830 26.7 0.05 0.60 0.67 6.5 1.0 1.2 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 11/29/01 1010 20.3 .05 .58 1.6 1.9 .54 .78 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 11/27/01 845 16.1 .07 .47 .72 3.6 .50 .57 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 11/27/01 1215 15.0 19 20 21 25 3.6 4.0 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

no. 20

6892525 11/27/01 930 14.8 1.9 2.8 3.4 12 1.9 2.2 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater-treatment facility no. 14

6892527 11/27/01 1100 11.2 .16 .48 2.4 6.3 .30 1.1 

48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 11/28/01 1010 6.0 .09 .41 .67 1.5 .19 .27 49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 11/27/01 1030 3.2 3.9 6.4 7.5 15 2.9 3.3 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 11/27/01 1230 1.1 .12 .41 .95 1.8 .19 .28 

Synoptic survey II

2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 2/28/02 1310 119.2 E.01 .20 .34 .50 .01 .04 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 2/28/02 1215 118.2 .02 .16 .28 .42 .03 .06 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 2/28/02 1315 113.0 .02 .36 .69 1.4 .14 .20 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 2/28/02 1135 103.7 .02 .36 .81 1.5 .13 .22 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 2/28/02 1015 101.7 .02 .13 .40 .41 .01 .04 7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 2/28/02 1400 100.1 .02 .24 .35 .68 .05 .07 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey II—Continued

8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 2/28/02 950 98.9 0.02 0.33 0.85 1.5 0.13 0.20 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 2/28/02 900 91.6 .01 .16 .25 .37 .01 .02 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 2/28/02 1115 86.0 .02 .34 1.0 1.5 .11 .20 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 2/26/02 1130 85.0 .13 2.2 2.6 12 3.2 3.8 12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 2/27/02 1320 83.0 .02 .30 .88 1.4 .10 -- 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 2/26/02 1045 81.7 30 34 34 34 2.5 3.0 14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 2/28/02 855 81.1 .16 .50 1.0 1.6 .15 .23 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 2/27/02 1215 80.5 .03 .24 .40 .68 .08 .15 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 2/27/02 1315 76.0 .03 .36 .53 .76 .14 .20 17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 2/28/02 1100 73.7 .12 .46 1.1 1.6 .15 .24 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 2/27/02 900 72.3 .04 .20 .27 .43 .05 .07 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 2/28/02 1330 68.6 .12 .43 1.1 1.6 .14 .23 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 2/27/02 930 65.1 <.02 .27 .59 .91 .03 .08 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 2/27/02 1025 64.0 .16 .46 1.1 1.4 .09 -- 22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 2/27/02 1015 58.6 .02 .18 .24 .85 .01 .02 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 3/1/02 935 57.5 .05 .32 .98 1.5 .11 .23 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 2/27/02 1020 51.9 .02 .32 1.2 1.4 .07 -- 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 2/25/02 1305 51.1 8.8 10 12 20 3.0 3.7 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey II—Continued

26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 2/27/02 1115 50.6 0.06 0.36 1.20 1.4 0.07 -- 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment 

facility, Lawrence

6891095 2/26/02 840 50.1 10 10 16 57 .06 0.68 

28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 2/27/02 1300 48.6 .04 .34 1.2 1.5 .06 -- 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 2/26/02 1045 47.6 .03 .25 .41 .45 .01 .10 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 2/25/02 930 43.4 .03 .34 1.5 1.6 .12 .33 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 2/26/02 900 42.6 .02 .34 .44 .47 .01 .06 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 2/26/02 1145 35.4 .11 .43 .52 1.4 .05 .11 33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 2/25/02 1230 31.7 .03 .29 1.3 1.4 .07 .25 34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 2/25/02 830 31.0 .10 1.0 1.6 2.6 2.3 2.7 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 2/25/02 915 31.0 .06 .37 .53 .72 .03 .08 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 2/26/02 1230 30.8 .02 .30 1.2 1.2 .06 .27 37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 2/25/02 1315 26.7 <.03 .31 .70 2.1 .24 .29 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 2/26/02 1030 20.7 .02 .35 1.4 1.4 .03 .28 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 2/26/02 945 20.3 .06 .84 .93 6.6 .04 .09 40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 2/26/02 1005 19.4 .02 .32 1.5 1.5 .04 .32 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 2/26/02 1130 16.6 .02 .28 1.7 1.7 .04 .33 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey II—Continued

42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 2/25/02 1015 16.1 0.04 0.33 0.47 1.5 0.19 0.26 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 2/26/02 925 15.4 .02 .34 1.2 1.2 .03 .26 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 2/25/02 1150 15.0 3.5 19 23 23 3.0 3.7 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

no. 20

6892525 2/25/02 1000 14.8 .31 1.4 1.7 12 2.0 2.2 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater treatment facility no. 14

6892527 2/25/02 1030 11.2 .06 .17 .23 .55 .03 .04 

47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 2/25/02 1235 9.7 .03 .30 1.7 1.9 .06 .32 48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 2/25/02 1050 6.0 .03 .32 1.5 1.7 .06 .31 49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 2/25/02 1120 3.2 3.3 5.3 6.0 13 2.0 2.6 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 2/25/02 745 1.1 .02 .35 1.4 1.8 .09 .35 

Synoptic survey III

1 Kansas River at Wamego 6887500 7/31/02 1005 124.0 .02 .33 1.6 1.6 .09 .33 2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 8/1/02 1020 119.2 <.02 .31 .90 .91 .01 .10 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 8/1/02 945 118.2 <.02 .29 .44 .45 .10 .14 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 7/31/02 1205 113.0 <.02 .36 1.4 1.4 .02 .28 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 7/31/02 750 103.7 E.01 .32 1.1 1.1 .09 .27 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 8/1/02 1130 101.7 <.02 .28 .46 .48 .02 .05 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 7/31/02 1155 100.1 0.07 0.48 0.74 0.79 0.07 0.14 8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 7/31/02 1020 98.9 E.01 .39 1.2 1.2 .11 .27 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 8/1/02 1210 91.6 .02 .30 .44 .45 .02 .05 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 7/31/02 1220 86.0 E.01 .34 1.2 1.2 .09 .27 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 7/30/02 845 85.0 .12 1.6 1.9 26 4.5 4.4 12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 7/23/02 1005 83.0 E.01 .36 1.3 1.3 .03 .21 

8/2/02 855 83.0 <.02 .37 1.4 1.4 .08 .26 8/2/02 1500 83.0 <.02 .41 1.6 1.8 .11 .31 8/5/02 1515 83.0 <.02 .38 1.4 1.5 .11 .30 8/6/02 900 83.0 <.02 .40 1.2 1.3 .12 .23 

13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 7/30/02 815 81.7 21 25 27 27 3.3 3.6 14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 7/31/02 1340 81.1 .27 .62 1.8 2.0 .15 .32 

8/1/02 735 81.1 .04 .44 1.4 1.7 .15 .31 

15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 7/31/02 1300 80.5 .04 .39 .77 .82 .23 .33 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 7/31/02 1040 76.0 <.02 .46 1.1 1.3 .12 .26 17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 7/31/02 1100 73.7 .09 .48 1.2 1.9 .15 .27 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 7/31/02 1000 72.3 .03 .36 .54 .56 .05 .09 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 7/31/02 900 68.6 .03 .42 1.2 1.7 .11 .25 

7/31/02 1400 68.6 <.02 .37 1.1 1.7 .12 .26 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 7/30/02 1210 65.1 0.74 1.1 1.8 1.9 0.17 0.47 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 7/22/02 1345 64.0 <.02 .37 1.5 1.5 .03 .23 

8/1/02 950 64.0 <.02 .38 1.5 1.5 .06 .26 8/1/02 1400 64.0 <.02 .40 1.5 1.5 .04 .27 8/6/02 1430 64.0 .02 .39 1.5 1.5 .10 .26 8/7/02 850 64.0 .12 .54 1.5 1.6 .11 .25 

22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 7/31/02 900 58.6 E.01 .36 .49 1.1 .02 .08 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 8/1/02 1120 57.5 <.02 .35 1.5 1.5 .05 .24 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 8/1/02 1220 51.9 <.02 .37 1.4 1.5 .04 .21 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 7/29/02 1120 51.1 .20 1.4 1.7 17 3.8 3.9 26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 8/1/02 830 50.6 <.02 .42 1.3 1.7 .15 .30 

8/1/02 1100 50.6 <.02 .43 1.4 1.8 .15 .29 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment 

facility, Lawrence

6891095 7/29/02 1225 50.1 .23 1.9 3.1 9.1 .13 .39 

28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 8/1/02 930 48.6 <.02 .41 1.3 1.4 .23 .40 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 7/31/02 825 47.6 .02 .27 .51 .52 .04 .11 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 7/29/02 900 43.4 .07 .53 1.2 1.4 .15 .27 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 7/30/02 820 42.6 .03 .33 .69 .81 .04 .15 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 7/30/02 1245 35.4 E.01 .32 .71 .72 .03 .11 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 7/25/02 1130 31.7 <0.02 0.40 1.4 1.5 0.05 0.23 

7/29/02 1045 31.7 E.01 .46 1.3 1.3 .11 .25 7/29/02 1330 31.7 E.01 .42 1.3 1.3 .11 .24 8/2/02 700 31.7 .08 .47 1.1 1.2 .21 .33 8/2/02 1300 31.7 .02 .42 1.1 1.2 .18 .28 8/6/02 1300 31.7 <.02 .40 1.3 1.3 .08 .26 8/7/02 825 31.7 <.02 .42 1.5 1.5 .13 .32 

34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 7/29/02 830 31.0 1.5 11 10 10 1.7 1.8 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 7/30/02 850 31.0 .04 .31 .54 .72 .09 .15 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 7/30/02 1200 30.8 E.01 .41 1.6 1.6 .13 .30 

7/30/02 1330 30.8 <.02 .42 1.4 1.4 .13 .30 

37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 7/30/02 920 26.7 .06 .61 .76 5.2 .47 .47 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 8/6/02 910 20.7 <.02 .39 1.3 1.3 .04 .26 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 7/29/02 1330 20.3 .27 1.5 2.0 26 6.4 6.3 40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 7/30/02 945 19.4 E.01 .42 1.4 1.4 .10 .23 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 7/30/02 900 16.6 <.02 .39 2.6 2.6 .09 .25 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 7/30/02 1000 16.1 .08 .45 .68 1.3 .22 .24 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 7/30/02 745 15.4 <.02 .41 1.3 1.3 .08 .25 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 7/29/02 930 15.0 24 27 25 26 4.2 4.3 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Synoptic survey III—Continued

45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

no. 20

6892525 7/29/02 835 14.8 0.190 1.2 1.5 17 2.9 2.9 

46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City 

wastewater-treatment facility no. 14

6892527 7/29/02 900 11.2 .32 1.1 2.5 17 1.6 2.2 

47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 7/26/02 850 9.7 .15 .54 1.6 1.7 .08 .26 

7/29/02 1030 9.7 .08 .55 1.5 1.6 .13 .28 8/8/02 1055 9.7 <.02 .42 1.5 1.5 .07 .32 

48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 7/29/02 1135 6.0 .17 .60 1.6 1.7 .13 .29 

8/8/02 1150 6.0 <.02 .40 1.7 1.7 .09 .34 

49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 7/30/02 1100 3.2 1.9 3.8 4.8 14 2.6 2.8 50 Kansas River above Missouri River 

confluence

6892960 7/26/02 1035 1.1 .19 .68 1.6 1.8 .13 .29 

7/29/02 830 1.1 .22 .78 1.5 1.9 .21 .36 8/7/02 1325 1.1 <.02 .42 1.7 1.8 .13 .33 8/8/02 900 1.1 <.02 .42 1.4 1.4 .11 .35 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected wastewat

for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; o

Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Ammonia as nitrogen, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia and organic nitrogen, 

dissolved (milligrams per liter as N) 

Ammonia as nitrogen plus organic

material (total Kjeldahl nitrogen), 

whole water (milligrams per liter as N) 

Total nitrogen

(milligrams per liter)

Phosphorus, dissolved 

(milligrams per liter as P) 

Phosphorus, total, whole wate

r

(milligrams per liter as P)
Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 

Synoptic survey I

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 11/29/01 1100 86.0 52 E60 E3.4 17 11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 11/28/01 1220 85.0 2,500 2,400 -- 6.7 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 11/28/01 1115 81.7 250 220 -- 6.6 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 11/29/01 930 80.5 E16 E12 -- 5.6 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 11/29/01 1030 76.0 63 E40 -- 6.3 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 11/28/01 850 72.3 30 E33 -- 2.9 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 11/28/01 920 65.1 80 4 -- 5.6 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 11/28/01 1330 64.0 120 >800 10 15 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 11/28/01 920 51.1 87 E110 -- 4.6 27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment facility, 

Lawrence

6891095 11/28/01 845 50.1 230 170 E85 100 

29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 11/27/01 1145 47.6 E33 27 -- 3.9 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 11/28/01 1030 43.4 45 53 13 19 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 11/27/01 755 42.6 E12 E27 -- 5.0 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 11/27/01 1240 35.4 22 E100 -- 6.3 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 11/27/01 1015 31.0 E30 E100 -- 8.3 37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 11/27/01 830 26.7 29 E11 -- 4.2 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 11/29/01 1010 20.3 E7 E13 -- -- 
Synoptic survey I—Continued

42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 11/27/01 845 16.1 120 E53 -- 8.5 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewater-treatment 

facility

6892520 11/27/01 1215 15.0 530 -- -- 11 

45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility no. 20 6892525 11/27/01 930 14.8 E60 110 -- 5.4 46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City wastewatertreatment facility no. 14 6892527 11/27/01 1100 11.2 37,000 58,000 -- 15 48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 11/28/01 1010 6.0 E1,000 E940 14 27 49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 11/27/01 1030 3.2 450 970 -- 6.0 50 Kansas River above Missouri River confluence 6892960 11/27/01 1230 1.1 100 E130 -- 30 

Synoptic survey II

2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 2/28/02 1310 119.2 E1 0 -- 2.9 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 2/28/02 1215 118.2 0 0 -- 2.9 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 2/28/02 1315 113.0 E3 0 -- 7.0 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 2/28/02 1135 103.7 E1 0 -- 7.0 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 2/28/02 1015 101.7 E13 22 -- 3.6 7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 2/28/02 1400 100.1 0 E0 -- 3.2 8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 2/28/02 950 98.9 0 E10 -- 10 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 2/28/02 900 91.6 E1 E0 -- 4.3 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 2/28/02 1115 86.0 E1 E1 -- 9.0 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey II—Continued

11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility 6888985 2/26/02 1130 85.0 270 E220 -- 4.1 12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 2/27/02 1320 83.0 0 E7 -- 10 13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 2/26/02 1045 81.7 E3,600 E2,600 -- 5.2 14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 2/28/02 855 81.1 E5 E10 -- 19 15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 2/27/02 1215 80.5 E3 E0 -- 4.3 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 2/27/02 1315 76.0 E4 E7 -- 5.4 17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 2/28/02 1100 73.7 E16 E14 -- -- 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 2/27/02 900 72.3 60 E9 -- 3.4 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 2/28/02 1330 68.6 E2 E30 -- -- 20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 2/27/02 930 65.1 E2 E4 -- 15 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 2/27/02 1025 64.0 E6 E0 -- 22 22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 2/27/02 1015 58.6 0 E1 -- 3.2 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 3/1/02 935 57.5 E8 E0 -- 26 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 2/27/02 1020 51.9 0 E3 -- 35 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 2/25/02 1305 51.1 E2,100 E2,200 -- 4.6 26 Kansas River between Lawrence and 

Farmland facility

6891093 2/27/02 1115 50.6 0 E0 -- 540 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment facility, 

Lawrence

6891095 2/26/02 840 50.1 E6 E5 -- 12 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey II—Continued

28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 2/27/02 1300 48.6 E5 0 -- 490 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 2/26/02 1045 47.6 E7 E16 -- 4.1 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 2/25/02 930 43.4 E250 E210 -- 42 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 2/26/02 900 42.6 E6 E5 -- 6.2 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 2/26/02 1145 35.4 E10 E9 -- 4.5 33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 2/25/02 1230 31.7 E8 E8 -- 61 34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 2/25/02 830 31.0 E7,300 E5,200 -- 4.6 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 2/25/02 915 31.0 29 29 -- 9.2 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 2/26/02 1230 30.8 60 E11 -- -- 37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 2/25/02 1315 26.7 23 40 -- 5.0 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 2/26/02 1030 20.7 E19 E22 -- 46 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 2/26/02 945 20.3 E7 E5 -- 3.5 40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 2/26/02 1005 19.4 47 E170 -- 54 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 2/26/02 1130 16.6 43 E30 -- 97 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 2/25/02 1015 16.1 E15 E16 -- 5.6 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 2/26/02 925 15.4 24 E50 -- 89 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewater-treatment 

facility

6892520 2/25/02 1150 15.0 2,400 870 -- 6.2 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey II—Continued

45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility no. 20 6892525 2/25/02 1000 14.8 69 130 -- 3.8 46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City wastewatertreatment facility no. 14 6892527 2/25/02 1030 11.2 E500 E300 -- 2.2 47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 2/25/02 1235 9.7 E18 E12 -- 89 48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 2/25/02 1050 6.0 E33 E33 -- 80 49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 2/25/02 1120 3.2 150 E210 -- 4.0 50 Kansas River above Missouri River confluence 6892960 2/25/02 745 1.1 36 E28 -- 81 

Synoptic survey III

1 Kansas River at Wamego 6887500 7/31/02 1005 124.0 -- -- 120 62 2 Vermillion Creek near Wamego 6888000 8/1/02 1020 119.2 E170 -- E38 -- 3 Rock Creek near Louisville 6888300 8/1/02 945 118.2 140 -- E11 -- 4 Kansas River at Belvue 6888350 7/31/02 1205 113.0 >500 -- 84 52 5 Kansas River near Maple Hill 6888400 7/31/02 750 103.7 -- -- 51 22 6 Mill Creek near Maple Hill 6888650 8/1/02 1130 101.7 150 -- E15 -- 7 Cross Creek near Rossville 6888700 7/31/02 1155 100.1 240 -- 27 -- 8 Kansas River at Willard 6888705 7/31/02 1020 98.9 55 -- 46 17 9 Mission Creek near Valencia 6888800 8/1/02 1210 91.6 E700 -- E11 -- 

10 Kansas River at Highway 75, Topeka 6888980 7/31/02 1220 86.0 53 -- 60 28 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

11 North Topeka wastewater-treatment facility, Topeka 6888985 7/30/02 845 85.0 29 -- 1 3.2 12 Kansas River at Topeka 6889000 7/23/02 1005 83.0 51 -- 44 22 

8/2/02 855 83.0 30 -- E49 21 8/2/02 1500 83.0 E21 -- E55 -- 8/5/02 1515 83.0 45 -- 53 16 8/6/02 900 83.0 23 -- E31 13 

13 Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 6889002 7/30/02 815 81.7 E1,800 -- 1 8.6 14 Kansas River at Highway 4, Topeka 6889010 7/31/02 1340 81.1 >500 -- 97 31 

8/1/02 735 81.1 160 -- E50 22 

15 Soldier Creek, Meriden Road, near Topeka 6889504 7/31/02 1300 80.5 58 -- 17 -- 16 Shunganunga Creek at Rice Road, Topeka 6889700 7/31/02 1040 76.0 >5,000 -- 72 -- 17 Kansas River near Grantville 6889750 7/31/02 1100 73.7 500 -- 53 22 18 Muddy Creek near Grantville 6889800 7/31/02 1000 72.3 -- -- 8 -- 19 Kansas River near Grover 6889850 7/31/02 900 68.6 E120 -- 68 31 

1400 68.6 E75 -- 80 26 

20 Delaware River below Perry Dam 6890900 7/30/02 1210 65.1 35 -- 29 15 21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 7/22/02 1345 64.0 27 -- 83 35 

8/1/02 950 64.0 29 -- E90 43 8/1/02 1400 64.0 23 -- E96 39 8/6/02 1430 64.0 0 -- E89 34 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

21 Kansas River at Lecompton 6891000 8/7/02 850 64.0 34 -- 52 25 22 Buck Creek at Williamstown 6891060 7/31/02 900 58.6 2,100 -- 5 -- 23 Kansas River near Midland 6891070 8/1/02 1120 57.5 22 -- E110 42 24 Kansas River at Lawrence 6891080 8/1/02 1220 51.9 E5 -- E57 31 25 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility 6891090 7/29/02 1120 51.1 E31 -- 14 4.7 26 Kansas River between Lawrence and Farmland 

facility

6891093 8/1/02 830 50.6 32 -- E31 21 

8/1/02 1100 50.6 E18 -- E28 22 

27 Farmland nitrogen wastewater-treatment facility, 

Lawrence

6891095 7/29/02 1225 50.1 >3,000 -- 160 23 

28 Kansas River below Farmland facility 6891096 8/1/02 930 48.6 E10 -- E34 18 29 Mud Creek near Lawrence 6891098 7/31/02 825 47.6 130 -- 20 -- 30 Kansas River at Eudora 6891100 7/29/02 900 43.4 E710 -- 44 22 31 Wakarusa River at 1900 Road near Eudora 6891675 7/30/02 820 42.6 E140 -- 6 -- 32 Stranger Creek above Linwood 6892200 7/30/02 1245 35.4 20 -- 20 -- 33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 7/25/02 1130 31.7 E12 -- 44 67 

7/29/02 1045 31.7 28 -- 51 24 7/29/02 1330 31.7 E14 -- 65 25 8/2/02 700 31.7 E14 -- E31 17 8/2/02 1300 31.7 E10 -- E34 13 8/6/02 1300 31.7 20 -- E84 53 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

33 Kansas River at DeSoto 6892350 8/7/02 825 31.7 33 -- 84 49 34 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 6892358 7/29/02 830 31.0 E290,000 -- 3 -- 35 Kill Creek at 83rd Street 6892360 7/30/02 850 31.0 130 -- 4 -- 36 Kansas River near Cedar 6892380 7/30/02 1200 30.8 E210 -- 67 37 

7/30/02 1330 30.8 E94 -- 68 37 

37 Cedar Creek near Cedar Junction 6892490 7/30/02 920 26.7 130 -- 9 -- 38 Kansas River at Bonner Springs 6892500 8/6/02 910 20.7 E19 -- E69 50 39 Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 6892502 7/29/02 1330 20.3 56 -- 2 -- 40 Kansas River near Lake of the Forest 6892504 7/30/02 945 19.4 22 -- 74 32 41 Kansas River near Edwardsville 6892505 7/30/02 900 16.6 E66 -- 66 28 42 Mill Creek at Wilder Road 6892515 7/30/02 1000 16.1 180 -- 16 -- 43 Kansas River near I-435 Bridge 6892518 7/30/02 745 15.4 E75 -- 70 28 44 Johnson County Mill Creek wastewatertreatment facility 6892520 7/29/02 930 15.0 E35 -- 22 21 45 Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility no. 20 6892525 7/29/02 835 14.8 E16 -- 1 4.7 46 Unnamed tributary below Kansas City wastewatertreatment facility no. 14 6892527 7/29/02 900 11.2 -- -- 18 27 47 Kansas River at Turner Bridge 6892530 7/26/02 850 9.7 E10 -- E45 25 

7/29/02 1030 9.7 E250 -- 75 26 8/8/02 1055 9.7 E13 -- 78 41 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Synoptic survey III—Continued

48 Kansas River at west Kansas Avenue Bridge 6892540 7/29/02 1135 6.1 E120 -- 65 23 

8/8/02 1150 6.1 22 -- 99 41 

49 Turkey Creek at Kansas City near I-35 6892942 7/30/02 1100 3.2 1,300 -- 4 -- 50 Kansas River above Missouri River confluence 6892960 7/26/02 1035 1.1 E160 -- E37 21 

7/29/02 830 1.1 >4,000 -- 45 19 8/7/02 1325 1.1 E0 -- 120 45 8/8/02 900 1.1 E0 -- 70 37 

Appendix 1. Water-quality results from samples collected from Kansas River, northeast Kansas, selected tributaries, and selected waste

facility effluent for synoptic surveys I, II, and III, November 2001 through August 2002.—Continued

[<, less than; --, not determined; E, estimated; >, greater than; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; CO3, carbonate; HCO3, bicarbonate; CaCO3, calcium carbona

SO4, sulfate; Cl, chloride, N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; C, carbon]

Map number

(see fig. 2)

Sampling site name Station number

Date of sample collection 

(month/day/year)

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

Miles upstream from the 

Missouri River

Fecal coliform bacteria 

(colonies/100 milliliters) 

Escherichiacoli 

(colonies/100 milliliters)

Chlorophylla

(micrograms per liter)

Chlorophyll, onsite 

(micrograms per liter) 
Appendix 2. List of wastewater-treatment facilities (WWTFs) that discharge effluent to the Kansas River and its tributary streams in northeast [Source: M.E. Gerard, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, written commun., 2004. Facilities shaded in gray are no longer in service.]

WWTF 

number

(fig. 9)

Facility Receiving stream

Design discharge

Ammonia concentration 

design limit

(milligrams per liter)

Ammo

(ki

(million gallons 

per day)

(cubic feet 

per

second)

Summer Winter Sum

1 Blue T.S. sewer district #1 Kansas River 0.2 0.309 13.0 110 0 

2 Wamego Kansas River .75 1.16 13.0 110 2.3 Saint Marys wastewater-treatment facility Doyle Creek .50 .774 2.4 8.9 5.

4 Rossville Cross Creek .14 .217 11.5 13.0 .

5 Silver Lake Ensign Creek .20 .305 11.5 13.0 .7

6 Goodyear Tire Soldier Creek 1.4 2.24 0 

7 North Topeka Kansas River 12 18.6 5.5 12 90.

8 Topeka Oakland Kansas River 16 24.8 1.6 7.8 847 

9 Soldier Soldier Creek .02 .029 11.5 13.0 .

10 Sherwood Shunganunga Creek 2.4 3.71 1.9 6.5 14.

11 Shawnee County sewer district #33 Stinson Creek .22 .340 1.0 2.5 .12 Shawnee County sewer district #8 Stinson Creek (Shunga) .06 .093 25 25 5.

13 USD 450 Whetstone Creek .03 .046 13 110 .

14 Perry wastewater-treatment facility Delaware River .11 .170 11.5 13.0 .

15 Lecompton wastewater-treatment facility Kansas River .07 .102 11.5 13.0 .

16 Lawrence wastewater-treatment facility Kansas River 12.5 19.3 7.0 7.0 331 17 Farmland Lawrence Kansas River .95 1.47 50 50 180 

18 Eudora Wakarusa River .90 1.39 2.9 9.1 10.

19 McLouth wastewater-treatment facility Ninemile Creek .18 .285 11.5 13.0 .

20 Turnpike service center Ninemile Creek .02 .028 11.5 13.0 .
Appendix 2. List of wastewater-treatment facilities (WWTFs) that discharge effluent to the Kansas River and its tributary streams in northeast its.—Continued[Source: M.E. Gerard, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, written commun., 2004. Facilities shaded in gray are no longer in service.]

WWTF 

number

(fig. 9)

Facility Receiving stream

Design discharge

Ammonia concentration 

design limit

(milligrams per liter)

Ammo

(ki

(million gallons 

per day)

(cubic feet 

per

second)

Summer Winter Sum

21 Linwood wastewater-treatment facility Ninemile Creek 0.04 0.062 11.5

1Estimated.

13.0 0.

2No permit limits.

22 Tonganoxie wastewater-treatment facility Tonganoxie Creek .75 1.16 2.1 7.2 4.

23 Leavenworth sewer district #5 Hog Creek .03 .046 11.5 13.0 .

24 Kansas Waste Water Treatment Inc. Kansas River .12 .186 25 25 11.

25 Gardner wastewater-treatment facility Kansas River 2.5 3.87 1.6 1.6 15.

26 DeSoto Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant Kill Creek .40 .619 4.0 5.0 6.

27 DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility Kill Creek .40 .619 3.1 3.1 37.

28 Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant Kansas River 1.3 1.95 2.4 2.85 11.

29 Olathe Cedar Creek Cedar Creek 3.0 4.64 1.6 4.1 10.

30 Leavenworth sewer district #2 Kansas River .07 .111 11.5 13.0 .

31 Bonner Springs Kansas River 1.4 2.17 13.0 110 5.

32 Olathe Main Mill Creek 3.2 4.95 1.5 5.4 16.

33 Johnson County Mill Creek Regional Kansas River 18.75 29.0 36 15 613 

34 Kansas City #20 Kansas River 7.0 10.8 19 24 410 35 Kansas City #14 Kansas River .12 .186 13.0 110 11.

36 Americold Kansas River .003 .005 5.0 5.0 .

37 Johnson County Nelson Turkey Creek 15 23.2 3.1 10 113 
104 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

Appendix 3. Hypothetical Simulations Using 

30-Day, 10-Year, Low-Flow Conditions

KDHE requested that the calibrated Kansas River waterquality model be used to describe and evaluate the calibrated 

model and the same four hypothetical conditions listed in 

table 12, with one change; reduce the streamflow at Topeka 

(site 12) to the 30-day, 10-year low flow (30Q10) defined by 

KDHE as 670 ft3

/s. The effects of changing the streamflow 

boundary conditions (reducing the streamflow in the Kansas 

River by one-half) in this manner without adjusting the waterquality boundary conditions for the Kansas River are unknown. 

Without measuring the water quality of the Kansas River during 

this low-flow condition, it is impossible to know if the assumed 

water-quality boundary conditions used in the calibrated model 

are reasonable enough estimates for the 30Q10 hypothetical 

simulations to be accurate. For these reasons, conclusions 

drawn on the basis of the 30Q10 simulations should be considered as having more uncertainty about them than the previous 

four hypothetical simulations. 

The effluent of an additional proposed WWTF and hypothetical alterations to existing WWTF effluent discharges in 

combination with the existing calibrated model were used to 

determine the possible effects on water quality in the Kansas 

River at 30Q10 streamflow (670 ft3/s at Topeka). All of the 

hypothetical results were compared to the calibrated model 

results using 30Q10 streamflow (30Q10 calibrated results). 

Hypothetical simulations were made using boundary conditions 

from the winter and summer calibrated models with the exceptions of streamflow at Topeka and concentrations of ammonia, 

nitrite plus nitrate, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (table 12). All simulated results were cross-sectional averages for noon and midnight on February 27, 2002, and July 31, 2002. 

Effects of 30Q10 Hypothetical Simulation 1

First, the 30Q10 calibrated model was altered so that the 

effluent discharges from three major main-stem WWTFs were 

equal to their design flow and current (2005) permitted limit for 

ammonia (table 12). In comparison to the 30Q10 calibrated 

results, simulated in-stream ammonia concentrations were usually larger in 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 1 in the winter and 

summer (fig. 34A and B). Nearly all of the 30Q10 simulated instream ammonia values from the Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility (river mile 15) to the Missouri River 

exceeded the Kansas chronic aquatic-life criterion for early-life 

stages of fish present. The 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 1 

results were plotted with the results from the other three 30Q10 

hypothetical simulations for further comparison (figs. 34–36). 

Effects of 30Q10 Hypothetical Simulation 2

The change for 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 2 was to 

discharge effluent from a proposed new WWTF that would 

serve the growing population of Johnson County, Kansas. The 

design flow for this proposed WWTF was 85 ft3

/s (55 Mgal/d), 

more than two times larger than any of the existing WWTF 

design flows. The simulation was run for winter and summer 

conditions in two parts: (1) locating the proposed WWTF 

upstream from DeSoto (river mile 31), and (2) locating the proposed WWTF downstream from Cedar Creek (river mile 25). 

The two parts of the simulation were necessary to help determine the effects of the proposed WWTF’s effluent on the horizontal source-water wells located along the Kansas River near 

the confluence of Cedar Creek. These wells provide drinking 

water for the city of Olathe. 

Results of 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 2, where the 

addition of the proposed WWTF was upstream from DeSoto or 

downstream from Cedar Creek, indicated similar increases in 

ammonia downstream from the proposed WWTF. In the winter, 

ammonia concentrations downstream from the proposed 

WWTF indicated similar characteristics but at different locations depending on the WWTF hypothetical location (fig. 34A). 

Results indicated a steady increase in ammonia concentrations 

in the Kansas River to about 0.1 mg/L greater than the calibrated results within about 2.5 mi downstream from both hypothetical locations for the proposed WWTF. Several of the simulated in-stream values exceeded the Kansas chronic aquaticlife criterion for early-life stages of fish present. Water temperatures less than 5 oC minimized nitrification and had little effect 

on dissolved-oxygen concentrations (fig. 34C). None of simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the winter were less 

than the Kansas aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L). 

Summer 30Q10 simulations indicated that ammonia concentrations increased substantially for about 5 mi downstream 

from the proposed WWTF and then maintained a steady concentration slightly greater than the concentrations for 30Q10 

calibrated results (fig. 34B). The maximum 30Q10 simulated 

main-stem values for both proposed WWTF locations were 

equal to or exceeded the Kansas chronic aquatic-life criterion 

for early-life stages of fish present. As a result of the increased 

ammonia concentrations, main-stem nitrification suppressed 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations to less than the Kansas 

aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L) for 1 to 2 mi downstream from 

the proposed WWTF (fig. 34D). 

Effects of 30Q10 Hypothetical Simulation 3

For 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 3, adjustments were 

made to three major WWTFs (Topeka Oakland, Lawrence, and 

Johnson County Mill Creek) current design flows and permitted 

limits for ammonia (Appendix 2). In most cases, this meant that 

the magnitude of the effluent flow was increased and the concentration of ammonia was decreased from the WWTF values 

measured and used in the 30Q10 calibrated model. 
Appendixes 105

 

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Ammonia concentration, in milligrams per liter

A. Simulated ammonia concentrations, winter conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

Simulated ammonia concentrations for 

 30Q10 calibrated model 

Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 1 

Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 2, with proposed 

 treatment facility upstream from 

 Cedar Creek 

Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 hypothetical 

 simulation 2, with proposed treatment 

 facility downstream from Cedar Creek 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

B. Simulated ammonia concentrations, summer conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Figure 34. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow (30Q10) conditions for 30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 2.
106 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

D. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, summer conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Dissolved-oxygen concentration, in milligrams per liter

C. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, winter conditions at 30Q10 streamflow North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek Cedar Creek Mill Creek Unnamed tributary Turkey Creek Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek Lawrence wastewater- treatment facility Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility Johnson County Mill Creek Regional treatment facility

Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

 for 30Q10 calibrated model 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 1 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 2, with proposed 

 treatment facility upstream from 

 Cedar Creek 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 2, with proposed 

 treatment facility downstream from Cedar Creek 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Kill Creek 

Figure 34. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow (30Q10) conditions for 30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 2.—Continued
Appendixes 107

Results for 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 3 indicated that 

ammonia concentrations gradually increased from upstream to 

downstream along the Kansas River during winter and summer. 

Ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.3 mg/L in the 

winter and from 0.03 to 0.6 mg/L during the summer (figs. 35A

and 35B). In-stream ammonia concentrations incrementally 

increased downstream from each major WWTF. Ammonia concentration increased the most downstream from the Turkey 

Creek confluence (river mile 3.2). Nelson WWTF discharges 

into Turkey Creek just upstream from the confluence. The 

ammonia concentration of Turkey Creek (site 49, fig. 2) just 

downstream from the Nelson WWTF effluent (site 37, fig. 9) 

was not changed from the concentration used in the calibrated 

model and was the largest ammonia concentration of all the 

WWTF effluents for hypothetical simulation 3. 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 3 did not simulate main-stem ammonia concentrations that were larger than the Kansas chronic aquatic-life 

criterion for early-life stages of fish present. 

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen for the 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 3 were similar to the dissolved-oxygen concentrations reported from the original calibrated model during 

both winter and summer (fig. 35C and 35D). Only simulated 

main-stem dissolved-oxygen concentrations near Lawrence 

(river mile 51) and Turkey Creek (river mile 3.2) were less than 

the Kansas aquatic-life criterion (5.0 mg/L).

Effects of 30Q10 Hypothetical Simulation 4

Adjustments to the calibrated model for 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 4 were a combination of adjustments from 

30Q10 hypothetical simulations 1 and 2. Effluent from a proposed new WWTF was added to discharge in the Kansas River 

just downstream from the Cedar Creek confluence (river 

mile 25), and the design flows and ammonia concentrations for 

three major WWTFs (Topeka Oakland, Lawrence, Johnson 

County Mill Creek) were adjusted to the same values as in 

30Q10 hypothetical simulation 2. All values for the other 

WWTFs were the same as the values used for the 30Q10 calibrated model.

Simulated results for 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 4 

indicated main-stem concentrations of ammonia similar to 

those simulated for hypothetical simulation 3, with the exception of the concentrations downstream from the proposed 

WWTF (fig. 36A and 36B). In the summer, the simulated results 

indicated that the proposed WWTF would have a profound 

effect on ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentration for 

about 3 mi downstream from its hypothetical location (fig. 36B

and 36D). Ammonia concentrations remained slightly larger 

than the concentrations in 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 2 

until about river mile 10, where they were approximately equal. 

Main-stem ammonia concentrations were equal to or less than 

those simulated with the calibrated model except near the 

Lawrence (river mile 51) and proposed WWTFs. Summer simulated ammonia concentrations near the proposed WWTF were 

greater than the Kansas chronic aquatic-life-support criterion 

for early-life stages of fish present.

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen for 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 4 were similar to the dissolved-oxygen concentrations reported from the 30Q10 calibrated model during both 

winter and summer with some exceptions (fig. 36C and 36D). 

During the winter, downstream from the proposed new WWTF 

(river mile 25), simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

decreased slightly (about 0.5 mg/L) and gradually increased 

over the next 5 mi to levels identical to the calibrated model. 

During the summer, simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations downstream from the Lawrence WWTF (river mile 50) 

decreased to 4.0 mg/L before increasing gradually over the next 

3 mi to concentrations similar to the calibrated model. Also, 

simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations downstream from 

the hypothetical WWTF (river mile 25) decreased to concentrations that were less than the Kansas aquatic-life criterion 

(5.0 mg/L), reaching a minimum of about 2 mg/L before 

increasing over the next 4 mi to levels similar to the 

calibrated model.
108 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Ammonia concentration, in milligrams per liter

A. Simulated ammonia concentrations, winter conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

Simulated ammonia concentrations for 

 30Q10 calibrated model 

Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 1 

 Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 3 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

B. Simulated ammonia concentrations, summer conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility

Kill Creek 

Figure 35. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow (30Q10) conditions for 30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 3.
Appendixes 109

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

D. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, summer conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

 for 30Q10 calibrated model 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 

 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 1 

 Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 3 

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life 

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department 

 of Health and Environment, 2002) 

EXPLANATION 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Dissolved-oxygen concentration, in milligrams per liter

C. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, winter conditions at 30Q10 streamflow North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek Kill Creek Cedar Creek Mill Creek Unnamed tributary Turkey Creek Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek Lawrence wastewater- treatment facility DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility Johnson County Mill Creek Regional treatment facility 

Figure 35. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow (30Q10) conditions for 30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 3.—Continued
110 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions in the Kansas River, Northeast Kansas, November 2001–August 2002

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Ammonia concentration, in milligrams per liter

A. Simulated ammonia concentrations, winter conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

Simulated ammonia concentrations for

 30Q10 calibrated model

Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 1

 Ammonia concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 4, with proposed

 treatment facility downstream from Cedar

 Creek (river mile 25)

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department

 of Health and Environment, 2002)

EXPLANATION

0 

0.50 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

B. Simulated ammonia concentrations, summer conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility 

Muddy Creek 

Delaware River 

Buck Creek 

Farmland nitrogen plant effluent 

Plum Creek 

Wakarusa River 

Stranger Creek 

proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Cedar Creek 

Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility 

Mill Creek 

Unnamed tributary 

Turkey Creek 

Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility 

Soldier Creek 

Shunganunga Creek 

Lawrence wastewatertreatment facility 

Johnson County Mill Creek 

Regional treatment facility

DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility

Kill Creek 

Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 36. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow (30Q10) conditions for 30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 4.
Appendixes 111

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

D. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, summer conditions at 30Q10 streamflow 

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance upstream from confluence with Missouri River, in miles 

Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

 for 30Q10 calibrated model 

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 

 30Q10 hypothetical simulation 1 

 Dissolved-oxygen concentrations for 30Q10 

 hypothetical simulation 4, with proposed

 treatment facility downstream from Cedar

 Creek (river mile 25)

Chronic aquatic-life criterion with early-life

 stages of fish present (Kansas Department

 of Health and Environment, 2002)

EXPLANATION 

0 

5.0 

10 

15 

20 

Dissolved-oxygen concentration, in milligrams per liter

C. Simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations, winter conditions at 30Q10 streamflow North Topeka wastewater- treatment facility Muddy Creek Delaware River Buck Creek Farmland nitrogen plant effluent Plum Creek Wakarusa River Stranger Creek Kill Creek Cedar Creek Mill Creek Unnamed tributary Turkey Creek Topeka Oakland wastewater-treatment facility Soldier Creek Shunganunga Creek Lawrence wastewater- treatment facility DeSoto wastewater-treatment facility Bonner Springs wastewater-treatment facility Kansas City wastewater-treatment facility Johnson County Mill Creek Regional treatment facility proposed wastewater-treatment facility 

Figure 36. Simulated ammonia and dissolved-oxygen concentrations in Kansas River from Topeka to Kansas City 

during winter and summer 30-day, 10-year, low-flow (30Q10) conditions for 30Q10 calibrated model and hypothetical 

simulations 1 and 4.—Continued