DCN:45,037 Section:21.4.2


### EPA-907/9-74 

### -CO1 ? 

### February 1974 -y- . .­

*.. , * 

### -

# -

a-

### , LT:; ." .-.- ..

r: e..WATER

### QUALITY INDEX 

### APPLICATION -: 

### - ' -:. ' *
..

*_ .,? .-

..1

## _ - -... ' 

### IN 

### TKE'

.. *., .. 

### BASIN

..
t

BY 

### Nina 

### I. McClelland, 

### Pn.D.
Contract 

### No. 68-01-0761 ' 

### Project Officer Aleck Alexander Air & 

### Water 

### Programs Division Environmental Protection Agency-Region VI1 -.-* 1735 

### Baltimore Street



### Kansas City, Missouri 64108

. . .. 

## -.

. 

### Prepared 

### for U

## is. Environmental Protection Agency-Region VI1 1735 

### Baltimore 

### Street Kansas City, 

### Missouri 64108 .'

I'1 ABSTRACT The

### Water 

### Quality Index (WQI) 

### is 

### an empirical 

### expression which integrates

### nine significant 

### physical, ckemical, 

### and microbiological parameters 

### of water quality 

### into a 

### single number. It was 

### developed by the National Sanitation Foundatlon (NSF) 

### In response 

### to the 

### need for a 

### uniform method 

### of .measuringand 

### reporting 

### water quality in 

### donsistent, comprehensible 

### terms. To meaningfully demonstrate the 

### responsiveness 

### of WQI to variations in 

### water 

### quality, and to determine optimum 

### frequencies 

### for computing and 

### reporting WQI, 

### a comprehensive 

### field samFling, laboratory 

### analysis, and 

### data 

### management program was systematically developed for applying WQI 

### to selected sites on the'Kansas River and 

### its major 

### tributaries. 

### Nearly 600 

### samples from 26 

### sites 

# - 14 main stem and 12 tributary

# - were included in the study. 

### Seventeen parameters were

### measured in the 

### laboratory 

# - the nine in 

### WQI and eight 

### closely related parameters 

# - to determine the 

### validity 

### of term substitution in the index 

### expression. Parameters 

### most responsible 

### for quality 

### variation in both 

### main 

### stem and tributary stations 

### were identified by least squares regression. 

### "-. Results, 

### expressed 

### as WQI, indicated that the 

### NSF 

### water quality 

### index is an 

### effective method 

### for measuring 

### and 

### reporting 

### overall quality variations in the 

### Kansas River. The 

### operational methodology and 

### results

.. of 

### the 

### study are pre

### sented 

### in detail 

### in this report. .I 

### This report was 

### submitted 

### in fulfillment 

### of Contract 

### Number 68-01-0761 

### by The National Sanitation Foundation under the 

### sponsorship 

### of the 

### Environmental Protection Agency. 

### Work 1 was 

### completed 

### as of January 1974. ii

### -- 

### ---- 

## --- !



# . Ann Arbor, Michigan, -4fH-05 

### 68-01-0761 Coked
14.

d V 16. Ansrrnds4; ' The 

### National Sanitation Foundation's 

### (NSF)Water Quality J

### Index Y 

### &QI) is

### an empirical expressionwhich integrates nine significant physical, chemical, and microbiologicat parameters 

### of water quality into a single number to provide 

### a uniform, consistent, and comprehensible term formeasuring and 

### reporting water quality. 

### To demonstrate the responsiveness

### of WQI to variations 

### inwater quality and to determine optimum frequencies for computing and reporting WQI

### ,a 

### comprehensive field sampling, 

### laboratory analysis, and data management program was 

### developed for applying 

### WQl to 

### selected sites on the Kansas River and its major tributaries. Seventeen parameters weremeasured (the nine in WQI 

### and eight related parameters) on nearly,600 samples from 26 

### sites '(14

### main stem and 

### 12 tributary)..trPkame*ters

### most responsible for quality variation in'both main .stemand tributary stationswere identified by 

### least 

### s uares regression. Results indicated that the 

### NSF Water Quality Index 

### (WQI) is

### an e

# 9fective method formeasuring and reporting overall quality variations in

### the iver. �PA) -. 17. Kcy \vnr.t5 ~nc' lh~cumcnrAn~l: %:x. 170. l)cF:rtptar:,



## e

Kansas River Basin

# (&&,) Topeka(Ka*, 

### I 

# a d / 

### Water Quali

### ty Index.

!

...... . I -.-__-UNITED

### STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

### PROT�CtlONAGENCY August 

### 12, 

### 1974



### To: Recipients of 

### �PA Report 907/9-74-O01, "Water Quality 

### Index Application In The Kansas River Basin"



### An omission has been found in the report "Mate-Quality Index Application In Tne 

### Kansas River Basin", EPA-907/9-74-001, February 1974, which we recently sent to you. Please insert 

### the following EPA 

### Review Notice 

### on the inside of 

### the front cover of 

### the subject report: I

. 

### EPA Review Notice

. This 

### report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and approved for pub1

### ication. Approval 

### does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of 

### the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of 

### trade 

### names or commercial products,constitute endorsement or recommendation for

### use.


### I T



## .... _ _. CONTENTS

.--.

. Paqe
-.

.

### Abstract

List 

### of Figures List 

### of Tables 

### Acknowledgments


### Section 

### ii iv

.

V 

### vi

1

- 3 

### 4

. 

### 19 28 35 37 

### 57 68 70 

### I I1 111 

### IV


### VI
VIII 

### IX

I 

### Conclusions Recommendations The Water Quality

### Index Pro3ect Description 

### Experimental Results 

### Discussion Special Studies References Appendices

.._\



### iii



# .i

'_..
. - 

### 2 3
4
5
6

. 7 8


### 9

10 FIGURES Schematic Illustration 

### of Sampling 

### Sites inKansas 

### Iiiver Application 

### of WQI Sample Distribution 

### and Handling Scheme 

### for Chemical and Physical 

### Parameters' Mean Values 

### for WQI(A) and 

### WQI(M) at all Stations for entire Observation Period 

### Mean, High, and 

### Low 

### WQI(A) for 

### Kansas River Stations Mean, High, and 

### Low WQI(M) 

### for Kansas River Stations Mean, h'ic;h, and Low WQI(A) for Tributary L f Stations

~ d. Mean, High, and 

### Low WQI(M) 

### for Tributary Stations Initial and Final WQI(A) Values 

### for all Sampling Stations Effect expressed as 

### WQI(A) 

### of three tributaries 

### on quality in Kansas River at 

### Topeka and Lecompton Profile of Kansas River at 7th Street

.-= Bridge, Kansas City, Kansas



### iv Page 

# ­ 25 ?

*

. 

### 30

. .. 38


### 39
40


### 41 42 47 50



### 63



# .... TABLES No *_Page 

# - *1 Parameters Considered 

### for WQI in

. . I.. 

### .- Questionniire No. 1

2- . ,- Significance Ratings and Weights 

### for Nine 

### 11 ?arameters Included in the WQI List of Participants in Initial Field 14 Application of WQI Sampling Station Locations 

### 21-24 Summary of Analytical Metkods 31-34 Summary 

### of 

### WQI(A) and 

### WQI(M) for 

### Kansas 44 iiiver and Tributary Stations I 7 Sampling Frequency 54 8 Regression 

### Analysis of WQI 

### ParGeters by 56 Forward Selection 9 Correlation Coefficients 

### for Selected 58 Parameters 10 Correlations

# - Summary 60 

### 11 Hourly Variations 61 

### 12 Results of Microbiological Study Kansas 64 River at

### Kansas City-7th Street 

### ..-. 13 Data 

### from Study 

### of Transverse and Vertical 65 

### Quality 

### Variations 

### in the 

### Kansas River at Kansas City-7th 

### Street.

..:

V .. 7.

### -.. . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



# -. The outstanding,cooperation 

### of Jerome 

### H. 

### Svore, Regional Administrator, 

### EPA Region VII, and' Aleck Alexander, 

### Project



### - 'Officer, is gratefully acknowledged. Special appreciation is 

### also ex;?ressed to EPA Region VI1 personnel 

### who cooperated with the project staff by providing guidance and assistance in developing the study plan; providing laboratory space, equipment, and analytical services: collecting special samples; and entering the data to the 

### STORET system. The cooperation 

### of Melville W. Gray, Chief Engineer and

' - 

### Director, Division of Environmental Health, 

### Kansas State Department of Health and the assistance of members 

### of his staff in selecting sampling locations 

### ana providing reports and equipment for use 

### inthe project 

### is also greatly appreciafed. The project 

### was directed by Dr. 

### Nina I. McClelland. The field staff, headquartered at the EPA Region 

### VI1 laboratory in Kansas City, Kansas, included Steven 

### W. Weeks, chemist, in res;;l'nsible charge 

### of laboratory and field opesations;



### . Carroll 

### E. Reynolrfs, chemist; 

### Joyce 

### E. Thale, microbiologist; and Larry M. Pope and Bill

### I?. Brown, sample collectors. 

### i)r. Rolf A. Deininger and Jurate 

### PI. Landwehr served 

### as . - consultants to 

### the profect for designing the sampling program and processing data through the Michigan terminal system atthe University of Michigan.



### viSECTION 

### I CONCLUSIONS 

### To insure continued public and private support 

### for water quality improvement programs, a uniform, comprehensible format 

### must be adopted for measuring and reporting progress 

# - or lack 

### of progress

# - in attaining current 

### and future 

### program objectives. Through 

### widespread applicatim 

### of the water quality index (WQII, 

### developed and applied by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)

## , a specific, simplistic method 

### is available 

### for quantitative, consistent practice in measuring and reporting water quality. 72 *ib 

### ernphahized Itkt 

### W27 ia a 

### managemebzt 

### and 

### geneaal adminiathative 

### tool ictonded gotr UA

### e in communicating water, 

### quality in{o,tmaXian ttc .tile 

### laypublic afid 

### 20 legihlative decihiobl 

### mahexa. 1.t 

### Lid 

### not a 

### complex 

### ptredicziwe model Act& 

### technicalaizd 

### hcienzigic 

### application. The.WQI was 

### applied to 

### selected sites in the Kansas River 

### and major tributaries through a comprehensive three month 

### field sampling, laboratory testing, and data analysis program. 

### Results 

### of this project demonstrated that: WQI is responsive to changes in water quality resulting from 

### discharge 

### of municipal and industrial waste effluents 

### and 

### agricultural runoff 

### in the study 

### area. WQI 

### can be 

### used effectively in optimizing sampling frequencies. Four specific 

### parameters 

# - BOD5, 

### turbidity,phosphates, and fecal coliforms

# - are 

### responsible for 

### more than 90% 

### of 

### the variation in 

### quality, expressed as 

### WQI, 

### in 1 

# c ... . ­
. :-i

.. 4) river and tributary statiqns 

### included in this study. Although the 

### same _. 

### .. . .

.. 4four parameters 

### are indicated 

### in

.

main 

### stream and tributary 

### data, their order 

### of relative importance.

._
’ 

### varies.

Two sets 

### of parameters are highly correlated inboth main 

### stemand tributary stations

# - suspended solids with turbidity, and total coliforms with fecal coliforms. Other parameters 

### are not closely related and cannot logically be substituted in calculatingWQI for the Kansas River. WQI 

### is an effective method for indicating and reporting overall quality and expressing quality trends in the study area.

J

.. 2,

SECTION I1 

### RECOMMENDATIONS


### Data acquired during this study should be expanded to 

### include all seasons 

### of the year. Changes in quality which 

### occur as normal seasonal variations are not reflected in 

### this report as 

### a result 

### of the limited period 

### of 

### performance. A 

### program should 

### be implemented for applying 

### WQI as 

### a continuing water qlality 

### management tool 

### throughout Region 

### VII. Comprehensive planning for 

### future water quality objectives in Region VI1 should 

### include the use of WQI as 

### an integral part of interpreting changes 

### in the overall quality 

### of streams in the Region 

### and reporting these changes to the public. An education/public information program should be

. 

### developed 

### in Region VI1 

### to acquaint water quality control administrators legislative decision makers, 

### and the public with the meailing and use 

### of WQI in evaluating stream quality.
-.-. 

### WQI should be adopted on a national level 

### to provide a 

### basis 

### for uniform water quality management operations. 

### It is strongly recommended that programs 

### similar to 

### the Region VI1 

### study be 

### implemented at the earliest opportunity in at least three additional regions. These regions 

### should be 

### widely separated geographically to demonstrate that 

### WQI is responsive 

### to changes in quality without 

### respect to location. Each 

### of these demonstrations should include an education/public information component. 3SECTION I11 

### THE WATER QUALITY 

### INDEX Definition 

### By definition, the Water QualityIndex 

### (WQII is a single numerical expression which reflects 

### the composite influence of nine significant physical, chemical, and microbiological parameters 

### of 

### water quality. It was 

### developed and field evaluated 

### by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 

### .to provide a uniform method 

### for indicating and reporting the benefits

# - or lack of benefits

# - realized 

### from billions 

### of public 

### and private 

### dollars invested 

### in stream quality 

### improvement program. Rationale The need for 

### a water quality index 

### is well documented. 

### In January 1959 the Committee 

### on National 

### Water Policy 

### of the Conference 

### of State Sanitary Engineers (CSSE) .proposed that 

### an objective study be initiated to develop a 

### uniform method 

### for indicating water quality. As a 

### result of this action, .



### the CSSE Committee and the Conference 

### of State and Interstate 

### Water-'-Pol lution Control 

### Administrators 

### (CSIWPCA)began developing 

### criteria for demonstrating the progress 

### of 

### water pollution control programs, 

### but nothing tangible emerged 

### from this effort. In 1965 the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee recommended that the federal government stimulate development 

### of an index 

### of chemical pollution, 

### which would "allow 

### us to follow many important changes in general

### water quality. " (1) 4

### The Environmental Study 

### Group 

### of the National Academy 

### of Science proposed 

### that 

### various environmental 

### indices, including

, 

### "water purity" be 

### developed and weighted into 

### an overall Environmental Quality Index (2), a 

### concept 

### supported in 

### a report to 

### the Senate Committee on Public 

### Works (3). 

### In its third 

### annual report, the President's Council 

### on Environmental Quality'stated that, "Accurate and timely 

### information 

### on status 

### and 

### trends in the environment is neees

### sary to shape 

### sound public policy and 

### to implement environ-. mental quality programs 

### efficiently. Further, the 

### American people are 

### entitled to know 

### whether the 

### public and private money being 

### spent 

### to protect the environment returns a cpm

### mensurate improvement 

### in environmental quality."(4) The 

### Honorable 

### Russell E. 

### Train, 

### in addressing the 

### National

. Conference 

### on 

### Managing the Environment, said "Accurrate 

### and 

### timely in&oztma.tian

### on the dta;tu~

## 06 the 

### enwimnment id necedba/ry .to 

### ahape hound 

### pub2ic poLicy and do 

### implement enwihon- * 

### menxnt qualitypttogkarnA 

### eJiicienttg. It ii6 

### vitrtuatty impadbible to

### develop 

### ebdec.tive pjzogtramh 

### and 

### to manitoh 

### .theitr irnplernenta&i.anwithouX 

### good monitoaing data. Veky 

### detailed data ahe necebda/ry dok 

### ceh.tain type4 

### 05 planning 

### and 

### endoacement, 

### Fat'"h~p manngemenrt 

### and generral public.

### policy develop

### ment, maniltoking 

### da-ta muad be 

### dhaped in20 

### ea.!,y-ta-undeka.tand 

### indiced 2tha.t aggnC8aXe 

### daXa into unde&dtandable 

### dorrm~. 

### I am convinced that much 

### muhe ed60a.t mud2 

### be placed on the

### develop

### ment 

### 06 bettet maniltotring ayhternn 

### and 

### indice4 

### than we 

### have inthepabt. 

### failuae .tto.do 40 

### will ke~utlt 

### in

### dub-optimum achievernenlt 

## 06 goab 

# 2 muck glreaxetr expend

### e.''(5) These 

### statements and recommendations are 

### consistent 

### with stated objectives 

### for the 

### NSF 

### Water Quality Index, to:
5Make available a tool 

### for dependably treating water quality data 

### and presenting them 

### as a single numerical index, 

### and Promote utilization of a process 

### for , effectively conununicating water quality conditions 

### to 

### all concerned. Methodology Development of 

### WQI was undertaken 

### by NSF 

### as an unsponsored 

### project. The basic.methodology attempted 

### to incorporate 

### many aspects 

### of DELPHI (6) 

### an opinion research technique developed 

### by the 

### Rand Corporation. Individual judgements of a large panel 

### of experts.were integrated to produce 

### a group decision. Through controlled feedback, each panelist was given the opportunity to compare 

### his individilal response tqith that of.the group, and 

### tochange 

### his response 

### to 

### more nearly conform with the group if he considered it desirable to do 

### so. A panel of 

### 142 persons with expertise 

### inwater quality management was carefully s.electedfor this study. Wide

. geographical. distribution and diverse.specialties

# - regula-. tory're.sponsibility.{federal,..interstate, 

### state 

### territorial and regional) I' local pubiic 

### utilities.management, consulting, and teaching

# - were .represented. The.panelists

### received 

### a 

### series'of mailed questionnaires

# . In the. firstquestionnaire the respondents 

### were asked 

### to consider the 35 parameter-s, shown in Table 1, 

### for possible inclusion in' 

### a water quality index. Opportunity was provided to include'additional parameters. Each parameter 

### was tobe designated according to one of the following categories: "do not include, I' "undecided, 'I or "include.

## " 

# .

I

6

# -- ._. 

### -

. + - 

### Table 

### 1. PAXQiTERS CONSIDERED 

### FOR 

### WQI 

## -. _ - .-,. 

# - . 

### . -i.-.. 

### IN QUESTIOi?NAIRE NO. 

### I

. > .

.^ . 

### Parameter Dissolved oxygkn Fecal coliforms Ph 

### Biochemical oxygen demand (5-day) 

### Coliform organisms Herbicides Temperature Pesticides Phosphates Nitrates Dissolved solids Radioactivity Phenols Chemical oxygen demand Carbon chloroform extract Ammonia Total solids Oil and grease Turbidity . . - - - ... .

. - .-*..

~

I

.. .



### .. . . 

### Chlorides Alkalinity 

### Iron Color 

### Manganese Fluorides Copper 

### Sulfates Calcium Hardness 

### Sodium and potassium

. 

### Acidity

.

### Bicarbonate

Magnesium Aluminum Silica

7' .I 

### Respondents were asked to rate only those parmeters marked "include,'I 

### according to their significance to overall water quality. This rating was done on 

### a scale 

### of I'l" 

### (highest I

.. 

### relative significance) to s5'8 

### (lowest relative significance)

# . Of the total panel 

### of 142members, 102 

### respondents (72%) 

### completed and returned the first questionnaire; however, 

### of these, only 94 

### wcre returned in time to be 

### included in the second round. The second mailing included a computer printout of results 

### from the first questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to 

### note their individual responses for each parameter and coinpare them with those of 

### the entire grou?. In view of 

### this feedback information, respondents were then asked to 

### review their original judgements and modify them if they wished. The intent was to gain greater convergence 

### of opinion concerning how the various parameters rated with respect to their effect on overall water quality. (However, there was little change in the significance ratings expressed in Questionnaire No. 2 

### when compared with the initial round.) Nine additional parsmeters, added to 

### the first questionnaire 

### by several respondents,were introduced for 

### group consideration in the second questionnaire : 

### chromium (hexavalent)

## , total organic carbon, cyanides, conductivity, lead, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, and zinc. 

### In addition, panelists were asked to design'atenot more 

### than 15 

### parameters, which they considered 

### to be the "most important" for 

### inclusion in a 

### water quality index. The complete list of 

### parameters 

### was presented, arranged indecreasing order of significance as determined by 

### the average rating of the entire group from Questionnaire No. 1. Of 94 

### responGents receiving the second questionnaire, 77 

### completed and returned it for 

### an 82%' response rate., Utilizing expert opinion derived 

### from initial \ rounds of the 

### study, 

### I1 parameters, 

### or'groups-

### of parameters, 

### were listed for further consideration. 

### In QuestionnaireNo. 3, respondents 

### were asked 

### to assign values for the variation 

### in level 

### of water quality produted 

### by different 

### levels of 

### the nine individual parmeters. 

### This was accomplished 

### by utilizing 

### a series of graphs. 

### Levels of 

### "water quality" from 0 

### to 100 

### were indicated on the ordinate, 

### and various levels 

### (or strengths) of the particular pzrameter were arranged 

### along the abscissa. The respondents 

### were asked to draw a 

### curve which, in their judgement, represented the variation of water quality produced by the various possible measurements of each respective parameter. "Judgements" of 

### all panelists were then combined to produce a set of "average curves"

# - one for each parameter. A complete 

### set of curves 

### is included 

### as



### - Appendix A 

### of this report.

Special procedures seemed necessary for "pesticides" and "toxic elements, two "groups of parameters, 

### and the 

### respondents 

### were asked to evaluate these. For pesticides it 

### was proposed +hat "if the 

### total content of detected pesticides (of all types) exceeds 0.1 mg/l (100 ppb) I 

### the 

### water be automaticallyregistered 

### at zero, the lowest value on the water quality index scale." 

### The suggested procedure 

### for including "toxic elements" in the WQI "would be to 

### set a 

### critical upper limit

### for the presence of each element. 

### If any 

### toxic . 

### element exceeded 

### its assigned upper limit, the water quality index would automatically register as zero." The 

### maximum

. permissable levels 

### for toxic 

### elements contained in the current Drinking Water Standards (7) 

### were Proposed 

### as those to ...



### 9 

# .. ... .. a

.. . ..
-.

### be .observed. The panelists agreed with this procezure



### . .-
. .. 

### . . 

### for

..- 

### handling each 

### of the groups 

### of'parameters.

I 

### The third mailing also sought informationwhich contributed 

### to the formation 

### of "parameter weightings" in a 

### final numeri­ .cal

### expression. Thus, respondents were askei! 

### to compare .



### relative overall water quality, using a scale 

### of "1"



### (highest relative value) to "5" 

### (lowest relative value). This operation differed from the initial rating 

### of significance

(Questionnaire No. 

### I) in that now only 

### the final 

### 11 parameters (or groups) were being considered. From 

### these data, weightings were derived for each parameter included in the final WQI, 

### according to the following procedure, summarized 

### in Table 2. 

### 1) 

### Arithmetic means were calculated for the significance ratings returned for 

### all parameters (except "pesticides" and

"toxic elements"). Ratings were converted into weights by assigning 

### a "temporaryweight" 

### of 1.0 to the parameter which received the highest significance rating; i.e., dissolved oxygen. To preserve the ordering and relative ratios returned 

### by the panelists, other temporary weights were 

### obtained 

# .. by 

### dividing each individual mean ,ratinginto the highest rating. Each 

### "temporaryweight".was then divided by 

### the sum of all 

### weights 

### to obtain the final weights, 

### wi0

10--

~ . . 1 - e.

~ Table 2. SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS 

### AND WEIGHTS FOR 

### NINE PARAMETZRS INCLUDED 

### IN THE WQI



### Mean of 

### all signifi

### cance ratings returned Temporary 

### Final Parameters 

### by respondents Weights Weights
Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform 

### Density 

### PH Biochemical 

### Oxygen Demand (5-day) i\ji

### trate

### s Phosphates Temperature Turbidity 

### Total Solids

1

I 

### 1.4 1.0 0.17 1.5 0.9 0.16 2.1 0.7 0.11 2.3 0.6 

### 0.11 2.4 

### 0.6 

### 0.10 0.10 2.4 0.6 2.4 

### 0.6 0.10 2.9 0.5. 0.08 

### 3.2 0.4 

### 0.07 Total 

### = C 

### = 1.00

11With parameter selection, quality 

### curves, meter significance determined, the project 

### an additive expression 

### for WQI:

- 

### __ . 

### n WQI = 

### C 

### wi qi 

### and relative parastaff proposed

number between 

### i=l the Water Quality lndex, a 0 and 100 (theoretical), where WQI =

= qi


### wi =

n 

### = the quality of the ithparameter, a number between 0 

### and 100, (read 

### from the quality curves), I the unit weight of the ith parameter, 

### a number between 0 and 

### 0.17, and the number 

### of parameters. 

### In the 

### WQI expression (Equation 1)

## ,n = 9 and includes: dissolved oxygen (DO)

## ., expressed 

### as percent saturation fecal 

### coliform density (FC), no./100 

### ml PH 

### nitrates (NOj), mg/l N03-N phosphates (PO4) 8 mg/l PO4+ 5 day biochemical 

### oxygen demand (BOD5) mg/l temperature (T)

## , OCdeparture 

### from equilibrium* 

### total solids 

### (TS),

### mg/l, and turbidity, JTU (Jackson turbidity 

### units)

, *"Equilibrium" temperature is defined 

### as that which 

### is known 1

to occur without the influence of heated 

### or cooled discharge. 

### In field application of WQI, two temperatures 

### are taken:one at the sam2ling site and one 

### at some point upstream where heated or cooled discharge 

### is known 

### tobe 

### absent. For samples from stations known 

### to include pesticides 

### or toxic elements, laboratory analysis of these'constituents 

### is required. 

### When any level exceeds itsmaximum permissible iirriit, the index is automatically "zero.

### ''

Field Evaluation Progress 

### in developing WQI was first reported in 

### a paper presented,at the National Sym?osium on Data 

### and Instrumentation 

### for Water QualityXanaqement, held inMadison, Wisconsin in July 1970 (8). Consistent with the concern that WQI be

' used responsibly, data from the quality curves (qi) 

### were not made available in this presentation. 1n.response to requests

. 

### for qi data, NSF proposed that field application 

### of WQI be undertaken as 

### a coordinated effort. 

### As 

### a result, water quality management agencies (listed 

### in Table 3) reported laboratory data toNSF 

### from routine surveillance programs at

### more than'80 sites for periods 

### up 

### to 15months. Again, this activity was entirely unsponsored. Site selection and sampling frequency 

### were, 

### ingeneral, a function 

### of availability 

### of staff and 

### fiscal resources within the participating agency. Data for the nine parameters in WQI were reported monthly; WQI's were calculated at NSF and returned to each participant. A wide variety of quality characteristics 

### were reflected in the data. 

### Samples 

### were taken from clean, upper reaches 

### of
13 .u1 al 

### c u c, k 4 1 a 0 al u) X al P; w 0 rl h m 

### u 4J k c 

### c 1 al 4J 

# 2 c, 

### z til m-rl m a rcr Ql al 0 

### n 4J 

### sr c Li 

# 2 a

- k

4J E 

# d 7 k 0 a U Ql al k 

### a 

# E al al -4 c, 4J k 

### a a 

### a c, U -4 v3 

### a

a .ri 

### c al al c, 

## 9 al a u1 4J 10 cn al E



### 14

### small streams, downstream 

### from municipal wastewater treat­

-t. ment 

### plants and points of industrial

### waste discharge, and 

### lakes with 

### seasonally diversepopulation densities. Results 

### of the 

### study showed clearly that quality variations 

### are 

### consistentwith

# - and can be 

### reported 

### by

# - changes 

### inWQI. They illustrated 

### dramatically the fallacy 

### of reporting 

### quality 

### variations in 

### terms 

### of changes 

### in single parameter

... values. 

### For example, at one station 

### in Pennyslvania, downstrean 

### from two overloaded package wastewater treatment

. plants, least squares 

### regression analysis 

### of the data from 40 

### samples taken during the period July-1971toAugust 

### 1972 established that approximately 87%of the variation inWQI (A2=0.8695)was determined by DO, BODg' pH, and total 

### solids. At a station further downstream, just below the discharge from a mine pamp, 92% (R2=0.9169) 

### of the WQI .was detenined 

### by fecal 

### coliform density, pK, and phosphates. Qualityprofiles 

### from three stations 

### on 

### a Michigan 

### stream withrecreational lakes scattered throughout the area 

### reflected changes at.tributed

### to

### high density vacation popula

### tions. Flow patterns and mixing characteristics 

### of treated wastewater effluent 

### from 

### a large city inMichigan 

### were observed by plotting WQI 

### values 'from stations on both sides 

### of the receiving stream, above and below the treatment plant. 

### --. These data 

### are described 

### indetail in a paper presented 

### at the ASCE 

### National Meeting 

### on Water Resources 

### Engineering (9), 

### and inthe 

### final report prepared for 

### each participant 

### inthe 'study 

### (10).

. -

Further 

### Efforts to Evaluate WQI Despite the apparent responsiveness 

### of WQI to changes 

### in water quality conditions, analysis of data 

### from the field

# . ---studysuggested that the additive WQI lacked sensitivity

### in adequately reflecting the effect 

### of a single 

### low 

### value para-

. 

### meter on overall 

### water quality. Initially, the additive model 

### was selected

### because it 

### is conceptually simple, 

### easy 

### to calculate, and entirely reproducible. O'Connor 

### noted

~ that, "the additivemodel 

### is a good choice when 

### all

### -parameter: are within a reasonable range, but a multiplicative 

### form is more sensitive 

### to discontinuities 

### in overall quality 

### which may 

### result witn 

### zero or poor quality 

### inany parametric dimension. I'(11)
As a 

### result, a multiplicative 

### form of WQI was proposed ( g ) :

where 

### WQI (MI = the multiplicative 

### water quality index, a number between 0 and 100 (theoretical),



### .qi

### = the quality of the ithparameter, 

### a number between 0 and 100, 

### wi = the.unit weight 

### of the ithparameter, a 

### number between 0 

### and 0 1 7

## , and

--* n 

### = the number 

### of parameters.

. To determine relative 

### merits of adopting the additive 

### WQI (WI;rI(A)> versus 

### WQI(M) historical data 

### for both "good" and 

### rpoor" quality 

### stream conditions

### were accessed 

### from STORET. 

### WQI(A) and WQI(M) were calculated for all data and differ- ' ences in the two values evaluated with respect.to 

### physical conditions known to exist at each reported site. Again, 

### a wide variety of quality conditions 

### were considered: 

### upstream and downstream 

### from refineries, steel 

### mills, andmunicipal 

### wastewater treatment plants. 

### Data influenced 

### by industrial 

### wastes 

### were significantly different 

### when 

### reported as WQX (A) versus WQ3 

### (M) 

### As expected, WQI(M) was significantly

### more sensitive to the.effect of 

### a singlebad 

### para

### meter. In addition to evaluating historical data, a questionnaire 

### was mailed to 160 

### water qualitymanagement experts

# - more tnan 70 

### who participated 

### in developing WQI, and 

### others assumea 

### to be new to the concept. The questionnaire was designed to

### determine, 

### I) how water quality ratings assigned by the experts related 

### to WQI(A) versus 

### WQI(M)

## , and 2) whether 

### or not original group judgement differed 

### significantly 

### from the opinions of other 

### water quality experts., Values for each of the nine WQI parameters 

### in 20 actual 'stream samples

# - data 

### from the Kansas study, the 

### initial

evaluation of WQI inPennsylvania, Michigan, etc. and data accessed from STORET*- were included inthe questionnaire. The experts were asked 

### to review the data 

### for each individual sample and returnboth a numerical (0 to 100) and 

### a verbal ("excellent," 

### "good,

### '' "medium, 'I "bad, I' 

### or "very bad") rating 

### which, 

### intheir judgement, described the quality-'of that 

### sample. 

### More than 

### LOO responses 

### were returned, 

### with 30 

### from the ociginal group. Results of the 

### survey 

### to date indicate 

### that: 

### I) Calculation of WQI 

### by the 

### additive model produces a number which averages 10to 15

### WQI units 

### higher than experts judgementally 

### rate the same water. 

### The difference 

### is greatest at the 

### low end

. of the 

### scale. 17

### Calculation 

### of KQI 

### by the multipli­ .". _--.. 

### cative model produces a 

### number which averages 6 

### WQI units different, distributed above and below the experts' judgemental ratings. There is no significant difference between the way original 

### and new expert panelists rate water quality. Although results 

### of this survey are not 

### yet complete, it 

### is clear tnat the multiplicative WQI 

### is closely 

### related to expert judgement 

### of water 

### quality conditions. NOTE: 

### Becauae

. 

### lthia JLepozZ uan 

### compeelted p/rio/r tc

### Rlie bitrvey, 

### da.ta 

### in Xtab,lea and digutrea ane 

### hspckted paincipaUy aa WQl (A]; howeve&, Wzl(bi) vutuea have 

### been adied 20

### Rite Rabteb 

### inAppendix 

### D, and ptotlted, do/r putponea 06 

### cornpaniaon, in Figuae 3, 5, 

### and 7. 

### Questionnaire responses differed widely with regard to verbal ratings. A 

### feedback questionnaire, to be mailed in the near future,will permit each panelist to 

### review his 

### response 

### with respect to group judgement, and attempt to bettsr define what the 

### expert calls ''good" 

### or "bad" water quality. -.

­

18. .. SECTION 

### IV PROJECT '

### UZSCRIPTION

..

. * . .. . .

### ... . .I .

..-. . . ­ _. . '..;Objectives 

## -

..
...

.. 

### ... Principal objectives 

### of thisproject 

### were to:

.

# __ ...- ~. 1) Apply WQI 

### to selected 

### sites 

### in the



### . Kansas River Basin through 

### a corn-

_ - . prehensive field sampling and laboratory analysis program, and 

### -~ 2) Evaluate the effectiveness and utility of WQI as an indicator 

### of water quality variations.



## - Secondary objectives included determ'ining optinum frequencies for sampling I computing

## , and reporting WQI.



## - Study Area Tne main 

### stemof the Kansas River originates at the confluence

of the Republican and Smoky 

### Hill Rivers, 

### east of Junction City, and empties into the Missouri 

### River 170'miles 

### to the 

### -.

..

### east at

### Kansas City. It 

### is a wide, 

### shallow river 

### of moderate

.-.. . .. yelocity with 

### a shifting sand bottom. In 

### terms 

### of flow, it



### - is the largest 

### stream in Kansas. Treated municisal wastes 

### from more than 40 

### cities and towns ranging in population from 106 

### to 123,000, and effluents 

### from 

### at least 

### 20 

### small wastewater treatment plants serving restaurants, 

### mobile home parks, high schools, etc. are discharged to the Kansas River 

### (12). 

### The largest city,



### . Kansas City, 

### .isheavily industrial; Topeka and 

### Lawrence are 19characterized by light industry-(principally 

### food and 

# . '\ kindred products, printing and publishing, fabricated 

### metal products, and chemical processing). Other portions 

### of the

- study area 

### are essentially rural-agricultural, with
- 

### river valleys comonly devoted to truck farming, and hilly 

### areas,

- - to pasturelands.- Selection.of this area for application of WQI 

### was a direct result of the high level of interest which 

### water quality administrators in the area continue to express for 

### the index concept 

### in general, and 

### WQI inparticular. Abinistrative and technical staffs from EPA Region 

### VI1 and the Kansas Department of Health contributed extensively to planning and conducting the.,project.

... 

## ...._ Samp'ling Sites Twenty-six 

### sites between Junction City and Kansas City

# - 14 on the Kansas River and 12on major tributaries

# - were sampled for this study. Routine surveillance 

### sites andInterstations from previous special studies

### were included. mediate 

### siteswere added when long distances occurred be

### tween the regular stations. Sampling'locations 

### are listed 

### inTable 4 and 

### shown schematically inFigure 1. It 

### is apparent from Figure 1that 

### flow in the study area 

### is affected 

### by 

### a number 

### of large impoundments, constructed for flood control, water 

### supply, conservation, augmentation of flow for downstream uses, and recreation. Sampliqg was limited to 

### sites downstream from the 

### reservoirs. Sampling Scheme In designing the sampling program, 

### a principal concern 

### was to 20m m m 

### c h m 

# . m m c, L Q, 0 a 3 w c tl)m -4 P) m 

### a -gcn -4 k 

# s -& 

### rn AJ Q, Q, k 4 rTJ a, U U 0 3 C m h 3 +, a k a, 

### > TI 

### z v!o: 0 m H Lnm E-r em Kim 

# 2 xr: v1 Id M

.- .

### . m



# . rl) 

# . - m m 

# . 0 

# . v e 0 0 m QI 0 Ln N CJ N cy

N m w Lo w 

# +
- + f- f- 

## * .- c - .- t
210 5-cru urn050 'U0 a9 

### oc (J ul c, 4UIdUk

d 

# -- t k a0 

### a bo Lo 

### a.

0 5-cru urn050 'U0 a9 

### oc (J ul c, 4UIdUk



# . .a -4 s-4

rl ln 

# . m m Ln \D

QI 0 d t d i c m ' Id m r: a xi



# .. sr U !z 3 0 U E 0 u) k a, w

rl m a0
5 

### x 

# .. tnm aQ, .­ u4J

zp lA *fPI d -i­ 

## * *
22t E m 17

*.

0 0

e h 0 n 

### c 

# . -4 Q U >1 

### c, m *%I 3 .u 4 3 

### c 

### z 

# E 1 v) H 0 F E-r d) V 2 

### c s c 3 0 

### a 0 al -4 u -4 QI Y U a rn 0 c F a rn 3 0, CTI u 

### z 0 Q) a E. rl -0 

# 2 sr 0 c-7 -4 H al E 

# 3” w 4 

# E W 

# . 0 -4 u rl 

### c p: 0 

# . rl 4 x -4 c,



### - 2 al 3: k al 0 H



### c A k al F: v) U U rl a k al 

# 2 v) 0 rl Di rl i.l VI 

### c 

### c 4 ail a -4 E W Y E 2 H.
VI 

# s

8 0 

## * 

# .f3) cv rl rl a I3

0 rl (v N 

## - N nl 

## * lr I23t 3

. ­ h



# . +p Q) 4 P 

### m i3 1 9)

hi 3 A 5'C ru 

### 1 

# . L) 0 m U k 9) 3 

### > 0 .d ri & a



# s .q rd a U 

### x ai 

### a 

### a Ln Q) 

# 2 W U cn E 0

0 k

CrJ Q1 X

CE: Ln iD HH cv .3l c i 

### + 

## *

2425provide a sufficiently large data 

### base 

### to be statistically significant in the evaluation process. A uniform.pattern 

### was established 

### for sampling nine main 

### stern stations considered to be critical for reflecting quality variations



# . (high frequency stations);

### fivemain 

### stemand four tributary stations considered somewhat 

### less 

### critical (medium frequency 

### stations) ; and eight tributary stations (low frequency stations). The high frequency stations 

### were sampled every other day; medium frequency stations, every fourth day. Sarnpling times for these stations were coincident with every second sample of the high frequency series. 

### Low frequency stations were sampled every eighth day, with samsling times coincident with every second sample in the medium frequency 

### series, and every fourth sample in the high frequency series, One extra set 

### of -the-'lowfrequency samples was included in the schedule 

### to compensate for the period when 

### no low frequency samples would be collected if the every eighth day algorithm 

### were strictlyobserved. The overall sampling scheme, shown 

### inAppendix B, 

### is summarized as follows: 11 days, 26 

### stations (9+9+8)

### =

8 days, 18 stations (9+9) 

### =
--. 18 days, 9 stations 

### = 

### TOTAL 286 samples 

### 144 samples 162 

### samples

~ 592 samples The desirability of reflecting 

### day to day variation was 

### also considered indesigning the sampling schedule.. Sampling * .every second, fou-rth, or eighth day over an eight week period insured that at least one sample would be taken from each station on each day of the week. Variations which could be t attributed to morning versus afternoon sampling times 

### were
26

### --- I 

### considered by varying 

### the direction

### of sampling; 

### i.e. east to west 

### or west to eastf according 

### to 

### a predetermined pattern.

I - . 

### . - I II 

### To optimize mileage logged 

### for 

### sampling, two 

### sample 

### collectors worked on the 

### project. One, 

### 'based 

### inKansas City, routinely 

### sampled 

### stations numbered-

### 1 through-12; 

### the pther based 

### in


# . . -., -.. ._ 

### _,.... .< ' . . . 3 . _.. .- . . I. -:7
~ -. 5.'
. -.. .

## _. .; . 

## -.:. .. . . - ,. .. 

## . - .. ._

- 

### 'Topeka,sampled 

### stations 13 

### through 26, 

### always 

### innumerica;l

.. . .*
.. .. 

### order; ' e..g. 1through 

### 12 or 12

### through 1. On high 

### &equency

. ..

. ..

. . sampling

. 

### days, one 

### man collected 'all

### nine samples-.

. The ._

. 

### ., . . . .. - ._ '' 

### Topeka-based collector 

### worked 

### on "west to east 

### days," and -. - 

### the Kansas 

### City-based 

### collector 

### worked 

### on ''east to 

### west days."

. 

### Time of travel 

### for sampie 

### collectors ranged from five 

### to eight 

### hours in 

### accordance with the predetermined 

### daily schedule. I -

-.



# . ­

27

### .. '1, SECTION 

### V

L :- -.. EXPERIMENTAL c Sample Collection and Preparation

- Samples 

### were coliected from the downstream side 

### of bridges, approximately midway across the 

### stream and 

### from a depth of two feet (except when river staging was too 

### low 

### to permit sampling 

### at this Ziepth). Bacteriological samples 

### were collected in 

### sterile bottles and iced for transport to the ,* ' .

... 

### EPA Region VI1 laboratory in Kansas City, Kansas, which served as project headquarters. Samples for physical and cnemical analyses 

### were collected with an APHA-type DO sampler, drop2ed three 

### tines at each station. One, 300 

### ml BOD bottle was filled 

### in the sampler, fixed in the field, and returned to the laboratory in a dark box for measurement of DO 

### by the Winkler nethod. Excess sample was placed in two, one liter cubitainers and iced for transport. Temperature was measured in the field. Sample preservation and maximum holding periods 

### were in accordance with those described in Standard Methods (13) or the 

### EPA Methods Manual 

### (14). Maximum time lapse between 

# - collection and receipt of samples 

### at the laboratory 

### was 

### six hours At the laboratory, DO titrations, BOD dilutions, and 

### all bacteriological samples 

### were processed immediately. 

### Approxi- 

# . mately 800 ml was-removed 

### from one cubitainer for the BOD test. The excess was preserved withmercuric chloride'(Hg

. C12, 1%) and refrigerated for subsequent 

### analysis of nutrients L (X03+N02, NH3, and PO4). A sample from the second cubitainer 

### was placed in a four ounce bottle, preserved with 

### HCI (2 

### ml),
28.... .

,, and refrigerated prior to shipping 

### toAnn Arbor for-measuring

\%,,
., TOC. 

### Excess sample 

### was refrigerated overnight (approximately ;a ; 

### .. 12 

### hours) at 4OC. The 

### following morning, it 

### was warmed 

### to 2SoC, mixed 

### by inversion, 

### and used 

### for-immediate determination of pH, conductivity, 

### and turbidity. The excess 

### was again refrigerated 

### for subsequent chloride, 

### solids (total and suspended), and ’COD analyses. A schematic illustration 

### of sample distribution 

### and preparation 

### is shown in Figure 2.



## .. Me tnods Seventeen parameters 

### were measured in the laboratory

# - the 

### nine 

### inWQI and eight closely related parameters 

# - to determine the validity 

### of term substitution inthe 

### index expression. (The eight additional parameters included: suspended solids, 

### chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC), total coliform density, and fecal streptococci.) Analytical procedures 

### were performed 

### inaccordance 

### with Standard Methods (13 ) 

### or the EPA 

# - Methods 

### Manual (14)

# . The specific methods used in this study 

### are shown 

### in Table 5. 

### Quality control procedures 

### were employed routinely throughout the laboratory phase of 

### this project. 

### EPA analytical reference standards 

### for all 

### parameters 

### were included 

### at random with routine analyses. Instruments 

### were standardized regularly before and during each use. In general, quality control procedures 

### were performed 

### in accordance with the EPA 

# - Eandbook



# - for 

### Water 

# - and 

### Wastewater Laboratories (15).

29 -1

### -- ’< ; E

.. 24- 

# . :. 

# .

.._..

## -

. ­



### ...--.

.



### . -. 

### a c (3

30k Q, U 

# 2 a k 

### a 0 0 In 0 PI rl 4 QI 0 m 0 0 rT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### c oal

E tn U LI *rl 

### '3; c 0 1 

### c E 'c a 

### a

F 0

n i9 Y al k 1 U a k o 

# 2 al E.c
310 v) 0 0 0 9. w m ri 0 

# . ch w \D \D ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \\ 0 0

Z rl a; E



# .. I IC, 0 -4

n 

## +A N 0" n 0-' n pc 

### "z m Y 0 - 5: 2 

### z v a, Y a 4­ 

### c tu 

### m .rl d 

## !? m 0 r, 

### c c4 i 

# f R

32k al

h \ n 0 d Eo 0 w L A - 0 d -4 

### c 0 rl 0 m

U U
W 4 

# R E 0 rl 0 \ 

# E! 4 \ =m v) 5 4 I Q) 4 c 

## 8 -4 rcr c, -4 

# s 5 

### a 4 0 Ll 

### c 

# 2 m 

### a -4 QI 

### c c 3 c, 0 

# . 0 al PI k 

### c rl 

### a m 2J 0 Q)



# .. w U 0 a 

### a W m 

### u c B -4 0 

# B a 

### z E 

### a -4 

# . 0 E 

### c c 0 4J Q) -4 QI 

### c Cr E 3

E 0 

# e .a 0 m E U k -4 0 ' c w 

# $c 0 

## 2g u Y rl m .c

rl 0 I m CD co 0 4, +c



# .. 8 0 ­ c, 

### a a k L, m

n P

### SECTION 

### VI.

, ' XESULTS 

### WQI(A) and 

### WQI(M) were calculated 

### for all sampling 

### days ex

### cept October: 6 when 

### aliqdots prepared 

### for N03+N02 

### (and 

### NH3) 

### were accidentally discarded. 

### In all calculations, temperature, expressed 

### as degrees C departure from equilibrium, 

### was assumed 

### to be 

### zero. No effects of heated 

### or cooled dis

### charge 

### were known to occur 

### at any sampling station included

. in the study. 

### Two tenperatures 

### were taken during the 

### early sampling runs 

# - one at the 

### site and one upstream

# - to confirm this hypothesis. 

### Data for each of the 17 individual parameters and 

### time of sampling are 

### mown by station inAppendix C 

### (Tables C-1 through C-26). Flow, provided by the U.S. Geblogical 

### Survey from gauging stations in the study area, 

### are 

### also reported 

### in tables 

### in Appendix 'C. 

### WQI(A)

## ,WQI (N)

## , and quality ratings (4.)

### for each parameter 

### in

### WQI are reported 

### by station 

### i n 1 -.. the tables (3-1 through D-26) inAppendix D. Note that temperature qi 

### is cansistently reported 

### as 94.9 as a result of assuming zero degrees departure from equilibrium 

### for 

### all samples. 

### Summary statistics 

### for each variable in

### WQI(A), including the 

### number of analyses 

### (n), arithmetic mean, standard de

### viation, standard error 

### of the mean, 

### minimum, and maximum 

### values are shown inAppendix 

### E (Tables E-l through E-26) 

### for each individual 

### station. 

### In Appendix 

### F (FiguresF-1 through 

### F-26)

## ,WQI(A) 

### is plotted versus 

### time (date) 

### of sampling for 

### each station. Water quality index profiles

# - WQI(A) versus distance

# - are 

### shown in Appendix G (Figures G-1 through 

### G-36). Note that 35



# .. 

### --
-- 

### -- distances ' 

### (station locations) are 

### approximate 

### in this series 

### of figures. 

### River stations-areconnected 

### by solid 

### line; + -. 

### tributary 

### WQI Is

### are 

### shown as .individual 

### poinfs 8 

### not connected

- 

### ,-, ....

### --.

### ...-.- 

## . ...

### - - .. -2; 1J.Y ..: ... 

### ,* 3.1.1.- *.*.:J.'kZl7 

### to.;the. 

### .solid'.:.line* ,i ...... ._ ... '" .
,.

.

### Numbers 

### near the data 

### po&nts refer,*to

_. . ... ..C"r.J*: .-:. , .- -. -a _I, . .. .. .s.-:,-: <..;e : ........ 

### at the_ 

## '-fibw8' in 

### cfslrecorded 

### at USGS 

### gauging 

### stations,

....> 

### - 2

### .. time

..-. -.

.i- .i ... 2...... . - ........ ... 0. _..-c.c-.­ 

### .of-sampling.

.. ...... ,_ _.*.

. . - .. -' IC.. 

## - ... :. .. 

### .. ..

# ..t .:

. . ---!,;. -;-:-. 

### .... ;.,; .......- .-,C,:,C;C. 

### - -?:;%..+

. . ..... -.

~ - .

.. ­

.. .. 

# .

..

I

\ 36SECTION VI1 

### DISCUSSION Quality

### Variations Deininger reported that values

# - +5 WQI are significantly 

### different, and. 

### "WQI 

### is pkobably sensitive

### down to.a 

### two point difference"(16). In discussing the data from this study -variations

# - +5 WQI(A) 

### or WQI (M) are assumed to be significant. Mean 

### values for 

### WQI(A) and WQI(M) at all stations over the 

### entireperiod of observation 

### are plotted 

### inFigure 3. Main 

### stern stations are connected 

### by a solid 

### line and tributary stations 

### are shown as isolated points, as described 

### in the 

### legend. From the data 

### in Figure 3, it 

### is apparent that quality in the main river 

### showed no significantvariation over the study period when expressed a5 mean 

### WQI(A) (range 65-68), and varied 

### only slightly as mean 

### WQI(M) (range 51-58). The quality at Willard, Lawrence, and Paxico was significantly better than atEudora 

### or Topeka, and atWillard, it 

### also exceeded the quality at the James Street station in Kansas 

### City (as

### WQI(M)) The greater range and sensitivity 

### of WQI(M) 

### is further 

### illustrated in--Figures 4 and 5 (mean, 

### high, and low 

### WQI(A) and 

### WQI(M), respectively, 

### for 

### main 

### river stations) and Figures 6 

### and 7 (mean, 

### high, and 

### low WQI(A) and 

### WQI(M) for 

### tributaries). 

### The effect 

### of one or two unusually 

### ''bad" parameters 

### is apparent 

### by visual comparison 

### of the range 

### of 

### WQS 

### values reported for the 

### Delaware River 

### (Figures 6 and 7). 

### This was the "best" quality tributary 

### over the 

### period of observation. 

### In the 

### sample taken on Sovernber 13th, turbidity and fecal coliforms

### were unusually high

# - 140 JTU and 2900/100 

### ml, respectively. The 

### highest turbidity level in any 

### other Delaware
37- . .. . -.

~ 

### .. 

### -

. -..­



# .

e ­
o

I.XIx I XIx 

# x" 

# 8"

eo

0 0

0

a


# . m aJ k 1*!1 'Id 5 VI .I.( 0 R

... . 38



# ...



# .

et I 

### - i

I I I 0 

### .. I

\ \ \ \ 0 'I I I 1 0 \ ki \

. o I \I,

\ I

i I \ I I \ 

# 7 1 I / / / \ e 0

40 VI... ._*­ 

# . ­

. ..



## - .. ,

C 0

0 e fi 

## - e e



### 41C. _"I f' *...­

.- . . . .. 

# - ­ 0



# .

42 0

### River sample was' 40 JTU; 

### the mean for 

### all other samples was 15.5 

### (JTU) 

### (Table C-12 Appendix C)

# . Expressed as qi, 

### a turbidity 

### of 140 JTU 

### equals 5.00;.

### a turbidity 

### of 40 

### JTU equals 44.7 

### (Table D-12,Appendix D)

# . '

### Fecal coliform density'" in the Delaware on November 13th was ZSOO/~-O-O

### ml. The mean

. . .. 

### of all 

### other samples 

### was 202/100 

### ml. Expressed as 

### qi, -. 

### these values are 14.6' 

### and 34.8, 

### respectively..

..'Other

.. 

### unusually high 

### data for

### -thissample are not '-included in the WQI 

### expression;'e.g., suspended solids and.totalcoliforms. Comparison 

### of the range of.WQI

### values shown in Figures 6 

### and

. .. . 

### 7 for the Delaware River 

### demonstrate the 

### improved sensitivity 

### of WQI(31) 

### fur 

### treating unusually bad 

### parameter values.

. I 

### The maximum 

### is the 

### same in both 

### .figbres,the mean, 

### only slightly less for 

### WQI (M)

## , but the 

### low WQI(N) 

### is significantly lower than 

### the lowest WQI(A). 

### Data 

### from Figures 3, 4 

### 5 

### 6,

### and 7 

### are 

### summarized in 

### Table 6. 

### Willard, the "best qzality" Kansas River station, is 

### a small town 

### (population 94) 

### about midway between Paxico 

### and Topeka. 

### Small 

### creeks discharge to 

### the 

### Kansas River between Paxico and 

### Willard, but 

### there is no reason to expect any of them to contribute significant pollutional loadings. The Willard location was 

### sampled principally because 

### of the 

### long distance between Paxico and 

### Topeka.

"Best"tributary quality was recorded 

### from the Delaware 

### and Big Blue Rivers, 

### discharging from Perry and Tuttle Creek 

### Reservoirs, respectively. 

### Because reservoir retention pro- * 

### vides time for self purification and sedimentation, the quality at these stations was expected to be consistently high. "Poorest"quality in the main river occurred at 

### the station near Eudora; just downstream 

### from Lawrence, and at 

### Topeka. "Poorest'~

### quality in a tributary was observed 

### in Shunganunga Creek. Quality variations at the Eudora station result
43Q) W I m mm Q. r-r. 

# -

W rn II I ** csr- m wv VI C?

# 1 ro

a

- .

### .2

a

cnrI 0 r( VI .c 

### .­ c LI h 0 5 L( Li a 4 E rl 4 

# cu al 

## L J

U U UI ra m 

# P

# s

44

..~

.

.e principally 

### from municipal and separate 

### industrial waste discharges in the Lawrence 

### area. (Wastes from Eudora 

### are discharged to the Wakarusa River which 

### enters the Kansas just downstream 

### from the Eudora station.) Lawrence discnarges 

### 4.57 rngd directly.to the Kansas 

### River 

### from a primary slant treating a 

### waste of 45,700 population equivalent, with'contributions from 

### at least nine industries including -,--organicdyes and inks, blood, and various 

### food processing



### wastes. Industrial wastes discharged directly 

### to the Xansas River include: 

### an electric utility (.01 mgd treated by extended 

### aeration plus .43 mgd cooling 

### water), 

### an industrial and agricultural chemical company (500 gprn 

### of untreated process 

### wastes containing phosphates, suspended solids, and hexavalent 

### chromium), and a paper and container board 

### company (900 gpm 

### of treated wastes containing suspended solids, sulfates, and organics with a mean BOD of 80 

### mg/l. Topeka is the second largest city

### in the study area, and discharges both municipal and industrial wastes directly to the main 

### river. The principal municipal wastewater treatment plant is located downstream from the Topeka sampling location and would not be expected 

### to have 

### an affect 

### on quality at this point. A 

### smaller plant (designed

-3 

### for 12,500 P.E. and loaded 

### at approximately 1000 

### P.E.) upstream from the sampling location discharges its effluent along 

### tkle north bank 

### of the 

### river and would 

### likely 

### not be wellmixed with 

### water in the river.at the referenced



### .. - sampling point. It 

### may 

### be reasonable to assume that either an unidentified direct industrial waste discharge 

### or 

### stokm water 

### fromTopeka contributed 

### to the relatively 

### low mean WQI value 

### observed at the Topeka location. Storm water discharge and effluents from the 

### wastewater treatment plant 

### serving Forbes Air Force 

### Base may 

### also contribute
45.. . .

.._ .

.

,

### ... , ... signifi.cantly 

### to the observed mean WQI 

### for Shunganunga b Creek, which 

### flows through the City 

### of .Topeka.'

.. The main 

### stem station with the widest range'of reported WQI 

### was at,Lecompton, just downstream 

### from the point where the Delaware River discharges to the Kansas, and downstream from Topeka. The Delaware contributes 

### good quality 

### flows to the Xansas with discharges from Perry Reservoir: 

### however, it appears that the main river may be stratified at the Lscom;?ton station and that the stratification linemay' change as.afunction of.relativeflows in the two 

### streams. Thus samples collected from midstream may'have been 

### in differeiit strata 

### at various 

### times of sampling. 

### Least variation 

### inmain 

### stream stations was observed inKansas City at 7th Street.' NOTE: 

### faom Ta'bee 6,

### it ih 

### appatd

### that ChaRactetihtich 

### obbsaved at any hampling 

### location wme.

### Xhe hame.

### whethet ca2cutationh..

### &eke additive. ok 

### mul2iplicative 

### in iotmat.



## -

. .

-.' : Despite--fhe brevity 

### of the field phase of this study, quality 

### inthe Ransas.'River and 

### its tributaries generally improved over .theperiod'of observation. Initial and final

### WQI(A) values for each sampling location 

### are plotted 

### in Figure 8. At

### a ievei'of 

# - +5 

### WQI 

### units, allmain river stations except Gansas City'at'7th Street, DeSoto, Lawrence, and 

### Ft. Riley, .* and 

### all tributary stations except the Delaware River, Soldier Creek, and Clark Creek, showed significant improvement. This

. 

### .. * 

### effect can likely be attributed to normal seasonal variation associased-withthe colder weather.
.1 

### .

. . 46

..U .A c H

47Although no significant variation in quality expressed as

i * mean WQI(A) 

### is demonstrated inthe main river.over the 

### entire sampling period, short 

### termvariations are apparent 

### from the figures inAppendices 

### F and 

### G. WQI(A) versus 

### time is plotted 

### for each station in Figures F-1 through 

### F-26 (Appendix

### F) I and profiles, WQI(A) versus distance, 

### are shown for each sampling day in'Figures 

### G-1 through G-36 (Appendix 

### G)

# . In Appendix-G, main 

### stem stations 

### are connected 

### by solid lines, tributary stations are 

### shown as isolated points, and 

### flow, from USGS gauging stations, by numbers (as

### cfs) near the quality designations. In general, the quality 

### of tributaries 

### isbetter than that in the main stream (Appendix G); however, Mill and Shunganunga Creeks 

### are frequent exceptions. 

### (Two "Mill" Creek sampling stations are included 

### in the study. These 

### were 

### on two separate creeks, one considerably east (upstream) of the other. Reference to 

### "Mill Creek" quality in the previous statement relates to the creek to the 

### east, near Kansas City.) Bridge construction near the MillCreek 

# .

stationmay have affected the data acquired at this location. From the figures inAppendix 

### F, it 

### is apparent that quality in

### rivers and tributaries 

### does vary between.sampling 

### periods, and thgt these variations 

### can be expressed 

### as WQI. This single number 

### expression of nine important 

### water quality parameters 

### is much 

### more meaningful than 

### similar plots 

### of single parameter 

### values, and'provides 

### a sound basis 

### for 

# .. water quality management decision making. Short 

### term variations 

### at individual stations are 

### shown inthe data plotted inAppendix 

### F. The quality changed significantly ?

(+5 WQI units) 

### from sample 

### to sample six

### times in the main 

# - river at 'Kansas City-James Street (10-14116, 10-20/22, 10-22/24, 11-07/09, 11-11/13, 11-15/17), and nine 

### times at 48Lecompton 

### (10-02/04, 11-11/13, 11-15/17, 

### 11-19/21, 

### 11;23/25, 11-27/29, 11-29/12-02, 12-02/03, 12-03/05). Lecompton was



# . the high frequency station previously reported (Table 6) 

### to be 

### "most variable" 

### on the

### main river. Most of the variation occurred 

### late -in

### the study: Every other 

### sample from 

### November 09-23? 

### and every 

### sample from 

### November 23-December OS 

### was significantly different 

### from the 

### sample taken either 

### just 

### before 

# - or just after -I or both, Four individual 

### parameters .- 

### POqr

### tbtal solids, turbidity, 

### and BODS

# - varied 

### appreciably during this period.

. 

## . Data from 

### Kansas river stations 

### atTopeka 

### and Lecompton and from tributary 

### stations discharging 

### between these two main 

### river stations

# - Soldier Creek (which 

### receives industrial wastes 

### from 

### a rubber company), Shunganunga Creek, and the Delaware River 

# - are plotted 

### in Figure 9. Data only from days on which all stations were sampled are 

### included. The upstream 

### station, Topeka, 

### is shown in the open 

### circle, solid line format, and the downstream 

### station, Lecompton, in the 

### closed circle, 

### solid lheformat. 

### The ability of 

### WQI to reflect the effect of tributary contributions on 

### overall quality of the main stream 

### is demonstrated 

### in this figure. During 

### the period 09-26 to 10-04, downstream quality

### was significantly 

### xltered by the 

### relatively poor quality discharged from Shunganunga Creek. 

### Flow in the creek was so 

### low atthe 

### time of sampling on 10-04 

### that 

### tne sample--*aepthwas 

### two inches (routinely 

### two feet), 

### thus temperature 

### was 

### high; percent DO saturation, 

### low; fecal coliform density, high; 

### etc. Flow inthe main 

### stream was 

### also relatively low during 

### this period, thus the apparent effect of the tributary contribution 

### was dramatic. Downstream quality 

### improved on 10-12, apparently as 

### a result of rainfall that provided dilution, and 

### the release 

### of 

### high quality 

### water -! 

### from Perry Reservoir, and peaked on 10-20 with good 

### quality contributions from alltributary sources. Conversely, 49..



### ..
5;:. ....

. 

# -..-

I ...._ . -.. .. .. .

..

### .

. . ,

:­

\ --.- 

# . e \ * . *

\ 

# .

1 

# . .)

. 

# b



# .

n 4. Y Y 3 50 

### r

..quality dropped 

### in 

### all the 

### tributaries 

### on 11-13, 

### and downstream quality again 

### reflected these changes. Flow 

### on this date was relatively high 

### at 

### all. stations

# - from1800 cfs on 11-05 

### at 

### Topeka to 4000 

### cfs on 11-13; 150 cfs 

### on 11-05 

### on the 

### Delaware River to 500 

### on 11-13; 40 

### cfs on Soldier 

### Creek to 3000 cfs; and 2600 

### cfs to 5200 cfs atLecompton. It would appear .that 

### these flows had a scouring 

### effect on 

### the streams

### which reflectea in calculated 

### values of WQI. 

### Flows recorded 

### for 

### Topeka, the Delaware River, and Lecompton 

### between the intervals 

### shown inFiguxe 9 continued 

### to increase, then became relatively consistent 

### for Lecompton; e.g. 

## , 11-15, 12,000 

### cfs; 11-17, 10,000 

### cfs; 11-19, 9600 Cfs; 11-21, 8000 cfst 11-23, 7400 cfs; 

### 11-25, 7400 cfs; 

### 11-27, 7700 

### cfs 

### (from Table 

### C-llf Appendix 

### Cl 

# - until peak quality was 

### observed on 11-29. With some basic knowledge of.the sampling 

### sites, fiow characteristics, 

### etc., it 

### is possible 

### to explain the apparent trends inFigure 9, and 

### to use this information to.predict future effects 

### of changes 

### in quality atthese locations. WQI provides an 

### ideal method 

### for presenting overall quality variations 

### as a function of time and 

### distance. No single parameter data could 

### be used 

### inachieving similar objectives. 

### ..-. 

### .' Frequency 

### of Sampling, Computing, 

### and Reporting 

### WQI

4 

### In determining optimum sampling frequency, "true 

### mean" and "true standard deviation" 

### were computed for the 

### largest data base available; 

### i.e.,- WQI values for the 

### nine high frequency stations. For every station 

### {i) 

### in this groupf there were i 

### thirty-seven WQI values 

### [Wi'1' 'i,2, 

### 'i,3***, 'i,37 

### I which refer to every other sampling day (1, 3, '5, 

### 7..., 37) during 51

## - the study. \ 

### - , -. .. 

## - I_­ \


### -

.-. .-,The data 

### recurd was then divided inhalf 

### by

.. arranging the
_. 

### . .



### - :WQS's into two 

### sets. Consecutive values in each 

### set

### now 

# .

-
.. 

### refer to samples taken four days (d) apart;

### _- -i.e.

## ,

.I.' ,'- 

### I 11.

.. '**dl '*Id 2 d3 d4 ds ds

Mean (Mi, and M. 12 

### 1 and percent deviation 

### (PDi, and PD. ) 1 2 from the mean 

### were calculated 

### for each of.these two 

### sets.

.. To estimate deviation from the 

### true mean if samples 

### were taken



### .. every fourth rather than every second day,' average percent deviation 

### was calculated. The steps 

### are summarized as 

### follows: [WlrlI 

### Wir2? Wit3..., 

### Wit3, 

### 1 3 TMi and 

### TSDi (3

### 1 where 

## --. i 

### = station 1, 2, 3,...9 

### W = 

### WQIl

# .. .WQf37 

### at station 

### i TM 

### =, 

### true mean \ TSD = ' true standard deviation

... 

### -
(TMi-Mi- ) r l 

# - x 

### 100 (4

### 1 

## s TMi
52and

(TMi 

### -Mi ) I2

3) iSDi.= 

### PDi = 

### 1/2 {PDi 

### + PDi ) rl r2 

### Tnis process was continued 

### for three through 19 ssks 

### of sub 

### records; i.e., percent deviation 

### of mean WQI was estimated for 

### samples taken every fourth, sixth, eighth. 

# . . fortieth day versus the "truemean" experienced with sampling 

### every second 

### day. Using this approach, the lowest-percent deviation from the true mean occurred 

### for samples taken 

### every sixth day for six 

### of the 

### nine stations. For all 

### nine stations, twenty-day 

### sampling frequencies 

### provided WQI values with 

### less 

### than (<) 2%average deviation 

### from the mean. If this 

### is sufficient accuracy 

### for routine .surveillance

### programs 

### in the study area, the every 

### twentyday 

### sampling scheme 

### should 

### be adopted. Results 

### of this 

### analysis-are-"shown 

### in Table 7.
The practice 

### of calculating WQI 

### each 

### time data 

### for 

### allniiie parameters 

### are available 

### is recommended. With calculators and computers generally 

### available, 

### calculation bf WQI 

### is a simple "next step" in processing 

### water quality data. Hand calculation, though 

### more tedious is 

### also manageable. f 

### The optimum frequency 

### for reporting WQI 

### is a 

### function of variations 

### indata which may occur 

### as a result 

### of localnoc '(c r) I mer W-r] wwu QIN



# .. .. 40- ON, NPI

O r l P mn< C ) N V 3 L? 

# . mne nmr



# .. 

# .. ooc Orlr 4 0 r oor n n c



# .. 

# .. "C 44.

oou ncrc s a c nmc .n o ,- mor



# .. 

# .. -44- Nrlr

0 4 L1 wmc mmm .tor mmm N *.c



# ...

# .. 000 44­
3wm mm- PW9. m-o ??? owu 

# .. 300 40- -40­
nmn sma u w.n nm(c qwy mmlc



# .. . . I -404 44-
PImm CCNP 3 PI L1 o.pF* -Om



# ... mwu

. . I 44d OOr

omm mw-z -tmw noa nwch 

# ... mmm ..I aoo 404 L



## - oN-w w ~ m m

moo 

# .... nnw.0

I YITW Y N N

, . nwv) IC-901 .. -444 1444

54conditions. 

### The duration

### of the field sampling phase 

### of this study 

### was too short to reflect 

### seasonal variations, and 

### improperly timed 

### to be coincident with high temperature, 

### low flow conditions. A 

### firm recommendation 

### for frequency 

### of reporting

### WQI should be made only when these additional data 

### are available 

### for consideration. Review 

### of statistical data (Appendix 

### E) from the period of observation suggests that 

### reporting only 

### once every three months 

### or more 

### is sufficient 

### to indicate 

### water quality conditions during the fallmonths. 

### By applying least squares regression, four parameters 

### were shown 

### to account 

### for more than 90%of the variance 

### in WQI 

### over the period of observation. Results 

### of these analyses 

### are summarized 

### in Table 8. 

### The summary is grouped 

### to include 

### 1) 

### all data and 2) allmain 

### stem river stations.

. 

### Although tne same four 

### parameters 

### are indicated 

### in both groups 

### of data, variation 

### in their relative importances 

### is noted. By difference, it 

### is apparent that fecal 

### coliform density accounts 

### for most of the variance inquality at tributary stations but 

### is a considerably 

### less importact parameter 

### at river 

### stations. 

### Although there 

### is no adequate substitute.�or adopting a uniform method 

### of reporting 

### water quality, this information, 

### when related to costs 

### for labora

### tory analysis 

### of



### - - .. 

### each 

### parameter, 

### is useful inplanning routine data acquisition programs. 

### In reporting 

### WQX all nine parameters in the expression must be measured. However, 

### more frequent analysis 

### of 

### fewer parameters 

### may 

### be used 

### to show intermittent trends 

### in stream quality, particularly at 

### critical 

### locations.



# .

55

## -- ..

"C . - . . 1..

' , 

### ..

. .'. :

. . . *

.



### -

. . .. . ..
..

.

### ­ .. .... . Table 8.. 'XEGRESSION-ANhYSIS 

### OF 

### WQI PARAMETERS 

### - .

' 

### BY FORWARD 

### SELECTION
All Data 

### - (From 

### Quality Ratings) Parameter Fecal coliforms. BOD Turbidity 

### p04

DO (%Sat) 

### Total solids 

### PH R2 .524

' -726

.826 .916
.956 .987 0997 NO3 C NO2 .1.000 

### All River 

### Stations (From qi) Parameter 

### R2 BODj .407 

### Turbidity -718 p04

. ,843 

### Fecal 

### coliforms 

# .904



### Total solids -938 DO (%

### Sat) 0

### 973 

### PH 

# .994 NO3 

### + NO2 1.000

-.

I

56.. .

.. . 

### SECTION VI11

. 4 SPECIAL STUDIES Parameter Correlations In field application 

### of 

### WQI, the feasibility

### of parameter substitution 

### is frequently discussed. 

### To establish 

### the. effect of modifying 

### parameters., 

### as

### well as reducing 

### the number of 

### total parameters in the index expression, labora

### tory analysis in.this study was extended to include 15 

### parameters 

### for 

### all samples, and 

### 17 parameters 

### on 11 predetermined sampling days. Analytical data for 

### all samples included the following measurements:



# - all nine parameters inWQI, plus
I 

# - -.conductivity, pmhos/cm



# - suspended solids, mg/l



# - amonia, mg/l NH~-N



# - chlorides, mg/l



# - total 

### coliform density, #/lo0 

### ml



# - fecal 

### streptococci, 

### #/lo0 

### ml Analytical data 

### for samples collected on 9-28, 10-6, 10-10, 10-18, 10-26, 11-3, 11-11, 11-15, 11-19, 

### 11-27, and 

### 12-5 included two additional parameters :



# - chemical oxygen demand' (COD) 8 mg/l 

### and

-' 

### total organic 

### carbon (TOC) I mg/l. Correlation coefficients for eight 

### selected pairs of 

### para

### meters are shown 

### in Table 9: total solidsversus conductivity, total solids versus suspended solids, turbidity versus suspended 

### solids, fecal coliforms versus total 

### coli

### forms,'and fecal coliforms versus 

### fecal streptococci.
57-- .. 

### ­ - .. .

, .. - Table 

### 9. 

### CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR

. SELECTED PARAMETERS 

### All Data 

### All River 

### Stations 

### R @ 95. = .083 

### R @ 

### 95. = .094 

### Parameters 

### R @ 99. 

### = 

### .lo9 

### R @ 

### 99. 

### = .123 

### Total solids versus .385

. . 

### Conductivity Total solids versus .742 Suspended 

### solids .Turbidityversus ,932 Suspended 

### solids

' 

### Fecal 

### coliforms versus ,855 Total coliforms Fecal coliforms 

### versus ,165 Fecal streptococci ".-* 

### .456

.575

.937

.849
,131

58

### In each pair, the parameter 

### in WQI 

### is 

### listed first; the

.% related parameter 

### follows. Data.are grouped 

### to include 

### all data, and allmain 

### river stations, with correlation coefficients-expressed 

### at 95 

### and 

### 99 percent 

### levels of confidence. 

### The degree of correlation 

### at 95 and 99 

### percent confidence levels

### was determined 

### for each individual 

### station included in the study. These data are summarized 

### in Table 

### 10. 

### Re-

. 

## ': sults 

### of individual station correlation 

### are shown in 

### Appendix 

### H. From the 

### sumnary (Table 10) it is apparent that suspended solids can be substituted 

### for turbidity 

### measurements, and 

### total coliforms for 

### fecal coliforms with a high level of confidence. Other parameters 

### were 

### not I 

### shown to be 

### closely related. Hoilrly Variations One twenty-four-hour study

### was undertaken on 

### November 6, ' 1972 

### from the 7th Street Bridge 

### in Kansas 

### City. 

### Samples

. were taken 

### every 

### two hours and brought 

### to the laboratory 

### for measurement 

### of the nine parameters inWQI. Data 

### for 

### each individual 

### parameter and the 

### WQI'S 

### are listed 

### inTable 11;. No significant variations 

### in WQI occurred during 

### this period: 

### however, the data may 

### have been 

### affected by heavy 

### rainfall at 1000, 

### 1200, 

### and 1400 

### hours and light 

### rain at 1600 

### and 1800 hours. 

### Flow rate was 

### not measured, 

### thus actual 

### effects 

### of the rainfall 

### are not determined. It 

### is entirely possible that 

### flow patterns for storm water discharge followed the 

### banks too closely 

### for detection at 

### midstream, where samples 

### for this study

59



# ....



# .

.

'$I 

# iz 3 VI I 0

rl 0



# . 0 rl aJ ro

60

### ..



# .

rr Q, Q, k

,'C

u1 E fd X



### 61\\ were obtained. There is no reason to 

### assume that sampling or analytical 

### errors contributed to the .uniform quality reflected 

### in reported WQI. .- Transverse and Vertical Variations On December 5 and 8, 1972, sampl.es 

### were taken 

### .from a boat 

### to reflect transverse and vertical variations inKansas River 1 . quality at the 

### Kansas City-7th Street sampling station. A profile 

### of the stream at this station 

### is 

### shown in Figure 10. Sampling sites 

### for both studies are indicated on the profile. Points 1, 3, and 5 are’two feet 

### below the water surface. Point 2 is six feet, Point 4 is seven feet, and Point 6 is eight feet below the surface. On December 5th, beginning 

### at 0830 hours, samples 

### were taken in sequence 

### from each of the sixpoints indicated inFigure 10. A single bottle Dunker sampler, flamed 

### at the 

### inlet tube and in the chamber with 

### a propane torch, 

### was used for sampling. Sampling was repeated at each point in sequence beginning at 1000 hours and again at 1100hours. Microbiological data obtained from 

### this study 

### are reported in Table 12; 

### -_. In 

### a similar study 

### on December 8th, 

### two se-tsof samples 

### were taken 

### at-approximately

### three hour intervals 

### from the 

### same 

### sixpoints, beginning 

### at about 1000 

### hours. These samples 

### were analyzed for the nine parameters in

### WQI. Samples 

### for fecal coliforms 

### were taken with a flamed Dunker sampler. Samples for allother parameters were obtained 

### in a Kenunerer sampler and transported 

### to the laboratory in cubitainers. Data from this study 

### are shown inTable 13. Little ifany significant change is apparent 

### over the period 

### of observation. 62c

..

.. 0 N '.

. . ..



# . 0 

# s+. . .

Table 12. RESULTS OF MICROBIOLOGICAL STUDY KANSAS RIVER AT 

### KANSAS 

### CITY-7TH STREET 

### December' 5, 1972

Total 

### Time Pt. No. 

### Coliforms Fecal 

### Fecal 

### Coliforms Streptococci
0830 1

. , 

### 2 3 4 . . 

# - 3 6 1OGO 1 2 3 

### 4

3 5 6 

### 1100 

### . 1 2 

### 3 4 5 

### 6 (1) flaximum 

### (2) 

### Minimum 45,000 62,000 (1) 

### 46

## ,000 

### 41,000 49

### ,000 

### 38,000 40,000 

### 59,000 40,000 

### 35,000 31,000 35,000 55,000 48,000 35,000 40,000 

### 33,000 28,000 (2)



### 64 3

## ,700 4

## ,100



### . 2,800 3,500 3

## ,600 3

## ,600 5,700 (1) 4,600 3,800 

### 3

## ,400 

### 3,200 

### 3,100 5,600 3,800 

### 4,300 5,300 2

## ,900 2,600 (2) 2,300 

### 2,600 1,900 

### 1,200 1,300 1,700 1,500 

### 1,900 1,700. 

### 1,500 1,700 1,400 2,800 (1) 

### 2,300 2,200 

### 1,400 1,400 1,100 

### (2)

# ............ mmmmmmoo4ori#-l s-fdFidddrl4ddrit-i

H 01 3 000000000000 

### fa 

# ............ c dd0000d40000 w rn k NwmmeW0mmwr-b a mON4NNNNdOON +) .o m Q) 000000000000 E w k wQ3mm~woo~oom a co Q) 03 w 0) w m 9 m.m m OJ 

### a 

# ............ 000000000000 4 IU a 

### a 4 3 -4 

### a E m H oommdmomrlrimo 

# ............ .w mcle03r- Q3 w am ea

65Biological Sampling Atthe outset 

### of this project, it seemed desirable 

### to 

### attempt to

### relate biological data 

### to WQI 

### by installing rock 

### filled sampling 

### baskets at various locations in the stream and. observing the diversity 

### of species which collected 

### on the rocks 

### over a period 

### of 

### sixweeks. On October 

### 17, 1972, five 

### sets 

### (two each) of.baskets

### were installed: one 

### set in the Kansas River 

### at Lecompton, one at Willard, 

### two atFort Riley,

. and 

### one in Soldier Creek. Within the first week, allbut

two 

### sets, at Lecornpton and Willard, 

### were vandalized. 

### These two 

### sets remained intact and 

### were retrieved on November 28th. The organisms which persisted are identified inAppendix I. Tne sample 

### sizewas 

### too 

### small for 

### statistical analysis of species diversity, richness, evenness, redundancy, dominance, 

### etc,; however, the taxa identified can be said to represent a stable community composed 

### of predators, filter feeders, 

### grazers, and other omnivores. The d'iversity of this community ana its food and feeding habits would characterize *

1

the following conditions of its aquatic environment: Fairlyrapidly'rnoving 

### water (0.6-1.5 ft/sec, 

### 1. which contains phytoplanlcton, detached 

### algae

## , and other suspended 

### materials, Bottom composed 

### mostly of rubble, gravel, and 

### some sand which 

### is covered with periphyton (attached algae) and aquatic 

### moss

## , Oxygen levels usually above 80%saturation. 

### This is.'particularly 

### true of water at Willard where three speciesof stoneflies

(Plecoptera) 

### were found. (This group 

## .--

-- 

### be eliminated 

### usually .'is the 

### first to\,

. . .-. .-. --J -. -e*;, 

### -

. _.... 

### - -. -. ,- 7..


# . .=$.-., -Y s .... c ­ ** . 

### when oxygen.c0ncentfation"i.s 'decre'a'skd. )-

# '
-.. 

## . _-. *

~ -_-I. .~.
-..- 

### 4) -Turbidity 

### (silt, shifting 

### sand) 

### 'rela-

.
.

### ... ...-'

### tively.

### low atWillard dGing 

### this period of observation. Stoneflies

. 

### (Plecoptera) and mayflies (Ephemerop

### tera) 

### are well 

### represented.

. .­ 5) A 

### more stable community 

### at Willard than that at Lecompton, suggesting 

### better water quality atWillard. 

### This -observation is 

### supported by 

### WQI (MI

calculation reported 

### inTable 6.

. , .... : .. ....-M .- 

### SECTION 

### IX REFERENCES 1. 

### "Restoring the Quality 

### of Our 

### Environment," Report Of 

### the Envirokntal Pollution Panel, President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House, Washington, Do C.



### (1965). 8.2. 

### Institutions 

### for Effective Management of the Envikonment,

, 

### Report 

### of the Environmental Study Group

## , Environmental Board, National Academy 

### of Sciences,National Academy 

### of Engineering, Washington, 

### D. C. 

### (1970). 3. "The 

### Case for National Environmental Laboratories, If 

### Report 

### by Ad 

### Hoc EEL 

### Concept Committee, Oak Ridge National

. 

### Laboratory 

### for the 

### Senate Committee on Public Works, U.S.G.P.O., Washington, 

### D. C. 41970). 4. 

### Environmental Quality, the Third Annual Report 

### of the Council on EnvironmentaS Quality,.Washington, D. C.

## ,

(1972). 5. 

### Train, Russell 

### E., "Management for the Future. 'I 

### Presented at the National Conference on Managing the Environment, Washington, D. 

### C. (May 

### 1973). 6. 

### Dal-key,N. 

### C., 

### DELPHI. The 

### Rand Corporation (1968). 7. 

### Public Health Service DrinkinsWater Standards. United 

# - States Department 

### of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, (1962). 8. 

### Brown, R.. M., McClelland, 

### N. I.t Deininger, R. A., 

### and Tozer, R. 

### G., "A 

### Water Quality Index

# - Do We 

### Dare?" Presented at 

### National Symposium on Data and Instrumentation for Water Quality Management,Madison, Wisconsin,

(1970) 

### and published in Water 

# - & 

### Sewage Works, (1970).

c 68 I

>

# ---- 

# --

---



# --- c 

### 9. 

### Brown, R. M., McClelland, 

### N.

. .

### I., Deininger, R. A., and \ 

### Landwehr, J. 

### M., 

### "Validating the WQI." 

### Presented at-the National Meeting 

### of 

### the American Society 

### of Civil

-. 

### Engineers, Washington, D. C. (1973). 10. 

### "WQI 

### Field Validation Report to 

### Participating Agencies" (unpublished). (1973). 

### 11. O'Connor, M. 

### F. I 

### "The Application 

### of Multi-Attribute

. 

### Scaling Procedures to the Development 

### of Iniices 

### of'Water Quality." Ph.D. dissertation, University 

### of Michigzn

(1971). 12. 

### Interim Basin-Planfor Kansas River Basin, Kansas, Prepared by Kansas State Department 

### of Health,,Division 

### of 

### .. Environmental Health, Topeka, Kansas (1971). 13. 

### Standard Methods for the Examination 

### of Water li 

### Wastawater, 13th Edition, Published and Prepared by American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation (1971). 14. 

### Methods 

### for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Manual 

# - of 

# - .EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Water Quality Office, Cincinnati, Ohio (1971).

.. 

### .15. 

### Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and


# - Wastewater Laboratories,Analytical Quality Control



### .. Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (1972) 16. 

### Deininger, R. A,, Landwehr, J:M., 

### "AWater Quality 

### Index for Public Water Supplies." Department of Environmental and Industrial Health, The University 

### of Michigan (1971).
69.

### -.- -. .- 

### -

.

.. # .. .: -APPENDICES

. t . _. :: . . .
-.A-.. 

### Water -Quality 

### C.uryes
, ..

B, Sampling Scheme

. .. C. Sample Data

D. QualityRatings 

### .and WQI

I .-_ E. 

### Summary Statistics
..- . F. Water QualityIndex



### G. Water Quality

### Index Profiles

--.- H. Parameter Correlations

.. ... I. 

### Biological Organisms 

# .

.

### Page 

### 71 .­
80



### 81

107
133

159 ,

185


### 22i

226

70h I 

# -.. Q It 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 rn 00 h co Ln*z M (u 4 I'



### 71W

v\ 4

(. 0
> ­ w 24

m 0 rl
a w 0,
Uz 0 u h 0 0 03 M lL 0' 0 r 4
J 0 u a-4 e W a W > U



# .
w r I c i
.- 0 a u ..4 0 

## 5 $: W LL

72\

n

73 I

# .
\ '\

Y

CL WI

# s

f d a C

73

# .. wI

## Pv) 

### d’ II 3

I- 

# ­

760 4 

### d I1 x

I. 0 w urn c 0 4 0 ILh z

LLI a 3cU a W P E w !­

77>

-- ‘\ \ A - I- 

# ­ od 0



# - P 0 II 3

w CI

i 

### c

00000030000 0 cn 00.h Ln M cv l-l 4

..0 0LAw O u In z 

## = w . a

-i 0 

## g a Uj N 0 0 N 0 0 ILn 4

O Ln

79..-..



### APPENDIX 

### B OVERALL SAMPLING 

### SCHEME I’ANSAS RIVER STUnY 

### Sampler 

### Stationed

inKansas 

### City

H: High 

### Frequency Stations Every 2nd day

L -. 14: Medium Frequency 

### .Stations

### Every 4tn day


### L: Low Frequency 

### Stations Every 8th 

### day 

### (~16s 1 

### extra day) On west to 

### east 

### days: 16, 20,-24 

### 6, 10, 12

7, 9

80 

### Sampler Stationed 

### in Topeka
On east to 

### west

days:. 

### #1, 3, 5, 8, 

### 11, 14, 16, 20, 24 

### #18, 21, 22, 25,



### 26



### C13, 15, 

### 17, 19,

23