Geology topics

Thomas J. Williams

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas J. Williams.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Computation of bromide concentrations at the Kansas River at De Soto, Kansas, January 2021 through October 2023

The Kansas River is an essential water resource that provides drinking water to more than 950,000 people in northeastern Kansas. Water suppliers that rely on the Kansas River as a water-supply source use physical and chemical water-treatment strategies to remove contaminants before distribution. Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas (WaterOne), is the largest water supplier in the State and uses the Kansas and Missouri Rivers as water-supply sources to provide drinking water to the Kansas City metropolitan area. WaterOne has been using ozone disinfection as a primary water-treatment strategy since the summer of 2020. Water suppliers that rely on ozone disinfection have become increasingly concerned with the presence of elevated dissolved bromide (the negatively charged form of bromine; hereafter referred to as “bromide”) concentrations in their water-supply source. Ozone disinfection of source water containing elevated concentrations of bromide can lead to the formation of bromate, a regulated disinfection byproduct and probable carcinogen. Real-time computations of bromide concentrations upstream from the WaterOne source-water intake in the Kansas River can be used to assist WaterOne with proactive adjustment of water-treatment strategies. These computations can also be used to advance understanding of hydrologic processes affecting ozone disinfection and formation of bromate. This report documents the development of the surrogate-regression model that computes bromide concentrations in real time at De Soto, Kansas, and characterizes daily and monthly bromide concentrations at this location during the study period. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with WaterOne, collected specific conductance and discrete bromide sample data at the USGS streamgage Kansas River at De Soto, Kans. (06892350; hereafter referred to as “De Soto”), during January 2021 through October 2023 to develop a surrogate-regression model using ordinary least-squares regression that computes bromide concentrations at De Soto, which is about 15 miles upstream from the WaterOne source-water intake in the Kansas River. Specific conductance explained about 85 percent of the variance in bromide concentrations at De Soto during the study period. The surrogate-regression model documented in this report estimated that bromide concentrations at De Soto were likely to exceed the WaterOne water-treatment level of concern (150 micrograms per liter [μg/L]) when specific conductance was greater than or equal to about 930 microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Surrogate-regression model computations of bromide concentrations documented in this report are available at the USGS National Real-Time Water-Quality website ( https://nrtwq.usgs.gov/ ). Bromide concentrations in discrete samples ranged from 31.9 to 251 μg/L and exceeded the water-treatment level of concern in about 34 percent of the 41 samples collected at De Soto during January 2021 through October 2023. Computed daily bromide concentrations ranged from 38.2 to 277 μg/L and exceeded the water-treatment level of concern about 46 percent of the time during January 2021 through October 2023. Generally, an inverse relation was observed between bromide and streamflow during the study period. Higher bromide concentrations were observed during September through February, and lower bromide concentrations were observed during March through August. Seasonal median bromide concentrations were significantly different in all pairwise seasonal combinations, except for summer versus spring. Computed median bromide concentrations were highest during winter, followed by fall, then spring and summer.

Kansas↗

USGS2024

Methods for computing water-quality concentrations and loads at sites operated by the U.S. Geological Survey Kansas Water Science Center

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Kansas Water Science Center (KSWSC) has published time-series computations of water-quality concentrations and loads based on in situ sensor data since 1995. Water-quality constituent concentrations or densities are computed using regression models that relate in situ sensor values to laboratory analyses of periodically collected samples. These regression models currently (2024) follow no uniform published guidance and are individually documented through USGS reports. This report describes updated (2024) procedures designed to improve the consistency, quality, and timeliness of computed continuous water-quality data produced by the USGS KSWSC. Beginning in 2024, models developed by the USGS KSWSC that follow specific procedures and requirements related to sample collection, model fit, and model documentation outlined in this report are planned to be published and stored in the USGS National Real-Time Water Quality Data for the Nation Data Service. This report also describes USGS KSWSC procedures for evaluating and publishing time-series water-quality computations after initial model development and documentation. This guidance can be used to improve USGS KSWSC model development and data computation consistency and streamline the time-series water-quality computation process from model development to publication.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

Water-quality trends in the Kansas River, Kansas, since enactment of the Clean Water Act, 1972–2020

The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in 1972 to regulate pollution within the waters of the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the Kansas Water Office, the Nature Conservancy, the City of Lawrence, the City of Manhattan, the City of Olathe, the City of Topeka, WaterOne, and Evergy, compiled and analyzed historical streamflow and water-quality data collected by USGS and KDHE to characterize trends in water-quality constituents of interest because of their relation to water supply, drinking-water treatment, and sediment and nutrient transport, among others (total dissolved solids, chloride, ammonia, dissolved inorganic nitrogen [ammonia and nitrate plus nitrite], total nitrogen, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria) during mean- and low-flow conditions in the Kansas River since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 through 2020. Trends in water-quality concentrations, or densities, and loads were analyzed using the Exploration and Graphics for RivER Trends R package and Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model at upstream (Kansas River at Wamego, Kansas; USGS station 06887500) and downstream (Kansas River at De Soto, Kansas; USGS station 06892350) locations along the Kansas River using streamflow and water-quality data collected by the USGS and KDHE during 1972 through 2020. The Exploration and Graphics for RivER Trends Confidence Intervals R package and WRTDS bootstrap test estimated direction, uncertainty, and likelihood of trends in concentration and loads for each water-quality constituent of interest. Downward trends in concentration and load were observed for 5 of the 9 water-quality constituents at both sites during mean-flow conditions during the study period. During low-flow conditions, 7 of the 9 constituents exhibited downward trends, possibly reflecting reductions in point-source contributions to the Kansas River. Downward trends in ammonia, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and total nitrogen during mean- and low-flow conditions were observed at both Kansas River sites, which were similar to patterns observed nationally. Upward trends were generally observed for orthophosphate and total phosphorus, which were similar to patterns observed at sites in the Mississippi River Basin. Downward trends, or no trend, were observed for chloride. Upward and downward trends were observed for total dissolved solids. Downward trends in total suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria were observed at both sites, which were also similar to patterns observed nationally. The long-term trend analyses in this report are an essential step to understanding how water-quality conditions have changed in the Kansas River since the passage of the Clean Water Act.

Kansas↗

USGS2023

Linear regression model documentation for computing water-quality constituent concentrations or densities using continuous real-time water-quality data for the Kansas River above Topeka Weir at Topeka, Kansas, November 2018 through June 2021

The Kansas River and its associated alluvial aquifer provide drinking water to more than 950,000 people in northeastern Kansas. Water suppliers that rely on the Kansas River as a water-supply source use physical and chemical processes to treat and remove contaminants before public distribution. An early-notification system of changing water-quality conditions allows water suppliers to proactively make decisions that affect water treatment. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office (funded in part through the Kansas Water Plan), the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, The Nature Conservancy, the City of Lawrence, the City of Manhattan, the City of Olathe, the City of Topeka, WaterOne, and Evergy, began collecting water-quality data at the Kansas River above Topeka Weir at Topeka, Kansas (USGS site 06888990, hereafter referred to as the “Topeka site”), during November 2018 to develop linear regression models that relate continuous in situ water-quality sensor measurements to discretely sampled water-quality constituent concentrations or densities. The addition of the Topeka site expanded an existing water-quality monitoring network, which included the upstream Kansas River at Wamego, Kans., and downstream Kansas River at De Soto, Kans., sites. Linear regression analysis was used to develop models that compute real-time concentrations or densities for total dissolved solids, major ions, hardness as calcium carbonate, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus species), chlorophyll a , total suspended solids, suspended sediment, and Escherichia coli at the Topeka site using data collected during November 2018 through June 2021. Water-quality constituent concentrations or densities computed from the models documented in this report are available at the USGS National Real-Time Water-Quality website (https://nrtwq.usgs.gov), are useful to the public for cultural and recreational purposes, and can be used to guide water-treatment processes, compare conditions with Federal and State water-quality criteria, and characterize changes in Kansas River water-quality conditions through time.

Kansas↗

USGS2021

Technical note—Relative variability of selected turbidity standards and sensors in use by the U.S. Geological Survey

The challenges associated with field measurements of turbidity are well known and result primarily from differences in reported values that depend on instrument design and the resulting need for reporting units that are specific to those designs. A critical challenge for making comparable turbidity measurements is the selection and use of appropriate turbidity standards for sensor calibration. The accepted primary standards for turbidity measurements use formazin made from scratch; all others should relate back to readings obtained using standard formazin. However, because turbidity is a qualitative property of water, comparing standards is not as simple as it is for many chemical measurements. The U.S. Geological Survey “National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data” currently allows for the use of two standards, formazin and polymer beads, for the calibration of field turbidimeters. Another challenge for making comparable turbidity measurements is selection of turbidity sensors. A turbidity sensor commonly used in the U.S. Geological Survey, the Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) 6136, has been replaced by the manufacturer with the YSI EXO turbidity sensor. Both sensors operate on the same principles but have slight design differences that result in readings that are not directly comparable on a 1:1 basis. Differences in calibration standards and sensors are a cause of concern in ongoing studies that require switching calibration standards or sensor types, and for comparisons of data collected with sensors calibrated by using different calibration standards, different sensor types, or both. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the response of two YSI turbidity sensors in both formazin-based standards (StablCal) and polymer turbidity standards (in this case YSI brand; however, other brands are available) and to compare the performance of the YSI EXO and YSI 6136 turbidity sensors under similar laboratory and environmental (field) conditions. To quantify these differences, a series of laboratory and field side-by-side comparisons were conducted. Nine field comparisons of YSI EXO and YSI 6136 sensors were performed at site locations in Kansas and Virginia. Two field comparisons of StablCal and polymer calibration standards were performed in Kansas, both using YSI EXO turbidity sensors. Five laboratory comparisons between the YSI EXO and YSI 6136 turbidity sensors were performed, and seven laboratory comparisons between StablCal and polymer turbidity standards were performed using YSI EXO turbidity sensors. The results can help the USGS and others better understand how turbidity data can differ depending on the sensors and calibration standards used. Key findings and conclusions include the following— Regardless of the comparison, strong linear associations were typically found across all measures of turbidity under field and laboratory conditions, but linear associations were not necessarily 1:1 and varied by type of standard, type of sensor, and field and laboratory conditions. The mean relative percentage differences for all but a few comparisons were greater than 10 percent but less than 30 percent. However, differences were inconsistent across the laboratory and field conditions measured in this study, precluding the ability to formulate definitive statements of consistent directional bias depending on the type of standard or sensor used. Across all tests and a range of 0 to 1,000 formazin nephelometric units (FNU), no consistent bias between the YSI EXO and YSI 6136 turbidity sensors was observed, but either regression relations were near 1:1 or the YSI EXO turbidity readings were lower than those measured with the YSI 6136. Relative percentage differences typically exceeded the 10- and 30-percent benchmarks. However, most (about 95 percent) of the absolute differences between turbidity values measured with the YSI EXO and those measured with the YSI 6136 sensors were less than 20 FNU. In laboratory experiments, when turbidity was “constant,” the absolute difference between YSI EXO and YSI 6136-measured turbidity values ranged from near 0 FNU to nearly 400 FNU (over a range of 0 to 1,000 FNU). Substantial variability in turbidity measurements makes comparison between standards and sensor types challenging. Given the inherent variability in turbidity measurements and the lack of consistent bias between calibration standards or sensors, changing methods during an ongoing study would compromise the comparability of the data. The effect of changing methods ultimately depends on study objectives. If method changes are required, laboratory- and field-based comparisons across a range of conditions ideally would be conducted to determine whether site-specific biases can be identified.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2021

Linear regression model documentation and updates for computing water-quality constituent concentrations or densities using continuous real-time water-quality data for the Kansas River, Kansas, July 2012 through September 2019

The Kansas River provides drinking water to about 800,000 people in northeastern Kansas. Water-treatment facilities that use the Kansas River as a water-supply source use chemical and physical processes during water treatment to remove contaminants before public distribution. Advanced notification of changing water-quality conditions near water-supply intakes allows water-treatment facilities to proactively adjust treatment. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office (funded in part through the Kansas Water Plan), the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, The Nature Conservancy, the City of Lawrence, the City of Manhattan, the City of Olathe, the City of Topeka, and Johnson County WaterOne, collected water-quality data at the Kansas River at Wamego (USGS site 06887500; hereafter referred to as the “Wamego site”) and De Soto (USGS site 06892350; hereafter referred to as the “De Soto site”) monitoring sites to update previously published regression models relating continuous water-quality sensor measurements, streamflow, and seasonal components to discretely sampled water-quality constituent concentrations or densities. Linear regression analysis was used to update and develop models for total dissolved solids, major ions, hardness as calcium carbonate, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus species), chlorophyll a , total suspended solids, suspended sediment, and fecal indicator bacteria at the Wamego and De Soto monitoring sites using data collected during July 2012 through September 2019. The water-quality information documented in this report can be used as guidance for water-treatment processes and to characterize changes in water-quality conditions in the Kansas River over time that would not be otherwise possible.

Kansas↗

USGS2018

Water-quality conditions with an emphasis on cyanobacteria and associated toxins and taste-and-odor compounds in the Kansas River, Kansas, July 2012 through September 2016

Cyanobacteria cause a multitude of water-quality concerns, including the potential to produce toxins and taste-and-odor compounds that may cause substantial economic and public health concerns, and are of particular interest in lakes, reservoirs, and rivers that are used for drinking-water supply. Extensive cyanobacterial blooms typically do not develop in the Kansas River; however, reservoirs in the lower Kansas River Basin occasionally develop blooms that may affect downstream water quality. During July 2012 through September 2016, continuous and (or) discrete water-quality data were collected at several sites (Wamego, De Soto, and three main reservoir-fed tributaries) on the Kansas River to characterize the sources, frequency and magnitude of occurrence, and causes of cyanobacteria, cyanobacterial toxins, and taste-and-odor compounds and to develop a real-time notification system of changing water-quality conditions that may affect drinking-water treatment. Algal biomass, as estimated by chlorophyll, was consistently higher at the downstream De Soto site than the upstream Wamego site. Higher algal biomass at the De Soto site likely was caused by algal growth during downstream transport without major losses due to grazing by aquatic organisms or other processes. Algal biomass at the Wamego and De Soto sites was negatively correlated with streamflow and total and bioavailable nutrient concentrations. The negative association between algal biomass and nutrients in the Kansas River likely reflects the relatively strong positive association between nutrient concentrations and streamflows. Cyanobacteria were relatively common in the Kansas River but rarely dominated the algal community. Like overall algal biomass, cyanobacterial abundances typically were higher at the De Soto site than the Wamego site. Cyanobacterial abundances generally peaked in late summer or early fall (July through October), with smaller peaks occasionally observed in spring (April through May). Cyanobacteria in the Kansas River rarely exceeded 20,000 cells per milliliter, the abundance at which cyanobacteria may become a concern for drinking-water treatment. Relations between cyanobacterial abundance and streamflow, turbidity, and nutrients in the Kansas River were similar to those between chlorophyll and total phytoplankton abundance, indicating the same processes that influence overall algal biomass and dynamics also are influencing cyanobacteria. The cyanotoxin microcystin was detected in about 27 percent of the samples collected from Kansas River tributary and main-stem sites. Cylindrospermopsin was detected in one sample from the De Soto site. Microcystin occurrence and concentration were similar between the Wamego and De Soto sites. Concentrations exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory guidance values for finished drinking water of 0.3 (for bottle-fed infants and pre-school children) and 1.6 micrograms per liter (μg/L; for school-age children and adults) in 6 percent or less of samples collected. These guidance values are for finished drinking water and are not directly applicable to observed environmental concentrations but do provide a benchmark for comparison. Microcystin was detected most often and had the highest concentrations during summer. Though seasonal patterns in microcystin occurrence were generally consistent, seasonal maxima varied by an order of magnitude across years. The taste-and-odor compounds geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) were detected in about 78 and 43 percent of samples, respectively, collected across all sites (main stem and tributaries). Geosmin and MIB occurrence and concentration varied considerably between the Wamego and De Soto sites. Geosmin was detected in about 67 percent of Wamego samples and 81 percent of De Soto samples. The human detection threshold of 5 nanograms per liter (ng/L) was exceeded for geosmin in about 11 and 17 percent of the samples collected at the Wamego and De Soto sites, respectively. Geosmin was detected during all months of the year at both sites, and there were no clear seasonal patterns. MIB was detected less frequently in the Kansas River than geosmin and was observed in about 42 percent of Wamego samples and 33 percent of De Soto samples. Concentrations exceeded 5 ng/L in about 7 and 5 percent of samples from the Wamego and De Soto sites, respectively. As observed for geosmin, there were no clear seasonal patterns in MIB occurrence or concentration. There seems to be a connection between microcystin detections in the Kansas River and occurrence of microcystin in upstream reservoirs (and tributary streams). Microcystin concentrations greater than 0.3 μg/L may be likely during the summer when streamflow is less than 3,000 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) and contributions from Milford Lake exceed about 30 percent of total flow in the Kansas River. Observed microcystin concentrations typically were higher at the De Soto site than the Wamego or tributary sites during 2012 through 2016, indicating cyanobacteria may continue to grow and produce microcystin once introduced to the Kansas River. The spatial and temporal patterns in geosmin and MIB occurrence and concentration were more complex than microcystin. There were no clear connections between geosmin and MIB occurrence in the Kansas River and potential upstream reservoir (or tributary stream) sources. Likewise, there was not a clear relation between algal biomass, cyanobacteria, or actinomycetes bacteria and taste-and-odor events in the Kansas River. Geosmin and MIB were not strongly correlated with any measured environmental variable at either Kansas River site. Continuous water-quality data may be used independently or in combination with regression models to provide information on changing water-quality conditions that may affect drinking-water treatment processes or recreational activities on the Kansas River. For example, logistic regression model outputs and continuous water-quality data may both be indicative of the potential for microcystin events. Logistic regression models that are estimating a high probability of microcystin occurrence at concentrations above 0.1 μg/L can be used as one indicator. Streamflows less than 3,000 ft 3 /s during upstream reservoir releases during periods with low turbidity and increased chlorophyll fluorescence, specific conductance, and pH values may also be indicative of microcystin events. Advanced or near-real-time notification may inform proactive, rather than reactive, management strategies when water-quality conditions are changing rapidly or are likely to cause cyanobacteria-related events.

Kansas↗

USGS2017

Occurrence of cyanobacteria, microcystin, and taste-and-odor compounds in Cheney Reservoir, Kansas, 2001-16

Cheney Reservoir, located in south-central Kansas, is one of the primary drinking-water supplies for the city of Wichita and an important recreational resource. Since 1990, cyanobacterial blooms have been present occasionally in Cheney Reservoir, resulting in increased treatment costs and decreased recreational use. Cyanobacteria, the cyanotoxin microcystin, and the taste-and-odor compounds geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol have been measured in Cheney Reservoir by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the city of Wichita, for about 16 years. The purpose of this report is to describe the occurrence of cyanobacteria, microcystin, and taste-and-odor compounds in Cheney Reservoir during May 2001 through June 2016 and to update previously published logistic regression models that used continuous water-quality data to estimate the probability of microcystin and geosmin occurrence above relevant thresholds. Cyanobacteria, microcystin, and geosmin were detected in about 84, 52, and 31 percent of samples collected in Cheney Reservoir during May 2001 through June 2016, respectively. 2-methylisoborneol was less common, detected in only 3 percent of samples. Microcystin and geosmin concentrations exceeded advisory values of concern more frequently than cyanobacterial abundance; therefore, cyanobacteria are not a good indicator of the presence of these taste-and-odor compounds in Cheney Reservoir. Broad seasonal patterns in cyanobacteria and microcystin were evident, though abundance and concentration varied by orders of magnitude across years. Cyanobacterial abundances generally peaked in late summer or early fall (August through October), and smaller peaks were observed in winter (January through February). In a typical year, microcystin was first detected in June or July, increased to its seasonal maxima in the summer (July through September), and then decreased. Seasonal patterns in geosmin were less consistent than cyanobacteria and microcystin, but geosmin typically had a small peak during winter (January through March) during most years and a large peak during summer (July through September) during some years. Though the relation between cyanobacterial abundance and microcystin and geosmin concentrations was positive, overall correlations were weak, likely because production is strain-specific and cyanobacterial strain composition may vary substantially over time. Microcystin often was present without taste-and-odor compounds. By comparison, where taste-and-odor compounds were present, microcystin frequently was detected. Taste-and-odor compounds, therefore, may be used as indicators that microcystin may be present; however, microcystin was present without taste-and-odor compounds, so taste or odor alone does not provide sufficient warning to ensure human-health protection. Logistic regression models that estimate the probability of microcystin occurrence at concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 micrograms per liter and geosmin occurrence at concentrations greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per liter were developed. Models were developed using the complete dataset (January 2003 through June 2016 for microcystin [14-year dataset]; May 2001 through June 2016 for geosmin [16-year dataset]) and an abbreviated 4-year dataset (January 2013 through June 2016 for microcystin and geosmin). Performance of the newly developed models was compared with previously published models that were developed using data collected during May 2001 through December 2009. A seasonal component and chlorophyll fluorescence (a surrogate for algal biomass) were the explanatory variables for microcystin occurrence at concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 micrograms per liter in all models. All models were relatively robust, though the previously published and 14-year models performed better over time; however, as a tool to estimate microcystin occurrence at concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 micrograms per liter in a real-time notification system near the Cheney Dam, the 4-year model is most representative of recent (2013 through 2016) conditions. All models for geosmin occurrence at concentrations greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per liter had different explanatory variables and model forms. The previously published and 16-year models were not robust over time, likely because of changing environmental conditions and seasonal patterns in geosmin occurrence. By comparison, the abbreviated 4-year model may be a useful tool to estimate geosmin occurrence at concentrations greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per liter in a real-time notification system near the Cheney Dam. The better performance of the abbreviated 4-year geosmin model during 2013 through 2016 relative to the previously published and 16-year models demonstrates the need for continuous reevaluation of models estimating the probability of occurrence.

Kansas↗

USGS2016

Spatiotemporal variability of inorganic nutrients during wastewater effluent dominated streamflow conditions in Indian Creek, Johnson County, Kansas, 2012–15

Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, are a leading cause of water-quality impairment in Kansas and the Nation. Indian Creek is one of the most urban drainage basins in Johnson County, Kansas, and environmental and biological conditions are affected by contaminants from point and other urban sources. The Johnson County Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin (hereinafter Middle Basin) wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) is the largest point-source discharge on Indian Creek. A second facility, the Tomahawk Creek WWTF, discharges into Indian Creek approximately 11.6 kilometers downstream from the Middle Basin WWTF. To better characterize the spatiotemporal variability of nutrients in Indian Creek, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Johnson County Wastewater, collected high-resolution spatial and temporal (a large number of samples collected over the entire reach or at single locations over a long period of time) inorganic nutrient (nitrate plus nitrite and orthophosphorus) data using a combination of discrete samples and sensor-measured data during 2012 through 2015. Nutrient patterns observed in Indian Creek along the upstream-downstream gradient during wastewater effluent dominated streamflow conditions were largely affected by the WWTFs and by travel time of the parcels of water. Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations in the Middle Basin WWTF effluent and at downstream sites varied by as much as 6 milligrams per liter over a 24-hour period. The cyclical variability in the Middle Basin WWTF effluent generated a nitrate plus nitrite pulse that could be tracked for approximately 11.5 kilometers downstream in Indian Creek, until the effect was masked by the Tomahawk Creek WWTF effluent discharge. All longitudinal surveys showed the same general patterns along the upstream-downstream gradient, though streamflows, wastewater effluent contributions to streamflow, and nutrient concentrations spanned a wide range. Differences in orthophosphorus and nitrate plus nitrite patterns were clear along the upstream-downstream gradient in Indian Creek, and orthophosphorus concentrations were not as variable as nitrate plus nitrite concentrations. In general, nitrate plus nitrite concentrations decreased downstream from the Middle Basin WWTF to minima near the confluence with Tomahawk Creek, increased downstream from the Tomahawk Creek WWTF, and then varied little within the study reach. Orthophosphorus concentrations generally decreased downstream from the Middle Basin WWTF. Despite the marked variability in nitrate plus nitrite concentrations caused by the Middle Basin WWTF effluent discharges, decreases in nitrate plus nitrite concentrations were discernable along the study reach between the two WWTFs. Decreases in nitrate plus nitrite concentrations along study reach were less variable than the cyclical variability typically measured, reiterating the effect of the Middle Basin WWTF effluent discharges on the spatiotemporal variability of nitrate plus nitrite in Indian Creek. Although decreases and rates of change in nitrate plus nitrite concentration were similar between the upper and lower reaches of Indian Creek, relations with initial nitrate plus nitrite concentrations and seasonal patterns were different between the upper (from College to the Marty study sites) and lower reaches (from Marty to the Mission Farms study sites) and did not reflect patterns observed for the overall reach. Quantifying the decreases in nitrate plus nitrite concentration caused by dilution and other in-stream processes were beyond the scope of this study, and were limited by available data. The data that are available suggest that dilution and other in-stream processes play a role in decreasing nitrate plus nitrite concentrations downstream from the Middle Basin WWTF in Indian Creek. Analysis of the spatiotemporal variability of nutrients focused on below-normal and normal streamflow conditions, when streamflow and nutrient conditions in Indian Creek were largely controlled by WWTF effluent flows and nutrient removal processes. Spatial and temporal data indicate there are decreases in nutrient concentrations along the upstream-downstream gradient in Indian Creek, but quantifying decreases is complicated by the variability in nutrient concentrations caused by the WWTFs. During below-normal and normal streamflow conditions, Indian Creek nutrient concentrations downstream from the Middle Basin WWTF primarily reflect effluent concentrations in the hours or days before depending on relative distance downstream.

Kansas↗