Water Quality Study In the Streams of Flint Creek and Flint River Watersheds For TMDL Development

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Water Quality Study In the Streams of Flint Creek and Flint River Watersheds For TMDL Development"

Hilda Little
6 years ago
Views:

Doctoral Dissertation Presentation Major Advisor: Dr.

1 Water Quality Study In the Streams of Flint Creek and Flint River Watersheds For TMDL Development Idris Abdi Doctoral Dissertation Presentation Major Advisor: Dr. Teferi Tsegaye April 18, 2005 Alabama A & M University 1

2 Presentation Order Introduction Statement of the Problem Research Hypothesis Objectives of the Study Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion Questions, Comments, & etc. 2

3 Introduction Water is essential to everyone. Thus no matter where we live, we like our water bodies (lakes, rivers, and streams ) to be clean, clear, and fresh. Therefore, healthy water bodies are central to people s lives. Every one wants to see pristine, clean, and unpolluted water to fish on or swim in. Pollutant discharges from non-point sources are less controlled and are also adversely affecting water quality. The US EPA reported that agricultural discharges affect 72% of the impaired river areas, 57% of the impaired lake area, and 43% of the estuarine areas (US EPA). 3

4 Introduction Point source discharges are regulated by the CWA through administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Point source pollution have been significantly reduced since this program started. 4

5 Watershed..? Watershed is an area of land which drains to a common point. Watersheds can range in size from a few acre to thousands of square miles. A basin (or drainage basin) is the area of land drained by a river or lake and its tributaries. Each drainage basin is made up of smaller units called watersheds. 5

6 Watershed Source: 6

7 TMDL? TMDL determines the greatest amount of a given pollutant that a water body can receive without violating water quality standards and designated uses. By taking a watershed approach, a TMDL considers all potential sources of pollutants, both point and non-point sources. It also takes into account a margin of safety, which reflects scientific uncertainty and future growth. 7

8 TMDL In short, a TMDL is calculated using the following equation: TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS Where: WLA = Waste Load Allocation (point sources) LA = Load Allocation (non-point sources) MOS = Margin of Safety A TMDL can also be defined as a reduction in pollutant loading that results in meeting water quality standards. 8

9 Statement Of The Problem Water quality study in the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds, in north Alabama due to both point and non-point sources resulting from spatial and temporal variability are not fully assessed and well documented. Effects of non-point source pollution in specific streams in watersheds resulting from spatial and temporal variability may pose a significant challenge to water quality. 9

10 Statement Of The Problem... A significant drop in water quality at the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds due to NPS can impact drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, aquatic species, and wild life. Presence of nutrients, bacteria, and heavy metals can adversely affect the health of aquatic species and human in these two watersheds. The Clean Water Act, section 303, set by U.S. EPA establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs. This program mandates states to conduct statewide water quality assessment and identify the water bodies that do not meet water quality standards set forth both at the state and national levels. 10

11 Research Hypothesis 1. Water quality pollution levels will not be different between the two watersheds. 2. Seasonal differences will not have a significant effect in water quality pollutant levels in watersheds. 3. Location will not have an effect in water quality pollutant levels. 4. Most water quality parameters will exceed the concentration levels of the standard set by environmental protection agency (EPA) or Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for a given period of time. 11

12 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY i ii iii Examine and compare the spatial and temporal variability of water quality parameters between the water bodies in the Flint Creek and the Flint River watersheds. Investigate the effects of land use / land cover, rainfall, and temperature variations on pollutant levels in both watersheds. Finally, provide vital information on the trends of water quality in the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds that could be used for future TMDLs development for these two watersheds. 12

13 Objectives of the Study Thus, we investigated the effects of Season year Watershed location 13

14 Parameters of Interest i. Total nitrogen (TN). ii. Total Phosphorus (TP) iii. Coliform Bacteria iv. BOD v. DO vi. ph vii. Turbidity viii. Temperature ix. Chlorophyll x. Cd xi. Cr xii. Ni xiii. Pb xiv. Zn 14

15 Materials And Methods Project Background & Approaches The study areas chosen for this project are FC and FR Ws, which are located in the Wheeler Lake basin, in north Alabama. FC is a major tributary to the Wheeler Reservoir and the Tennessee River. The FC Watershed encompasses approximately 117,441 hectares in three counties: Morgan, Lawrence and Cullman. 15

16 Map of Wheeler lake basin showing the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds. 16

17 Materials and Methods Similar to other north Alabama watersheds, FC absorbs a large amount of residential waste, agricultural runoff, and discharges from municipal sewage (The Flint Creek Watershed Project 1996). 17

18 Sampling Locations at the FC Watershed Map of FC watershed showing sampling Locations 18

19 Materials and Methods The FRW includes approximately 147,151 hectares, including half of Madison County (USGS ). This one starts in Lincoln County, Tennessee, is bounded by the mountains on the east border of Madison County, and drains into the Tennessee River. It is also primarily agricultural land (U.S. Geological Survey, 2002). The FRW is an important recreational and scenic resource. 19

20 Materials and Methods Map of FR watershed showing sampling locations 20

21 Data Collection and Analysis Data collection and analysis consisted of acquiring spatial and temporal data, field data, and laboratory data. 21

22 Materials and Methods An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for all indicator variables. The general linear model (GLM) procedure of statistical analysis system (SAS) version 8.2 (SAS Institute, 2001) was used to rank and evaluate the concentrations of pollutants in the two study areas. 22

23 Materials and Methods As you have seen in the previous slides, six sampling sites were selected for detailed analysis in both the FC and the FR Ws. Field data and surface water samples were collected and analyzed every two weeks during the evaluation period 23

24 Materials and Methods Standard methods and techniques found in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Greenberg, et al., 2000) were used for determination of all parameters. 24

25 YSI 6600 Multi-Parameter Sonde 25

26 26

27 Rainfall data for 2003 and 2004 at the FC and FR watersheds rainfall the FCW rainfall the FRW mm mm Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec rainfall the FCW rainfall the FRW mm mm Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 27

28 Results and Discussion Annual mean precipitation for 2003 at the FCW was mm, while FRW had mm annual precipitation for the same period. Annual mean precipitation for 2004 at the FCW was mm, while FRW had mm annual precipitation for the same period. Rainfall data suggests that Flint River had slightly higher rainfall precipitation for both 2003 and

29 Temperature data at the FC and FR Watersheds 30.0 Temperature the FCW for Temperature the FRW for C C Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temperature the FCW for 2004 Temperature the FRW for C C Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 29

30 Results Land use / cover classification map for FC 30

31 Results Land use / cover classification map for FR 31

32 Land use/land cover characteristics at the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds for Watershed Land Use/Land Hectare (ha) Percentage Cover Flint Creek Water Forest Pasture Residential Agriculture Commercial Total Flint River Water Forest Pasture Residential Agriculture Commercial Total

33 Percent land uses at the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds 33

34 Flint Creek watershed land use/land cover in percentage 23% 2% 5% 3% 18% 49% Water Residential Commercial Forest Pasture Agriculture 34

35 Flint River Watershed land use/land cover in percentage. 35

36 Mean Temporal Variability of TN at the FC Watershed (2003) Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint Creek Watershed (2003) 12 mg/l /10 2/24 3/10 3/24 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 6/30 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 9/22 10/6 10/20 11/3 11/17 12/1 12/15 12/29 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit 36

37 Mean Temporal Variability of TN at the FC Watershed (2004) Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint Creek Watershed (2004) mg/l /12 1/26 2/9 2/23 3/8 3/22 4/5 4/19 5/3 5/17 5/31 6/14 6/28 7/12 7/26 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit 37

38 Mean Temporal Variability of TN at the FR Watershed (2003) Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint River Watershed (2003) /20 3/6 3/20 4/3 4/17 5/1 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/7 8/21 9/4 9/18 10/2 10/16 10/30 11/13 11/27 12/11 mg/l Location 1 Location 2 Loaction 3 EPA Recommended Limit 38

39 Nutrients (TN & TP) Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint River Watershed (2004) mg/l /7 1/21 2/4 2/18 3/3 3/17 3/31 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/7 7/21 8/4 Location 1 Loaction 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit 39

40 Results and Discussion ( TN ) a mg/l b WS 1 WS 2 Flint Creek Flint River WS 1 WS 2 Figure 15. Mean total nitrogen concentrations observed for the watershed 1(Flint Creek) and watershed 2 (Flint River) during the study periods. 40

41 Results and Discussion ( TN ) a b b mg/l Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 0 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Figure 16. Mean total nitrogen concentrations observed by location during the study periods. Bars with the same letters are not statistically different according to Duncan s at the 5% level. 41

42 Results and Discussion ( TN ) a mg/l bc b c Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Figure 17. Mean total nitrogen concentrations observed for the season during the study periods. Bars with the same letters are not statistically different according to Duncan s at the 5% level. 42

43 Results and Discussion ( TN ) a mg/l b

44 Results and Discussion The highest TN seen in the winter and summer months than the spring and fall months may have been influenced by the heavy rain seen during those months. The seasonal changes that results in changes in rainfall, hydrologic conditions and other physiologic conditions may play significant role in nutrient washoffs from these watersheds. 44

45 Mean Temporal Variability of CF Seen at FCW (2003 & 2004 ) Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria at the Flint Creek Watershed (2003) Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria for the Flint Creek Watershed (2004) CFU/100 ml /10 3/10 4/7 5/5 6/2 6/30 7/28 8/25 9/22 10/20 11/17 12/15 CFU/100 ml /12 1/26 2/9 2/23 3/8 3/22 4/5 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 7/19 8/2 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Recommended Limit Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Recommended Limit 45

46 Mean Temporal Variability of CF Seen at FRW (2003 & 2004) Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria for the Flint River Watershed (2003) Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria for the Flint River Watershed (2004) CFU/100 ml /20 3/5 4/2 4/30 5/28 6/25 7/23 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/12 12/10 CFU/100 ml /7 2/4 3/3 3/31 4/28 5/26 6/23 7/21 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Recommended Limit Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Recommended Limit 46

47 Mean BOD5 and DO compared by watershed Flint Creek Flint Creek Flint Flint Creek Creek Flint River Flint River 47

48 Mean chlorophyll concentrations compared by watershed Flint Creek Flint River 48

49 Mean turbidity (NTU) compared by watershed Flint Creek Flint River 49

50 Mean BOD5 compared by location mg/l a b b Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 50

51 Mean coliform bacterial concentrations compared by seasons 51

52 Mean BOD5 and DO concentrations compared by seasons 52

53 Mean Coliform Bacteria compared by year 140 a CFU/100 ml b

54 Mean monthly temporal variability of Pb at the FC watershed (2003 and 2004) mg/l /10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 mg/l /12 1/26 2/9 2/23 3/8 3/22 4/5 4/19 5/3 5/17 5/31 6/14 6/28 7/12 7/26 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit Flint Creek 2003 Flint Creek

55 Mean monthly temporal variability of Pb at the FR watershed (2003 and 2004) mg/l /10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 1/12 1/26 2/9 2/23 mg/l 3/8 3/22 4/5 4/19 5/3 5/17 5/31 6/14 6/28 7/12 7/26 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 EPA Recommended Limit Flint River 2003 Flint River

56 Heavy Metals a mg/l b a b b b a Pb Zn Cd Ni a Figure 42. Mean heavy metal concentrations observed during 2003 and 2004 monitoring period. 56

57 PH 7.8 a SU b Figure 43. Mean ph levels observed during 2003 and 2004 monitoring period. 57

58 Mean heavy metal different sampling locations for the FC watershed (2003 and 2004) Element Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Range CV * Year 1 (2003) mg L -1 Pb Cr Cd Ni Zn Year 2 (2004) mg L -1 Pb Cr Cd Ni Zn

59 Mean heavy metal different sampling locations for the FR watershed (2003 and 2004) Element Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Range CV * Year 1 (2003) mg L -1 Pb Cr Cd Ni Zn Year 2 (2004) mg L -1 Pb Cr Cd Ni Zn

60 CONCLUSION The mean TN concentrations were significantly lower during 2003 monitoring period compared to However this was not true for TP. The mean TN levels were also significantly lower at the FR watershed than the FC watershed. No significant changes occurred for TP. Mean TN concentration at location one was significantly higher compared to both locations two and three. Again this was not the case for TP. 60

61 CONCLUSION Mean CF bacterial counts and biological oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration were also significantly higher during summer season compared to the rest of the seasons. Mean DO conc. Were significantly lower in 2004 than 2003 monitoring period. Flint Creek watershed showed significantly higher concentrations of chlorophyll and turbidity when compared to FR watershed. This may illustrate the land use/land cover may be better managed at the FR watershed than the FC watershed.. 61

62 CONCLUSION To accurately quantify environmental impacts, land use changes, and natural processes leading to spatial and temporal variability of coliform bacteria and other variables, a continuous monitoring should be in place in these two watersheds for TMDL development 62

63 CONCLUSION Analysis of variance of heavy metal loads in these two watersheds suggests that there are no seasonal influence existed (p > 0.05) except for Pb. For most of the heavy metals (Cd, Ni, Pb, and Zn), this study showed a significant increase in the mean heavy metal concentration during the 2004 monitoring period compared to the 2003 monitoring period. 63

64 Summary/Take Home Message The findings of this study suggest that the intensity of runoff volume, hydrology of the sites, transportation rate of nutrients, and management of fertilizer application time may be important contributors to the variations of nutrients and other parameter concentrations. 64

65 Summary/Take Home Message The DO readings taken during the sampling visits, coupled with BOD5 results obtained in this study appears to show that there was no influence of a considerable organic load at both watersheds during our monitoring period. Differences in dynamic nature of water flow, and changes in land use/land cover in watersheds may play important role for the variations for some of the parameter concentrations during sampling event. 65

66 Summary/Take Home Message This study may have missed some important sampling events during heavy runoffs when sampling was not performed as scheduled. Thus continuous monitoring seems to be extremely important to collect those missing events. For TMDL development, additional information from point source loads will have to be included with the specific pollutant of interest. As additional information becomes available, the TMDL may be updated. The information compiled here may also interest interested groups to know about the water quality in the Flint Creek and Flint River watersheds. 66

67 Acknowlegement I would like to give thanks to Almighty God for giving me the strength, patience, wisdom and ability to complete this dissertations work. I would like to extend my special thanks to the members of my advisory committee: Dr. Teferi Tsegaye Dr. Constance Jordan-Wilson Dr. Yong Wang Dr. Wubishet Tadesse Dr. Majed Elshamy 67

68 Acknowledgement I would also like to thank the faculty, staff, and graduate students in the Department of Plant and Soil Science for their assistance and kind words throughout my graduate program. I would also like to thank my family for their patience and support through out my graduate work. 68

69 Acknowledgement This study was supported by Alabama Experiment station grant, obtained through Alabama Agricultural and mechanical university/auburn university competitive grant and Center of Hydrology, Soil Climatology and Remote Sensing (HSCARS), Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Washington, DC. 69

70 End of Presentation Any Comments, Questions etc. Thanks 70

Jordan River TMDL Update

Jordan River TMDL Update 2010 Watershed Symposium August 4 th, 2010 Hilary N. Arens Utah Division of Water Quality Jordan River TMDL Outline What is a TMDL and what is the Jordan impaired for? Evaluation