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
Presentation Order
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Research Hypothesis
Objectives of the Study
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
Questions, Comments, & etc.
2
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
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
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
Watershed …
Source: http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/map_index.html
6
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
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
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
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
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
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
Objectives of the Study…
•
•
•
•
•
Thus, we investigated the effects of
Season
year
Watershed
location
13
Parameters of Interest
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
i.
14
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
Map of Wheeler lake basin showing the Flint
Creek and Flint River watersheds.
16
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
Sampling Locations at the FC Watershed
Map of FC watershed
showing sampling Locations
18
Materials and Methods …
• The FRW includes approximately 147,151
hectares, including half of Madison County
(USGS 1999-2000).
• 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
Materials and Methods …
Map of FR watershed
showing sampling
locations
20
Data Collection and Analysis
• Data collection and analysis
consisted of acquiring spatial and
temporal data, field data, and
laboratory data.
21
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
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
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
YSI 6600 Multi-Parameter Sonde
25
26
Rainfall data for 2003 and 2004 at the
FC and FR watersheds
300.0
250.0
110.2
2003 rainfall data @
the FCW
300.0
250.0
200.0
200.0
mm 150.0
mm 150.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
300.0
250.0
113.5
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 rainfall data @
the FCW
2003 rainfall data @
the FRW
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
300.0
250.0
200.0
200.0
mm 150.0
mm 150.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
116.2
125.6
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 rainfall data @
the FRW
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
27
Results and Discussion …
• Annual mean precipitation for 2003 at the FCW
was 110.2 mm, while FRW had 116.2 mm
annual precipitation for the same period.
• Annual mean precipitation for 2004 at the FCW
was 113.5 mm, while FRW had 125.6 mm
annual precipitation for the same period.
• Rainfall data suggests that Flint River had
slightly higher rainfall precipitation for both 2003
and 2004.
28
Temperature data at the FC and FR
Watersheds
30.0
0
30.0
Temperature data @ the FCW for 2003.
25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
0
C 15.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
30.0
0
C 15.0
10.0
0.0
Temperature data @ the FRW for 2003.
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
30.0
Temperature data @ the FCW for 2004
25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
0
C 15.0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Temperature data @ the FRW for 2004.
C 15.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
29
Results…
Land use / cover classification
map for FC
30
Results…
Land use / cover classification
map for FR
31
Land use/land cover characteristics at the Flint
Creek and Flint River watersheds for 2002.
Watershed
Land Use/Land
Cover
Hectare (ha)
Percentage
Flint Creek
Water
1972
1.71
Forest
57411
49.67
Pasture
20444
17.68
Residential
5528
4.78
Agriculture
26724
23.12
Commercial
3509
3.04
115588
100
Water
1518
1.02
Forest
49465
33.07
Pasture
33619
22.47
Residential
15286
10.22
Agriculture
42393
28.34
Commercial
7310
4.88
149591
100
Total
Flint River
Total
32
Percent land uses at the Flint Creek and Flint River
watersheds
33
Flint Creek watershed land use/land cover in
percentage
2% 5%
3%
23%
Water
Residential
Commercial
Forest
Pasture
18%
49%
Agriculture
34
Flint River Watershed land use/land cover in
percentage.
35
Mean Temporal Variability of TN at
the FC Watershed (2003)
Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint Creek Watershed (2003)
12
8
6
4
2
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
12/29
12/15
12/1
11/17
11/3
10/20
10/6
9/22
9/8
8/25
8/11
7/28
7/14
6/30
6/16
6/2
5/19
5/5
4/21
4/7
3/24
3/10
2/24
0
2/10
mg/L
10
EPA Recommended Limit
36
Mean Temporal Variability of TN at
the FC Watershed (2004)
Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint Creek Watershed
(2004)
12
8
6
4
2
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
7/26
7/12
6/28
6/14
5/31
5/17
5/3
4/19
4/5
3/22
3/8
2/23
2/9
1/26
0
1/12
mg/L
10
EPA Recommended Limit
37
Mean Temporal Variability of TN at
the FR Watershed (2003)
Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint River
Watershed (2003)
12
8
6
4
2
Location 1
Location 2
Loaction 3
12/11
11/27
11/13
10/30
10/16
10/2
9/18
9/4
8/21
8/7
7/24
7/10
6/26
6/12
5/29
5/15
5/1
4/17
4/3
3/20
3/6
0
2/20
mg/L
10
EPA Recommended Limit
38
Nutrients (TN & TP)
Mean temporal variability of TN at the Flint River
Watershed (2004)
12
10
6
4
2
Location 1
Loaction 2
Location 3
8/4
7/21
7/7
6/23
6/9
5/26
5/12
4/28
4/14
3/31
3/17
3/3
2/18
2/4
1/21
0
1/7
mg/L
8
EPA Recommended Limit
39
Results and Discussion ( TN ) …
1.4
a
1.2
1
mg/L
b
0.8
WS 1
0.6
WS 2
0.4
0.2
0
WS 1
Flint Creek
WS 2
Flint River
Figure 15. Mean total nitrogen concentrations observed for the watershed 1(Flint Creek)
and watershed 2 (Flint River) during the study periods.
40
Results and Discussion ( TN ) . . .
1.4
a
1.2
b
1
b
Location 1
0.8
mg/L
Location 2
0.6
Location 3
0.4
0.2
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
Results and Discussion ( TN ) . . .
1.8
a
1.6
1.4
1.2
mg/L
b
1
Winter
Spring
bc
0.8
Summer
c
0.6
Fall
0.4
0.2
0
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
Results and Discussion ( TN ) . . .
a
1.4
1.2
1
b
0.8
2003
0.6
2004
mg/L
0.4
0.2
0
2003
2004
43
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
Mean Temporal Variability of CF Seen at FCW
(2003 & 2004 )
Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria for the Flint Creek
Watershed (2004)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Recommended Limit
600
400
200
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
8/2
7/19
7/5
6/21
6/7
5/17
5/3
4/19
4/5
3/22
3/8
2/23
2/9
1/26
0
1/12
6/
2
6/
30
7/
28
8/
25
9/
22
10
/2
0
11
/1
7
12
/1
5
5/
5
4/
7
CFU/100 ml
400
300
200
100
0
2/
10
3/
10
CFU/100 ml
Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria at the Flint Creek
Watershed (2003)
Recommended Limit
45
Mean Temporal Variability of CF Seen at FRW
(2003 & 2004)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Recommended Limit
Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria for the Flint River
Watershed (2004)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
7/
21
6/
23
5/
26
4/
28
3/
31
3/
3
2/
4
600
400
200
0
1/
7
CFU/100 ml
4/
2
4/
30
5/
28
6/
25
7/
23
8/
20
9/
17
10
/1
5
11
/1
2
12
/1
0
3/
5
400
200
0
2/
20
CFU/100 ml
Temporal Variability of CF Bacteria for the Flint River
Watershed (2003)
Recommended Limit
46
Mean BOD5 and DO compared by watershed
Flint Creek
Creek
Flint Creek Flint Flint
Creek
Flint
River
Flint
River
47
Mean chlorophyll concentrations compared by
watershed
Flint Creek
Flint River
48
Mean turbidity (NTU) compared by watershed
Flint Creek
Flint River
49
Mean BOD5 compared by location
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
mg/L
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
a
b
Location 1
Location 1
Location 2
Location 2
b
Location 3
Location 3
50
Mean coliform bacterial concentrations
compared by seasons
51
Mean BOD5 and DO concentrations
compared by seasons
52
Mean Coliform Bacteria compared by year
a
140
120
b
100
80
2003
60
2004
CFU/100 ml
40
20
0
2003
2004
53
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
EPA Recommended Limit
Flint Creek 2003
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
7/26
7/12
6/28
6/14
5/31
5/17
5/3
4/19
4/5
3/22
3/8
2/23
2/9
1/26
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1/12
12/10
11/10
10/10
9/10
8/10
7/10
6/10
5/10
4/10
3/10
mg/L
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2/10
mg/L
Mean monthly temporal variability of Pb
at the FC watershed (2003 and 2004)
EPA Recommended Limit
Flint Creek 2004
54
0.2
1.0
0.1
mg/L
1.5
0.5
0.1
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
EPA Recommended Limit
Flint River 2003
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
7/26
7/12
6/28
6/14
5/31
5/17
5/3
4/19
4/5
3/22
3/8
2/23
2/9
1/26
1/12
12/10
11/10
10/10
9/10
8/10
7/10
6/10
5/10
4/10
0.0
3/10
0.0
2/10
mg/L
Mean monthly temporal variability of Pb
at the FR watershed (2003 and 2004)
EPA Recommended Limit
Flint River 2004
55
Heavy Metals …
0.7
a
0.6
0.5
0.4
2003
mg/L
0.3
0.2
2004
b
a
0.1
b
b
0
Pb
Zn
Cd
a
b
a
Ni
Figure 42. Mean heavy metal concentrations observed during 2003 and 2004 monitoring
period.
56
PH …
a
7.8
7.6
7.4
2003
7.2
b
SU
2004
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
2003
2004
Figure 43. Mean pH levels observed during 2003 and 2004 monitoring period.
57
Mean heavy metal con. @ 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
0.15
0.09
0.10
0.09 – 0.15
1.66
Cr
0.07
0.09
0.06
0.06 – 0.09
1.50
Cd
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.002 – 0.007
3.5
Ni
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02 – 0.05
2.5
Zn
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.03 – 0.07
2.33
Year 2 (2004)
mg L-1
Pb
1.40
0.34
0.76
0.34 – 1.40
4.11
Cr
0.24
0.14
0.27
0.14 – 0.27
1.92
Cd
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008 – 0.009
1.12
Ni
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.07 – 0.09
1.28
Zn
0.24
0.07
0.06
0.06 – 0.24
4.0
58
Mean heavy metal con. @ 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
0.30
0.19
0.25
0.19 - 0.30
1.57
Cr
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.03 – 0.09
3.0
Cd
0.007
0.006
0.002
0.002 – 0.007
3.5
Ni
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02 – 0.04
2.0
Zn
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04 – 0.5
1.25
Year 2 (2004)
mg L-1
Pb
0.52
0.45
0.36
0.36 – 0.52
1.44
Cr
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03 – 0.04
1.33
Cd
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.006 – 0.009
1.50
Ni
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04 – 0.05
1.25
Zn
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06 – 0.08
1.33
59
CONCLUSION
• The mean TN concentrations were significantly
lower during 2003 monitoring period compared to
2004. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
End of Presentation
• Any Comments, Questions etc.
• Thanks
70