GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA
Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist
Water Investigations Program Patrick E. O’Neil, Director
A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTATION LOADING RATES IN THE UPPER BUTTAHATCHEE RIVER, ALABAMA, 2004-2005
OPEN-FILE REPORT 0512
by
Stuart W. McGregor and Marlon R. Cook
Prepared in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund Contract Number LX06
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2005 CONTENTS
Abstract...... 1 Acknowledgments...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Study area...... 5 Monitoring plan ...... 5 Stream discharge...... 8 Sedimentation ...... 10 Sediment load modeling methodology ...... 10 Suspended sediment loading...... 10 Bedload ...... 12 Total sediment loads ...... 12 Measured sediment loads for the Buttahatchee River watershed ...... 13 Conclusions and recommendations...... 24 References cited...... 25 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map of the study area ...... 6 Figure 2. Regional view of the study area ...... 7 Figure 3. Watershed view of the study area...... 9 Figure 4. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR1, Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 17, Lamar County, Alabama ...... 13 Figure 5. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR2, Buttahatchee River at county road 16, Lamar County, Alabama ...... 13 Figure 6. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR3, Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama...... 14 Figure 7. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR4, Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 129, Marion County, Alabama...... 14 Figure 8. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BC1, Barn Creek at Alabama Highway 278, Marion County, Alabama...... 14 Figure 9. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site CC1, Camp Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama...... 15
ii Figure 10. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site PM1, Pearces Mill Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama ...... 15 Figure 11. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site WB1, West Branch of the Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 129, Marion County, Alabama ...... 15 Figure 12. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site WC1, Williams Creek at county road 16, Marion County, Alabama ...... 16 Figure 13. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on January 6, 2005 ...... 16 Figure 14. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites from samples collected on January 14, 2005 ...... 17 Figure 15. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on February 11, 2005 ...... 17 Figure 16. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on March 23, 2005 ...... 17 Figure 17. Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on April 7, 2005 ...... 18 Figure 18. Mean instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama ...... 18 Figure 19. Measured stream discharge and bedload sediment for site BR2, Buttahatchee River at county road 16, Lamar County, Alabama ...... 19 Figure 20. Stream discharge and bedload sediment measured at site WB1, West Branch of the Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 129, Marion County, Alabama ...... 19
iii Figure 21. Mean stream flow velocity and bedload sediment measured at site WB1, West Branch of the Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 129, Marion County, Alabama...... 20 Figure 22. Stream discharge and bedload sediment measured at site CC1, Camp Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama...... 20 Figure 23. Mean stream flow velocity and bedload sediment measured at site CC1, Camp Creek at Alabama Highway 253 , Marion County, Alabama ...... 20 Figure 24. Stream discharge and bedload sediment measured at site PM1, Pearces Mill Creek at Alabama Highway 253 , Marion County, Alabama ...... 21 Figure 25. Mean stream flow velocity and bedload sediment measured at site PM1, Pearces Mill Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama...... 21 Figure 26. Mean instantaneous bedload calculated for Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama...... 22 Figure 27. Mean instantaneous suspended and bed sediment loads calculated for Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama ...... 23 Figure 28. Normalized mean instantaneous total sediment loads and monitored watershed areas for the Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama ...... 24 TABLES Table 1. Freshwater mussel species recently collected from the Buttahatchee River system, Alabama and Mississippi, and conservation status of each...... 3 Table 2. Monitored areas of project watersheds ...... 8 Table 3. Measured discharge values for monitoring sites...... 10 Table 4. Mean total sediment loads for the Buttahatchee River and selected tributaries ...... 22
iv A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTATION LOADING RATES IN THE UPPER BUTTAHATCHEE RIVER, ALABAMA, 2004-2005 by
Stuart W. McGregor and Marlon R. Cook
ABSTRACT This study summarizes a preliminary effort to document the rates of sediment loading in the upper Buttahatchee River system and to determine primary sources of sedimentation in a reach of river devoid of mussels, based on limited synoptic data from selected sites. Data collected from nine sites on the Buttahatchee River and selected tributaries indicated that sedimentation rates in the watershed are elevated and that much of the sediment originates in the upstream portion of the watershed. Mean suspended sediment rates varied from less than 1 ton per day to more than 2,000 tons per day and composed from 18 to 94 percent of the total sediment loads of the monitored watersheds. Bedload transport rates varied from less than 0.5 ton per day to 137 tons per day. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Individuals who aided in the completion of this project are acknowledged herein. Phillip Henderson and Neil Moss of GSA assisted in field data collection, and Mirza Beg, Lifo Chen, and Bob Meintzer analyzed samples in the GSA Geochemistry Lab. INTRODUCTION The Mobile River basin, the largest Gulf of Mexico river basin east of the Mississippi River, is second only to the Tennessee River drainage basin in diversity of freshwater mussels, historically supporting at least 72 species (Williams and others, 1993). The Tombigbee River system alone supported over 50 species (Williams and others, 1992). The Mobile River basin mussel fauna is also noteworthy for its high number of endemic species. Significant human-induced impacts to the basin over the past 100 years, including impoundment, eutrophication, sedimentation, pollution, and channel modifications, have caused a drastic decline in this fauna (Hartfield, 1994; Mott and Hartfield, 1994; Williams and others, 1992). Currently, 17 species of freshwater mussels
1 in the Mobile River basin are federally listed endangered or threatened species, and 14 species in the genus Pleurobema endemic to the basin are considered extinct (Hartfield, 1994). Recent sampling for freshwater mussels at 163 stations in the western Mobile River basin in Alabama and Mississippi documented a severely altered mussel fauna comprised of 45 species (McGregor and Haag, 2004). Habitat condition and quality varied greatly among stations sampled during that study, with most of the variation attributed to the geology of the basin and to anthropogenic factors. Stations with the most diverse mussel faunas were in streams characterized by stable gravel or gravel/sand substrates with stable riparian buffer zones and were relatively unaffected by municipal or industrial effluents. The Sipsey and Buttahatchee Rivers and Bull Mountain, Coal Fire, Lubbub, and Yellow Creeks consistently yielded the most diverse mussel faunas during recent sampling (McGregor and Haag, 2004). In the Buttahatchee River system 30 species were reported, including the only known extant population of one federally listed endangered species, Epioblasma penita (table 1). Among those species, eight are considered to be of high or highest conservation concern in Alabama and four are federally listed endangered or threatened species (Mirarchi, 2004). Of the 30 species found in the Buttahatchee system, 28 were found in the main channel Buttahatchee River from the mouth upstream to the vicinity of the Alabama Highway 17 bridge (lower Buttahatchee), 7 were found in the main channel upstream of the Alabama Highway 17 bridge to the headwaters (upper Buttahatchee), and 5 were found in tributaries (table 1). It is not unusual for downstream reaches of streams to yield higher abundance and diversity values for mussels than headwaters or tributaries because of increased potential for occupation. This increased potential is due to several factors, including larger areal extent, more habitat diversity, possibly better sustained stream flows, and a larger pool of potential host fishes. However, the extreme disparity in mussel abundance and diversity between the lower Buttahatchee and the headwaters and the complete absence of mussels in a long stretch mid-river indicates there are likely serious problems limiting faunal diversity in that reach. A further concern is that the mechanism negatively affecting the
2 Table 1.-Freshwater mussel species recently collected from the Buttahatchee River system, Alabama and Mississippi, and conservation status of each (from McGregor and Haag, 2004; Mirarchi, 2004) Species Status1 Stream Reaches2 Lower Upper Tributaries Buttahatchee Buttahatchee Amblema plicata P4 X Anodonta suborbiculata P4 X Anodontoides radiatus P2 X X Ellipsaria lineolata P4 X Elliptio arca P1 X Elliptio arctata P1 X Elliptio crassidens P5 X Epioblasma penita P1, E X Fusconaia cerina P5 X X Lampsilis ornata P4 X X Lampsilis straminea P4 X X X Lampsilis teres P5 X Lasmigona c. alabamensis P3 X Leptodea fragilis P5 X X Medionidus acutissimus P2, T X X Megalonaias nervosa P5 X Obliquaria reflexa P5 X Obovaria jacksoniana P3 X Obovaria unicolor P2 X Pleurobema decisum P2, E X Pleurobema perovatum P1, E X Pyganodon grandis P5 X Quadrula apiculata P5 X Quadrula asperata P5 X Quadrula rumphiana P4 X Strophitus subvexus P3 X X Tritogonia verrucosa P4 X Truncilla donaciformis P3 X Uniomerus declivis P4 X Villosa lienosa P5 X X X Totals 28 7 5 1Conservation priority-P1 Highest, P2 High, P3 Moderate, P4 Low, P5 Lowest; E=federally listed endangered, T=federally listed threatened. 2Lower Buttahatchee is from mouth of Buttahatchee River upstream to Alabama Hwy. 17; Upper Buttahatchee is upstream of Alabama Hwy. 17 to headwaters.
3 mid-reach fauna may eventually extend upstream or downstream and negatively affect the remaining mussel populations, if left unchecked. Erosion, sedimentation, unstable substrates, and flow regimes altered by anthropogenic activities are known to be major factors limiting successful occupation of streams by mussels, though little is known of the actual limits of each that can be tolerated. Ellis (1931, 1936) reported that silt causes mortality in mussels by clogging gills and interfering with respiration and feeding and that one-fourth to one inch of deposited silt caused high mortality rates in mussels in the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. Vannote and Minshall (1982) determined that large block boulders in the Salmon River, Idaho, stabilize substrates, prevent significant bed scour during floods, and act as refugia for mussels, which repopulate the river after periodic floods scour its less well-protected reaches. Dennis (1984) found that heavily silted reaches of the Powell River in Tennessee and Virginia were unsuitable for transplant of mussels and that suspended silt interfered with feeding, reducing food uptake by 50 percent at silt levels of 211 to 820 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and up to 80 percent at levels over 1,000 mg/L in laboratory tests. Layzer and Madison (1995) reported that high shear stress in a fourth- order stream in the Upper Cumberland River drainage in Kentucky limited mussel recruitment by unseating juveniles deposited after encystment on a host fish. Similarly, Hardison and Layzer (2001) found consistently negative correlations between mussel density and complex hydraulic variables such as shear stress in three regulated rivers in Kentucky, and also related their results to removal of juveniles during spring and summer floods. Ziuganov and others (1998) found that highly organic water was unsuitable for mussels and that translocated mussels moved against rapid flows to avoid those conditions in the Varzuga River of northwestern Russia. Stone and others (2004) reported that habitat stability was the limiting factor influencing mussel occurrence, abundance, and population structure in western Washington streams. They further reported that complex hydraulic characteristics, such as shear stress and turbulence, need to be considered in addition to traditional values such as water velocity and depth when associating mussels with their environment. Archaeological investigations have also implicated changes in land use (specifically the advent of maize production, presumably
4 leading to increased sedimentation) in the precipitous decline of one genus of freshwater mussel in eastern North America (Peacock and others, 2005). Hartfield and Jones (1989) reported that as much as 28,000 tons of sediment were introduced annually into upper Buttahatchee River via Camp Creek from abandoned kaolin strip mines. Observations made during a recent study documented denuded stream banks and loose, unstable substrates in Buttahatchee River upstream of Alabama Highway 17 (McGregor and Haag, 2004). Because of concern for the critically imperiled but still relatively diverse mussel fauna in lower Buttahatchee River by possible sediment loading, the Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) entered into a contract with the World Wildlife Fund to make preliminary investigations of sediment loading rates in that system. This study is two-fold: First, sedimentation rates at selected stations in the upper Buttahatchee River system are documented; second, primary sediment sources in the reach of river devoid of mussels are identified. This report summarizes results of the investigation. STUDY AREA The study area includes the Buttahatchee River and selected tributaries in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama, from the vicinity of the Alabama Highway 17 bridge upstream to the headwaters (fig. 1, 2). Most of the study area lies within the Fall Line Hills district of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic section. The Fall Line Hills physiographic district represents the transition from the indurated rocks of the interior districts to the less consolidated sediments of the East Gulf Coastal Plain. Streams draining the Fall Lines Hills district are well sustained due to extensive sand and gravel aquifers. A small portion of the study area, representing the headwaters of the Buttahatchee River, lies within the Warrior Basin district of the Cumberland Plateau physiographic section (Sapp and Emplaincourt, 1975). Streams in this dissected plateau of sandstone and shale frequently go dry due to low recharge from aquifers (Mettee and others, 1996). MONITORING PLAN The initial monitoring plan included two data sets collected at four sites on the main stem of the Buttahatchee River and two sites on tributary watersheds. However, the scope of the project was expanded to include six data sets at nine sites: four on the
5 futththee2iver 5 5 5555 tershed 5 5
le RH H RH VH wiles
x
Figure 1.—Map of the study area.
6 prnklin
futththee2iver tershed
5 inston 5 55 5 5 5
5 wrion
5
pyette vmr
x
elm wississippiwississippi
le PH H PH RH TH wiles
Figure 2.—Regional view of the study area.
7 Buttahatchee River and one in each of five tributary watersheds (fig. 3). The sites were chosen to evaluate critical portions of selected watersheds. The monitored areas of the selected watersheds vary from 12 to 469 square miles (mi2) (table 2) (fig. 3). Parameters measured on site and delivered with samples to the geochemistry laboratory included water temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, stream water level, discharge, and mean stream flow velocity. Grab samples of water from each station were analyzed in the laboratory to determine total suspended solids (TSS). TSS is the concentration of suspended solids in the stream at the time of sampling and is used in calculations of suspended sediment loads. Bedload sediment was determined in situ using a direct measurement method developed by the GSA. Table 2.—Monitored areas of project watersheds. Monitored watershed area Stream and monitoring site designation (upstream from site) (mi2) Buttahatchee River at Alabama Hwy. 17 (BR1) 469 Buttahatchee River and county road 16 (BR2) 330 Buttahatchee River at Alabama Hwy. 253 (BR3) 106 Buttahatchee River at Alabama Hwy. 129 (BR4) 31 Barn Creek at U.S. Hwy. 278 (BC1) 20 Camp Creek at Alabama Hwy. 253 (CC1) 12 Pearces Mill Creek at Alabama Hwy. 253 (PM1) 13 West Br. Buttahatchee River at Alabama Hwy. 129 (WB1) 38 Williams Creek at Old Hwy. 43 (WC1) 30
STREAM DISCHARGE Discharge is a primary physical parameter that influences and/or controls surface- water quality in the project area. Ionic concentrations, specific conductance, DO, biochemical oxygen demand, suspended and bedload sediment transport, and bacterial concentrations are all influenced by the volume and velocity of stream discharge (Cook and Puckett, 1998). The original monitoring plan for Buttahatchee River was designed to collect data during one low flow and one high flow discharge event. Due to the expansion of the project scope, additional discharge events were monitored at eight of nine sites. Discharge was measured using a Price AA flow meter mounted on a standard wading rod or bridge board. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) methodology was used for the measurement of stream discharge.
8 prnklin
ggI 55
gI55 fQ fI 5 fgI 55 5 5 elm wI 5 wississippi 55 fR 55
fP 5 wrion
fI 55
pyette x vmr ixplntion 5 wonitoring2sites gounty2lines ivers2nd2strems ods uwtersheds2of2the2futththee2iver
le IH H IH PH wiles
Figure 3.—Watershed view of the study area.
9 The largest discharge (10,293 cubic feet per second (cfs)) was measured at site BR2 on April 7, 2005. The smallest discharge was measured at site CC1 on January 6, 2005 (354 cfs). Maximum and minimum measured discharge values for each site are given in table 3. Table 3.—Measured discharge values for monitoring sites. Monitoring Site Maximum discharge Minimum discharge (cfs) (cfs) Buttahatchee River (BR1) 6,873 487 Buttahatchee River (BR2) 10,293 354 Buttahatchee River (BR3) 3,088 108 Buttahatchee River (BR4) 2,059 71 Barn Creek (BC1) 228 9 Camp Creek (CC1) 150 13 Pearces Mill Creek (PM1) 21 18 West Branch Buttahatchee River (WB1) 1,132 47 Williams Creek (WC1) 926 39
SEDIMENTATION Sedimentation is a process by which eroded particles of rock are primarily transported by moving water from areas of relatively high elevation to areas of relatively low elevation, where the particles are deposited. Upland sediment transport is primarily accomplished by overland flow and rill and gully development. Lowland or floodplain transport occurs in varying order streams where upland sediment joins sediment eroded from floodplains, stream banks and streambeds. Erosion rates are accelerated by human activity related to agriculture, construction, timber harvesting, unimproved roadways or any activity where soils or geologic units are exposed or disturbed. Sedimentation is detrimental to water quality, destroys biologic habitat, reduces storage volume of water impoundments, impedes the usability of aquatic recreational areas, and causes damage to structures. Sediment loads in streams are primarily composed of relatively small particles suspended in the water column (suspended solids) and larger particles that move on or periodically near the streambed (bedload). SEDIMENT LOAD MODELING METHODOLOGY SUSPENDED SEDIMENT LOADING Total Suspended Solids is defined as that portion of a water sample that is separated from the water by filtering. This solid material may be composed of organic
10 and inorganic constituents that include algae, industrial and municipal wastes, urban and agricultural runoff, and erosional material from geologic formations. These materials are transported to stream channels by overland flow related to storm-water runoff.
The GSA uses either of two methods to estimate suspended sediment loads based on the number of measured suspended sediment values. If a relatively large number of monitored values collected over a relatively large range of discharge events are available, the computer model Regr_Cntr.xls (Regression with Centering) is used to calculate suspended sediment loads from the analytical and stream discharge data. The program is an Excel adaptation of the USGS seven-parameter regression model for load estimation (Cohn and others, 1992). The Regr_Cntr.xls program was adapted by R. Peter Richards at the Water Quality Laboratory at Heidelberg College (Richards, 1999). The program establishes a regression model using a calibration set of data composed of concentrations of the constituent of interest and discharge values measured at the time of water sampling. The resulting load estimates are given in annual metric tons and are converted to a number of mass and volume per unit time values.
If few values are available (1-10), suspended loads may only be estimated for an individual instantaneous value over a relatively short time interval (mass per day). This method was used for the sediment assessment for the Buttahatchee River. Concentrations of suspended sediment in mg/L were determined by laboratory analysis of water grab samples collected periodically at variable stream discharge rates. The analytical results were used to determine suspended sediment loads for each sampled discharge event (instantaneous load). Instantaneous suspended sediment loads can be quantified by the formula:
Qs = Qw Cs k, where Qs is the sediment discharge, in tons per day (tons/day) Qw is the water discharge, in cubic feet per second (cfs) Cs is the concentration of suspended sediment in mg/L and k is a coefficient based on the unit of measurement of water discharge and assumes a specific weight of 2.65 for sediment (Porterfield, 1972).
11 BEDLOAD Transport of streambed material is controlled by a number of factors primarily related to stream discharge and flow velocity, erosion and sediment supply, stream base level, and physical properties of the streambed material. Most streambeds are in a state of constant flux in order to maintain a stable base level elevation. The energy of flowing water in a stream is constantly changing to supply the required power for erosion or deposition of bedload to maintain equilibrium with the local water table and regional or global sea level. Stream base level may be affected by regional or global events including fluctuations of sea level or tectonic movement. Local factors affecting base level include fluctuations in the water table elevation, changes in the supply of sediment to the stream caused by changing precipitation rates, and/or land use practices that promote excessive erosion in the floodplain or upland areas of the watershed. Bedload sediment is composed of particles that are too large or too dense to be carried in suspension by stream flow. These particles roll, tumble, or are periodically suspended as they move downstream. Traditionally, bedload sediment has been difficult to quantify due to deficiencies in monitoring methodology or inaccuracies of estimating volumes of sediment being transported along the streambed. This is particularly true with streams that flow at high velocity or in streams with excessive sediment loads. The GSA has developed a portable sedimentation rate-monitoring device designed to accurately measure bedload sediment values in shallow sand or gravel bed streams. The volume of bedload sediment at each station was measured directly in the stream channel of each sand or sand and gravel bed stream along with stream discharge and velocity. These data were used to determine bedload volumes for each monitored discharge event (instantaneous bedload). TOTAL SEDIMENT LOADS The total sediment load transported by a stream is composed of the suspended and bed loads. For streams with sand or gravel beds the suspended and bed loads were measured separately and combined. For streams with beds composed of rock or, in urban settings, stream beds may be composed of concrete or limestone rip-rap, sediment loads are almost totally suspended. In these cases, water samples collected near the stream bed will contain representative volumes of the total sediment load.
12 Stream beds at three of nine project sites (BC1, BR3, and BR4) were composed of Pottsville Sandstone. The suspended sediment loads for these sites are assumed to be representative of the total sediment loads. MEASURED SEDIMENT LOADS FOR THE BUTTAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED Suspended sediment loads calculated from instantaneous measurements for the monitored sites were highly variable. The variability of suspended loads for individual samples collected at a particular site is primarily the result of discharge at the time of sample collection and if the sample was collected during rising or falling water levels. Figures 4 through 12 portray individual instantaneous suspended sediment loads determined at each monitored site.
Figure 4.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR1, Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 17, Lamar County, AL. 10000
ent ) 1000 m day / edi ons 100 (t pended s oads s
l 10 u
S 1 01/06/05 01/14/05 02/02/05 02/11/05 03/23/05 Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
Figure 5.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR2, Buttahatchee River at county road 16, Lamar County, Alabama. 10000
oad ent l
) 1000 m i d day e / s on ed s t ( 100 end p s u S 10 1/6/05 1/14/05 2/2/05 2/11/05 3/23/05 4/7/05
Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
13
Figure 6.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR3, Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama. 10000
1000 load ent ) 100 day edim / ons
(t 10 ded s pen s u 1 S
0.1 1/6/05 1/14/05 2/11/05 3/23/05 4/7/05 Sampling dates Suspended sediment
Figure 7.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BR4, Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 129, Lamar County, Alabama. 1000 oad l
100 ent ) m edi /day 10 ons t ( pended s
s 1 u S
0.1 1/6/05 1/14/05 2/11/05 3/23/05 4/7/05
Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
Figure 8.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site BC1, Barn Creek at U.S. Highway 278, Marion County, Alabama. 10
ent )
m 1 day / edi s s n o (t 0 pended oads s l u S
0 1/14/2005 1/26/2005 2/11/2005 3/23/2005 Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
14
Figure 9.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site CC1, Camp Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama. 10
1 ent loads )
day / edim s n d s o t ( 0.1 pende Sus
0.01 1/6/05 1/14/05 2/11/05 3/23/05 Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
Figure 10.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site PM1, Pearces Mill Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, AL. 1
0.9 0.8 oads l 0.7 ent ) m 0.6 day / edi 0.5
ons 0.4 (t 0.3 pended s s u 0.2 S 0.1 0 2/11/05 3/23/05 Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
Figure 11.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site WB1, West Branch of the Buttahatchee River at Alabama Highway 129, Marion County, Alabama. 140 t n
e 120 100
sedim 80 ns/day) 60 40 load (to
uspended 20 S 0 1/6/05 1/14/05 3/23/05 4/7/05
Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
15 Figure 12.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for site WC 1, Williams Creek at Old Hwy. 43, Marion County, Alabama. 1000
ent
) 100 m day edi / s s
on 10 pended oad (t l s 1 u S
0.1 1/6/05 1/14/05 2/11/05 3/23/05 4/7/05
Sampling dates Suspended sediment loads
Variability of loads between sites is attributed to the size differences of the watersheds, stream flow conditions at the time of sampling, and erosional conditions and volume of sediment contributed to the stream in each watershed. Relative watershed size and discharge may be accounted for by normalizing sedimentation data. The largest suspended sediment loads (maximum load 7,921 tons per day (t/d)) were measured at site BR2. However, normalization of the data clearly shows that the West Branch of the Buttahatchee River (site WB1) transports the largest suspended load relative to size of watershed and discharge. Figures 13 through 17 portray the normalized data for each monitored event in tons per square mile per cubic feet per second per day.
Figure 13.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on January 6, 2005.
0.1 ent 0.01 dim /d) e fs 0.001 i2/c (t/m
pended s 0.0001 Sus 0.00001 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 CC1 WB1 WC1 Monitored site 1/6 monitored event
16
Figure 14.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on January 14, 2005. 10
1 ment ) edi 0.1 /cfs/d 0.01
t/mi2 ( pended s s 0.001 u S 0.0001 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BC1 CC1 WB1 WC1 Monitored site 1/14 monitored event
Figure 15.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on February 11, 2005. 0.01 ent m ) di 0.001 e /cfs/d
t/mi2 0.0001 ( pended s s u
S 0.00001 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BC1 CC1 PM1 WC1 Monitored site 2/11 monitored event
Figure 16.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites, from samples collected on March 23, 2005. 1
ent 0.1 m ) di /d e s 0.01 /cf 0.001 t/mi2 ( pended s
s 0.0001 u S 0.00001 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BC1 CC1 PM1 WB1 WC1
Monitored site 3/23 monitored event
17
Figure 17.--Instantaneous suspended sediment loads, normalized with respect to watershed size and discharge, determined for selected Buttahatchee River and tributary sites from samples collected on April 7, 102005.
ent 1
m ) edi s /cfs/d 0.1 t/mi2 ( pended
s 0.01 u S 0.001 BR2 BR3 BR4 WB1 WC1
Monitored site 4/7 monitored event
The investigation of sediment loading in the Buttahatchee River watershed indicates that suspended sediment comprises a major portion of the total sediment load transported by the river. Figures 13 through 17 show that the tributary streams consistently transport as much or more suspended sediment as do the main stem river segments relative to watershed size and discharge. The sediment transport system consists of tributaries that supply much of the sediment load to the main stem of the river which serves as a conduit to move the sediment downstream. Figure 18 portrays the mean suspended loads determined from individual instantaneous samples collected at each monitored site. The monitored Buttahatchee River segments transport from 500 to 2,200 tons of suspended sediment per day (based on limited synoptic data).
Figure 18.--Mean instantaneous suspended sediment loads calculated for Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama. 10000 ) d / 1000
(t nt e m 100 edi 10
spended S 1 u S
0.1 BC1 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 CC1 PM1 WB1 WC1
Monitored Site Mean Suspended Sediment (t/d)
18 Bedload sediment generally comprises less than 50% of the total sediment load transported by streams. However, it is usually a significant part of the total load and must be considered in sedimentation studies. In large streams such as the Buttahatchee River, bedload tends to move in pulses related to trends in discharge and mean stream flow velocity resulting from seasonal precipitation patterns rather than single precipitation events. This is illustrated in figure 19, where a short term increase in discharge on February 11, 2005, correlated with a lower bedload transport rate when compared to data collected on January 6, 2005, in the Buttahatchee River at county road 16 in Lamar County.
Figure 19.--Measured stream discharge and bedload sediment for site BR2, Buttahatchee River at county road 16, Lamar County, Alabama. 160 500 )
150 s f ) 450 day / 140 ons harge (c
400 c s
130 di oad (t
edl 350 ream B 120 t S
110 300 1/6/2005 2/11/2005
Data collection date Bedload Discharge
In smaller streams and in headwaters, the influences of precipitation, discharge, and mean velocity on bedload movement are more immediate. This is portrayed in figures 20 through 25 for the West Branch of the Buttahatchee River, Camp Creek, and Pearces Mill Creek, where precipitation (not shown), discharge, mean velocity, and bedload are closely related.
Figure 20.--Stream discharge and bedload sediment measured at site WB1, West Branch of the Buttahatchee River at Alabma Highway 129 , Marion County, Alabama. 7 75 6 70
) 5
65 ge
4 ) oad /day s f eam
60 har r t c edl 3 (c s ons S B t ( 55 di 2 1 50 0 45 1/6/2005 3/23/2005 Data collection date Bedload Discharge 19
Figure 21.--Mean stream flow velocity and bedload sediment measured at site WB1, West Branch of the Buttahatchee River at highway 129 , Marion County, Alabama. 7 1.2 6 1.15
5 ty i
) 1.1 c o ond) 4 l c e day oad / 1.05 e v s / n edl
3 t ons B t ( ee
1 f
2 Mea (
1 0.95 0 0.9 1/6/05 3/23/05 Data collect ion date Bedload Mean stream flow velocity
Figure 22.--Stream discharge and bedload sediment measured at site CC1, Camp Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, Alabama. 0.7 24 0.6 ) 22 0.5 day / 20 harge c
0.4 ) ons s 18 s (t di 0.3 16 (cf oad ream
0.2 t
edl 14 S B 0.1 12 0 10 1/6/2005 3/23/2005 Data collection date Bedload Discharge
Figure 23.--Mean stream flow velocity and bedload sediment measured at site CC1, Camp Creek at Alabama Highway 253 , Marion County, AL. 0.7 0.65
0.6 0.64 ) 0.5 ow l day / 0.63 f ond) 0.4 ty ons ci ec ream o (t l s t 0.3 /
0.62 ve oad eet (f ean s
edl 0.2 M B 0.61 0.1
0 0.6 1/6/2005 3/23/2005 Data collection date Bedload Mean stream flow velocity
20 Figure 24.--Stream discharge and bedload sediment measured at site PM1, Pearces Mill Creek at highway 253 , Marion County, Alabama. 7 25 6
) 20 5 day / 15 harge c
4 ) ons s i s f d 3 10 (c oad (t ream
2 t edl S B 5 1 0 0 2/11/2005 3/23/2005
Data collection date Bedload Stream discharge
Figure 25.--Mean stream flow velocity and bedload sediment measured at site PM1, Pearces Mill Creek at Alabama Highway 253, Marion County, AL. 7 1.4 1.35 6 1.3 5
1.25 ty ) ci o
1.2 ond) 4 l day
oad / ec
s 1.15 dl ve /s n e 3 n o a
B 1.1 (t e eet
1.05 (f 2 M 1 1 0.95 0 0.9 2/11/2005 3/23/2005 Data collection date Bedload Mean stream flow velocity
Bedload was not measured at the most downstream site BR1 (stream depth precluded measurement) or site WC1 (stream flow velocity during monitored events was insufficient to mobilize the gravel bed). The largest bedload transport rate measured during the project period was 157 tons per day at site BR2 which is the most downstream bedload monitoring site. Other sites-specific maximum bedload rates included 6.8 tons per day at site WB1, 2.8 tons per day at site PM1, and 0.39 tons per day at site CC1. The stream beds of all other sites were composed of rock and were assumed to have total sediment loads composed primarily of suspended sediment. Mean instantaneous bedload rates are given in figure 26.
21
Figure 26.--Mean instantaneous bedload calculated for Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama. 1000
Bedload not measured
100
/d) Total sediment (t loads assumed to
ent be suspended
m 10 edi
oad s
Bedl 1
0.1 BC1 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 CC1 PM1 WB1 WC1 Monitored Site Mean Bedload (t/d)
Total sediment loads are composed of suspended load and bedload. Total mean sediment loads based on the limited data collected for this project are shown in table 4. As discussed earlier, 100 percent of the sediment loads at sites BR3, BR4, and BC1 is assumed to be suspended material. Ninety-four percent of the total sediment load at site BR2 is composed of suspended material. The portion total sediment loads composed of suspended sediment at sites CC1, PM1, and WB1 is 85, 18, and 68 percent, respectively (fig. 27). Percentages are derived from data shown on figure 27.
Table 4.—Mean total sediment loads for the Buttahatchee River and selected tributaries. Stream and monitoring site designation Mean total sediment loads (t/d) Buttahatchee River (BR1) Total load not determined Buttahatchee River (BR2) 2,330 Buttahatchee River (BR3) 596 Buttahatchee River (BR4) 727 Barn Creek (BC1) 2.1 Camp Creek (CC1) 2.6 Pearces Mill Creek (PM1) 3.2 West Branch Buttahatchee River (WB1) 60 Williams Creek (WC1) Total load not determined
22
Figure 27.--Mean instantaneous suspended and bed sediment loads calculated for Buttahatchee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama. 10000 Bedload not Total sediment load assumed )
d measured to be suspended sediment / 1000
(t ent 100 edim s 10
pended s
u 1 S 0.1 BC1 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 CC1 PM1 WB1 WC1 Monitored site Mean Suspended Sediment (t/d) Mean Bedload (t/d)
When the total sediment loads are normalized with respect to monitored watershed area, two significant findings emerge. First, the contributions of sediment from the West Branch of the Buttahatchee River (site WB1) and Williams Creek (site WC1) are significant (fig. 28). Second, most of the sediment load transported by the Buttahatchee River originates in the upstream portion of the watershed. Figure 28 shows that as the watershed area decreases upstream, the unit sedimentation rate increases. The watershed area upstream from site BR1 (most downstream Buttahatchee River site) contributes approximately 1.5 t/d/mi2, the area upstream from site BR2 contributes approximately 3.6 t/d/mi2, the area upstream from site BR3 contributes approximately 5.6 t/d/mi2, and the area upstream from site BR4 (most upstream Buttahatchee River site) contributes approximately 23.4 t/d/mi2.
23
Figure 28.--Normalized mean instantaneous total sediment loads and monitored watershed areas for the Buttahatc hee River and tributary sites in Lamar and Marion Counties, Alabama. 100 500 450 Bedload not included 400 i2) m / 350 d / 10 i2) 300
load (t
nt 250 e area (m e 200 edim 1 150 Drainag ean s M 100 50
0.1 0 BC1 BR1 BR2 BR3 BR 4 CC1 PM1 WB1 WC1 Monitored watershed Mean Total Sediment (t/d/mi2)
Monitored watershed area (mi2)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The scope of this project included the collection of only a limited amount of synoptic sedimentation data. However, these data indicate that sedimentation rates in the Buttahatchee River watershed are significant and that much of the sediment originates in the upstream portion of the watershed. Mean suspended sedimentation rates varied from less than 1 t/d to more than 2,000 t/d, comprising from 18 to 94 percent of the total sediment loads of the monitored watersheds. Bedload transport rates varied from less than 0.5 t/d to 137 t/d. These findings demonstrate the need for additional data collection sufficient to perform the modeling necessary to determine accurate annual sedimentation loads for Buttahatchee River and all major tributaries. This more comprehensive, accurate data may be used to identify specific watersheds for land use investigations that may lead to implementation of best management practices to reduce sedimentation. Data in this report are an initial step toward attaining ultimate goals for the Buttahatchee River watershed: improving water quality, protecting biologic habitat, and conserving the species that rely on these conditions for their continued existence.
24 REFERENCES CITED Cohn, T. A., Caulder, D. L., Gilroy, E. J., Zynjuk, L. D., and Summers, R. M., 1992, The validity of a simple statistical model for estimating fluvial constituent loads: an impirical study involving nutrient loads entering Chesapeake Bay: Water Resources Research, v. 28, p. 2353-2363. Cook, M. R., and Puckett, T. M., 1998, Section 319 national monitoring program project for Lightwood Knot Creek Watershed in Southeast Alabama: A report to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1997 Annual Report and Paired Watershed Calibration: Geological Survey of Alabama open file report, 140 p. Dennis, S. D., 1984, Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation: Blacksburg, Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dissertation, 247 p. Ellis, M. M., 1931, Some factors affecting replacement of the commercial fresh water mussels: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Circular 7, not numbered. ___1936, Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments: Ecology, v. 17, p. 29-42. Hardison, B. S., and Layzer, J. B., 2001, Relations between complex hydraylics and the localized distribution of mussls in three regulated rivers: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, v. 17, p. 77-84. Hartfield, Paul, 1994, Status review of select mussel species in the Mobile River basin: Jackson, Mississippi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3 p. Hartfield, Paul, and Jones, Robert, 1989, Population status of endangered mussels in the Buttahatchee River, Mississippi and Alabama: Segment 1, 1989: Jackson, Mississippi, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science Technical Report No. 9, 35 p. Layzer, J. B., and Madison, L. M., 1995, Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining their instream flow needs: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, v. 10, p. 329-345.
25 McGregor, S. W., and Haag, W. R., 2004, Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) and habitat conditions in the Upper Tombigbee River system, Alabama and Mississippi, 1993-2001: Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 176, 75 p. Mettee, M. F., O’Neil, P. E., and Pierson, J. M., 1996, Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile basin: Birmingham, Oxmoor House, 820 p. Mirarchi, R. E., 2004, Alabama wildlife, Volume 1, A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: Aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals: Tuscaloosa, The University of Alabama Press, 209 p. Mott, Seth, and Hartfield, Paul, 1994, Status review summary of the Alabama Pearlshell: Jackson, Mississippi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6 p. Peacock, Evan, Haag, W. R., and Warren, M. L., Jr., 2005, Prehistoric decline in freshwater mussels coincident with the advent of maize production: Conservation Biology: v. 19, no. 2, p. 547-551. Porterfield, George, 1972, Computation of fluvial-sediment discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey Book 3, 66 p. Richards, R. P., 1999, Estimation of pollutant loads in rivers and streams: a guidance document for NPS programs: Heidelberg College. Sapp, C. D., and Emplaincourt, Jacques, 1975, Physiographic regions of Alabama: Alabama Geological Survey Special Map 168. Stone, Jen, Barndt, Scott, and Gangloff, Michael, 2004, Spatial distribution and habitat use of the Western Pearlshell Mussel (Margritifera falcata) in a Western Washington stream: Journal of Freshwater Ecology, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 341-352. Vannote, R. L., and Minshall, G. W., 1982, Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, v. 79, p. 4103-4107. Williams, J. D., Fuller, S. L. H., and Grace, Randall, 1992, Effects of impoundments on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama: Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, v. 13, p. 1-10.
26 Williams, J. D., Warren, M. L., Jr., Cummings, K. S., Harris, J. L., and Neves, R. J., 1993, Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada: Fisheries, v. 18, no. 9, p. 6-22. Ziuganov, V. V., Sviatoslav, M. K., Popkovitch, E. G., and Neves, R. J., 1998, Can pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) relocate to avoid inhospitable conditions?: Abstract, p. 366 in Bieler, Rudiger and Mikkelsen, P. M., eds., World Congress of Malacology, Washington, D. C.
27
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA P.O. Box 869999 420 Hackberry Lane Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35486-6999 205/349-2852
Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr., State Geologist
A list of the printed publications by the Geological Survey of Alabama can be obtained from the Publications Sales Office (205/247-3636) or through our web site at http://www.gsa.state.al.us/.
E-mail: [email protected]
The Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) makes every effort to collect, provide, and maintain accurate and complete information. However, data acquisition and research are ongoing activities of GSA, and interpretations may be revised as new data are acquired. Therefore, all information made available to the public by GSA should be viewed in that context. Neither the GSA nor any employee thereof makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Conclusions drawn or actions taken on the basis of these data and information are the sole responsibility of the user.
As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior, the GSA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or disability in its programs or activities. Discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in federally assisted GSA education programs. If anyone believes that he or she has been discriminated against in any of the GSA’s programs or activities, including its employment practices, the individual may contact the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Serving Alabama since 1848