The authors appreciate the extraordinary efforts of the editorial and cartography staff of the Georgia District, including Caryl J. Wipperfurth, Carolyn A. Casteel, Willis G. Hester, and Eric A. Steinnagel.
Cover photographs: (1) interior of a chicken house in northern Georgia; (2) application of farm chemicals, (3) skyline of Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia; (4) a wastewater-treatment facility on the Chattahoochee River, Atlanta, Georgia; and (5) sediment discharging from the mouth of Suwanee Creek into the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta, Georgia. NUTRIENT SOURCES AND ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENT WATER-QUALITY DATA, APALACHICOLA – CHATTAHOOCHEE – FLINT RIVER BASIN, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA, 1972 – 90
By Elizabeth A. Frick, Gary R. Buell, and Evelyn E. Hopkins ______
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4101
National Water-Quality Assessment Program
Atlanta, Georgia 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director
Any use of firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government
______
For further information, write to Copies of this report can be purchased from
District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Service 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Denver Federal Center Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286 FOREWORD
The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the earth resources of the Nation and to provide information that will assist resource managers and policymakers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and trends is an important part of this overall mission.
One of the greatest challenges faced by water-resources scientists is acquiring reliable information that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's water resources. That challenge is being addressed by Federal, State, interstate, and local water-resource agencies and by many academic institutions. These organizations are collecting water-quality data for a host of purposes that include: compliance with permits and water-supply standards; development of remediation plans for a specific contamination problem; operational decisions on industrial, wastewater, or water-supply facilities; and research on factors that affect water quality. An additional need for water-quality information is to provide a basis on which regional and national-level policy decisions can be based. Wise decisions must be based on sound information. As a society, we need to know whether certain types of water- quality problems are isolated or ubiquitous, whether there are significant differences in conditions among regions, whether the conditions are changing over time, and why these conditions change from place to place and over time. The information can be used to help determine the efficacy of existing water-quality policies and to help analysts determine the need for, and likely consequences, of new policies.
To address these needs, the Congress appropriated funds in 1986 for the USGS to begin a pilot program in seven project areas to develop and refine the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. In 1991, the USGS began full implementation of the program. The NAWQA Program builds upon an existing base of water- quality studies of the USGS, as well as those of other Federal, State, and local agencies. The objectives of the NAWQA Program are to:
• describe current water-quality conditions for a large part of the Nation's freshwater streams, rivers, and aquifers; • describe how water quality is changing over time; and • improve understanding of primary natural and human factors that affect water-quality conditions. This information will help support the development and evaluation of management, regulatory, and monitoring decisions by other Federal, State, and local agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources.
The goals of the NAWQA Program are being achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations of 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and aquifer systems, which are referred to as study units. These study units are distributed throughout the Nation and cover a diversity of hydrogeologic settings. More than two-thirds of the Nation's freshwater use occurs within the 60 study units and more than two-thirds of the people served by public water-supply systems live within their boundaries.
National synthesis of data analysis, based on aggregation of comparable information obtained from the study units, is a major component of the program. This effort focuses on selected water-quality topics using nationally consistent information. Comparative studies will explain differences and similarities in observed water-quality conditions among study areas and will identify changes and trends and their causes. The first topics addressed by the national synthesis are pesticides, nutrients, volatile organic compounds, and aquatic biology. Discussions on these and other water-quality topics will be published in periodic summaries of the quality of the Nation's ground and surface water as the information becomes available.
This report is an element of the comprehensive body of information developed as part of the NAWQA Program. The program depends heavily on the advice, cooperation, and information from many Federal, State, interstate, Tribal, and local agencies and the public. The assistance and suggestions of all are greatly appreciated.
Information regarding the NAWQA Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resources Locator (URL) at:
iii CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Purpose and scope 3 Description of Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 3 Location and physiography 3 Climate and hydrologic setting 3 Population, land use, and water use 6 Acknowledgments 12 Nutrient sources 12 Point-source loads 12 Municipal-wastewater effluent 15 Nonpoint-source inputs 22 Animal manure 23 Fertilizer 23 Atmospheric deposition 25 Analysis of nutrient water-quality data 27 Nutrient water-quality standards, health advisories, and criteria 27 Sources of nutrient water-quality data 28 Assessment approach 28 Data compilation and screening 29 Distribution of sampling sites 29 Nutrients in surface water 35 Relation of concentration to stream discharge 41 Downstream variations in concentrations 56 Seasonal variations in concentrations 70 Temporal trends in concentrations 78 Annual loads and mean annual yields 90 Nutrients in ground water 96 Nitrate concentrations 98 Nutrient distributions by aquifer and well depth 99 Nutrient distributions by water-use category 101 Summary 104 References 107
iv ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1-3. Maps showing: 1. Location of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin including physiographic provinces 4 2. Location of subbasins and corresponding hydrologic unit codes, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 5 3. Generalized outcrop areas for geologic and hydrogeologic units underlying the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 7 Figure 4. Chart showing generalized geologic and hydrogeologic units in the Coastal Plain of the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 8 Figures 5-6. Maps showing: 5. Land use, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 11 6. Location of municipal-wastewater outfalls having discharges greater than one million gallons per day, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 20 Figures 7-8. Graphs showing: 7. Effluent discharge from ten municipal-wastewater-treatment facilities that discharge more than 1 million gallons per day into the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries and population of the five counties where these facilities discharge, Metropolitan Atlanta, 1980 – 95 21 8. Effluent discharge and ammonia and phosphorus loads from the six largest municipal-wastewater- treatment facilities, Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Harding subbasin, 1980 – 93 22 Figures 9-11. Maps showing: 9. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from animal manure, by county, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 24 10. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from fertilizer, by county, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 26 11. Location of National Atmospheric Deposition Program precipitation stations used to estimate nitrogen input from atmospheric deposition within the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 27 Figure 12. Graphs showing number of nutrient water-quality samples analyzed from streams, reservoirs and lakes, wells, and springs, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 35 Figures 13-14. Maps showing: 13. Distribution of stream, reservoir, and lake water-sampling sites having nutrient data, by collection agency, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 36 14. Distribution of ground-water sampling sites having nutrient data, by collection agency, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 38 Figure 15. Graphs showing distribution of nutrient concentrations in (A) streams and (B) reservoirs and lakes by nutrient-constituent groups, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 41 16. Map showing locations of surface-water sites where data were used in nutrient analyses, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 50 Figures 17-35. Graphs showing: 17. Distribution of nutrient samples within decile-flow classes for nine stream-sampling sites, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 52 18. Relation between dissolved-ammonia concentration and discharge for two mainstem and four tributary sampling sites, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 53 19. Relation between dissolved-nitrate concentration and discharge for two mainstem and four tributary sampling sites, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 54 20. Relation between total-phosphorus concentration and discharge for two mainstem and four tributary sampling sites, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 55 21. Instantaneous discharge when nutrient samples were collected in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 57 22. Downstream variation in total-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 58
v ILLUSTRATIONS — Continued Figures 17-35. Graphs showing: — Continued 23. Downstream variation in total-inorganic-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 59 24. Downstream variation in total-organic-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 60 25. Downstream variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 61 26. Downstream variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 62 27. Downstream variation in dissolved-organic-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 63 28. Downstream variation in total-phosphorus concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 64 29. Downstream variation in dissolved-orthophosphate concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972 – 90 water years 65 30. Seasonal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Chattahoochee River, 1972 – 90 water years 72 31. Seasonal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Chattahoochee River, 1972 – 90 water years 73 32. Seasonal variation in total-phosphorous concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Chattahoochee River, 1972 – 90 water years 74 33. Seasonal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972 – 90 water years 75 34. Seasonal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972 – 90 water years 76 35. Seasonal variation in total-phosphorous concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972 – 90 water years 77 Figure 36. Map showing summary of trends for concentration of dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus in surface water, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1980 – 90 water years 82 Figures 37-47. Graphs showing: 37. Temporal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980 – 90 trend, Chattahoochee River, 1972 – 90 water years 84 38. Temporal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, and 1980 – 90 trend, Chattahoochee River, 1972 – 90 water years 85 39. Temporal variation in total-phosphorous concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980 – 90 trend, Chattahoochee River, 1972 – 90 water years 86 40. Temporal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980 – 90 trend, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972 – 90 water years 87 41. Temporal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980 – 90 trend, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972 – 90 water years 88 42. Temporal variation in total-phosphorous concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980 – 90 trend, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972 – 90 water years 89 43. Annual loads of dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus and mean annual discharge for eight stream-sampling sites, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 91 44. Nitrogen loads at selected sites along the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, 1989 and 1990 water years 93 45. Total-phosphorus loads at selected sites along the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, 1989 and 1990 water years 94 46. Nitrogen and total-phosphorous sources to and output from the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 95
vi ILLUSTRATIONS — Continued Figures 37-47. Graphs showing: — Continued 47. Distribution of nutrient concentrations in (A) wells and (B) springs by nutrient-constituent groups, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 97 Figure 48. Map showing location of ground-water-sampling sites with nutrient data, by aquifer and well depth, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 100 Figures 49-50. Graphs showing: 49. Distribution by aquifer of dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorous concentrations in wells, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 102 50. Distribution by water-use category of dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorous concentrations in wells, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 103
TABLES Table 1. Population distribution, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1970, 1980, and 1990 9 2. Land-use and land-cover distributions, by subbasin, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 10 3. Water withdrawals by principal water-use categories, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 13 4. Point-source loads and nonpoint-source inputs of nutrients, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 14 5. Municipal wastewater discharges, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 16 6. Nutrient loads from municipal wastewater facilities discharging more than one million gallons per day, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 17 7. Summary of algorithms used to transform source data collected in the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin into selected nutrient constituent groups 30 8. Compilation of the number of sites and nutrient analyses from Federal and State sources of digital data, by media type, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 33 9. Summary of graphical and statistical analyses of nutrient data, by media type, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 39 10. Streamflow and basin characteristics for surface-water sites where data were used in nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 42 11. Comparison of nutrient concentrations at sampling sites upstream and downstream of major cities, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 66 12. Comparison of nutrient concentrations at sampling sites in river reaches downstream of major municipal point-source inputs, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 67 13. Comparison of nutrient concentrations at sampling sites in and downstream of reservoirs, Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 69 14. Land use and land cover, median nutrient concentrations, and mean annual yield for eight tributary streams, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 71 15. Trend-test results for nutrient concentrations for selected surface-water sampling sites, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1980 – 90 water years 79 16. Mean annual loads and yields for nutrients for selected surface-water sampling sites, by nutrient constituent group, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years 112
vii CONVERSION FACTORS AND ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply by to obtain
Length inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer
Area square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer
Mass tons 907.1847 kilograms tons per square mile (tons/mi2) 350.26 kilograms per square kilometer
Rate cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.2832 cubic meter per second million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meters per second tons per year (tons/yr) 907.1847 kilograms per year
Temperature Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit (° F), can be converted to degrees Celsius (° C) as follows: ° F = 1.8 (° C) + 32
viii ACRONYMS
ACF Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management ARC Atlanta Regional Commission CSO combined sewer overflow(s) FGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission FLDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation GEPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division GGS Georgia Geologic Survey GWIS Ground Water Information System GWUDS Georgia Water-Use Data System LOWESS LOcally WEighted Scatterplot Smoothing MCL maximum contaminant level(s) NADP/NTN National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWIS National Water Information System PCS Permit Compliance System SSO sanitary sewer overflow(s) STORET STOage and PETrieval System STP Sewage Treatment Plant USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant WSFPA Water, Sewer, and Fire Protection Association WWTF wastewater-treatment facility (facilities)
ABBREVIATIONS mg/L milligram per liter mg/L/yr milligram per liter per year µg/L microgram per liter N nitrogen NH3 ammonia + NH3 plus NH4 total ammonia + NH4 ammonium - NO3 nitrate - NO2 nitrite P phosphorus PO4 phosphate
ix
NUTRIENT SOURCES AND ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENT WATER-QUALITY DATA, APALACHICOLA –CHATTAHOOCHEE – FLINT RIVER BASIN, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA, 1972 – 90
By Elizabeth A. Frick, Gary R. Buell, and Evelyn H. Hopkins
ABSTRACT ments in WWTF, legislation directed at decreasing In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey began full- point-source loads of phosphorus, and changes in scale implementation of the National Water-Quality locations of wastewater-treatment outfalls. However, Assessment (NAWQA) program. One of the initial limited data indicate that nonpoint-source inputs tasks of the NAWQA program is to compile and increased upstream of Atlanta and in the Chipola evaluate existing data from individual study units. River watershed. Available nutrient data from 1972 through 1990 water Significant increases in nutrient concentrations, years were used to estimate nutrient sources to the loads, and yields occurred from upstream to down- Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint (ACF) River basin stream of the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Ga.; and describe the presence, distribution, and transport of Columbus, Ga., and Phenix City, Ala.; and Albany, nutrients in surface and ground waters. Ga. The highest mean-annual yields estimated in the ACF River basin for total nitrogen (2.9 tons per In 1990, about 2,500 tons of nitrogen and 1,100 2 tons of phosphorus were discharged as point-source square mile (tons/mi )), total-inorganic nitrogen (2.0 tons/mi2), dissolved ammonia (1.1 tons/mi2), and loads by 127 municipal wastewater-treatment 2 facilities (WWTF). Nonpoint-source inputs, an total phosphorus (0.75 tons/mi ) were downstream of unknown percentage of which entered the hydrologic Atlanta. system, included about 120,000 tons of nitrogen and Most significant trends in nutrient-concentration 28,000 tons of phosphorus from animal manure; data from 1980 – 90 in the Chattahoochee River and the 82,000 tons of nitrogen and 20,000 tons of Middle and Lower Flint River basins were increasing, phosphorus applied as fertilizer; and 24,000 tons of except dissolved ammonia which decreased at several nitrogen from atmospheric deposition. Estimates of sampling sites in reaches downstream of Atlanta, nutrient input to the ACF River basin were not made Columbus and Phenix City, and Albany. At sampling for natural sources and for the following anthropo- sites on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers genic sources: industrial-wastewater effluent; storm downstream of Atlanta and Albany, decreasing trends drains; sanitary and combined sewer outflows; and in dissolved-ammonia concentration and increasing runoff from agricultural, urban, and suburban areas. trends in dissolved-nitrate concentration were the Nutrient outflow from the Apalachicola River into result of improved wastewater treatment at WWTF. Apalachicola Bay, Fla., was about 13 percent of Dissolved-ammonia concentrations decreased and estimated nitrogen sources and about 3 percent of dissolved-nitrate concentrations increased along river estimated total-phosphorus sources in the ACF River reaches downstream of wastewater-treatment facility basin. outfalls for Atlanta and Albany because of For 1972 – 90, nutrient concentrations in surface nitrification of ammonia to nitrate. Increasing trends in water were high enough to warrant concerns about total-phosphorus concentrations are an accurate accelerated eutrophication based on total-phosphorus representation of data for the period 1980 – 90. concentrations and to warrant concerns intermittently However, legislated restrictions on the use of about toxicity to fish based on dissolved-ammonia phosphate detergents and improvements to WWTF in concentrations downstream of wastewater-treatment the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, resulted in outfalls from Metropolitan Atlanta and LaGrange, Ga. substantial reductions of phosphorus concentrations Many improvements to the water quality of the in wastewater effluent and in rivers at many locations Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers in the 1980’s and in the 1990’s. early 1990’s can be directly attributed to improve-
1 Reservoirs affect nutrient transport because of INTRODUCTION uptake by phytoplankton and aquatic plants, denitrifi- In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) cation, and accumulation of phosphorus associated began full-scale implementation of the National with sediment in reservoirs. Yields of total-inorganic Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. The nitrogen, dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and three major objectives of the program are to provide a total phosphorus decreased between sampling sites nationally consistent description of current water- upstream and downstream of four reservoirs on the quality conditions for a large part of the Nation’s Chattahoochee River. The only exception was the water resources; define long-term trends (or lack yield of dissolved ammonia increased slightly from thereof); and identify, describe, and explain the major upstream to downstream of Lake Sidney Lanier. factors that affect observed water-quality conditions Much of the nutrient load in the Chattahoochee River and trends (Hirsch and others, 1988; Leahy and downstream of Atlanta is utilized by algae or settles others, 1990). The NAWQA program, when fully out primarily in West Point Lake, and to a lesser implemented, will include investigations of hydro- extent, in Lake Harding and Walter F. George logic systems in 60 study units that include parts of Reservoir. In general, the Flint River arm of Lake most major river basins and aquifer systems in the Seminole had significantly higher concentrations of United States. Study units range in size from 1,200 to nutrients than the Chattahoochee River arm of Lake about 65,000 square miles (mi2), and incorporate 60 Seminole, which may be the result of the large to 70 percent of the Nation’s water use and population percentage of the Middle and Lower Chattahoochee served by public water-supply systems. The River in backwater from reservoirs, the absence of Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint (ACF) River reservoirs on the Flint River downstream of Albany basin was among the first 20 NAWQA study units until Lake Seminole, and nonpoint-source inputs of selected for study under the full-scale implementation nutrients from intensively farmed areas in the Lower plan (Wangsness and Frick, 1991). Flint River basin. Decreases in dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorus concentra- One of the initial tasks of the NAWQA program tions in reservoirs and backwater along the is to compile and evaluate existing data from Chattahoochee River from West Point Lake to Lake individual study units. These data provide an Seminole during summer months are related to the historical perspective on the water quality in a study seasonality of phytoplankton production. unit, strengths and weaknesses of available information, and implications for water-quality The Chipola River had the highest yields of issues, study priorities, and study design. In addition 2 dissolved nitrate (1.2 tons/mi ) estimated in the ACF to analyzing historical data on a regional scale, River basin. Estimated loads of dissolved nitrate nutrients (Puckett, 1994; Puckett, 1995; Mueller and increased fairly steadily from 500 to 1,500 tons per others, 1995) and pesticides (Barbash and Resek, year from 1972 – 90. These factors strongly suggest an 1996; Larson, S.J., Capel, P.D., and Majewski, M.S., agricultural nonpoint source of elevated dissolved- U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1996; nitrate concentrations from increased irrigated Majewski and Capel, 1995; Nowell, L.H., Dileanis, agriculture and fertilizer applications in the Chipola P.D., and Capel, P.D., U.S. Geological Survey, written River watershed. commun., 1996) are the first two topics being Analyses of nutrients in ground water within the investigated on a national scale to evaluate ACF River basin for 1972 – 90 water years were differences among various regions of the country. restricted because of limited available data. The Stell and others (1995) describes use and occurrence distribution of nitrate concentrations in the ACF River of pesticides in the ACF River basin. This report basin for 1972 – 90 water years included 10 percent of describes and evaluates available nutrient data in the wells and 6 percent of springs with concentrations ACF River basin. that probably have elevated nitrate concentrations (3.1 Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L)), and 1 percent of are important because their availability can regulate wells with median nitrate concentrations exceeding or limit the productivity of organisms in freshwater- the maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L. aquatic systems. High concentrations of nitrogen and Dissolved-nitrate concentrations were significantly phosphorus can adversely affect surface-water quality lower in the Providence aquifer than in the Floridan through eutrophication (abundant accumulation of aquifer system and the crystalline-rock aquifers. nutrients causing excessive aquatic-plant growth) and Dissolved-nitrate concentrations in wells used for toxicity to aquatic life. High concentrations of nitrate, public supply were significantly lower than in wells found primarily in ground water, can be toxic to used for domestic use or unused wells. warm-blooded animals that drink the water.
2 Purpose and Scope (about 270 mi2) (U.S. Geological Survey digital files). The purposes of this report are to (1) quantify The Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers merge in Lake nutrient sources to the ACF River basin and (2) Seminole to form the Apalachicola River, which present graphical and statistical analyses describing flows through the panhandle of Florida into the regional variations in the presence, distribution, and Apalachicola Bay, and discharges into the Gulf of transport of nutrients in surface and ground waters of Mexico. The ACF River basin NAWQA study area is the ACF River basin. Where possible, variations in further subdivided according to 14 cataloging units nutrient water quality are related to hydrologic, shown on hydrologic unit maps (U.S. Geological environmental, and anthropogenic factors. This evalu- Survey 1975a,b,c). The cataloging units, referred to as ation is intended to provide a historical description of subbasins in this report (fig. 2), have differing nutrient water-quality conditions in the ACF River physiography, climate, hydrologic characteristics, basin, help guide the intensive sampling phase of the population densities, and land and water uses ACF NAWQA study with respect to nutrients, and resulting in differences in surface-water and ground- provide regional interpretation of nutrient distribution water quality. Wherever possible, information in this in the ACF for the national synthesis on nutrients. It report is presented at the subbasin, major river basin, is outside the scope of this report to attempt to explain and study-unit scales. specific chemical processes affecting nutrients within The ACF River basin lies in three physiographic the ACF River basin. provinces: the Blue Ridge Province, which includes This evaluation is based on available and the headwaters of the Chattahoochee River in the accessible nutrient data collected from the ACF River northwestern part of the study area; the Piedmont basin during 1972 – 90 water years1/. Nutrient sources Province, which includes the Upper and Middle to the ACF River basin were estimated for 1990. Chattahoochee River subbasins and the Upper Flint Analyzed nutrient water-quality data were from three River subbasin; and the Coastal Plain Province, which computerized data bases — the USGS National Water includes approximately the southern half of the basin Information System (NWIS), U.S. Environmental (fig. 1). The Fall Line, a physiographic boundary Protection Agency (USEPA) STOrage and RETrieval rather than a geologic boundary in most areas, System (STORET), and Florida Department of approximates the boundary between older crystalline Environmental Regulation (FLDER) Ground Water rocks of the Piedmont and younger sedimentary rocks Information System (GWIS). Some discharge and and unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain. concentration data from major wastewater-treatment Climate and Hydrologic Setting facilities (WWTF) were computerized from paper The ACF River basin is in a warm, temperate, files. subtropical climate zone that is moist year round and Description of the has hot summers. Average annual precipitation ranges Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin from 45 to 60 inches (in.), primarily as rainfall The following three sections provide a brief (Hodler and Schretter, 1986). Average annual runoff description of the environmental setting of the ACF ranges from approximately 12 to 40 in. (Stokes and River basin. A more thorough description is in Couch McFarlane, 1993; U.S. Geological Survey, 1993; and others (1996). Pearman and others, 1993). Average annual temperatures range from 60 ° F in the northern part to Location and Physiography 70 ° F in the southern part of the basin. Evapo- The ACF River basin NAWQA study area (fig. 1) transpiration ranges from about 32 to 42 in., and gen- is about 20,400 mi2. This number includes the erally increases from north to south (Hodler and drainage area at the mouth of the Apalachicola River Schretter, 1986). 2 (19,600 mi ) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985); Within the Piedmont (fig. 1), the course of the 2 the New River watershed (about 510 mi ) (U.S. upper Chattahoochee River is strongly controlled by Geological Survey digital files); and the Apalachicola geologic structures (primarily faults) and has a Bay and surrounding coastal areas and barrier islands rectangular drainage pattern; whereas, the Flint River has a dendritic drainage pattern. In the Coastal Plain, the rivers and their tributaries are incised into the 1/ Water year is the 12-month period, October 1 through underlying aquifers and receive substantial amounts September 30. The water year is designated by the of ground water from these aquifers. The Chattahoo- calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of chee River drains 8,770 mi2 and flows 430 mi and the the 12 months. Thus, the year ending September 30, 2 1990, is called the “1990 water year.” Flint River drains 8,460 mi and flows 350 mi (U.S.
3 84° Blue Ridge
LakeLake SidneySidney LanierLanier
34°
Alabama Georgia ° ★ 85 er iv Atlanta AACFCF R ee ch o o h a tt a A h t C l a F Georgia Piedmont l n Alabama Piedmont o t Gu i lf o r c f M i ex d O
ic a c F
o e l
a i
n n LaGrange ° t 33 R i West v e Point r Lake
Line LakeLake all HardingHarding F PhenixPhenixPhenix City CCityity Columbus CCoastaloastal PPlainlain
32° Lake WalterWalter F Blackshear GeorgeGeorge ReservoirReservoir
AlbanyAAlbanylbany Lake Worth
DothanDothan Newton
AAlabamalabama 31° FloridaFlorida LakeLakeLake BainbridgeBainbridge SeminoleSeminoleSeminole
C GGeorgiaeorgia h
i p r
o e v FloridaFlorida l i
a R
R a l i
v o
e c
i r h c a l a
p
A
30° 0 20 40 60 80 MILES
y Ba a ol 0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS hic lac Apa
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files
Figure 1. Location of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin including physiographic provinces.
4 84°
031300010130001
° 34 EXPLANATION
° 85 03130001 SUBBASIN—number indicates hydrologic unit code
CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN 031300020130002 03130001 Upper Chattahoochee 03130002 Middle Chattahoochee— 33° 031300050130005 Lake Harding 03130003 Middle Chattahoochee— Walter F. George Reservoir 03130004 Lower Chattahoochee
FLINT RIVER BASIN 03130005 Upper Flint 031300030130003 03130006 Middle Flint 031300060130006 03130007 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee 32° 031300070130007 03130008 Lower Flint 03130009 Ichawaynochaway 03130010 Spring 031300090130009
031300040130004 APALACHICOLA RIVER BASIN 03130011 Apalachicola 03130012 Chipola 0031300083130008 03130013 New 031300100130010 03130014 Apalachicola Bay 31°
031300120130012 0031300113130011
0 20 40 60 80 MILES
0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS
30° 0031300133130013
03130014
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files
Figure 2. Location of subbasins and corresponding hydrologic unit codes, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River basin (from U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a,b,c).
5 Army Corps of Engineers, 1985). The confluence of aquifers are composed of Pre-Cambrian to Permian the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers is the headwaters metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Blue Ridge and of the Apalachicola River. The Apalachicola River Piedmont. In general, these rocks supply small flows unimpeded for 108 mi from its headwaters just amounts of ground water, although increasing popula- below Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam to the Apalachi- tion is causing renewed interest in developing ground cola Bay. With a mean annual discharge of 25,960 water as a source of public supply. From the Fall Line cubic feet per second (ft3/s) from 1978 – 92, the to the Gulf of Mexico, progressively younger Coastal Apalachicola River is the largest river in Florida and Plain sediments crop out and overlie older sediments, the 21st largest river in the conterminous United States stratigraphic thicknesses of units generally increase, (Leitman and others, 1983). Its width ranges from and vertical and areal facies changes occur within several hundred feet when confined to its banks to units. The regional direction of ground flow in the nearly 4-1/2 mi during flood stage in winter months Coastal Plain physiographic province within the ACF (Leitman and others, 1983; Leitman and others, River basin is from north to south; however, there are 1991). local variations in ground-water flow direction, The Middle and Lower Flint subbasins are especially in the vicinity of major streams and in areas underlain by the highly transmissive Floridan aquifer of large ground-water withdrawals. Aquifer bounda- system and these subbasins tend to have higher ries are not always coincident with stratigraphic recharge rates and lower runoff than the rest of the boundaries and naming conventions for stratigraphic ACF River basin. Baseflow measurements and units and aquifers are not uniform across state lines ground-water modeling results (Torak and others, within the study area. Aquifer names in this report 1993, p. 15 and 32) indicate that the Flint River acts conform primarily to those used in the literature as a major regional drain for the Upper Floridan discussing geology and hydrogeology in Georgia. aquifer from Lake Worth to Newton, Ga. From youngest to oldest, aquifers within the Coastal Plain of the ACF River basin include the: surficial Sixteen reservoirs have altered the natural aquifer system, Floridan aquifer system, Claiborne streamflow and riverine ecosystems within the study aquifer, Clayton aquifer, and Providence aquifer (fig. area. The Chattahoochee River has three major 4). The surficial aquifer system outcrop includes reservoirs — Lake Sidney Lanier, West Point Lake, sediments deposited in a variety of fluvial and marine and Walter F. George Reservoir — that account for environments including river terraces, floodplain, approximately 99 percent of the surface-storage delta, and coastal scarps. Coastal Plain aquifers within capacity in the ACF River basin. Nine of 10 other the ACF River basin are composed primarily of reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River are run-of-the- Upper Cretaceous to Quaternary inter-bedded sand, river reservoirs with little or no storage capacity (U.S. clay, limestone, and marl that are heavily used for Army Corps of Engineers, 1984). The Flint River has domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supplies. two reservoirs — Lake Blackshear and Lake Worth. Jim Woodruff Dam forms Lake Seminole at the Population, Land Use, and Water Use headwaters of the Apalachicola River. All reservoirs In 1990, the population of the ACF River basin in the ACF River basin were built prior to 1972 was about 2.64 million people (table 1). Population except West Point Lake, which began to be filled in estimates for the study area were made using a October 1974 and reached maximum power pool in geographic information system to total U.S. Bureau of June 1975. Effects of reservoirs on annual flow the Census population estimates for census tracts by distributions are overshadowed by natural variations subbasin. Population densities were highest in the in the ACF River basin (Leitman and others, 1991, p. Upper and Middle Chattahoochee subbasins, which 230). However, the six reservoirs with storage include much of the Metropolitan Atlanta area. Sixty capacity affect downstream flows over shorter time percent of the population of the study area live in the scales and moderate extreme low and high flows. Metropolitan Atlanta area. However, southeast Where historical data were sufficient, changes in Atlanta and the eastern and northwestern suburbs of nutrient chemistry as a result of lacustrine the Atlanta area are outside the study area (in the environments created by man-made impoundments Ocmulgee and Etowah subbasins). Other large popu- on the mainstem rivers were evaluated by comparing lation centers in the basin include Columbus, Ga.; nutrient data upstream and downstream of dams. Phenix City, Ala.; Albany, Ga.; and the eastern part of For this report, the ACF River basin is Dothan, Ala. (fig. 1). Most other cities and towns in subdivided into six aquifers (fig. 3) within geologic the ACF River basin have populations of less than units of different ages, lithology, and physical charac- 50,000 people. Population within the study area grew teristics, all of which can influence chemical by approximately 16 percent from 1970 – 80, and by characteristics of ground water. The crystalline-rock 13 percent from 1980 – 90, although populations of 6 85° 84°
EXPLANATION
34° GENERALIZED OUTCROP AREAS Surficial aquifer system Floridan aquifer system Claiborne aquifer and associated Eocene strata
Clayton aquifer and associated Paleocene strata 33° Providence aquifer and associated Upper Cretaceous strata
Line Fall Crystalline-rock aquifers
32°
31°
30° 0 20 40 60 80 MILES
o ic 0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS ex M of lf Gu Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 3. Generalized outcrop areas for geologic and hydrogeologic units underlying the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin (modified from Georgia Geologic Survey, 1976; Miller, 1986; and Geological Survey of Alabama, 1989).
7 Chattahoochee and Flint Florida Panhandle Hydrogeologic System Series River Valley Geologic Units Geologic Units Units North South
Holocene- Terrace and undifferentiated Terrace and undifferentiated Quaternary Pleistocene deposits deposits Surficial aquifer system Pliocene Undifferentiated overburden Citronelle Formation Undifferentiated deposits Alum Bluff Miocene Hawthorn Formation Hawthorn Formation Group Tampa Limestone Oligocene Suwanee Limestone Suwanee Limestone Floridan aquifer Mariana Limestone system
Ocala Limestone Ocala Limestone
Moodys Branch Eocene Formation Moodys Branch Formation
Lisbon Confining unit Tertiary Formation Lisbon Formation Tallahatta Claiborne aquifer Formation Tallahatta Formation Hatchitigbee Unnamed and Bashi units Formations
Tuscahoma Unnamed Formation units Confining unit Nanafalia and Unnamed Baker Hill Paleocene units Formations Undifferentiated Paleocene and Upper Cretaceous Porters Creek Unnamed strata Clay units
Clayton Formation Clayton aquifer
Confining unit Unnamed Providence Sand Providence aquifer Upper units Cretaceous Cretaceous Unnamed Ripley Formation units Confining unit
Figure 4. Generalized geologic and hydrogeologic units in the Coastal Plain of the Apalachicola– Chattahoochee–Flint River basin. Gray area represents principle water-bearing strata; blank area represents missing strata (modified from Wagner and Allen,1984; Faye and Mayer, 1996; and Georgia Geologic Survey, written communication, 1996). several subbasins in the southern and more rural part square mile in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1991a,b, of the study area have decreased in the last 20 years c; Hitt, 1994). This method of updating urban land use (table 1). increased estimates of urban land use in the Upper and Forest and agriculture were the dominant land Middle Chattahoochee subbasins (predominantly in 2 cover and land use within the ACF River basin, the Metropolitan Atlanta area) from 440 mi for 2 accounting for 59 and 29 percent of the study area, 1972 – 78 to 640 mi for 1990. The increase in urban respectively (table 2). Land-use and land-cover land use for the entire basin was from about 820 to 2 estimates listed in table 2 and shown in figure 5 are 1,100 mi (4.1 to 5.3 percent of the study area). On a based on 1972 – 78 high-altitude aerial photography regional scale, changes in land use from the mid- (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979a – f, 1980a – c), with 1970’s to the early 1990’s were primarily the result of urban areas updated to include all census tracts with urban growth around Atlanta and conversion of row- population densities greater than 1,000 people per crop agricultural land to pine trees in the Coastal Plain. Most agricultural land in the Upper and Middle 8 Table 1. Population distribution, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1970, 1980, and 1990 [Numbers may not add to totals because of independent rounding]
Population Average population Hydrologic Percent of 1990 density, 1990 unit code Subbasin name population (people per square (figure 2) 1/ 2/ 3/ 1970 1980 1990 mile of land)
03130001 Upper Chattahoochee 683,000 809,000 905,000 34 600 03130002 Middle Chattahoochee–Lake Harding 469,000 555,000 691,000 26 230 03130003 Middle Chattahoochee–Walter F. George Reservoir 263,000 267,000 276,000 10 99 03130004 Lower Chattahoochee 37,300 44,800 51,400 1.9 42 Subtotal — Chattahoochee River basin 1,450,000 1,680,000 1,920,000 73 230
03130005 Upper Flint 210,000 273,000 354,000 13 140 03130006 Middle Flint 57,400 63,900 66,600 2.5 43 03130007 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee 39,000 44,000 52,300 2.0 48
9 03130008 Lower Flint 110,000 124,000 117,000 4.4 92 03130009 Ichawaynochaway 25,900 26,500 22,500 0.8 20 03130010 Spring 23,900 26,600 22,300 0.8 29 Subtotal — Flint River basin 466,000 558,000 634,000 24 76
03130011 Apalachicola 18,300 20,700 25,800 1.0 24 03130012 Chipola 49,600 60,000 52,800 2.0 41 03130013 New 4/4,500 4/4,960 3,760 0.1 7 03130014 Apalachicola Bay 4/ 4/ 2,770 0.1 42 Subtotal — Apalachicola River basin 72,400 85,700 85,200 3.2 29
0313 TOTAL — Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 1,990,000 2,320,000 2,640,000 100 130
1/Modified from U.S. Bureau of the Census 1970 population estimates by county, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981d; and U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a,b,c. 3/Modified from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981d; and U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a,b,c. 3/Modified from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991a,b,c; and U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a,b,c. 4/Population estimates for 1970 and 1980 in the New and Apalachicola Bay subbasins are both included in New (03130013) subbasin. Table 2. Land-use and land-cover distributions, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin [mi2, square miles; <, less than; numbers may not add to totals because of independent rounding; updates of land-use data in urban areas based on U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 population estimates; rangeland accounts for less than nine square miles (less than 0.1 percent) in the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin; modified from U.S. Geological Survey (1979a – f, 1980a – c) and U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991)]
Anderson Level I—Land-Use and Land-Cover Classifications Hydrologic Urban or Total of unit code Subbasin name Agricultural land Forest land Water Wetland Barren land built-up land classifications (figure 2) (mi2) (percent) (mi2) (percent) (mi2) (percent) (mi2) (percent) (mi2) (percent) (mi2) (percent) (mi2) (percent)
03130001 Upper Chattahoochee 350 22 220 14 930 59 56 3.6 <1 <0.1 17 1.1 1,600 7.7 03130002 Middle Chattahoochee–Lake Harding 280 9.2 460 15 2,200 72 76 2.5 2 0.1 26 0.9 3,000 15 03130003 Middle Chattahoochee–Walter F. George 130 4.6 420 15 2,200 77 70 2.5 20 0.7 15 0.5 2,800 14 Reservoir 03130004 Lower Chattahoochee 18 1.4 570 46 610 49 32 2.5 20 1.6 3 0.2 1,200 6.1 Subtotal — Chattahoochee River basin 780 9.0 1,700 19 5,900 68 230 2.7 42 0.5 61 0.7 8,700 43 1/8,770 03130005 Upper Flint 140 5.2 670 25 1,700 65 10 0.4 98 3.7 14 0.5 2,600 13
10 03130006 Middle Flint 28 1.8 790 50 660 42 15 1.0 67 4.3 2 0.1 1,600 7.7 03130007 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee 20 1.8 480 44 540 49 2 0.2 53 4.8 2 0.2 1,100 5.4 03130008 Lower Flint 53 4.1 640 50 530 41 18 1.4 43 3.3 5 0.4 1,300 6.4 03130009 Ichawaynochaway 8 0.8 550 49 400 36 3 0.3 150 14 1 0.1 1,100 5.4 03130010 Spring 9 1.2 470 61 240 32 16 2.1 26 3.3 5 0.6 770 3.8 Subtotal — Flint River basin 250 3.0 3,600 43 4,100 48 65 0.8 440 5.2 28 0.3 8,500 42 1/8,460 03130011 Apalachicola 13 1.2 120 10 650 58 26 2.3 310 28 4 0.3 1,100 5.5
03130012 Chipola 23 1.8 450 35 650 50 9 0.7 160 12 7 0.6 1,300 6.4
03130013 New 4 0.9 <1 <0.1 380 74 9 1.7 120 22 1 0.1 510 2.5
03130014 Apalachicola Bay 5 1.8 <1 <0.1 44 16 200 75 15 5.4 3 1.3 270 1.3 Subtotal — Apalachicola River basin 45 1.4 570 18 1,700 54 240 7.6 600 19 15 0.5 3,200 16
TOTAL—Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – 1,100 5.3 5,800 29 11,700 58 540 2.7 1,100 5.3 100 0.5 20,400 100 0313 Flint River basin
1/Unrounded drainage areas (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985). 84°
° 34 EXPLANATION
85° URBAN LAND AGRICULTURAL LAND FOREST LAND WETLAND
33° WATER
32°
31°
0 20 40 60 80 MILES
0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS
30°
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 5. Land use, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin. Barren land (120 square miles) and range land (9 square miles) are not visible at this scale (modified from U.S. Geological Survey land use and land cover digital data, 1972–78; urban areas expanded based on U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 population estimates).
11 Chattahoochee and Upper Flint River subbasins is NUTRIENT SOURCES used for pastures, and to a lesser extent, poultry pro- Major sources of nutrients to the ACF River duction, while most agricultural land in the southern basin estimated in this report include municipal- ACF River basin is used for row crops and, to a lesser wastewater effluent, animal manure, fertilizer, and extent, orchards. Wetland areas accounted for about atmospheric deposition. Estimates of point-source 5.4 percent of the entire basin, and as much as 14 loads and nonpoint-source inputs of nutrients for 1990 percent of the Ichawaynochaway subbasin and 28 (table 4) are based on data of varying accuracy and percent of Apalachicola subbasin. Range land, barren completeness from Federal, State, and local land, and water accounted for the remaining area. agencies. Estimates of nutrient input to the ACF Approximately 2,100 million gallons per day River basin from the following sources were not (Mgal/d) of freshwater were withdrawn from the ACF made: ground water flowing into the basin; leeching River basin in 1990, of which about 17 percent was of nutrients from soils to ground water; organic consumptively used (Marella and others, 1993). compounds used in the basin which contain nitrogen Surface-water withdrawals were approximately 1,790 and phosphorus; runoff from agricultural, urban, and Mgal/d (85 percent of all withdrawals). Of the suburban areas; septic systems; decomposition of surface-water withdrawals, about 860 (48 percent) organic matter; industrial-wastewater effluent; storm were for thermoelectric power generation and about drains; and sanitary and combined sewer overflows. 388 Mgal/d (22 percent) were for public supply in the Point-Source Loads Chattahoochee River basin (table 3). Ground-water withdrawals accounted for 303 Mgal/d (14 percent of Point sources discharge directly to surface or all withdrawals), about 129 Mgal/d (43 percent) of ground water or are applied to land surface in a which were for agriculture in the Flint River basin. confined area or point. Point sources of nutrients in The Floridan aquifer system supplied 44 percent of the ACF River basin include municipal- and the ground water withdrawn in 1990, followed by the industrial-storm drains, wastewater effluent, sanitary Claiborne, Clayton, and crystalline-rock aquifers and combined sewer overflows, and untreated wastes (Marella and others, 1993, p. 11). Thermoelectric or runoff from illegal outfall pipes. However, the only power generation accounted for 51 percent of all nutrient point-source loads estimated in this report water withdrawals in the ACF River basin in 1990; were for municipal-wastewater effluent. Effluent from however, less than one percent was consumed (Fan- municipal facilities contained about one percent of ning and others, 1991, p. 24 – 25). Public supply estimated nitrogen sources and about two percent of accounted for 23 percent of all water withdrawals estimated phosphorus sources to the ACF River basin which was followed by agriculture (12 percent), self- in 1990 (table 4). While these are small percentages supplied commercial and industrial (12 percent), and of the estimated nutrient sources to the basin, they are self-supplied domestic (2 percent); (table 3). Total very important because unlike nonpoint-source water withdrawals increased by 42 percent between inputs, all point-source loads of nutrients directly 1970 – 90; primarily because ground-water with- enter the hydrologic system. drawals for irrigation increased by more than 2,000 Point-source nutrient loads from storm drains, percent and surface-water withdrawals for public sup- sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), and combined sewer ply increased by more than 300 percent. Marella and overflows (CSO) are not included in estimates in table others (1993) provide a more detailed description of 4. Storm drains transport storm runoff from streets, water use in the ACF River basin in 1990 and trends parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. Sanitary in water use from 1970 – 90. sewers primarily transport raw sewage to WWTF and Acknowledgments have overflow mechanisms where excess sewage spills to streams rather than backs up into buildings The authors wish to thank various Federal and and homes. During dry periods, combined sewers State agencies and private organizations for their primarily transport raw sewage to WWTF. During and cooperation in providing information and data that after rain events, combined sewers transport a were used in preparing this report. Special thanks are combination of raw sewage and storm runoff. Storm extended to municipal wastewater-treatment facility runoff often exceeds the capacity of combined sewers managers and laboratory supervisors who provided causing a mixture of untreated sewage and storm data. Joseph C. DeVivo, USGS, helped with runoff to overflow directly into streams at CSO. Data compilation of municipal-wastewater effluent data were not available to estimate nutrient loads from and point-source load estimates. David J. Wangsness, storm drains and SSO. James B. McConnell, and Charles R. Kratzer, USGS, provided many excellent technical suggestions.
12 Table 3. Water withdrawals by principal water-use categories, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; <, less than; numbers may not add to totals because of independent rounding; modified from Marella and others, 1993]
Self-supplied Self-supplied Thermoelectric Public supply commercial and Agricultural Total freshwater withdrawals Hydrologic domestic power generation industrial unit code Subbasin name (figure 2) Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Percent Total water water water water water water water water water water water water of basin
03130001 Upper Chattahoochee 2.42 243 6.88 0 1.03 3.96 0.90 5.26 0 0 11.2 252 263 13 03130002 Middle Chattahoochee–Lake Harding 1.66 96.7 6.72 0 1.20 26.9 1.48 4.08 0 761 11.1 888 899 43 03130003 Middle Chattahoochee–Walter F. 1.70 48.3 0.94 0 0.13 37.0 1.75 6.01 0 0 4.52 91.3 95.8 4.6 George Reservoir 03130004 Lower Chattahoochee 6.40 0 1.27 0 0.49 107 18.1 7.01 0 98.8 26.3 213 240 11 Subtotal — Chattahoochee River basin 12.2 388 15.8 0 2.85 175 22.3 22.4 0 860 53.1 1,440 1,500 71
03130005 Upper Flint 4.35 33.5 6.20 0 0.43 2.93 6.48 7.88 0 0 17.5 44.3 61.8 2.9 03130006 Middle Flint 3.88 0 1.70 0 9.50 9.43 14.9 10.4 0 15.0 30.0 34.8 64.8 3.1
13 03130007 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee 5.39 0 1.42 0 1.01 0 13.0 7.48 0 0 20.8 7.48 28.3 1.3 03130008 Lower Flint 22.5 0 1.30 0 11.0 0 46.5 8.50 0 92.8 81.3 101 183 8.7 03130009 Ichawaynochaway 2.69 0 0.65 0 0.31 0 18.4 8.80 0 0 22.0 8.80 30.8 1.5 03130010 Spring 2.21 0 0.82 0 0.20 0 29.6 3.99 0 0 32.8 3.99 36.8 1.8 Subtotal — Flint River basin 41.0 33.5 12.1 0 22.5 12.4 129 47.0 0 108 204 201 405 19
03130011 Apalachicola 1.64 0 2.16 0 2.55 0 11.1 4.78 0.37 108 17.8 113 131 6.2 03130012 Chipola 8.09 0 2.76 0 0.06 32.9 15.1 3.57 0 0 26.0 36.5 62.4 3.0 03130013 New 0.68 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0.75 <0.1 03130014 Apalachicola Bay 0.95 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.02 0 1.02 <0.1 Subtotal — Apalachicola River basin 11.4 0 5.06 0 2.61 33.9 26.1 8.35 0.37 108 45.5 149 195 9.3
TOTAL—Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- 64.5 421 33.0 0 27.9 221 177 77.8 0.37 1,080 303 1,790 2,100 100 0313 Flint River basin TOTAL–by principal water-use category 486 33.0 248 255 1,080 2,100 PERCENT–by principal water-use category 23 1.6 12 12 51 100 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – (Total (Total deposition phosphorus) Atmospheric 1 19 490 790 890 910 680 2,400 4,500 3,000 1,700 3,000 1,900 2,900 1,700 2,400 13,000 20,000 (Total (Total Fertilizer phosphorus) Non-point source inputs source Non-point 2 0 64 870 520 590 510 220 260 480 550 2,500 1,800 1,100 4,500 Phosphorus, in tons Phosphorus, 19,000 23,000 28,000 (Total (Total Animal manure phosphorus) Flint River basin, 1990 Flint River
–
4 6 5 6 1 2 48 14 32 18 10 54 14 770 140 970 120 1,100 loads (Total (Total effluent Municipal wastewater wastewater phosphorus) Point-source Point-source Chattahoochee
39 – 910 650
1,900 3,600 3,400 1,500 3,100 1,800 1,300 1,500 1,300 1,300 1,500 3,500 10,000 10,000 24,000 nitrogen) deposition (Nitrate plus Atmospheric Atmospheric ammonium as 5 74 1,900 4,200 5,200 8,900 5,500 6,800 7,600 1,500 6,100 7,700 20,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 55,000 82,000 (Total (Total nitrogen) Fertilizer Non-point source inputs source Non-point 7 0 750 850 210 Nitrogen, in tons tons in Nitrogen, 3,300 1,700 7,600 4,500 2,300 1,800 1,700 1,900 86,000 10,000 18,000 100,000 120,000 (Total (Total Animal manure nitrogen) 9 2 5 78 58 18 21 62 14 11 28 46 of nutrients, by subbasin,Apalachicola of nutrients,by 310 390 180 1,500 2,200 2,500 loads use of independent use of independent rounding] effluent nitrogen) Municipal Municipal wastewater wastewater Point-source (Ammonia as as (Ammonia
–
may not add to totals beca to totals may not add Flint River basin Flint River
–
Subbasin name Flint River basin River Flint Chattahoochee River basin River Chattahoochee Apalachicola River basin
— — — Apalachicola
—
Subtotal Chattahoochee Reservoir Subtotal Upper Chattahoochee Upper Harding Chattahoochee–Lake Middle George F. Chattahoochee–Walter Middle Chattahoochee Lower Subtotal Upper Flint Middle Flint Kinchafoonee-Muckalee Flint Lower Ichawaynochaway Spring Apalachicola Chipola New Apalachicola Bay TOTAL Point-sourcenonpoint-sourceand loads inputs 0313 unit code (figure 2)(figure 03130001 03130002 03130003 03130004 03130005 03130006 03130007 03130008 03130009 03130010 03130011 03130012 03130013 03130014 Hydrologic Hydrologic Table 4. numbers data; available [–, no
14 CSO discharge into the following tributaries of Nearly complete monthly average discharge the Chattahoochee River in Metropolitan Atlanta — records exist since 1976 for all municipal WWTF Peachtree (three), Proctor (two), and Utoy Creeks operating in the ACF River basin that discharge more (two) (Atlanta Regional Commission, 1989). than 1 Mgal/d (1.547 ft3/s), as a result of monitoring Available nutrient concentration and discharge data and reporting required by the National Pollution for these CSO (Atlanta Regional Commission, 1989; Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Ammonia- Georgia Department of Natural Resource and U.S. and phosphorus-concentration data were much less Environmental Protection Agency, 1987; Black, complete, partially because of varied NPDES Crow, & Eidness, Inc., and Jordan, Jones, & monitoring and reporting frequency requirements Goulding, Inc., 1975) are too limited to accurately among facilities. In 1976, only one municipal estimate annual nutrient loads from CSO. wastewater-treatment facility in the ACF River basin In 1990, the Georgia Legislature amended the reported monthly average ammonia and phosphorus Water Quality Control Act to require cities to concentrations. However, by 1980, most major municipal facilities with a design capacity larger than eliminate CSO or treat the overflow to meet State water-quality standards. From 1985 – 97, the city of 1 Mgal/d reported monthly average ammonia Atlanta has implemented or has plans to implement concentrations; and by 1986, all major facilities between Buford Dam (Lake Sidney Lanier) and West the following three abatement methods to treat overflow from or eliminate CSO: Point Lake reported monthly average phosphorus concentrations. Testing for nitrate, nitrite, total • screen combined sewage to remove trash Kjeldahl nitrogen, total-organic nitrogen, and and solids and add chlorine to overflow to dissolved orthophosphate is infrequently required, kill bacteria before discharging and rarely performed by WWTF. wastewater; In 1990, an estimated 356 Mgal/d of treated • off-line storage of combined sewage for municipal effluent (table 5) was discharged to streams later treatment at WWTF; and or applied to land surfaces in the ACF River basin by • separate combined sewers into sanitary approximately 127 municipal facilities (modified sewers and storm drains (Peter R. Maye, from Marella and others, 1993). Thirty-one major Georgia Department of Natural municipal facilities (table 6, fig. 6) accounted for Resources, written commun., 1996). about 330 Mgal/d (92 percent) and the six largest WWTF located in the Middle Chattahoochee The city of Columbus has two main CSO with subbasin accounted for 218 Mgal/d (61 percent) of all vortex separators treating overflow (Peter R. Maye, treated municipal effluent discharged into the ACF Georgia Department of Natural Resources, oral River basin in 1990. Effluent discharged from ten commun., 1996). municipal WWTF that discharge more than 1 Mgal/d into the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries within Metropolitan Atlanta increased from 1980 to 1995 Municipal-wastewater effluent (fig. 7). Although not completely comparable because Average monthly discharge and nutrient of differences in county boundaries and service-area concentrations for treated municipal-wastewater efflu- boundaries for municipal wastewater, increases in ent were obtained from monthly Discharge Moni- discharge approximately paralleled increases in toring Reports filed with Georgia Environmental population for the five Metropolitan Atlanta counties Protection Division (GEPD), Alabama Department of where these WWTF discharge. Environmental Management (ADEM), and FLDER. USEPA Permit Compliance System (PCS) was used to a lesser extent. Monthly average discharge data from the above sources were augmented by the USGS Georgia Water-Use Data System (GWUDS); and discharge and nutrient-concentration data were aug- mented from interviews and paper files at 7 of the 8 WWTF that discharged more than 10 Mgal/d in 1990.
15 Table 5. Municipal wastewater discharges, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1990 [Mgal/d, million gallons per day; numbers may not add to totals because of independent rounding; modified from Marella and others, 1993
Municipal wastewater discharge information, 1990
Hydrologic unit Land application of effluent Effluent discharged to surface water code Subbasin name (figure 2) Permitted Discharge2/ Permitted Discharge amount1/ amount1/ (Mgal/d) Mgal/d Percent (Mgal/d) Mgal/d Percent
03130001 Upper Chattahoochee 1.75 1.75 10.8 40.3 29.8 8.8 03130002 Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Harding 9.49 9.49 58.7 277 237 69.6 03130003 Middle Chattahoochee – Walter F. George Reservoir 0.02 0.02 0.1 45.3 30.3 8.9 03130004 Lower Chattahoochee 0 0 0 4.13 4.54 1.3 Subtotal–Chattahoochee River basin 11.3 11.3 69.6 366 301 88.5
03130005 Upper Flint 3/3.93 3/3.55 3/22.0 11.6 6.71 2.0 03130006 Middle Flint 0.75 0.75 4.6 8.83 3.93 1.0
16 03130007 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee 0 0 0 4.82 3.28 1.0 03130008 Lower Flint 0 0 0 27.2 17.5 5.2 03130009 Ichawaynochaway 0 0 0 1.81 1.25 0.4 03130010 Spring 0 0 0 2.52 2.08 0.6 Subtotal–Flint River basin 3/4.68 3/4.30 3/26.6 56.7 34.8 10.2
03130011 Apalachicola 0.50 0.31 1.9 2.40 1.31 0.4 03130012 Chipola 0 0 0 4.37 2.22 0.7 03130013 New 0.55 0.30 1.9 0 0 0 03130014 Apalachicola Bay 0 0 0 1.00 0.71 0.2 Subtotal–Apalachicola River basin 1.05 0.61 3.8 7.77 4.24 1.2
3/ 3/ 3/ 0313 TOTAL–Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin 17.0 16.2 100 431 340 100
1/ Permitted discharges are set by individual States as part of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2/ For land-application systems where discharge data were not available, 1990 permitted amount was used as an estimate of 1990 discharge. 3/ Includes the Shoal Creek water-pollution control plant in Spalding County, which uses land application for six months, May to October, and discharges to Shoal Creek for the remaining six months of each year. 2/ – – 3.55 2.39 6.46 2.53 – – – – – – Total Total 13.4 90.5 45.4 59.9 29.8 (tons) 334 119 117 phosphorus Flint River Flint River
–
Nutrient loads 0.51 – – – – – 28.0 22.3 11.7 31.5 25.4 10.3 20.6 (tons) 186 190 730 125 116 115 346 4/ 6/ Ammonia Ammonia as nitrogen Chattahoochee
–
1.39 1.5 4.2 4.6 5.47 9.96 1.41 9.45 1.10 7.34 2.74 4.5 1.33 29.6 82. 24.4 29.8 39.3 12.29 23.8 la (Mgal/d) Discharge 1/ 3.0 3.0 7.0 6.5 5.0 1.7 9.45 5.0 8.2 4.0 7.60 2.0 11.0 28.5 28.0 37.0 41.0 13.0 35.0 101 (Mgal/d) amount Permitted ion Division; U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Protection Agency, U.S Environmental ion Division; Facility discharge information, 1990 discharge Facility 11/ 13/ eports] ge Treatment Plant; WPCP, Water Pollution Control Plant; WSFPA, Water, Water, Pollution Control Plant; WSFPA, Water Plant; WPCP, ge Treatment system method body or disposal or body Name water receiving of South Fork Mud Creek Mud Fork South Lanier Sidney Lake Flat Creek Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Creek Annewakee disposal Land Chattahoochee River Cane Creek Long Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Georgia Environmental Protect Environmental Georgia the — River 499.37 477.8 466.77 432.92 431.77 422.88 408.22 408.17 402.11 399.31 399.11 391.30 389.32 304.8 302.65 298.4 264.6 262.9 200.4 River mile River 3/ 5/ 7/ 8/ 8/ 8/ 8/ 9/ 8/ 8/ 8/ 7/ 7/ 5/ l2/ l2/ upstream of of upstream 10/ 12/ 12/ the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola Lake Harding (03130002) Harding Lake
–
Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003) Reservoir George F. Walter
–
stem; Individual plant Monthly Operating R Operating plant Monthly stem; Individual Upper Chattahoochee (03130001) Upper Chattahoochee ment of Environmental Regulation; ment of Environmental Middle Chattahoochee Facility name Facility Middle Chattahoochee S, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; STP, Sewa S, National Elimination Pollution System; Discharge STP, facilities discharging more than one million gallons per day, by subbasin, Apalachico by facilities more discharging thanone million gallons per day, Cornelia WPCP Gainesville Drive) WPCP No 2 (Linwood Gainesville WPCP No 1 (Flat Creek) Creek WPCP Crooked Creek WPCP Johns Big Creek WPCP WPCP R.L. Sutton WPCP R.M. Clayton WPCP Cobb South Creek WPCP Utoy WPCP River South Creek WPCP Camp Douglasville South WPCP Authority Carroll County Water Lanett WWTP Cane Creek WPCP Long East Alabama WSFPA Phenix City WWTP WPCP South Columbus WWTP Eufaula permit number NPDES ological Survey, Georgia Water Use Data Sy Water Georgia Survey, ological GA0021504 GA0020168 GA0021156 GA0026433 GA0030686 GA0024333 GA0026140 GA0021482 GA0026158 GA0021458 GA0024040 GA0025381 GA0030341 GAU020071 AL0023159 GA0047244 AL0024724 AL0022209 GA0020516 AL0020583 State Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Alabama Georgia Alabama Alabama Georgia Alabama City or county City or
: Alabama Department Management; of Environmental Florida Depart Cornelia, City of Cornelia, Gainesville, City of Gainesville, City of Gwinnett County Fulton County Fulton County County Cobb Atlanta, City of County Cobb Atlanta, City of Atlanta, City of Fulton County Douglasville, City of Carroll County Lanett, City of City of La Grange, County Chambers Phenix City City of Columbus, City of Eufaula, Nutrient loads from municipal wastewater loads Nutrient from municipal wastewater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 6) (figure (figure number number Location Location basin, 1990 Sewer, and Fire Protection Authority; WWTP, Waste Water Treatment Plant; –, no available data; Plant; –, no available Treatment Water Waste and Fire Protection Authority; WWTP, Sewer, Table 6. [Mgal/d, million gallons per day; mg/L, milligrams per liter; NPDE sources Data Permit Compliance System data base; U.S. Ge data base; U.S. Compliance System Permit
17 2/ – – – – – – – – – 3.77 Total Total 10.1 (tons) 18/ phosphorus Nutrient loads – 0.39 5.96 2.78 1.14 0.64 77.5 19.6 25.5 30.3 22.0 (tons) Ammonia Ammonia 22/ 24/ 26/ as nitrogen
4.26 1.12 0.98 1.1 1.07 1.1 2.20 3.04 0.9 1.32 1.43 14.52 92 la – Chattahoochee Flint River 328 16/ 16/ 23/ (Mgal/d) Discharge (in percent) (in 1/
4.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.4 3.0 2.5 2.7 20.0 90 405 (Mgal/d) amount Permitted (in percent) (in ion Division; U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Protection Agency, U.S Environmental ion Division; Facility discharge information, 1990 discharge Facility
April,
–
October)
–
eports] ge Treatment Plant; WPCP, Water Pollution Control Plant; WSFPA, Water, Water, Pollution Control Plant; WSFPA, Water Plant; WPCP, ge Treatment system method body or disposal or body Name water receiving of confluence with Mill Creek November, December) November, Omusee Creek Creek (January Shoal Land disposal (May Line Creek Potato Creek Bell Creek Gum Creek Muckalee Creek near the Flint River Big Slough Flint River Chipola River Georgia Environmental Protect Environmental Georgia the 43.60 28.20 River 155.57 413.67 404.15 358.07 358.07 250.97 212.10 211.62 206.9 139.57 135.75 Flint River basin by 31-municipalFlint River
25/ 25/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 5/ River mile River upstream of of upstream –
15/ 17/ 20/ 20/ 21/ the mouth of Apalachicola
Chipola (03130012) stem; Individual plant Monthly Operating R Operating plant Monthly stem; Individual Upper Flint (03130005) Upper Flint Chattahoochee Lower Flint (03130008) Flint Lower
Middle Flint (03130006) Middle Flint –
Lower Chattahoochee (03130004) Chattahoochee Lower ment of Environmental Regulation; ment of Environmental Kinchafoonee-Muckalee (03130007) Kinchafoonee-Muckalee 14/ 19/ Facility name Facility that discharged more than in 1 than Mgal/d 1990 more discharged that 23/ S, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; STP, Sewa S, National Elimination Pollution System; Discharge STP, facilities discharging more than one million gallons per day, by subbasin, Apalachico by facilities more discharging thanone million gallons per day, Dothan Omusee Creek WWTP Creek Omusee Dothan Shoal Creek WPCP Line Creek WPCP Potato Creek WPCP WPCP Bell Creek Cordele WPCP Mill Creek WPCP WPCP Albany Camilla WPCP WPCP Bainbridge STP Marianna permit number NPDES ological Survey, Georgia Water Use Data Sy Water Georgia Survey, ological AL0022764 GA0047040 GA0035777 GA0030791 GA0020079 GA0024503 GA0047767 GA0020991 GA0020362 GA0024678 FL0020117 31-municipal wastewater facilities Alabama Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Florida discharging more than 1 Mgal/d, 1990 1 Mgal/d, than more discharging 23/ Municipal wastewater effluent discharged into the Apalachicola the into Municipal wastewater effluent discharged
—
City or countyCity or State : Alabama Department Management; of Environmental Florida Depart Dothan, City of County Spalding Peachtree City City of Griffin, Thomaston, City of City of Cordele, of Americus, City City of Albany, Camilla, City of of City Bainbridge, Marianna, City of Nutrient loads from municipal wastewater loads Nutrient from municipal wastewater 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 6) wastewater facilities (figure (figure number number Location Location TOTAL–Effluent discharged by discharged TOTAL–Effluent PERCENT OF basin, 1990—Continued Sewer, and Fire Protection Authority; WWTP, Waste Water Treatment Plant; –, no available data; Plant; –, no available Treatment Water Waste and Fire Protection Authority; WWTP, Sewer, sources Data Table 6. [Mgal/d, million gallons per day; mg/L, milligrams per liter; NPDE Permit Compliance System data base; U.S. Ge data base; U.S. Compliance System Permit
18 hoochee River and Long and hoochee River hoochee River (U.S. Army hoochee River June, November, and June, November, my Corps of Engineers, 1985). my Corps of Engineers, topographic map. e topographic map. e topographic topographic map. topographic CP (NPDES Permit Number GA0025801) (NPDES Permit Number GA0025801) CP conversion factor (0.00416394)) = tons, in (0.00416394)) factor conversion 6) discharged less than 1 Mgal/d in 1990 using in 1990 using less than 1 Mgal/d 6) discharged tration for January and July 1991. rations for January, April, July, October, and October, April, July, rations for January, October 1990. October a concentration for a concentration ation for January and September 1990. for January ation onths in 1990. onths ence between ence the Chatta d 1:24,000 scale d 1:24,000 and 1:24,000 scale and 1:24,000 of Engineers, 1985). Corps and 1:24,000 scal s into Wildcat Creek, a tributary of the Flint River) Creek, of athe tributary s Flint into River) Wildcat e total-phosphorus concentration for seven of the for seven e concentration total-phosphorus hs January to April, November, and December. and December. November, hs January to April, her seven months reported), and used to and it not months reported), was her seven r the confluence of the cut off to the Muckafoonee confluence of the r the cut off f Mud Creek and the Chatta Mud f n Spalding County (NPDES Permit Number Spalding County n discharges in 1989 and 1991 were larger than than 1 Mgal/d in 1989 and 1991 were larger discharges WPCP Supervisor, oral commun., 1993). WPCP Supervisor, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s NPDES Agency’s Protection the U.S. Environmental of eek and the Flint River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineers, of (U.S. Army Corps Flint River and the eek and the Flint River (U.S. Army of Engineers, 1985). (U.S. Army Corps Flint River and the listed is for the confluence of the Chipola River and the the Chipola River of confluence the is for listed Apalachicola Rivers) (U.S. Ar Apalachicola Rivers) Flint River basin) to the Chattahoochee River. River mile is River basin) to the Chattahoochee River. Flint River
–
Chattahoochee ng the average ammonia concen ammonia average ng the
were estimated were estimated using averag ing the average ammonia concent the average ing –
listed is for the confluence o listed is for the to Shoal Creek for the six mont six the Creek for to Shoal Army Corps of Engineers, 1985; Engineers, Corps of Army y (NPDES Permit Number GAU02023 re estimated using the average ammoni the average using re estimated ed the city of Americus Muckalee Creek WP ed the city of Americus Muckalee ation (mg/L) x x number in month of days River and the second river mile and the second river River oncentration are missing for one or more m lem with phosphorus removal in July. in phosphorus removal lem with dge (Chris Crittenden, Camp Creek timated using the average ammonia concentr the average using timated ver approximately one mile below the conflu the below mile approximately one ver em river (Chattahoochee, Flint, or em river e plant is included in this e plant table because is included /L (two to three times greater than in the ot in than to three times greater (two /L , 1996; U.S. Army of Engineers, 1985; Corps 1996; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985; an Engineers, of 1996; U.S. Army Corps the average ammonia concentration for August and concentration ammonia the average were out of service by February 1990. February service by were out of from May to October was 0.98 Mgal/d. 0.98 was from May to October for 1990 were estimated usi estimated were 1990 for ation data for 1990 we 1990 data for ation phosphorus concentration concentration data phosphorus of Shoal Creek and the Flint River. Shoal Creek WPCP i of Shoal Creek and the Flint River. mmer and discharge of effluent Creek (which into Shoal flow of effluent mmer and discharge eek WPCP, oral commun., 1994). commun., oral eek WPCP, age of 1.26 Mgal/d of effluent age of effluent of 1.26 Mgal/d Lake Worth on the Flint River. The first river mile listed is fo river The first on the Flint River. Worth Lake on data for 1990 were estimated us n data for 1990 were es 1990 n data for tural Resources, 1994. tural Resources, e Chattahoochee River. River mile River River. e Chattahoochee e confluence of Muckafoonee Creek and the Flint River (U.S. Army e confluence of Muckafoonee CreekFlint and the River lint River. River mile listed is for the confluence of Wildcat Cr of Wildcat confluence is the for listed mile River River. lint Survey, written written commun, 1996; U.S. Survey, Shoal Creek Plant in Clayton Count Creek Shoal Survey, written commun. Survey, Survey, written commun, Survey, ion was estimated using ion was
90 also used land disposal of slu disposal land 90 also used
ipola Cut off and the Apalachicola Cut ipola off –
ceiving effluent and the main st effluent ceiving ons because it appears there was a ons there was prob because it appears from the South River WPCP (east of the WPCP of the Apalachicola (east the South River from discharge (Mgal/d) x average monthly concentr monthly average x (Mgal/d) discharge monia concentration data are available. are data concentration monia monthly discharge and(or) average monthly c monthly average and(or) monthly discharge discharge location to the Chattahoochee Ri location to the Chattahoochee discharge gia Department of Na rch, and April missing total- al wastewater-treatment plants. Permits are set by state regulatory agencies as part agencies regulatory state by set are Permits plants. al wastewater-treatment ng ammonia concentrati ammonia concentration data ing servoir near the confluence servoir illa WPCP was less than 1 Mgal/d in 1990, th illa WPCP was hs of missing ammonia concentr k WPCP (NPDES Permit Number GA0047767) replac k WPCP (NPDES Permit Number GA0047767) pplication of effluent in the su the in pplication of effluent nd-application nd-application system for the six months e July total-phosphorus 6.9 mg concentration total-phosphorus was e July nne Westmoreland, Long Cane Cr nne Westmoreland, PDES Permit Number which GA0025090), both r ammonia concentrat 1990, lia L. Fanning, U.S. Geological lia L. Fanning, Natural Resources, Resources, 1994. Natural Victoria Trent, Georgia Geologic Georgia Trent, Victoria with missing with missing concentrati m Will S. Mooty, U.S. Geological U.S. S. Mooty, Will m Natural Resources, 1994. Chattahoochee River; from 1988 from Chattahoochee River;
in the winter. in the 1990; a between land alternates GA0047040) 1990. Th of eight remaining months months the four estimate WPCP Branch (N and Willetts and am respectively) and 1.25 Mgal/d, (1.32 Sum January to December (average monthly Sum to December (average January Load estimatesfootnoted are when average December 1990. 1985). Engineers, 1985). Corps of Army (U.S. River Apalachicola Corps 1985). Corps of Engineers, program. of Department Georgia from th for is listed mile river second the and Worth Lake and Creek Average effluent discharged to the la discharged effluent Average land application of their effluent near a re of their effluent land application December 1990. Cane Creek in September 1993 (A Permitted discharge (average) for individu for (average) discharge Permitted mile estimated from River U.S. Army of Engineers, 1985; Geor Corps into Creek, which Muckafoonee flows into Muckalee Creek flows Nutrient loads are estimated using the following formula: using the following estimated are loads Nutrient concentratio 10 of missing ammonia months WPCP, Cornelia For Gainesville WPCP No 2, nine For mont of Department Georgia effluent pipes Return outfall Three Rivers The to discharged Effluent fro mile estimated River its effluent moved WPCP Cane Creek Long the Flint River. the east toward from Shoal Creeks flow Two the F into flows which Creek, into Wildcat flows Creek Shoal an aver Creek WPCP Shoal in Spalding discharged In 1990, County of Creek Potato for the is confluence listed mile River River. the Flint into flows which Creek into Potato flows Creek Bell Ma February, January, WPCP, Cordele For Mill Cree Americus the city of In 1990, Ju from mile estimated River months of missi seven WPCP, Albany For the Cam by discharged effluent Although 12 months of miss Bainbridge WPCP, For mile listed is for the confluence of the Ch river The first Septembe STP, Marianna For River mile listed is for the confluence of the tributary re mile listed is for the confluence of tributary River South Fork Mud Creek flows into Mud Creek which flows into th into flows which into Mud Creek flows Mud Creek South Fork 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ 10/ 11/ 12/ 13/ 14/ 15/ 16/ 17/ 18/ 19/ 20/ 21/ 22/ 23/ 24/ 25/ 26/
19 o 84
1 EXPLANATION
2 WASTEWATER-DISCHARGE OUTFALL, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3 SURFACE WATER o 34 6 4 1 1 to 10 5 7 9 7 Greater than 10 o 13 8 85 14 1110 LAND DISPOSAL 12 22 1 to 10
23 WASTEWATER-TREATMENT OUTFALL 22 NUMBER AND FACILITY NAME 24 (Refer to Table 6 for more information) 1 Cornelia WPCP o 33 2 Gainesville WPCP No 2 25 (Linwood Drive) 15 16 3 Gainesville WPCP No 1 17 (Flat Creek) 4 Crooked Creek WPCP 5 Johns Creek WPCP 18 6 Big Creek WPCP 19 7 R.L. Sutton WPCP 8 R.M. Clayton WPCP 9 South Cobb WPCP 10 Utoy Creek WPCP o 32 27 11 South River WPCP 26 12 Camp Creek WPCP 20 13 Douglasville South WPCP 14 Carroll County Water Authority 15 Lanett WWTP 16 Long Cane Creek WPCP 28 17 East Alabama WSFPA 18 Phenix City WWTP 21 19 Columbus South WPCP 29 20 Eufaula WWTP 21 Dothan Omusee Creek WWTP 31o 22 Shoal Creek WPCP 30 23 Line Creek WPCP 24 Potato Creek WPCP 31 25 Bell Creek WPCP 26 Cordele WPCP 27 Mill Creek WPCP 28 Albany WPCP 29 Camilla WPCP 30 Bainbridge WPCP 31 Marianna STP
o 30 0 20 40 60 80 MILES
0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 6. Location of municipal-wastewater outfalls having discharges greater than one million gallons per day, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1990.
20 300 3
Discharge 200 2 Population Municipal-wastewater-treatment facilities— see figure 6 for discharge locations 4 Crooked Creek WPCP 5 Johns Creek WPCP 6 Big Creek WPCP 7 R.L. Sutton WPCP 100 8 R.M. Clayton WPCP 1 9 South Cobb WPCP 10 Utoy Creek WPCP IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGE, MONTHLY AVERAGE 11 South River WPCP (discharge location moved from South River to
Chattahoochee River in 1985) IN MILLIONS AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, 12 Camp Creek WPCP 13 Douglasville South WPCP POPULATION FOR COBB, DEKALB, DOUGLAS, FULTON, DOUGLAS, DEKALB, FOR COBB, POPULATION 0 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Figure 7. Effluent discharge from ten municipal-wastewater-treatment facilities that discharge more than 1 million gallons per day into the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries and population of the five counties where these facilities discharge, Metropolitan Atlanta, 1980–95 (written communications from Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 1980–95, and Atlanta Regional Commission, 1996).
Many changes in wastewater treatment and (1) abandoning the Atlanta Flint River Water discharge within the ACF River basin occurred from Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) and piping effluent 1972 – 90. These changes affect water quality within from it to the South River WPCP, (2) linking the the basin and include, but are not limited to: Intrenchment Creek WPCP to the South River WPCP • upgrades in treatment technology; to treat effluent during wet weather conditions, and (3) upgrading the South River WPCP and piping its • increased treatment capacity; effluent to the Chattahoochee River beginning May • consolidation of treatment facilities; 1985 (Atlanta Regional Commission, 1984, p. 40 – 44). • opening new and closing old WWTF; In 1990, municipal WWTF discharged an • diversion of effluent disposal from estimated 2,500 tons of ammonia as nitrogen and tributaries to larger streams having more 1,100 tons of phosphorus into the ACF River basin assimilative capacity; (table 4; modified from Frick and others, 1993, p. 38). • diversion of effluent disposal from the Nutrient load estimates for 1990 were calculated for headwaters of the Flint River, 25 and 14 major municipal WWTF that reported Intrenchment Creek (tributary to the monthly average ammonia and phosphorus South River), and the South River (part of concentrations, respectively (table 6). The frequency the Ocmulgee River basin) to the of NPDES required nutrient testing for municipal Chattahoochee River; and facilities within the ACF River generally ranges from five times per week for the largest WWTF to two • increased use of land disposal of treated times per year for smaller WWTFs with no drinking- effluent. water intakes downstream (James Summerville, The Three Rivers Water-Quality Program was Georgia Environmental Protection Division, oral implemented between 1981 – 85 to improve water commun., 1994). NPDES permitting at many quality in the Flint and South Rivers by diverting facilities within the ACF River basin allows discharge discharges of municipal effluent from small of higher ammonia concentrations within treated headwater streams to the Chattahoochee River which effluent during the high-flow season (approximately has more assimilative capacity. Three Rivers Water- December through May). For municipal WWTF that Quality Program involved three major components: did not report nutrient concentrations in their effluent, 21 average concentrations (based on ammonia- the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and concentration data for 86 percent and phosphorus- West Point Lake was restricted to less than or equal to concentration data for 76 percent of effluent 0.75 milligrams per liter (mg/L) beginning January 1, discharged within the basin in 1990; modified from 1992. This restriction applies to discharges permitted Frick and others, 1993, p. 38) were multiplied by the for 1 Mgal/d or more by the National Pollutant quantity of effluent discharged by these plants in 1990 Discharge Elimination System. Ammonia loads from to calculate loads. Although included in load the same six Metropolitan Atlanta plants also estimates from WWTFs, land application of decreased from about 2,690 tons in 1988 to about 720 wastewater is a nonpoint-source input because much tons in 1992 (fig. 8), but increased to about 970 tons of the nutrients applied to the land surface do not in 1993, possibly a result of continually increasing reach the hydrologic system. volumes of treated effluent from WWTF. The combined annual phosphorus and ammonia Nonpoint-Source Inputs loads from the six largest Metropolitan Atlanta area Nonpoint-source inputs have broad source areas, municipal WWTF that discharge into the Middle ranging in areal extent from less than a square mile to Chattahoochee subbasin declined from 1988 to 1992, thousands of square miles. A small, but often even though the effluent discharge increased unknown, percentage of nonpoint-source inputs of (Wangsness and others, 1994) (fig. 8). Phosphorus nutrients enters the hydrologic system by leaching, loads decreased from about 1,500 tons in 1988 to runoff, or deposition on water surfaces. Examples of about 270 tons in 1993 because of restricted use of nonpoint-source inputs of nutrients from natural phosphate detergents and upgraded treatment of sources include loss of sediment-bound phosphorus municipal wastewater. Amendments to the Georgia from forested areas, detritus from riparian vegetation, Water Quality Control Act in 1990, set standards dissolution from nitrogen-bearing minerals in aquifer limiting the amount of phosphorus in various materials, and leaching of nitrogen from natural soil. household and commercial detergents and the average No attempt was made in this report to estimate monthly concentration of phosphorus discharged into nutrient input to the hydrologic system from natural
3,000 300
2,500 250 Ammonia load in effluent
2,000 200
1,500 150
Effluent discharge
1,000 100 Incomplete data set for 1985
Phosphorus load NUTRIENT LOAD, IN TONS PER YEAR 500 in effluent 50 Voluntary restriction on use of phosphate detergents Mandatory restriction on use of phosphate detergents AVERAGE DISCHARGE, IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Figure 8. Effluent discharge and ammonia and phosphorus loads from the six largest municipal- wastewater-treatment facilities, Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding subbasin, 1980–93 (modified from Wangsness and others, 1994).
22 nonpoint sources. Nonpoint-source inputs of nutrients from animal manure generated annually within each estimated in this report, which all have primarily county were calculated by summing the results of the anthropogenic sources, are animal manure, fertilizer, following equation for poultry, cows and calves, and and atmospheric deposition. Nutrient inputs estimated hogs and pigs: in this report do not reflect volatilization, uptake by nitrogen or phosphorus input in tons from plants, nitrification, or other potential losses. manure generated by the specified animal Therefore, the reader should evaluate estimates of group = (number of animals in the county) nonpoint-source inputs of nutrients as the estimated x (percent of the county within the ACF input to land and water surfaces, and realize that only River basin) x (average animal weight) x some portion of that input enters surface- and ground- (tons of nitrogen or phosphorus in manure water resources. No attempt was made in this report generated per 1,000 pounds live weight)/ to estimate runoff from agriculture, urban, suburban, (1,000 pounds). (1) and other land-use areas. In 1990, the manure generated by about 250 Animal manure million chickens, 500,000 cows and calves, and Animal manure, for the purpose of this report, is 225,000 hogs and pigs in the ACF River basin the aggregate of manure from poultry, cows and contained about 120,000 tons of nitrogen and 28,000 calves, and hogs and pigs. Agricultural statistics tons of phosphorus (table 4) (Frick and others, 1993, available for much of the period from 1974 – 90 p. 37). Inputs from poultry and livestock manure indicate a substantial increase in poultry production in primarily are nonpoint-source inputs to the land the ACF River basin — from about 92 million birds in surface. Poultry accounts for 89 percent of the 1974 to about 250 million birds in 1990. During the nutrient input from manure in the ACF River basin. same time period, there was a slight decrease in the Poultry production in 1990 was concentrated in a five- numbers of cows and calves, and hogs and pigs in the county area in the headwaters of the Chattahoochee basin (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1981a,b,c, and River (fig. 9). Agricultural land use in this five-county 1989a,b,c; Alabama Agricultural Statistics Service, area (Upper Chattahoochee subbasin) was 1991; Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 1991a, predominantly pasture land used for grazing cattle b; Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service, 1990 and and for disposing poultry manure. Estimated applica- 1991; Strong, 1990; Strong and others, 1990). tion rates in tons per square mile (tons/mi2) of Because of the large increase in poultry production, nitrogen and phosphorus (fig. 9) were higher than animal manure has become an increasingly important application rates for other categories of nonpoint- source of nutrients to the ACF River basin. source inputs of nutrients, partly because of the large concentration of poultry production in a relatively Estimates of the number of animals per county small part of the basin. for 1990 were reported by the Alabama (1991), Florida (1991a,b), and Georgia Agricultural Statistical Fertilizer Services (1991). To facilitate the computation of Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from fertilizers nutrient nonpoint-source inputs from each of the three were estimated for 1990 using commercial fertilizer animal groups, a simplifying assumption was made sales figures by county (Janice T. Berry, National that animals were distributed uniformly within each Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center, county. Estimates of the average weight of animals, Tennessee Valley Authority, written commun., 1993). the amount of manure generated per 1,000 pounds An average of 1989 and 1991 fertilizer sales estimates live weight of animals, and the average nitrogen and were used for Georgia, because 1990 estimates are not phosphorus content of manure were made using available. These fertilizer sales estimates were information reported by the Georgia Agricultural generated by a combination of sales tonnages reported Statistical Service (1990, 1991) and Strong (1990). by fertilizer dealers and farm expenditures for Estimates of tons of nutrients in manure generated per fertilizer. The following uncertainties in fertilizer- 1,000 pounds of live weight animals do not account sales data increase the uncertainty of input estimates for losses from volatilization that ranges from 25 to for commercial fertilizer: (1) fertilizer was not 80 percent for nitrogen, and from 5 to 15 percent for necessarily used in the same year and county where it phosphorus (Kay and Hammond, 1985; McIntosh and was purchased, (2) fertilized land was not evenly others, 1992, p. 2 – 25). These estimates also do not distributed within counties, and (3) Georgia, account for variations in nutrient content when Alabama, and Florida used different methods to report manure is applied to fields as a result of storage time non-farm sales and total sales of fertilizer. and storage method. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs
23 UNION TOWNS 84° HABERSHAM
WHITE
LUMPKIN DAWSON HALL
FORSYTH GWINNETT ° 34 EXPLANATION PAULDING COBB DEKALB NUTRIENT INPUTS FROM ANIMAL MANURE, 85° IN TONS PER SQUARE MILE FULTON CLAYTON DOUGLAS
FAYETTE Nitrogen Phosphorus CARROLL HENRY COWETA RANDOLPH HEARD Less than 5 Less than 1 SPALDING MERIWETHER
Georgia Alabama PIKE LAMAR TROUP 6 to 32 1 to 8 33° CHAMBERS MONROE UPSON
CRAWFORD HARRIS TALBOT 53 to 111 12 to 25 LEE PEACH MUSCOGEE TAYLOR
MACON HOUSTON MACON RUSSELL MARION
CHATTAHOCHEE SCHLEY WEBSTER DOOLY BULLOCK STEWART ° SUMTER 32 BARBOUR CRISP
QUITMAN TERRELL RANDOLPH LEE TURNER WORTH
CLAY HENRY CALHOUN DOUGHERTY
EARLY BAKER COLQUITT
MITCHELL GENEVA HOUSTON MILLER Alabama 31° Alabama FloridaFlorida DECATUR GRADY
JACKSON SEMINOLE GeorgiaGeorgia
WASHINGTON GADSDENFloridaFlorida
BAY CALHOUN 0 20 40 60 80 MILES
LIBERTY 0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS
30° GULF FRANKLIN
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 9. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from animal manure, by county, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River basin, 1990 (data from Agricultural Statistics Service of Alabama, 1991, Florida, 1991a,b, and Georgia, 1990,1991; and Strong, 1990).
24 In 1990, about 82,000 tons of nitrogen and Wet deposition of nitrogen was calculated from + 20,000 tons of phosphorus were applied as fertilizer to precipitation-chemistry data for ammonium (NH4 ) - lands in the ACF River basin (table 4) (Frick and and nitrate (NO3 ) ion concentrations collected others, 1993, p. 37). The lower part of the basin, weekly (Colorado State University, written commun., predominantly the row-crop agricultural areas of the 1993) at six National Atmospheric Deposition Middle and Lower Flint subbasins, received the Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) greatest input of nitrogen and phosphorus from stations (fig. 11) in or near the ACF River basin. The - commercial fertilizer (fig. 10). estimate of NO3 wet deposition was adjusted for Although not apparent from figure 10, fertilizer urban effects and droplet deposition at high altitudes applications can be substantial in urban and suburban (Sisterson, 1990; L.J. Puckett, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1993). Dry deposition of areas; however, few data are available from which to - (which was estimated to be nearly half of wet estimate nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. Fertilizer- NO3 deposition of NO -) was calculated based on wet- sales data above reflect total sales without regard to 3 deposition estimates for NO -, and ratios of wet and farm and non-farm use. Inclusion of fertilizer sales 3 dry deposition for Alabama, Florida, and Georgia from nurseries and retail stores in urban areas varies (Sisterson, 1990). Only wet-deposition estimates were from state to state. Georgia did not differentiate made for NH + because of lack of dry-deposition between non-farm and farm sales of fertilizer, 4 estimates on a national basis; therefore, input Alabama reported less than one percent of fertilizer estimates may underestimate total nitrogen sales were non-farm related, and Florida reported deposition. No attempt was made in this report to more than 20 percent of fertilizer sales were non-farm estimate atmospheric deposition of organic nitrogen. related (Janice T. Berry, Tennessee Valley Authority, Data are not available nationally to estimate oral commun., 1994). phosphorous input from the atmosphere; however, A conservative estimate of nitrogen and atmospheric deposition of phosphorus probably is phosphorus input from fertilizer applied to urban and minor, especially compared to nitrogen (R.P. Hooper, suburban lands in the ACF River basin is about 8,600 U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 1993). tons/yr and 2,500 tons/yr, respectively. Fertilizer Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen was about application rates were based on recommended 24,000 tons in 1990 calendar year (table 4) (water- application rates for Cobb County (Tetra Tech, 1992), year estimate used in Frick and others, 1993, p. 38), partially within the ACF River basin in the which accounts for 10 percent of nitrogen inputs northwestern part of Metropolitan Atlanta. The estimated in this report (table 4). For 1990, estimated minimum estimates reported by Tetra Tech (1992) nitrogen deposition rates were 1.2 tons/mi2 were converted to tons of nitrogen and phosphorus throughout the ACF River basin. This deposition rate per square mile of urban and suburban land and was the same regardless if deposition rates were multiplied by urban-land area listed in table 2. spatially averaged using an inverse-weighted average Because several assumptions were made to derive of the distance from each NADP/NTN station to a these estimates and data were not provided at the central point within four regions defined primarily by county level for all counties, the values are not physiographic provinces or to a central point within included as part of the nutrient input listed in table 4 the ACF River basin. Estimated annual atmospheric and density estimates were not shown on figure 10. input of nitrogen to the ACF River basin from 1985 to The conservative estimate of nitrogen and phosphorus 1991 ranged from a low of about 22,000 tons in 1988 inputs from fertilizer in urban and suburban areas to a high of about 36,000 tons in 1991. These are would increase the estimate of total nutrient inputs equivalent to deposition rates of 1.1 to 1.8 tons/mi2. from fertilizer by about 10 percent. Atmospheric deposition Nutrients from atmospheric deposition, unlike other estimated nutrient inputs, were distributed throughout the entire study area. The primary source of nitrogen in atmospheric deposition is nitrogen oxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. The rate of atmospheric deposition is a function of topography, nutrient sources, and spatial and temporal variations in climatic conditions.
25 o 84
o EXPLANATION 34 NUTRIENT INPUTS FROM FERTILIZER, o IN TONS PER SQUARE MILE 85 Nitrogen Phosphorus Less than 7 Less than 1.6
Georgia 7 to 15 1.6 to 3.3 Alabama o 33 15 to 24 4.2 to 6.3
o 32
o Alabama 31 Florida
GGeorgiaeorgia FFloridalorida
0 20 40 60 80 MILES
0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS
30o
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 10. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from fertilizer, by county, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1990 (data from National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center, Tennessee Valley Authority).
26 86° 84° 82° 80°
TENNESSEE Coweeta NORTH CAROLINA
Sand Mountain Experiment Station SOUTH 34° CAROLINA
ALABAMA GEORGIA Georgia Experiment Station Apalachicola– Black Belt Substation Chattahoochee– Flint River basin
32°
Tifton Agricultural Research Service
Quincy FL ° OR 30 IDA
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files 0 40 80 120 160 MILES
0 40 80 120 160 KILOMETERS
Figure 11. Location of National Atmospheric Deposition Program precipitation stations used to estimate nitrogen input from atmospheric deposition within the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River basin.
ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENT Nutrient Water-Quality Standards, WATER-QUALITY DATA Health Advisories, and Criteria The emphasis of the analysis of nutrient water- Nitrate and nitrate plus nitrite have maximum quality data section of this report is to present contaminant levels (MCL) in drinking water of 10 graphical and statistical analyses describing regional mg/L as nitrogen (U.S. Environmental Protection variations in the presence, distribution, and transport Agency, 1990, 1995). Drinking water with more than of nutrients in surface and ground water of the ACF 10 mg/L nitrate poses the most threat to infants River basin. Nutrient water-quality standards, health because the reduction of nitrate to nitrite in their advisories, and criteria are presented to help put intestinal systems may prevent the transport of nutrient concentrations in context. Brief descriptions sufficient oxygen in their bloodstream (“blue baby of sources of nutrient water-quality data and the syndrome” or methemoglobinemia). The draft life- assessment approached used are also included. time health advisory for ammonia in adults is 30 mg/L as N (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). 27 Criteria for maximum ammonia concentrations in deal with natural resources and environmental surface water are based on chronic and acute exposure regulation. Almost all water-quality data from GEPD of aquatic organisms to un-ionized ammonia (NH3). and ADEM were stored in STORET. FLDER These criteria vary with pH and temperature and surface-water-quality data were obtained from currently are only available for surface waters with STORET and ground-water-quality data were pH between 6.5 and 9.0 and temperature between 0 obtained from GWIS. o and 30 C. In general, the criteria for ammonia are Assessment Approach exceeded at lower concentrations as pH and temperature increase. At temperatures warmer than 20 Although available nutrient water-quality data for o C, criteria are slightly more restrictive for surface the ACF River basin are not ideally suited to a waters where cold water species such as trout are comprehensive water-quality assessment, the data can present (Upper Chattahoochee River basin) than be used to make preliminary assessments of presence, where cold water species are absent (Lower distribution, and transport of nutrients within the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola River basins). study area. Common limitations of existing nutrient + water-quality data that can bias water-quality Chronic criteria for total-ammonia (NH3 plus NH4 ) concentrations range from a maximum of 2.1 mg/L as assessments include: N for surface waters with a pH of 6.5 and temperature • unknown or limited information on o of 0 C, to 0.07 mg/L as N for surface waters with quality-control procedures related to cold water species of fish present and a pH of 9.0 and sample collection, laboratory analysis, o temperature of 30 C (U.S. Environmental Protection and data storage; Agency, 1986). • varying or unknown sampling, National criteria have not been established for preservation, and analytical techniques concentrations of phosphorus compounds in water; used among and, in some cases, within however, the USEPA makes the following agencies; recommendations to control eutrophication: • varying accuracy of reported sampling • total phosphorus should not exceed locations; 0.05 mg/L (as P) where a stream enters a lake or reservoir, and • uneven areal, vertical, and temporal distribution; • total phosphorus should not exceed 0.1 mg/L in flowing waters that do not • clustering of samples around known or discharge directly into lakes or suspected contamination or event impoundments (U.S. Environmental sampling; Protection Agency, 1986). • missing information on flow conditions Sources of Nutrient Water-Quality Data and sample type (grab, composite, depth integrated) for surface-water samples; and A large amount of nutrient water-quality data have been collected within the ACF River basin by • lack of data on well construction, Federal, State, and local governments, colleges and sampling depth, water level, and aquifer universities, and other organizations. These water- characteristics for ground-water samples. quality data were collected to meet diverse objectives Grab samples may provide biased results if over varying temporal and spatial scales. Data concentrations of dissolved and suspended reviewed and analyzed for this report were from constituents are not homogeneous in the cross section readily available computerized data bases, except for at the sampling sites. Limitations that primarily affect discharge and concentration data from major WWTF, load and trend calculations, and subsequent which in some cases, were computerized from paper comparisons among surface-water sites include: files. No attempt was made to computerize data from (1) varying sampling frequencies, (2) different other paper files or reports. periods of record, and (3) insufficient sampling of high flow events, the hydrologic condition during Computerized data bases used were USGS which a major percentage of transport occurs for NWIS, USEPA STORET, and FLDER GWIS. Water- many nutrient species. quality data collected or analyzed by the USGS were obtained from NWIS. STORET contains some, but Graphical and nonparametric statistical methods not all, data collected by USEPA; USEPA contractors; were used to analyze the nutrient data in this report. other Federal agencies; and many State agencies that Nonparametric statistical methods use ranks of the
28 data rather than the data themselves, involve robust Nutrient analyses stored in more than one data techniques that are less sensitive to extreme values base were combined to eliminate duplicates. than standard parametric statistics, do not require Unusually high or low concentrations (outliers) were artificial substitutions for censored data, and do not checked against published reports and original data require assumptions about the distribution or variance bases. If typographical errors were obvious, values of the data. Analyses of water-quality data are better were corrected; otherwise, all outliers were included suited to nonparametric than parametric statistical in graphical and statistical analyses. Because of the methods because distributions of water-quality data lack of information on sample collection purpose, are rarely known, but are often log-normally attempts were not made to omit data collected as part distributed and may vary among constituents, time of local contamination assessment studies. Data periods, and locations (Helsel, 1990, p. 1769). known to be from intensive sampling over a short Data compilation and screening period of time and not representative of the 1972 – 90 period of interest were not used for some graphical The three computerized data bases used in this and statistical analyses. report store water-quality data by parameter codes. Nutrient data from 1972 – 90 for any individual Data stored by many of these parameter codes are well or spring in the study area were insufficient for similar enough that, for the purposes of this report, trend analyses. To eliminate spatial bias of data from data were reformatted and combined to reduce the wells and springs having multiple-nutrient samples, number of nutrient constituent groups analyzed and to the median concentration for each well and spring increase spatial and temporal distribution of available was used for each nutrient constituent group. data for each nutrient constituent group analyzed. Six constituent groups for nitrogen (total nitrogen, total- Nutrient data from 1972 – 90 water years for the inorganic nitrogen, total-organic nitrogen, dissolved ACF River basin are summarized in table 8 by ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and dissolved-organic nutrient constituent group, by agency, and by source nitrogen) and two constituent groups for phosphorus of water (streams, reservoirs and lakes, wells, and (total phosphorus and dissolved orthophosphate) were springs). In surface water, total phosphorus, dis- created by using algorithms to reformat and combine solved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total- data stored by similar parameter codes within and inorganic nitrogen have the most available nutrient among the three computerized data bases (table 7). data. Ground-water-nutrient data are much more Algorithms used to transform source data into limited, in terms of collecting agencies, spatial and selected nutrient constituent groups included (1) temporal distribution, and nutrient constituents. Most converting concentrations reported in radical form to available ground-water-nutrient data were dissolved- elemental form (such as PO4 to as P), (2) converting nitrate concentrations. to consistent units of measure (such as from µg/L to Distribution of sampling sites mg/L), (3) assuming the predominant form of a nutrient species for some constituent groups (such as Temporal distribution of nutrient water-quality assuming most ammonia is dissolved so that total samples from surface water (streams, and reservoirs ammonia is a reasonable approximation of dissolved and lakes) and ground water (wells and springs) for ammonia), and (4) adding or subtracting data stored in 1972 – 90 water years are shown in figure 12. The two or more parameter codes to estimate the increase in the number of nutrient samples collected concentration of a nutrient species that was not from streams in 1976 – 77 was primarily the result of directly measured (such as total nitrogen equals the USGS Upper Chattahoochee River Quality ammonia plus organic nitrogen plus nitrate plus Assessment (Cherry and others, 1980). The increase nitrite). in the number of nutrient samples collected in reservoirs and lakes in 1978 – 79 primarily was the For each of the eight constituent groups, a single result of several Water Quality Management Studies censoring limit had to be selected so data could be funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Diane ranked. This censoring limit, listed in table 7, was Findley, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, oral either the highest analytical reporting limit or the commun., 1994). The increase in the number of most common analytical reporting limit. All nutrient nutrient samples collected in wells from 1985 to 1990 analyses with reported values smaller than the was the result of statewide ground-water-monitoring censoring limit were changed to “less than” the programs in Georgia and Florida. censoring limit, and the few analyses with “less-than” values larger than the censoring limit were changed to missing values.
29
e above equation for e above .
, phosphate] 4
data from source data data source bases from the following in th the following dissolved ammonia dissolved or , ammonia; P, phosphorus; PO phosphorus; P, , ammonia; 3 Algorithm used to transform
dissolved ammonia ammonia dissolved Flint River basin into selected nutrient nutrient selected into basin River Flint
–
p71845 x 0.776486. x p71845 0.822443. x p00619 + 0.304457)) x (p71856 or or p00613 x 0.304457) or (p71855 (p00615 or 0.225897)) x (p71851 or or p00618 x 0.225897) or (p71850 (p00620 p00630: , nitrate; NH 3 Use if available. x 0.776486. p71846 then use is null, p00608 If p00610. use then null, are p71846 and p00608 If use then null, are p00610 and p71846, p00608, If then use null, are and p71845 p00610, p71846, p00608, If then use p00612. null, are p00619 and p71845, p00610, p71846, p00608, If Use if available. - p00625 then use is null, p00605 If Use if available. + p00630. p00625 then use is null, p00600 If then substitute one of If p00630 is null, - p00640 or p00631 or x 0.225897) or (p71851 p00618 or 0.225897) x (p71850 or p00620 x 0.304457). or (p71856 p00613 or 0.304457) x (p71855 or p00615
, nitrite; NO 2 –Chattahoochee
Parameter code dissolved ammonia dissolved ammonia dissolved 71851 or 00618 71856 or 00613 00608 71846 00610 71845 00619 00612 00605 - 00625 00600 + 00630 00625 or 71855 or (00615 + 71856) or 00613 or 71850 or (00620 71851) or 00618 - 00640 00631 or 71850 or 00620 or 71855 or 00615 1/
kilogram; N, nitrogen; kilogram; N, nitrogen; NO
llected in the Apalachicola llected ) 3 )) ) )) + ) 3 3 2 2 ), total (mg/L as N) - ) 3 3 ) or ) or ) or ) or 3 3 2 2 + NH + 3 Constituents from source data bases datafrom source Constituents Parameter name Parameter r; mg/kg, milligram per milligram r; mg/kg, + NO itrate, total (mg/Las N) ate, dissolved (mg/L as N) (mg/L as ate, dissolved 2 lved (mg/L as N) lved or (mg/L as N) lved or l (mg/L as N) or tal (mg/L as N) or total (mg/L as NO total (mg/L as NO total (mg/L as NO total (mg/L as NO totransform source dataco dissolved ammonia dissolved Nitrogen, nitrite plus n dissolved ammonia Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved Nitrogen,(mg/L ammonia, as dissolved N) Nitrogen,(mg/L ammonia, as dissolved NH Nitrogen, ammonia, total (mg/L as N) Nitrogen, ammonia, total (mg/L as NH N) as (mg/L un-ionized Ammonia, as N) total (mg/L un-ionized, Ammonia, total (mg/LNitrogen, as organic, N) Nitrogen, ammonia plus total organic, (mg/L as N) - Nitrogen, total (mg/L as N) Nitrogen, ammonia plus total organic, (mg/L as N) + (Nitrogen,as nitrite, N) or total(mg/L Nitrogen, nitrite, Nitrogen, nitrite, disso Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrite,as NO dissolved (Nitrogen,N) or nitrate, total(mg/L as Nitrogen, nitrate, Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrate,as N) dissolved or Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrate,as NO dissolved Nitrogen, inorganic (NO Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitr Nitrogen, nitrate, to Nitrogen, nitrate, Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrate,as N) dissolved or Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrate,as NO dissolved Nitrogen, nitrite, tota Nitrogen, nitrite, Nitrogen, nitrite, disso Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrite,as NO dissolved
groups (0.1) Summary of Summary algorithms used (0.02) (0.12) Total nitrogen (censoring limit, mg/L) Dissolved ammonia Dissolved Selected nutrient constituent Total-organic nitrogen Total-organic Table 7. constituent groups per lite microgram µg/L, per liter; milligrams [mg/L,
30 .
, phosphate] 4 dissolved ammonia dissolved ted nutrient data from source data data source bases from . bstitute p00640 + . use p00630 (or its substitutes as calculated for is null, is use p00631. then null, - p00615. use p00630 is then null, is use p00620. then null, is use p00630. then null, - use p00640 is then null, dissolved ammonia dissolved , ammonia; P, phosphorus; PO phosphorus; P, , ammonia; is null, then su is null, then 3 ) + Algorithm used to transform total nitrogen dissolved nitrate dissolved nitrate dissolved nitrate dissolved nitrate dissolved nitrate , nitrate; NH 3 If total-organic nitrogen Use if available. If p00640 is null, then total nitrogen Use if available. Use if available. - p00613. p00631 then use is null, p00618 If If If If If If Use if available. x 0.326138. p71886 then use is null, p00665 If If p00665and p71886 are null, then use p00650 x 0.326138. x 0.326138. use p00655 then are null, p00650 and p71886, p00665, If x 0.001. 00662 then use null, are and p00655 p00650, p71886, p00665, If then use p70505. null, are p00662 and p00655, p00650, p71886, p00665, If use then null, are p70505 and p00662, p00655, p00650, p71886, p00665, If p70507. Use if available. x 0.326138. p71889 then use is null, p00671 If If p00671and p71889 are null, then use p00653 x 0.326138. x 0.326138. use p00660 then are null, p00653 and p71889, p00671, If p00666. then use null, are and p00660 p00653, p71889, p00671, If , nitrite; NO 2 ola –Chattahoochee – Flint River basin into selec Flint River – –Chattahoochee ola dissolved ammonia dissolved ammonia dissolved ammonia dissolved 00640 + 00640 00662 total-organic nitrogen 00640 + 00630 - 00623 00618 - 00631 00613 00631 - 00630 00615 00620 00630 - 00640 00665 71886 00650 00655 70505 70507 00671 71889 00653 00660 00666 1/
kilogram; N, nitrogen; kilogram; N, nitrogen; NO
) 4 ); water, total ); water, dissolved ammonia ), total (mg/L as N) + 4 3 ) ) 4 4 thod (mg/L as P); water, total thod (mg/L as P); water, + NH + 3 ) Constituents from source data bases datafrom source Constituents ) 4 4 Parameter nameParameter code Parameter r; mg/kg, milligram per milligram r; mg/kg, e, dissolved (mg/L as N) - e, dissolved + NO ate, total (mg/Las N) + (mg/L as N) ate, dissolved ate, total (mg/Las N) - 2 itrate, total (mg/Las N) transform source data collected in the Apalachic collected data transform source total (mg/L as N) total (mg/L as N) Nitrogen, inorganic (NO total-organic nitrogen total (mg/L as N) Nitrogen, inorganic, Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitr ammonia dissolved (mg/L as N) - dissolved organic, ammonia plus Nitrogen, ammonia dissolved Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrate,as N) dissolved Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrat Nitrogen, (mg/L nitrite,as N) dissolved Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitr Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitr Nitrogen, nitrite, Nitrogen, nitrate, Nitrogen, nitrite plus n total (mg/L as N)Nitrogen, - inorganic, as P) total (mg/L Phosphorus, as PO total (mg/L Phosphorus Phosphate, total (mg/L as PO total (mg/L as PO Phosphate, poly, µg/L totalrecoverable (P), water, Phosphorus Phosphate, total, colorimetric me as P) total (mg/L orthophosphate, Phosphorus as P) (mg/L dissolved orthophosphate, Phosphorus, PO as (mg/L soluble, ortho, Phosphate, as PO (mg/L dissolved Phosphate, (mg/L as PO dissolved ortho, Phosphate, as P) (mg/L dissolved Phosphorus,
groups (0.1) Summary ofSummary algorithms used to (0.04) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (censoring limit, mg/L) nitrogen nitrogen Selected nutrient constituent Total-inorganic nitrogen Total-inorganic Dissolved-organic nitrate Dissolved phosphorus Total Dissolved orthophosphate constituent groups—Continued Table 7. per lite microgram µg/L, per liter; milligrams [mg/L,
31
, phosphate] 4 ted nutrient data from source data data source bases from , ammonia; P, phosphorus; PO phosphorus; P, , ammonia; 3 Algorithm used to transform ata base (STORET); Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Regulation, Floridaata base (STORET); Department of Environmental , nitrate; NH 3 Not used. Not used. Not used. Not used. statistic. Not used—30-day statistic. Not used—30-day statistic. Not used—30-day material. Not used—bottom material. Not used—bottom material. Not used—bottom material. Not used—bottom material. Not used—bottom , nitrite; NO 2 00602 00607 00624 00636 00609 00622 00664 00611 00626 00633 00627 00668 ola –Chattahoochee – Flint River basin into selec Flint River – –Chattahoochee ola 1/
Protection Agency, Storage and Retrieval d Storage and Retrieval Protection Agency, kilogram; N, nitrogen; NO terial, dry weight (mg/kg as N) (mg/kg weight dry terial, l in bottom material, dry weight in bottom material, dry weight Constituents from source data bases data source from Constituents ttom materialdry weightmg/kg Parameter nameParameter code Parameter r; mg/kg, milligram per milligram r; mg/kg, transform source data collected in the Apalachic collected data transform source rmation System (NWIS); U.S. Environmental rmation System (NWIS); U.S. Environmental (mg/kg as N) (mg/L as N) (mg/kg as N) Nitrogen, dissolved (mg/L Nitrogen,as N) dissolved (mg/L as N) dissolved Nitrogen, organic, as N) total (mg/L suspended, organic, ammonia plus Nitrogen, one determination dissolved, organic, ammonia plus Nitrogen, total (mg/L as N) ammonia nitrogen, 30 day, Total as N) total (mg/L 30 day, Kjeldahl nitrogen, Total as P) (mg/L day, total, 30 Phosphorous, Nitrogen, ammonia total in bottom ma Nitrogen, ammonia plus tota organic Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate total KjeldahlNitrogen, in total bo P)) as weight (mg/kg dry material, total in bottom Phosphorus,
groups Summary ofSummary algorithms used to Ground Water Information System (GWIS) System Information Water Ground (censoring limit, mg/L) used is this report Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint not basin, but River U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Info National Water U.S. Geological Survey, Selected nutrient constituent 1/ Data available for the for Data available constituent groups—Continued Table 7. lite per microgram µg/L, per liter; milligrams [mg/L,
32 809 122 3,765 9,817 3,671 2,619 4,579 1,717 4,061 1,726 4,249 4,136 4,361 1,990 of of Flint
12,359 10,457 10,948 12,007 –
Number Number analyses Total 61 22 597 326 510 314 526 565 554 233 215 131 197 128 197 213 195 149 of sites Number Number – 6 – 61 58 60 96 394 124 381 349 184 173 172 171 171 182 183 of of ssion; ADEM, Alabama Chattahoochee
–
Number Number analyses – 1 – 29 28 18 18 18 29 29 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 19 ADEM of sites chicola Number Number – – 67 530 516 497 431 287 7,672 5,940 6,481 6,586 7,550 2,420 2,261 2,265 2,308 2,399 of of h Water Commi Fish h Water Number Number analyses Agency; USFS, Agency; U.S. Service; Forest GEPD, – 7 – GEPD 17 16 49 20 45 18 45 49 49 16 134 124 132 124 127 of sites Number Number – – – – – – 88 84 85 87 85 86 309 299 304 304 302 301 of of Number Number analyses – – – – – – 38 38 38 38 38 38 10 10 10 10 10 10 FGFWFC of sites Number Number Environmental Protection Environmental – – 62 55 50 17 502 217 460 210 470 483 495 164 131 132 136 163 of of FGFWFC, Florida Gameand Fres Number analyses – 6 6 – 5 81 34 78 35 79 75 81 11 11 10 10 10 11 FLDER of sites Number 809 666 312 475 465 659 468 122 487 630 Streams ngineers; USEPA, U.S. ngineers; USEPA, of of 2,308 1,956 2,161 2,005 2,240 2,223 2,181 1,268 Number analyses Reservoirs and Lakes Reservoirs 61 73 36 11 35 11 35 35 22 16 30 USGS 192 171 180 171 183 185 189 of sites Number 1 6 – – 5 – – 48 18 13 33 10 13 13 23 33 nt of Environmental Regulation; nt of Environmental 198 197 of of Number analyses 6 1 4 5 6 – – 8 2 6 1 6 8 – 8 – USFS 15 15 of sites Number – – 83 76 58 59 58 83 82 82 659 389 572 324 572 613 651 655 of of Number analyses 4 4 4 4 4 4 – 4 4 – 51 51 49 51 49 51 51 51 USACOE of sites Number
vision; Departme vision; FLDER, Florida – – 893 814 837 805 838 875 851 833 365 281 353 280 352 319 360 219 Geological Survey; USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of E Army U.S. USACOE, Geological Survey; of of Number analyses – – 66 67 66 67 71 99 28 19 20 19 20 28 28 18 USEPA 104 104 of sites Number 90 water years 90 water
onmental Management] –
. Compilation. themediaofand numbersitestype, of nutrient Apalasources State of digitalanddata,by analyses from Federal nitrogen orthophosphate analyses nitrogen analyses nitrogen nitrogen orthophosphate Nutrient constituent TOTAL–sites and TOTAL–sites nitrogen Total Total-inorganic nitrogen Total-organic ammonia Dissolved nitrate Dissolved Dissolved-organic phosphorus Total Dissolved and TOTAL–sites nitrogen Total Total-inorganic nitrogen Total-organic ammonia Dissolved nitrate Dissolved Dissolved-organic phosphorus Total Dissolved Department of Envir Department of River basin, 1972 River Table 8 USGS, U.S. data; [–, no available Georgia Environmental Protection Protection Di Environmental Georgia
33 3 4 4 6 1 3 1 41 60 27 72 33 66 70 19 17 377 364 of Number analyses 3 3 3 4 1 2 1 38 53 23 63 32 53 58 16 15 185 185 of 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ sites 1/ 1/ Number 3 6 5 8 – 9 – 3 1 1 3 3 1 – 1 – of 12 15
Number analyses 4 2 3 2 3 4 – 4 – 2 1 1 2 2 1 – 1 – of sites chicola – Chattahoochee – Flint Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of 152 152 h Water Fish Commission; ADEM, Alabama ADEM, Alabama Fish Commission; h Water Number analyses Agency; USFS, U.S. Forest Service;GEPD, U.S. USFS,Forest Agency; – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of 43 43 sites Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of Number analyses orida Game and Fres – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of sites Number Environmental Protection Environmental – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of 49 49 33 13 Number analyses – – – – – 4 – – – – – – – – – 30 30 27 of sites Number Regulation; FGFWFC, Fl FGFWFC, Regulation; 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 Wells 38 54 22 64 33 24 57 16 16 Springs ngineers; USEPA, U.S. ngineers; USEPA, 161 151 of Number analyses 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 37 52 22 62 32 24 54 14 14 Federal and State sources of digital data, by mediaApala type, digitalFederal and State sources of data, by 127 121 of sites Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of of Number analyses – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of sites Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of of Number analyses DER, Florida Department of Environmental from each agency because from each of duplicate agency sites. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of sites Number Geological Survey; USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of E USACOE, Geological Survey; – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of of Number analyses USEPA USACOE USFS USGS FLDER FGFWFC GEPD ADEM Total – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – of sites Number onmental Management]
. Compilation of the number of sites and nutrient analyses from nitrogen orthophosphate nitrogen orthophosphate analyses nitrogen analyses nitrogen Less than the sum of number of sites Nutrient constituent 1/ TOTAL–sites and TOTAL–sites nitrogen Total Total-inorganic nitrogen Total-organic Dissolved ammonia Dissolved nitrate Dissolved-organic phosphorus Total Dissolved and TOTAL–sites nitrogen Total Total-inorganic nitrogen Total-organic Dissolved ammonia Dissolved nitrate Dissolved-organic phosphorus Total Dissolved Georgia Environmental Protection Division; FL Division; Protection Environmental Georgia Department of Envir Table 8 data; USGS, U.S. no [–, available River basin, 1972 – 90 water years—Continued90 water – basin, 1972 River
34 1,500 Streams Reservoirs and lakes
1,000
500
0 60 Wells Springs 50
40
30
20 NUMBER OF NUTRIENT WATER-QUALITY SAMPLES 10
0 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 WATER YEAR Figure 12. Number of nutrient water-quality samples analyzed from streams, reservoirs and lakes, wells, and springs, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years.
Spatial distribution of nutrient sampling sites by affects the biological productivity in Apalachicola collection agency for 1972 – 90 water years are shown Bay, Fla., through changes in the amount and seasonal in figure 13 for streams, and reservoirs and lakes, and patterns of nutrient loading to the Bay. The distribu- figure 14 for wells and springs. The number of tion and transport of nutrients in surface water within nutrient analyses at each surface-water site, the the ACF River basin are influenced by many factors temporal distribution and frequency of those analyses, including watershed characteristics and nutrient and the availability of ancillary data, such as sources described in earlier sections of this report. instantaneous and mean daily streamflow, determined Reservoirs modify streamflow characteristics by the types of graphical and statistical analyses that converting riverine environments to lacustrine were done with data from each site. Graphical and environments, particularly along the mainstem of the statistical analyses, number of nutrient analyses, and Chattahoochee River. Although ranges of nutrient number of sites used for each are listed in table 9. concentrations for eight nutrient constituent groups Nutrients in Surface Water measured from 1972 – 90 in streams (fig. 15a) are Nutrients in surface waters of the ACF River similar to ranges measured in reservoirs and lakes basin are of concern because high concentrations (fig. 15b), reservoirs potentially have a large influence and(or) loads can be toxic to aquatic organisms and on the distribution and transport of nutrients in cause eutrophication of streams, lakes, and reservoirs surface water within the study area. within the basin. Nutrient outflow from the basin
35 o o 84 84
U.S. Environmental U.S. Army Corps Protection Agency of Engineers
o 34 34o
o 85 85 o
o 33 33 o
o 32 32o
o 31 31o
o o 84 84
U.S. Forest U.S. Geological Service Survey
o 30 30 o 34o 34o
85 o 85 o
33 o 33 o
32o 32o
31o 31o EXPLANATION STREAM WATER-SAMPLING SITE HAVING NUTRIENT DATA RESERVOIR OR LAKE WATER-
30 o 30 o SAMPLING SITE HAVING NUTRIENT DATA
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 13. Distribution of stream, reservoir, and lake water-sampling sites having nutrient data, by collection agency, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years.
36 o o 84 84
Florida Department of Florida Game and Freshwater Environmental Regulation Fish Commission o 34 34o
o 85 85 o
o 33 33 o
o 32 32o
o 31 31o
o Alabama o Georgia 84 84 Environmental Department of Protection Environmental Division Management
o 30 30 o 34o 34o
85 o 85 o
33 o 33 o
32o 32o
EXPLANATION 31o 31o STREAM WATER-SAMPLING SITE HAVING NUTRIENT DATA RESERVOIR OR LAKE WATER- SAMPLING SITE HAVING NUTRIENT DATA 30 o 30 o
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 13. Distribution of stream, reservoir, and lake water-sampling sites having nutrient data, by collection agency, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years—Continued.
37 84 o 84 o
Florida Department of Alabama Department of Environmental Regulation Environmental Management
34o 34o
85o 85o
33 o 33 o
32o 32o
o o o 31 o 31 84 84 Georgia Geologic U.S. Geological Survey Survey
o 34o 34 30o 30o
o 85o 85
33 o 33 o
EXPLANATION
WELL
o 32o 32 SPRING
31o 31o
30o 30o
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 14. Distribution of ground-water sampling sites having nutrient data, by collection agency, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years.
38 (7) (6) (6) 822 (13) (34) (11) (34) (26) 5/ (597) (215) 2,526 2,136 4,750 4,608 4,579 1,223 1/ 12,359 >5,582 >4,042 Total Total
nutrient nutrient analyses analyses and sites — — — 74 (9) (3) (7) (5) (2) 426 137 323 5/ (233) (149) 2,619 1,990 1,740 ortho- Dissolved Dissolved phosphate 90 water years 90 water
–
(7) (6) (6) 817 (13) (34) (11) (34) (26) 5/ (554) (195) 2,514 5,582 2,124 4,717 4,584 4,361 4,042 1,215 1/ 12,007
Total Total phosphorus — — — — — — (5) (2) 809 197 122 122 (61) (22) 5/ Survey] Commission; organic organic nitrogen
Dissolved- (7) (6) (6) Flint River basin, 1972 Flint River
800 (13) (34) (11) (34) 5/ (26) –
(565) (197) 2,470 5,499 2,084 4,073 4,493 4,136 3,842 1,191 1/ 10,948 nitrate Dissolved Dissolved (6) (6) (6) 764 (13) (33) (11) (34) (26) 5/ (526) (197) 2,401 5,314 2,034 3,947 4,411 4,249 3,974 1,163 1/ 10,457 ammonia Dissolved Dissolved Chattahoochee
–
Game and Fresh Water Fish Fresh Water Game and — — — (5) (5) 640 893 219 (15) (10) (13) 5/ (314) (128) 3,671 1,057 1,726 1,626 Total- organic organic nitrogen neers; USFS, U.S. Service; Forest Management; GGS, Georgia Geologic Georgia Management; GGS, Number of nutrient analyses and sites (number sites in parentheses) of (number sites and analyses nutrient of Number — — — (6) (6) 762 (33) (34) (26) 5/ (510) (213) 9,817 5,253 3,667 4,358 4,061 3,787 Total- nitrogen inorganic inorganic Streams — — — (5) (5) 664 906 241 (15) (11) (13) 5/ (326) (131) 3,675 1,067 1,717 1,610 Total Total nitrogen l Regulation; FGFWFC, Florida l Regulation; 1 1 25 15 25 32 40 15 25 32 Reservoirs and Lakes Reservoirs 3/ 4/ 3/ site a Department of Environmental Environmental Department of a Minimum Minimum number of of number samples per 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
– – – – – – – – – –
ency; USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engi Corps of U.S. Army USACOE, ency; years) record (water 1972 1972 1972 1972 1980 1972 1972 1972 1972 1980 Period of , 2/ a Department of Environmenta Department of a tical analyses of nutrient data, by media type, Apalachicolatype, mediatical analyses of nutrient by data, FLDER FLDER USGS, GEPD USGS, GEPD USGS, GEPD USGS, GEPD USGS, GEPD USFS, USGS, USFS, USGS, USGS, GEPD, USGS, GEPD, GEPD, ADEM GEPD, ADEM Sources of data of Sources USGS, GEPD ADEM, FLDER USEPA, USACOE, USACOE, USEPA, USACOE, USEPA, FLDER, FGFWFC, FLDER, FGFWFC, otection Division; ADEM, Alabam otection Division;
35) 35)
– –
42; 42;
– –
45; 45;
– 20)
–
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Ag U.S. Environmental USEPA, : 29) 29)
– –
Summaryand of graphical statis statistical analysis Type of graphical or or graphical of Type concentrations by constituent concentrations by groups15a) (figure 22 (figures table 15) table 16) constituent concentrations by groups15b) (figure 22 (figures table 15) summary (boxplots) of of (boxplots) summary 17 (figures discharge mile river concentrations by of (boxplots) summary mile river concentrations by Spatial distribution and graphical graphical and distribution Spatial Relationconcentration of to stream Graphical summary (boxplots) of 30 (figures Seasonal variation 36 (figures trends Temporal 43 Annual loads (figures graphical and distribution Spatial Graphical summary (boxplots) of 30 (figures Seasonal variation 36 (figures trends Temporal Table 9. Table than; greater >, data; available no [–, of data Sources FLDER, Florid USGS,U.S. Geological Survey; Pr Environmental GEPD, Georgia
39 16 (16) 181 Total Total 185 185 (181) (185) (185) nutrient nutrient analyses analyses and sites 1 (1) — — 58 (58) ortho- Dissolved Dissolved phosphate 2 (2) 52 Lake Seminole are divided Seminole are divided Lake 53 51
(52) (51) (53) Total Total n, 1972 – 90 water years— 90 water – n, 1972 phosphorus 1 (1) — — 32 (32) Commission; organic organic nitrogen
Dissolved- 15 (15) 182 176 185 (176) nitrate (182) (185) 22 to 29; sampling sites in tration was used. tration was Dissolved Dissolved 4 (4) 56 62 63 (56) (62) (63) ammonia Dissolved Dissolved Game and Fresh Water Fish Fresh Water Game and servoir in figures in figures servoir 3 (3) 23 — — (23) Total- organic organic nitrogen neers; USFS, U.S. Service; Forest Number of nutrient analyses and sites (number sites in parentheses) of (number sites and analyses nutrient of Number 3 (3) 6/ 53 — — (53) 6/ bias, the median nutrient bias, the concen median nutrient Total- nitrogen inorganic inorganic Wells Springs ngle boxplot for that re boxplot for ngle 3 (3) — 38 — (38) Total Total nitrogen l Regulation; FGFWFC, Florida l Regulation; orgia Environmental Protection Division. Protection Environmental orgia ta, ta, by media type, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basi 1 1 1 1 site Minimum Minimum number of of number samples per spring,thenspatial to reduce 90 90 90 74, 83, 87
– – – – – –
r arm of the reservoir. r arm of the reservoir. ency; USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engi Corps of U.S. Army USACOE, ency; years) record (water 1972 1972 1972 1972 1982 1985 Period of thin a given reservoir are shown in a si shown are reservoir thin a given a Department of Environmenta Department of a r, only 11 are present among figures 17 to 20. only 11 are among figures present r, County, Georgia, and obtained from Ge and obtained Georgia, County, FLDER, GGS FLDER, GGS FLDER, GGS USGS, ADEM Sources of data of Sources USGS, ADEM, USGS, ADEM, USGS, ADEM, ver arm and the Flint Rive ver
s of quarterly data. of quarterly s
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Ag U.S. Environmental USEPA, :
Summaryand of graphical statistical analyses of nutrient da statistical analysis Type of graphical or or graphical of Type between Chattahoochee Ri between the Data were analyzed from 13 sites; howeve sites; 13 from analyzed were Data DeKalb Includes data collected by eight year Minimum of sites wi sampling from all Samples collected If more than one nutrient analysis was available for a well or well a for available was analysis nutrient one than more If concentrations by constituent concentrations by groups47a) (figure (figure 49) (figure 50) constituent concentrations by groups47b) (figure summary (boxplots) of of (boxplots) summary aquiferconcentrations by use water by concentrations of (boxplots) summary 1/ 1/ 2/ 3/ 5/ 6/ Spatial distribution and graphical graphical and distribution Spatial Graphical summary (boxplots) of Graphical summary (boxplots) of graphical and distribution Spatial Continued Table 9. Table than; greater >, data; available no [–, of data Sources USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; FLDER, Florid USGS,U.S. Geological Survey;
40 10 Reservoirs and lakes 3,765 Streams 9,817 3,671 1,717 10,948 4,061 1 10,457 809 1,726 4,136 12,007 122 4,249 2,619 4,361
PER LITER 0.10 1,990
CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS 0.01
nitrogen nitrogen
nitrogen nitrogen Dissolved Dissolved Total organic Total organic Dissolved Dissolved
Total nitrogen Total nitrogen
Total inorganic Total inorganic Total organic nitrogen organic nitrogen orthophosphate orthophosphate Dissolved nitrate Dissolved nitrate Total phosphorus Total phosphorus Dissolved ammonia Dissolved ammonia EXPLANATION
3,671 Number of analyses 90 75 50 Percentile 25 10 Censoring limit
Figure 15. Distribution of nutrient concentrations in streams and reservoirs and lakes by nutrient- constituent groups, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972–90 water years.
From 1972 – 90, nitrate concentrations in surface- data collected at these sites are used in trend and(or) water samples from the ACF River basin did not load estimations. Characteristics such as river miles, exceed the USEPA MCL of 10 mg/L nitrate as N in drainage area, mean annual flow and runoff, provide drinking water. However, total-phosphorus concentra- information to help put nutrient data in context to the tions in more than 40 percent of the surface-water hydrologic flow system at each sampling site. Low- samples exceeded the USEPA recommendation of flow statistics, such as the 7-day, 10-year low flow of 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, a concentration threshold a stream, also are listed because they are often used as established to control eutrophication in flowing measures of dependable flow during periods of waters. About 70 percent of surface-water samples moderate drought and in permitting waste discharges. exceeded the USEPA more restrictive recommenda- Location numbers in table 10 and figure 16 are used tion of 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus, a concentration throughout the remaining surface-water tables and threshold recommended to control eutrophication figures. where streams enter a lake or reservoir. About one Relation of concentration to stream discharge percent of dissolved-ammonia concentrations in surface-water samples exceeded 2.1 mg/L as N, a In general, as stream discharge increases at a concentration USEPA based on chronic exposure of specific location, concentration of constituents aquatic organisms to un-ionized ammonia for most associated with point-source loads decreases in the natural surface waters. stream because of dilution resulting in a negative relation between concentration and discharge. In Graphical and statistical analyses of nutrients in contrast, concentration of constituents associated with surface water in the rest of this report are limited to nonpoint-source inputs generally increase as sampling sites where 15 or more nutrient samples discharge increases because of runoff and stormwater- were collected during 8 or more years from 1972 – 90 drain flow resulting in a positive relation between (table 10, fig. 16). In addition to nutrient sampling concentration and discharge. These very simplified sites, many gaging stations that are close enough to relations between concentration and discharge are reasonably approximate streamflow at sampling sites effected by many factors including antecedent are included in table 10 and figure 16. Streamflow
41 3/ — — — — — 1.5 1.7 2.9 1.9 2.2 2.5 6/ 6/ Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River
–
3/ 10 — — — — — 199 3,710 4,020 1,350 6/ 4,350 6/ 4,530 /s) 3 69 50 — — — — — National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National 666 1,650 1,680 (ft median 6/ 1,320 6/ 1,700 Chattahoochee
–
F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la 26 ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — — — — 324 850 526 860 733 exceedence frequency exceedence Streamflow for indicated for Streamflow 6/ 6/ 4/ 8.4 /s) 5.9 3 7/ combined with other concentration data data concentration with other combined — — — — — — low low
7/ 196 (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey 26.31 6/. — — — — — 35.40 28.39 25.89 26.24 21.14 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) 6/ Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 112 3 — — — — — 2,173 2,265 2,259 Mean annual 1,982 821 Flow Flow (ft 6/ 6/ centration data were 90 90 90 90 76 90 90
a nearby station; (S), a nearby – – – – – – –
Nutrient 1968 1977 1976 1974 1976 1974 1974 1975 1974 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; in nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by in nutrient analyses, 90
55, 46,
90
– annual loads reported fo
– – 90 90
–
Period of record of Period – –
— — — — — 1942 1902 1957 6/ 1956 6/ 1960 Streamflow 1956 Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; 72 315 103 5/ 1,040 1,101 1,170 1,201 1,373 (in (in — area 5/ 5/ miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, Drainage 2/ Upper Chattahoochee (03130001) Upper Chattahoochee boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or (9.3) River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge (2) 509.2 467.7 455.9 445.9 438.5 433.2 425.1 425.1 418.3 River mile River upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; U U - report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, G U G (Lake Sidney (Lake G cs for surface-water sites where data were used used data were where sites for surface-water cs A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama Name ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence G G G U (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir Surface-water station Surface-water stream from Soque River Soque from stream 369, Browns Bridge Buford, Ga. Intake Water Intake Water Intake Water Lanier) orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Chattahoochee River near Cornelia, Ga. Chattahoochee River down 1759 - FAS River Chattahoochee Highway - Georgia River Chattahoochee at Buford Dam near Chattahoochee River County - Gwinnett River Chattahoochee near Norcross, Ga. Chattahoochee River - DeKalb County Chattahoochee River Big Creek near Alpharetta, Ga. Intake Creek Big - Roswell Water County - Cobb River Chattahoochee : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge U G G U G U G U G G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number 02331600 12030001 12038001 02334430 12050001 02335000 12055001 02335700 12060001 12070001 e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence S S S
report (C),T in this Streamflow and basin characteristi Streamflow C,L,T C,L,T C,L,T C,L,T S,C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ 1 2 3 4 3a 4a 5a Location number (figure 16) (figure 5 6 dimensionless, is th basin, 1990 Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available Analyses of data in this report Surface-water station
42 3/ — — — — — — — 1.9 2.1 4.1 6/ Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 268 10 4,530 4,950 — — — — — — — 6/ 60 /s) 3 — — — — — — — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National 1,890 1,880 (ft 6/ median Chattahoochee – 23 r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) 901 la ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — — — — — — 6/ 1,040 exceedence frequency exceedence Streamflow for indicated Streamflow
7/ — 4/ 9.5 /s) 3 combined with other concentration data data concentration other with combined — — — — — — 1.1 low low (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey 24.05 23.65 21.37 — — — — — — — instantaneous and(o 6/ (in/yr) Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 137 3 — — — — — — — 2,567 2,524 Flow Flow (ft 6/ centration data were
89 90 90 90 90 90 72 90 90 90
– – – – – – – – – –
a nearby station; (S), a nearby Nutrient 1974 1972 1975 1975 1975 1975 1969 1975 1975 1975 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by nutrient analyses, U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; 90 31, 55,
90
annual loads reported fo – – –
–
Period of record Mean annual — — — — — — — 1928 1936 1958 1956 6/ 6/ Streamflow Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; 28.7 86.8 9.42 17.8 1,450 1,587 — — — (in (in area 5/ miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, Drainage Drainage 2/ boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; (4) the (—) (—) (—) (—) (—) (—) ed to estimate loadsthis at station or 410.7 408.3 408.3 408.3 408.3 408.3 408.3 408.3 408.3 River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge River mile River upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; - - - - U report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, U rface-water sites where data were used in used data were where sites rface-water near Peacht
D D A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama ohnsons Ferry Road Ferry ohnsons D Name D ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence G D G D (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir Surface-water station Surface-water dale Road near Doraville ree-DeKalb Airport way 23 Chamblee-Dunwoody from stream Road Intake in AtlantaRoad Atlanta near Chamblee orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Chattahoochee River at Atlanta, Ga. Chattahoochee River - Atlanta Water Chattahoochee River PeachtreeCreekPleasantNorth - Fork Creek - Plaster Arrow Road PeachtreeCreekU.S. North High - Fork PeachtreeSouth Fork Creek - Johnson Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. in Peachtree Creek - Northside Drive Creekbridge-Nancy 0.2 miles down Creek - at J Nancy : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge U G G G G G U G G G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number 02336000 12080001 12081001 12083001 12085001 12087001 02336300 12090001 12090201 12090401 e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency exceedence 90th-percent e 10th- minus the
S T T T T T T report in this Streamflow and basin characteristics for su and basin characteristics Streamflow C,L,T S,C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Location number (figure 16) (figure 6a, 7a 6a, Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available
43 3/ — — 2.1 3.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.9 6/ Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 10 — — 92 660 6,920 4,740 6,770 6/ 7,530 /s) 3 39 — — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National 194 2,730 (ft median 1,740 2,640 6/ 3,090 Chattahoochee – F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la 61 17 ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — exceedence frequency exceedence 1,200 Streamflow for indicated Streamflow 1,130 1,520 1,750 6/ 4/ /s) / 9.2 3 7 — combined with other concentration data data concentration with other combined — — — 15 — low low (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey — — 21.60 18.49 23.51 21.45 20.91 22.83 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) 6/ Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 3 56.0 — — 335 3,740 Flow Flow (ft centration data were 2,544 3,565 6/ 4,082
77 90 90 72, 90 79, 72, 90 90
a nearby station; (S), a nearby – – – – – – – – –
Nutrient 1976 1975 1968 1968 1974 1968 1990 1968 1975 1975 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by nutrient analyses, U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; 54,
annual loads reported fo 90 90 90 90
–
Period of record Mean annual – – – –
— — 1938 1981 1904-05, 1913, 1937-90 1965 1954 1965 Streamflow 6/ Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; (in (in 35.5 area 246 2,430 2,680 miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, Drainage 1,591 1,592 2,056 5/ 5/ 2/ boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or (5.5) River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge (7) 406.5 405.5 396.3 389.6 369.5 367.6 343.2 River mile River upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola
Middle Chattahoochee—Lake Harding (03130002) Harding Middle Chattahoochee—Lake vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; G U U U U report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, rface-water sites where data were used in used data were where sites rface-water U G A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama Name ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence U U (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir G G G Surface-water station Surface-water (inflow to West Point Lake) to West (inflow 280, near Atlanta, Ga. 280, Ga. from Proctor Creek 20 92 Ga. 16 orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Chattahoochee River at State Highway Chattahoochee River at Atlanta, at I-285, River Chattahoochee upstream - I-285 River Chattahoochee CreekSweetwater near Austell, Ga. CreekSweetwater - Interstate Highway Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River Highway River-Georgia Chattahoochee Ga. Snake Creek near Whitesburg, near Whitesburg, Chattahoochee River Highway River-Georgia Chattahoochee at Franklin, Ga. Chattahoochee River 27 Highway U.S. - River Chattahoochee : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge U U G U G U G U U G U G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence 02336490 02336502 12105001 02337000 12120001 02337170 12140001 02337500 02338000 12150001 02338500 12170001
S T T T S, C report in this Streamflow and basin characteristics for su and basin characteristics Streamflow (C), T (C), C, L, T S, C, L, S, C, L, S, C, L, Analyse s of data of s 1/ 15 16 17 18 19 20 15a Location number (figure 16) (figure Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this
44 3/ — — — — — — 2.4 2.1 2.0 6/ Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 10 — — — — — — 10,800 6/ 10,000 12,200 /s) 3 — — — — — — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National 3,840 (ft median 6/ 4,310 5,080 Chattahoochee – F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — — — — — exceedence frequency exceedence 1,660 Streamflow for indicated Streamflow 1,050 1,830 6/ 4/ /s) 7/ 7/ 3 combined with other concentration data data concentration with other combined — — — — — — 8.5 low low (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey — — — — — — 21.53 20.93 19.62 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) 6/ Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 3 — — — — — — 5,625 Flow Flow (ft centration data were 6/ 5,469 6,742
90 90 90 90 90 90 90
a nearby station; (S), a nearby – – – – – – –
Nutrient 1973 1968 1974 1972 1972 1972 1974 1974 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by nutrient analyses, U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; 55,
90 90
annual loads reported fo –
– –
Period of record Mean annual — — — — — — 1896 1955 1929 6/ Streamflow Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; — — — — — (in (in 74.8 area 5/ 3,550 4,670 miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, Drainage 5/ 5/ 2/ boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or (5.6) River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge 323.2 306.7 302.7 271 267.7 262 248 River mile River upstream of of upstream >285 the mouth of of the mouth 5/ 5/ 5/ Apalachicola vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; U U U Middle Chattahoochee—Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003) Reservoir George F. Middle Chattahoochee—Walter report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, rface-water sites where data were used in used data were where sites rface-water G (Lake Harding) (Lake G (affected by by (affected (affected by by (affected A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama G G Name ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence G (West Point Lake) (West G G (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir Surface-water station Surface-water backwater from Walter F. George George F. frombackwater Walter Reservoir) Intake from U.S.29 Highway West Point Bartletts Ferry Dam Intake Columbus WTF Oswichee Creek backwater from Walter F. George George F. frombackwater Walter Reservoir) orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Chattahoochee River - LaGrange Water - LaGrange Water Chattahoochee River Point, Ga. at West Chattahoochee River - 1.0 mile upstream ChattahoocheeRiver Point, Ga. Long Cane Creek near West of North 1765 Cane Creek - FAS Long - Upstream from Chattahoochee River Water - Columbus Chattahoochee River Ga. at Columbus, Chattahoochee River from - Downstream River Chattahoochee - Downstream Chattahoochee River : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge G U G U G G G U G G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number 12180001 02339500 12200001 02339720 12190001 12210001 12212001 02341500 12216001 12218001 e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence
S C,T C,T C, T report (C),T (C),T in this Streamflow and basin characteristics for su and basin characteristics Streamflow C,L,T S,C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ 25a 25a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Location number (figure 16) (figure Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this
45 3/ — — — — — 2.4 Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 10 — — — — — 21,500 /s) 3 — — — — — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National (ft median 8,470 Chattahoochee – F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — — — — exceedence frequency exceedence Streamflow for indicated for Streamflow 1,400 4/ /s) 3 combined with other concentration data data concentration with other combined — — — — — — low low (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey — — — — — 17.59 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 3 — — — — — Flow Flow (ft centration data were 10,630
90 90 90 90
– – – –
a nearby station; (S), a nearby Nutrient 1972-90 1975-83 1982 1974 1975 1975 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; in nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by in nutrient analyses, 60 90
annual loads reported fo – –
Period of record Mean annual — — — — 1928 1975 Streamflow Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; — — — (in (in 39.1 49 area 8,210 miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, Drainage 5/ Upper Flint (03130005) Upper Flint 2/ Lower Chattahoochee (03130004) Chattahoochee Lower boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge 227.9 156.7 154.3 131.5 445.9 441.5 River mile River upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; - - G G G U is report); C, concentration data concentration is report); C, U (affected by by (affected G cs for surface-water sites where data were used used data were where sites for surface-water cs A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama Name ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence UN (inflow to Lake Seminole, to Lake Chatta (inflow A U (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir G Surface-water station Surface-water backwater from Walter F. George Res George F. frombackwater Walter ervoir) hoochee Arm) Line Railway, Omaha Line Railway, bridge atstate the Georgia-Alabama line Ala. Ga. 91 orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Chattahoochee River - Seaboard Coast Chattahoochee River at Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River 52 at Highway River Chattahoochee near Columbia, Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Chattahoochee River Highway - Georgia River Chattahoochee Ga. Jonesboro, near River Flint 138 Highway Georgia - River Flint Ga. nearFayetteville, Flint River 54 Highway Georgia - River Flint : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge G G UN U G U G U G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, A 3 number and sources: name Number e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence 12219001 02343500 CHA1 02343801 02344040 12230001 02344180 11011001 02344190 11013001
C, T report (S), C (S), in this Streamflow and basin characteristi Streamflow (C), T (C), S, C, L C,L,T C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ 28 29 30 31 32 33 Location number (figure 16) (figure Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior prior period of record interest for th
46 3/ — — — — 3.8 3.5 3.3 2.5 Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 10 — — — — 346 717 4,820 7,030 /s) 3 83 — — — — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National 188 (ft median 1,340 2,350 Chattahoochee – F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la 29 60 ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — — — 450 exceedence frequency exceedence Streamflow for indicated Streamflow 1,070 4/ /s) 3 combined with other concentration data data concentration with other combined — — — — — 15 low low 180 680 (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey — — — — 17.42 17.21 17.08 16.56 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 3 — — — — 167 344 Flow Flow (ft centration data were 2,325 3,534
90 90 79, 74, 90 90 70, 90
a nearby station; (S), a nearby – – – – – – – –
Nutrient 1988 1975 1975 1972 1968 1990 1968 1976 1979 1969 1971 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by nutrient analyses, U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; 90
annual loads reported fo 12, 90 90 23, 31, 90
–
Period of record Mean annual – – – – – –
— — — — 1930 1904 1985 1937 1911 1928 1937 Streamflow Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; (in (in area 130 158 194 272 197 1,850 2,900 miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, Drainage 5/ 5/ 3,390 Middle Flint (03130006) Middle Flint 2/ boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; Kinchafoonee-Muckalee (03130007) Kinchafoonee-Muckalee the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge 433.5 430.1 421.0 412.2 346.2 288.4 261.9 211.6 River mile River (—) upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; G U report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, G U U rface-water sites where data were used in used data were where sites rface-water U U U U U A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama Name ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence G (inflow to Lake Blackshear) to Lake (inflow G (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir G G Surface-water station Surface-water Culloden 49 Vienna 41 orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Flint River near Lovejoy, Ga. nearLovejoy, Flint River nearInman, Ga. Flint River Road nearInman - Ackert Flint River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River 92 Highway Georgia - River Flint Ga. nearGriffin, Flint River nearCulloden, Ga. Flint River near 19 Highway U.S. - River Flint Montezuma, Ga. at Flint River and 26 Highways Georgia - River Flint Ga. nearVienna, Flint River near 27 Highway Georgia - River Flint Kinchafoonee Creek at Preston, Ga. Kinchafoonee Highway Creek- Georgia : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge U U G U G U U G U G U G U G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence 02344350 02344380 11015001 02344400 11018001 02344500 02347500 11050001 02349500 11060001 02350001 11061301 02350600 11065001
S S C S,C,L report in this Streamflow and basin characteristics for su and basin characteristics Streamflow (C), T (C), C,L,T C,L,T S,C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ 35a 34 35 36 37 38 39 32a, 33a, 34a Location number (figure 16) (figure Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this
47 3/ — — 2.7 2.3 2.4 Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 10 — — 13,000 13,100 1,530 /s) 3 — — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National 547 (ft median 4,140 4,710 Chattahoochee – F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — — 242 exceedence frequency exceedence Streamflow for indicated Streamflow 1,780 2,190 4/ /s) 7/ 3 combined with other concentration data data concentration with other combined — — — — low low (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 3/ U.S. Geological Survey — — 15.76 15.48 16.94 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 3 — — 773 Flow Flow (ft centration data were 6,158 6,538
90 90 79, 90 90 90
a nearby station; (S), a nearby – – – – – –
Nutrient 1968 1974 1968 1983 1974 1970 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by nutrient analyses, U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; annual loads reported fo 21, 90 50, 90 07, 90
Period of record Mean annual – – – – – –
1901 1929 — 1938 1956 — 1905 1939 Streamflow Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; (in (in area 640 5,310 5,340 5,740 7,570 miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, 5/ Drainage 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ Lower Flint (03130008) Flint Lower Ichawaynochaway (03130009) Ichawaynochaway 2/ boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or River discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge 211.2 198.6 177.3 134.3 160.6 River mile River (—) upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth Apalachicola - vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; - U G report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, rface-water sites where data were used in used data were where sites rface-water U UN U G A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama Name (inflow to Lake to Lake Semi (inflow ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence G G U (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir Surface-water station Surface-water nole, FlintArm) 216way nearMilford Albany State Docks Ga. orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Flint River at Albany, Ga. Albany, at Flint River NorthernRailway, - Georgia Flint River Ga. nearPutney, Flint River - Plant Mitchell Intake Flint River Ga. Newton, at Flint River Ga.Bainbridge, below Flint River from miles downstream - 0.8 Flint River at Milford, Creek Ichawaynochaway High - Georgia Creek Ichawaynochaway : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge U G U G UN U G U G /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence 02352500 11090001 02352790 11100001 02353000 02356015 11110001 02353500 11106001
S,C (C),T S,C,L report C,L,T in this Streamflow and basin characteristics for su and basin characteristics Streamflow S,C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ 41 42 43 44 40, 41a 40, Location number (figure 16) (figure Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Accounting Network] Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this
48 3/ — 2.1 2.0 1.9 Index of of Index variability Flint River Flint River –
3/ 10 —
43,500 48,300 2,760
/s) 3 — 50 National Stream-Quality Stream-Quality National (ft median 16,200 19,600 1,110 Chattahoochee ; Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers ; Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers – r) mean daily discharge available available daily discharge mean r) la ceeded; index of variability, of variability, index ceeded; 90 — 619 exceedence frequency exceedence Streamflow for indicated Streamflow 8,920 9,840 4/ /s) 3 ream or downstream of of the downstream or ream combined with other concentration data data concentration other with combined — low low 425 (ft flow 7-day, 7-day, 10-year 10-year 5,250 6,890 e distance upstream from the e distance upstream from 3/ U.S. Geological Survey — 17.44 18.37 25.95 instantaneous and(o (in/yr) Runoff harge was equaled was or ex harge Ga., monitoring network; F, Florida Department of of Department Florida F, network; Ga., monitoring r years with variances in load estimates less than 30 percent; 30 percent; than less estimates in load with variances r years /s) 3 — Flow Flow (ft centration data were 22,080 25,960 1,492
ity sampling sites either upst ity sampling sites vers is listed first is listedand th first vers 72, 90 80 90 72, 90
a nearby station; (S), a nearby – – – – – –
Nutrient 1974 1962 1974 1979 1974 1962 measurements me that indicated disc indicated me that nutrient analyses, by subbasin, Apalachico by nutrient analyses, U, U.S. Geological Survey; UN, U, U.S. Geological Survey; annual loads reported fo 90 90 13, 27, 31, 90
Period of record Mean annual – – – – – –
— lint River (Carter and others, 1986, and Carter and Putnam, 1978) Putnam, Carter and and 1986, others, and (Carter lint River 1921 1929 1943 1928 1977 1912 Streamflow Management; D, DeKalb County, Management; plotted in boxplots; (C), con plotted in boxplots; 781 chee, Flint, or Apalachicola Ri — (in (in area 17,200 19,200 miles) square square ncy, percentage of ti percentage of ncy, 5/ 5/ Drainage Drainage ations that are paired with water-qual Chipola (03130012) Apalachicola (03130011) Apalachicola 2/ boxplot per reservoir; L, boxplot per reservoir; the ed to estimate loadsthis at station or River 20.6 11.0 28.2 discharge divided by the median discharge; the median discharge; by divided discharge 106 River mile River upstream of of upstream the mouth of of the mouth (54) Apalachicola vision trend-monitoring network; vision trend-monitoring network; F U report); C, concentration data concentration report); C, es prior to 1974 are available in Carter and Putnam (1978). and Putnam in Carter are available to 1974 es prior UN rface-water sites where data were used in used data were where sites rface-water n the tributary and the Chattahoo n the tributary A, Alabama Department of Environmental Environmental Department of A, Alabama Name ond; >, greater than; exceedence ond; freque >, greater than; exceedence ered consecutively; surface-water gaging st surface-water ered consecutively; , Florida District, oral commun., 1994). : Upper Chattahoochee River (Carter and others, 1989); Upper F Upper 1989); others, and (Carter River Chattahoochee : Upper UN (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir record through 1992 water year. water 1992 through record Surface-water station Surface-water Fla. orgia Environmental Protection Di Environmental orgia the same reservoir and and were plotted in one the same reservoir Apalachicola River at ApalachicolaChattahoochee, River near Sumatra, Fla. Apalachicola River 40, mile Buoy 11A Apalachicola River, near Altha, Fla. Chipola River : S, instantaneous or mean daily discharge us : or S, instantaneous mean daily discharge UN U F UN /s, cubic feet per sec /s, 3 number and sources: name Number e 10th- minus the 90th-percent exceedence frequency exceedence 90th-percent e 10th- minus the 02358000 02359170 31010022 02359000
S report in this C,L,T Streamflow and basin characteristics for su and basin characteristics Streamflow S,C,L,T S,C,L,T Analyse s of data of s 1/ (Marvin Franklin, U.S. Geological Survey Geological U.S. Franklin, (Marvin gage location are designated with a letter “a.” confluence is listed in parentheses. 45 46 47 46a Data sources for 7-day, 10-year low flow for 7-day, Data sources Surface water-quality sampling sites are numb water-quality Surface mile of streams, the confluence betwee the tributary river For Statistics calculated for the period of Approximate. Prior to regulation. estimat upstreamLow-flow reservoir(s). by is regulated Flow 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ Location number (figure 16) (figure Analyses of data in this report dimensionless, is th basin, 1990—Continued Environmental Regulation; G, Ge G, Regulation; Environmental Table 10. Table data; ft no [—, available Accounting Network] collected from other locations in 1980–90 trends; T, Surface-water station only prior to 1972 (prior only to 1972 (prior to prior period of record interest for this
49 o 84
1
LakeLake SidneySidney LanierLanier2 Gainesville 3a
o 5 5a 3 4 34 6 13 4a 14 8 EXPLANATION 6a,7a 9 7 10 15 11 Atlanta o 16 15a 12 r DATA AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION NUMBERS 85 ve Ri ee 17 FOR TABLE 10 ch o o 18 32 h a tt 33 a 19 Urban areas mentioned in analyses h 32a,33a,34a C 34 20 35 of nutrients in surface water 35a
21 F 36 Nutrient concentrations and
l i
WWestest LLaGrangeaGrange n o PointPoint t continuous streamflow data 33 R LLakeake 23 iv 22 e r 3 Nutrient concentrations only LakeLake 24 HardingHarding 36 25 Columbus and 4a Continuous streamflow only Phenix City 25a 26 27 37 28 39 o 38 32 WalterWalter F Lake GeorgeGeorge Blackshear
ReservoirReservoir C
h 40,41a
a
t
t a
h 41 o
o 44 c
29 h Albany e 30 e 42
R
i v e r o 31 31 LakeLake SeminoleSeminole 43
r e 45 r iv
e
v R
i a R 47 l o c
a i 0 20 40 60 80 MILES l h o c
p a i l
h a
p C A 0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS
30 o 46a
46 y Ba la ico ch ala Ap
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 16. Locations of surface-water sites where data were used in nutrient analyses, Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1990.
50 conditions; location, duration, and intensity of Peachtree Creek at Atlanta (location 12) is fairly precipitation; modification or regulation of discharge typical of tributary streams because high-flow events by reservoirs; mixture of point and nonpoint sources; are generally shorter in duration and, therefore, more land use and land cover in the upstream watershed; difficult to sample in small watersheds. topography; and streamflow conditions (rising limb, Using concentration data for 1972 – 90 water peak, falling limb, baseflow) when samples were years, most surface-water sampling sites in the ACF collected. The result of these and other factors is River basin have weak, indeterminate, or no relations often an unclear relation between concentration and between concentrations of dissolved ammonia, stream discharge. dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus and the It is difficult to separate the effects of point and logarithm of discharge. Nutrient concentration and nonpoint sources of nutrients on a regional scale logarithm of discharge are plotted along with a based on historic data collected for various purposes. LOWESS line (LOcally WEighted Scatterplot However, as part of the Upper Chattahoochee River Smoothing) for two mainstem and four tributary sites Quality Assessment, Stamer and others (1979) (figs. 18 – 20). LOWESS lines emphasize the shape of sampled a 4-day storm period in 1976 and 2-day low- the relation between concentration and discharge and flow period in 1977 to separate point and nonpoint are computed by fitting 2n weighted least-square sources for nutrients and several other constituents. equations, which is a robust method to compute a During the storm period, in the Atlanta-to-Fairburn moving average (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992, p. 288 – reach, urban nonpoint-source inputs to Peachtree 291). Kendall’s tau is a rank correlation coefficient Creek (location 12) were about an order-of-magnitude that indicates monotonically increasing or decreasing greater than rural nonpoint-source inputs to Big Creek relations between two variables. Statistically signifi- (location 5a) or forested nonpoint-source inputs to cant correlations (at the 95-percent confidence level) Snake Creek (location 18) (Stamer and others, 1979, between ranked concentrations of dissolved ammonia, p. 31). During the low-flow period, five municipal dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus and ranked point sources contributed 97 percent of ammonia, 78 discharge are listed in figures 18 – 20. The higher the percent of total nitrogen, and 90 percent of total- absolute value of tau, the stronger the positive or phosphorus loads at Chattahoochee River at Franklin negative correlation. (location 20) (Stamer and others, 1979, p. 62). Decreasing relations among dissolved-ammonia, Ideally, water-quality samples are collected at dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorus concentrations times that represent the range of flow conditions for and discharge at Chattahoochee River near Fairburn each sampling site. It is particularly important to have (downstream of Atlanta) are indicative that point water-quality samples that are representative of high- sources account for much of the load. Relatively flow conditions because, for many constituents, much small decreases in dissolved-nitrate concentrations as of the transport (load) occurs during high-flow stream discharge increases at Flint River near Putney conditions, and there is generally more variance in (downstream from Albany; location 41) could be concentrations during high-flow conditions than from dilution of baseflow or dilution of point-source during low-flow conditions. A good sampling design loads. At Chipola River near Altha (location 47), includes collecting more samples during conditions decreases in dissolved-nitrate concentration as stream likely to have the most variance in concentrations of discharge increases may be the result of diluting the constituents of interest. Distributions of nutrient nitrate concentrations in baseflow, which is pre- samples by decile of flow for nine surface-water dominantly from ground water. The Chipola River sampling sites indicate that most flow conditions were drains largely agricultural areas in karst environments well represented by sampling from 1972 – 90 (fig. 17). that have relatively high transmissivities in the Minor under-sampling of low flows at the Gwinnett aquifer, which increases the likelihood of elevated County Water Intake (location 3) and the Columbus nitrate concentrations in ground water. Strong Water Intake (location 25) on the Chattahoochee negative relations between dissolved-ammonia (fig. River occurred because these sites are downstream of 18) and total-phosphorus (fig. 20) concentrations and reservoirs that are operated for peaking hydropower discharge in Long Cane Creek are indications that the generation. Lowest power demand and, therefore, primary source for these nutrient constituent groups lowest releases are generally on weekends; whereas, during 1972 – 90 was point-source loads. For this time routine monitoring samples are generally collected period, the city of LaGrange discharged effluent into Monday through Friday. The distribution of fewer Long Cane Creek. As of September 1993, the samples collected in the highest decile of flow at discharge location was moved to the Chattahoochee
51 50
Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Chattahoochee River, 40 Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 17) Columbus Water Intake, Ga. (location 3, Figure 16) (location 25)
30
20
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
50
Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. 40 (location 35) (location 37) (location 41)
30
20 52
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
50
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River, Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. (location 47) Bouy 40, mile 11A, Fla. (location 12) NUMBER OF NUTRIENT WATER-QUALITY SAMPLES NUMBER OF NUTRIENT 40 (location 46)
30
20
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DECILES OF FLOW Figure 17. Distribution of nutrient samples within decile-flow classes for nine stream-sampling sites, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin , 1972–90 water years. 100
Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Chipola River near Altha, Fla. (location 17, Figure 16) (location 41) (location 47) Kendall's tau: –0.57 Kendall's tau: –0.27 Kendall's tau: not significant 10
1
0.10
0.01 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. Sweetwater Creek near Austell, Ga. Long Cane Creek near West Point, Ga. (location 12) (location 16) (location 23)
53 Kendall's tau: not significant Kendall's tau: not significant Kendall's tau: –0.38 10
1
0.10
DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION 0.01 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
EXPLANATION LOWESS LINE CENSORING LIMIT
Figure 18. Relation between dissolved-ammonia concentration and discharge for two mainstem and four tributary sampling sites, Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972–90 water years. 100
Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Chipola River near Altha, Fla. (location 17, Figure 16) (location 41) (location 47) Kendall's tau: –0.41 Kendall's tau: –0.28 Kendall's tau: –0.38 10
1
0.10
0.01 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100
Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. Sweetwater Creek near Austell, Ga. Long Cane Creek near West Point, Ga.
54 (location 12) (location 16) (location 23) Kendall's tau: 0.23 Kendall's tau: not significant Kendall's tau: –0.19 10
1
0.10
DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION 0.01 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
EXPLANATION LOWESS LINE Figure 19. Relation between dissolved-nitrate concentration and discharge for two mainstem and four tributary sampling sites, Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years. 100
Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Chipola River near Altha, Fla. (location 17, Figure 16) (location 41) (location 47) Kendall's tau: –0.48 Kendall's tau: –0.25 Kendall's tau: 0.29 10
1
0.10
0.01 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100
Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. Sweetwater Creek near Austell, Ga. Long Cane Creek near West Point, Ga. (location 12) (location 16) (location 23) 55 Kendall's tau: 0.25 Kendall's tau: 0.29 Kendall's tau: –0.62 10
1
0.10 TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
0.01 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
EXPLANATION LOWESS LINE CENSORING LIMIT
Figure 20. Relation between total-phosphorus concentration and discharge for two mainstem and four tributary sampling sites, Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972–90 water years. River about one mile below the confluence of Long This section focuses on differences in nutrient Cane Creek and the Chattahoochee River (Anne concentrations in surface water within the study area Westmoreland, Long Cane Creek WPCP, oral based on 19 years of concentration data (1972 – 90 commun., 1994). By contrast, Peachtree and water years). Instantaneous discharge when nutrient Sweetwater Creeks have relatively weak positive samples were collected (fig. 21) and nutrient relations between total phosphorus and discharge (fig. concentrations (figs. 22 to 29) are summarized in 20). Transport of phosphorus is often closely related boxplots by river mile upstream of the mouth of the to transport of suspended sediment, which is usually a Apalachicola River. Each boxplot represents the 10th, nonpoint-source dominated phenomena. In addition 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentile to typical urban nonpoint sources, Peachtree Creek distribution of the data. Nutrient data from different has three combined sewer overflows, which are point sampling sites and depths within individual reservoirs sources that have significantly larger discharge during were compiled and plotted as single boxplots at the high-flow events. downstream end of each reservoir. Lake Seminole Downstream variations in concentrations data are plotted either on the Chattahoochee or Flint River basin figures depending on the arm of the Possible causes for increases in nutrient reservoir in which they were collected. The mouths concentrations from an upstream sampling site to a of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers join at Lake downstream sampling site in the ACF River basin Seminole to form the headwaters of the Apalachicola include: River. Data from the Apalachicola River are shown • point sources of nutrients, downstream of the Chattahoochee River data and are repeated downstream of the Flint River data. Mann- • land use and land cover that has a higher Whitney tests, a nonparametric t-test involving rank- nonpoint-source yield of nutrients, transformed data (Inman and Conover, 1983, p. 280 – • inflow of ground water with higher 281), were used to determine if nutrient concen- concentrations of a nutrient species than trations at paired upstream and downstream sites were the surface water (most commonly statistically different. Boxplots were used to show if nitrate), statistically different concentrations distributions • suspension of sediments and nutrients increase or decrease in the downstream direction. from stream or reservoir bottoms, In general, the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apala- • rupture of phytoplankton cells as they are chicola Rivers are gaining rivers throughout their transported from lacustrine to riverine extent (fig. 21). The ACF River basin does not have environments, major changes in nutrient concentrations that are pri- marily the result of large inflows or diversions of • die off of phytoplankton in the fall and water. winter because of cooler water temperatures, and Concentrations of nutrients significantly in- creased from upstream to downstream of the three • aquatic weed or detritus input. major cities (Atlanta, locations 6 – 17; Columbus and The most common causes for decreases in Phenix City, locations 25 and 26; and Albany, nutrient concentrations as surface water flows locations 40 and 41) in the ACF River basin (table downstream within the ACF River basin include 11). These increases were expected because of urban settling of sediments and associated phosphorus, and suburban point and nonpoint sources of nutrients. settling of detritus (mostly organic nitrogen), inflow Atlanta, Columbus and Phenix City, and Albany were from tributaries with lower nutrient concentrations the only metropolitan areas with municipal discharges (dilution), and uptake by phytoplankton in reservoirs larger than 10 Mgal/d in 1990 in the ACF River basin (particularly in the spring and summer). In addition to (fig. 6). Significant increases in concentrations of net increases or decreases in nutrients, it is common total nitrogen (fig. 22; Atlanta only), total-inorganic for ammonia to be converted to nitrate in surface nitrogen (fig. 23), total-organic nitrogen (fig. 24; waters downstream of WWTF outfalls. Therefore, in Atlanta only), dissolved ammonia (fig. 25), dissolved reaches downstream of large cities, ammonia nitrate (fig. 26), and total phosphorus (fig. 28) are concentrations often decrease while nitrate common below WWTF discharge locations; however, concentrations increase. it is not known how much of the increases are the result of point versus nonpoint sources. There were
56 LOCATION (Figure 16)
12 16 19 22 1 3 4 5 6 7 15 17 18 23 25 30 45 47 46 100,000 153 101 A
Atlanta 48
204 Columbus
10,000 192 265 330 176 223
134 221 101
1,000 189 176 Chattahoochee River basin
217 203 171 55
10 Apalachicola River basin
192
1 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
33 35 40 32 34 36 37 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 100,000 153 101 Main stem 20 Number of samples with discharge
Tributary measurements Albany 90 55 75 213 10,000 50 Percentile 168 25 59 10
INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 134
40 1,000 78 Atlanta 244
180 73
183 185 Flint River basin 10 Apalachicola River basin
B
1 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 21. Instantaneous discharge when nutrient samples were collected in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
57 LOCATION (Figure 16) Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm West Point Lake Walter F George Reservoir Lake Sidney Lanier 6 17 18 27 30 45 47 46 10
A 152
351 Atlanta
880 Columbus 72 41 114 104 37 121 1 63
136 72 Apalachicola River basin
Censoring limit 0.10
Chattahoochee River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Lake Seminole Flint arm 35 37 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 10
Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 Albany Atlanta 148 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 25 86 47 141 10 68 30 136 1 24 63 TOTAL-NITROGEN CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
47 Apalachicola River basin Censoring limit 0.10
Flint River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 22. Downstream variation in total-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
58 LOCATION (Figure 16) West Point Lake Lake Harding 12 16 19 22 Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm Walter F George Reservoir 1 Lake Sidney Lanier 3 4 5 6 7 15 17 18 23 25 26 27 28 30 45 47 46 10
A Atlanta 195 258 Columbus 184 327 164 1,571 134 191 177 1 174 193 956 224 42 394 220 153 94 155 83 165 188 51
204 204 185 212 0.10 Apalachicola River basin
Censoring limit
Chattahoochee River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
33 35 40 Lake Seminole Flint arm
32 34 36 37 Lake Blackshear 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 10
222 Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary 214 Reservoir— 75 Albany 219 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 228 25 10 297 134 1 198 52 39 71 153 125 83 57 154 Atlanta TOTAL-INORGANIC-NITROGEN CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0.10 Apalachicola River basin 66
Censoring limit
Flint River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 23. Downstream variation in total-inorganic-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
59 LOCATION (Figure 16) Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm West Point Lake Walter F George Reservoir Lake Sidney Lanier 6 17 18 27 30 45 47 46 10
A
Atlanta 344
151 Columbus
1 47 39 104 980 114 55 68 136 114 72 Apalachicola River basin
Censoring limit 0.10
Chattahoochee River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Lake Seminole Flint arm 35 37 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 10
Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 25 Atlanta Albany 10 1 49 142 29 30 55 84136 114 66 43 TOTAL-ORGANIC-NITROGEN CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Apalachicola River basin
Censoring limit 0.10
Flint River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 24. Downstream variation in total-organic-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
60 LOCATION (Figure 16) West Point Lake Lake Harding 12 16 19 22 Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm Walter F George Reservoir 1 Lake Sidney Lanier 3 4 5 6 7 15 17 18 23 25 26 27 28 30 45 47 46 10
A Atlanta
195 Columbus
184 257
1 329
180 1,754 171 955 191 193 220 197 169 225 174 212 48 397 162 191 94 84 0.10 153 Apalachicola River basin 54 134
204 Censoring limit 206 Chattahoochee River basin 0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
33 35 40 Lake Seminole Flint arm
32 34 36 37 Lake Blackshear 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 10
222 Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 214 25 10
1 219 Atlanta Albany
202 297 DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 228 72
54 154 126 84 0.10 153 Apalachicola River basin 71 134 39 57
Censoring limit Flint River basin 0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 25. Downstream variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
61 LOCATION (Figure 16) West Point Lake Lake Harding 12 16 19 22 29 Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm Walter F George Reservoir 1 Lake Sidney Lanier 3 4 5 6 7 15 17 18 23 25 26 27 28 30 45 47 46 10
A Atlanta Columbus 326 195 258 192 1,530 134 1 192185 222 178 175 197 976 105 413 272 98 100 165
52
213 184 196 199 217 0.10 176 37 153 Apalachicola River basin
Chattahoochee River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
33 35 40 Lake Seminole Flint arm
32 34 36 37 Lake Blackshear 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 10
Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 217 Multiple 50 Percentile 226 sampling sites 225 25 Albany 236 10 1 293 134 53 40 205 76 153 98 136 59 168 DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Atlanta 67
0.10 Apalachicola River basin
Flint River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 26. Downstream variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's maximum contaminant level for nitrate is 10 milligrams per liter.)
62 LOCATION (Figure 16) West Point Lake Lake Sidney Lanier 18 45 47 10
A Atlanta Columbus
1
62
38 66 60 44 Apalachicola River basin
Censoring limit 0.10
Chattahoochee River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
39 44 45 47 10
Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 25 Atlanta 10 Albany 1
21 28 66 44 Apalachicola River basin
DISSOLVED-ORGANIC-NITROGEN CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Censoring limit 0.10
Flint River basin
0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 27. Downstream variation in dissolved-organic-nitrogen concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
63 LOCATION (Figure 16)
West Point Lake
Lake Harding 12 16 19 22 29 Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm
1 Lake Sidney Lanier 3 4 5 6 7 15 17 18 23 25 26 27 28 Walter F George Reservoir 30 45 47 46 10 A
199 Atlanta Columbus
1 260 185 328
1,705
249 203 93 217 189 175 203 174 991 237 198 45 220 173 186 422 101 0.10 100
48 153 Apalachicola River basin 132
192
Censoring limit 216 Chattahoochee River basin 0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
33 35 40 Lake Seminole Flint arm
32 34 36 37 Lake Blackshear 39 41 42 44 45 47 46 10
Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 229 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 25 10 216 1 227 239 Atlanta Albany TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
77 209 168 138 54 300 0.10 59 101 153 Apalachicola River basin 40 74 132
Censoring limit Flint River basin 0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER Figure 28. Downstream variation in total-phosphorus concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
64 LOCATION (Figure 16)
19 Lake Seminole Chattahoochee arm West Point Lake Walter F George Reservoir Lake Sidney Lanier 17 18 30 45 47 10
A Atlanta Columbus
1
15
17
981 0.10 Apalachicola River basin
300 48 48
284 Censoring limit Chattahoochee River basin 84 105 85 0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Lake Seminole Flint arm 39 42 44 45 47 10
Main stem 20 Number of samples B 90 Tributary Reservoir— 75 Multiple 50 Percentile sampling sites 25 10 1 Atlanta Albany DISSOLVED-ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0.10 49 Apalachicola River basin
91
29 30
Censoring limit Flint River basin 105 85 0.01 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES UPSTREAM OF MOUTH OF APALACHICOLA RIVER Figure 29. Downstream variation in dissolved-orthophosphate concentrations in (A) Chattahoochee and Apalachicola, and (B) Flint and Apalachicola River basins, 1972–90 water years.
65 Table 11. Comparison1/ of nutrient concentrations at sampling sites upstream and downstream of major cities, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years [–, no available data; ↑ , concentration significantly increased from upstream to downstream of city]
Nutrient constituents Location number Comparison sites Total- Total- Total Dissolved Dissolved Total (figure in downstream order inorganic organic nitrogen ammonia nitrate phosphorus 16) nitrogen nitrogen (figure 22) (figure 25) figure 26) (figure 28) (figure 23) (figure 24)
Atlanta
6 Chattahoochee River - Cobb County Water Intake ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 17 Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Columbus and Phenix City
25 Chattahoochee River - Columbus Water Intake – ↑ – ↑ ↑ ↑ 26 Chattahoochee River - Downstream from Columbus WTF Albany
40 Flint River at Albany, Ga. – ↑ – ↑ ↑ ↑ 41 Flint River near Putney, Ga. 1/ An increase between two sampling sites was based on results from Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests (Inman and Conover, 1983). The confidence level for significant differences was the 95th percentile.
insufficient data to determine changes in dissolved- (locations 32 – 35) are about an order-of-magnitude organic-nitrogen and dissolved-orthophosphate con- less than concentrations shown for 1972 – 90 water centrations for all three metropolitan areas, and for years as a result of removing discharges of municipal total-nitrogen and total-organic-nitrogen concentra- effluent from those stream reaches. tions for Columbus and Phenix City and Albany. From 1972 – 90, chronic exposure of aquatic Concentrations upstream and downstream of organisms to un-ionized ammonia potentially was a point sources could not be compared for the problem in the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers headwaters of the Flint River (downstream of Atlanta, downstream of wastewater-treatment outfalls for locations 32 to 35) and Long Cane Creek Metropolitan Atlanta, and in Long Cane Creek (downstream of LaGrange, location 23) because there downstream of the wastewater-treatment outfall for were no nutrient-sampling sites upstream of the point- LaGrange. Although chronic exposure criteria for source discharge. However, total-inorganic-nitrogen, ammonia concentrations in surface water were not dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total- available prior to 1986 (U.S. Environmental phosphorus (figs. 23, 25, 26, and 28) concentrations Protection Agency, 1986), comparison of dissolved- during 1972 – 90 water years at these sites were ammonia concentration, pH, and water temperature elevated to levels similar to those downstream of data from 1972 – 90 provides an indication of where major point sources in Atlanta, Columbus and Phenix ammonia concentrations possibly were detrimental to City, and Albany. For the headwaters of the Flint aquatic organisms such as fish and invertebrates. At River, Long Cane Creek, and for Flat Creek least 17 percent of samples at Long Cane Creek near (Gainesville WPCP No 1) and South Fork Little Mud West Point (location 23), 7 percent of samples at Creek (Cornelia WPCP) in the Upper Chattahoochee Chattahoochee River at I-285 (location 15), and 3 subbasin (fig. 6), concentrations for the same four percent of samples at Chattahoochee River near nutrients probably were elevated because of muni- Fairburn (location 17) exceeded the chronic criteria cipal effluent being discharged into relatively small for ammonia toxicity (fig. 25a). In the Upper Flint streams with low waste-assimilation capacity. Recent River, at least 23 percent of samples at Flint River (late 1980’s to 1994) concentrations of total-inorganic near Fayetteville (location 33), 9 percent of samples nitrogen, dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and at Flint River near Jonesboro (location 32), 2 percent total phosphorus in Long Cane Creek (location 23), of samples at Flint River near Inman (location 34), and in four sites in the headwaters of the Flint River and 0.4 percent of samples at Flint River above 66 Griffin (location 35) exceeded the chronic criteria for phosphorus samples that exceeded the USEPA ammonia toxicity (fig. 25b). These percentages of recommendation of 0.1 mg/L as P to control eutrophi- exceedence are minimums because 1) pH and(or) cation in flowing water. Surface-water sampling loca- water temperature are not available for all ammonia tions downstream of wastewater-treatment outfalls for measurements, 2) about 2 percent of available pH Metropolitan Atlanta on the Chattahoochee River values are less than 6.5 (the lower limit for which (locations 15, 17, and 19) and the Flint River criteria apply), and 3) one water temperature is greater (locations 33, 34, and 35), for LaGrange on Long than 30 ° C (the upper limit for which criteria apply). Cane Creek (location 23) exceeded 0.1 mg/L total There also are some uncertainties in converting phosphorus more than 95 percent of the time (fig 28). criteria for un-ionized ammonia concentrations, the Increases in dissolved-ammonia and total- principal toxic form of ammonia, to criteria for total- phosphorus concentrations that occurred from ammonia concentrations because the equilibrium of upstream to downstream of major cities and their un-ionized ammonia and the toxicity of un-ionized WWTF, significantly decreased in most river reaches ammonia changes as pH and temperature change. downstream of major municipal outfall locations from From 1972 – 90, total-phosphorus concentrations Atlanta (locations 15, 17 and 19), Columbus and frequently were above recommended concentrations Phenix City (locations 26 – 28), and Albany (locations to control eutrophication in the Chattahoochee and 41 and 42) (table 12). Conversion of dissolved Flint Rivers downstream of wastewater-treatment out- ammonia to dissolved nitrite and then to dissolved falls for Metropolitan Atlanta and in Long Cane nitrate occurs in well-oxygenated surface water Creek downstream of the wastewater-treatment (nitrification) and is the most likely explanation for outfall for LaGrange. Only two surface-water significant decreases in dissolved-ammonia (fig. 25) sampling locations (locations 39 and 44) had no total and significant increases in dissolved-nitrate concen- trations (fig. 26). Significant decreases in total-
Table 12. Comparison1/ of nutrient concentrations at sampling sites in river reaches downstream of major municipal point-source inputs, Apalachicola –Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years [ns, concentrations not significantly different; ↑ , concentration significantly increased between two sites represented by bracket; ↓, concentration significantly decreased between two sites represented by bracket]
Location Nutrient constituents number Comparison sites Dissolved Total Dissolved nitrate (figure in downstream order ammonia phosphorus (figure 26) 16) (figure 25) (figure 28) Atlanta 15 Chattahoochee River at I-285, at Atlanta, Ga.2/ 17 Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. ] ns ⎤ ] ↑ ⎤ ] ↑ ⎤ ⎥ ↓ ⎥ ↑ ⎥ 19 Chattahoochee River near Whitesburg, Ga. ns ] ↓ ⎦ ]↑ ⎦ ] ↓ ⎦ Columbus and Phenix City
26 Chattahoochee River - Downstream from Columbus WTF 27 Chattahoochee River - Downstream Oswichee Creek ] ↓ ⎤ ] ns ⎤ ] ns ⎤ ⎥ ↓ ⎥ ↓ ⎥ ↓ 28 Chattahoochee River - Seaboard Coast Line Railway, Omaha ] ↓ ⎦ ] ns ⎦ ] ↓ ⎦ Albany 41 Flint River near Putney, Ga. 42 Flint River at Newton, Ga. ] ↓ ] ↑ ] ↓ 1/ Increases or decreases among three sampling sites were based on results from Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests (Inman and Conover, 1983). An increase or decrease between two sampling sites was based on results from Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests. The confidence level for significant differences was the 95th percentile. 2/ Chattahoochee River at I-285, at Atlanta, Ga. is downstream of much of the Metropolitan Atlanta area. However, in addition to some of Metropolitan Atlanta being downstream, there also are several major wastewater treatment plant discharges to the Chattahoochee River downstream of this sampling site.
67 phosphorus concentrations (fig. 28) are probably the sons, and significantly increased only downstream of result of biological uptake of orthophosphate, slow Lake Sidney Lanier for total-inorganic nitrogen and hydrolysis of polyphosphates to orthophosphate dissolved nitrate (table 13). It is common for nutrient forms, decomposition of organic phosphorus and concentrations to be lower in rivers downstream from conversion to orthophosphate (Lynard and Field, reservoirs than in the reservoirs because of uptake by 1980), and settling out of phosphorus associated with phytoplankton and aquatic plants, denitrification, and suspended sediment. The pattern of decreasing accumulation of phosphorus associated with sediment dissolved-ammonia and total-phosphorus concentra- in reservoirs. Total-phosphorus concentrations signifi- tions continues downstream of Atlanta to upstream of cantly decreased downstream in four out of six pairs Columbus (locations 17 to 19 to 22 to 25), of reservoir data and downstream data (Lake Sidney downstream of Columbus to the headwaters of the Lanier, West Point Lake, Lake Harding, and the Flint Apalachicola River (locations 26 to 27 to 28 to 30 to River arm of Lake Seminole) (fig. 28; table 13). Four 45) and downstream of Albany to the headwaters of nutrient species significantly decreased downstream the Apalachicola River (locations 41 to 42 to 45) of Walter F. George Reservoir and six nutrient species (figs. 25 and 28). significantly decreased downstream of the Flint River Exceptions to the above patterns of increases in arm of Lake Seminole. Lake Blackshear, a fairly dissolved-nitrate concentrations, and decreases in shallow run-of-the-river reservoir, and the Chatta- dissolved-ammonia and total-phosphorus concentra- hoochee River arm of Lake Seminole had no tions in the Atlanta area river reach (table 12) were significant changes between concentrations measured primarily the result of several major WWTF outfalls in the reservoirs and concentrations measured down- between Chattahoochee River at I-285 (location 15) stream of the reservoirs. and Chattahoochee River near Fairburn (location 17). Total-nitrogen, dissolved-nitrate, total-inorganic- Although dissolved-nitrate concentrations signif- nitrogen, dissolved-ammonia, total-phosphorus, and icantly increased as expected between locations 15 dissolved-orthophosphate concentrations significantly and 17, dissolved-ammonia concentrations did not decreased from the Flint River arm of Lake Seminole significantly decrease because additional dissolved to the Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee (location ammonia was discharged into this reach. Total 45); however, nutrient concentrations were very phosphorus was also discharged to the Chattahoochee similar in the Chattahoochee River arm of Lake River between locations 15 and 17, which caused the Seminole to the same location on the Apalachicola significant increase in concentration from location 15 River (figs. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29; table 13). to 17 and prevented a significant decrease in Total-organic-nitrogen concentrations were similar in concentration from location 15 to 19. Exceptions to both arms of Lake Seminole and the Apalachicola the above patterns also occurred in the river reach River at Chattahoochee (fig. 24). Higher nutrient downstream of Columbus and Phenix City (locations concentrations in the Flint River arm of Lake 26 to 28), where concentrations of dissolved nitrate Seminole than in the Chattahoochee River arm of significantly decreased (fig. 26a; table 12) rather than Lake Seminole may be the result of the large increased. Although, these sampling sites were percentage of the Middle and Lower Chattahoochee affected by backwater from Walter F. George River in backwater from reservoirs, the absence of Reservoir, it is not known why dissolved-nitrate reservoirs downstream of Albany until Lake concentrations appeared to decrease slightly in this Seminole, and nonpoint sources of nutrients from river reach. As WWTF in the ACF River basin intensively farmed areas in the Lower Flint River continue to upgrade their facilities, more nitrification basin. Based on available data, it is not possible to is likely to occur at WWTF rather than in stream determine how much of the decrease in nutrient reaches downstream from the plants. This could help concentrations from the Flint River arm of Lake the overall health of stream reaches below effluent- Seminole to the Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee discharge locations by reducing biochemical oxygen resulted from (1) mixing of waters from the demand to these reaches, although it would not Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, (2) changes in change the nitrogen load to receiving waters. nutrient concentrations in upstream reservoirs on the Comparisons of nutrient concentrations at Chattahoochee River, (3) loss from sedimentation in sampling sites in and downstream of reservoirs in the the Flint River arm of Lake Seminole, and (4) ACF River basin indicate that concentrations were not utilization by aquatic plants. Aquatic weeds are a significantly different for over half of the widespread problem throughout Lake Seminole comparisons, significantly decreased in 15 compari- (Gholson, 1984a, b).
68 Table 13. Comparison1/ of nutrient concentrations at sampling sites in and downstream of reservoirs, Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years [–, no available data; ns, concentrations not significantly different; ↓, concentration significantly decreased from the reservoir to downstream of the reservoir: ↑, concentration significantly increased from the reservoir to downstream of the reservoir
Nutrient constituents Location 2/ Comparison sites Total- Total- number Total Dissolved Dissolved Total Dissovled in downstream order inorganic organic (figure 16) nitrogen ammonia nitrate phosphorus orthophosphate nitrogen nitrogen (figure 22) (figure 25) (figure 26) (figure 28) (figure 29) (figure 23) (figure 24)
Lake Sidney Lanier 3 Chattahoochee River - – ↑ – ns ↑ ↓ – Gwinnett County Water Intake West Point Lake 22 Chattahoochee River at West – – ns ↓ ↓ – Point, Ga. Lake Harding 25 Chattahoochee River - – ns – ns ns ↓ – Columbus Water Intake Walter F. George Reservoir 3/ 29 Chattahoochee River at (and ↓ ↓ ns ↓ ↓ ns and 30 near) Columbia, Ala. Lake Blackshear 40 Flint River at Albany, Ga. – ns – ns ns ns – Lake Seminole, Chattahoochee arm 45 Apalachicola River at ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Chattahoochee, Fla. Lake Seminole, Flint arm 45 Apalachicola River at ↓ ↓ ns ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Chattahoochee, Fla. 1/ An increase or decrease between two sampling sites was based on results from Mann-Whiteny rank-sum tests (Inman and Conover, 1983). The confidence level for significant differences was the 95th percentile. 2/ Nutrient data for multiple sampling sites within each reservoir were used in statistical comparisons rather than data from a single reservoir sampling site. 3/ Comparison between total-phosphorus concentrations in Walter F. George Reservoir and downstream sites were not made because total-phosphorus concentrations measured at Chattahoochee River at Columbia from 1975 to 1983 (river mile 156.7, location 29) were significantly higher than at Chattahoochee River near Columbia from 1982 to 1990 (river mile 154.3, location 30) (figure 28a). It is not know if total-phosphorus concentrations in the river were different for the two periods of record, or if the differeences were due to different sample colleciton techniques and(or) laboratory analyses methods used by Alabama Department of Environmental Management (location 29) and the U.S. Geological Survey (location 30).
Concentrations of total phosphorus at tions decreased from 0.19 and 0.04 mg/L, Chattahoochee River at West Point (just below West respectively, prior to the beginning of storage in West Point Lake; location 22) prior to the beginning of Point Lake (1968 – 74) to 0.05 and 0.02 mg/L, storage in West Point Lake (October 16, 1974) and respectively, after the reservoir was in full operation after the reservoir reached maximum power pool (1975 – 90). Similar changes in concentrations did not (June 10, 1975) provides a good example of occur for dissolved ammonia or dissolved nitrate. reservoirs reducing total-phosphorus concentrations. Median and minimum total-phosphorus concentra-
69 Discharges from eight tributary streams with basin. More than half of the dissolved-orthophosphate available nutrient-concentration data have undetect- concentrations were below the reporting limit of 0.02 able effects on the nutrient concentrations of the mg/L at 11 of 14 surface-water sampling sites where it receiving mainstem rivers (figs. 22 – 29). Unlike main- was measured routinely. Dissolved-orthophosphate stem sampling sites which have mixed land use within concentrations were less than the reporting limit for their watersheds, Peachtree Creek was almost 99 all data from the Chattahoochee River arm of Lake percent urban and Snake Creek was about 83 percent Seminole and for about 75 percent of data from the forested (table 14). The other six tributaries have Flint River arm of Lake Seminole. mixed land use including urban components in Big Two sampling sites on the Chattahoochee River Creek, Sweetwater Creek, and Long Cane Creek; a are located within 2.4 river miles of each other and dominant agriculture component in Ichawaynocha- have non-overlapping periods of record. Distribution way Creek and Chipola River; and a dominant forest of dissolved-nitrate concentrations (fig. 26a) were component in Kinchafoonee Creek. Total-inorganic- very similar, but total-phosphorus concentrations (fig. nitrogen and dissolved-nitrate concentrations were 28a) measured at Chattahoochee River at Highway 52 very low in forest dominated tributaries (Snake and from 1975 to 1983 (river mile 156.7, location 29) Kinchafoonee Creeks) (figs. 23, 26; table 14). The were significantly higher than at Chattahoochee River four tributaries with an urban component of land use near Columbia from 1982 to 1990 (river mile 154.3, (Big, Peachtree, Sweetwater, and Long Cane Creeks) location 30). It is not known if total-phosphorus had moderate to high concentrations of dissolved concentrations in the river were different for the two ammonia, dissolved nitrate (except Sweetwater periods of record, or if the differences were because Creek), and total phosphorus (figs. 25, 26, 28). Long of different sample collection techniques and(or) Cane Creek had very elevated concentrations of these laboratory analyses methods used by ADEM (location three constituents for the period 1972 – 90; however, 29) and the USGS (location 30). improvements to the Long Cane Creek WPCP including advanced treatment in 1986, phosphorus Seasonal variations in concentrations removal in 1994, and relocation of the effluent Nutrient concentrations in streams and reser- discharge to the Chattahoochee River in 1993 (Anne voirs within the ACF River basin can vary seasonally Westmoreland, Long Cane Creek WPCP, oral because of seasonal changes in growth and decay of commun., 1994) have resulted in much smaller vegetation (particularly in the Apalachicola flood- nutrient concentrations in Long Cane Creek. By plain; Mattraw and Elder, 1984), changes in tempera- contrast, concentrations of these three nutrient species ture which in turn effects phytoplankton growth in and dissolved orthophosphate (fig. 29) were very low reservoirs (Cherry and others, 1978), nitrification of in four tributaries with little or no urban land use — ammonia to nitrate (Ehlke, 1978); seasonal Snake, Kinchafoonee, Ichawaynochaway Creeks, and applications of fertilizers; and other environmental Chipola River — with the exception of moderate to factors. Dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and high dissolved-nitrate concentrations relative to other total-phosphorus concentrations were plotted by time concentrations in Ichawaynochaway Creek and of year for surface-water samples collected during Chipola River in the ACF River basin. Agriculture 1972 – 90 water years. Seasonal variations or lack of was the predominant land use in Ichawaynochaway seasonal variations are highlighted by LOWESS lines Creek and Chipola River and elevated dissolved- for nine stream- and reservoir-sampling sites along nitrate concentrations in these two tributaries may be the Chattahoochee River (figs. 30 – 32) and for six from inflow of ground water with elevated dissolved- stream- and reservoir-sampling sites along the Flint nitrate concentrations. River, one site on the Chipola River, and one site near Organic-nitrogen-concentration data were the mouth of the Apalachicola River (figs. 33 to 35). available for only a limited number of sites, so it is In the ACF River basin, summer decreases in not clear if downstream changes in concentrations of concentrations of nutrients in reservoirs, and stream total-organic nitrogen (fig. 24) or dissolved-organic sites directly affected by reservoirs, were related to nitrogen (fig. 27) occurred within the study area. seasonality of phytoplankton production in reservoirs. Dissolved-orthophosphate concentrations (fig. 29) In late spring, water temperatures, and therefore, were about an order-of-magnitude higher at phytoplankton growth rates, begin to increase. Chattahoochee River near Fairburn and near Phytoplankton utilize dissolved nitrogen for cell Whitesburg (locations 17 and 19), downstream from growth; and thus, convert dissolved nitrogen to Atlanta, than at other locations in the ACF River particulate form until cells die and break apart. As
70 Table 14. Land use and land cover, median nutrient concentrations, and mean annual yield for eight tributary streams, Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, 1972 – 90 water years [–, no available data; <, less than]
Land use and land Median nutrient concentration2/, in milligrams per liter cover1/, in percent (mean annual yield, in tons per square mile of drainage area) Location number Tributary stream Total Total- Total- Dissolved- Dissolved (figure Dissolved Dissolved Total Agri- nitrogen inorganic organic organic ortho- 16) Urban Forest ammonia nitrate phosphorus cultural (figure nitrogen nitrogen nitrogen phosphate (figure 25) (figure 26) (figure 28) 22) (figure 23) (figure 24) (figure 27) (figure 29)
Urban 12 Peachtree Creek 99 0 1 – 0.67 – 0.13 0.52 – 0.08 – (–) (1.0) (–) (0.23) (0.78) (–) (0.30) (–) Mixed, Urban 16 Sweetwater Creek 24 23 51 – 0.31 – 0.06 0.25 – 0.05 – (–) (0.55) (–) (0.16) (0.34) (–) (0.17) (–) 5 Big Creek 18 24 57 – 0.67 – 0.07 0.55 – 0.07 – (–) (1.0) (–) (0.11) (0.72) (–) (0.15) (–) 23 Long Cane Creek 12 19 68 – 1.06 – 0.31 0.48 – 0.74 – (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) Mixed, Agricultural 44 Ichawaynochaway 1 52 36 1.0 0.46 0.41 0.02 0.44 0.35 0.03 <0.02 Creek (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) 47 Chipola River 2 50 39 0.93 0.67 0.26 0.02 0.62 0.17 0.03 <0.02 (1.9) (1.3) (0.74) (0.06) (1.2) (–) (0.07) (0.03) Mixed, Forest 39 Kinchafoonee <1 32 62 0.57 0.16 0.41 0.04 0.13 0.28 0.03 <0.02 Creek (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) Forest 18 Snake Creek 1 16 83 0.40 0.20 0.28 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.02 <0.02 (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)
1/ 1972 – 78; percentages do not add up to 100 because rangeland, wetland, water, and barren land are not listed. 2/ Subset of 1972 – 90 water years, see tables 10 and 16 for exact years.
part of the Upper Chattahoochee River Quality Seminole for nitrate (fig. 31). Total-phosphorus Assessment, it was observed that concentrations of concentrations also seems to be lower in summer and phytoplankton (diatoms, green algae, and blue-green early fall in the Middle and Lower Chattahoochee algae) increased as water temperatures increased at all River (fig. 32), although the pattern is not as four sites sampled in West Point Lake; and pronounced as for dissolved ammonia and dissolved biologically available nutrients, as measured by algal nitrate. However, in the Upper Chattahoochee River, growth potential assays, decreased in response to it is difficult to identify seasonal variations in nutrient increased phytoplankton concentrations (Cherry and concentrations in Lake Sidney Lanier (location 2) others, 1978, p. 5, 19). because the frequency of nutrient-data collection was Seasonal variations in nutrient concentrations in quarterly. It is not known if the late-summer early-fall the Chattahoochee River are strongly influenced by peak in dissolved-nitrate concentrations at Chattahoo- the 13 reservoirs on the river, particularly in the reach chee River at the Gwinnett County Water Intake of the river from West Point Lake to Lake Seminole. (location 3) (fig. 31) mirrored seasonal variation in Dissolved-nitrogen concentrations were generally Lake Sidney Lanier or was the result of changes in lower in warm, summer months from the inflow of dissolved-nitrate concentrations in the 23 mi reach West Point Lake (location 20) to Lake Seminole between the Lake Sidney Lanier and the Gwinnett (location 31) for ammonia (fig. 30) and from the County sampling sites. center of West Point Lake (location 21) to Lake
71 10 Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River, (location 17) SR 369, Brown's Bridge, Ga. Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 2, Figure 16) (location 3) 1 Lake Sidney Lanier Data collected at quarterly intervals were not adequate for seasonal smoothing.
0.10
0.01 10
Chattahoochee River at Franklin, Ga. Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, (location 20) LaGrange Water Intake, Ga. upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam, Ga. inflow to West Point Lake (location 21) (location 24) 1 West Point Lake Lake Harding
0.10 72
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Omaha, Ga. Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. (location 28) (location 31) (location 25) Walter F. George Reservoir inflow to Lake Seminole 1 DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION 0.10
0.01 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D EXPLANATION LOWESS LINE CENSORING LIMIT STREAM RESERVOIR Figure 30. Seasonal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Chattahoochee River, 1972–90 water years. 10 Chattahoochee River SR 369, Brown's Bridge, Ga. Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga (location 2, Figure 16) Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 17) Lake Sidney Lanier (location 3) Data collected at quarterly intervals were 1 not adequate for seasonal smoothing.
0.10
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River, LaGrange Water Intake, Ga. Chattahoochee River, (location 21) upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam, Ga. West Point Lake (location 24) Lake Harding 1
73 0.10 Chattahoochee River at Franklin, Ga. (location 20) inflow to West Point Lake
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Omaha, Ga. (location 31) (location 25) (location 28) inflow to Lake Seminole Walter F. George Reservoir 1 DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION 0.10
0.01 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D EXPLANATION LOWESS LINE STREAM RESERVOIR
Figure 31. Seasonal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Chattahoochee River, 1972–90 water years. 10 Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River, (location 17) SR 369, Brown's Bridge, Ga. Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 2, Figure 16) (location 3) Lake Sidney Lanier 1 Data collected at quarterly intervals were not adequate for seasonal smoothing.
0.10
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River at Franklin, Ga. Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, (location 20) LaGrange Water Intake, Ga. upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam, Ga. inflow to West Point Lake (location 21) (location 24) West Point Lake Lake Harding 1
74 0.10
0.01 10
Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Omaha, Ga. (location 31) (location 25) (location 28) inflow to Lake Seminole 1 Walter F. George Reservoir TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION 0.10
0.01 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D EXPLANATION LOWESS LINE CENSORING LIMIT STREAM RESERVOIR Figure 32. Seasonal variation in total-phosphorus concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Chattahoochee River, 1972–90 water years. 100 Flint River near Fayetteville, Ga. (location 33, Figure 16)) Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. (location 35) (location 37) 10
1.0
0.1
0.01 10
Flint River near Vienna, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Flint River below Bainbridge, Ga. (location 38) (location 41) inflow to Lake Seminole inflow to Lake Blachshear 1 75 0.10
0.01 10 J F M A M J J A S O N D
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River (location 47) Buoy 40, Mile 11A, Fla. EXPLANATION (location 46) 1 LOWESS LINE
CENSORING LIMIT DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION
0.10 STREAM
RESERVOIR
0.01 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Figure 33. Seasonal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972–90 water years. (Locations 33, 35, and 37 are plotted with 4-log cycle scales.) 10 Flint River near Fayetteville, Ga. (location 33, Figure 16) Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. (location 35) (location 37)
1
0.10
0.01
10
Flint River near Vienna, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Flint River below Bainbridge, Ga. (location 38) (location 41) inflow to Lake Seminole inflow to Lake Blackshear 1 76 0.10
0.01 10 J F M A M J J A S O N D
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River (location 47) Buoy 40, Mile 11A, Fla. (location 46) EXPLANATION 1 LOWESS LINE
STREAM DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION
0.10 RESERVOIR
0.01 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Figure 34. Seasonal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972–90 water years. 10
Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. (location 35) (location 37) 1
0.10
Flint River near Fayetteville, Ga. (location 33, Figure 16)
0.01
10
Flint River near Vienna, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Flint River below Bainbridge, Ga. (location 38) inflow to Lake Blackshear (location 41) inflow to Lake Seminole 1 77 0.10
0.01 10 J F M A M J J A S O N D
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River, (location 47) Buoy 40, Mile 11A, Fla. EXPLANATION (location 46) 1 LOWESS LINE
CENSORING LIMIT TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
0.10 STREAM
RESERVOIR
0.01 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Figure 35. Seasonal variation in total-phosphorus concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972–90 water years. In contrast to the Chattahoochee River, seasonal (Hirsch and others, 1991). As long as the relation patterns in nutrient concentrations in the Flint, between concentration and streamflow has not Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers either were not changed during the period of the trend test, a trend in present or were less apparent (figs. 33 – 35). In the residuals implies a trend in concentration independent Chattahoochee River, reservoirs seem to control of streamflow conditions (Helsel, 1993, p. 98). A 90- seasonal variations; however, in the Flint, Chipola, percent confidence level was used for all trend results. and Apalachicola Rivers, which have few reservoirs, Sites where trends were calculated have a there may be several factors influencing seasonal minimum of eight years of quarterly nutrient data, and variation of nutrient concentrations offsetting one at least one-half of nutrient analyses were from another. samples collected in the first and last third of the Temporal trends in concentrations 1980 – 90 period (Lanfear and Alexander, 1990). Data were insufficient to calculate trends for dissolved- Nutrient data from 47 sampling sites were organic nitrogen at all sites. Flow-adjusted trends are analyzed for trends (table 15, fig. 36). Three sites on not reported for reservoir sites, three sites in the the Chattahoochee River were affected by backwater Chattahoochee River affected by backwater, and (locations 26, 27, and 28) and seven sites were located tributary sites in the Metropolitan Atlanta area in reservoirs (locations 2, 20, 21, 24, 31, 38, and 43). sampled as a part of the DeKalb County monitoring The period of record for trend tests were 1980 – 90 network because streamflow data were not available. water years at all sites so that comparisons among Table 15 lists all surface-water sites where trends trends at different sites would be valid. The period were calculated; positive or negative trends, where 1980 – 90 was chosen because more sites within the significant; and rate of change in concentration, in ACF River basin had available nutrient data for that milligrams per liter per year (mg/L/yr). Figure 36 time period than longer periods, and the 1980 – 90 time shows the locations where trends in concentrations (as period is of interest for comparison of results across opposed to trends in flow-adjusted concentrations) the nation (Dennis Helsel, U.S. Geological Survey, were calculated for dissolved ammonia, dissolved written commun., 1993). From the late 1980’s to nitrate, and total phosphorus; and the direction of 1993, improvements to several WWTF and phosphate trends, if significant. detergent bans resulted in decreased nutrient concentrations (especially in the Upper and Middle All significant trends in nutrient concentrations in Chattahoochee River subbasins) which were not the Chattahoochee River were increasing, except reflected in the results of 1980 – 90 trend tests dissolved ammonia (fig. 36) and total-inorganic- (Wangsness and others, 1994; DeVivo and others, nitrogen trends (table 15), which decreased at several 1995). sites in the reach downstream of Atlanta and down- stream of Columbus and Phenix City. All significant Seasonal Kendall test (Hirsch and others, 1982), trends in nutrient concentrations at sites on the Upper a nonparametric or distribution free test, was used to Flint River were decreasing, and at a larger rate of determine if changes in concentrations of seven change than in other reaches in the ACF River basin. nutrient constituent groups were generally increasing Most changes in nutrient concentrations in the Upper or decreasing at each surface-water site. The test Flint River basin were the result of diverting compares concentrations in each month with concen- discharges of municipal-wastewater effluent to the trations in that same month in other years or by Chattahoochee River, the South River (outside the seasons when data are collected less frequently than ACF River basin), and to land application areas. All monthly. The 12 monthly tests (or fewer seasonal significant trends in the Middle and Lower Flint River tests) are combined to form an overall test for trend basins were increasing, except the trend in dissolved- (Helsel, 1993, p. 98). This enables trends over several ammonia concentration, which decreased at Flint years to be more easily separated from seasonal River near Putney (location 41). All significant trends variations in nutrient water quality. Trends in flow- in the Apalachicola River were decreasing, except the adjusted concentrations also were calculated to test trend in dissolved-nitrate concentration at Apala- for trends caused by factors other than streamflow chicola River, Buoy 40, mile 11A (location 46). At (such as from point-source loads and nonpoint-source sites on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers inputs). Flow-adjusted concentrations were deter- downstream of Atlanta and Albany, decreasing trends mined by first constructing a LOWESS line to in dissolved-ammonia concentration and increasing represent the relation between nutrient concentration trends in dissolved-nitrate concentration were the and streamflow, and then by calculating a residual, result of improved wastewater treatment at WWTF in which is the difference between concentrations from these urban areas. the LOWESS line and the measured concentration
78 –
2/ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — FAC
Dissolved Dissolved 3/ C — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — orthophosphate , U.S. , U.S. 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 1/ FAC +.002 +.006 +.002 +.006 +.004 +.007 +.015 Total Total Flint River basin, 1980 Flint River
–
3/ 3/ 3/ 1/ 1/ C phosphorus +.004 +.008 +.010 +.010 +.006 +.002 +.003 +.005 +.003 +.003 +.020 +.020 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 1/ — — FAC +.013 +.006 +.007 +.077 +.019 +.019 +.009 +.022 +.046
nitrate Chattahoochee Dissolved Dissolved
1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ C — — –
+.013 +.003 +.005 +.080 +.023 +.025 +.035 +.043 for dissolved-organic nitrogen at all for dissolved-organic sites within the 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ — a Environmental Protection Division; U Division; Protection a Environmental FAC –.014 –.012 +.002 +.002 +.002 +.003 +.002 +.002 ammonia Dissolved Dissolved 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ C — 90 water years,90 water in milligrams per liter per year
+.008 +.007 +.003 +.003 +.003 +.003 +.015 +.009 +.004 –
could not be performed could 1/ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — FAC gulation; G, Georgi nitrogen 1/ C — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total-organic Total-organic
2/ 2/ 2/ 1/ 1/ — — — — ling sites, by subbasin, Apalachicola ling sites, by FAC +.021 +.005 +.009 +.088 +.021 +.021 +.011 +.037 tration; —, trend test —, trend tration; Average rate of change, 1980 change, rate of Average nitrogen 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ C — — — — +.020 +.003 +.008 +.089 +.026 +.026 +.040 Total-inorganic 1/ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — FAC partment of Environmental Re Environmental partment of 90 water years. Data wereto calculateinsufficient trends
1/ C — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Upper Chattahoochee (03130001) Upper Chattahoochee –
Total nitrogen Total FAC, flow-adjusted concen flow-adjusted FAC, D Middle Chattahoochee—Lake Harding (03130002) Chattahoochee—Lake Middle D D
D G G
G D trations for selected surface-water samp for selected surface-water trations U G U U U G easantdale Road near Doraville U D near Peachtree-DeKalb Airport
: D, DeKalb County, Georgia; F, Florida De F, Georgia; : D, DeKalb County, Flint River basin. C, concentration; Flint River
–
Surface-water station Surface-water name (Reservoir name, if applicable) (Reservoir seasonal Kendall tests for time trends from 1980 from trends time for tests Kendall seasonal (Lake Sidney Lanier) Sidney (Lake G
Chattahoochee
–
Bridge Road Chamblee-Dunwoody Chattahoochee River near Cornelia, Ga. Chattahoochee River Browns 369, Highway - Georgia River Chattahoochee Intake - Gwinnett County Water Chattahoochee River Intake - DeKalb County Water Chattahoochee River Intake Big Water Creek - Roswell Intake - Cobb County Water Chattahoochee River Intake - Atlanta Water Chattahoochee River Peachtree North Fork Creek - Pl Creek - Plaster Road Arrow Peachtree North Fork Creek - U.S.23 Highway Peachtree South Fork Creek Road - Johnson in Atlanta Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. from miles downstream 0.2 bridge - Creek Nancy Chamblee near Road Ferry at Johnsons - Creek Nancy at I-285, at Atlanta, ChattahoocheeGa. River Ga.Sweetwaternear Austell, Creek Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River Trend-test results for nutrient concen results Trend-test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 number number Location (figure 16) (figure 90 water years 90 water Table 15. Table trends [All are results of station name sources Surface-water Geological Survey] Apalachicola
79 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dissolved Dissolved — — — — — — — — — — — — — — orthophosphate , U.S. 2/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ –.066 –.089 –.035 +.017 +.004 +.003 Total Total 1/ 1/ 1/ phosphorus nitrogen at all sites within the the within sites at all nitrogen –.072 –.094 –.028 +.030 +.021 +.010 +.004 +.002 +.003 +.003 +.001 ochee – Flint River basin, 1980 – basin, 1980 Flint River – ochee 2/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ –.145 –.114 –.092 +.045 +.078 ms per liter per year per liter ms
nitrate Dissolved Dissolved 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ –.139 –.116 –.097 +.090 +.045 +.030 +.078 +.008 2/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ a Environmental Protection Division; U Protection Division; a Environmental –.010 –.061 –.096 –.011 r years, in milligra t be performed performed t be te trends for dissolved-organic dissolved-organic trends for te ammonia Dissolved Dissolved 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ –.005 –.023 –.015 –.008 –.058 –.068 –.010 +.003 +.004 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — gulation; G, Georgi nitrogen — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total-organic Total-organic sufficient to calcula sufficient ites, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattaho – Apalachicola subbasin, ites, by
2/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ –.279 –.332 –.134 +.035 tration; —, trend test could no test —, trend tration; Average rate of change, 1980 – 90 wate – rate of change, 1980 Average nitrogen 1/ 1/ 1/ –.013 –.007 –.272 –.349 –.130 +.080 +.048 +.042 +.042 +.010 +.010 Total-inorganic Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003) Reservoir George F. Walter
r years. Data were in Data were r years. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
partment of Environmental Re of Environmental partment Upper Flint (03130005) Upper Flint C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Lower Chattahoochee (03130004) Chattahoochee Lower Total nitrogen Total
G
G tration; FAC, flow-adjusted concen flow-adjusted tration; FAC,
Middle Chattahoochee
G ions for selected surface-water sampling s surface-water selected ions for (West Point Lake) (West
G G (inflow to (inflow U U U (inflow to West Point Lake) to West (inflow U
U U U U : D, DeKalb County, Georgia; F, Florida De Florida F, Georgia; County, : D, DeKalb – Flint River basin. C, concen Flint River – onal Kendall tests for time trends from 1980 – 90 wate – tests for time trends 1980 from onal Kendall Surface-water station name station Surface-water (Reservoir name,if applicable) (Reservoir (Lake Harding) (Lake G Dam Reservoir) George F. Walter from backwater by (affected Reservoir) George F. Walter from backwater by (affected Reservoir) George F. Walter from backwater by (affected Lake Seminole, Chattahoochee Arm) Chattahoochee River near Whitesburg, Ga. near Whitesburg, Chattahoochee River Ga. at Franklin, Chattahoochee River Intake - LaGrange Water Chattahoochee River Point, Ga. at West Chattahoochee River Point, Ga. Long Cane Creek near West - Upstream from Bartletts FerryChattahoochee River Intake Water - Columbus Chattahoochee River WTF fromColumbus - Downstream Chattahoochee River Creek Oswichee - Downstream Chattahoochee River Omaha Railway, - Seaboard Coast Line Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Chattahoochee River Ga. Jonesboro, near River Flint Ga. nearFayetteville, Flint River nearInman, Ga. Flint River Trend-test results for nutrient concentrat for nutrient results Trend-test 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 32 33 34 number Location (figure 16) (figure Apalachicola – Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Apalachicola – sources station name Surface-water Table 15. Table of seas are results [All trends 90 water years—Continued Geological Survey]
80 2/ 2/ — — — — — — —
Dissolved Dissolved 1/ 4/ — — — — — — — orthophosphate , U.S. , U.S. 2/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 2/ –.024 –.002 –.001 +.004 Total Total tage of censored data. tage of tage of censored data. tage of 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ phosphorus nitrogen at all sites within the the sites within at all nitrogen –.018 –.001 –.005 +.004 +.003 ochee – Flint River basin, 1980 – basin, 1980 Flint River – ochee 2/ 1/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 1/ –.080 +.008 +.013
nitrate Dissolved Dissolved 1/ 1/ 1/ –.077 +.007 +.010 +.016 +.017 +.010 ronmental Protection Division; U Division; Protection ronmental ted because of high percen of high ted because ed because of high percen because ed 2/ 1/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 2/ –.003 –.011 +.002 r years, in milligrams per liter per year t be performed te trends for dissolved-organic for dissolved-organic te trends ammonia Dissolved Dissolved 1/ 1/ 1/ –.003 –.011 –.002 –.003 +.003 +.001 1/ 1/ 1/ — — — — — –.016 nitrogen 1/ 1/ 1/ — — — — — Total-organic Total-organic –.016 —, trend test could no trend test could —,
ental Regulation; G, Georgia Envi G, Georgia Regulation; ental 2/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 1/ –.090 +.010 Average rate of change, 1980 – 90 wate – rate of change, 1980 Average nitrogen Data were insufficient to calcula Data were insufficient 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ –.082 +.008 +.015 +.016 Total-inorganic usted concentration; usted concentration; 1/ 1/ 1/ — — — — — Chipola (03130012) Chipola –.111 Lower Flint Flint (03130008) Lower Middle Flint (03130006) Middle Flint Apalachicola (03130011) Apalachicola surface-water sampling sites, by subbasin, Apalachicola – Chattaho – subbasin, Apalachicola sampling sites, by surface-water 1/ 1/ 1/ C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC C FAC — — — — — Total nitrogen Total –.113 level; however, average not be calcula rates of change could average however, level; level; however, average rates of not be calculat change could average however, level; Florida Department of Environm Florida Department
tration; FAC, flow-adj tration; FAC, time trends from 1980 – 90 water years. 90 water – time from 1980 trends U F (inflow to Lake to Lake Seminole, (inflow U U U (inflow to Lake Blackshear) (inflow U U U : D, DeKalb County, Georgia; F, Georgia; : D, DeKalb County, U were not significant at the 90-percent confidence level. at the 90-percent confidence were not significant – Flint River basin. C, concen basin. River Flint – onal Kendall tests for onal Kendall Surface-water station name Surface-water (Reservoir name, if applicable)(Reservoir Flint Arm) Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Griffin, above Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. Flint River Ga. near Vienna, Flint River Ga. at Albany, Flint River Ga. near Putney, Flint River Bainbridge, Ga. below Flint River Fla. Chattahoochee, at Apalachicola River mile 11A 40, Buoy Apalachicola River, Altha, nearFla. Chipola River Trend-test results for nutrient concentrations for Trend-test selected 35 37 38 40 41 43 45 46 47 Trends were calculated, but but calculated, were Trends adjusted. not be flow Data could increasing at the 90-percent confidence were significantly Trends Trends were significantly decreasing at the 90-percent confidence 90-percent at the decreasing were significantly Trends 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ number number Location Location (figure 16) (figure 90 water years—Continued90 water Table 15. [All are results of seas trends Surface-water station name sources Surface-water Apalachicola – Chattahoochee Apalachicola – Geological Survey]
81 o o o 84 84 84
1 1 1 Dissoved ammonia Dissoved nitrate Total phosphorus 2 2 2
3 3 3 o 5 o 5 o 5 4 4 34 6 34 6 34 6 4 13 8 13 8 14 8 10 14 9 9 9 15 7 10 15 15 10 85o 16 12 85o 16 7 12 11 85o 16 7 12 11 17 17 17 32 32 32 33 33 33 19 19 19 34 34 34 20 20 35 20 35 35
21 33 o 21 33 o 21 33 o 23 23 23 22 22 22
24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 37 37 37
28 28 28 o 38 32o 38 32o 38
40 40 40
41 41 41
o 31 31o 31 31o 31 43 43 43
45 45 45 47 47 47
30 o 30 o 30 o 46 46 46
EXPLANATION CONCENTRATION TREND (TABLE 15) AND LOCATION NUMBER 3 Upward 40 None
35 Downward
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 36. Summary of trends for concentration of dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus in surface water, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1980-90 water years.
82 Increasing trends in total-phosphorus concentrations so direct comparisons could be made concentrations are an accurate representation of between river and reservoir sites (flow-adjusted trend temporal changes in this constituent for the period results cannot be calculated for reservoirs). Trends 1980 – 90. However, in February 1989, the Georgia were calculated using data for the period 1980 – 90 to Environmental Protection Division issued an be consistent nationally; however, LOWESS lines Administrative Order requiring all major WWTF were calculated using data for the period 1972 – 90 to (larger than 1 Mgal/d) between Lake Sidney Lanier be consistent with data presented in this report. (upstream of Atlanta) and West Point Lake Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill (location 31) is (downstream of Atlanta) to reduce average an example of a site having an increasing trend in concentration of phosphorus in effluent to 0.75 mg/L dissolved-ammonia concentrations and Chatta- or less. By 1993, nine municipal and one industrial hoochee River at Franklin (location 20) is an example WWTF were in compliance of the Order (David of a decreasing trend site (fig. 37). All trends in Kamps, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, dissolved-nitrate concentration on the Chattahoochee oral commun., 1994). The three remaining WWTF in River either were increasing or not significant at the this reach of the Chattahoochee River are owned by 90-percent confidence level (table 15, fig. 38). Trend the city of Atlanta, which negotiated an extension rates in dissolved-nitrate concentrations increased until July 4, 1996, in exchange for agreeing to meet a moderately (+ 0.045 to + 0.090 mg/L/yr) during more restrictive limit of 0.64 mg/L average 1980 – 90 at sites in the stream reach downstream of phosphorus concentration. Point-source loads of Atlanta, including sites at Fairburn (location 17), near phosphorus from the 13 major WWTF that discharge Whitesburg (location 19), and at Franklin (location into the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam 20; fig. 38). Although, trends in total-phosphorus and West Point Lake decreased from a high of 1,670 concentration for the period 1980 – 90 in the tons in 1988 to 298 tons in 1993 (David Kamps, Chattahoochee River either were increasing or Georgia Environmental Protection Division, written insignificant, the beginning of the decrease in total- commun., 1994). This large decrease in point-source phosphorus concentrations in the late 1980’s was loads was primarily the result of legislated restrictions apparent on the Chattahoochee River downstream of on use of phosphate detergents and improvements to Atlanta near Fairburn (location 17), at Franklin WWTF. Restrictions of the use of phosphate (location 20), and at the LaGrange Water Intake detergents decreased phosphate concentrations of (location 21; fig. 39). influent to WWTF and helped improve efficiency of Time-series plots of dissolved-ammonia, phosphorus removal within the WWTF (DeVivo and dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorus concentra- others, 1995). Total-phosphorus loads upstream of tions, LOWESS lines, and results of trend tests are Metropolitan Atlanta (Chattahoochee River–Gwinnett shown in figures 40 – 42 for eight river and reservoir County Water Intake; location 3) continued to sites in the Flint and Apalachicola River basins. The increase from 47 tons in 1988 to 200 tons in 1993, largest rates of change in 1980 – 90 concentrations for because of increases in nonpoint-source inputs. all nutrient constituent groups occurred in the Upper Although volume of effluent discharged continued to Flint River subbasin, because of the removal of increase, total-phosphorus loads downstream from municipal-wastewater outfalls from the Upper Flint Metropolitan Atlanta (Chattahoochee River near River basin in the early- to mid-1980’s. For example, Whitesburg; location 19) peaked at 1,760 tons in at Flint River near Fayetteville (location 33) 1984, and decreased from 1,190 tons in 1988 to 550 dissolved-ammonia concentrations decreased an tons in 1993, primarily because of the large decrease average of – 0.068 (concentration) and – 0.096 (flow in point-source loads (Wangsness and others, 1994). adjusted) mg/L/yr (fig. 40), and total-phosphorus In addition to statistical trend tests, time-series concentrations decreased an average of – 0.094 (con- plots of nutrient concentrations can provide additional centration) and – 0.089 (flow adjusted) mg/L/yr (fig. information on temporal variability at individual 42). Upstream at Flint River near Jonesboro (location water-quality sites and among sites. Time-series plots 32), dissolved-nitrate concentrations decreased an of dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total- average of – 0.139 (concentration) and – 0.145 (flow phosphorus concentrations, LOWESS lines, and adjusted) mg/L/yr (table 15). Trends in dissolved- results of trend tests are shown in figures 37 – 39 for ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorus eight river and reservoir sites in the Chattahoochee concentrations were slightly increasing at Flint River River basin. Concentration data were used in these at Montezuma (location 37) and Lake Blackshear figures rather than residuals of flow-adjusted (location 38, table 15, figs. 40 – 42). The patterns of
83 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. SR 369, Brown's Bridge, Ga. Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 17) (location 2, Figure 16) (location 3) Lake Sidney Lanier C, FAC 1 C
0.1 . C, FAC
0.01 10
Chattahoochee River at Franklin, Ga. Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, (location 20) LaGrange Water Intake, Ga. upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam, Ga. inflow to West Point Lake (location 21) . (location 24) C West Point Lake C Lake Harding C 1
0.1 84
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Omaha, Ga. (location 31) (location 25) (location 28) inflow to Lake Seminole . . . C, FAC Walter F. George Reservoir C C 1
0.1 DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION
0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 EXPLANATION 1980-90 TREND IN CONCENTRATION (C) OR FLOW-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION (FAC) LOWESS LINE STREAM Increasing Decreasing . None CENSORING LIMIT RESERVOIR Figure 37. Temporal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980-90 trend, Chattahoochee River,1972–90 water years. (See table 15 for more information on trends.) 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. SR 369, Brown's Bridge, Ga. Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 17) (location 2, Figure 16) (location 3) Lake Sidney Lanier . 1 C C, FAC
0.1 C, FAC
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River at Franklin, Ga Chattahoochee River, (location 20) C LaGrange Water Intake, Ga. Chattahoochee River, inflow to West Point Lake (location 21) upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam, Ga. West Point Lake C (location 24) Lake Harding 1 C
0.1 85
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Omaha, Ga. (location 31) . . FAC . . (location 25) C, FAC (location 28) C inflow to Lake Seminole C Walter F. George Reservoir 1
DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION 0.1
0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 EXPLANATION 1980-90 TREND IN CONCENTRATION (C) OR FLOW-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION (FAC) LOWESS LINE STREAM . Increasing None CENSORING LIMIT RESERVOIR Figure 38. Temporal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980-90 trend, Chattahoochee River, 1972–90 water years. (See table 15 for more information on trends.) 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. SR 369, Brown's Bridge, Ga. Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 17) (location 3) (location 2, Figure 16) C Lake Sidney Lanier
1 C
0.1 C, FAC
0.01 10
Chattahoochee River at Franklin, Ga. Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, (location 20) C LaGrange Water Intake, Ga. upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam, Ga. inflow to West Point Lake (location 21) (location 24) West Point Lake C Lake Harding 1 C
0.1 86
0.01 10 Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River, Chattahoochee River near Steam Mill, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Omaha, Ga. (location 31) (location 25) (location 28) inflow to Lake Seminole Walter F. George Reservoir C, FAC C C 1
TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION 0.1
0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 19901970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 EXPLANATION 1980-90 TREND IN CONCENTRATION (C) OR FLOW-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION (FAC) LOWESS LINE STREAM Increasing CENSORING LIMIT RESERVOIR Figure 39. Temporal variation in total-phosphorus concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980-90 trend, Chattahoochee River, 1972–90 water years. (See table 15 for more information on trends.) 100 Flint River near Fayetteville, Ga. Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. (location 33, Figure 16) (location 35) (location 37) 10 C, FAC C, FAC C, FAC
1
0.1
0.01 10
Flint River near Vienna, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Flint River below Bainbridge, Ga. . (location 38) (location 41) (location 43) C Inflow to Lake Blackshear Inflow to Lake Seminole 1 C C, FAC
87 0.1
0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 10
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River, EXPLANATION (location 47) Buoy 40, Mile 11A, Fla. 1980-90 TREND IN CONCENTRATION (C) (location 46) . 1 C C, FAC OR FLOW-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION (FAC) Increasing
DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-AMMONIA CONCENTRATION 0.1 Decreasing . None
LOWESS LINE STREAM 0.01 CENSORING LIMIT RESERVOIR 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Figure 40. Temporal variation in dissolved-ammonia concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980-90 trend, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972–90 water years. (Locations 33, 35, and 37 are plotted with 4-log cycle scales. See table 15 for more information on trends.) 10 Flint River near Fayetteville, Ga. (location 33, Figure 16) Flint River above Griffin, Ga. (location 35) Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. (location 37) 1 C, FAC
0.1 C, FAC C, FAC
0.01 10
Flint River near Vienna, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Flint River below Bainbridge, Ga. (location 38) (location 41) (location 43) Inflow to Lake Blackshear C C, FAC Inflow to Lake Seminole 1 88
0.1 C
0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 10
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River, EXPLANATION (location 47) Buoy 40, Mile 11A, Fla. (location 46) . 1980-90 TREND IN CONCENTRATION (C) 1 CC, FAC OR FLOW-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION (FAC) Increasing Decreasing DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED-NITRATE CONCENTRATION 0.1 . . C, FAC . None
LOWESS LINE STREAM 0.01 CENSORING LIMIT RESERVOIR 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Figure 41. Temporal variation in dissolved-nitrate concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980-90 trend, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972–90 water years. (See table 15 for more information on trends.) 10 Flint River above Griffin, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. (location 35) C, FAC (location 37) C, FAC 1 C, FAC
0.1
Flint River near Fayetteville, Ga. (location 33, Figure 16)
0.01 10
Flint River near Vienna, Ga. Flint River near Putney, Ga. Flint River below Bainbridge, Ga. (location 38) (location 41) (location 43) . . . Inflow to Lake Blackshear C C, FAC Inflow to Lake Seminole C 1 89 0.1
0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 10
Chipola River near Altha, Fla. Apalachicola River, EXPLANATION Buoy 40, Mile 11A, Fla. (location 47) . C (location 46) C, FAC 1980-90 TREND IN CONCENTRATION (C) 1 OR FLOW-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION (FAC)
Increasing Decreasing
TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER TOTAL-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION 0.1 . None
LOWESS LINE STREAM 0.01 CENSORING LIMIT RESERVOIR 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Figure 42. Temporal variation in total-phosphorus concentrations for selected streams and reservoirs and 1980-90 trend, Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers, 1972–90 water years. (See table 15 for more information on trends.) decreasing trend in dissolved-ammonia concentra- physical, chemical, and biological factors. For data tions and increasing trend in dissolved-nitrate sets without censored observations, the Minimum concentrations downstream of Albany (Flint River at Variance Unbiased Estimator (Cohn and others, 1989; Putney, location 41; figs. 40, 41) are similar to Gilroy and others, 1990) method was used to estimate patterns downstream of Atlanta (Chattahoochee River annual loads, and for data sets with censored near Fairburn and at Franklin, locations 17 and 20; observations, the Adjusted Maximum Likelihood figs. 37, 38). Trends in nutrient concentrations in the Estimator (Cohn, 1988) method was used. Accuracy Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers either were slight or of the constituent transport models and estimated not significant at the 90-percent confidence level loads depend on how much of the variance in nutrient (table 15, figs. 40 – 42). concentrations can be explained by discharge and Annual loads and mean annual yields time, and how representative samples are of the range of hydrologic conditions at each site. Many factors Annual loads were estimated for 1972 – 90 water that influence or control nutrient cycling (particularly years for total nitrogen, total-inorganic nitrogen, total- for nitrogen) and transport were not accounted for in organic nitrogen, dissolved ammonia, dissolved models used to estimate nutrient loads in this report. nitrate, total phosphorus, and dissolved Concentration data collected during high-flow orthophosphate at sites on the Apalachicola, conditions are particularly important because the Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, and at a few timing, amount, and distance of transport of many tributary sites where sufficient data were available constituents is strongly influenced by high-flow (table 16, at end of report). Loads generally increase conditions. Errors in individual estimates of nutrient with increasing drainage area because of a positive load generally are less than differences: (1) among relation between drainage area and discharge. Load nutrient loads at each site among years with different estimates are not used when the standard error of the hydrologic conditions (wet, normal, dry years); (2) load estimate is greater than 30 percent of the load among nutrient loads among sites along a flow system estimate for a given year. The period of record for for a given period of time or hydrologic condition; load estimates is longer than the period of record for and (3) between the amount of nutrients exported nutrient-concentration data when discharge data for from a basin compared to estimated sources of one to three years are similar to discharge data for nutrients. Load estimates are also useful in years with water-quality data and the standard error of determining the proportion of nitrogen load in organic the load estimates based on simulated nutrient- and inorganic form. concentration data are less than 30 percent of the load estimates. Loads for Apalachicola River, Buoy 40 Estimated annual loads of dissolved ammonia, (location 46), for 1972 – 76 are based on synthesized- dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus and mean flow data from a time lag of flow data collected at annual discharge for eight surface-water sites are Apalachicola River near Blountstown (78 mi shown in figure 43 for 1972 – 90 water years. upstream from the mouth of the Apalachicola River) Estimated annual loads of dissolved nitrate tend to and at Chipola River near Altha (Marvin Franklin, parallel year-to-year fluctuations in mean annual U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1994). discharge more closely than dissolved ammonia or Loads determined at sites downstream of West Point total phosphorus. An exception to this included a Lake on the Chattahoochee River since 1975 show the large increase in annual load of dissolved nitrate at the effects of the reservoir, which began filling in October Chipola River (location 47). This increase may be the 1974. result of increases in irrigated agricultural land and fertilizer applications in the Chipola River watershed. Annual load estimates were calculated using The Floridan aquifer system underlies the Chipola various relations among time (to compensate for long- River watershed, is karstic, and has relatively fast term trends), logarithm of discharge, and sine and recharge rates and high transmissivities. These cosine of time (to compensate for seasonal hydraulic characteristics may allow nutrients from variations). Instantaneous nutrient loads are calcu- land-surface sources to rapidly leach to the aquifer lated by multiplying the nutrient concentration by the and discharge to the Chipola River. Another exception stream discharge at the time of sample collection. is Flint River above Griffin (location 35), which had Annual loads are more difficult to accurately estimate significant decreases in concentrations and loads in because concentration data are limited (often monthly dissolved nitrate and total phosphorus as a result of or quarterly), and because nutrient concentrations are removal of several municipal wastewater-treatment highly variable as a result of a wide variety of discharges from the Upper Flint River in the early- to
90 1,500 3,000 300 600 Flint River above Griffin, Ga. (location 35)
1,000 Chattahoochee River, 2,000 200 400 Gwinnett County Water Intake, Ga. (location 3, Figure 16)
500 1,000 100 200
0 0 0 0
6,00019721975 1980 1985 199012,000 6,00019721975 1980 1985 199012,000 Chattahoochee River near Fairburn, Ga. Flint River at (location 17) 5,000 10,000 5,000 Montezuma, Ga. 10,000 (location 37)
4,000 8,000 4,000 8,000
3,000 6,000 3,000 6,000
2,000 4,000 2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000
0 0 0 0
6,00019721975 1980 1985 199012,000 6,00019721975 1980 1985 199012,000 Chattahoochee River, Flint River near Putney, Ga. Columbus Water Intake, Ga. (location 41) 5,000 (location 25) 10,000 5,000 10,000
4,000 8,000 4,000 8,000 ANNUAL LOAD, IN TONS
3,000 6,000 3,000 6,000
2,000 4,000 2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000
0 0 0 0 MEAN ANNUAL DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
1,50019721975 1980 1985 19903,000 20,00019721975 1980 1985 199040,000 Chipola River near Altha, Fla. (location 47)
15,000 30,000
1,000 2,000 Apalachicola River, Buoy 40, mile 11A 10,000 (location 46) 20,000
500 1,000 5,000 10,000
0 0 0 0 19721975 1980 1985 1990 19721975 1980 1985 1990 WATER YEAR WATER YEAR EXPLANATION DISSOLVED AMMONIA DISSOLVED NITRATE TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS DISCHARGE
Figure 43. Annual loads of dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus and mean annual discharge for eight stream-sampling sites, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years.
91 mid-1980’s. During the period 1972 – 80, Chatta- increases in nitrogen loads because municipal waste- hoochee River near Fairburn (location 17; fig. 43) and water was the primary source of phosphorus in the Chattahoochee River at I-285 and near Whitesburg rivers. A large decrease in phosphorus load occurred (locations 15 and 19, not shown in fig. 43) had larger downstream of West Point Lake because much of the estimated annual dissolved-ammonia loads than phosphorus was adsorbed onto sediments that were dissolved-nitrate loads. Estimated dissolved-ammonia deposited in the reservoir. Proportionately more of the loads declined steadily in the river reach downstream phosphorus load was deposited in West Point Lake in of Atlanta from 1972 – 90 (location 17, fig. 43), in spite 1989 than 1990 because higher flows in 1990 reduced of population growth and increases in the volume of residence time in the reservoir. Extreme high flows treated effluent discharged from WWTF during this such as occurred in the Chattahoochee River in 1990 same time period. Estimated ammonia loads, that cause greater turbulence in reservoirs which keeps were larger than nitrate loads in the 1970’s, are an more sediment in suspension and reduces the time indication of the relatively low level of treatment that available for settling of sediment and phosphorous municipal-wastewater effluent in the Metropolitan uptake by aquatic organisms. Annual phosphorus Atlanta area received during the 1970’s. The loads were similar near the headwaters and the mouth conversion from larger ammonia loads to larger of the Apalachicola River in 1989. In 1990, loads in nitrate loads in the 1980’s indicates the effectiveness the Apalachicola River were nearly three times of major improvements to WWTF in reducing greater than in 1989 and, similar to nitrogen loads, ammonia loads, and subsequently reducing the threat estimated phosphorus loads decreased downstream. of toxicity to fish by decreasing oxygen demand and However, because of the variance in the estimates, it ammonia toxicity of the effluent. The conversion also can only be stated that the Apalachicola River system helps decrease the potential for eutrophication and its floodplain were probably a sink for downstream of WWTF because dissolved nitrate in phosphorus in 1990. rivers is more readily denitrified (nitrogen gas The floodplain ecosystem of the Apalachicola released to the atmosphere) than dissolved ammonia. River either is a source or a sink for nutrients Annual loads of total inorganic and organic depending on the season, flow conditions, and nitrogen at mainstem sites are shown in figure 44 for location (Mattraw and Elder, 1984, p. C33 – C37). 1989–a year of moderate flow; and for 1990–a year Comparisons of ranges of annual load estimates that included a several-week period of extremely high (mean-annual load estimate for each year plus or flows on the Chattahoochee River. The mouths of the minus the standard error of the estimate for that year) Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers join in Lake Seminole between sites can provide some indication if the to form the headwaters of the Apalachicola River. To stream reach between sites was a source or a sink for a help visually compare values in a downstream constituent. Comparisons of ranges of annual load direction, data from the Apalachicola River are shown estimates for Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee with data from the Chattahoochee River and the Flint (location 45) and Apalachicola River, Buoy 40, mile River. At 10 sites where organic-nitrogen load could 11a (location 46) indicate that the Apalachicola River be estimated, organic nitrogen ranged from 27 to 77 and its floodplain were a source for total phosphorus percent of the total-nitrogen load in the ACF River for 17 years (1972 – 88) and could have been either a basin. Because a large percent of total nitrogen is source or a sink (estimates of loads plus or minus the organic in form, future monitoring programs that standard error of the estimate overlap) in 1989 – 90. intend to estimate total-nitrogen load should include Based on ranges of annual load estimates for organic nitrogen. Nitrogen loads in the Chattahoochee dissolved nitrate, the Apalachicola River and its and Flint Rivers increased at a moderate rate floodplain were a source for 7 years, a sink for 2 downstream as drainage areas increased. Large years, and had an unknown role for 10 years. Ranges increases in nitrogen loads occurred at sites in the of estimated annual dissolved-ammonia loads at these Chattahoochee River downstream of Atlanta. In 1990, two sites overlapped for all 19 years. higher flows in the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Estimated nitrogen and phosphorus loads flowing Rivers resulted in proportionately higher loads from the Apalachicola River into Apalachicola Bay compared to loads in 1989. were relatively small compared to nutrient sources Annual loads of total phosphorus at mainstem estimated in this report to the ACF River basin from sites in 1989 and 1990 are shown on figure 45. animal manure, fertilizer, atmospheric deposition, and Increases in phosphorus loads at sites downstream of municipal-wastewater effluent (fig. 46). Load Atlanta and Albany were proportionately larger than estimates for 1990 water year for Apalachicola River,
92 LOCATION (Figure 16) 7 17 7 17 1 34 615 19 22 25 30 45 46 1 34 6 15 19 22 25 30 45 46 32,000 32,000 30,000 30,000 1989 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER 1990 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER
25,000 25,000 Lake Seminole
20,000 Lake SeminoleLake Seminole 20,000 Atlanta
15,000 ColumbusColumbus 15,000 West Point LakeWest Point Lake Columbus Atlanta West Point Lake Lake Sidney Lanier Walter F. George ReservoirWalter F. George Reservoir Lake Sidney LanierLake Sidney Lanier Walter F. George Reservoir 10,000 10,000 APALACHICOLA RIVER APALACHICOLA RIVER 5,000 5,000
0 0 550 500 400 300 200 100 0 550 500 400 300 200 100 0 33 35 33 35 32 34 36 37 40 41 42 45 46 32 34 36 37 40 41 42 45 46
93 32,000 32,000 30,000 30,000 1989 FLINT RIVER 1990 FLINT RIVER
25,000
NITROGEN LOAD, IN TONS 25,000
20,000 20,000
15,000 15,000 Lake Seminole Lake Seminole Lake Worth Lake Blackshear Albany Lake Worth Lake Blackshear 10,000 10,000 Albany APALACHICOLA RIVER APALACHICOLA RIVER Atlanta Atlanta 5,000 5,000
0 0 550 500 400 300 200 100 0 550 500 400 300 200 100 0 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES ABOVE THE MOUTH OF THE APALACHICOLA RIVER
EXPLANATION Inorganic nitrogen Organic nitrogen Total nitrogen No organic nitrogen data
Figure 44. Nitrogen loads at selected sites along the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, 1989 and 1990 water years. LOCATION (Figure 16) 7 17 7 17 1 34 6 15 19 22 25 30 45 46 1 3 6 15 19 22 25 30 45 46 2,500 2,500
1989 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER 1990 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER 2,000 2,000 Columbus Lake Seminole Atlanta West Point Lake
1,500 Lake Seminole 1,500 Atlanta Columbus Lake Sidney Lanier Walter F. George Reservoir 1,000 West Point Lake 1,000 Walter F. George Reservoir Lake Sidney Lanier APALACHICOLA RIVER 500 APALACHICOLA RIVER 500
0 0 550 500 400 300 200 100 00 550 500 400 300 200 100 00
94 33 35 33 35 32 34 36 37 40 41 42 45 46 32 34 37 40 41 42 45 46 2,500 2,500
PHOSPHORUS LOAD, IN TONS 1989 FLINT RIVER1990 FLINT RIVER 2,000 2,000 Lake Seminole 1,500 1,500 Albany Lake Worth Atlanta Lake Blackshear
1,000 1,000 Lake Seminole Lake Worth Lake Blackshear Albany Atlanta APALACHICOLA RIVER 500 APALACHICOLA RIVER 500
0 0 550 500 400 300 200 100 00 550 500 400 300 200 100 00 DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES ABOVE THE MOUTH OF THE APALACHICOLA RIVER
Figure 45. Total-phosphorus loads at selected sites along the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, 1989 and 1990 water years. 120,000 Total N
100,000
80,000 Total N
60,000
EXPLANATION 40,000 NITROGEN, IN TONS IN NITROGEN, NUTRIENT SOURCES Nonpoint-source inputs
20,000 NO 3 Organic Point-source loads NH N NH 4 NO NH 3 3 NUTRIENT OUTPUT 0 4
Total TOTAL NITROGEN Fertilizer N
River Mile 11 NO DISSOLVED NITRATE Apalachicola River, 3 Poultry and livestock Municipaltreatment wastewater facilities Atmospheric deposition NH AMMONIUM 30,000 4
NH AMMONIA 3 25,000 Organic ORGANIC NITROGEN N
20,000
15,000
10,000 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, IN TONS IN PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL 5,000
0 NO DATA er,
Fertilizer
River Mile 11 Apalachicola Riv Poultry and livestock Municipaltreatment wastewater facilities Atmospheric deposition
Figure 46. Nitrogen and total-phosphorus sources to and output from the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1990.
95 Buoy 40, mile 11A (location 46) were 13 percent phorus decreased substantially in the Chattahoochee (30,400 tons) of estimated nitrogen sources and three River at the site downstream of West Point Lake percent (1,320 tons) of estimated phosphorus sources (location 22) and continued to decrease downstream. to the ACF River basin. Mean discharge for 1990 This indicates that West Point Lake probably acts as a water year near the mouth of the Apalachicola River sink for these nutrient species. Yields of total- was 15 percent higher than average discharge from inorganic nitrogen, dissolved ammonia, dissolved 1977 – 1990 (Meadows and others, 1991, p. 92). Much nitrate, and total phosphorus decreased between sites of the year-to-year variation in estimates of nutrient upstream and downstream of all four reservoirs (Lake loads flowing into Apalachicola Bay is controlled by Sidney Lanier, locations 1 to 3; West Point Lake, year-to-year variation in quantity of water flowing locations 19 to 22; Lake Harding, locations 22 to 25; into the bay. Load estimates (accounting for standard and Walter F. George Reservoir, locations 25 to 30) on errors) for Apalachicola River, Buoy 40, mile 11A the Chattahoochee River with available nutrient data. ranged from 9,180 to 33,900 tons/yr of nitrogen and The only exception was that the yield of dissolved from 660 to 3,500 tons/yr of total phosphorus for ammonia increased slightly downstream of Lake 1974 – 90 water years. These estimates were calculated Sidney Lanier. For the time period 1972 – 90, nutrient with nutrient-concentration data from 1974 – 90 water yields in the Flint River were relatively high upstream years (river mile 11) and synthesized-flow data from of Griffin because of WWTF effluent discharged to 1974 – 77 and actual-flow data for 1978 – 90 water years the headwaters of the Flint River. Chipola River near (river mile 20.6). By comparison, Mattraw and Elder Altha (location 47) had the highest estimated mean- (1984, p. C1 and C55) estimated loads of 24,000 tons annual yields for total-organic nitrogen and dissolved of nitrogen and 1,900 tons of total phosphorus for the nitrate. Relatively high yields of dissolved nitrate one-year period from June 3, 1979, to June 2, 1980, (1.2 tons/mi2) and low yields of dissolved ammonia and Frick and others (1993, p. 39) estimated 18,900 (0.06 tons/mi2) and total phosphorus (0.07 tons/mi2) tons of nitrogen and 860 tons of total phosphorus for in the Chipola River suggests an agricultural nonpoint 1990 calendar year. source of nutrient, rather than a point source, that Yields (load divided by drainage area) are a way probably enters the Chipola River as ground-water to normalize load estimates and facilitate comparisons discharge rather than overland flow. among watersheds of different sizes. Estimated Nutrients in Ground Water mean-annual yields ranged from 0.72 to 2.9 tons/mi2 Nitrate is the nutrient of primary concern in for total nitrogen, 0.27 to 2.0 tons/mi2 for total- ground water in most areas because elevated inorganic nitrogen, 0.27 to 0.74 tons/mi2 for total- concentrations of nitrate in drinking-water supplies organic nitrogen, 0.02 to 1.1 tons/mi2 for dissolved pose a possible health risk, and nitrate is the only ammonia, 0.22 to 1.2 tons/mi2 for dissolved nitrate, major nutrient for which a MCL (10 mg/L as 0.05 to 0.75 tons/mi2 for total phosphorus, and 0.02 to nitrogen) has been established by USEPA for drinking 0.03 tons/mi2 (range based on only three sites) for water. Data are more abundant for nitrate dissolved orthophosphate (table 16). Yields could not concentrations in ground water than for other nitrogen be calculated for dissolved-organic nitrogen. and phosphorus compounds. Natural sources of In unmodified watersheds, yields generally nitrate in ground water primarily include dissolution remain relatively constant as drainage area increases. from nitrogen-bearing minerals in aquifer materials Mean-annual yields of most nutrients increased in the and leaching of nitrogen from natural soils. A partial Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers in and downstream of list of anthropogenic sources of nitrate in ground Atlanta. The Chattahoochee River downstream of water includes leaching of fertilizer and animal Atlanta (locations 15, 17, or 19) had the highest manure, infiltration of sewage from septic tanks, land mean-annual yields estimated in the ACF River basin application of treated effluent, and atmospheric for total nitrogen, total-inorganic nitrogen, dissolved deposition. ammonia, and total phosphorus, and the second highest mean-annual yield estimates in the basin for dissolved nitrate. Yields of total-inorganic nitrogen, dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total phos-
96 Dissolved ammonia has not been considered Within the ACF River basin, concentrations of important in ground water because it is readily dissolved nitrate in ground water (fig. 47) were higher adsorbed and rapidly oxidized in aerobic and much more varied than in surface water (fig. 15). environments. Dissolved ammonia can be produced in Concentrations of organic nitrogen, dissolved an aquifer by anoxic decomposition of organic ammonia, and dissolved orthophosphate in ground material or by reduction of nitrate or can be derived water were very low. Nutrient data for springs are directly from the surface application of nitrogen limited to 16 springs (fig. 47b). fertilizer in the form of anhydrous ammonia (Burkart and Kolpin, 1993, p. 651).
10 3 3 38 53 185
15 1 3
32 1 23 63 53 4 0.10 58
CONCENTRATION, IN 2 1 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER AB 0.01
nitrogen nitrogenTotal organic Dissolved Dissolved nitrogenTotalnitrogen organic Dissolved Dissolved Total nitrogenTotal inorganic Total nitrogenTotal inorganic orthophosphate Dissolved nitrateorganic nitrogenTotal phosphorusorthophosphate Dissolved nitrateorganic nitrogenTotal phosphorus Dissolved ammonia Dissolved ammonia
EXPLANATION
Number of wells or springs MEDIAN NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION 53 with nutrient analyses OF INDIVIDUAL SPRINGS— All data are 90 plotted when the total number of springs 75 sampled is less than or equal to 10. 50 Percentile Median concentrations may be the same 25 at two or more springs. 10 Censoring limit
Figure 47. Distribution of nutrient concentrations in (A) wells and (B) springs by nutrient-constituent groups, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972–90 water years.
97 Nitrate concentrations the Coastal Plain of the ACF River basin, are effective in reducing nutrients in streamflow (Lowrance and In a nationwide evaluation of the occurrence of Pionke, 1989; Hubbard and Sheridan, 1989). nitrate in ground water based on more than 87,000 Hubbard and others (1984) reported that nitrate con- wells, Madison and Brunett (1985, p. 95) defined the centrations beneath forested areas ranged from less following four ranges of nitrate concentrations: than 0.1 to 1.1 mg/L in shallow ground water, • less than 0.2 mg/L — assumed to represent compared with concentrations from less than 1 to 113 natural background concentrations; mg/L beneath a center pivot site using sprinkler- • 0.21 to 3.0 mg/L — transitional concen- applied fertilizer and intense multiple cropping sys- trations that may or may not represent tems. human influence; Buffer strips between fields and within agri- • 3.1 to 10 mg/L — probably indicates cultural fields are becoming more common in the elevated concentrations resulting from study area, and may act as filters for nutrients and human activities; and sediment and may be another reason for relatively low nitrate concentrations in ground water near agricul- • more than 10 mg/L — exceeds MCL for tural areas of the ACF River basin. This is in contrast drinking-water supplies set by the to regions of the United States such as the midwest USEPA. where large areas of well-drained soils are in irrigated Using the same ranges as Madison and Brunett cropland areas and as many as 29 percent of samples (1985), the distribution of nitrate concentrations based exceed 3 mg/L of nitrate and 6 percent exceed on analyses from 185 wells and 15 springs in the ACF 10 mg/L of nitrate (Burkart and Kolpin, 1993; River basin for 1972 – 90 water years was: Spalding and Exner, 1993; Hamilton and Helsel, 1995). • 70 wells (38 percent) and 9 springs (60 percent) with concentrations represen- There were too few nitrate analyses in ground tative of natural background; water from 1972 – 90 in the northern part of the ACF River basin, where poultry production was highest, to • 94 wells (51 percent) and 5 springs determine if nitrate concentrations were elevated near (33 percent) with concentrations that may intensive poultry production and litter application or may not be influenced by humans; areas. In a recent study in the White and Mossy Creek • 19 wells (10 percent) and 1 spring watersheds (north of Lake Sidney Lanier) by Peck (6 percent) with concentrations that and Garrett (1994), six out of 24 wells sampled in probably have elevated nitrate 1992 – 93 had nitrate concentrations higher than concentrations, and 3 mg/L and two wells exceeded the USEPA drinking- • 2 wells (1 percent) with median nitrate water standard of 10 mg/L nitrate. concentrations exceeding the MCL of Three studies to determine the distribution and 10 mg/L. occurrence of nitrate concentrations in shallow The maximum concentration of dissolved nitrate ground water in Georgia were conducted between measured within the ACF River basin was 36.9 mg/L 1989 and 1994. Although the nutrient data are not in USGS test well 13, Albany, Ga., 178-ft deep in the included in this report; the studies deserve to be Floridan aquifer system. mentioned because of the large number and thorough spatial distribution of samples collected. From 1990 In a national review of over 200,000 nitrate through 1994, the Georgia Geologic Survey (GGS) analyses, Spalding and Exner (1993) stated that sampled about 4,800 domestic drinking-water wells “aquifers in highly agricultural areas of the that were less than 250 feet deep to evaluate nonpoint southeastern USA reportedly are not contaminated.” sources of nitrate in the State’s ground water. Nitrate Some reasons for the lack of widespread nitrate con- concentrations exceeded the MCL of 10 mg/L in less tamination in Southeast, in spite of extensive fertilizer than 2 percent of 2,588 domestic wells sampled in use on row crops (Kellogg and others, 1992), include south Georgia (Stuart and others, 1995; Georgia vegetative uptake and denitrification in a warm, wet Department of Natural Resources, 1992). In another carbon-rich environment (Spalding and Exner, 1993). study, the University of Georgia Cooperative Exten- Forested riparian buffer strips, which are common in sion Service determined nitrate concentrations in
98 water samples collected from 1989 through 1993 Probable reasons for higher nitrate concentrations from 3,419 domestic wells. The MCL for nitrate was in water from the crystalline-rock aquifers include: exceeded in 3.8 percent of wells having depths less • a prevalence of poultry agricultural land- than 100 feet and 0.9 percent of wells having depths use overlying the crystalline-rock more than 100 feet (Tyson and others, 1995). In 1994, aquifers, and the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Ser- vice reported that the MCL for nitrate was exceeded • wells often are large-diameter shallow- in samples from 5.1 percent of 823 wells located on bored wells in the regolith which may be farms in counties with large livestock and poultry more susceptible to contamination than production. The MCL for nitrate was exceeded in 7.5 drilled wells. percent of the subset of those wells used specifically There are no statistically significant differences for livestock and poultry (Tyson and others, 1995). among nitrate concentrations among other aquifers Nutrient distributions by aquifer and well depth (fig. 49). The lack of significant differences may be the result of relatively small sample sizes rather than Ground-water sampling sites for nutrients within actual lack of differences. the ACF River basin appear to be reasonably well distributed areally and among aquifers (fig. 48); Some studies have reported inverse relations however, several gaps in available data are apparent between well depths in shallow aquifers (generally for in figure 49. For example, measurements are not well depths less than 50 to 100 ft) and nitrate available from 1972 – 90 for dissolved ammonia or concentrations (Madison and Brunett, 1985, p. 95; total phosphorus in the crystalline-rock aquifers, Burkart and Kolpin, 1993, p. 654; Hamilton and which means the occurrence and distribution of these others, 1989, p. 47). Because most nitrate sources nutrients are unknown for the northern one-third of either are at land surface or in the soil column, the study area. Sample sizes smaller than 10 are too shallow aquifers probably are more susceptible to small to compare statistically. Sample sizes larger nitrate contamination than deeper aquifers (Madison than 30 are preferred, because larger sample sizes are and Brunett, 1985, p. 97). Older water, deep in an more likely to be representative of the population of aquifer, is less likely to be affected by human interest. The Floridan aquifer system was the only activities. Nitrate concentrations in shallow ground aquifer having more than 10-sampling sites with water (less than 100 feet deep) could not be compared dissolved-ammonia or total-phosphorus concentration with deeper ground water in the ACF because, with data within the ACF River basin. Kruskal-Wallis test the exception of the Floridan aquifer system, very few (followed by Mann-Whiney tests) for dissolved shallow wells had nitrate-concentration data available nitrate, indicate that dissolved-nitrate concentrations for 1972 – 90 water years (fig. 48). The relation were significantly higher in the Floridan aquifer between depth of water below land surface and nitrate system and the crystalline-rock aquifers than in the concentration could not be tested, because many Providence aquifer (fig. 49; Inman and Conover, water-quality data analyses from 1972 – 90 in the ACF 1983, p. 418 – 19). Probable reasons for higher nitrate River basin (particularly analyses stored in STORET) concentrations in water from the Floridan aquifer do not include ground-water-level data. system include: • a prevalence of row-crop agricultural land-use overlying the Floridan aquifer system, • samples collected from a high percentage of shallow wells in the Upper Floridan aquifer, and • relatively high aquifer transmissivities within the Upper Floridan aquifer.
99 84o 84 o
Crystalline-rock aquifer Providence aquifer
o 34 34o
85o 85o
33o 33 o
32o 32o
o o 31 o 31 84o 84 Claiborne Clayton aquifer aquifer
o o 34 o 34 o 30 30
85o 85o
33 o 33 o EXPLANATION
AQUIFER OUTCROP AREA
SPRING
32o 32o WELLS
Depth 100 feet or less
Depth greater than 100 feet
31o 31o Depth unknown
30o 30 o
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files
Figure 48. Location of ground-water-sampling sites with nutrient data, by aquifer and well depth, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years.
100 o o 84 84 Floridan aquifer system Surficial aquifer system
EXPLANATION o o 34 34
AQUIFER OUTCROP AREA 85o 85 o
SPRING
o o WELLS 33 33
Depth 100 feet or less
Depth greater than 100 feet Depth unknown 32o 32o
31o 31o
30 o 30o
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital files Figure 48. Location of ground-water-sampling sites with nutrient data, by aquifer and well depth, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-90 water years—Continued.
Nutrient distributions by water-use category to be shallower, may have less stringent well construction and sanitary seal requirements, and are Distributions of dissolved ammonia, dissolved often drilled in close proximity to sources of nitrate nitrate, and total phosphorus by water-use category are contamination such as septic fields, agricultural fields, shown in figure 50. Dissolved-nitrate concentrations in or animal-feeding areas. The water-use category public-supply wells were significantly lower than in “unused” was assigned to water-quality-monitoring domestic and unused wells. Public-supply wells tend to wells, test-wells (often drilled to test hydraulic be deeper and are initially drilled in locations expected properties of an aquifer), and abandoned wells. Wells to have low nitrate concentrations. Most public-supply used for other water-use categories (irrigation, wells that have high nitrate concentrations either are commercial, industrial, or recreation) were not abandoned or their water is mixed with water from compared because of sample sizes less than 10. another source to reduce nitrate concentrations to meet USEPA drinking-water standards. Domestic wells tend
101 10 Dissolved ammonia
1 10
48
2 0.1 2
0.01 EXPLANATION 100 Dissolved nitrate Number of wells with nutrient analyses 8 96 Maximum contaminant level 90 10 75 11 32 96 50 Percentile 6 25 29 10 1 Censoring limit
MEDIAN NUTRIENT CONCEN- TRATION OF INDIVIDUAL 0.1 WELLS— All data are plotted when the total number of wells sampled is less than or equal to 10. Median concentrations 0.01 may be the same at two or 10 more wells
CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Total phosphorus
5 1
42 2 0.1 2
0.01
aquifer aquifer Claiborneaquifer system system Providence Crystalline-rock Clayton aquifer Floridan aquiferSurficial aquifer
Figure 49. Distribution by aquifer of dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorus concentrations in wells, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972–90 water years.
102 10
Dissolved ammonia
1 2 1
24 27
2 0.1
0.01 EXPLANATION 100 Number of wells with nutrient analyses Dissolved nitrate 61 90 Maximum contaminant level 10 75 20 2 50 Percentile 3 10 61 25 76 4 10 Censoring limit 1
MEDIAN NUTRIENT CONCEN- TRATION OF INDIVIDUAL WELLS— All data are plotted 0.1 when the total number of wells sampled is less than or equal to 10. Median concentrations may be the same at two or 0.01 more wells 10
CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Total phosphorus
1 15
2 0.1 24 8 1 2
0.01
Unused Domestic Irrigation Industrial Commercial Public supply Recreational
Figure 50. Distribution by water-use category of dissolved-ammonia, dissolved-nitrate, and total-phosphorus concentrations in wells, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972–90 water years.
103 SUMMARY Changes in nutrient concentrations, loads, and In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began yields in river reaches from upstream to downstream of full-scale implementation of the National Water-Quality metropolitan areas provide indications of the combined Assessment (NAWQA) program. One of the initial affects of large point sources and urban nonpoint tasks of the NAWQA program is to compile and sources. The metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Ga.; evaluate existing data from individual study units. This Columbus, Ga. and Phenix City, Ala.; and Albany, Ga.; report estimates nutrient sources to the ACF River basin contained all municipal discharges larger than 10 and describes the presence, distribution, and transport Mgal/d in 1990 within the ACF River basin. These of nutrients in surface and ground waters based on large municipal discharges contributed to significant available and accessible nutrient data collected during increases in concentrations of total-inorganic nitrogen, the period 1972 – 90 water years. Where possible, dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total variations in nutrient water quality are related to phosphorus from upstream to downstream of the hydrologic, environmental, and anthropogenic factors. metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Columbus and Phenix City, and Albany. There were also significant increases Nutrient sources to the ACF River basin from in concentrations of total nitrogen, total-organic municipal wastewater-treatment facilities (WWTF), nitrogen, and dissolved orthophosphate from upstream animal manure, fertilizer, and atmospheric deposition to downstream of Atlanta and of total nitrogen and for 1990 were estimated and compared with nutrient dissolved orthophosphate from upstream to outputs. Estimates of nutrient input to the ACF River downstream of Albany. Concentrations of dissolved basin were not made for natural sources and for the ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus at following anthropogenic sources: industrial- Chattahoochee River near Fairburn (downstream of wastewater effluent; storm drains; sanitary and Atlanta) decrease as flow increases indicating that point combined sewer overflows; and runoff from sources account for much of the load. The same agricultural, urban, and suburban areas. Point-source relation occurs between dissolved nitrate and discharge loads from WWTF effluent were about 2,500 tons of at Flint River near Putney (downstream from Albany); nitrogen and 1,100 tons of phosphorus. Unlike point- however, the cause could be from the dilution of source loads, an unknown percentage of nonpoint- baseflow and(or) the dilution of point-source loads. In source inputs (manure, fertilizer, and atmospheric addition to increases in concentrations, large increases deposition) enter the hydrologic system. Manure in nitrogen and phosphorus loads and yields occurred generated by chickens, cows, and pigs in the ACF River from upstream to downstream of Atlanta, Columbus basin contained about 120,000 tons of nitrogen and and Phenix City, and Albany. Increases in phosphorus 28,000 tons of phosphorus. Poultry production was loads from upstream to downstream of urban centers concentrated in a 5-county area in the headwaters of the were proportionately larger than increases in nitrogen Chattahoochee River and accounted for 89 percent of loads because municipal wastewater was the primary the nutrient input from manure. About 82,000 tons of source of phosphorus in the rivers from 1972 – 90. The nitrogen and 20,000 tons of phosphorus were applied as Chattahoochee River downstream of Atlanta had the fertilizer to lands in the ACF River basin. The lower highest mean-annual yields estimated in the ACF River part of the basin, predominantly the row-crop basin for total nitrogen, total-inorganic nitrogen, agricultural areas of the Middle and Lower Flint River dissolved ammonia, and total phosphorus, and the subbasins, received the greatest input of nitrogen and second highest mean-annual yield estimates in the basin phosphorus from commercial fertilizer. Information on for dissolved nitrate. nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from fertilizer applied to urban and suburban areas are unavailable for most of the ACF River basin; however, conservative estimates would increase the estimates of total nutrient inputs from fertilizer to the ACF River basin by about 10 percent. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen was about 24,000 tons in 1990 calendar year. Nutrient outflow into Apalachicola Bay from Apalachicola River was about 13 percent of estimated nitrogen sources and about three percent of estimated total phosphorus sources for 1990 in the ACF River basin.
104 Many improvements to the water quality of the continued to increase from 47 tons in Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers in the 1980’s and early 1988 to 200 tons in 1993, because of 1990’s can be directly attributed to improvements in increases in nonpoint-source inputs. wastewater-treatment facilities, legislation directed at Although volume of effluent discharged decreasing point-source loads of phosphorus, and increased, total-phosphorus loads in the changes in wastewater-treatment outfall locations. Chattahoochee River downstream from Three examples are: Atlanta decreased from 1,190 tons in 1988 to 550 tons in 1993, primarily because of • From 1972 – 80, the Chattahoochee River large decreases in point-source loads. downstream of Atlanta had annual dissolved-ammonia loads larger than • The Upper Flint River (downstream of dissolved-nitrate loads because of the Atlanta) and Long Cane Creek relatively low level of treatment of (downstream of effluent discharged from municipal-wastewater effluent in the LaGrange, Ga.) had high concentrations Metropolitan Atlanta area during the and yields of total-inorganic nitrogen, 1970’s. The reversal to larger nitrate loads dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrate, and than ammonia loads in the 1980’s is an total phosphorus during the period 1972 – indication of positive effects from major 90, because of municipal effluent improvements made to WWTFs in the discharged into relatively small streams 1980’s. Decreasing trends in dissolved- with low waste-assimilation capacities. ammonia concentration and increasing Long Cane Creek also had strong negative trends in dissolved-nitrate concentration relations between dissolved-ammonia and in the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers at total-phosphorus concentrations and sites downstream of Atlanta and Albany discharge during 1972 – 90. As a result of were the result of improved wastewater removal of municipal-wastewater outfalls treatment at WWTF in these urban areas. from the Upper Flint River basin in the The conversion from larger ammonia early- to mid-1980’s, all significant trends loads to larger nitrate loads in the 1980’s in nutrient concentrations in the Upper indicates the effectiveness of major Flint decreased for 1980 – 90 and the rates improvements to WWTF in reducing of decreases were larger in the Upper Flint ammonia loads, and subsequently than rates of change for any other surface- reducing the threat of toxicity to fish by water-quality site within the study area for decreasing oxygen demand and ammonia the 1980 – 90 period. The discharge toxicity of the effluent. The conversion location of effluent from the city of also helps decrease the potential for eutro- LaGrange was moved from Long Cane phication downstream of WWTF because Creek to the Chattahoochee River in dissolved nitrate in rivers is more readily 1993. Concentrations of nutrients most denitrified than dissolved ammonia. commonly in effluent were about an order-of-magnitude less in 1994 in the • Increasing trends in total-phosphorus Upper Flint River and in Long Cane concentrations throughout most of the Creek than concentrations shown for Chattahoochee River are an accurate 1972 – 90 water years. representation of data for the period 1980 – 90. However, legislated restrictions on the Reservoirs affect transport of nutrients because of use of phosphate detergents and uptake by phytoplankton and aquatic plants, improvements of WWTF beginning in the denitrification, and accumulation of phosphorus late 1980’s resulted in substantial associated with sediment in reservoirs. Total- reductions in concentrations of phosphorus concentrations significantly decreased from phosphorus in wastewater influent and sampling sites in and downstream of Lake Sidney effluent in the 1990’s. Point-source loads Lanier, West Point Lake, Lake Harding, and the Flint of phosphorus from the 13 major WWTF River arm of Lake Seminole. Four nutrient species that discharge into the Chattahoochee significantly decreased downstream of Walter F. George River between Buford Dam and West Reservoir and six nutrient species significantly Point Lake decreased from a high of 1,670 decreased downstream of the Flint River arm of Lake tons in 1988 to 298 tons in 1993. Total- Seminole. Total-inorganic nitrogen and dissolved nitrate phosphorus loads in the Chattahoochee in Lake Sidney Lanier were the only constituents in any River upstream of Metropolitan Atlanta reservoir in the study area that had a significant increase
105 in nutrient concentrations from a reservoir sampling site • No noticeable changes in nutrient to a downstream sampling site during 1972 – 90. Yields concentrations occurred in mainstem of total-inorganic nitrogen, dissolved ammonia, rivers in the ACF River basin down- dissolved nitrate, and total phosphorus decreased stream of confluences of eight tributary between sampling sites upstream and downstream of all streams with sufficient available nutrient- four reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River with concentration data. In general, tributaries available nutrient data. The only exception was the in the ACF River basin have small yield of dissolved ammonia increased slightly from discharges relative to the discharge of the upstream to downstream of Lake Sidney Lanier. In mainstem rivers they flow into. general, nitrogen loads and yields decreased • Concerns about accelerated eutrophi- downstream of West Point Lake. Large decreases in cation were warranted throughout much phosphorus loads occurred downstream of West Point of the ACF River basin based on total- Lake, because much of the phosphorus is associated phosphorus concentrations from 1972 – 90. with sediments that are deposited in the reservoir. Concerns about toxicity to fish were Much of the nutrient load in the Chattahoochee River intermittently warranted based on downstream of Atlanta is utilized by algae or settles out dissolved-ammonia concentrations down- primarily in West Point Lake, and to a lesser extent, in stream of wastewater-treatment outfalls Lake Harding and Walter F. George Reservoir. In for the Metropolitan Atlanta area in the general, the Flint River arm of Lake Seminole had Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and significantly higher concentrations of nutrients than the downstream of the wastewater-treatment Chattahoochee River arm of Lake Seminole, which may outfall for LaGrange in Long Cane Creek. be the result of the large percentage of the Middle and • In river reaches downstream of all major Lower Chattahoochee River in backwater from point-source loads from Atlanta, reservoirs, the absence of reservoirs on the Flint River Columbus, and Phenix City, and Albany downstream of Albany until Lake Seminole, and metropolitan areas, total-phosphorus and nonpoint-source inputs of nutrients from intensively dissolved-ammonia concentrations signif- farmed areas in the Lower Flint River basin. icantly decreased from sampling sites Seasonal variations in nutrient concentrations in near WWTFs to sampling sites further the Chattahoochee River are strongly influenced by the downstream. Significant decreases in 13 reservoirs on the river, particularly from West Point total-phosphorus concentrations were Lake to Lake Seminole. Dissolved-nitrogen concentra- probably the result of biological uptake, tions are generally lower in the warm, summer months decomposition, and settling out of near the inflow of West Point Lake to Lake Seminole phosphorus associated with suspended for ammonia and near the center of West Point Lake to sediment. Significant decreases in Lake Seminole for nitrate. Total-phosphorus concentra- dissolved-ammonia and increases in tions also seem to be lower in the summer and early fall dissolved-nitrate concentrations in these in the Middle and Lower Chattahoochee River, river reaches downstream of Atlanta and although the pattern is not as pronounced as for dis- Albany occurred because of nitrification solved ammonia and dissolved nitrate. Summer of ammonia to nitrate. decreases in concentrations of nutrients in reservoirs, • Compared to other surface-water sampling and stream sites directly affected by reservoirs, are sites within the ACF River basin, Chipola related to the seasonality of phytoplankton production River near Altha, Fla. had moderate-to- in reservoirs. In contrast to the Chattahoochee high dissolved-nitrate concentrations and River, seasonal patterns in nutrient concentrations in the highest yields estimated in the basin the Flint, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers either are for dissolved nitrate. Chipola River near not present or are less apparent. Altha had decreasing relations between dissolved nitrate and discharge, which In addition to changes in nutrients in surface-water often are indicative of a nonpoint source as a result of urban point and nonpoint sources, of nitrate. Estimated loads of dissolved municipal-wastewater effluent, reservoirs, and seasonal nitrate in the Chipola River increased variations, several miscellaneous observations about fairly steadily from about 500 tons/yr in nutrients in surface waters of the ACF include:
106 1972 to about 1,500 tons/yr in 1990, REFERENCES unlike most other load estimates which Alabama Agricultural Statistics Service, 1991, Alabama more closely paralleled changes in flow agricultural statistics: Montgomery, Ala., Alabama conditions from year to year. Large Agricultural Statistics Service, 60 p. increases in estimates of mean-annual load of dissolved nitrate to the Chipola Atlanta Regional Commission, 1984, Water resources River are probably the result of elevated data summary for the Atlanta region: Atlanta dissolved-nitrate concentrations in Regional Commission, 136 p. ground-water discharge (baseflow) from ——1989, Nutrient loading estimates and potential increased irrigated agriculture and reduction in the lower Chattahoochee River, fertilizer applications in the Chipola River Atlanta, Georgia: Atlanta Regional Commission, watershed. 58 p. Analyses of nutrients in ground water within the Barbash, J.E., and Resek, E.A., 1996, Pesticides in ACF River basin for 1972 – 90 water years were ground water — distribution, trends, and governing restricted because of limited available data. A cursory factors: Chelsea, Michigan, Ann Arbor Press, Inc. description of distribution of nutrient concentrations in Black, Crow, & Eidness, Inc., and Jordan, Jones, & wells and springs; and for wells, differences in Goulding, Inc., 1975, Non-point pollution dissolved-nitrate concentrations by aquifer, by well evaluation, Atlanta urban area: Atlanta, Ga., depth, and by water-use category are presented. The [variously paged]. distribution of nitrate concentrations for 1972 – 90 water years include 38 percent of wells and 60 percent of Burkart, M.R., and Kolpin, D.W., 1993, Hydrologic and springs with concentrations representative of natural land-use factors associated with herbicides and background (less than 0.2 mg/L); 51 percent of wells nitrate in near-surface aquifers: Journal of and 33 percent of springs with concentrations that may Environmental Quality, v. 22, no. 4, p. 646 – 656. or may not be influenced by humans (0.21 to 3.0 mg/L); Carter, R.F., Hopkins, E.H., and Perlman, H.A., 1986, 10 percent of wells and 6 percent of springs with Low-flow profiles of the upper Ocmulgee and concentrations that probably have elevated nitrate Flint Rivers in Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey concentrations (3.1 to 10 mg/L), and 1 percent of wells Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4176, with median nitrate concentrations exceeding the 239 p. USEPA maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L. ——1989, Low-flow profiles of the upper Dissolved-nitrate concentrations in wells used for public Chattahoochee River and tributaries in Georgia: supply were significantly lower than in wells used for U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources domestic use and unused wells. Dissolved-nitrate Investigations Report 89-4056, 194 p. concentrations were significantly lower in the Providence aquifer than in the Floridan aquifer system Carter, R.F., and Putnam, S.A., 1978, Low-flow and the crystalline-rock aquifers. Statistically significant frequency of Georgia streams: U.S. Geological differences in nitrate concentrations were not identified Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report among other aquifers possibly because of relatively 77-127, 104 p. small sample sizes rather than actual lack of differences. Cherry, R.N., Faye, R.E., Stamer, J.K., and Kleckner, Nitrate concentrations in ground water less than 100 feet R.L., 1980, Summary of the river-quality deep could not be compared with deeper ground water assessment of the Upper Chattahoochee River because, with the exception of the Floridan aquifer basin, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular system, very few shallow wells had nitrate- 811, 47 p. concentration data available for 1972 – 90 water years. Cherry, R.N., Lium, B.W., Shoaf, W.T., Stamer, J.K., and Faye, R.E., 1978, Effects of nutrients on algal growth in West Point Lake, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-976, 21 p. Cohn, T.A., 1988, Adjusted maximum likelihood estimation of the moments of lognormal populations from type I censored samples: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-350, p. 34.
107 REFERENCES—Continued Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and U.S. Cohn, T.A., DeLong, L.L., Gilroy, E.J., Hirsch, R.M., Environmental Protection Agency water-quality and Wells, D.K., 1989, Estimating constituent evaluation of Peachtree Creek and impacts of loads: Water Resources Research, v. 25, no. 5, p. combined sewer overflow on water quality, 1987: 937 – 942. Atlanta, Ga., Georgia Department of Natural Re- sources, Environmental Protection Division, 41 p. Couch, C.A., Hopkins, E.H., and Hardy, P.S., 1996, Influences of Environmental settings on aquatic Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1992, Water ecosystems in the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – quality in Georgia, 1990 – 91: Atlanta, Ga., Georgia Flint River basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Resources Investigations Report 95-4278, 58 p. Protection Division, 69 p. DeVivo, J.C., Frick, E.A., Hippe, D.J., and Buell, G.R., ____1994, Purposes and guiding principles, part I, in the 1995, National Water Quality Assessment Field Study Plan, Chattahoochee River modeling Program — effect of restricted phosphate detergent project: Atlanta, Ga., Georgia Department of use and mandated upgrades at two wastewater- Natural Resources, Environmental Protection treatment facilities on water quality, Metropolitan Division, 55 p. Atlanta, Georgia, 1988 – 93, in Hatcher, K.J. (ed.), Geological Survey of Alabama, 1989, Geologic map of Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Alabama: Osborne, W.E., Szabo, M.W., Copeland, Conference, Athens, Ga., April 11 – 12, 1995: C.W., Jr., and Neathery, T.L., compilers, Geologi- Athens, Ga., Carl Vinson Institute of Government, cal Survey of Alabama Map 221, 1:500,000 scale. The University of Georgia, p. 54 – 56. Georgia Geologic Survey, 1976, Geologic map of Ehlke, T.A., 1978, The effect of nitrification on the Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey, 1:500,000 oxygen balance of the Upper Chattahoochee River, scale. Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Gholson, A.K., Jr., 1984a, History of aquatic weeds in Investigations Report 79-10. 13 p. Lake Seminole: Aquatics, September, v. 6, no. 3, Fanning, J.L., Doonan, G.A., Trent, V.P., and p. 21 – 22. McFarlane, R.D., 1991, Power generation and ——1984b, History of aquatic weeds in Lake related water use in Georgia: Georgia Geologic Seminole — continued: Aquatics, v. 6, no. 4, p. 17. Survey Information Circular 87, 37 p. Gilroy, E.J., Hirsch, R.M., and Cohn, T., 1990, Mean Faye, R.E., and Mayer, G.C., 1996, Simulation of square error of regression-based constituent ground-water flow in southeastern Coastal Plain transport estimates: Water Resources Research, v. clastic aquifers in Georgia and adjacent parts of 26, no. 9, p. 2,069 – 2,077. Alabama and South Carolina: U.S. Professional Paper 1410-F [in press]. Hamilton, P.A., and Helsel, D.R., 1995, Effects of agriculture on ground-water quality in five regions Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 1991a, Dairy of the United States: Groundwater, v. 33, no. 2, p. summary, 1990: Orlando, Fla., Florida 217 – 226. Agricultural Statistics Service, 21 p. Hamilton, P.A., Shedlock, R.J., and Phillips, P.J., 1989, ——1991b, Livestock summary, 1990: Orlando, Fla., Ground-water-quality assessment of the Delmarva Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 24 p. Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia — Frick, E.A., Stell, S.M., and Buell, G.R., 1993, National analysis of available water-quality data through Water Quality Assessment Program — a prelimi- 1987: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report nary evaluation of 1990 nutrient loads for the 89-34, 71 p. Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, Helsel, D.R., 1990, Less than obvious: Statistical in Hatcher, K.J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 treatment of data below the reporting limit: Georgia Water Resources Conference, Athens, Environmental Science and Technology, v. 24, no. Ga., April 11 – 12, 1995: Athens, Ga., Carl Vinson 12, p. 1,766 – 1,774. Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, p. 36 – 40. ——1993, Hydrology of stream water quality; Statistical analysis of water-quality data, in Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service, 1990, Georgia National Water Summary 1990 – 91— hydrologic agricultural facts: Athens, Ga., Georgia Agricul- events and stream water quality: Paulson, R.W., tural Statistics Service, 184 p. Chase, E.B., Williams, J.S., and Moody, D.W. ——1991, Georgia agricultural facts: Athens, Ga., (compilers), U.S. Geological Survey Water- Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service, 100 p. Supply Paper 2400, p. 93 – 100. 108 REFERENCES—Continued Leahy, P.P., Rosenshein, J.S., and Knopman, D.S., Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical 1990, Implementation plan for the National Water- methods in water resources: New York, Elsevier Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Science Publishing Company, Inc., 522 p. Survey Open-File Report 90-174, 10 p. Hirsch, R.M., Alexander, R.B., and Smith, R.A., 1991, Leitman, H.M., Sohm, J.E., and Franklin, M.A., 1983, Selection of methods for the detection and Wetland hydrology and tree distribution of the estimation of trends in water quality: Water Apalachicola River flood plain, Florida: U.S. Resources Research, v. 27, no., 5, p. 803 – 813. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2196, Chapter A, 52 p. Hirsch, R.M., Alley, W.M., and Wilber, W.G., 1988, Concepts for a National Water-Quality Leitman, S.F., Ager, Lothian, and Mesing, Charles., Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey 1991, The Apalachicola experience: environ- Circular 1021, 42 p. mental effects of physical modifications for navigation purposes, in Livingston, R.J. (ed.), The Hirsch, R.M., Slack, J.R., and Smith, R.A., 1982, rivers of Florida: New York, Springer-Verlag Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water New York, Inc., p. 223 – 246. quality data: Water Resources Research, v. 18, no. 1, p. 107 – 121. Lowrance, R.R., and Pionke, H.B., 1989, Transformations and movement of nitrate in Hitt, K.J., 1994, Refining 1970’s land-use data with aquifer systems: in Nitrogen management and 1990 population data to indicate new residential ground water protection, Follett, R.F. (ed.), New development: U.S. Geological Survey Water- York, Elsevier, p. 373 – 392. Resources Investigations Report 94-4250, 15 p. Lynard, W.G., and Field, R., 1980, Phosphorus in Hodler, T.W., and Schretter, H.A., 1986, The atlas of stormwater: Sources and treatability: Loehr, R.C., Georgia: Athens, Ga., Institute of Community Martin, C.S., and Rast, Walter (eds.), in Area Development, University of Georgia, 273 p. Phosphorus management strategies for lakes, Hubbard, R.K., Asmussen, L.E., and Allison, H.D., Proceedings of the 1979 Conference, Ann Arbor 1984, Shallow groundwater quality beneath an Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., intensive multiple cropping system using center p. 435 – 457. pivot irrigation: Journal of Environmental Madison, R.J., and Brunett, J.O., 1985, Overview of the Quality, v. 13, no. 1, p. 156 – 161. occurrence of nitrate in ground water in the United Hubbard, R.K., and Sheridan, J.M., 1989, Nitrate States, in National Water Summary 1984, movement to groundwater in the southeastern hydrologic events, selected water-quality trends Coastal Plain: Journal of Soil Water Conservation, and ground-water resources: U.S. Geological v. 44, p. 20 – 27. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275, p. 93 – 105. Inman, R.L., and Conover, W.J., 1983, A modern Majewski, M.S., and Capel, P.D., 1995, Pesticides in the approach to statistics: New York, John Wiley and atmosphere — distribution, trends, and governing Sons, 497 p. factors: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-506, 191 p. Kay, Furman, and Hammond, Cecil, 1985, Land application of livestock and poultry manure: Marella, R.L., Fanning, J.L., and Mooty, W.S., 1993, Athens, Ga., Cooperative Extension Service, The Estimated use of water in the Apalachicola – University of Georgia College of Agriculture, Chattahoochee – Flint River basin during 1990 and Leaflet 378, 4 p. trends in water use from 1970 to 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga- Kellogg, R.L., Maizel, M.S., and Goss, D.W., 1992, tions Report 93-4084, 45 p. Agriculture chemical use and ground water quality: Where are the potential problem areas?: Mattraw, H.C., Jr., and Elder, J.F., 1984, Nutrient and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation detritus transport in the Apalachicola River, Service, 41 p. Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2196, chap. C, 62 p. Lanfear, K.J., and Alexander, R.B., 1990, Methodology to derive water-quality trends for use by the McIntosh, C.S., Kriesel, Warren, Miller, W.P., and National Water Summary Program of the U.S. Sumner, M.E., 1992, Utilization of coal Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open- combustion by-products in agriculture and land File Report 90-359, 10 p. reclamation — market analysis for southeastern region: Athens, Ga., University of Georgia, unpaginated. 109 REFERENCES—Continued Stokes, W.R., III, and McFarlane, R.D., 1993, Water- Meadows, P.E., Martin, J.B., and Mixson, P.R., 1991, resources data, Georgia, water year 1992: U.S. Water resources data; Florida; Water year 1990: Geological Survey Water-Data Report GA-92-1, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 612 p. FL-90-4, 210 p. Strong, C.F., Jr., 1990, A summary of the 1990 poultry Miller, J.A., 1986, Hydrogeologic framework of the survey: Athens, Ga., Cooperative Extension Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Service, The University of Georgia, 29 p. Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina: U.S. Geo- Strong, C.F., Jr., Cunningham, D.L., Savage, S.I., Vest, logical Survey Professional Paper 1403-B, 91 p. L.R., and Wilson, J.L., 1990, Georgia poultry Mueller, D.K., Hamilton, P.A., Helsel, D.R., Hitt, K.J., survey, 1990: Athens, Ga., Cooperative Extension and Ruddy, B.C., 1995, Nutrients in ground water Service, The University of Georgia, 38 p. and surface water of the United States — an Stuart, M.A., Rich, F.J., and Bishop, G.A., 1995, Survey analysis of data through 1992: U.S. Geological of nitrate contamination in shallow domestic Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report drinking water wells of the inner Coastal Plain of 95-4031, 74 p. Georgia: Ground Water, v. 33, no. 2, p. 284 – 290. Peck, M.F., and Garrett, J.W., 1994, Quality of surface Tetra Tech, Inc., 1992, Estimating fertilization rates for and ground water in the White Creek and Mossy an urban area: application to Cobb County, Creek Watersheds, White County, Georgia, 1992 – Georgia: Tetra Tech, Inc., prepared for U.S. 93: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94- Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Ga., 540, 31 p. Contract No. 68-C9-0013, 55 p. Pearman, J.L., Sedberry, F.C., Stricklin, V.E., and Cole, Torak, L.J., Davis, G.S., Strain, G.A., and Herndon, P.W., 1993, Water-resources data, Alabama, water J.G., 1993, Geohydrology and evaluation of water- year 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data resource potential of the Upper Floridan aquifer in Report AL-92-1, 457 p. the Albany area, southwestern Georgia: U.S. Geo- Puckett, L.J., 1994, Nonpoint and point sources of logical Survey Water-Supply Paper 2391, 59 p. nitrogen in major watersheds of the United States: Tyson, A.W., Bush, Parshall, Perkins, Robert, and U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Segars, William, 1995, Nitrate contamination of Investigations Report 94-4001, 6 p. domestic wells in Georgia, in Hatcher, K.J. ——1995, Identifying the major sources of nutrient (ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water water pollution: Environmental Science and Resources Conference, Athens, Ga., April 11 – 12, Technology, v. 29, no. 9, p. 408A – 414A. 1995: Athens, Ga., Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Sisterson, D.L., 1990, Detailed SOx-S and NOx-N mass p. 142 – 45. budgets for the United States and Canada — Appendix A, in Relationships between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, 1984 Water atmospheric emissions and deposition/air quality: assessment for the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Flint River Basin Water Management Study Report 8, p. 8A-1 – 8A-10. (Appendix III): Mobile, Ala., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 300 p. Spalding, R.F., and Exner, M.E., 1993, Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater—a review: Journal of ——1985, Florida-Georgia stream milage tables with Environmental Quality, v. 22, no. 3, p. 392 – 402. drainage areas: Mobile, Ala., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 233 p. Stamer, J.K., Cherry, R.N., Faye, R.E., and Kleckner, R.L., 1979, Magnitudes, nature, and effects of U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981a, Census of point and nonpoint discharges in the agriculture, 1978, Alabama state and county data: Chattahoochee River basin, Atlanta to West Point U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Dam, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Census, part 1, v. 1, 2, 565 p. Supply Paper 2059, 65 p. ——1981b, Census of agriculture, 1978, Florida state Stell, S.M., Hopkins, E.H., Buell, G.R., and Hippe, D.J., and county data: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, Use and occurrence of pesticides in the Bureau of the Census, part 9, v. 1, 2, 556 p. Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River basin, ——1981c, Census of agriculture, 1978, Georgia state Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, 1960 – 91: U.S. and county data: U.S. Department of Commerce, Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-739, 65 p. Bureau of the Census, part 10, v. 1, 2, 1,081 p.
110 REFERENCES—Continued ——1979b, Land use and land cover, 1972, Rome, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981d, Master area Georgia; Alabama; Tennessee; North Carolina: reference file (MARF) for the 1980 Census: U.S. U.S. Geological Survey Land Use Map L-55, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1:250,000 scale. computer file. ——1979c, Land use and land cover, 1972 – 73, ——1989a, Census of agriculture, 1987, Alabama state Apalachicola, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey and county data: U.S. Department of Commerce, Land Use Map L-5, 1:250,000 scale. Bureau of the Census, part 1, v. 1, 431 p. ——1979d, Land use and land cover,1978, Greenville, ——1989b, Census of agriculture, 1987, Florida state Georgia; South Carolina; North Carolina: U.S. and county data: U.S. Department of Commerce, Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-405, Bureau of the Census, part 9, v. 1, 435 p. 1:250,000 scale. ——1989c, Census of agriculture, 1987, Georgia state ——1979e, Land use and land cover, 1974, Macon, and county data: U.S. Department of Commerce, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Bureau of the Census, part 10, v. 1, 698 p. Report 79-1161, 1:250,000 scale. ——1991a, Census of population and housing, 1990: ——1979f, Land use and land cover, 1977, Waycross, Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 data (Alabama): Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, Report 79-1162, 1:250,000 scale. Bureau of the Census, digital data series, CD – Rom. ——1980a, Land use and land cover, 1974 – 75, Atlanta, ——1991b, Census of population and housing, 1990: Georgia; Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Land Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 data (Florida): Use Map L-87, 1:250,000 scale. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, ——1980b, Land use and land cover, 1973, Phenix Bureau of the Census, digital data series, CD – Rom. City, Alabama; Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey ——1991c, Census of population and housing, 1990: Land Use Map L-91, 1:250,000 scale. Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 data (Georgia): ——1980c, Land use and land cover, 1973 – 76, Dothan, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, Alabama; Georgia; Florida: U.S. Geological Bureau of the Census, digital data series, CD – Rom. Survey Land Use Map L-89, 1:250,000 scale. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Quality ——1993, Water-resources data: Florida, water year criteria for water 1986: Washington, D.C., U.S. 1991, v. 4, Northwest Florida: U.S. Geological Environmental Protection Agency Report 440/5- Survey Water-Data Report FL-92-4, 162 p. 86-001, Office of Water [variously paged]. Wagner, and Allen, 1984, Ground-water section in 1984 ——1990, Maximum contaminant levels (subpart B of Water Assessment for the Apalachicola – 141, National primary drinking water regulations) Chattahoochee – Flint River Basin, Water Manage- (revised July 1, 1990): U.S. Code of Federal ment Study, Appendix III: U.S. Army Corps of Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 – 149, p. 559 – 563. Engineers and States of Alabama, Florida, and ——1995, Drinking water regulations and health Georgia, section 3, v. 3, 129 p. advisories: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environ- Wangsness, D.J. and Frick, E.A., 1991, National Water- mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 11 p. Quality Assessment Program — The Apalachicola – U.S. Geological Survey, 1975a. State of Alabama Chattahoochee – Flint River Basin: U.S. Geological Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-163, 2 p. Survey, 1 sheet, 1:500,000 scale. Wangsness, D.J., Frick, E.A., Buell, G.R., and DeVivo, ——1975b, State of Florida Hydrologic Unit Map — J.C., 1994, Effect of the restricted use of phosphate 1974: U.S. Geological Survey, 1 sheet, 1:500,000 detergent and upgraded wastewater treatment scale. facilities on water quality in the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Geological ——1975c, State of Georgia Hydrologic Unit Map — Survey Open-File Report 94-99, 4 p. 1974: U.S. Geological Survey, 1 sheet, 1:500,000 scale. ——1979a, Land use and land cover, 1972 – 74, Tallahassee, Florida; Georgia; Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Land Use Map L-15, 1:250,000 scale.
111 4/ Flint
.72 .83 .67 .56 .55 .60 .66 –
0.94 2.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.1 1.0 yield (tons per (tons Mean annual drainage area) drainage square mile of square mile
3/ 104 152
90.5 89.3
110 436 804 121
37.6
641 710 889
199 – –
– –
2,250 2,650 3,560 – – – –
–
– – –
–
– – –
1.6 3.1 21.4 27.4 4.6 Chattahoochee 17.1 17.3 Range of of Range 169 117 301
estimates 58.9 64.9 28.5 7/ 7/ 595 267 560 7/ 7/ – 7/ 7/
of annual load annual of standard errors 889 404
9,060 6,580 8,920 500
12,400 28,900 30,400
2,800 4,170 2,020 1,040 1,120 1,530 2,060 – –
– – – –
– – –
– – – – – – –
(tons) , Apalachicola 102 75.3 37.2 880 772 903 402 407 621 669 2/ parentheses) 4,950 2,740 1,980 (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1984) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1982; 1990) (1981; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 5,610 9,150 9,820 (water years in years(water (1981; 1983, 84) 1983, (1981; Range of annual load annual Range of Geological Survey] 1,040 335 212 612 661 106 827 tituent group load (tons) 1,290 6,010 8,960 2,080 4,430 5,750 1,510 17,200 20,400 Mean annual trient cons tion Division; U, U.S. tion Division; 72 41 47 68 47 63 93 152 148 136 114 154 165 117 185 204 limit Greater than or equal to censoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Less than Number of nutrient observations nutrient of Number r sampling sites, by nu by sites, r sampling censoring limit 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 90 90
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1972 1972 1983 1974 1972 1972 1981 1972 1972 1974 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 Period of estimates record for for record 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 5/ 5/ 5/ nutrient load 5,8/ G G G gulation; G, Georgia Environmental Protec Environmental gulation; G, Georgia Total nitrogen (0.12 mg/L = censoring limit) mg/L = censoring (0.12 nitrogen Total G Total-inorganic nitrogen (0.04 mg/L = censoring limit) mg/L (0.04 nitrogen Total-inorganic F U U U U G U U U U U Stream station name
and yields for nutrients for selected surface-wate nutrients for and yields 1/ G
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re Florida Department of Environmental F, Ga. : Chattahoochee River - Cobb County Water Intake, Ga. - Cobb County Water Chattahoochee River Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. Flint River Ga. near Putney, Flint River Ga. at Newton, Flint River at Chattahoochee, Fla. Apalachicola River near Altha, Fla. Chipola River 40, mile 11A, Fla. Buoy Apalachicola River, Ga. near Cornelia, River Chattahoochee Intake, - Gwinnett County Water Chattahoochee River Ga. Intake, - DeKalb Water County Chattahoochee River Intake, Ga. Big Creek - Roswell Water Intake, Ga. - Cobb County Water Chattahoochee River Ga.Intake, - Atlanta Water Chattahoochee River 90 years water
–
unit code unit Hydrologic Hydrologic Mean annual loads 03130001 03130002 03130003 03130005 03130006 03130008 03130008 03130011 03130012 03130011 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 6 1 3 4 5 6 7 17 30 35 37 41 42 45 47 46 number Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. Table liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
112 4/ Flint .55 .79 .72 .56 .98 .92 .52 .76 .27 .27 .44 .55 – 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 yield (tons per per (tons Mean annual drainage area) square mile square of
3/ 273 287 576 556 216 282
9.6 242 6.1 7.7 93.2
42.4 19.6 14.2 530
2,080 – – – – – –
– – – – –
– – – –
–
1.6 1.1 1.8 84 135 1.9 5.4 2.4 91.2 66.8 70.3 61.7 26.2 46.9 Chattahoochee 21.4 Range of estimates 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 163 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 7/ – 7/ of annual load load annual of standard errors 131 226 128 259
3,510 6,210 6,680 5,210 6,520 8,740 69.4 77.5 882 3,320 4,800
1,040 – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – –
–
(tons) , Apalachicola 329 44.0 44.7 50.6 42.1 12.4 16.5 526 2/ parentheses) 1,780 3,530 3,320 1,490 1,860 1,710 1,420 1,850 (1981; 1984) (1981; 1984) (1981; 1975) (1988; 1990) (1972; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1988; 1990) (1986; 1980) (1988; 1990) (1985; 1990) (1985; 1987) (1985; 1975) (1988; 1990) (1972; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1975) (1988; (water years (water in ological Survey] Range of annual annual load of Range 135 148 492 772 87.6 38.4 45.1 82.2 2,920 4,140 4,090 2,810 3,340 4,610 2,320 load (tons) 2,960 on; U, U.S. Ge Mean annual 35 71 69 69 57 71 191 124 170 258 327 204 211 228 154 198 limit by nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent by Greateror than equal to censoring censoring to equal 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less than Number of nutrient observations censoring limit gia Environmental Protection Divisi gia Environmental 90 90 89 90 90 90 90 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
79,
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
–
1972 1981 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1979 1985 1985 1985 1972 1972 1972 1972 1990 1972 Period of
estimates
record for for record 5/ 8/ 5/ 5/ 9/ 9/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/
nutrient load
gulation; G, Geor G ected surface-water sampling sites, ected surface-water U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Stream station name station Stream and yields for nutrients sel yields and 1/
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re of Environmental Department Florida F, : Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. Ga. at Atlanta, at I-285, River Chattahoochee CreekSweetwater near Austell, Ga. Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River Ga. near Whitesburg, Chattahoochee River Point, Ga. at West Chattahoochee River Intake, Ga. Water - Columbus Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. Jonesboro, near River Flint Ga. nearFayetteville, Flint River nearInman, Ga. Flint River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River nearCulloden, Ga. Flint River Montezuma, Ga. at Flint River Ga. Albany, at Flint River Ga. nearPutney, Flint River 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code Hydrologic Hydrologic Mean annual loads 03130001 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130003 03130004 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130006 03130008 03130008 12 15 16 17 19 22 25 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 number number Location Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
113 4/ Flint .60 .51 .46 .41 .68 .57 .73 .47 .27 .52 .49 .74 .60 – 1.3 yield (tons per per (tons Mean annual drainage area) square mile square of
3/ 182 808 130
697 430 937 160
104
547
1,450 3,180 3,750 – – –
1,750 1,180 – – – –
–
–
– – –
– –
5.2 199 129 329 65.2 68.8 46.5 118 36.7 617 309 709 Chattahoochee Range of estimates 156 290 7/ 10/ 7/ 10/ 10/ 10/ – 10/ 10/ 10/ 7/ 7/ 10/ 10/ 10/ of annual load load annual of standard errors 368
4,550 754 2,850 6,270 4,460 938
15,700 12,100 14,800 19,800
1,520 3,220 2,050 –
– – – – – –
– – – –
– – –
(tons) , Apalachicola 259 248 31.0 539 243 829 2/ parentheses) 2,070 1,400 3,890 1,740 (1981; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1972; 1984) (1981; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1987) (1988; 1976) (1986; 1975) (1988; 1984) (1981; 1987) (1989; 1975) (1986; 1975) (1981; 1990) (1981; 3,880 4,440 4,760 5,380 (water years (water in ological Survey] Range of annual annual load of Range 559 142 577 load (tons) 3,420 8,730 1,000 8,830 1,400 4,690 1,360 1,440 3,010 8,430 on; U, U.S. Ge 11,600 Mean annual 52 83 43 30 37 64 43 84 55 153 134 136 134 135 limit by nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent by Greateror than equal to censoring censoring to equal 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 4 25 15 10 14 Less than Number of nutrient observations censoring limit gia Environmental Protection Divisi gia Environmental 90 90 90 90 89 90 89 90 88 89 89 90 86 90
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1972 1972 1972 1974 1979 1973 1985 1976 1972 1974 1983 1972 1972 1974 Period of estimates record for for record 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 5/ 8/ 5/ 6/ nutrient load 5,8/ G gulation; G, Geor ected surface-water sampling sites, ected surface-water Total-organic nitrogen (0.1 mg/L = censoring limit) censoring (0.1 mg/L = nitrogen Total-organic F F U U U U U U U U U U U Stream station name station Stream and yields for nutrients sel yields and 1/
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re of Environmental Department Florida F, : Flint River at Newton, Ga. Newton, at Flint River at ApalachicolaChattahoochee, River Fla. near Altha, Fla. Chipola River 40, mile Buoy 11A, Fla. Apalachicola River, Ga. Intake, Water County Cobb - River Chattahoochee Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River Montezuma, Ga. at Flint River Ga. nearPutney, Flint River Ga. Newton, at Flint River at ApalachicolaChattahoochee, River Fla. near Altha, Fla. Chipola River 40, mile Buoy 11A, Fla. Apalachicola River, 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code Hydrologic Hydrologic Mean annual loads 03130008 03130011 03130012 03130011 03130001 03130002 03130003 03130005 03130006 03130008 03130008 03130011 03130012 03130011 6 42 45 47 46 17 30 35 37 41 42 45 47 46 number number Location Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
114 4/ Flint Flint .12 .13 .12 .11 .15 .11 .23 .16 .54 .17 .14 .10 .39 .28 – 1.1 1.0 yield (tons per Mean annual drainage area) square mile of
3/ 149 172 337 396
6.4 50.5 5.7 237 93.7 3.9 3.9
26.2 38.9 42.0 71.5 22.2
– – – –
– – – – – – –
– – – – –
0.4 0.8 0.8 1.4 Chattahoochee Range of Range of 1.8 9.4 9.6 9.5 130 1.1 estimates 79.2 22.2 23.5 36.1 10.4 44.0 – of annual load standard errors 125
230 250 363 416 35.1 2,140 79.5 2,320
22.3 26.1 21.0
1,750 1,260 1,700 1,590 –
– – – – – – – –
– – –
– – – –
(tons) , Apalachicola 110 106 4.7 162 103 5.2 7.5 13.2 10.5 11.6 960 365 313 312 2/ parentheses) 1,280 1,830 (1972; 1990) (1972; 1990) (1981; 1973) (1986; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1982) (1981; 1976) (1986; 1973) (1989; 1973) (1989; 1990) (1988; 1990) (1986; 1983) (1988; 1990) (1985; 1987) (1985; (water years in (water (1981,82; 1990) (1981,82; Range of annual load Geological Survey] load 142 151 205 180 608 647 822 (tons) 39.3 11.2 20.3 38.6 15.1 13.8 1,740 2,070 1,320 Mean annual annual Mean tion Division; U, U.S. tion Division; 68 57 39 71 68 nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent 138 147 179 174 188 124 121 256 329 197 187 limit Greater than or equal to censoring equal to censoring 1 3 0 1 0 7 3 0 1 26 24 27 18 32 14 25 mg/L = censoring limit) mg/L Less than than Less Numberof nutrient observations censoring limit 90 90 90 89 90 90 90 89 90 90 90 90 89 90 90 water sampling sites, by sampling sites, by water
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1972v90 1972 1972 1972 1973 1972 1972 1981 1973 1972 1972 1972 1972 1981 1985 1985 Period of estimates record for 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 8/ 5/ 5/ 9/ 9/ 5/ nutrient load 5,8/ G G gulation; G, Georgia Environmental Protec Environmental G, Georgia gulation; Dissolved ammonia ammonia (0.02 Dissolved G G U U U U U U G ents for selected surface- U U U U Stream station name Stream and yields for nutri 1/ G
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re Florida of Environmental Department F, : Ga. Chattahoochee River Cornelia, Ga. near River Chattahoochee Intake, - Gwinnett Water County Chattahoochee River Ga. Intake, - DeKalb County Water Chattahoochee River Ga. Intake, Big Creek - Roswell Water Ga. Intake, Water County Cobb - River Chattahoochee Intake, Ga. - Atlanta Water Chattahoochee River Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. at Atlanta, Ga. at I-285, River Chattahoochee Sweetwater Creek near Austell, Ga. Ga. Fairburn, near River Chattahoochee Ga. Whitesburg, near River Chattahoochee Point, Ga. West at River Chattahoochee Intake, Ga. Water - Columbus Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. near Jonesboro, Flint River Ga. near Fayetteville, Flint River 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code Hydrologic Mean annual loads Mean annual 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130003 03130004 03130005 1 3 4 5 6 7 12 15 16 17 19 22 25 30 32 33 number number Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
115 4/ Flint .11 .02 .05 .11 .14 .09 .06 .06 .06 .55 .43 .42 .72 .45 .54 – 0.12 yield (tons per per (tons Mean annual drainage area) square mile square of
3/ 278 147 256 239 381 135
8.1 3.7 71.0 5.9 81.7 78.8 90.4
11.2 27.0 62.6
– – – – – –
– – – – – – –
– – –
2.0 1.3 1.6 Chattahoochee Range of 5.0 2.5 1.5 estimates 56.8 22.8 33.7 36.8 77.6 25.7 12.8 14.2 14.3 18.5 – of annual load load annual of standard errors 270 375 248
27.5 29.5 47.0 923 66.1 812 869
1,050 1,410 2,020 1,760 1,160 1,650 – – –
– – – – – – –
– – – – – –
(tons) , Apalachicola 247 285 292 46.5 83.3 30.8 10.0 12.7 23.9 23.4 284 333 538 534 459 566 2/ parentheses) (1985; 1989) (1985; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1972; 1990) (1974; 1984) (1981; 1973) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1983) (1985; 1975) (1988; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1988; 1990) (1988; 1984) (1972; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; (water years (water in ological Survey] Range of annual annual load of Range load 143 581 737 497 172 470 510 622 860 (tons) 18.5 21.6 37.9 48.5 74.0 on; U, U.S. Ge 1,110 1,070 Mean annual 47 17 52 45 56 209 108 198 131 101 100 165 176 121 196 213 limit by nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent by Greateror than equal to censoring censoring to equal 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 38 38 14 22 33 28 Less than Number of nutrient observations censoring limit gia Environmental Protection Divisi gia Environmental 89 90 79 90 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 90 90
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1985 1972 1972 1974 1972 1972 1974 1972 1972 1974 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 Period of estimates record for 8/ 5/ 5/ 8/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 5/ 5/ 5/ nutrient load 5,8/ G G gulation; G, Geor ected surface-water sampling sites, ected surface-water Dissolved nitrate (0.01 mg/L = censoring limit) censoring nitrate (0.01 mg/L = Dissolved G F U U G U U U U U U U U Stream station name station Stream and yields for nutrients sel yields and 1/ G
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re of Environmental Department Florida F, Ga. : Flint River nearInman, Ga. Flint River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River nearCulloden, Ga. Flint River Montezuma, Ga. at Flint River Ga. Albany, at Flint River Ga. nearPutney, Flint River Ga. Newton, at Flint River Apalachicola at Chattahoochee, River Fla. near Altha, Fla. Chipola River 40, mile Buoy 11A, Fla. Apalachicola River, Ga.near Cornelia, Chattahoochee River Intake, County Water - Gwinnett Chattahoochee River Ga. Intake, - DeKalb County Water Chattahoochee River Intake, Ga. Big Creek - Roswell Water Ga. Intake, Water County Cobb - River Chattahoochee Intake, Ga. - Atlanta Water Chattahoochee River 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130006 03130008 03130008 03130008 03130011 03130012 03130011 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 Hydrologic Hydrologic Mean annual loads 03130001 1 3 4 5 6 7 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 45 47 46 number number Location Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
116 4/ Flint .74 .34 .62 .58 .42 .59 .64 .36 .65 .24 .22 .32 .42 – 0.78 1.0 1.1 yield (tons per per (tons Mean annual drainage area) square mile square of
3/ 127 229 274 550 443 206 221 246
7.7 4.6 6.9 70.4
10.5 13.9 13.7
1,870 – – – – – – – –
– – – –
– – –
–
1.4 0.8 1.0 Chattahoochee Range of 1.5 4.0 1.8 estimates 26.7 41.6 46.2 66.7 56.8 25.7 61.9 39.6 17.1 159 – of annual load load annual of standard errors 93
100 130 230
4,270 5,570 3,950 4,820 6,310 761 869 2,260 3,460
– 43.3 60.6
2,000 – – –
– – – – – – – – –
– –
–
(tons) , Apalachicola 40.7 7.2 9.0 305 405 33.5 32.0 29.3 498 2/ parentheses) 1,240 1,600 1,120 1,540 1,400 1,140 1,440 (1981; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1984) (1988; 1990) (1972; 1990) (1972; 1990) (1988; 1990) (1986; 1980) (1988; 1990) (1985; 1990) (1985; 1987) (1985; 1975) (1988; 1990) (1972; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1981; 1975) (1981; (water years (water in ological Survey] Range of annual annual load of Range load 126 445 640 (tons) 67.3 84.8 23.3 31.3 57.2 on; U, U.S. Ge 1,180 2,080 2,770 2,200 2,690 3,460 1,700 2,220 Mean annual 37 74 75 73 59 76 192 125 184 258 326 199 217 236 168 205 limit by nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent by Greateror than equal to censoring censoring to equal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less than Number of nutrient observations censoring limit gia Environmental Protection Divisi gia Environmental 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
79,
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
–
1972 1981 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1980 1985 1985 1985 1972 1972 1972 1972 1990 1972 Period of
estimates
record for 5/ 5/ 5/ 9/ 9/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/
nutrient load
gulation; G, Geor G ected surface-water sampling sites, ected surface-water U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Stream station name station Stream and yields for nutrients sel yields and 1/
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re of Environmental Department Florida F, : Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. Ga. at Atlanta, at I-285, River Chattahoochee CreekSweetwater near Austell, Ga. Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River Ga. near Whitesburg, Chattahoochee River Point, Ga. at West Chattahoochee River Intake, Ga. Water - Columbus Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. Jonesboro, near River Flint Ga. nearFayetteville, Flint River nearInman, Ga. Flint River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River nearCulloden, Ga. Flint River Montezuma, Ga. at Flint River Ga. Albany, at Flint River Ga. nearPutney, Flint River 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code 03130008 03130008 Hydrologic Hydrologic Mean annual loads 03130001 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130003 03130004 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130006 12 15 16 17 19 22 25 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 number number Location Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
117 4/ Flint .44 .40 .13 .06 .06 .15 .12 .13 .30 .51 .17 .75 .57 .13 – 0.50 1.2 yield (tons per per (tons Mean annual drainage area) square mile square of
3/ 160 106 136 114
471 7.3 7.3
22.9 70.8 19.9 51.2 74.7 18.3
1,740 1,160 – – – –
– – –
– – – – – –
– –
0.4 0.8 Chattahoochee 10.6-189 Range of 112 1.5 3.6 5.4 9.6 6.6 0.5 estimates 36.6 41.9 42.2 27.2 152 278 – of annual load load annual of standard errors 239 114 584
3,880 99.3 314 970 1,950 1,910
111
14,400 10,800 28.0 46.4
1,480 1,240 – – –
– – – – – –
–
– – – –
– –
(tons) , Apalachicola 7.4 4.6 131 9.9 513 21.2 38.6 96.6 13.3 500 146 2/ parentheses) 1,820 1,260 1,090 (1981; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1972; 1984) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1982; 1984) (1981; 1978) (1986; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1990) (1981; 1973) (1986; 1990) (1986; 1990) (1981; 1972) (1981; 3,280 3,900 (water years (water in ological Survey] Range of annual annual load of Range load 953 169 202 809 477 (tons) 39.7 62.2 69.5 15.9 25.9 41.9 on; U, U.S. Ge 2,900 7,620 7,760 1,540 1,380 Mean annual 53 98 76 64 72 77 153 134 185 204 191 125 169 260 328 188 limit by nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent by Greateror than equal to censoring censoring to equal 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 24 32 12 20 15 104 104 Less than Number of nutrient observations censoring limit gia Environmental Protection Divisi gia Environmental 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1972 1972 1972 1974 1972 1975 1972 1973 1972 1972 1972 1981 1972 1972 1972 1972 Period of estimates record for for record 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 9/ nutrient load 5,8/ G G gulation; G, Geor ected surface-water sampling sites, ected surface-water Total phosphorous (0.02 mg/L = censoring limit) censoring (0.02 mg/L = phosphorous Total G U F U U U U U G U U U U Stream station name station Stream and yields for nutrients sel yields and 1/ G
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re of Environmental Department Florida F, Ga. : Flint River at Newton, Ga. Newton, at Flint River at ApalachicolaChattahoochee, River Fla. near Altha, Fla. Chipola River 40, mile Buoy 11A, Fla. Apalachicola River, near Cornelia, Ga. Chattahoochee River Intake, - Gwinnett County Water Chattahoochee River Ga. Intake, - DeKalb County Water Chattahoochee River Intake, Ga. Creek Big - Roswell Water Ga. Intake, Water County Cobb - River Chattahoochee Intake, Ga. - Atlanta Water Chattahoochee River Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Ga. Ga. at Atlanta, at I-285, River Chattahoochee CreekSweetwater near Austell, Ga. Ga. near Fairburn, Chattahoochee River Ga. near Whitesburg, Chattahoochee River Point, Ga. at West Chattahoochee River 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code Hydrologic Hydrologic Mean annual loads 03130008 03130011 03130012 03130011 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130001 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 03130002 1 3 4 5 6 7 42 45 47 46 12 15 16 17 19 22 number number Location Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
118 4/ Flint Flint .05 .21 .26 .29 .31 .10 .09 .10 .10 .08 .07 .07 .08 .03 – 0.10 yield (tons per 11/ Mean annual drainage area) square mile of
3/ 179 215 132 159 431
1.4 1.8 6.1 7.5 33.7 79.0 6.1 51.2
159
– – – – –
– – – – – – – –
–
11/ 0.3 0.6 2.2 1.1 1.2 8.9 Chattahoochee Range of Range of estimates 16.8 33.5 24.7 16.8 60.4 13.4v93.1 13.1 10.4 18.5 – of annual load standard errors standard 115
756 74.9 271 496 923 665 75.2 247
13.5 18.5
1,290 1,070 2,180 3,070 –
– – – – – – – –
– – 11/
– – – –
(tons) , Apalachicola 203 3.1 6.0 107 149 331 291 149 18.6 27.4 22.2 161 201 456 634 2/ parentheses) (1986; 1990) (1986; 1990) (1988; 1990) (1985; 1987) (1985; 1987) (1985; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1972; 1990) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1988; 1975) (1981; 1975) (1988; 1983) (1985; 1975) (1988; (water years in (water (1988; 1983, 84) 1983, (1988; Range of annual load Geological Survey] load 8.2 474 440 176 267 541 540 473 191 (tons) 12.8 45.6 61.1 52.6 11/ 1,140 1,590 Mean annual annual Mean 6 tion Division; U, U.S. tion Division; 41 73 75 75 56 71 52 83 36 206 239 160 208 149 120 limit Greater than or equal to censoring equal to censoring sites, by nutrient constituent group nutrient constituent by sites, 7 1 0 0 0 1 8 6 1 2 4 14 12 18 42 13 Less than than Less .02 mg/L .02 mg/L = censoring limit) Numberof nutrient observations censoring limit 90 90 90 90 90 90 79 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1972 1978 1985 1985 1985 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1974 1983 1981 Period of estimates record for 9/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 5/ nutrient load gulation; G, Georgia Environmental Protec Environmental G, Georgia gulation; G Dissolved orthophosphate(0 Dissolved F U U U ents for selected surface-water sampling ents for selected surface-water U U U U U U U U U U U Stream station name Stream and yields for nutri 1/
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re Florida of Environmental Department F, : Chattahoochee River - Columbus Water Intake, Ga. Water - Columbus Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. near Jonesboro, Flint River Ga. near Fayetteville, Flint River near Inman, Ga. Flint River Ga. Griffin, above Flint River near Culloden, Ga. Flint River at Montezuma, Ga. Flint River Ga. at Albany, Flint River Ga. near Putney, Flint River Ga. at Newton, Flint River Fla. Chattahoochee, at Apalachicola River Altha, nearFla. Chipola River 40,mile Buoy 11A, Fla. Apalachicola River, near Columbia, Ala. Chattahoochee River Ga. at Newton, Flint River 90 water years—Continued90 water – unit code Hydrologic Mean annual loads Mean annual 03130002 03130003 03130004 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130005 03130006 03130008 03130008 03130008 03130011 03130012 03130011 03130003 03130008 25 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 45 47 46 30 42 number number Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. liter; per milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
119 4/ Flint Flint .03 – 0.02 yield (tons per Mean annual annual Mean drainage area) square mile of
3/ 147
9.4
–
–
1.4 Chattahoochee Range of Range of estimates 17.6 – of annual load imilar to discharge data for data imilar to discharge standard errors 74 at the Chattahoochee River at West West at River Chattahoochee 74 at the
733 37.6
–
– –
(tons) , Apalachicola 126 12.9 2/ parentheses) (1988; 1973) (1988; 1983) (1985; al Survey, oral commun., 1994). al Survey, (water years(water in for 1972 for Range of annual load Geological Survey] flow data from a time lag of flow data collected at at collected data of flow lag time a from data flow ess than 30 percentess than30 load of the estimates. oring limit (Baier, G., Cohn, T., and Gilroy, E., U.S. Gilroy, and T., G., Cohn, (Baier, oring limit Flint River basin. Flint River
–
a for to three years one are s imates are greater than 30 percent of the estimates. of the load 30 than percent are greater imates load 358 (tons) 25.9 Mean annual annual Mean · Load estimates Load 2 anklin, U.S. Geologic · rient constituent group rient constituent 2 Chattahoochee
tion Division; U, U.S. tion Division; – 20 31
limit when discharge dat oncentration data are l June 10, 1975. June 10, 1975. Greater than or equal to censoring equal to censoring dissolved nitrate total inorganic nitrogen 85 52 Less than than Less Numberof nutrient observations tha (02359000) Fr tha (02359000) (Marvin r sampling sites, by nut r sampling sites, by censoring limit pre-reservoir conditions. pre-reservoir n n data greater were than or equal to the cens ent-concentration data tan ta, because the standard error of the load est load of the error the standard ta, because 90 90 S dard error
d on simulated nutrient-c on simulated d () tan – – 1974 to 1977 water years are based on synthesized synthesized based on years are 1977 water 1974 to
+ S dard error () 2 + 1972 1975 Period of of Period estimates record for 2 5/ nutrient load gulation; G, Georgia Environmental Protec Environmental G, Georgia gulation; rvoir reached maximum power pool reached maximum power rvoir in the less than estimate was or equal to 30 percent. total nitrogen take are representative of take are representative dissolved ammonia U ved-organic nitrogen at any sites within the at Apalachicola nitrogen any ved-organic tan U S dard error tan () S dard error () drainage area. drainage the longer than period of record for nutri = - n ÷ σ = ------= Stream station name Stream - ted, because less than 20 percent of concentratio of 20 percent because less than ted, ountstown (02358700) and the Chipola River near Al near River Chipola the and (02358700) ountstown nd the standard error of the load estimates base estimates load the of error standard nd the and yields for nutrients for selected surface-wate selected for and yields for nutrients r one years or more with da nutrient-concentration hicola River, Buoy 40, mile 11A (31010022) for (31010022) 40, mile 11A Buoy hicola River, 1/
F, Florida Department of Environmental Re Florida of Environmental Department F, Sample size : Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee, Fla. Chattahoochee, at Apalachicola River Altha, nearFla. Chipola River total organic nitrogen tan Sdarddeviation ------90 water years—Continued90 water = total inorganic nitrogen – unit code Hydrologic Mean annual loads Mean annual 03130011 03130012 tan S dard error 45 47 tan tan the Apalachicola River near Bl the Apalachicola River years with water-quality data a with water-quality years Geological Survey, written commun., 1993). written commun., Survey, Geological Point and the Chattahoochee River - Columbus Water In Water - Columbus River Point and the Chattahoochee S dard error S dard error Annual loads could not be estima Annual loads could Mean annual yield = mean load The period of record for load estimates is Load estimates for the Apalac Load estimates are not used fo used not are estimates Load the rese and 1974, October 16, began Point Lake West in Storage Annual loads were only included for years where the variance where the years included for only loads were Annual for dissol loads calculate to available not were Data / / number number 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8 9 10/ 11/ Location (figure 16) (figure Table 16. per liter; milligrams [mg/L, sources name station Stream River basin, 1972 River
120
Frick, E.A., Buell, G.R., and Hopkins, E.H.—NUTRIENT SOURCES AND ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENT WATER-QUALITY DATA, APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA, 1972-90— U.S. Geological Survey WRIR 96-4101