HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2019 Fairhope Environmental Advisory Board Meeting MinutesFEAB February 20 19
FEAB MEETING MINUTES
February 8th, 2019
3:00 p .m .
Conference Room, Public Works, 555 South Section Street, Fairhope, AL
Member Attendees: Gary Gover, Jim Horner, Jeanine Normand, Ron Allen , Tony
Pr itch ett, Rick Frederick and Mike Shelton
City Council: None
City of Fairhope: Kim Burmeister, Planning and Zoning Department; Richard Peterson,
Utilities Superintendent; Jay Whitman, Assistant Water and Sewer Superintendent; Sean
Saye, Fairhope Docks Manager
Honored Guests: John Manelos
Minutes taken by: Kim Burmeister
FEAB MINUTES:
January 11, 2019 FEAB minutes were approved as amended.
January 25, 2019 FEAB Special Meeting minutes were approved as amended (Tony
added a few comments).
Discussion of Items:
1. Fairhope Docks Marina
Sean Saye introduced himse lf as the new marina manager overseeing the Fairhope
Do cks. He said that the marina is moving towards Clean Marina standards, but a
lot of the upgrades have more to do with resiliency than environmental
stewardship. However environmental upgrade s have taken place over the past year,
notably:
1. Parking lot stabilization
2. ew pump out station
More to come in the next 2 years.
Native plant assessment is forthcoming so that the marina may be landscaped with
native plants as much as possible. Addition of a full -service boat yard is just in the
discussion stage. Per Kim, addition of a boat yard would require ADEM
permitting. Sean said the Harbor Board is reviewing aspects of the possibility of a
boat yard, and it is only in discu ss ion at this point. Sean suggested FEAB
members and citizens interested in the status of boat yard considerations attend
upcoming Harbor Board meetings.
FEAB February 2019
Tony suggested FEAB be kept in the loop on boat yard considerations as well as
contracts for boat yard manager. He wants to make sure the boat yard contract,
when written, will include strict Clean Marina guidelines .
Gary is concerned about liveaboards living at the marina contributing to the high
pathogen contamination of Fly Creek. Sean said that the liveaboards at the
Fairhope Docks slots mostly use the facilities at the marina, and most do not have
heads hooked up. He is confident there are no liveaboards illegally releasing gray
or black water (sewage) into the marina.
2. Fly Creek -water quality
The 2018 Fly Creek Water Quality Assessment from Mobile Baykeepers (testing
for enterococcus) is attached . According to the Mobile Baykeepers report ,
intermittent high levels of bacteria in the lower watershed are likely resulting from
sewage/septic , stormwater and/or lack of boat pumpouts.
Jay said the wet well at the Woodlands has been tested for leaks and is not leaking.
John asked if there was a septic tank inventory. RP said that the City does not have
one and that the City of Fairhope 's priority is to make sure the waste water
treatment plant and infrastructure is maintained. Septic tanks are regulated and
checked by the Baldwin County Health Dept, though Fairhope does have some
oversight and enforcement if they fail. City can turn off water to dwellings , for
instance , if they have septic tank failures , standing sewage , that are not being fixed
or repaired.
RP mentioned that phosphorus is an indicator of human impact but does not
necessarily come from septic or waste water from homes. It could come from
marine sources (boats).
Jeanine said that while some older septic tanks are grandfathered in , new ones (and
ones that need significant repair) can only be placed or repaired on grounds that
perc.
Tony asked about the ph of our drinking water, is it acidic? RP said it's 7.8 , not
acidic.
John said the ADEM water quality testing for 2018 results for Fly Creek showed
much higher pathogen counts than previous years. Kim thought the spike could be
from the excessive rain events in 2018 (84 +" for 2018).
RP said the upcoming Fly Creek Watershed Study will include a water quality
analysis. Marlon Cook will be sampling all watersheds for e.coli for 10 storm
events. This sampling plan is attached.
FEAB February 2019
Rick said the upcoming Fly Creek Watershed Study will encompass the entire
Eastern Shore from Daphne to Bailey 's Creek . It may be renamed to be more
accurate.
Jeanine said she has received emails and phone calls from concerned citizens
wondering what the City is doing to address high fecal coliform in Mobile Bay.
Gary will get with Mike after today's meeting to discuss volunteer water sampling.
Gary asked RP how the FEAB can assist with waste water treatment improvements
and infrastructure upgrades. RP said "show support for the 5 year capital
spending plan". Two of the major components of the 5-year capital spending plan:
1. Transmission upgrade and
2. Purchase of ( 4) vessels to temporarily store waste water during high flow
events. This will allow the plant to operate more efficiently. Ves sels will
range in capacity from 150 ,000 to 300 ,000 gallons.
John suggested FEAB and all citizens show up at the council meeting Monday
Feb . 11 to show support for RP 's funding request ($36K) for SCADA system
upgrades.
Jay said a technical service department is also needed.
Rick said he recently received a call from a City Councilman asking about
dredging of Fly Creek. Citizen or citizens along Fly Creek are reaching out to
Council persons to encourage dredging as key component or proposed action of
the Fly Creek Watershed Study.
3. Triangle Property
Ron said the triangle property at the entrance to Fairhope (Fly Creek watershed) is
being studied for proposed bike trails.
ext meeting is Friday, March 81\ 3 p.m. at the Fairhope Public Library Boardroom.
FEAB CONTACT INFORMAT ION :
Chairman: Gary Gover govers@bellsouth.net (251) 990-8662
Members:
Rick Frederick rfrederick@mobilebayneg.com (251) 380-7941
Ron Al len ron.allen1@att.net (251) 210-4226
Shawn Gra ham ShawnDG12@aol.com (251) 928-5120
Jeanine Normand drjnormand@aol.com (251) 928-2284
Tony Pritc h ett agritchettassoc@gmail.com (251) 990-5185
Nicole Love nico lemrobinson@hotmail.com (407) 312-1362
Ben Frater ben.frater@gmail.com (404) 314-8815
Mike Shelton yaugon3@gmail.com (251) 990-2995
Jim Horner no ne (251) 928-9722
FEAB February 2 019
CITY CONTACTS:
Jimmy Conyers, City Council jimmy.conyers@fairhopeal.com
Kim Burmeister, Planning and Zoning Department kim .burmeister@fairhopeal.com
Nancy Milford, Planning and Zoning Department Nancy .milford@fairhopeal.com
(251) 928 -8003 City of Fairhope
Submittal D ate : May 9, 18
Submitte d To: City of Fairhope
Pr epared by: Casi Callaway , E x ecutive Director and B ay keeper; Cade Kistler, Program
Director; Laura Jackson, Program Coordinator; Diego Calderon-Arrieta and Ellie
Mallon, AmeriCorps P atrol Members
BAYKEEPER
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 6
Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 6
Findings ................................................................................................................................. 6
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 8
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 9
Watershed Characteristics .................................................................................................... 10
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 11
Impacts of Development on Fly Creek ................................................................................ 12
SCOPE AND METHODS OF STUDY ...................................................................... 14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 15
Overall ................................................................................................................................... 15
Bacteria ................................................................................................................................. 16
Optical Brighteners .............................................................................................................. 17
pH ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................................. 19
Turbidity ............................................................................................................................... 19
Stormwater Pollution, Aging Infrastructure, and High Bacteria Levels ............................. 20
Site Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 21
Site Summary: FCHO .......................................................................................................... 21
Site Summary: FCCT ............................................................................................................ 23
Site Summary : UTHR .......................................................................................................... 25
Site Summary: FCHN .......................................................................................................... 27
Site Summary: FCCS ............................................................................................................ 29
Site Summary : FCSE ............................................................................................................ 31
Site Summary: FCSW ........................................................................................................... 33
Site Summary: FCBA ............................................................................................................ 35
Site Summary: FCDT ........................................................................................................... 37
Site Summary: FCDH ........................................................................................................... 38
Site Summary: FCSP ............................................................................................................. 40
Site Summary : FCMO .......................................................................................................... 42
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 43
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 45
APPENDIX A-DATA TABLES ............................................................................... 49
APPENDIX B -PARAMETERS TESTED ............................................................... 55
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mo bile Baykeeper, :
Table of Fi ures
Figure 1. Topographic map of Fly Creek Watershed ...................................................................... 9
Figure 2 -Ma p sh owing City of Fairhope sewer infrastructure ................................................. 11
Figure 3 -Map showing 109 septic ystems in the Fly Creek Watershed ................................. 12
Figure 4 -P ermitted point source discharges in the Fly Creek Watershed ............................... 14
Figure 5. Map of Fly Creek sam pling sites wi th their associa ted site cod es .............................. 15
Figure 6. Enterococcus samples categorized by occurrence ........................................................ 17
Figure 7. Ti m e series of optical brightener measurements ........................................................... 17
Figure 8. Time se ri es p lot of op tic al b righten ers and enterococcu s fro m site FCHO ............. 18
Figure 9. Time series of pH measurements received from all sampling lo cations ................... 18
Figure 10. Ti m es series of disso lved oxygen measurements from all sa m pling locations ....... 19
Figur e 11 -Time series of turbidi ty m eas urem en ts from all sa mpling locations ..................... 20
Figure 12. FCHO sampling site ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 13. FCCT sa m pling site ......................................................................................................... 23
Figu re 14. THR sampling site ........................................................................................................ 25
Figur e 15. FCH sa m pling site ........................................................................................................ 27
Figure 16. FCCS sa m pling site .......................................................................................................... 29
Figur e 17. FCSE sa m pling site .......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 18. FCSW sampling site ......................................................................................................... 33
Figur e 19 . FCBA sampling site ......................................................................................................... 35
Figur e 20 . FCDT sa m pling site ......................................................................................................... 37
Figu r e 21. FCDH sampling site ........................................................................................................ 39
Figure 22. FCS P sa m pling site .......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 23. FCMO sampling site ........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 24. Map illu strating FCHO sampli ng site watershed ....................................................... .44
Figure 25. FCDH and FC P Lo ca ted ear Sewer Main Li n e .................................................... .46
List of Tables
Table 1. Applica bl e ADEM Wa t er Q uality Standards for F ly Creek .......................................... 10
Table 2 . Abbrevi a ted Summary of R es ults fro m 2004 ADEM Water Q uality Study .............. 11
T a ble 3. FCHO sa mpling site wa t er qu ality d ata ........................................................................... 22
Table 4 . FCCT sa m pling site water quality data ............................................................................. 24
Table 5. THR sampling site water quality d ata ............................................................................ 26
Table 6. FCH sa m p ling site wa ter quali ty d ata ........................................................................... 28
Table 7. FCCS sa mpling site water q uality d ata ............................................................................. 30
Table 8. FCSE sa mpling site wa ter quality d ata ............................................................................. 32
Table 9. FCSW sa mpling site wa ter qu ality d ata ............................................................................ 34
Table 10. FCBA sa m pling site water quality d ata .................................................. 36
Table 11. FCD T sampling site water quality data .......................................................................... 38
Table 12. FCDH sa m pling site water q uality data ........................................................................ .40
Table 13. FCS P sampling site water quality data ........................................................................... .41
Table 14. FCMO sampling site water quality data ........................................................................ .43
Table 1A. Sites FCBA, FCCS, and FCCT water quality data ....................................................... 50
Table 2A. FCD H, FCD T, and FCH water q uality data ............................................................ 51
Table 3A. FCHO, FCMO, and FCSE water quality data ............................................................. 52
Table 3A. FCS P , FCSW, and UTHR water qu ality data ............................................................... 53
Table 4A. Table of Fly Creek metad ata ........................................................................................... 54
M O B ILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, ,
Table SA. Fly Creek sampling site ID key ....................................................................................... 54
DEFINITIONS
❖ Acidic -A quality of a liquid when it has a pH value less than 7. Acidic waters can
have a negative impact on aquatic species as pH levels decrease below 5.
❖ Conductivity - A type of measurement that indicates the capacity of water to
conduct electricity. Conductivity can indicate the presence of metals, salts, or other
conductive materials in the water column.
❖ Colony Forming Units /l00mL (CFU /l00mL) -Units of measurement that indicate
the concentration of bacterial colonies in a 1 00mL-sample of water.
❖ Dissolved Oxygen -Oxygen that is dissolved into a body of water. D issolved
oxygen is critical for survival of aquatic species and can decrease rapidly when
organic matter Qawn clippings, sewage, leaves, etc.) is added to the waterway .
❖ Duplicate - A quality assurance / quality control method when another sample is
taken in the same area to confirm that the bacteria levels are very representative and
not an estimate.
❖ Enterococcus - A type of bacteria that indicates contamination from sewage or fecal
matter that can survive in saltwater and freshwater.
❖ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Federal executive agency responsible for
protecting environmental health and human health.
❖ Federal standards of Enterococcus for designated swimming waters -The safe level
for swimming is determined by the EPA to be 104 colony forming units (CPU) of
Enterococci 100 mL of water. At this le vel it is estimated that approximately 3% of
healthy adult swimmers will become ill. These rates may be higher for children,
pregnant women, the elderly, or those with weakened immune systems.
❖ Failing sewer main - A broken pipe or line in the sewage system that can release
human waste into nearby water bodies .
❖ Failing septic system -A chamber through which domestic wastewater (sewage)
flows for treatment and if failing, the system may re lease waste without proper
treatment into nearby water bodies
❖ Fecal contamination - A type of contamination resulting from human or animal
feces entering a waterbody.
❖ Fluorometer -D evice that can detect the concentration of optical brighteners in a
water sample .
❖ Optical brighteners -Chemicals used in laundry detergents that indicate
sewage / septic contamination of a water body.
❖ Most Probable Number (MPN) Enterococcus (100CFU/100mL) -Units of
measurement that indicate the most probable number of Enterococcus bacteria in a
1 00mL-sample.
Mobile Baykee p er, !
❖ ephelom etric Units T ) -nits of measurement used to indicate turbidity
(cloudiness of water); a higher value indicates higher cl oudiness.
❖ pH -Type of measurement that indicates the aci dity (a cid ) or alkalini ty (base) of a
water body.
❖ R ecreati o n al waters -Waters in the S that are used frequently for activities like
. . . swi mmmg or canoe1ng.
❖ Salinity -Type of measurement that m easures how much salt is in the water.
❖ Sewage / septic waste -Human waste from broken sewer lin es or septic syste ms that
can enter water b odies directly through stormwater runoff.
❖ Stormwater runoff -Rai nwater that carries contamination upon hi tting the gro und
and flows into nearby water b o die s.
❖ Turbidity -T ype of measurement that measures how "cloudy" or unclear the water
b o d y is.
❖ Water Rangers -Web tool th at allows visitors to view water quali ty m eas urements
taken by B aykeeper sta ff at Fl y Creek; app .waterrangers .ca.
Mobile Baykeeper, (
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose:
The Ci ty of Fairhope contracted M obil e Bay keep er to conduct water quality sampling in the
Fly Creek Waters hed to understand and identify potential so urc es of pollution. Th e impetus
for the study arose when high bacteria levels were found in sa mpling during the su mmer of
2017. Mobile Baykeeper took develo p ed a plan, chose loca tions, took sa mples, a nd reviewed
exis ting data o n the Fly Creek Watersh ed . This rep o rt d es cribes th e water quali ty sa mpling
results, d elivers conclusions based o n those results , and provides recommendations to
protect the water quality and physical integrity of Fly Creek as well as safeguard the health of
citizens who love to swi m , fish, and pla y i n the creek .
F ly Creek is relatively buffered from man y pollutants with much of its landscap e covered
with forest, wetla nds, and other n atural vegetation. That land cover, however, is rapidly
chan gi ng as Fairh o p e grows, threatening the ecological integrity and h ealth of the creek and
watershed. If development takes place without proper best management practices it can
create severe harm through siltation of the creek. Aging infrastructure, sewer lin es and septic
tanks pose a threat to water quality and the safety of swi mmers and others recreating in the
creek.
F ly Creek and fores ted areas nearby are important habitats for aquatic and terrestrial species .
The creek contributes to the water quality of Mobile Bay and, as noted in the 2013 Fly Creek
Watershed Restorati on Pl an pre p a red for the City of Fairhope b y Thompson E ngineering,
the creek is an important supplier of cl ea n, fresh water and organic materials t o Mobile Bay.
F ly Creek is used ex tensively for recreatio n and is an essential p art of Fairhope's charm -it
enhances the quality of life for residents of the City and visito r s to the area .
Mobile Baykee p er sampled 12 sites over 24 weeks for e ntero coccu s, o ptical brighte ners,
dissolved oxygen, pH , conductivity, and turbidity an d am bient charac t eristics . Sampling to ok
place from the m os t upstream stretch e of the watershed where waterways were intermittent
and had very low flow to the mouth of Fly Creek at Mobil e Bay. Sites were chosen to help
identify where hi gh bacteria levels were originating. Sampling was performed from land at
sm aller sites and via ka yak at downstream sites.
Findings:
While m ost of the p aram eters sa mpled during this study revealed gen erall y good water
quality, bacteria le vels in the creek remain a concern . Fly Creek's water quality was often safe
for swi mming, however, at times bacteria levels were elevated --exceed ed the Alabam a
D epartment of E nvironmental Management's (ADEM) water quality sta ndards and, most
importantly, precluded using the creek for swimming. R es ults obtained during the study
fou nd Enterococcus (a type of b ac teria that indicates contamination from sewage o r fecal
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
matter) concentrations in Fly Creek above the level allowable (level at which the EPA
estimates ~3% of swimmers will become ill) for swimming a total of 37 times out of the 162
sam ples (28%) taken in the 12 weeks of sampling. The most upstream site in Fly Creek
(FCHO) was an outlier, consistently returning excessive levels of bacteria; if removed from
the calculation, only 19% of the samples were above the standard for swimming. In many of
these remaining cases, however, bacteria levels only slightly exceeded the safe level.
Concentrations of bacteria greater than the E P A threshold were found at least once at 10 of
the 12 sampled sites . In many of these cases, optical brighteners, an indicator that there is
sewage or septic waste in the water, were also found. Turbidity was consistently low as no
major development projects were taking place in close proximity to the creek during the
study period. Evidence exists that d evelop ment projects in the watershed have previously
had significant negative impacts on the creek and resulted in excessively high levels of
turbidity in Fly Creek.
Conclusions:
Mobile Baykeeper sees three overall findings in the Fly Creek Watershed:
1) Intermittent high levels of bacteria in lower waters hed likely resulting from sewage
and septic systems, stormwater, lack of boat pump-outs;
2) High bacteria levels in upper Fly Creek likely resulting from livestock and septic
systems; and
3) A diminished impact of high bacteria levels downstream from the upper watershed
site due to ponds and small volume of water.
The highest bacteria levels were found in the upperm ost reaches of Fly Creek where
agric ulture -especially livestock -play a major role as well as the great potential for leaking
septic tanks. The sources of high level of bacteria found at the sites in the lower reaches of
Fly Creek were more difficult to pinpoint, but it is likely that contributions are mainly from
human wastewater. Finding high le vels of bacteria and the presence of moderate to high
levels of optical brighteners lead to this conclusion for both the upper and lower reaches of
the creek. The lack of a vessel pump-out station at the marina during the period of this study
may have also played a role in high bacteria levels found in the lower reaches of Fly Creek.
It is also clear that the ponds downstream of County Rd. Thirteen have a positive effect by
reducing the concentrations of bacteria from the upper reaches of the watershed, keeping
them out of the areas frequently used for recreation.
Overall, the water quality in Fly Creek is generally good but key changes are needed to
protect the creek long-term. Our findings show that the growth and additional development
pressures are having a small impact now that could grow if left unchecked . Occasional high
bacteria levels indicate issues, most likely with aging septic systems and sewage lines in the
watershed. With the frequency Fairhope citizens swim and kayak in the creek, it is critical to
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mobile Baykeeper, :
implement the key recommendations below to protect public health, water quality in Fly
Creek, and the watershed's value to Mobile Bay and the quality of life of Fairhope residents .
Recommendations:
Fly Creek is a beloved waterway running through the City of Fairhope and out into Mobile
Bay. It is a major reason people are flocking to the community and encouraging Fairhope to
be the fastest growing city in Alabama. In order to maintain that rea on for growth, Fairhope
must undertake all necessary steps to protect this unique and special place.
To address high bacteria levels, four main tasks must be undertaken:
1) Conduct further investigation into Creek Dr/Sunset Point Sewer Main and Lift
Station;
2) Undertake a Septic Tank Inventory and, us ing the results, establish maintenance and
improvement requirements;
3) Immediately install a Pump-Out Station and establish strict usage requirements at the
Fly Creek Marina; and
4) Implement Best Management Practices for livestock and pets to keep animals and
their waste out of the creek.
To address other, long-term threats to the Creek, the following three tasks are needed:
1) Develop a Comprehensive Land Use P lan for the Watershed that incorporates
protection of wooded, wet, and open space needed to allow water purification along
the creek's banks;
2) Encourage and support the creation of a F ly Creek Watershed Man agement Plan;
and
3) Create a Long-Term Monitoring Plan to consistently test water quality challenges for
the most used waterway in Fairhope.
Mobile B aykeeper, <
BACKGROUND
Fairhope, the fastest growing city in Alabama 1
, is d efined b y its n atural resources -es peciall y
its waterways. Fly Creek is particularly important to the community for a multitud e of
reasons. F ly Creek p rovide vital h abitat for m an y aquatic and terrestrial sp ecies, affects
water quali ty in Mobile B ay, a nd is p rofo undly enjoyed by citi zens of Fairhop e for
recreation. Its headwa ters are crucial to supporting agric ulture in Fairhope and Baldwin
Co un ty and the lower reaches of the creek are en joyed for swimming, boating, fishing,
canoeing, and kayaking. The health and functions of the creek are crucial to the quality of
life in Fairhope.
The creek is also subject to intense d eve lopment pressures and ha s been bes et by rapi d
change as more area across the wa tershed is developed an d the percentage of impervious
(paved /hard) surface s increase. Mobile Baykee p er's study evalu ated Fly Creek' water quali ty
and provid es a snapshot of the conditi o n s. To protect and maintain Fly Creek's water
quality, th e City and its residents mu st m ake though tful and firm d ecisio ns regarding
conservation, planning, and restoration.
Figure 1. Topographic Map of Fly Creek Watershed.
MOBILE
BA YKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
Watershed Chara cteristics
Fly Creek is a p erennial stream that drains much of Fairho pe, p ortion s of Ba ldwin County
and a small area in Daphne . The Fly Creek Watershed is slightly more than 5,000 acres and
the main stem o f the creek is approximately 5.3 mil es long .2 Swimming and boating take
place frequentl y d own stream of the Sc eni c 98 Bridge and a m arin a is located a t the mouth of
the cree k. According to the ational Land Cover database from 2006, the majority of the
watershed is forest (30%) and cropland (24%), with pasture (18%) and wetlands /water
(13 %) m aking up much of the rest of the watershed. As the p o pulation of Fairhope
increases, developed area (14% in 2006) is increasing rap idl y.3
Water Quality
ADEM's "Water Use Cl assifi cation" categorizes Fly Creek as "Swimming" and "Fish and
Wildlife". These cla ss ific atio ns mean that p rotective standards for Fly Creek sh o uld allow for
people to swim safely, and the water quality is suitab le fo r fishing and the survival of wildlife .
Water Quality Standards set for "Swimming" waters identify the acceptable ranges of water
quality parameters . A table of stand ards applicable to Fly Creek is below (Table 1).
ADEM Standards for Swimming Waters
T emperature
pH
Dissolved Oxyge n
Enteroco cci
Turbidity
Max= 90 F
6.0 -8.5
DO >5.0 ppm
Geometric Mean <35 CF /100 mL
Sin gle T est Valu e <104 CFU /lO0mL
ot to exceed 50 TU greater than b ackground
Table 1 -Applicable ADEM Wate r Q uality tan d ards for Fly Creek
F ly Creek has demonstrated generally good wa ter quality in p ast studi es . This is ge n erall y
attributed to its low le ve ls of developm ent a nd hi g h leve ls of buffering from forests,
wetlands, and o th er natural landscape s. Res ults from the 2004 study b y ADEM4 are shown
in the table below.
ADE M 2004 Fly Creek Stud y Results Average M ax Min
Water Temperature (°C) 19.5° 28.8° 12.4°
Conducti vity (.u.s / cm) 1,473 48,880 33
Salinity (PPT) 38 0
Di sso lve d Oxyge n (ppm) 9.02 11.7 6.6
pH (S.U.) 5.9 6.98 5.04
Turbidity (NTU) 8 .7 51.4 1.9
Fecal Coliform (CFU /l00mL) 393 >3000 32
Nitrate /Nitrite (ppm) 0.9 42 1.76 0 .106
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
Table 2 -Abbreviated Summary of Results from 2004 ADEM Water Quality Study in Fly Creek.
Infrastructure
According to ADP H data, in the F ly Creek Watershed there are at least 109 septic systems
(Figure 3). For many of these systems there is no information on when they were install ed ,
last repaired or p um ped out, and if they were engineered.
.... 1ll00f'-
Legend
L.,ftSto ......
. Ma-
Fo,w M..,_
;
Figure 2 -Map showing City of Fairhope sewer infrastructure. Baldwin County Sewer Service also has
a marginal amount of sewage infrastructure in the northern most portion of the watershed off of
Highway 181 in the Dunmore and Old Field subdivisions.
A large percentage of the watersh ed has sewage service availab le from Fairhope (Figu re 2) or
Baldwin County Sewer Service (BCSS). Goodwyn Mills and Cawood were tasked with
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
conducting a basic characterization and assessing the City of Fairhope's sewage system
capacity. Their study, completed in August 2017, noted that treatment at the plant was
effective, but there were serious issues with the pipes tasked with carrying the sewage to the
plant. The study states that of the approximately 175 miles of sewage pipe in the City's
system, approximately 60 miles is uninspected unlined clay pipe. Going on to say, "It is
highly probable that this pipe is allowing ground and stormwater to enter the system, as well
as allowing sewage to escape the collection system without ... treatment."5
le<;;cnd
Septic Tanks in Ry U'ff\:Wa1enhed
•
Figure 3 -Map showing 109 septic systems in the Fly Creek Watershed. Data from ADPH.
Impacts of Development on Fly Creek
Over the past decade, Fairhope has experienced substantial population growth and
development. This growth is changing the watershed from a majority of woodlands,
pastures, and cropland into homes, parking lots, and businesses . That paved or covered area
is known as impervious because rainwater (stormwater) doesn't have time to seep into the
ground, but storm water picks up everything-chemicals, sediment, etc.-on the pavement,
parking lots, roofs, etc . and rushes into the nearest waterway. ADEM's 2004 study showed
just 5.4% of the watershed was composed of impervious surface with a Fairhope population
of 12,480. As of July 1, 2016 the U.S. Census Bureau estimates Fairhope's population as
19,421 7, a 55.6% increase since 2004. It is highly likely the amount of impervio us and
developed area has increased in a similar fashion. As Fairhope continues to be one of the
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
fastest growing cities in Alabama, more forested and agricultural lands will be developed.
This development often results in clearing large areas and leaving the ground unprotected.
With steep slopes and moderately erodible soil s, construction in the watershed poses a real
threat of stream siltation or mud rushing into the creek. Effects of this type of siltation can
already be seen in the stretch of F ly Creek between U.S. 98 and Scenic Highway 98 (Image
1). A 201 1 report b y Wayne Ishp hordi ng6 describes sedimen ts originating from construction
of the Regency Shopping Center approximately 5 feet in depth extending 2 miles
down stream of U.S. 98. This becomes clearer when comparing method s of access fro m the
2004 ADEM water quality study to those from Mobile Baykeeper's study. In the 2004
ADEM study, ADEM describes sampling from a boat as far as 1,200 feet upstream of
Scenic High way 98.7
Image 1 -A segment of Fly Cre:ek near site FCCS is heavily impacted with sediment.
During the course of Mobile Baykeeper's study, the first site sampled upstream of Scenic
Highway 98 was approximately 200 feet upstream of the highway and the creek was too
shallow to access via a very shallow d raft kayak Qess than 1 foot) at that point.
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
There are a number of permitted discharges in the Fly Creek Watershed . All but one of these
discharges is from construction projects. The one permitted site not re lated to construction
is the marina at the mouth of the creek.
FlyCreekReportMaps
Permitted Poi nt Source
OIK h•rg e (NPOES) In
Fly Cree k W at rsh e d
•
Fly Cre k W o,t n h d
Bound11 ry
[-;n, H(Rf ( lrftr\, ,._VA USC,<., USf 111 t ,,. tnt
Figure 4 -Permitted point source discharges in the Fly Creek Watershed.
SCOPE AND METHODS OF STUDY
1ml
The primary goal of this study was to identify the source(s) of elevated bacteria levels in Fly
Creek. Secondarily, we attempted to identify any other water quality concerns impairing the
creek. A total of 12 sites (Figure 5) were strategically chosen to eliminate and / or expose
problem areas and identify if the sources of bacteria and other identified issues were
primarily from sewage/septic, stormwater, agriculture, or naturally occurring. Sites spanned
the entirety of the creek with the most downstream sampling site located at the mouth of Fly
Creek and the site furthest upstream at Highway 181.
At each site, Mobile Baykeeper staff tested for and quantified Enterococcus spp. using
Enterolert, an E P A approved test procedure for detection of enterococci. Staff also tested
for optical brighteners using a Turner Designs AquaFluor F lu orometer. Additional analytes
collected included pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.
Conductivity, pH, and total dissolved solids were measured with a Hanna Instruments
HI98130. Turbidity was measured with a Hach 2100Q turbidimeter. Dissolved oxygen was
measured with Alabama Water Watch LaMotte kit and methods (Modified Winkler titration).
Mobile Baykee p er, ·
Physi cal conditions including time, d ate, air and water temperature, climatic conditions, and
tidal conditions were also recorded. A table of thi s d ata is provid ed in Appendix A. All data
collected has been p osted to an d can be accessed on the Water R angers water quality data
app.
-
'Tl
0
.-c-c... ih "'°!: •
FCSW • FO
fe6F>-
FCDT
FCMO '1') "Pcol-f
(") en .,
*UTHR FCHO
"'FCCT
Figure 5. Map of Fly Creek sampling sites with their as ociated site codes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
O v erall
The overall water quality in the creek for di sso lved oxygen, pH , conductivity, and turbidity
ge nerally m e t minimum standards set by the State for the Swimming cla ss ification .
ADEM Standards for Swimming Waters
Temperature
pH
Max= 90 F
6.0-8.5
Disso lved Oxyge n DO > 5.0 ppm
Enterococci
Turbidity
Geometric Mean <35 CF /100 mL
Single Test Value <104 CFU/100mL
Not to ex ceed 50 TU gr ea ter than b ac kground
Disso lved oxyge n values were rarel y less than 6.0. pH values were regularly lower than 6;
although, the water quali ty standard for pH is b etween six and nine, pH valu es slightly lower
than six are n ot es p ecially uncommon or problematic in stream s with hi gh levels of ta nnic
aci d th at come from pine and o ther evergreen trees. Furtherm ore, low pH values are
consistent with previo u s studies in th e creek (ADEM, 200 4) and the physi cal characteristics
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
of the creek. Turbidity was alm os t unilaterally low. Bacteria le vels on the other hand were
concerning . In the h eadwaters of the watershed (FCHO), high bacteria (average -10,796
CFU/100mL, m ax -48,393CFU /100mL), lik ely resulting from li vesto ck in cl ose proximity
to the creek and se ptic syste ms, were prevalent and produced the highest bacteria
concentra tions of the stud y. Luckily the volume of these headwater stream s was so low that
these b acteria levels were not detected at the sites immediatel y d owns tream (FCCT average -
20 CFU /100mL, m ax -82 CFU/100mL). In the lower part of the waters h ed, intermittent
high bacteria levels were found at sites FCMO (average -76 CFU /100mL, max -126
CFU/100mL), FCS P (average -11 8CFU /100mL, max -518 CFU /l00mL), an d FCDH
(average -310 CFU /l00mL, max -2,628 CFU /100mL). Because of the prevalence of
swi mming in this area, these b acteri a levels are more alarming than the hi g h va lues in the
intermittent agric ultu ra l strea m s loc ated in the upper portion of the watershed.
B a cte ri a
Enterococcus is a type of bacteria commonly used as an indicator of fecal contamination in
recreational waters. I t is comm o nl y found in cl ose associa tion with other p athogens (viruses,
bacteria, and other microbes) that cause illnesses in human s. The E PA's water quality
threshold for enterococcus in re creational swimming wa ters is 104 colony forming units
(CFU)/l00mL. E ntero cocc u s was detecte d above this level at 10 sites, with FCHO and
FCDH with the highest conce ntrati ons and frequenc y of high bacteria reading s (Figure 6). At
site FCHO, 14 of 16 samples were greater than 104 CFU/100mL and 10 of those sa mples
were greater than 501 CFU /l00mL (max >48,392 CFU /100mL; Average : 5425.4
CFU /100mL).
Mobile B aykeeper, ·
II
1.
12 11
■\';ah II IOi
12 13
'f
II
12 11
9
I L\.\ I C I) I I 11 I C • I' I .\\ l"III R
Figure 6. Enterococcus samples categorized by occurrence for containing results 0-103
CFU/lO0mL (green/safe), 104-501 (yellow/above federal standards), and >501 CFU/lO0mL
(red/above federal standards for "infrequent" swimming waters).
Optical Brighteners
FCHO
"-IIM•l
~
~
.:l
~ tm u
~ e
~ c 1(1
UJ
.. , .J11c-rococcu,
Figure 7. Time series of optical brightener measurements received from all sampling
locations to date.
180
:!fl
(I
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
Optical brighteners are primarily add ed to laund ry soaps, detergents and commonly found in
laund ry wastewater. B ecause of this, optical brighteners are ideal indicators of leakin g sewer
lines, and / or faili ng septic tanks.
Optical brighteners were fo und in hi gh concentrations (Max -178.7; Average 97 .8 ) at the
FCHO site . The presence of bacteria and optical bri ghteners indicates human wastewater
contamination. Because there is n o record of municipal /private sewage infrastructure (lines,
lift stations, etc.) upstream of FCHO , it appears the upstream septic tanks are contributing
to the high bacteria levels.
I 1-io
.e,
11 ~1
111
-t(l)l
1( ... 1
Figure 8. Time series plot of optical brighteners and enterococcus readings from site FCHO.
*Redundant dates indicate sample was a duplicate for quality control.
pH
pH was relativel y stable throughout the sa mpling period except for D ece mber 20, 2017 and
Feb ru ary 28, 2018 when several sites experienced more acidic conditions with measurements
below 6.0 pH (Figure 9). pH levels just less than 6 are not overly concerning and are often
caused b y influences such as slightly acidic rainfall , needle droppings from pine and cedar
trees, and other n atural factors . The pH result February 21, 2018 at the FCDT samplin g site
featured a pH level (12.8) th at was determined to be an o utlier using the IQR rule.
Additi o n ally, at that site, upstream, and d ownstream o n that date, typical results were found
for all other parameters and no visual evi d ence of an illicit discharge was n oted . It is believed
that this val ue was most likely due to equip m e nt error and there fore the valu e is not included
in the overall study results.
,,
11
II
10
Figure 9. Time series of pH measurements received from all sampling locations to date.
11 1)11
-111)1
,,,1,.
Mobile Baykeeper, ·
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen, an important water quality parameter, is required for aquatic life to
survive. Typically, levels of disso lved oxygen need to be above 5 ppm for a stream to
maintain survival of fish and other aquatic species. Dissolved oxygen was not detected at
critically low levels but was found at levels below 6 ppm at four different sites throughout
the sampling period. These sites were predominantly in the upper part of the watershed. The
levels of dissolved oxygen found in this study (Average -6.98 ppm, Min -4 ppm) were
substantially less than those found in the 2004 ADEM study (Average -9.02, Min -6.6).
FCCT (Average -5 .85 ppm, Min-4 ppm), FCHO (Average -6.57, Min -4.8), FCMO
(Average -7.47, Min -5.4), and UTHR (Average -6.23, Min -5), contained the lowest
dissolved oxygen readings (Figure 10). Low levels of dissolved oxygen can result when
organic matter from sewer overflows, yard wastes, or from other sources is introduced to the
creek. Bacteria consume this organic matter. A component of that consumption is oxygen.
The addition of organic m atter to the creek crea tes a high demand on oxygen, which
removes much of the oxygen from the creek and threatens many aquatic species. This
change over the last decade can indicate a long-term negative trend associated with aging
sewage or septic tank infrastructure, increased population and/ or increased impervious
surfaces.
11
JIJ
4
Figure 10. Times series of dissolved oxygen measurements received from all sampling
locations to date.
Turbidity
Turbidity was consistently low in this study (average -8.6 TU). The highest value (Max -
71.2 NT ) was found in the most upstream site (FCHO) where agricultural encroachment
has caused severe stream bank erosion. There was little to no development or land
disturbance in the watershed d u ring the data gathering portion of the study. Despite the low
averages, turbidity is still considered an important parameter in Fly Creek due to the
overwhelming evidence of a substantial influx of sediment from past construction in the
watershed. Significant care will need to be taken with new development in the watershed and
specifically on land adjacent to or near the creek. The steep slopes, intense rainfall
~l<ll\
-t<<T
-l<l)I I
-t<DI
+.ff 11,
-u11c,
-f(\I()
·f< ... "il
l IIIR
Mobile Baykeeper, :
characteristic of Fairhope's climate, and moderately erodible soils make conditions ripe for
mud filling in the creek when new construction occurs in the watershed.
.....,,,,
Figure 11 -Time series of turbidity measurements from all sampling locations.
Stormwater Pollution, Aging Infrastructure, and High Bacteria Levels
Stormwater runoff and issues with septic and sewer system are associated with heavy rains .
Rainwater running across the ground can carry chemicals, oils and gas from automobiles,
and pet and wildlife waste to waterways. Infrastructure iss ues become apparent during heavy
rains as leaky sewer lines are overwhelmed with rain water and groundwater filling the sewer
lines (infiltration and inflow). Older septic systems or those in areas with shallow water
tab les are not ab le to treat wastewater as gro undwa ter levels rise and submerge the septic
tanks. While the largest rains that took place during this study were on the order of 0.25
inches, they often resulted in high bacteria concentrations. In fact, 18 out of 37 (49 %)
findings of bacteria levels above the EPA threshold occurred after rainstorms greater than
0.2".
Mobile B aykeeper, :
Site Summaries
Image 2 -FCHO -Fly Creek at Highway One Eighty One Representative Photo
Site Description: FCHO -Fly Creek at High way One E igh ty One, is the site furthest
upstream in this stud y. Sampling took p lace where Fly Creek fl ows under Highway 181. At
the site the creek m easures approximately 2.5 feet across and is ~6-12 inches deep. The
immediate surro unding area consists of cattle fields and far ml and with a number of
develo pment projects taking place in the n ea rb y vicinity. The creek has a very small volum e
and is n ea rly d ry at tim es at thi s location . Immediately downstream of thi s site the creek
flows through two man-made ponds.
Results:
pH -The pH level on average was 6.3 with a
minimum pH of 5.78 noted on 2 /28 /18.
Turbidity -Turbidity measurements were relatively
high at FCHO, in-stream erosion seemed to cause a
high reading of 71.8 NTU on 1 /11 /18 after a large
rainstorm. The average for all m easurements was
22.69 NT .
Dissolved Oxygen -D issolved oxygen at the site
has b ee n lower than 6.0 ppm for five sa mple, low
DO valu es are likely the result of high levels of
FCHO
Sampl,t!D
description
=c-10
•ty Crt!Ek@ f' t-·,..,ay (nee scy
·s J
La:nd odC.ayak ·Aale•• ... n::
t lO S6324 II"' &523
)( H,I
r,ec
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mobile Baykee per, :
organic matter at the site causing high demand on oxyg en in the creek. Dissolved oxygen at
the site averaged 6.57.
Optical Brighteners -Optical brighteners were consistently elevated at this site, with most
sa mples featuring a high reading (> 50 ppm) and almost 50% of the readings above 100 ppm .
The average value for optical brighteners at the site was 91.59 ppm.
Bacteria -Likewise, enterococcus recorded for this site was also significantly higher than all
other sites . Eleven samples indicated an enterococcus value above 104 CFU /100mL and
seven of those samples were above 501 CFU/l00mL (above the federal stand ards for
swimming waters). The average va lu e for enterococcus at the site was 10,796 CFU /100mL.
e1e.nd Note• All ct.t~ c.ontillned herein i.s prellm;cclno~. ---<
FCHO
11/30/17
12/7/17 11 :48 FCHO
12/7/17
12/14/17 11 :24 FCHO
12/14/17
12/20/17 11 :01 FCHO
1/11/18 11:39 FCHO
1/23/18 12 :02 FCHO
2/1/18 12:38 FCHO
2/7/18 10 :59 FCHO
2/7/18
2/14/18 10:26 FCHO
2/21/18 11:34 FCHO
2/28/18 11:S2 FCHO
3 18 10:19 FCHO
20
10.2
12 .4
21
18 .7
1S.9
16.5
19 .S
18.2
22 .7
2S .l
16 .8
PINK pH
Indicates
6 .49
6.23
6.25
6.1S
6.4
6.54
6.52
6.32
6.27
YBlOWand RED
83 .S6
77.48
26.69
7S .S4
77 .29
88.43
Table 3. FCHO sampling site water quality data
BLUE Dino~d
BROWNER O.V1••••luu
val UH Indicate Indicate lower YEUOW and RED
cloudier water concentrat ions of
4 .0 ·9 .9 OllYS<Odettcted t--====~
10.0-49.9 l nth•-•
40
0.17 3.13 6.4
0 .17 0 .09 N/A 6.8
0 .39 0 .19 N/A 7.4
0 .33 0.17 N/A 5
0 .22 0 .11 5
0 .2 0 .1 0 .98 10
0 .14 0 .06 N/A 5.6
0 .7 0 .3 N/A
0 .09 0 .0S 20.6 4.8
0.13 0 .06 33.8
0 .18 0 .01 17.9
0.27 0 .14 NA 8
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, :
Site Summary: FCCT
Image 3 -FCCT -Fly Creek County Road Thirteen Representative Photo
Site Description: FCCT -Fly Creek at County Road Thirteen (CR 13) is a site on the main
stem of Fly Creek at the CR 13 b ridge. Sampling took place where the creek passes und er
the bridge . At this site the creek was approximately 25 feet wide and more than 5 feet deep.
The immediate su rrounding area con sisted of forested
land and far mland owned by A uburn University. The
upstream area has a small amoun t of development
going on however most of the waterbodies upstream of
this site have p onds between where the development is
located and FCCT.
Results:
pH -There were three slightly lower pH levels
recorded : 5.92 o n 11 /16 /17, 5.67 on 12 /20 /17, and 5.7
on 2/28 /18. This is not a concern as noted in the
discussions section. The average p H va lue for this site
was 6.26.
FCCT
,.
Ci!)
Turbidity -Turbidity measurem ents were low, ranging Figure 13 . FCCT sampling site
from 0.98-13.1 TU. This indicates a low amount of
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, :
soil and other runoff entering the stream and is typically a good sign in streams similar to F ly
Creek. Turbidity levels may rise in response to soil from poorly maintained construction sites
releasing muddy stormwater runoff into the creek. Average turbidity at the site was 5.99
NTU.
Dissolve d O xygen -Dissolved oxygen at the site was below 6.0 ppm on five occasions.
Average dissolved oxygen was 5.85. The cause of low dissolved oxygen levels at the site is
not immediately clear.
Optical Brighteners -Optical brightener readings have also remained low, with highest
reading of 43.41 ppm.
Bacteria -The location has contained low Enterococcu s readings below the federal
standards for swimming waters and infrequent swimming waters.
aend Note• All diita cont-.-nedhereln i5 prelimi,~1!.._---l
YElLOWand RED
BROWNER BLUE Dluolwd
PINK pH
Indicates
values Indicate ?~c!t"e ~=: YELLOWand RED
doudler ~ter concentrations of
4.621 2.18
11 :30 FCCT 1S.9 6.4S 0 0 .07 0 .03 N/A <20
12/14/17 11 :03 FCCT 16.3 6.38 19.03 0 .06 0.04 N/A <20
12/20/17 10 :41 FCCT 19.7 13.47 0 .08 0.04 N/A <20
1/11/18 11 :27 FCCT 18.S 6 .4S 13 .67 0 .08 0 .04 1.89 6 .2 <20
1/23/18 11 :35 FCCT 16.S 6.25 13 .63 0 .06 0 .04 0 .98 6 .8 <20
2/1/18 12 :13 FCCT 17.7 6.1 14 .41 0 .07 0 .03 N/A 4 <20
2/1/18 <20
2/7/18 10 :37 FCCT 18.6 6 .9S 17 .47 0 .07 0 .03 N/A 6 .1 82
2/14/18 10:07 FCCT 17 .6 6.79 43 .41 0 .06 0 .03 12.2 7.2 N/A
2/21/18 11:06 FCCT 20.6 6.19 18 .49 0 .0S 0.03 13.1 6 .2 20
2/28/18 11 :30 FCCT 21 .4 10 0 .07 0 .03 4.04 5.2 4 .1
3/7/18 10:00 FCCT 17.1 6 .08 14.47 0 .06 0 .03 N/A 6
3 18 <1
Table 4. FCCT sampling site water quality data
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER°
Mobile Baykeeper, :
Site Summary: UTHR
Image 4 -UTHR -Unnamed Tributary to Fly Creek at H
Site Description: UTHR -an unnamed tributary to F ly Creek at Headwaters Rd is a small
perennial stream that contributes flow to Fly Creek. Sampling
UTHR
u ...
took place on the south side of Headwaters Rd where the
creek flows through a small we tlan d complex. The immediate
area is forested however a ubdivision is planned and some
development h as occurred nearby to the cree k. Further away
the neighborhoods of Sandy Ford and R ock Creek surround
the creek. U ps tream of the site there is the nei ghborhood of
Bellaton, so me agriculture including a tree nursery and a dirt
pit. After leaving these areas the creek exits from a large
private pond.
,,f 0Wi~Cf1 fi.d 'Id;
Lal'ld o, KAy •Acceai ,_ .ar<!
f • I . ,.
Results:
pH -The pH levels at the site ranged fro m 6.15-7.23 with an
average of 6.73. 1c11 , 14 l I HR ~.1111phng ~llL
Turbidity -Turbidity measurem ents at the site were low, with the highest reading of 7.67
TU and an average of 4.80 T U. After the time to settle in the large pond upstream of
this site high turbidity values are not expected.
)(
s r i
Mobile Baykee per, :
Dissolved O xygen -Di ssolve d oxygen was lower at this site than m a ny others; almost 50 %
of observations were und er 6.6 ppm with the lowest measurement of 5 ppm. Tho ugh low,
none of these values are outside of the range of water quality standards and don't pose a
signi ficant risk to aquatic life at these leve ls.
Optical B ri ghteners -Optical bri ghten er readings were moderate , ranging from 6.57-25 .11
ppm.
B acte ri a -The o nl y ex ceedance for bacteria occurred on 2 /7 /18, when sampling found
1382 CF /1 00 mL le vels of E nterococcu s. This sam pling occurred right after a brief but
intense thunderstorm that likel y caus ed stormwater runoff to wash wildlife waste in the area
into the creek and may h ave temporarily elevated b acte ri a va l ues. The invento ry of septic
sys tem s in the area shows no septic up stream of this site but if there are any old er systems
upstream they could have also contribu ted to hi gh bacteria values o n this date . Enterococcus
average d 136 CFU/l00mL but if the o ne high sampling that took place immediately a fter a
thunderstorm is excluded the creek averaged only 22.55 CFU /l00mL.
·-Nott . All data conulntd htrtln Is P"liml;:="----1
12 :38
11.04 UTHR lS.4
10:3S UTHR lS.6
12/20/17 10:lS l!THR 19 .7
1/11/18 10:54 UTHR 18
1/23/18 10 :50 UTHR lS.2
2/1/18 11:44 UTHR 18
2/7/18 10:11 UTHR 18 .2
2/14/18 9 :41 UTHR 17 .2
2/21/18 10:35 UTHR 20 .6
2/2B/18 11:03 UTHR 21 .3
3 18 9 :35 UTHR 16 .4
IL ~ I I '
YEI.I.O W ond RED
Indicate h lct,er
PINK pH proboblllty of
Indicates H pt k/Hwace
contamination
6.92 24 .9S
6.SS lS.18
6.26 19
7.23 11 .2
6.5S 10 .29
7.17 9.673
6.85 25 .11
6.76 15 .65
6.46 14 .91
6.lS 13 .77
6.49 10.63
r I'
0 .07 0 .04
0 .08 0 .04
0 .07 0 .04
0 .08 0 .04
0 .08 0.04
0 .07 0 .03
0 .06 0 .03
0 .06 0 .02
0 .01 0 .03
0 .07 0 .03
0 .07 0 .03
BLUE Diss olved
BROWNER Oxy1en n lues
..Jues Indicate Indi cate lower YE LLOW and RED
doudler WM.er concent rat ions of
4.0-9 .9
10.0-49.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.9S
1.65
N/A
N/A
7.S9
7.67
S.06
NA
6.2
5.1
5.6
6 .6
6.2
7.4
8 .8
6.8
5
6.2
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<2 0
<20
N/A
62
28 .S
Mobile Baykeep er, :
Si te Summary : FCHN
Image 5 -FCHN -Fly Creek US Highway 98 Repre entative Photo
Site D escrip tion : Fly Creek at U.S. Highway 98 is a site just upstream of .S. Highway 98
box culvert. The sampling for thi s site took place at the
approximate lo cation of the n ew pedestrian bridge . The creek ' '
is a pproximately 25 feet across and 5 feet dee p at this
FCHN
i7i
'CH
lo cation. In the immedi ate vi cini ty is the Woodlands
neighborhood a n d th e Shoppes at Fairhope. The site is
primarily surrounded by fores t however a large n ew
[ l.Jond .. Ka ,A.ocffsi... ,.a-,:!
d evelopment is being constructed just upstream of this site.
Immediately d ownstream of the si te the creek fl ows through
a large b ox culvert under U.S. Highway 98.
Results:
pH -The pH levels ranged fro m 6.5-7 .6 3 with an average of
6.94.
U I 91141
I 1g11rc 15. I CH 'iampling site
Turbi dity -Turbidi ty measurements were relatively low, with the highest reading of 11.7
TU. Turbidity averaged 6.89 NTU at the site .
)(
M O B ILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, '.
Dissolved Oxygen -Dissolved oxygen at the site ranged from 6-8 ppm with an average of
7.08 ppm.
Optic al Brighteners -Optical brightener readings were relatively low for this site, with
readings between 0.986-40.19 ppm. Readings at the site averaged 18.90 ppm.
Bacteria -The location has contained low Enterococcus readings with a maximum of just
40 CFU/100mL and an average of 22.55 CFU /100mL.
l
1end Note• All ct.ta contai ne d herein Is p<ellml:="----1
11/16/17 13 :43
11/16/17
11/30/17 10 :S4
12/7/17 10:07
12/14/17 9 :36
12/20/17 9 :23
1/11/18 10:30
1/23/18 9 :'3
2/1/18 10 :29
2/7/18 9:21
2/14/18 8:53
2/21/18 9 :32
2/28/18 10:04
3 18 8:50
bk 6 f ( H
FCHN 16 .9
FCHN 18 .S
FCHN 14.6
FCHN 14 .4
FCHN 19.5
FCHN 17 .8
FCHN 16.1
FCHN 16.1
FCHN 17.7
FCHN 17.3
FCHN 20.5
FCHN 21 .2
FCHN 16.1
I 1ph 1
PINK pH
Indicates
6.S
7.63
7.51
6 .91
6.58
7.13
6 .89
6 .98
7.59
6 .97
6 .53
6.42
6.61
!CC qu.
BROWNER
value5 indicate ~n:.~~ne ~=:
d oud ler water concem:mJonsof
BLUE Dlssoh,ed
YELLOW ancl RED
0 0 .07 0 .03 10 .4 <20
20
7.S9 0 .07 0.03 4.71 40
6.788 0 .07 0.03 N/A 7.2 20
27 .4 0 .06 0.03 N/A 8 <20
15.41 0 .06 0 .03 N/A 6 .4 40
26 .5 0 .07 0 .04 3.65 7.4 <20
15 .89 0 .08 0 .04 2.92 8 20
13 .4' 0 .07 0 .04 N/A 7.4 <20
22 .99 0 .06 0 .04 N./A 7.4 <20
<I0.19 0 .05 0 .03 11.7 N/A N/A
21.07 0 .05 0 .03 8.87 6 .2 <20
14 .28 0 .07 0 .04 S.97 6 19.9
34 .18 0 .03 0.1 NA 19.3
d,,
M O B ILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, :
Site Summary: FCCS
Image 6 -FCCS -Fly Creek behind Eastern Shore Cosmetic Surgery
Representative Photo
Site Description: FCCS -Fly Creek b ehind Eastern Shore Cosmetic Surgery is the site
immediately down stream of .S . Highway 98 (about 800 feet downstream). While there was
little evide n ce of human activity in the area, anecdotal evidence suggests boats could once
access this rea ch . I t is now extrem ely shallow and shows the tell ta le signs of excessive
siltation from poor upstream construction practices.
pH -T he pH level on average h as been 6.99 with a
maximum value of 8.13 observed on 1/11/2018.
Turbidity -T urbidity was very low with values
ranging from 2.39 T -18 TU . The average
turbidi ty at the site was 8.30 NTU.
Dissolved Oxygen
D issolved oxygen at the site has b een high, with all
FC CS
sa plelD
~i0C1
nut I ~ ~lt'l p -
ocs
CCI!
LaAd or ,t(ay,11k ,Acctui... "" nc
• 563U IT .., ;•
X
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER"
values recorded greater than 7.6 ppm. The average dissolved oxygen at the site was 8.08
ppm. This is a healthy level of dissolved oxygen for aquatic life.
Optical Brighteners
Mobile Baykeeper,:
Optical brighteners concentrations have also remained low, with the highest reading of 33.71
ppm. The average optical brightener value at FCCS was 16.44 ppm . This indicates there was
very little human wastewater in the creek at this location.
Bacteria
The location has frequently contained low Enterococcus readings below the federal
standards for swimming waters and infrequent swimming waters, with the exception of
2/7/2018 and 2/21/2018 . Enterococcus levels of 976 CFU/100mL measured on 2/7/2018
is likely due to stormwater runoff from wildlife waste, pet waste, and any failing septic or
leaky sewer lines upstream of this location. The average enterococcus concentration at the
site was 111 CFU /100mL but is reduced to 39 CFU /100mL if the post thunderstorm
sample is not included.
send Note-All data contained herein Is prellml.;=.,~__,
11/16/17 15 :40
11/30/17 12:00
12/7/17 10 :38
12/14/17 10:04
12/20/17 9 :49
1/11/18 10 :10
1/23/18 10 :25
1/23/18
2/1/18 11 :10
2/7/18 9:47
2/14/18 9 :19
2/21/18 10:07
2/28/18 10:36
3 18 9:11
1k -T
FCCS 17 .2
FCCS 18.S
FCCS 14 ,8
FCCS 14.S
FCCS 19 .9
FCCS 17.9
FCCS 16
FCCS 16.2
FCCS 18
FCCS 17.5
FCCS 20.7
FCCS 20.6
FCCS 16.7
PINK pH
lndlc:ates
6.87
7.75
7.52
7.04
6.43
8.13
6.85
7.26
6.8
6.79
6.52
6 .05
6.82
t,
YEUOW and RED
1.602 0 .07 0 .03 18 8 .2 <20
7.01 0 .07 0.03 2 .39 8 40
8.049 0 .07 0.03 N/A 8 .6 40
17 .87 0 .05 0.03 N/A 8 .4 <10
13 .08 0 .07 0.03 N/A 7.6 40
15 .42 0 .07 0 .04 4 .43 8.2 20
11 .51 0.01 0.03 3.16 8.2 62
40
15 .59 0.08 0.03 N/A 8.6 <20
21 .6 0.05 0 .03 N/A N/A
33 .71 005 0 .03 14 8.6 N/A
30.7 0 .06 0.03 S.63 7.6 126
15 .81 0 .06 0.02 10.5 7.8 39.9
21 .71 0 .05 0.03 NA 7.2 7.3
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile B aykeeper, :
Site Summary: FCSE
I
Image 7 -FCSE -Fly Creek East of Scenic 98 Rcpresentati L Photo
Site Description: FCSE -Fly Creek just East of
Scenic 98 was approximately 200 feet east
(upstream) of Scenic 98. The creek was very shallow
making it difficult to reach with a shallow draft
kayak. Th ere was some evidence of resid ential
access o n the b anks of the creek but other than
Scenic 98, th e area was almos t completely forested .
The creek is approximately 35 feet across and 6
inches t o 2 fee t deep.
pH -The pH level on average was 6.86 with o n e
low val ue of 5.1 o b served on 12 /20 /2017.
FCSE
sam 10
deseriplion
n ~rny .:,1ua l nvu~c -
X
f:CS [;;
~ Cr k @ Soe-n1c 98 E
Land or l<ayalt-AcceuL .. Kay
, 30 ~ , 78 767 • ,. a t i
0
Turbidity -Turbidi ty m eas urements were lower than most sites, wi th the hi ghest
measurement being 2.92 TU.
Dissolved Oxygen -D isso lved oxygen was hi gher at this si te ranging from 7.4-8.4 ppm.
This is a good level for aquatic life. The average dissolved oxygen a t this site was 7.78 ppm
The
F irt
of
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER•
Opti c al B righteners -Optical brightener readings were relatively low at FCSE, ranging
between 10 .79-21.92 ppm. Average optical brighteners at the site were 17.65 ppm
Mobile Baykeeper, :
B acteria -Three sampling results showed an enterococcu s concentration equal to or more
than 104 CFU/l00mL. On 3/7 /18, th e bacteria sa mple may h ave been compromised during
collection and so a "N / A" observation was made. The average bacteria value at this si te was
55 CFU /lO0mL.
,end Nott · All dmi contalntd ht rein Is prtllml;:.:n=----!
11/16/17
11/30/17
12/7/17 7 :37
12/14/17 7 :23
12/20/17 7:29
1/11/18 7 :52
1/23/18 7 :35
2/1/18 8 :06
2/7/18 7 :23
2/14/18 7:23
2/21/18 7:19
2/28/18 8:00
3 18 7:07
·•'ill 8 f( I ~-
FCSE 15
FCSE 14 .3
FCSE 19 .6
FCSE 17 .7
FCSE 15 .5
FCSE 15.5
FCSE 17 .5
FCSE 17
FCSE 20.5
FCSE 19.7
FCSE 16.5
pit 1< tt
PINK pH
lndlcal'5
7.75
6.29
7.03
7.34
6.83
7.07
7.35
6.99
6.48
6.73
qt al1t_
21 .92 0 .07 0 .04
21 .44 0 .07 0 .03
15 .32 0 .07 0 .03
18 .76 0 .07 0.03
14 .39 0 .08 0 .04
13 .88 0 .06 0 .03
20.73 0 .08 0 .04
34 .59 0 .05 0 .03
19 .37 0 .09 0 .04
23 .03 0 .07 0 .03
15 .22 0 .06 0 .03
dat t
BLUE Ohsolwd
BROWNER °"Yscn YliuH
values Indicate Indicate lower
doudJer water concentrat ions of
4 .0 -9 .9
7.6
8.2
8 .4
7.4
3.57 8
3.18
N/A
N/A N/A
13 .2
6.15 7.4
4 .24 6 .8
NA 7.8
<20
104
40
104
20
20
62
20
N/A
172
24 .1
NA
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, '.
Site Summary: FCSW
Image 8 -FCSW -Fly Creek West of Scenic 98 Representative Photo
Site Description: FCSW -Fly Creek at cenic 98 West is a site just west (downstream) of
Sceni c 98 . The creek is much deep er than at the area upstream of the bridge and sampling
was co n ducted fro m a kayak. T h e creek has a stronger flow o n outgoing tides or after rain
events h ere and i s tid all y influ en ce d .
FCSW nS
pH -The p H level on average was 6.82 with one low
value of 5.39 o b s rved on 12 /20 /2017.
Turbidity -Turbidity measurements were relati vely low,
with the highest reading of 16 TU. Average turbidity
values at the site were 6.02 TU.
Dissolved O x ygen -D isso lved oxygen was higher at
this site ranging from 7.2-8.2 ppm with an average of 7.78
ppm.
Sampltt 10 ~csw
d1tscription F Creek ~ Scer,c W
Land or Kay k-AOCHsi... Kayak
' 7.17 1 7
Hgun: 18. FCS\\ -;.1mpling sitL
Optical Brighteners -Optical brightener readings were relativel y low, ranging from 10.66-
31.28 ppm . The average optical brightener value at the site was 20.09
Su
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Bacteria -There was one reading of enterococcus that was detected above 104
CFU /100mL. The average enterococcus reading at the site was 42 CFU /l 00mL
pnd Noto -All d•t• cont•lnod hero in Is prollml
YEU.OW and RED BLUE Dissolved
BROWNER Oxy1en nluu
PINK pH values Indicate Indicate lower
lndic~es doudierwater concentrations of
4.0-9 .9 •l!YPn detected
10.0~9.9 11111 .. -..
4.0
11/16/17 16:52 FCSW 17 .3 6.52 10.66 0 .4 0 .21 4.69 8
11/30/17 8 :37 FCSW 18 7.3 24 .75 0 .07 0 .04 2.54 7.6
11/30/17
l2n/17 8 :22 FCSW 14 .8 8 20.64 0 .12 0 .06 N/A
12/14/17 7 :39 FCSW 14 .3 6.36 19 .33 0 .08 0 .04 N/A 8.2
12/20/17 7 :39 FCSW 19 .7 14 .09 0 .18 0 .09 N/A 7.2
1/11/18 8 :D1 FCSW 17 .7 7.09 19 .11 0 .07 0 .04 3.43 8.2
1/23/18 7 :50 FCSW 15.6 6.91 13 .24 0 .07 0 .04 4.87 8 .2
2/1/18 8:22 FCSW 15.4 6.96 12.1 0 .09 0 .04 N/A 8 .2
2/7/18 7:32 FCSW 18.2 7.1 21 .24 0 .2 0 .05 N/A 7.6
2/14/18 7:30 FCSW 19 6.86 31 .28 0 .05 0 .03 16 7.8
2/14/18
2/21/18 7:30 FCSW 20 .6 6.84 24 .58 0.08 0 .05 6 .12 7.4
2/28/18 8:12 FCSW 19 .9 6.8 28 .03 0 .14 0 .06 4.51
18 7:18 FCSW 16 .6 6.48 22 .l 0 .06 0 .03 NA 7.8
T,ihlc) I ( S\\ amplt 1~-; le w.ttcr qu,1ht~ d t
Mobil e Baykeeper, :
YELlOW and RED
170
<20
20
40
<20
<20
20
40
40
20
N/A
N/A
82
35 .9
23 .1
Mobile Baykeeper, :
Site Summary: FCBA
Image 9 -FCBA -Fly Creek at the boathouse with an American flag Representative Photo
Site Description -FCBA -Fly Cr eek at the boathouse with an American flag, is
approximately .25 miles down stream from Scenic Highway 98. With numerous boathou ses
nearby, it is a popular place for locals to swim, kayak, fish, and boat. The watershed at this
location is a mix of forest and low-d ensity residential neighborhoods.
pH -pH only fe ll b elow six on o n e occasion. Average of pH over the sampling period was
6.60 .
Turbidity -As at m ost other sites in the watershed,
turbidi ty measure m en ts were low, ranging from 2.3-
14.3 TU. The average turbidity value was 6 .22
TU .
Dissolved Oxygen -Dissolved oxygen at the site
was never below 6 .0 and averaged 7.18 ppm. This
indicates levels of oxygen that can support fish, and
other aquatic life.
Optical Brighteners -Optical brightener readings
FCBA
~mpl 10
dHC:riplion
FC8A
La nd o r Kay;tk-AccessL .. Kay •
ft
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper,:
were consistently low with the highest reading of 38.63 ppm. The average over the course of
the study was 22.34 ppm.
Bacteria -The location has freq u ently contain ed low Enterococcus readings below the
federal standards for swimming waters and infrequent swimming waters. Only two of the 14
samples anal yzed for bacteria at the site exceeded the EPA swimming standard (2 /21/18 -
126 CFU /100 mL and a duplicate sample showed 192 CFU /100mL. The average
enterococcus concentration at the site was 59 CF /100mL.
gend Note-Al l dat~ contahwd he rei n Is prelimi~~---1
YELLOWond RED
11/16/17 17:01 FCBA 17.7 6 .5 995
11/30/17 8 :59 FCBA 17 .9 6.97 9.209
12/7/17 8 :35 FCBA 15 6.95 35.81
12/14/17 7:52 FCBA 14.1 6.12 23 .08
12/20/17 7:53 FCBA 19.7 16
1/11/18 8 :12 FCBA 17 .6 6.78 13.59
1/23/18 8 :05 FCBA 15 6.78 26 .43
1/23/18
2/1/18 8:36 FCBA 15.3 6.5 17.35
2/7/18 7:46 FCBA 18 6.88 17 .8
2/14/18 7:40 FCBA 17.3 6.93 38.63
2/21/18 7:43 FCBA 20.9 6.78 24 .74
2/21/18
2/28/18 8 :27 FCBA 20.2 6 .28 35 .3
3 18 7:29 FCBA 16.3 6.7 22 .58
I ) L l
2.45 1.24
1.02 0.51
3 22 1.56
1.47 0 .71
2.12 1.06
0 .07 0 .04
5 .3 0 .3
1.42 0.08
0 .43 2.2
0 .09 0.05
0.07 0 .04
0.08 0 .05
0.08 0.03
BROW ER
valun
Indicate
cl oudier
3.3
2 .31
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.35
5.32
N/A
N/A
14.3
7.43
6.54
NA
BLU E Ol ssolved
O•Y1•n val ue1
lndlW e lower
8 .8
7.2
74
7.4
6.8
7.4
6 .4
8
6 .8
6 .4
6.8
<20
60
62
62
20
60
40
20
20
62
N/A
126
192
56.3
24 .3
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mobile Baykeeper,:
Site Summary: FCDT
lmage 10 -FCDT-Fly Creek at downed tree Representative Photo
Site Des cription: FCD T -Fly Creek at the downed tree is just downstream of the site
FCBA. Stream and watershed ch ara cteristics are very similar.
R e sults:
pH_-The pH levels ranged fro m 5.73 -6.84 with one
low valu e of 5.73 o b served on 12 /20 /2017 the average
at the site was 6.53.
Turbidity -Turbidity measurem ents were relativ ely
low, with the highest reading of 17.3 TU. T h e average
at the site was 7.06 NTU.
Dissolved Oxygen -D issolved oxygen at the site
ranged between 6.2-7.6 ppm wi th an average of 6.95
ppm.
FCDT
Samp !! ID FC T
d scrrption f-Cr~ @: Downec I rec
t Lan., f, j.,. 5 .. .si ... Kay9
' JO 54605. -117 8 4 ,· a r
f i;!urc 20 f CDT sampling site
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER°
Optical Brighteners -Optical brightener readings had a range of 14-36.4 ppm. The
average optical brightener val ue at the site was 23.34 ppm.
Mobile B aykeeper, :
Bacteria -There have been fo ur readings of enterococcus that were equal to or more than
104 CFU /lO0mL (the federa l standards for infrequent swimming waters). One of these
high-bacteria samp les was a duplicate. The average of enterococcus concentrations at the site
was 74 .69 CFU /l00mL. As the sa mpling moves toward the mouth of the B ay, the average
concentrations begin to rise.
1end Note• All mt:a cont•n•d herein ls prellml
YEUOW and RED
PINK pH
Ind icates
more addle
Indicates duplicate samples for bacteria
I
11/16/17 17 :09 FCDT 17 .7 6.6 14
11/30/17 9 :10 FCDT 17.9 6.84 15 .02
12n111 8 :45 FCDT 15 .3 6.79 30.8
12/14/17 8:04 FCDT 14 .1 6.16 24.54
12/20/17 8 :03 FCDT 19 .6 17 .38
1/11/18 8 :20 FCDT 17 .3 6.68 27 .77
1/11/18 8 :20 FCDT 17 .3 6.68 27 .77
1/23/18 8 :17 FCDT 14 .6 6.58 28.34
2/1/18 8 :45 FCDT 15 .2 6.41 17.85
2/7/18 7:57 FCDT 17 .5 6.84 17.32
2/7/18
2/14/18 7:52 FCDT 18 .6 6.79 36 .4
2/21/18 7:53 FCDT 20.8 12 .8 6.66
2/21/18
2/28/18 8:38 FCDT 20 6.31 30.28
3/7/18 7:37 FCDT 16.3 6.65 37
3 18
I'
Site Summary: FCDH
Image 11 -Fly Creek at the downed tree FCD I I
3.02 1.51
1.81 0.9
5.89 2.91
2.2 1.1
2.6 1.3
1.85 0.89
1.85 0.89
1.93 0.99
4.02
1.08 0.54
0 .09 0.05
0 .08 0.04
0 .08 0.04
0.07 0.04
BROWNER
values lndkat•
cloudier water
3.06
5.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.67
3.67
5.5
N/A
N/A
17 .3
9.36
5 .15
N/A
BLUE OluolW!d
oxv,ennlues
Indicate lower
7.6
7.2
7
7
6.6
6.8
6.8
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.6
6.2
6 .2
6.6
YEUOWand RED
82
20
82
82
104
40
82
82
40
40
150
N/A
124
126
62 .4
37 .9
40.8
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykee per, :
Site Description: FCDH -Fly Creek at D evil's Hole is just on the outside of Fly Creek
where a small spring fled inlet fl ows into the creek. At this location there is a small
backwater that is locally known as D evils Hole. The creek is quite wide and deep at this
locati o n and boats and boathouses lin e the creek. The
watershed at this location is primarily low-density
resi d ential with light forest and some nearby commercial
developments.
Results :
pH -The pH level on average was 6.49 with one low
value of 5.96 observed on 12 /20 /2017 . The average pH
val u e was 6.49.
Turbidity -Turbidity measurements were low, with the
highest reading of 20.7 TU. Turbidity averaged 8.87
TU during the study.
Dissolved Oxygen -D issolved oxyge n at the site on
average is 6.63 ppm with the lowest reading being 5.4 ppm .
FC DH
Sample
~
9
figure 21 H'DH s,1mpling-site
Optical Brighteners -Optical brightener readings were sli ghtly higher for this site, with the
one reading being 91.41 ppm and other readings between 15.25-46.37 ppm . The average
value was 34.59
Bacteria -Six sampling results indicated an enterococcus value above 104 CF /l00mL
(a bove the federal standards for infrequ en t swimming waters). However, one of these valu es
were a duplicate and taken on the same d ay. The average enterococcus concentration at the
site was 310 CFU/lO0mL.
X
Mo bil e Baykee p er,,
send Note • All dat-a contained herein Is prell ml,~-'-'---J
YELLOW and RED
PINK pH
indic.ates
BROWNER
val ue s lndltote
clou dl.rwatu
BLUE Dissolved
Oxy1e n nlues
Indicat e lower YE U.OW and RED
11/16/17 17:17 FCDH 18 .6 6.65 IS.JS 4.55 2.59 3 .69 8.6
11/30/17 9 :31 FC DH 18.1 6.7 91.41 4.89 2.36 8 .0 7 6.8
12/7/17 8:57 FCDH 15 .1 6 .81 36.S5 8 .45 3.35 N/A 6 .8
12(1/17
12/14/17 8 :17 FCDH 13 .6 6.33 39 .42 4.26 2.12 N/A 7.6
12/14/17
12/20/17 8 :15 FCDH 18 .8 18.58 6 .25 3.13 N/A 6.2
12/20/17
1/11/18 8 :31 FCD H 15 .8 6.46 36.45 10 .8 5.13 2.87 6
1/23/18 8 :33 FCDH 12 .2 6 .46 21 .46 8 .66 S.06 3.43 6 .6
2/1/18 8 :59 FCDH 14 .7 6 .51 32 .66 10.27 5.13 N/A 7
2(1/18 8 :10 FC DH 16 .9 6 .55 28.31 5.22 2.63 N/A 5.8
2/14/18 8 :03 FCOH 20.2 6 .61 46.37 0 .94 0 .47 -Z0 .7 7.2
2/21/18 8 :11 FCDH 20 .7 6.61 23.67 0 .34 0 .1S 10.S 5.8
2/28/18 8 :52 FCDH 20 .4 6 .28 32 .62 0 .21 0 .1 12 .8 6.4
2/2 8/18
3 18 7 :46 FC DH 17 .l 6 .4 1 26.8 0.68 0 .31 NA
I k 12 I ( lJ !--lt ll lf I l
Site Summary: FCSP
lmage 12 -FCSP -Fly Creek at Sunset Point Representative Photo
Site D escription: FCSP -F ly Creek at Sunset P oin t is lo cated ju st d own strea m of the
Sun se t P o int resta u rant and in the im mediate vi ci nity of the F ly Creek Marina and the
20
40
242
194
104
62
40
82
60
126
82
6 2
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER°
Mobile B aykeeper, ,
Fairho p e Yach t Club . The site is h eavily influen ced by inco mi ng and o utgoing ti d e and is
used alm ost ex clu sively for boatin g.
R esults:
pH -The pH level s had a relativel y low ra n ge from
6.18-6.88. T he average pH at the site was 6 .59.
Turbidity -T ur bidi ty measurem en ts were relatively
low. They ra n ged fr o m 3. 8 -17 .1 N T U wi th an
average of 10 .03 N T U.
D iss olved O xygen -D isso lved oxygen at thi s site
range d fro m 6.0-8.6 p p m. However, o n 2/14 /18
and 2/21/18, we fo und disso lved oxygen levels to
be 5.6 ppm and 5.4 ppm, respecti ve ly. The average
disso lved oxyge n valu e at the si t e was 6.72 p pm .
FCSP
Sa mple D
4-rip!io,i
L.alld or Kaya -Access ... <aya,
t
Figure 22. FCSP sampling slit
O p tical B right eners -Optical b righ tener readings were co mpara ble to m ost sites on
average, wi th readings ra n ging fr o m 20.89-45.45 p p m . T he average o p ti cal b rightener val ue
at the site was 27 .40 ppm.
B acteria -Five sa mpling results indicate d an e n terococcu s value at or above 104
CFU / 1 00 m L. The average bacteria valu e at th e si t e was 118 CFU / 1 00 m L.
1end Not e• All datil cont~ined herein I, prellml="--~
11/16/17
11/30/17
12/7/17
12/14/17
12/20/17
1/11/18
1/23/18
2/1/18
2/1/18
2/7/18
2/14/18
2/21/18
2/28/18
2/28/18
3 18
I 1bk 13
17:24 FCSP 19
9 :43 FCSP 18 .4
9 :06 FCSP 14 .8
8 :29 FCSP 12 .8
8 :25 FCSP 18.3
8 :39 FCS P 16.l
8 :45 FCSP 11 .4
9 :08 FCS P 14.5
8:18 FCSP 16 .7
8:10 FCSP 18.8
8:20 FCSP 20 .9
9:04 FCSP 20 .8
7:55 FCSP 17.3
YfilOW and RED
Indi cate hlct,tr
PINK pH pr-bilityof
indicates septic/sewace
c.onumlnatlon
6.7 22 .51
6.84 20.97
6.88 36 .16
6.54 26 .6
6.18 21 .79
6.58 20.89
6.78 31 .24
6.66 22 .67
6.SS 26.98
6.52 44 .45
6.64 21 .3
6.27 27 .4
6.49 33.24
I-CSP s·1mplin:._ sill \\, er tiuah \ data
7.58 3.8 3.8 7.4
18 .34 4.09 14.S 6 .6
10 .75 5.39 N/A 6 .2
4 .93 2.46 N/A 7 .8
8.91 4.48 N/A 6
15 .29 7.72 3.85 7.8
13.9 6 .96 4.54 8 .6
UA4 6.2 N/A 7.6
8 .03 3.91 N/A 6.2
3 .86 1.92 17 .1 5.6
1.1 0 .56 11 .5 5.4
0 .45 0 .22 14.9 6
1.53 0 .77 NA 6 .2
<20
<20
196
<20
104
60
82
62
148
60
N/A
518
82 .3
84.2
143.9
)(
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER•
Mo bile Baykeeper, ,
Site Summary: FCMO
lmage 13 -FCMO-Fly Creek at the Mouth of Fly Creek/Confluence of Mobile Bay Representative Photo
Site Description: FCMO -Fly Creek at the Mouth of Fly Creek is a site located ju st prior
to the point that Fly Creek enters Mobile Bay. The site is surrounded by Mobile Ba y, the
Fairhope Yacht Club , and the F ly Creek marina and is a popular area for boaters and
kayakers leaving F ly Creek heading toward s Mobile Bay.
Results:
ttlf_-The pH levels at this site ranged from 6.34-7.33. Average pH during the study was
6.81.
FCMO
F C ►.10
X Turbidity -Turbidity m easure m ents were low,
with the highest rea ding of 16.2 NTU. The average
turbidity at FCMO was 11.15 NTU. de acriplion H•1 Creek c,::: "vlo. t~ c' ~•ob ,l e da ,
Dissolve d Oxygen -D issolved oxygen largely
ranged at this site from 5.4 to 8.4 ppm, but also
contained two low measurements of 5.4 ppm. The
average dissolved oxygen was 7.07 ppm.
Optical Brighteners -Optical brightener readings
were comparable to most sites, with readings ranging
Land (W Kayak-Ac!~L.. Ko -;o <
Suri,.pt Po nte ~ ...
rly Cr1•ei< \1,1 ,1;,"u,
•~ rhop.e Y~: I Club A
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER°
from 25.33-45.79 ppm. The average value for optical brighteners was 32.55 ppm.
Bacteria -Four sa mpling res ults indica ted an enterococcus valu e at or a b ove 104
CFU/lO0mL (the federal standard s for infreq uent swimming waters). T h e average
enterococci value during this study was 76 CF /l00mL.
Note-All data contai ned herein Is prellml;;=~---1
BL Dissolved
Mobile Baykeeper,,
PINK pH
Ind icate s
BROWNER Ol(ysen valuu
val ues Indicate Ind icate lowe r YELi.OW and RED
doudle rwater concentrat lons of
4.0-9 .9
11/16/17 17:32 FCMO 19.5 7.15 32 .83 12 .5 6 .5 4 .69 76 82
11/30/17 9 :56 FCMO 11.5 7.33 31 .92 >20 >10 8.64 SI <20
12/7/17 9 :15 FCMO 14.4 6.97 31.72 14 38 7 N/A 7 104
12/14/17 8:38 FCMO 12.a 6.71 33.01 6.11 3.04 N/A 7.8 <20
12/20/17 8 :35 FCMO 17 .8 6.34 29 .52 13 .87 6.87 N/A 6 .2 62
12/20/17 82
1/11/18 8 :46 FCMO 14 .3 6.79 28.96 19.16 9 .61 4 .07 8 62
1/23/18 8 :56 FCMO 11 6.95 25.61 15 .92 8 4 .42 8.4 126
2/1/18 9 :18 FCMO 14.3 7.1 27 .27 13 .3 6.63 N/A 8 126
2/7/18 8 :24 FCMO 16.2 6.63 25 .33 11 .3 6.69 N/A 104
2/14/18 8 :16 FCMO 16.9 6.74 45 .79 4 .06 2.03 16 .2 7 .4 N/A
2/14/18 N/A
2/21/18 8 :28 FCMO 20.9 6.7 35.8 2.1 1.01 12 6 5.1 40
2/28/18 9 :15 FCMO 20.7 6.4 9 34 .63 0 .76 0 .3 8 27.4 N/A 86
3 18 8 :05 FCMO 16.7 6.62 40.77 2.81 1.42 NA 6 .6 72.7
I. hk 14 I ( \ ( l I 1~1 t
CONCLUSIONS
Intermittent High Levels of B acteria in Lower Watershed Likely
Resulting From Sewage/Septic, Stormwater, Lack of Boat Pumpouts:
Sites at D evil's H o le (FCD H ), Sunset P oint (PC P ), and the Mouth of Fly Creek (FCMO),
had sp oradic spikes for bacteria. T hese spikes typicall y correlated with rainstorms and often
moderate to high levels of optical brighteners were found in the creek. Based on the fact that
60 mil es of Fairhope's sewage infrastructure is unlined, uninspected clay pipe, it is possible
that so m e of th e high bacteria levels at these sites is from n earby sewer lin es. It is also
dem o n strated fro m ADP H data th at a large a m o u nt of se ptic syste m s are present in portio n s
of the watershed. Where these septic systems are in close proximity to the creek or and/ or
subject to very high water tables, they like ly struggle to complete adequate treatment after
rain events. Older systems that were not engineered and / or have not been pumped out in
some time are like ly the primary septic systems contributing to high bacteria levels in the
watershed. Finally, at the time sample collection took place there was no pump out at the
Mobile Baykeeper, ,
marina (an ownership change was taking place). It is very possible that boaters who need to
empty waste from their vessel but do not have access to a pump out station are emptying
wastewater directly into the creek. If this happens in conju n ction with a rising tide, the
wastewater and res ultant high bacteria levels can be pushed up the creek.
Probable Sources of High Bacteria Levels in Upper Fly Creek: Livestock
and Septic Systems:
Some of the highest bacteria levels were found at site FCHO . Land use in the watershed
contributing to FCHO is entirely agricultural /livestock (Figure 24). Runoff from livestock is
the most likel y cause of high bacteria concentrations at this location. It is probable that
sewage / septic is also entering the stream since optical brighteners are consistently found at
high levels at this site . Maps of sewer lines from the City of Fairhope and Baldwin Cou nty
Sewer Service (BCSS) show there are no sewer lines in the immediate vicinity of FCHO .
However, there are septic systems in the area and these systems likel y are contributing to the
high bacteria levels found at this site.
FCHOWate heel
FCHO Watersl\o.<I
USA Nation.al
HydrO!IUPhY Dau--
H jgh Rosolutlon
'vHO w.v~ F t<Jrfl
·•r-
utLdfV
RP'Wf'\r01r
Swamp/"'a~
~i.to Flc-,.ltrr F ,1-t..iri'
"yi:,r
ca~a,, , <"
CMr Of
Pipeline
Stream/=l-.. ,
unc "9round C:O,,ct.J1t
Downstream Ponds and Small Volume of Water in Upper Watershed
Sites Lessen Impact of High Bacteria Levels:
Although high bacteria levels were found at FCHO, the site immediately downstream of
FCHO (FCCT) at County R d. 13 did not have a single test for bacteria that resulted in a
MOBILE
BA YKEEPER"
Mob ile B aykee p er, ,
val u e ab ove the E P A threshold for swi mming. T his is a positi ve sign and li kely stem s fr o m
two influences .
1.) T he si t e at FCHO is a very small stream and w hile it did h ave fl ow at every
instance duri n g sa mpling effort s, an ecd o tal evi d e n ce and vis ual o b servati o n s indicate the
stream is d ry during p orti o n s o f the year (intermi t tent), this highli gh ts th e very small volume
of water m ovi ng thro ug h the strea m . There fore , w hil e th ere is an eleva ted concentrati o n o f
bacteria at this site , it is quickly diluted and sh ows u p in much lower concen trations
down strea m.
2.) The second factor t o consid er is that the stream m oves thro ugh two ponds a ft er
p ass ing under Highway 181. The Fly Creek R es t oration Plan n o t es that m an -m ad e lakes and
p o nds within the watershed h ave res ulted in improved wa t er quali ty d ownstream. T hi s li ke ly
also plays a fa cto r in reducing d ownstream b acteria concentra ti o n s.
O v er all Water Quality is Generally Good: Key M easure s N eeded to
Protect from Degrad ation:
While so m e sites did di splay high b acteria level s o ccasio nally, the co ncentra ti ons rarely were
much in ex cess o f the E P A thres h o ld fo r swi mming . Typi call y, all o ther p ar am eters we r e in
ra nge s that indicate good wa t er qu ali ty and minimal p o lluti o n. However , the o ccasional hi gh
bacteri a level s d o indicat e iss ues , m os t li kel y with agi n g septic sys t em s and sewage lines in
the water sh ed. W ith the freq uency that Fairh o p e citizens swim and kaya k in the creek, it is
criti cal to implem e nt key re co mmendations bel ow to protect pub li c h ealth, water q uali ty in
F ly Cr eek, a nd th e waters h ed 's val ue t o Mo bil e B ay and the quali ty of life of Fairhope
resi d ents. The aver ages fo r the sites wi th ch all enges is high and th e goal m ust be cl ea n wa t er
for swimmin g, fi shing and boating witho ut question.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Measures Aime d a t Lowerin g B acteria L evels
1. Creek Dr/Sunset Poi nt Sewer Main And Lift St ation Inves ti gation
Loca ted ju st to th e ea st of FCDH i s a Sewer Force Main that runs und er Creek D rive (Figure
25). We would reco mmend conducting fur th er investigation s (CCTV, d ye tests for cross
connectio n s, etc.) of that sewer lin e in ord er t o d etermine if this might b e the source fo r high
bacteri a level s in the FCDH sa mpling site.
M O BILE
BAYKEEPER"
· Legend
.
,. lift Stations
Manholes
• --Force Mains
--Pro-Sewer
Gravity Pipe
Pro-Sewer
Sewer Services
, --Sewer Force Main
· ll'll Weter Features
-. , . . . .. . . . .. . : . : . . . ,, . .
I t e o, I
. . . .. '
l igutT 25. fCDH a 1d l'C'il' Lm.atecl 1\/e.,r SL\,
Mobile Baykeeper, ,
This sewer line seems to be connected with the Sunset Pointe Restaurant, which is located
b y the FCSP sampling site . We would also recommend eval uating that section of the sewer
line and associated lift station to determine if it is contributing to high bacteria levels at
FCSP and FCDH (Figure 25).
Generally, the 60+ miles of unlined uninspected clay pipe leaking sewage into the watershed
and other watersheds throughout Fairhope is a serious issue that should be addressed as
soon as possible. The $10 million dollars from RESTORE should be a great way to kick-
start those projects but continued priority and funding should be given to projects to
rehabilitate the sewer system in order to protect the Fly Creek Watershed, Fairhope's
environment, and health of citizens.
The above recommendation is aligned with recommendations presented in GMC's Capacity
study of Fairhope Sewer Utilities.
2. Septic T ank Inventory & Im p ro ve m e nt
Mobile Baykeeper recommends the City of Fairhope work with the Alabama Public Health
Department to generate a comprehensive inventory of existing septic tanks in the Fly Creek
Watershed . ADPH does not have complete records prior to 2001. However, there is a great
deal of information on 109 septic systems. A voluntary citizen survey where residents can
MOB ILE
BAYKEEPER'
Mobile Baykeeper, ,
identify if they have septic tanks an d give any details known ab o u t the system could
complet e the curren t inventory. This inventory should incl ud e specifics on the age of the
septic tanks, mai n te n ance needs. T hi s wi ll ass ist in identifying which systems need an
upgrade or repair. The Weeks Bay Watershed Management P lan produced a similar
inventory. Mobile Baykeeper has already worked with ADPH to gain much of this data an d
will provide that data to the City of Fairhope to assist in this effort.
This information could then be u se d in grant applications, additional opportunities for
fundi n g with B P Oil D isaster fu nds RDA and RESTORE) as well as future decision
makin g for Fairhope sewer upgrad es and p lanning purposes.
3. Fly Creek Marina Pump-Out Station Construction
Mobile Baykeeper u nderstands there is not currently a pump-out station built in the F ly
Creek Marina that would prevent sailors from dumping their sewage out into Mobile Bay or
nearer to the F ly Creek waterway. The lack of a pump-out station might h elp explain the
high b acteria levels found in FCS P . We would recommend City of Fairhope look into
buildin g a pump o u t station as soon as possib le so Mobile Bay and the lower reaches of F ly
Creek are not im paired by hum an was tewater.
4. Implement Best Management Practices
Specific Best Management Practices (BMP s) should be identified and implemented to
protect against bacteria introduction from both pet waste and livestock. Generating a pet
waste management program that i n cl ud es p et waste collection, education and signage, and
pet waste ordinances will help reduce the amount of bacteria introduced by this source.
Simil arly, BMP s for li ves t ock will reduce bacteria contributions, for instance, BMPs that limit
access of li vestock to water b o di es or d es igns to minimize the amo unt of manure runoff
from fie ld s . There are addition al funding opportunities through the Natu ral Resource
D amage Assessment and US D epartment of Agriculture to address nutrient loading due to
farming practices .
Measures Aimed at Protecting Fly Creek From Othe r Threats
5. Long-Term Monitoring Plan
We reco mmend th e City of Fairh o p e con si d er continual monitoring of critical sites iden tified
through this research project. By continuing to monitor FCD H, FCCT, an d FCHN, the City
can m easure progress from projects implemented, notify citizens of any threats to publi c
heal th and ensure water quality in Fly Creek is protected and improves.
M O B ILE
BAYKEEPER"
Mobile Baykeeper, ,
6. Develop a Comprehensive Land U s e Plan for the Watershed
High turbidity is the next biggest threat to the watershed as it can cause several negative
impacts including depleting fish populations important to recreational fisheries and filling in
waterways greatly diminishing their value for recreation. These conditions are often brought
on by development and associated construction stormwater runoff. As Fairhope continues
to be one of the fastest growing cities in the state, the need for comprehensive planning for
growth becomes more important. The City has recently undergone a number of planning
efforts including a building moratorium, and is in the process of updating certain ordinances
based on lessons learned during the moratorium. However, the City should continue to
evaluate planning and zoning to ensure they give decision makers the knowledge and tools
to adequately protect Fly Creek, Mobile Bay, and all of the natural resources that contribute
significantly to Fairhope's economy, quality of life, and charm. A comprehensive land use
plan can create a literal and figurative map to ensure responsible growth.
7. Fly Creek Wat e rshed M anage ment Plan
To adequately identify threats to F ly Creek and all the necessary projects to be implemented
as well as funding mechanisms, a watershed management plan (WMP) will be crucial. The
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program has prioritized the greater Fly Creek Watershed as
one of the remaining watersheds to study. To ensure the success of these crucial efforts the
City of Fairhope must assist as much as practicable in gaining sufficient access to lands
within the Fly Creek Watershed to support the development of a WMP. A Fly Creek WMP
will identify critical management measures and restoration projects that can result in
resources and funds that result in major improvements in the condition of Fly Creek. This
plan will be a great value to the City, its residents, and environment.
Citations
1. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), Updated
annually. Population and Housing Unit Estimates
2. Thompson Engineering. 2013. F/y Creek Watershed Restoration Prqject, 5. Project
prepared by Thompson Engineering for the City of Fairhope.
3. Thompson Engineering. 2013 . F/y Creek Watershed Restoration Prqject, 18. Project
prepared by Thompson Engineering for the City of Fairhope.
4. Alabama D epartment of E nvironmental Management (ADEM). 2004. An Impervious
Surface Stutjy over Three Regimes: Three Mile Creek, F/y Creek, and Bery Min ette Creek
Subwatersheds. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Mobile, Alabama .
5. Goodwyn, Mills & Cawood , Inc. 20 17. Capacity Stutjy for Gas, Water And Seiver Utilities
-Phase I, 14 -15. Prepared for City of Fairhope.
6. I sphording, Wa yne C. 2011. Environmental Impact of Regency Centers/Fairhope LLC
Shoppes at Fairhope Village Construction on F/y Creek, Baldwin County, Alabama. Report of
Investigation prepared by Consulting Geologist Wayne Isphording for D avid A.
Ludder, Attorney at Law. Mobile, Alabama.
7 . Alabama D epartment of E nviro nm en tal Manage m ent (ADEM). 2004. An Imp ervious
Surface Stutjy over Three Regimes: Three Mile Creek, F/y Creek, and Bery Minette Creek
Subwatersheds. Alabama D epartment of Environmental Management. Mobile,
Alabama.
8. U.S . Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), Updated
annually. P opulation and Housing Unit Estimates
,.,. Nellt -Al 4111a.....,.. _,.II,, 11/16/17 11:01 HllA 111 ll/30/17 U9 FIM 17.9 ll/7/17 1.35 fCBA 15 12/t•l17 7,52 FIM t• I 12/10/17 HJ ·-19 I 1/ll/11 1:11 FIM 17' 1/23/11 ,os fCBA IS l/2l/ll 2/1/11 1.36 fCBA IS J 2/7/11 1.06 FIM II 2/10/11 '·"" FCBA 17] l/ll/11 7.0 FIM 20.9 l/21/11 2/21/11 1,21 FIM 20.2 1,111• 7.19 '°" 16 j 11/16/17 1.S:40 ,cxs 17.l ll/J0/17 12:00 FCC. 18' 12/7/17 10:3& ,C[S , .. 11/lt/17 10:04 FCO 10 12/20/17 9:H ,en 19 9 l/ll/11 10:10 rca 17 9 l/ll/11 uns ,C[S 16 l/ll/11 2/1/11 11.10 ,ca 16 l 2/7/11 , ... , ,co II 2/10/11 9.19 recs !JS 2/11/11 10:01 recs 20 I l/21/11 10:'6 fCC$ 20. 1 I& , 11 ,co 161 11/16/17 10,20 ,err 11.9 11/30/17 ll:01 FCCT 19 6 11/7/17 11:30 ,err ts., ll/1'/17 11:01 rm 16] 11/20/17 10:•l ,err 1.9.7 1/11/11 11:27 feet 11 5 l/23/11 11:JS FCCT 16 S 2/1/11 12:lJ feet 111 2/1/11 217/11 10:37 rm , .. l/lC/11 10:07 ,err 11., 2/21/11 11:06 ,err 20 6 2/21/11 11~ ,err 2U l/7/11 10:00 rerr 17 I APPENDIX A-DATA TABLES l>.S 99S HS U7 9.109 1.02 6.95 lSll l.12 UJ n,. 1.0 -16 2.tl 6,71 U.59 0.07 6,71 26U SJ .. , 1735 U2 6.11 171 o.u 6.93 31.6.l 0.09 6.71 , .. ,. 0.07 1.21 35.3 0.OI 6,1 225.tl O.OI S.11 1.60l 0.07 1,7', 7 01 0.07 1.Sl 8 IM9 0,07 7.IM IJU o.os 5.U 1.](a 0.07 1.13 l.5U 0.07 us LUI 0.07 7.26 lS 59 O.OI 6.1 216 o.os 6.79 lJ 71 0.0!, 30 7 0.06 JS 11 0.06 21 71 o.os 0 0.07 6.06 41 621 O.OI &.,s 0 0.07 6,31 19 O.l 0.06 -,u, 0.OI 6.•!» 1l 67 O.OI us tl.6.1 0.06 6.l 1◄ 41 007 69'.> 11U 0.07 1.79 •u1 0.06 6.19 II •9 o.os -10 0.07 601 1•u 0.06 Data Tables 11• 0.Sl I S6 0.11 I 06 o.o,o 03 0 01 2.2 0 05 0.0,0 0.0! O OJ 0.0] Cl CJ 0.03 0 03 0 03 0 00 0.03 0 03 0 0] 0 0] 0 03 o 0, 0 0] 0.0,0 0 00 O.OJ 0 00 0.04 0 04 0 00 0 Ul 0 03 o.o, 0 OJ O.OJ 0 03 IWCDaoelwN a, ·*'1"LR.,__, I Osyctnv.._. -----J.J I.I l.31 7.2 N/A 1 • N/A 7.• N/A ... HS 7 I JI 7 II/A 1.• II/A ... r IA.3 ... J I 7.0 6.1 6.S. , .. !!,(A 6.1 ~ u .J .. , H9 • N/A { 1.6 N/A 8.• N/A 7.6 4.Cl 1.2 3.16 1.2 N/A ... N/A N/A c=u-==:i 1.6 '61 , .. [ 10.S J , .. A 72 7.5.5 L 5.1 l..11 u N/A 6.1 N/A [ s N/A 5.2 IH • 2 0 ... 6.1 HI• C • II/A 6.1 [_~_J 7.2 6.2 4 °" C. 5.2 N/A 6 J P#-Sr J 7 J :J J Mobile Baykeeper, 1 <20 10.5>'796 -17.1919 60 30.S.7'9E .., __ 62 30.S.7'9E -17.1919 62 90.5'196 .. , __ 20 30 S.796 .. ,_ 60 30.5096 .. , __ "" 30.~796 ·17119111 20 20 30.S.796 -171989 62 10.50796 -17.19119 II/A lll.50796 ·171989 116 30.50796 -87.1919 192 56.l 30.S.7'9E -17.1919 24) 30,50796 .. , •20 J<USlll -17.19461 "" 30.!.!>ll.2 ·178~ "" lO.SS.312 ·17.11-<20 30.S~312 ·87 89468 "" J0.5Slll -17.89068 20 10.SSlll -17119461 62 30.SS3U -11.■-"" •20 30.SS.312 -1789068 ff JCtS.SlU -11.89068 II/A 30.SS)ll -17 19463 12' lO.S!i.111 -11194&1 )t. SO.SSlll -11194&1 7 j l0.5-S312 ·178'9468 <20 ll0.SW19 -17.16997 <20 l0.~5419 ·17 869'97 <20 30.SS419 -17.16997 <lO 30.S~19 •• , 86997 <20 30.SS419 -U.1&997 <lO 30,5-S4l9 .17 86991 <20 JO,S!t-419 .. 7.16997 <10 10.~~•9 .• , 169'7 •20 . a, JO.!t~Jg ·17 169'97 N/A so.~sui -17.16997 20 l0.SS419 17 16997 4.1 l0.SS41' -11.16997 L 30.S~l9 .a, 8&99' <1 Table lA. Sites FCBA, FCCS, and FCCT water quality data from the Fly Creek Sampling Plan
1111-,i, U/JO/l7 tJI f!JIH 111 ., -_!1_ ·~ ... , U/7!'7 &51 """ Ul Ul JUI .... 12/7/17 "'""' l.l7 '""' UA •u JU1 .... ll/.l.AJJ7 UJ>Q/11 LIi """ IU == 11.H .... llJ1lJ/17 Vll/U ~:Jl '""' IU •• ,..., IU 1/lJIU, ID """ lU ... ll 46 ... Z/1/U u, '""' IU .... ]2.14 l0.l1 J/7/U ua '""' , ... .... 2&.11 >.n 2/IA(U &AJ """ IO.l UI ... ., ... l/lVU LIi "''" ., Ul lU-7 .... 2/BIU u, '""' .... ..,. ..... O.ll V.,U !iaLJI 74• """ 111 ••• )&I ... U/lf,/11 ..... fCl)T ,,, ... .. ..., 11/""11 HO ,m, 17' •u lSCl 1.01 U/7/11 LIS ,mr 15.J .. ,. >O.I •• "'""' 104 rccr l'I ,:r. ,. .. ,, U/1tJ/17 LID fCDT .... ll!aEJ 17.D ... 1/ll/lJ uo fCDl 173 U& 11.11 , ... l/U/1.1 L1D fCDT l7J U& U.11 ,.... 1/ll{u, 1.17 fCDT ... •:ia 11.J,I , .. l/VU ..... FCDT 15.l .... 11.IS .... J/7/U 1.11 fCDT 17.1 H• l7Jl UII J/7/U 2/IA(U 1.S, FCl)T .... .,, ,... .... l/ll/U '-" "'" ... . ... .... GAi Z/11/U .I/ZIIIJ LJa ,m, .. Ul ,..,, ... 1/1/U 7;J7 FCDT .... .... " 041 111 I ll/lt,/11 IUI FotN IU ... • ""' U/lft..'11 ~· ..,_.. "'"' IU 7.U /1.H om U[l/11 !007 '°"' .... HI .,., 0'17 I.Z/Wl1 u• """ .... .., ) ,,_. ... L'l/l'Jn7 ,n rCMN ... . .. 11U .... 1/11/U ID.JD '""' ,,.. UJ JU ""' 1/11/LI UJ "''" 1• l ... IH! 001 Z/1/U 10.lO fOtN .. , ·-...... ""' J/7/U IUl '""' 17.7 7.51 11.H ..... 2/JA/U, Ul '""' 173 ... , 41UI ClOS "'""' .... , '""' ... UJ lL01 ..... .I/ZIIIJ -fotN au ... ,.,, G.07 aaaa ·~ tQII HI .... Ul J.11 5.U ,.oo UJ UJ OA7 .... .. , 0.11 UI •• UI II I.I . ... .... .... • .... .... \~:-.... .... O.Dl .... 0.(J] 0.111 0.01 QJ)lfr 0,0, OD< OD< 0.0) D.01 .... ·---&07 Ill• NI• IC/A ,.., Hl NI• NIA "" IWlll ....... 011'-IP" •Hin '-late--.. u 71 ., • .. ' -1 ;,r ~...._ -E .., JO>o•• ,., ........ , .. , .. JO. ..... ., Cl ........ ., .. ........ ... ,a ..... .. ,._.._ ., ,a...,.. [ ·~--JO'.) ....r ,.. JO.MM ... ~ ........ /.' n ~· r .. ....., ., "'" , ... , .. n -.. " "' -"'A ' ., r '°'"""' "'' ' I ., ,o....,,. .,'·,~···, r,r t..l , .. -UT , .. .., -li7 i '1' u ., -.. 1.2 ., JO ..... . NIA 1.l .. -NIA 1.l .. -IJ,G ---.c_:=.,,:::i " N/A -~ .... ., I ,,. ......... "-~ , .. ... ., '1A ......... NIA u "~ ......... .... 10.◄ l <10 IO.SSJCJ ,. ~ •n ' .. JO.SU&> "'' " "' JOS!il'l 1'/ ..,. I "" l0.1Wl .NJ• u "' lOS~41 .... ,. ... J0.>5.IU ,., I "' JO.U.Hl NI• ,. <lll J0.55JU IC/A , .• <lll 10.>SUl ~i;::::J NI• NIA .....,., au .., <Ill JQIJJ4J .,, • ,,_, )0.55,142 Table 2A. FCDH, FCDT, and FCHN water quality data from the Fly Creek Sampling Plan Mobile Baykeeper, 1 17!1XJ17 17,IDOl7 .f7.!IDOl7 17.IDDI] .a1.,om1 17 'JQOl7 <17.!IIOOl7 .. J.IDOIJ .a7-'DCll7 11.-1 .V.91D017 .,.,_ ,,.,.. .. ..,_ 17.MIM. .,,.., ... ., .... ,17.a,114 .,__. .. , .... ., ...... ... , .... .., .... 11-.., .... 11aau ., .... .., ... 1., 11Blet .aJ.MlAI 17.MUf -11.Mlft 17Bl•t •1.m1.ff ..a:1.m1e .. 7.a,lQ .. 1..n1a 17.111ft
MOBILE BAYKEEPER" :tilld Note -Al dtta a)llbhtd tliatflll II P',..,.._••· 11/30/17 ll.29 FCHO ll/J!l,117 . 12/7/17 11 48 fCHO 12/7/17 11.,..a ,o«> 12/14/17 11.2• ro«> lV14/17 . 12/20/17 11.01 fCHO l/ll/11 11.39 ,o«> 1/23/18 12.02 fCHO 2/1/11 12,lB ,o«> 2/7/11 10,sg fa«) 2/7/11 . 1~26 fa«) 11.,]4 fa«) 11/16/17 17.U FCMO ll/J0/17 B6 FCMO 12/7/17 9.lS fCMO 12/14/17 • 31 FCMO 12/20/17 1.35 ,CMO 11/20/17 1/11/11 l:<16 FCMO 1/23/11 U6 FCMO 2/1/11 ~11 FCMO 2/7/11 1:24 FCMO 2/14/11 8:16 FCMO 2/14/11 . 2/21/11 1:21 fCMO 2/21/11 9.15 fCMO ;}_£7,11 1:05 FCMO 11/lli/17 16.39 FCSE 11/30/17 8.18 FCSl 12/7/17 "37 FCSE 12/14/17 7.23 res, 12/20/17 7:29 ,cs, 1/11/11 ).!t2 fCSE 1/23/11 7:lS FCSE 2/1/11 1:06 fCSE 2/7/11 7.23 FCSE 2/14/tl 7:23 FCSE 2/21/11 "'' fCSE 2/21/11 1:00 FCSE JJ.7£11 7:07 fCSE 20 10 2 10.2 12., 21 11.7 15.9 16.5 19.5 11.2 22.7 19.5 115 14.t 121 17.1 1•.1 11 1U I&.! 16.9 20.9 20.7 lli.7 17 18 15 14.3 19.6 177 15.5 15.S 17.5 17 20,S 19.7 16.~ P1NKpH lodbtn 6.Sl . ., 6.0 6.23 6.lS 6.4 6.!iA 6.12 6.U 7.lS 7.31 6.97 6 71 6.34 6.79 • 95 7.1 6.61 6.1' 6.7 6,49 6.62 6.76 7 7S 7.75 6 29 J.-'i~-.~ . i'. ~~-~~--~~-~ SU! . 61.17 t;ij 83 S6 11.'8 !6.69 . 7S.S4 11.H 11.43 3!.83 ll.9! 31.72 33 01 19.5! 21.9" 2~.M 17.!7 !s.33 t5.79 . 35.1 34.63 40.77 0 10.79 !1.92 21.44 -15.32 7 03 1176 7.34 lt.J9 6.83 u.u 1.<11 20.71 1.35 34.59 6.t9 19.17 6.41 !l.03 6.13 lS.22 0.17 . 0.17 0.17 0.39 . 0.33 0.22 O.! 0.1' 0.7 . 0.09 o.u 12.5 >20 lC-lB b.tt 1.3.17 19.16 lS.91 U.3 11.3 4.06 !.1 0.7ti Z.I1 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.07 O.OI 0.06 O.OI 0.05 0.09 0.07 0,06 0.08 009 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.11 0 I 0.06 0.3 0.05 0.06 0.01 6.S >10 7 3 04 6.17 9.61 8 U3 6.69 Z.03 . 1.01 0.38 1.~ o.a. 0.01 a.a. 0 03 0,03 0Ol 0.04 0.0l o.a. 0.03 o.a. 0.03 0,03 BlUEDkldved IROWN[R vMJH I Owyaet vak-. --Indicate --· 3.13 ... . N/A •• N/A 6.1 N/A , .. . . N/A I s s 0.98 10 N/A [ 56 N/A 6 . 20.6 4.1 ll.l u "·' r-I.! ,-469 7.6 1.64 ! u N/A 7 N/A ,. N/A 6.! ,_07 I , . .n .. N/A I N/A 7 C: 16.2 J 7.4 . . -i JU u 27.4 N/A !!£" u 3.04 7.1 2.92 7b N/A 1.2 N/A .. N/A 7.4 H7 8 3.11 I N/A I N/A N/A [ U.l J I 6.lS 1., •.24 6.1 !:!I" 7.1 EJ0.56324 JO!o6U4 J0.56124 20 J0.56324 40 . .. J 2'I 30.S&.324 210 "10.56324 ,n 30.S632.4 12 J0,5,4261 <20 J0.54161 ICM JO.!iA!61 <20 l0.S42Y 6Z JO.!iA261 8! 6Z JO.SU61 U6 J0.54261 1 U6 30.50'8 100 30.54161 N/A J0.54261 N/A ] 40 30.5"261 8' 30,54261 72.7 30.54261 20 30.illll <20 30.SSUI 100 30.55221 40 10.SS22l 10< JO,SSlll !O 30.SS221 20 l0.Sll2.l 6! J0.51221 20 10.SSlll N/A lO...SSlll 172 30.5"21 2A~I 30.55221 !!£" JO.illll Table 3A. FCHO, FCMO, and FCSE water quality data from the Fly Creek Sampling Plan Mobile Baykeeper, -87.BS23 . -87.BSU -87.ISU -87.BS23 -11.BSll -87.1523 -<!7.8523 -&7.1523 -&7.BSU . -87.1523 -87.ISU -87.ISU -87.IS! ,17.90392 .17_go392 -87.90392 -17.00392 -81.9039! -17.90392 -17.90392 -17.9039! ·'7.90392 ,17.90392 ·17.9039! -17.90392 -17.90392 -17.89767 ·l7.89lb7 -17.89767 •17.8'1767 -17.19767 -17.19767 -17.19767 -87.89767 •17.89767 -&7.89767 ·17.19767 -17.89767 -!7.89767
MOBILE BAYKEEPER" :end N--Alu~ --11oro1n 1o pr~. I 11/16/17 17:24 11/30/17 9:41 12/7/17 9.06 12/14/17 a:n l?/'ZJJ/17 A:2S 1/11/18 1:39 1/23/11 a,4s 2/1/ll 9,08 2/l/ll . 217/11 1.11 2/14/11 a:10 2/21/18 a,20 2/lt/18 9_04 2/28/18 . ,,,111 7:SS 11/16/17 16:S2 ll/30/17 l!.37 11/30/17 . 12/7/17 l:ll 12/14/17 7,J9 12/20/17 7:39 1/11/18 a.01 1/23/11 1,so 2/1/11 ,,u 2/7/18 7:32 2/14/18 7:lO 2/14/18 . 2/21/18 7.30 2/lt/18 l:U 18 7:1& 11/16/17 12:35 11/30/17 U,31 12/7/17 11!04 12/14/17 lCUS 12/20/17 10:15 1/11/18 10:5-4 1123/11 10:SO 2/1/11 11:44 217/18 10:11 2/14/11 9.41 2/21/ll 10:15 2/21/11 11,03 3£7£18 9,3S fCSP 19 fCSP l&.4 fCSP 14.& fCSP 12.a FCSP 18.3 FCSP 16_1 fCSP 1L4 FCSP 14.5 . . FCSP 16.7 ,cs, 1a.a FCSP 10.9 ,cs, 20.8 . fCSP 17,! ,csw 17.3 FCSW 18 . fCSW 14.1 FCSW 14.3 FCSW l9_7 FCSW 17.7 FCSW lS.6 FC:SW IS.4 FCSW 11.Z FCSW 1.9 . fCSW 20.6 fCSW l9.9 FCSW 16.6 UTHII 1&.9 UJHA 20 Ul'HA lS.4 UTttll lS.6 UTHA 19.7 UTHR 18 UJHII 15_2 UTHA u UTHII 18_2 UTHA 17.2 UTI111 20.6 UTHA ll.3 UTHII 16.4 PINMpH -., .. 6.7 6.&4 6.88 6.54 6.18 6.S8 6,78 6.66 . 6.55 6.52 6.64 6.17 '., 6.52 7.l I 6.36 C:1iliiil 7.09 6.91 6.96 7.1 616 . 6.84 6.8 6.48 6.93 7.H 6.92 6.55 6.26 ,.n 6.55 7.17 6.8S 6.76 6.46 6.15 6.49 22..51 20_97 31,_16 2U 2L79 20.19 3L14 22.67 . 26.91 44.4.5 lU 27.4 . 331~ 10.66 lOS . 20.6'1 19.33 14_0!1 19.11 U.24 ll.l 2U4 3L28 . 24.51 U.03 22.1 9.76.5 6.SJ& 2US 15.11 19 IL2 10.2!1 ,.,n 1S.ll lS.65 14.91 u.n 10.63 1.51 u 11..3.4 4.09 10_7S S-39 4.93 2.46 a_,1 ._ .. lS.29 1_n U.9 6.96 12.44 6..2 . . &.03 Ul 3.86 L92 LI 0.56 0.45 0.22 . . I 53 0 zz 0.4 O.ll 0.07 0.04 . 0.u 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.1& 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.0<I -0.09 0.04 0.2 0.05 oos 0 03 . . 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.08 O.O<I 0.08 0.04 0.01 0_04 0.01 0.CM 0.07 O.CM 0.08 0.04 o.08 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.03 0,0'1 0.03 0.07 0.03 8WEl!il .. ed l!ROWN, •• .... 1 O•YI•" vi .... ----·-38 7.4 L 14-5 _j u N/A &.l -N/A 7-8 N/11. ' us , .. 4 54 -~ 8.6 II/A I 7.6 . ...... . I_ N/A ~ ...fil J 171 S6 7~ 115 54 -•-14.9 _r 6 ; . ~~ 6-2 4 69 • l.54 7_6 . '-\.,;: II/A I \.., \ N/A 1..2 ' NIA 7.2 ---., 3 4] 8.2 • 97 8.2 N/A 8.2 N/A 7.6 -.r;: 16 J 71 '.· . . 6U 7.4 4 SI 7 A 7-8 4 28 L__;_; 3.41 2 NIA 6.2 N/A □· =1 N/A ~-6 3.95 ' 1.65 6.6 II/A 6.2 N/A ,_. j 7 59 8.8 161 6.8 >06 r-; :::J !!i£A 6..l Table 3A. FCSP, FCSW, and UTHR water quality data from the Fly Creek Sampling Plan Mobile Baykeeper, ' <20 30.54132 -87.90109 <20 30.54191 -81.90109 ~ )0.S4l92 -87-90109 <20 )0.54192 -87.90109 104 l0.S4192 -81.90109 60 l0.S4l91 -11.90109 82 l0.54192 •87.90109 62 l0.54132 -87.90109 14! 60 l0.54192 -87.90109 N/A l0.54192 -87.90109 SU l0.54192 -17.90109 au l0.S4l9l -11.90109 au 141-t l0.54192 ·87.90109 170 l0 . .5507S -87.89907 <20 30.5S07S -87.19907 2.0 40 l0.55075 -87.89907 <lO l0.SS07S -8'-89907 <20 l0.SS07$ -81.89907 20 l0.5.5075 -87.89907 40 l0.55075 -87.89907 40 l0.5S07S -87.89907 20 l0 . .55075 •87.89907 N/A 30.55075 ·87.89907 N/A . 82 30.55075 -17.19907 lS.9 30.55075 •17.89907 23.1 l0.55075 -87.89907 <l.O 30.56477 -87.8808& .:_20 l0.564n -87.8 <lO l0.56477 -87.88081 <20 l0.S64n •87-18081 <20 l0.56477 -17.18018 <lO )O.S64n -87.88018 <20 l0.S64n •IU8081 <20 )0.56477 -87.810e8 -I 10.564n -87.88088 N/A l0.56471 -17.18081 62 l0.56417 -87.88081 ll..5 30.56477 -17.18088 2 30.56477 -87.18011
Mobile Baykee per,
Table 4A. Table of Fly Creek M e tadata
Table SA. Fly Creek Sampling Site ID Ke y
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER°
Mobile Baykeeper, !
APPENDIX B -PARAMETERS TESTED
D i ssolved O xygen
What is it?
Measures how much oxygen is dissolved in the water.
Wry do we test it?
A quatic life, like lan d animals, n eed oxygen to li fe. We m easure dissolved
oxygen to understand the health of a waterb o d y. The am o u nt of oxygen in a
waterway can be influenced by both natural phenomenon and from
poll ution.
B ac teria (Ente rococcus)
What is it?
Enterococcus is a type of bacteria that when found in local waterways ,
indicates fecal contamination from human or animal waste entering directly
or through stormwater runoff.
Wry do 1ve test it?
Enterococcus is often used as an indicator for the presence of other harmful
organisms or pollutants in the waters. We test this parameter to know
whether or not i t is safe for the community to fish, swim, an d play in a lo cal
waterway.
Fluorometry (Optical Brighteners)
What is it?
pH
F luorometry meas ures the amo u nt of optical brigh teners (d etergents, soap s,
cleaning agents) in the waterway.
Wry do we test it?
Since soaps (a n d therefore optical brighteners) are most commonly fo und in
sewage, measurin g optical brigh teners is a way to detect human sewage is
entering a waterway. This helps us understand the source of fecal
contamination.
What is it?
pH measures how acidic or how basic the water is. The pH of 7 .0 is neutral
and values less than 7.0 are acidic and values greater than 7.0 are considered
basic.
Wry do we test it?
MOBILE
BAYKEEPER•
Turbidity
Certai n pH le vels can h ave n ega ti ve e ffects on aquatic life . pH can b e
influ e nc ed b y a number of fa cto rs including industri al, municipal, and
agricultu ral p o llution .
M o bile Baykeep er, !
What is it?
Meas u res th e a m o unt of su sp e nd ed m a teri al such as silt, cl ay, and fi n e
o rga nic m att er in water.
W01 do 1ve test it?
Salinity
High level s o f turbidi ty can cause a number o f p ro blem s. It p ro hibits li ght
fr o m p en e trating into th e w at er , prohibiting plants t o gro w and fi sh to see
th eir foo d . High tu rbidi ty can indicate erosion problems n earby o r p o llu tion
fr o m p oor co nstructio n p ra ctic es .
What is it?
Meas ures the co ncen tratio n of salts in water.
W01 do 1ve test it?
Conductivity
Salini ty leve ls o ften dicta te what types o f p lants an d anim als ar e present in a
w aterway . Salinity also a ffects the level o f dissolved oxygen prese nt.
What is it?
Meas ures the water's a bili ty to co nduct ele ctricity (o r wa ter 's io nic acti vity).
Th e m o re salts (which h ave high er ionic co ntent) in th e wa ter, the m o re
co nductivity .
W01 do 1ve test it ?
L arge changes in co n d u ctivi ty can indicat e a source o f p o lluti o n may have
entered the waterway.
Water Temperature
What is it?
Measures h ow ho t or how cold th e wa ter is.
W01 do we test it?
Th e tempera ture o f wa ter a ffects aqu atic life in a number o f ways including
th eir abili ty to feed and re p ro duce . T emperature als o impa cts how much
di ss o lve d oxyge n water can h o ld and h o w quic kl y it can cycl e nutri ents
through th e aquatic sys tem.
January 2019
Scope of Work
ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, AND LAND-USE IMPACTS
FOR STREAM ALONG THE EASTERN SHORE OF MOBILE BAY,
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
For
THE MOBILE BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
By
MARLON R. COOK
BARRY A VITTOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
INTRODUCTION
Streams along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay from Daphne to Gum Swamp at Weeks
Bay flow westward to Mobile Bay and drain an area three to four miles inland . Land use in the
area includes commercial and residential development in the towns of Daphne and Fairhope and
residential development throughout the remaining area. The topography of the area is unique to
the eastern shore and is characterized by relatively high elevation uplands to 160 feet above
mean sea level (ft MSL) and steep slopes related to stream channels. Streams have relatively
high gradients and flow is flashy with some streams intermittent, only flowing during rain
events. Surface-water flow in the area is erosive so that some streams most likely carry large
sediment loads and are impacted by high concentrations of nutrients and bacteria.
The following scope of work for a watershed assessment by Marlon Cook, Barry Vittor
and Associates, Inc. is designed to characterize general water quality, erosion and sediment
transport, nutrient concentrations, e-coli pathogen counts in streams throughout the project area,
and to characterize land use to identify sources of sediment and other water-quality impacts.
These data will be used assist development of watershed management plans and remedial actions
and to establish baseline data and sedimentation regression curves that can be used to evaluate
future changes in erosion and sediment load transport. The monitoring project includes 16
monitoring sites from Yancy Branch in Daphne (1.9 miles south ofI-10) to Baily Creek, south of
Point Clear (fig. 1 ).
Monitoring is based on precipitation and resulting stream discharge and includes basic
field acquired physical and water-quality parameters as well as sediment transport rates , nitrate
1
Figure I .-Eastern shore project area and monitoring sites.
2
and total phosphorus concentrations, and e-coli counts . These data may be used to determine
watershed management strategies and to focus resources in areas of greatest need for remedial
action . The project will utilize modeling techniques to determine bed and suspended sediment
and nutrient loads. The project will begin in January 2019 and will continue through December
2019 .
METHODOLOGY
ASSESSMENT SITES
The assessment of streams along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay is designed to
determine general water quality, physical characteristics, volumes and sources of sediment,
nutrient loading, and pathogen counts . Characteristics of eastern shore monitoring sites include
location, proximity to wetlands, impoundments, and tidal influence, accessibility, and stream
channel morphology and flow characteristics. Sites were selected in all accessible tributary and
main stem locations along the eastern shore from Daphne to Point Clear (table 1 ).
Table I -Monitoring sites for the Fish River watershed assessment.
Site Site description Flow and sediment
characteristics
ESl Yancy Branch 1,500 ft upstream from Unrestricted flow, sand bed,
Village Point, suspended and bed sediment
Lat 30.62615°N Long -087.91600 °W
ES2 Red Gully at Bay Shore Drive , Unrestricted flow, sand bed,
section 30, township 5 south, range 2 east suspended and bed sediment
Lat 30 .57741 °N Long -087 .91000°W
ES3 Rock Creek at Main St (Scenic US Hwy Unrestricted flow, sand bed,
98) suspended and bed sediment
section 7, township 6 south, range 2 east
Lat 30 .55799°N Long -087.89978°W
ESFC4 Unnamed tributary to Fly Creek at Unrestricted flow, sand bed,
Headwater Road, suspended and bed sediment
ne/4-sw/4 , section 33, township 5 south,
range 2 east
Lat 30.56470°N Long -087 .88013 °W
3
Table 1 continued
ESFC5 Unnamed tributary to Fly Creek at U nrestricted flow , sand bed ,
Woodlands Drive suspend ed and bed sediment
section 8, township 6 south, range 2 east
Lat 30 .55160°N Long-087.88832°W
ESFC6 Fly Creek at Main St. (Scenic US 98) Unrestricted flow, sand bed,
Lat 30.55122 °N Long -087.89874°W suspended and bed sediment
ESFC7 Fly Creek at AL Highway 13, Unrestricted flow , suspended
se /4-ne/4, section 4, township 6 south , sediment only
range 2 east
Lat 30 .64640 °N Long 087.82041 °W
ESFC8 Unnamed tributary to Fly Creek at AL Unrestricted flow , su spended
Highway 104, sediment only
sw/4-sw/4, section 3 , township 6 south ,
range 2 east
Lat 30.54537°N Long -087 .86796°W
ESFC9 Unnamed tributary to Fly Creek at AL Unrestricted flow , suspended
Highway 104 , sediment only
sw/4-sw/4, section 3, township 6 south,
range 2 east
Lat 30.54530°N Long -087.86497°W
ESFCl0 Unnamed tributary to Fly Creek at AL Unrestricted flow, suspended
Highway 104, sediment only
se/4-sw/4, section 3, township 6 south ,
range 2 east
Lat 30 .54548 °N Long -087 .86023 °W
ESll Volanta Gully at N. Section St and Rosa Unrestricted flow, sand bed,
Ave, suspended and bed sediment
Lat 30.53677° Long -087.90037 °W
ES12 Big Mouth Gully at . Bancroft St, Unrestricted flow , sand bed,
Lat 30.52857° Long -087.90176°W suspended and bed sediment
ES13 Tatumville Gully at Pecan Ave and S. Unrestricted flow , sand bed,
Section St suspended and bed sediment,
Lat 30.50954°N Long -087 .90276 °W Large storm flow only
ES14 Tatumville Gully at S. Mobile St (Scenic Unrestricted flow , sand bed,
us 98), suspended and bed sediment
Lat 30.51199°N Long-087.91859°W
4
Table 1 continued
ES15 Point Clear Creek at Scenic U S Highway Tidal influence,suspended
98 , sediment during storm events
section 36, township 6 south , range 2 east only
Lat 30.48570 °N Long -087.93219°W
ES16 Baily Creek at Scenic US Highway 98 , Tidal influence ,suspended
nw/4-sw/4 , section 6, township 7 south, sediment during storm events
range 2 east only
Lat 30.46119°N Long -087.91671 °W
SUSP ENDED SEDIMENT
The basic concept of constituent loads in a river or stream is simple. However, the
mathematics of determining a constituent load may be quite complex . A constituent load is the
mass or weight of a constituent that passes a cross section of a stream in a specified interval of
time. Loads are expressed in mass units (e .g., tons , kilograms) and are con sid ered for time
intervals that are relative to the type of pollutant and the watershed area for which the loads are
calculated. Loads are calculated from concentrations of constituents obtained from analyses of
water samples and stream discharge , which is the volume of water that passes a cross section of
the stream in a specific amount of time.
Suspended sediment is defined as that portion of a water sample that is separated from
the water by filtering. This solid material may be composed of organic and inorganic material
that includes algae , industrial and municipal wastes , urban and agricultural runoff, and eroded
material from geologic formations (for example, sand and silt). These material s are transported
to stream channels by overland flow related to storm-water runoff and cause varying magnitudes
of turbidity. Concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) in mg/L are determined by
laboratory analysis of periodic water grab samples . Annual suspended sediment loads are
estimated using the computer regression model Regr_Cntr.xls (Re gression with Ce ntering). The
program is an EXCEL adaptation of the U.S. Geological Survey seven-parameter regression
model for load estimation (Cohn et al., 1992). The regression with centering program uses
average daily discharge and T SS to estimate annual loads.
BED SEDIME T
Transport of streambed material is controlled by a number of factors primarily related to
stream discharge and flow velocity , erosion and sediment supply , stream base level , and physical
5
properties of the streambed material. Most streambeds are in a state of constant flux in order to
maintain a stable base level elevation. The energy of flowing water in a stream is constantly
changing to supply the required force for erosion or deposition of bed load to maintain
equilibrium with the local water table and regional or global sea level. Stream base level may be
affected by regional or global events including fluctuations of sea level or tectonic movement.
Local factors affecting base level include fluctuations in the water table elevation, changes in the
supply of sediment to the stream caused by changing precipitation rates , and/or land use
practices that promote excessive erosion in the floodplain or upland areas of the watershed.
Bed sediment is composed of particles that are too large or too dense to be carried in
suspension by stream flow. These particles roll , tumble, or are periodically suspended as they
move downstream. Traditionally, bed sediment has been difficult to quantify due to deficiencies
in monitoring methodology or inaccuracies of estimating volumes of sediment being transported
along the streambed. This is particularly true in streams that flow at high velocity or in streams
with excessive sediment loads.
Marlon Cook developed a portable stream bed sedimentation rate-monitoring device that
was designed to accurately measure bed sediment in shallow sand or gravel bed streams (Cook
and Puckett, 1998). Stream discharge and mean stream flow velocities are measured and used
with estimates of bed sediment loads to facilitate comparison of sediment transport and stream
flow conditions with other monitored streams.
NUTRIENTS
Excessive nutrient enrichment is a major cause of water-quality impairment. Excessive
concentrations of nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, in the aquatic environment may
lead to increased biological activity, increased algal growth, decreased dissolved oxygen
concentrations at times, and decreased numbers of species
NITRATE
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L. Typical nitrate (N03 as N) concentrations in
streams vary from 0.5 to 3.0 mg/L. Concentrations of nitrate in streams without significant
nonpoint sources of pollution vary from 0 .1 to 0.5 mg/L . Streams fed by shallow groundwater
draining agricultural areas may approach 10 mg /L (Maidment, 1993). Nitrate concentrations in
streams without significant nonpoint sources of pollution generally do not exceed 0.5 mg/L
6
(Maidment, 1993).
PHOSPHORUS
Phosphorus in streams originates from the mineralization of phosphates from soil and
rocks or runoff and effluent containing fertilizer or other industrial products. The natural
background concentration of total dissolved phosphorus is approximately 0.025 mg/L.
Phosphorus concentrations as low as 0.005 to 0.01 mg/L may cause algae growth, but the critical
level of phosphorus necessary for excessive algae is around 0.05 mg/L (Maidrnent, 1993).
Although no official water-quality criterion for phosphorus has been established in the United
States, total phosphorus should not exceed 0.05 mg/L in any stream or 0.025 mg/L within a lake
or reservoir in order to prevent the development of biological nuisances (Maidment, 1993).
Concentrations of nitrate and total phosphorus, in mg/L, are determined by laboratory
analysis of periodic water grab samples. Annual nitrate and total phosphorus loads are estimated
using the computer regression model Regr_Cntr.xls (Regression with Centering). The program is
an EXCEL adaptation of the U.S. Geological Survey seven-parameter regression model for load
estimation (Cohn et al., 1992). The regression with centering program uses average daily
discharge and constituent concentrations to estimate annual loads.
PATHOGENS
Microorganisms are present in all surface waters and include viruses, bacteria, fungi,
algae, and protozoa. Analyses of bacteria levels may be used to assess the quality of water and to
indicate the presence of human and animal waste in surface and ground water. The flushing
action of storm-water runoff causes increased concentrations of nonpoint-source pollutants in
receiving streams. Previous studies have demonstrated excellent correlations between increased
stream discharge and increased concentrations of in-stream bacteria. Possible sources of fecal
contamination to surface waters include wastewater treatment plants, on-site septic systems,
domestic and wild animal manure, and storm runoff.
Samples will be collected under base flow and high flow conditions at sites with no saline
water influence and processed to determine counts of e-coli bacteria. The primary purpose of
base-flow sampling is to determine contributions of bacteria from point sources such as leaking
sewer pipes or unregulated discharges to streams. The primary purpose of high-flow sampling is
to determine contributions of bacteria from non point source runoff.
ADEM standards for streams classified as fish and wildlife are 487 colonies per 100
7
milliliters from June to October and 2,507 colonies per 100 milliliters from October to June. If
counts exceed the standard, sampling to detennine the geometric mean is required.
LAND USE
Land use is directly correlated with water quality, hydrologic function, ecosystem health,
biodiversity, and the integrity of streams and wetlands. Land-use patterns, when evaluated with
stream discharge and water-quality data, can be an essential part of an overall assessment
strategy to determine sources of water-quality impacts , to support watershed management, and to
develop remedial actions. Land use classification for this project area will be determined from
the U .S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service 2013
Alabama Cropland Data Layer (NASS CDL) raster dataset.
SCOPE OF WORK
Work elements and deliverables will include:
1. Measure stream discharge over a range from low to high flow at 16 monitoring sites along the
eastern shore of Mobile Bay.
2. Collect field parameters at 16 monitoring sites for each monitored discharge event, including
pH, specific conductance, turbidity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.
3. Measure bed sediment transport rates at 10 sites for each monitored discharge event. Bed
sediment transport rates and stream discharge will be used to prepare a bed sediment load
regression model to determine bed sediment loads at each monitored site.
4. Collect water samples at 16 monitoring sites for each monitored discharge event and submit
samples to the Polyenviromental Corporation certified geochemical laboratory for analysis of
TSS concentrations. TSS concentrations and stream discharge will be used with the Regression
with Centering digital model to estimate suspended sediment loads at each monitored site.
5. Collect water samples for each monitored discharge event at 16 monitoring sites and submit
samples to the Polyenviromental Corporation certified geochemical laboratory for analysis of
nitrate and total phosphorus concentrations. Analytical results and stream discharge will be used
with the Regression with Centering digital model to estimate nitrate and phosphorus loads at
each monitored site.
6. Collect samples under base flow and high flow conditions at sites with no saline water
influence and process to determine counts of e-coli bacteria.
8
7 . Evaluate current land use with acquired field data and sediment and nutrient loads to
determine likely sources of sediment and other water-quality impacts in the watershed.
8. Prepare final report including descriptive text and supporting charts, graphs , and maps . A
digital version of the report will be provided.
PROJECT PERFORMANCE TIME
Project initiation will be in January 2019. Data collection is dependent on climate
conditions, but will be completed as soon as possible. The maximum period of project
performance will be 12 months.
REFERENCES
Cohn, T. A., Caulder D. L., Gilroy E. J., Zynjuk, L. D ., and Summers, R. M., 1992, The validity
of a simple statistical model for estimating fluvial constituent loads : an empirical study
involving nutrient loads entering Chesapeake Bay: Water Resources Research, v . 28, p.
2353-2363 .
Cook, M. R., and Puckett, T . M., 1998, Section 319 national monitoring program project for
Lightwood Knot Creek Watershed in Southeast Alabama: A report to the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, 1997 Annual Report and Paired Watershed
Calibration, Geological Survey of Alabama open file report, 140 p .
Maidment, D . R., ed., 1993, Handbook of hydrology: New York, McGraw-Hill Inc., p. 11.37-
11.54.
9
COMMON TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Collection system: a network of pumps, gravity line s, manholes and force mains that get sewer
(wastewater) to the plant for treatment
Detention time: the amount oftime or capacity a wet well, manhole or main line will hold sewer
before there is an overflow
Force mains: pipes of various diameter, usually made of PVC or iron, that carry sewer to either
a manhole, another force main, a lift station or directly to the plant . The lines are under pressure.
Gravity sewer: pipes of various diameter that carry sewer from a home to a lift station or directly
to the plant . These pipes are not under pressure, but are one of the main sources of I & I
I and I (inflow and infiltration): any water that enters the collection system that is not sewer,
i.e. rain water. I & I robs the system of capacity and ca n qu i ckly overwhelm a system
Lateral: a pipe, usually PVC and 4 inches in diameter, that runs from a home to our main lines.
Lift station: a set of pumps that is housed in a defined area that are used to move sewer, under
pressure, to another lift station or directly to the plant. Solely maintained by the city.
Low pressure sewer: this type of sewer requires the homeowner to purchase and maintain a
grinder pump. A low pressure system is used when gravity sewer isn't available.
Main lines: pipes 6 inches or bigger in diameter, usually made of PVC, iron or clay, that move
sewer from a home to a manhole, lift station or directly to the plant . These are gravity lines, not
under pressure and a main source of I and I
Manholes: access points for workers to inspect and work on main lines. The are usually made
of brick, concrete or fiberglass . These are another main source of I and I
Rehabilitation as it relates to sewer: the city uses contractors to video, clean and inspect our
collection system. We use this information to decide the areas of greatest needs . Then another
contractor lines the main lines, manholes and lift stat i on wet wells . This process greatly reduces
land I
SCADA: this is a digital alarm system to alert us to potential problems
SSO: sewer overflows. Some of the main causes are I and I, illegal dumping, grease, power
outages, vandalism, storms, cable companies, commercial contractors, etc .
Wet well: a hold tank, usually directly underneath the lift stat i on , a collection point for sewer
before it is pumped to its next destination
WWTP: waste water treatment plant, where the sewer is treated before it is released
•