Environmental data related to water quality of the Caddo River and its tributaries were collected from March - October, 1992, and compared with data from August, 1974 - May, 1975. Bacterial, chemical and physical parameters were investigated at six river locations and thirteen tributary sites. Ammonia, nitrates, soluble phosphorus, turbidity and fecal coliform were significantly lower, and sodium and potassium were significantly higher in 1992 than during the previous study. Bacterial loading exceeded EPA criteria at some locations during both studies

Bragg, Jimmy D.

House, Kelly L.

Kuyper, Clark

Thomas, T. Kent

Tumlison, C. Renn

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 47 Article 161993Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and itsTributaries: Comparison of Water Quality During1992 with 1974-75Kelly L. HouseJimmy D. BraggClark KuyperT. Kent ThomasC. Renn TumlisonFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationHouse, Kelly L.; Bragg, Jimmy D.; Kuyper, Clark; Thomas, T. Kent; and Tumlison, C. Renn (1993) "Environmental Analysis of theCaddo River and its Tributaries: Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with 1974-75," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science:Vol. 47 , Article 16.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/1661Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and its Tributaries:Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with1974-75KellyL.House, J. D.Bragg, Clark Kuyper, T.Kent Thomas and Renn TumlisonGarland County Community College, HotSprings, AR,Henderson State University,Arkadelphia, ARand Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR.AbstractEnvironmnetal data related to water quality of the Caddo River and its tributaries were collected fromMarch - October,1992, and compared with data from August, 1974 - May, 1975. Bacterial, chemical and physical parameters were investi-gated at six river locations and thirteen tributary sites. Ammonia, nitrates, soluble phosphorus, turbidity and fecal col-iform were signficantly lower, and sodium and postassium were significantly higher in 1992 than during the previousstudy. Bacterial loading exceeded EPA criteria at some locations during both studies.IntroductionEnvironmental data related to water quality of theCaddo River and its tributaries were collected formMarch - October, 1992, and compared with a previousstudy from August, 1974 - May, 1975 (Nix et al., 1975).The Caddo River above DeGray Reservoir drains a por-tion of the southeastern flank of the Ouachita Mountainsin southwest Arkansas. There are two wastewater facili-ties, several chicken houses, a barite mine and septicdrainages located on the watershed, as well as non-pointsources such as grazing livestock.In recent years considerable concern has been shownfor the quality of Arkansas waterways. In 1989 itwasreported that almost one-fourth of the miles of streams inthe state have impaired quality due to pollution(Ridlehoover, 1992). This study was directed towarddetermination of current water quality of the CaddoRiver system, and elucidation of any changes which haveoccured inquality since the mid-1970s.Methods and MaterialsStudy sites are listed in Table 1. Bacterial parametersncluded enumeration of total coliforms (TC), fecal col-forms (FC) and fecal streptococci (FS). Chemical andphysical parameters included soluble phosphorous,ammonia, nitrates, sulfates, chloride, manganese, sodium,>otassium, iron,calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, pH, con-ductivity and turbidity.Samples were collected an analyzed according to stan-[ard methods (American Public Health Association,989). Bacterial analyses were by membrane filtration onmEndo (TC), mFC (FC) and mEnterococcus (FS) mediaDifco). A 500 mlraw water sample was collected for test-ng pH, turbidity, alkalinity and conductivity.Approximately 2 ml of 1:1 hydrochloric acid was added toa 250 ml sample of water for analyses of soluble phospho-rus and ammonia. A 175 ml filtered sample was used foranalyses of chloride, sulfates and nitrates. A 20 ml samplewas acidified with 2 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid fordetermination of iron, clacium, sodium, potassium, mag-nesium and manganese.Table 1. Location of sampling stations for the CaddoRiver, ArkansasRiver TributariesRiver StationsBeech CreekPolk CreekLick CreekBlack SpringsNormanHuddleston CreekCollier CreekSmith CreekGap CreekMillCreekSouth Fork Caddo RiverMudlick CreekSweetwater CreekRock CreekCaney CreekThe data were analyzed by use of the StatisticalAnalysis System (SAS). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasused to evaluate differences inphysio-chemical and bacte-riological parameters. When significant, Tukey-Kramertests (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981) were used to determinewhich locations was different. Two-way ANOVA was usedto evaluate variations due to year of sample and locationCaddo GapGlenwoodAmityHighway 84Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 199361Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 16Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 199362of sample. ria at Black Springs (25% of samples) and at Glenwood(13% of samples) (Table 3).Results and DiscussionTable 3. Bacterial data from river stations. EPA criterionfor Fecal Coliforms=200/ 100ml. *Some samples exceededEPA criterion.Data from the river sites collected during 1992 wereaveraged and compared to that of 1974-75 (Table 2).Ammonia, nitrates, soluble phosphorus, turbidity andfecal coliform were significantly lower, and sodium andpotassium were significantly higher in 1992. Alkalinityand conductivity were significantly higher in the upperriver. Previous studies have noted the presence of lime-stone in the upper watershed, and its absence in thelower reaches of the river (Nix et al., 1975). Therefore,dilution by the tributaries tend to occur in the lowerregions of the river.Site Variable No. Samples Mean/Standard Deviation109.125*165/10810750/284075/48106/7018650/614743/45209/43724558/1290283/151*387/81710200/845319.2852/4114583/715021/18115/9615133/2988Black Springs FC 8FS 8TC 6Norman FCFSTCCaddo Gap FCFSTCGlenwood FCFSTCAmity FCFSTCHighway 84 FC8857The means of the physio-chemical and bacteriologicalparameters measured for the entire river were comparedto Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) quality criteria(EPA, 1986). The values for these parameters were withinEPA criteria except for 9% of the samples of fecal col-iform.868868868FS 8Table 2. Physio-chemical and bacteriological data fromCaddo River stations. *Significant differences betweenyears (0.05 level)TC 61992 1974-75Variable No. samples Meai\/Std. Dev. No. samples Mearv/Std. Dev.chloride (mg/L) 42 1.77/0.34 na napH 42 7.44/0.30 42 7.38/0.19ammonia (mg/L)* 42 0.06/0.03 42 0.11/0.06manganese (ug/L) 42 0.07/0.02 na naalkalinity (mg/L) 42 49.0/10.3 42 45.4/10.6nitrates (mg/L)* 41 0.10/0.07 42 0.17/0.18conductivity 42 107.0/19.2 42 106.2/29.3Thirteen tributaries were investigated for bacterial load-ing (Table 4). Fecal coliform bacteria did not exceed theEPA criterion in any samples from Beech and HuddlestonCreeks, but 13% of samples from Caney Creek and SouthFork Caddo River and 14% of samples from Gap, Smith andPolk Creeks exceeded EPA criteria. Excessive bacteria werealso present in 25% of samples from Lick and CollierCreeks, 38% of samples from Milland Sweetwater Creeks,63% of samples from Mudlick Creek and 86% of samplesfrom Rock Creek. Sweetwater and Mudlick tributaries arelocated above the Glenwood site in the river proper andwould relate to the high counts at the river station.phosphorus (ug/L)* 36 0.02/0.008 42 0.03/0.06sodium (mg/L)* 42 2.22/0.87 42 1.19/0.34sulfates (mg/L) 42 5.16/0.67 na napotassium (mg/L)* 42 0.92/0.17 42 0.59/0.35iron (mg/L) 41 0.59/0.19 na na. / . Chemical and physical parameters of the Caddo River andits tributaries are generally within acceptable limits.However, there appear to be excessive bacterial loading insome tributaries and around the middle reaches of the riverproper. Statistically significant changes seem to have occuredsince the 1970s study. However, one must exercise care inaccepting such data at face value, particularly becauses of theimpact of heavy rainfall runoff on such a small river system.calcium (mg/L) 42 16.3/4.45 36 15.19/5.14magnesium (mg/L) 42 1.81/0.35 30 1.82/0.4042 2.25/1.20 30 4.30/3.76turbidity*FC (cfu/100ml)* 47 58/882 48 861/1202FS (cfu/100ml) 48 173/380 na naTC (cfu/100ml) 35 17312/8390 na nana = not availableThe data from each specific sampling stie weregrouped and compared with EPA recommendation. Allchemical and physical parameters were within EPA crite-ria. However, fecal coliform bacteria surpassed EPA crite-Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47, 199362Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 16http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/1663Table 4. Bacterial data from thriteen tributaries during 1992.EPA criterion for FC=200/ 100ml. *Some samples exceededEPA criterion.Variable No. Samples Mean/Std Dev.SiteBeech 8867Polk74LickHuddlestonCollierMillSmithGapSouth ForkCaddo RiverMudlickSweetwaterRockCaneyFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTC88688688688688678688688688677586637/41157/13515126/6994190/348*1210/242829050/28049190/194*205/12517400/901436/32336/47313790/9833162/241*118/7116875/5337504/723*335/29224256/14283158/157*291/32423006/15047102/185*199/1777615/368959/78*88/7315325/36481927/4214*143/13026566/27306320/336*458/35819767/11344402/389*265/14218650/587145/76*377/4241651/3998Literature CitedAmerican Public Health Association. 1989. Standard meth-ods of the examination of water and wastewater, 17thEdition. APHA,Inc.New York.EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EnvironmentalProtection Agency PB-263943. Washington D.C.Nix,J.F., R.L.Meyer, E.H. Schmitz, J.D. Bragg and R.Brown 1975. Collection ofenvironmental data on DeGrayReservoir and the watershed of the Caddo River,Arkansas. U.S. Army Engineer Contract No. DACW39-75-C-0025.Ridlehoover, Bobbi. 1992. State gets failingmarks on manyclean tests. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Feb. 9, p 22-23A.Sokal, Robert R.and R.James Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nded. W.H. Freeman and Company. 859 pp.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Dr. Joe Nix,Professor ofChemistry, Ouachita Baptist University for his assistance anduse of his labortory. This study was supported in part by aHenderson State University faculty research grant. Thanksare extended to Thomas House who spent many hours help-ingin the field.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 199363Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 16Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1993

Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and its Tributaries: Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with 1974-75

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 47 Article 16 1993 Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and its Tributaries: Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with 1974-75 Kelly L. House Jimmy D. Bragg Clark Kuyper T. Kent Thomas C. Renn Tumlison Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation House, Kelly L.; Bragg, Jimmy D.; Kuyper, Clark; Thomas, T. Kent; and Tumlison, C. Renn (1993) "Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and its Tributaries: Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with 1974-75," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 47 , Article 16. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/16 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. 61Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and its Tributaries:Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with1974-75KellyL.House, J. D.Bragg, Clark Kuyper, T.Kent Thomas and Renn TumlisonGarland County Community College, HotSprings, AR,Henderson State University,Arkadelphia, ARand Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR.AbstractEnvironmnetal data related to water quality of the Caddo River and its tributaries were collected fromMarch- October,1992, and compared with data from August, 1974 - May, 1975. Bacterial, chemical and physical parameters were investi-gated at six river locations and thirteen tributary sites. Ammonia, nitrates, soluble phosphorus, turbidity and fecal col-iform were signficantly lower, and sodium and postassium were significantly higher in 1992 than during the previousstudy. Bacterial loading exceeded EPA criteria at some locations during both studies.IntroductionEnvironmental data related to water quality of theCaddo River and its tributaries were collected formMarch - October, 1992, and compared with a previousstudy from August, 1974 - May, 1975 (Nix et al., 1975).The Caddo River above DeGray Reservoir drains a por-tion of the southeastern flank of the Ouachita Mountainsin southwest Arkansas. There are two wastewater facili-ties, several chicken houses, a barite mine and septicdrainages located on the watershed, as well as non-pointsources such as grazing livestock.In recent years considerable concern has been shownfor the quality of Arkansas waterways. In 1989 itwasreported that almost one-fourth of the miles of streams inthe state have impaired quality due to pollution(Ridlehoover, 1992). This study was directed towarddetermination of current water quality of the CaddoRiver system, and elucidation of any changes which haveoccured inquality since the mid-1970s.Methods and MaterialsStudy sites are listed in Table 1. Bacterial parametersncluded enumeration of total coliforms (TC), fecal col-forms (FC) and fecal streptococci (FS). Chemical andphysical parameters included soluble phosphorous,ammonia, nitrates, sulfates, chloride, manganese, sodium,>otassium, iron,calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, pH, con-ductivity and turbidity.Samples were collected an analyzed according to stan-[ard methods (American Public Health Association,989). Bacterial analyses were by membrane filtration onmEndo (TC), mFC (FC) and mEnterococcus (FS) mediaDifco). A 500 mlraw water sample was collected for test-ng pH, turbidity, alkalinity and conductivity.Approximately 2 ml of 1:1 hydrochloric acid was added toa 250 ml sample of water for analyses of soluble phospho-rus and ammonia. A 175 ml filtered sample was used foranalyses of chloride, sulfates and nitrates. A 20 ml samplewas acidified with 2 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid fordetermination of iron, clacium, sodium, potassium, mag-nesium and manganese.Table 1. Location of sampling stations for the CaddoRiver, ArkansasRiver TributariesRiver StationsBeech CreekPolk CreekLick CreekBlack SpringsNormanHuddleston CreekCollier CreekSmith CreekGap CreekMillCreekSouth Fork Caddo RiverMudlick CreekSweetwater CreekRock CreekCaney CreekThe data were analyzed by use of the StatisticalAnalysis System (SAS). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasused to evaluate differences inphysio-chemical and bacte-riological parameters. When significant, Tukey-Kramertests (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981) were used to determinewhich locations was different. Two-way ANOVA was usedto evaluate variations due to year of sample and locationCaddo GapGlenwoodAmityHighway 84Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 199361Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 16Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 199362of sample. ria at Black Springs (25% of samples) and at Glenwood(13% of samples) (Table 3).Results and DiscussionTable 3. Bacterial data from river stations. EPA criterionfor Fecal Coliforms=200/ 100ml. *Some samples exceededEPA criterion.Data from the river sites collected during 1992 wereaveraged and compared to that of 1974-75 (Table 2).Ammonia, nitrates, soluble phosphorus, turbidity andfecal coliform were significantly lower, and sodium andpotassium were significantly higher in 1992. Alkalinityand conductivity were significantly higher in the upperriver. Previous studies have noted the presence of lime-stone in the upper watershed, and its absence in thelower reaches of the river (Nix et al., 1975). Therefore,dilution by the tributaries tend to occur in the lowerregions of the river.Site Variable No. Samples Mean/Standard Deviation109.125*165/10810750/284075/48106/7018650/614743/45209/43724558/1290283/151*387/81710200/845319.2852/4114583/715021/18115/9615133/2988Black Springs FC 8FS 8TC 6Norman FCFSTCCaddo Gap FCFSTCGlenwood FCFSTCAmity FCFSTCHighway 84 FC8857The means of the physio-chemical and bacteriologicalparameters measured for the entire river were comparedto Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) quality criteria(EPA, 1986). The values for these parameters were withinEPA criteria except for 9% of the samples of fecal col-iform.868868868FS 8Table 2. Physio-chemical and bacteriological data fromCaddo River stations. *Significant differences betweenyears (0.05 level)TC 61992 1974-75Variable No. samples Meai\/Std. Dev. No. samples Mearv/Std. Dev.chloride (mg/L) 42 1.77/0.34 na napH 42 7.44/0.30 42 7.38/0.19ammonia (mg/L)* 42 0.06/0.03 42 0.11/0.06manganese (ug/L) 42 0.07/0.02 na naalkalinity (mg/L) 42 49.0/10.3 42 45.4/10.6nitrates (mg/L)* 41 0.10/0.07 42 0.17/0.18conductivity 42 107.0/19.2 42 106.2/29.3Thirteen tributaries were investigated for bacterial load-ing (Table 4). Fecal coliform bacteria did not exceed theEPA criterion in any samples from Beech and HuddlestonCreeks, but 13% of samples from Caney Creek and SouthFork Caddo River and 14% of samples from Gap, Smith andPolk Creeks exceeded EPA criteria. Excessive bacteria werealso present in 25% of samples from Lick and CollierCreeks, 38% of samples from Milland Sweetwater Creeks,63% of samples from Mudlick Creek and 86% of samplesfrom Rock Creek. Sweetwater and Mudlick tributaries arelocated above the Glenwood site in the river proper andwould relate to the high counts at the river station.phosphorus (ug/L)* 36 0.02/0.008 42 0.03/0.06sodium (mg/L)* 42 2.22/0.87 42 1.19/0.34sulfates (mg/L) 42 5.16/0.67 na napotassium (mg/L)* 42 0.92/0.17 42 0.59/0.35iron (mg/L) 41 0.59/0.19 na na. / .Chemical and physical parameters of the Caddo River andits tributaries are generally within acceptable limits.However, there appear to be excessive bacterial loading insome tributaries and around the middle reaches of the riverproper. Statistically significant changes seem to have occuredsince the 1970s study. However, one must exercise care inaccepting such data at face value, particularly becauses of theimpact of heavy rainfall runoff on such a small river system.calcium (mg/L) 42 16.3/4.45 36 15.19/5.14magnesium (mg/L) 42 1.81/0.35 30 1.82/0.4042 2.25/1.20 30 4.30/3.76turbidity*FC (cfu/100ml)* 47 58/882 48 861/1202FS (cfu/100ml) 48 173/380 na naTC (cfu/100ml) 35 17312/8390 na nana = not availableThe data from each specific sampling stie weregrouped and compared with EPA recommendation. Allchemical and physical parameters were within EPA crite-ria. However, fecal coliform bacteria surpassed EPA crite-Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47, 199362Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 16https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/1663Table 4. Bacterial data from thriteen tributaries during 1992.EPA criterion for FC=200/ 100ml. *Some samples exceededEPA criterion.Variable No. Samples Mean/Std Dev.SiteBeech 8867Polk74LickHuddlestonCollierMillSmithGapSouth ForkCaddo RiverMudlickSweetwaterRockCaneyFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTCFCFSTC88688688688688678688688688677586637/41157/13515126/6994190/348*1210/242829050/28049190/194*205/12517400/901436/32336/47313790/9833162/241*118/7116875/5337504/723*335/29224256/14283158/157*291/32423006/15047102/185*199/1777615/368959/78*88/7315325/36481927/4214*143/13026566/27306320/336*458/35819767/11344402/389*265/14218650/587145/76*377/4241651/3998Literature CitedAmerican Public Health Association. 1989. Standard meth-ods of the examination of water and wastewater, 17thEdition. APHA,Inc.New York.EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EnvironmentalProtection Agency PB-263943. Washington D.C.Nix,J.F., R.L.Meyer, E.H. Schmitz, J.D. Bragg and R.Brown 1975. Collection ofenvironmental data on DeGrayReservoir and the watershed of the Caddo River,Arkansas. U.S. Army Engineer Contract No. DACW39-75-C-0025.Ridlehoover, Bobbi. 1992. State gets failingmarks on manyclean tests. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Feb. 9, p 22-23A.Sokal, Robert R.and R.James Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nded. W.H. Freeman and Company. 859 pp.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Dr. Joe Nix,Professor ofChemistry, Ouachita Baptist University for his assistance anduse of his labortory. This study was supported in part by aHenderson State University faculty research grant. Thanksare extended to Thomas House who spent many hours help-ingin the field.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 199363Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 16Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1993

English

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2015&context=jaas

Environmental Analysis of the Caddo River and its Tributaries: Comparison of Water Quality During 1992 with 1974-75

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )