Surface Water - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Sub-Watershed: Thacker Creek NRCS Sub-Watershed Number 080 Landuse: The Thacker Creek sub-watershed drains approximately 57 mi 2 in Cullman County. Land cover was mainly forest mixed with pasture land. Four current construction/stormwater authorizations and one municipal NPDES permit have been issued in the sub-watershed (Appendix B). A 9.5 mile segment of Thacker Creek is impaired by ammonia, pathogens, and organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen. EPA has approved the TMDL for each of these pollutants (Appendix C-1). Implementation of the TMDLs is pending. Two segments of Mulberry Fork are on ADEM’s 2002 §303(d) list for impairments caused by nutrients, siltation, and other habitat alteration (Appendix C-2). Agriculture, municipal, and industrial activities are listed as the sources of impairment. Percent land cover estimated by local SWCD (Appendix A, ASWCC 1998) Forest Row crop Pasture Mining Urban Open Water Other 82% 1% 10% 3% 3%
Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Assessment stations located within the sub-watershed. Descriptions are provided in Appendix E-1. Station Assessment Type Date Location Area (mi 2 ) GSAMF-33 a GSAMF-50 b GSAMF-33 c MRTC-1 Chemical, Habitat, Biological Chemical, Habitat, Biological 2001 2002 Classification Marriott Cr. nr. I 65 24 F&W 2001 Marriott Cr. at unnamed rd. S of Cullman CR 18 9 F&W BW04U2-37 Habitat, Chemical 1998 Mulberry Fork approx. 3.8 mi. us 417 F&W of confluence with Marriott Cr. a. GSA Fish IBI assessment location as reported in Shepard et al. (2001); b. GSA Fish IBI assessment location as reported in Shepard et al. (2002); c. ADEM macroinvertebrate assessment location quality data collected at this station from March through December of 2002 are provided in Appendix O-3. At GSAMF-33, the habitat quality of Marriott Creek had been impacted by the construction of I-65. The substrate was a mixture of cobble, gravel, and sand (Appendix J, Shepard et al. 2002). Six EPT families were collected, indicating the macroinvertebrate community to be in fair condition (Appendix K). A fish assessment conducted by GSA in May of 2001 showed the community to be in poor condition (Appendix G, Shepard et al. 2001, Shepard et al. 2002). Attached algae was abundant, suggesting impacts caused by nutrient enrichment. Conductivity, hardness, and total dissolved solids were elevated at GSAMF-33 during June of 2002 (Appendix M). Mulberry Fork: Mulberry Fork was evaluated at BW04U2-37 during ADEM’s 1998 ALAMAP Program (Appendix E). Data are provided in Appendix T-1 and T-2. Sub-watershed status: Approved TMDLs have been developed for ammonia, pathogens, and organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen impacts on Thacker Creek. Two segments of Mulberry Fork are on ADEM’s 2002 §303(d) list for impairments caused by nutrients, siltation, and other habitat alteration. The sources listed as causing the impairment are agricultural runoff and municipal and industrial discharges. Macroinvertebrate and fish assessments conducted in 2001 and 2002 indicated impaired biological conditions at two locations on Marriott Creek. Nutrient enrichment and sedimentation were suspected causes of the impairment. Based on the 1998 SWCD sub-watershed assessment, poultry production and forestry were the main NPS concerns within the sub-watershed. 93
Page 1 and 2:
SURFACE WATER QUALITY SCREENING ASS
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 5 and 6:
List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES 1 C
Page 7 and 8:
List of Abbreviations LIST OF ABBRE
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction INTRODUCTION Backgroun
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction document includes a de
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction Table 1, cont. List of
Page 15 and 16:
Methodology Table 7. Sub-watersheds
Page 17 and 18:
Methodology Fig. 1. Cataloging unit
Page 19 and 20:
Methodology Fig. 2. Level IV Ecoreg
Page 21 and 22:
Methodology The southern section of
Page 23 and 24:
Methodology The Southern Table Plat
Page 25 and 26:
Methodology Table 8. Current conver
Page 27 and 28:
Methodology SITE SELECTION Alabama
Page 29 and 30:
Methodology Process samples in the
Page 31 and 32:
Methodology Water quality samples a
Page 33 and 34:
Summary: BWC River Basins Summary:
Page 35 and 36:
Summary: BWC River Basins Fig. 3. C
Page 37 and 38:
Summary: BWC River Basins Fig. 4. E
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: Summary: BWC River Basins Fig. 10.
Page 57 and 58: Summary: BWC River Basins Results o
Page 59 and 60: Summary: BWC River Basins Impaired
Page 61 and 62: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 53
Page 63 and 64: Summary: BWC River Basins Table 5,
Page 65 and 66: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 57
Page 67 and 68: Cahaba River (0315-0202) Cahaba Riv
Page 69 and 70: Cahaba River (0315-0202) Types of a
Page 71 and 72: Cahaba River (0315-0202) Fig. 15. I
Page 73 and 74: Cahaba River (0315-0202) Sub-Waters
Page 75 and 76: Cahaba River (0315-0202) suspended
Page 77 and 78: Cahaba River (0315-0202) indicating
Page 79 and 80: Cahaba River (0315-0202) assessed a
Page 81 and 82: Cahaba River (0315-0202) Assessment
Page 83 and 84: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Program (
Page 85 and 86: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Fig. 16.
Page 87 and 88: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) List of i
Page 89 and 90: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Assessmen
Page 91 and 92: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) greater t
Page 97 and 98: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Eightmile
Page 99: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Broglen R
Page 105 and 106: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Sub-Water
Page 111 and 112: Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Bunkum Cr
Page 119 and 120: Mulberry Fork (0316-0110) Sipsey Fo
Page 121 and 122: Mulberry Fork (0316-0110) waters. A
Page 123 and 124: Sipsey Fork (0316-0110) Fig. 17. 20
Page 125 and 126: Sipsey Fork (0316-0110) Sub-Watersh
Page 127 and 128: Sipsey Fork (0316-0110) and GSA (Ap
Page 129 and 130: Sipsey Fork (0316-0110) Assessment
Page 139 and 140: Sipsey Fork (0316-0110) unstable ba
Page 141 and 142: Sipsey Fork (0316-0110) conditions
Page 143 and 144: Locust Fork (0316-0111) Historical
Page 145 and 146: Locust Fork (0316-0111) Fig. 18. 20
Page 147 and 148: Locust Fork (0316-0111) Upper Locus
Page 149 and 150: Locust Fork (0316-0111) ADEM 1999a)
Page 151 and 152:
Locust Fork (0316-0111) and fair/po
Page 153 and 154:
Locust Fork (0316-0111) bottom subs
Page 155 and 156:
Locust Fork (0316-0111) Assessment
Page 157 and 158:
Locust Fork (0316-0111) oxygen. ADE
Page 159 and 160:
Locust Fork (0316-0111) Longs Branc
Page 161 and 162:
Upper Black Warrior River (0316-011
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Lower Black Warrior River (0316-011
Page 181 and 182:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 173
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 189
Page 199 and 200:
References ACES. 1997. Soil areas o
Page 201 and 202:
References ADEM. 2002b. Nonpoint so
Page 203 and 204:
References APHA, AWWA, and WEF. 199
Page 205 and 206:
References Omernik, J.M. 1996. Leve
Page 207 and 208:
APPENDICES
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix A, cont. Land use percenta
Page 211 and 212:
Appendix B--Page 1 of 3 Appendix B.
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix B--Page 3 of 3 Appendix B,
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix C-2. List of waterbodies w
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix C-2, cont. List of waterbo
Page 219 and 220:
Appendix D, cont. Estimates of (H)i
Page 221 and 222:
Appendix D cont. Estimates of (H)ig
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix E. Stations assessed in th
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Appendix F--Page 2 of 2 Appendix F,
Page 265 and 266:
Appendix G, cont. Summary of assess
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Appendix H, cont. Estimates of anim
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Appendix I. Sedimentation estimates
Page 281 and 282:
Appendix I, cont. Sedimentation est
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Appendix J, cont. Physical characte
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Appendix K. Bioassessment results f
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Appendix L-2. ADEM Glide/Pool habit
Page 303 and 304:
ADEM — FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION
Page 305 and 306:
Appendix M--Page 2 of 3 Appendix M.
Page 307 and 308:
Appendix N. Concentration of metals
Page 309 and 310:
Appendix O-1. Physical characterist
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Appendix O-3. Physical/chemical dat
Page 317 and 318:
Appendix O-3--Page 3 of 4 Appendix
Page 319 and 320:
Appendix P. §303(d) Waterbody Moni
Page 321 and 322:
Appendix P-1. Physical characterist
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Appendix P-2. Bioassessment results
Page 329 and 330:
Appendix P-3. Physical/chemical dat
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Appendix Q. Periphyton Bioassessmen
Page 357 and 358:
Appendix Q--Page 2 of 2 Appendix Q.
Page 359 and 360:
Appendix R--Page 1 of 5 Appendix R.
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Appendix S--Page 1 of 9 Appendix S.
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Appendix S. Physical/chemical data
Page 375 and 376:
Appendix T-1. Results of habitat as
Page 377 and 378:
Appendix T-1. Results of habitat as
Page 379:
Appendix T-2--Page 1 of 1 Appendix
show all

Surface Water - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?