Surface Water - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Locust Fork (0316-0111)
Historical data/studies: The majority of assessments conducted within the Locust Fork CU
were from 10 programs and projects conducted by the ADEM and the Geological Survey
of Alabama (GSA).
Monitored assessment data, including chemical, physical, and/or biological data, were
collected during these programs using commonly accepted and well-documented methods.
Results of monitored assessments were used in this report to assess habitat, biological, and
chemical conditions within a sub-watershed.
Evaluated asesments were conducted in conjunction with ADEM’s ALAMAP
Program (Appendix T). Evaluated assessments are based on observed conditions, limited
water quality data, water quality data older than 5 years, or estimated impacts from
observed or suspected activities. A summary of 5 projects or programs, completed or
funded by ADEM, is provided in the appendices. The summaries include lead agency,
project objectives, data collected, and applicable quality assurance manuals.
Types of assessments and assessment guidelines for projects that have generated monitored
assessment information.
Project
Assessment
Type a
Assessment
Guidelines
(Y/N)
ADEM’s Ecoregional Reference Reach Program b H, C, B Y
ADEM’s §303(d) Waterbody Monitoring Program b H, C, B Y
ADEM’s Reservoir Monitoring Program C, B Y
ADEM’s Fish Tisue Monitoring Program C Y
ADEM’s Ambient Monitoring Program b H, C, B Y
University Tributary Nutrient Project b C Y
ADEM’s Periphyton Bioasesment Pilot Study b H, C, B Y
USGS’s Asesment of Water-Quality and
H, C, B Y
Biological Conditions in Village and Valley Creeks
GSA’s Water Quality Asesment of Locust Fork C N
2001 Chitwood Creek WQDS H, C, B Y
a H=habitat; C=chemical/physical; B=biological
Data and summary of project included in Appendices
2002 NPS Screening Assessment: Seven sub-watersheds were targeted for assessment
during the 2002 NPS Screening Assessment because they were recommended as NPS
priority sub-watersheds in 1997, had a moderate potential for impairment from nonpoint
sources,were on ADEM’s 2002 §303(d) list of impaired waters, or recent data were
unavailable. Appendix F lists the 10 stations assessed.
Sub-watershed assessments: Current and historical monitoring data were combined to
provide a comprehensive assessment. Habitat, chemical/physical, and biological indicators
of water quality were monitored in 9 sub-watersheds (Appendix G). Habitat quality was
assessed as excellent or good at 27 stations and fair or impaired at 3 stations.
Macroinvertebrate assessments were conducted at 29 stations. Results of these
assessments indicated the macroinvertebrate community to be in excellent or good
condition at 10 (34%) stations and fair or poor at 19 stations (66%). Fish communities
135