Surface Water - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References Hartfield, P. 2002. Special report: Mussels of the Cahaba River, species assessment and sources of information. Prepared for Jefferson County Environmental Authority. May 23, 2002. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:65-68. Howard, H.S., B. Quinn, M.C. Flexner, R.L. Raschke, and E. Decker. 2002. Cahaba River: biological and water quality studies, Birmingham, Alabama. March/April, July, and September, 2002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Ecological Support Branch. Athens, Georgia (Available at www.epa.gov/regionIV/sesd/reports/2002-0809/cahaba.pdf). Howell, W.M., and L.J. Davenport. 2001. Report on fishes and macroinvertebrates of the Upper Cahaba River and three additional sites. Completed for Jefferson County by Department of Biology, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama. Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-26. Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., and Schlosser, I.J. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale: Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. 28pp. McPherson, A.K., T.A.Abrahamsen, and C.A. Journey. 2002 Investigation of water quality and aquatic community structure in Village and Valley Creeks, City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, 2000-01. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4182, U.S. Geological Survey. Montgomery, Alabama. Metee, M.F., O’Neil, P.E., and Pierson, J.M. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820pp. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NCDEM. 1995. Standard operating procedures for biological monitoring. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management. NRCS (USDASCS). 1995. State of Alabama hydrologic unit map with drainage areas by counties and subwatersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service). Auburn, Alabama. Olson, J.R. and J.A. Gore. 2000. Using GIS and landuse data to select candidate reference sites for stream bioassessment. Oral presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association. Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. November 6-8, 2000. Omernik, J.M. 1995. Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In: W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon [eds.] Biological Assessment and Criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton Florida. 415pp. 196
References Omernik, J.M. 1996. Level III Ecoregion of the Continental United States (Revised Map). National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 1991. Ecological regions versus hydrologic units: frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46: 334 - 340. O’Neil, P.E. 2002. A biological assessment of selected sites in the Cahaba River System, Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. O’Neil, P.E. and T.E. Shepard. 1997. Water-quality assessment of the Lower Cahaba River watershed: a summary report. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. O’Neil, P.E. and T.E. Shepard. 1998. Standard operating procedure manual for sampling freshwater fish communities and application of the Index of Biotic Integrity for assessing biological condition of flowing, wadeable streams in Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. O’Neil, P.E. and T.E. Shepard. 2001. Water-quality assessment of the Locust Fork watershed, Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Oronato, D., K.R. Marion, and R.A. Angus. 1998. Longitudinal variations in the ichthyofauna assemblages of the Upper Cahaba River: possible effects of urbanization in a watershed. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 13:139-154. Oronato, D., R.A. Angus, and K.R. Marion. 2000. Historical changes in the ichthyofauna assemblages of the Upper Cahaba River in Alabama associated with extensive urban development in the watershed. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:47-63. Pitt, R. 2000a. Predicting changes in water quality resulting from changing landuse. Oral presentation at the Annual Alabama Water Resources Conference and Symposium. Gulf Shores, Alabama. September 6-8, 2000. Pitt, R. 2000b. Water quality conditions in the Cahaba River and likely pollutant sources. University of Alabama at Birmingham. Birmingham, Alabama. Shepard, T.E., P.E. O’Neil, and S.W. McGregor. 1997. Biological asesment of the Locust Fork system. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Shepard, T.E., P.E. O’Neil, S.W. McGregor, and W.P.Henderson Jr. 2001. Biomonitoring in the Mulberry Fork Watershed, 1999-2001. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Shepard, T.E., P.E. O’Neil, S.W. McGregor, and W.P. Henderson Jr. 2002. Biomonitoring in the Mulberry Fork Watershed, 1999-2002. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. TAI. 2001. Periphyton standing crop in the Cahaba River, Alabama during low-flow conditions, 2001. Prepared for Jefferson County Environmental Authority, Alabama by TAI Environmental Sciences Inc., Mobile, Alabama. 197
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 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
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 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Eightmile
Page 99 and 100:
Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Broglen R
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Sub-Water
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Mulberry Fork (0316-0109) Bunkum Cr
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
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 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
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 179 and 180: Lower Black Warrior River (0316-011
Page 181 and 182: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 173
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: References APHA, AWWA, and WEF. 199
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 255 and 256:
Appendix E. Stations assessed in th
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?