Surface Water - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Mulberry Fork (0316-0109)
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
ADEM’s Ecoregional Reference Reach Program b
H, C, B
ADEM’s §303(d) Waterbody Monitoring Program b
H, C, B
ADEM’s Reservoir Monitoring Program
C, B
ADEM’s Fish Tissue Monitoring Program
C
ADEM’s Ambient Monitoring Program b
H, C, B
University Tributary Nutrient Project b (ADEM 2000d)
C
ADEM’s Periphyton Bioasesment Pilot Study b (ADEM 2004d)
H, C, B
GSA’s Asesment of Mulbery Fork, 1999-2002 (Shepard et al. 2001,
H, B
Shepard et al. 2002)
a H=habitat; C=chemical/physical; B=biological
b Data and summary of project included in Appendices
2002 NPS Screening Assessment: Fourteen 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 or high 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 22 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 16 sub-watersheds (Appendix G). Habitat quality was
generally excellent or good throughout the sub-watershed. The macroinvertebrate
community was assessed as excellent or good at 7 (29%) stations and fair or poor at 17
stations (71%). Fish communities were assessed as fair or fair/poor at 19 (43%) stations
and poor or poor/very poor at 25 (57%) stations.
Overall condition for each station was rated as the lowest assessment result obtained
(Appendix G). One station (2%) was assessed as good. Twenty-three (43%) stations were
assessed as fair. Twenty-nine (55%) stations were assessed as poor.
Sub-watershed status: Thirteen sub-watersheds were identified as impaired (Table 5). A
summary of the information available for each of these sub-watersheds is provided in the
following section. Each summary discusses landuse, nonpoint source impairment potential
and assessments conducted within the sub-watershed. The summaries point out significant
data and reference appropriate tables and appendices. Appendices referenced in the
summaries are located at the end of the report.
75