Surface Water - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Mulberry Fork (0316-0109)
assessed as excellent. Total dissolved solids were elevated, but other parameters were
similar to ecoregional reference conditions (Appendix T-2).
Pan Creek: Landuse within the Pan Creek watershed has been reported to be mainly
pastureland, poultry, cattle, and row crops (Shepard et al. 2001, Shepard et al. 2002). At
GSAMF-46, Pan Creek is a riffle-run stream located within the Southern Table Plateaus
(68d) subecoregion (Appendix J). During the 2002 NPS screening assessment, bottom
substrates at the reach were primarily boulder and sand with some cobble and gravel. Sand
deposits were noted at the site (Appendix J). A habitat assessment conducted in 2000
found the reach to be impacted by sand and silt deposits and low flow conditions (Shepard
et al. 2001, Shepard et al. 2002). ADEM collected 9 EPT families at the site, indicating
the macroinvertebrate community to be in good condition (Appendix K). A fish IBI
assessment conducted by GSA in 2000 indicated the community to be in poor condition
(Appendix G, Shepard et al. 2001, Shepard et al. 2002).
ADEM collected water quality data at the reach in June of 2002 (Appendix M).
Chlorophyll a concentrations were elevated, but the dissolved reactive phosphorus
concentration was within the range expected at ADEM’s least-impaired reference sites.
Warrior Creek: Warrior Creek was sampled at two locations during ADEM’s 2002 NPS
screening assessment (Appendix F). At GSAMF-50, Warrior Creek was a riffle-run
stream located within the Southern Table Plateaus (68d) subecoregion (Appendix J).
During the 2002 NPS screening assessment, bottom substrates at the reach were a mixture
of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, and sand. Habitat quality was affected by sediment
deposition and a lack of adequate riparian buffer. ADEM assessed habitat quality as good
for this stream type (Appendix J). ADEM collected 9 EPT families at the site, indicating
the macroinvertebrate community to be in good condition (Appendix K). A fish IBI
assessment conducted by GSA in 2000 indicated the community to be in poor condition
(Appendix G, Shepard et al. 2001, Shepard et al. 2002).
ADEM collected water quality data at the reach in June of 2002 (Appendix M).
Nitrogen concentrations (TKN, NO 3 +NO 2 -N) were higher than concentrations expected at
ADEM’s ecoregional reference reaches. The fecal coliform count was > 660 colonies/100
mL.
At GSAMF-51, bottom substrates were primarily cobble, gravel, and sand (Appendix
J). Habitat quality was affected by sediment deposition and unstable banks. ADEM
assessed habitat quality as good for this stream type (Appendix J). A habitat assessment
conducted in 2000 also found the reach to be impacted by sand deposits (Shepard et al.
2001, Shepard et al. 2002). Shepard et al. (2002) suggested an upstream cow watering
area as a potential source of the sediment. ADEM collected 7 EPT families at the site,
indicating the macroinvertebrate community to be in fair condition (Appendix K). A fish
IBI assessment conducted by GSA in 2000 indicated the community to be in poor
condition (Appendix G, Shepard et al. 2001, Shepard et al. 2002).
ADEM collected water quality data at the reach in June of 2002 (Appendix M).
Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations (TKN, NO 2 +NO 3 -N, TP, DRP) were elevated in
comparison to ADEM’s ecoregional reference reaches. The fecal coliform count was
82