DOCSLIB.ORG

Paint Rock River Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paint Rock River Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Paint Rock River Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution A Report Prepared for Alabama Department of Environmental Management By the Alabama Natural Heritage ProgramSM The Nature Conservancy Huntingdon College, Massey Hall 1500 East Fairview Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36106 March 2003 Paint Rock River Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution CWAP Cooperative Agreement C0059425 Report Authors: Primary Author: Michael S. Barbour Science Information Program Manager Contributors: Jim Godwin Michael Roedel Terra Manasco March 2003 A Report Prepared for Alabama Department of Environmental Management Approved by: __________________________ Robert W. Hastings, Director __________________________ Date This project was funded or partially funded by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management through a Clean Water Act Section 319(h) nonpoint source grant provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. This report should be cited as: Barbour, M. S. 2003. Paint Rock River watershed nonpoint source pollution. Unpublished report to Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, Alabama. Alabama Natural Heritage ProgramSM, Montgomery, Alabama, USA. 184 pages. Alabama Natural Heritage ProgramSM TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................. VI LIST OF APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. VIII INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................1 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................2 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................5 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...............................................................................................5 CONSERVATION TARGETS ......................................................................................................................................7 Identification of Conservation Targets ..............................................................................................................7 Grading Conservation Targets ..........................................................................................................................7 HUMAN CONTEXT INFORMATION ..........................................................................................................................7 Managed Areas ..................................................................................................................................................7 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................8 Population & Demographics .............................................................................................................................8 POTENTIAL POLLUTION SOURCES .........................................................................................................................8 Godwin’s 1995 Survey .......................................................................................................................................8 Agricultural & Animal Production ....................................................................................................................8 Septic Systems ....................................................................................................................................................8 Permitted Sites ...................................................................................................................................................8 Water Quality Monitoring Sites .......................................................................................................................10 303 (d) Listed Streams .....................................................................................................................................10 THREAT ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................................................................................10 Stresses .............................................................................................................................................................10 Sources .............................................................................................................................................................11 Threat Ranks ....................................................................................................................................................11 THREAT ABATEMENT AND CONSERVATION MEASURES .....................................................................................11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................11 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ..............................................................................................11 CONSERVATION TARGETS ....................................................................................................................................23 Identification of Conservation Targets ............................................................................................................23 Grading Conservation Targets ........................................................................................................................29 HUMAN CONTEXT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................29 Managed Areas ................................................................................................................................................29 Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................................32 Population & Demographics ...........................................................................................................................32 POTENTIAL POLLUTION SOURCES .......................................................................................................................34 Godwin’s 1995 Survey .....................................................................................................................................34 Agricultural and Animal Production ................................................................................................................37 Septic Systems ..................................................................................................................................................37 Permitted Sites .................................................................................................................................................37 303 (d) Listed Streams .....................................................................................................................................37 THREAT ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................................................................................37 Alabama Natural Heritage ProgramSM ii Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................................48 Forestry ............................................................................................................................................................49 Development ....................................................................................................................................................50 Invasive/Alien Species ......................................................................................................................................51 Recreational Use ..............................................................................................................................................52 Waste Disposal .................................................................................................................................................53 CONSERVATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................................53 Goals ................................................................................................................................................................54 Strategies ..........................................................................................................................................................55
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Checklist of Fish and Invertebrates Listed in the CITES Appendices
    JOINTS NATURE \=^ CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Checklist of fish and mvertebrates Usted in the CITES appendices JNCC REPORT (SSN0963-«OStl JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Report distribution Report Number: No. 238 Contract Number/JNCC project number: F7 1-12-332 Date received: 9 June 1995 Report tide: Checklist of fish and invertebrates listed in the CITES appendices Contract tide: Revised Checklists of CITES species database Contractor: World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL Comments: A further fish and invertebrate edition in the Checklist series begun by NCC in 1979, revised and brought up to date with current CITES listings Restrictions: Distribution: JNCC report collection 2 copies Nature Conservancy Council for England, HQ, Library 1 copy Scottish Natural Heritage, HQ, Library 1 copy Countryside Council for Wales, HQ, Library 1 copy A T Smail, Copyright Libraries Agent, 100 Euston Road, London, NWl 2HQ 5 copies British Library, Legal Deposit Office, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ 1 copy Chadwick-Healey Ltd, Cambridge Place, Cambridge, CB2 INR 1 copy BIOSIS UK, Garforth House, 54 Michlegate, York, YOl ILF 1 copy CITES Management and Scientific Authorities of EC Member States total 30 copies CITES Authorities, UK Dependencies total 13 copies CITES Secretariat 5 copies CITES Animals Committee chairman 1 copy European Commission DG Xl/D/2 1 copy World Conservation Monitoring Centre 20 copies TRAFFIC International 5 copies Animal Quarantine Station, Heathrow 1 copy Department of the Environment (GWD) 5 copies Foreign & Commonwealth Office (ESED) 1 copy HM Customs & Excise 3 copies M Bradley Taylor (ACPO) 1 copy ^\(\\ Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic
    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-04-10 Draft Tande Species Desktop Assessment Report
    600 North 18th Street Hydro Services 16N-8180 Birmingham, AL 35203 205 257 2251 tel [email protected] April 10, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Project No. 2628-065 R.L. Harris Hydroelectric Project Transmittal of the Draft Threatened and Endangered Species Desktop Assessment Ms. Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street N. Washington, DC 20426 Dear Secretary Bose, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) licensee for the R.L. Harris Hydroelectric Project (Harris Project) (FERC No. 2628-065). On April 12, 2019, FERC issued its Study Plan Determination1 (SPD) for the Harris Project, approving Alabama Power’s ten relicensing studies with FERC modifications. On May 13, 2019, Alabama Power filed Final Study Plans to incorporate FERC’s modifications and posted the Final Study Plans on the Harris relicensing website at www.harrisrelicensing.com. In the Final Study Plans, Alabama Power proposed a schedule for each study that included filing a voluntary Progress Update in October 2019 and October 2020. Alabama Power filed the first of two Progress Updates on October 31, 2019.2 Pursuant to the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) and 18 CFR § 5.15(c), Alabama Power filed its Harris Project Initial Study Report (ISR) on April 10,2020. Concurrently, and consistent with FERC’s April 12, 2019 SPD, Alabama Power is filing the Draft Threatened and Endangered Species Desktop Assessment (Draft Assessment) (Attachment 1). This filing also includes the stakeholder consultation for this study beginning May 2019 through March 2020 (Attachment 2). Stakeholders have until June 11, 2020 to submit their comments to Alabama Power on the Draft Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1210 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 9 IBI sample collection ............................................. 9 Habitat measures............................................... 11 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 16 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 20 Designation of guilds....................................... 21 Results and discussion................................................ 23 Sampling sites and collection results . 23 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 48 Metrics selected for the
    [Show full text]
  • QUARTERLY of Local Architecture & Preservation
    Three Dollars Fall-Winter 1993 THE HISTORIC HUNTSVILLE QUARTERLY Of Local Architecture & Preservation In Search of Bridges of Madison County HISTORIC HUNTSVILLE FOUNDATION Founded 1974 Officers for 1993-1994 Suzanne O’Connor............................................................ Chairman Suzi Bolton............................................................... Vice-Chairman Susan Gipson..................................................................... Secretary Toney Daly........................................................................ Treasurer Gerald Patterson (Immediate Past Chairman)............. Ex-Officio Lynn Jones............................................... Management Committee Elise H. Stephens..................................................................... Editor Board of Directors Ralph Allen Gayle Milberger Ron Baslock Bill Nance Rebecca Bergquist Norma Oberlies Wm. Verbon Black Wilma Phillips Suzi Bolton Richard Pope Mary A. Coulter Dale Rhoades James Cox Susan Sanderson Toney Daly Stephanie Sherman Carlene Elrod Malcolm Tarkington Henry M. Fail, Jr. Mary F. Thomas Susan Gipson Robert VanPeursem Ann Harrison Richard Van Valkenburgh John Rison Jones, Jr. Janet Watson Walter Kelley Sibyl Wilkinson William Lindberg Eugene Worley COVER: Covered Bridge at Butler Mill, contributed by Carlus Page. THE HISTORIC HUNTSVILLE QUARTERLY of Local Architecture and Preservation Vol. XIX, Nos. 3 & 4 Fall-Winter — 1993 CONTENTS From The HHF Board Chairman..............................................2 From The Editor.........................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels of the National Park Service Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee
    Malacological Review, 2017, 45/46: 193-211 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, TENNESSEE Steven A. Ahlstedt1, Joseph F. Connell2, Steve Bakaletz3, and Mark T. Fagg4 ABSTRACT The Obed River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River (WSR) in 1976 and is a unit of the National Park Service. The river is considered to be among the highest quality in the state of Tennessee supporting a rich ecological diversity. Two federally listed species (one fish and one mussel) occur in the Obed: spotfin chub Cyprinella monacha, and purple bean Villosa perpurpurea. The Obed is a major tributary to the upper Emory River. Historical mussel collections and recent sampling have documented 27 species in the drainage. Freshwater mussel sampling was relegated to the Obed WSR and tributaries to determine species composition, abundance, and whether reproduction and recruitment is occurring to the fauna. Mussel sampling was conducted from 2000-2001 within the boundaries of the WSR at access points throughout the length of the Obed including portions of the upper Emory River, Daddy’s, Clear, and Whites creek. A total of 585 mussels representing nine species were found during the study. The most abundant mussel found was Villosa iris that comprised 55% of the fauna, followed by Lampsilis fasciola 19% and Medionidus conradicus 14%. The federally endangered V. perpurpurea was represented at 3%. Two species, Pleuronaia barnesiana (live) and Lampsilis cardium (fresh dead), were found as single individuals and P. barnesiana is a new distribution record for the Obed. The mussel fauna in the Obed WSR is relatively rare and historically the river may never have had a more diverse fauna because of the biologically non-productive nature of shale and sandstone that characterize streams on the Cumberland Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey Protocol for the Southeastern Atlantic Slope and Northeastern Gulf Drainages in Florida and Georgia
    FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR THE SOUTHEASTERN ATLANTIC SLOPE AND NORTHEASTERN GULF DRAINAGES IN FLORIDA AND GEORGIA United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services and Fisheries Resources Offices Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Environment and Location April 2008 Stacey Carlson, Alice Lawrence, Holly Blalock-Herod, Katie McCafferty, and Sandy Abbott ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For field assistance, we would like to thank Bill Birkhead (Columbus State University), Steve Butler (Auburn University), Tom Dickenson (The Catena Group), Ben Dickerson (FWS), Beau Dudley (FWS), Will Duncan (FWS), Matt Elliott (GDNR), Tracy Feltman (GDNR), Mike Gangloff (Auburn University), Robin Goodloe (FWS), Emily Hartfield (Auburn University), Will Heath, Debbie Henry (NRCS), Jeff Herod (FWS), Chris Hughes (Ecological Solutions), Mark Hughes (International Paper), Kelly Huizenga (FWS), Joy Jackson (FDEP), Trent Jett (Student Conservation Association), Stuart McGregor (Geological Survey of Alabama), Beau Marshall (URSCorp), Jason Meador (UGA), Jonathon Miller (Troy State University), Trina Morris (GDNR), Ana Papagni (Ecological Solutions), Megan Pilarczyk (Troy State University), Eric Prowell (FWS), Jon Ray (FDEP), Jimmy Rickard (FWS), Craig Robbins (GDNR), Tim Savidge (The Catena Group), Doug Shelton (Alabama Malacological Research Center), George Stanton (Columbus State University), Mike Stewart (Troy State University), Carson Stringfellow (Columbus State University), Teresa Thom (FWS), Warren Wagner (Environmental Services), Deb
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEM INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM Patrick E. O’Neil Director AN ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS AND CRAYFISH FROM SELECTED WATERBODIES ON AND NEAR REDSTONE ARSENAL, MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA, 2008-09 OPEN-FILE REPORT 0922 By Stuart W. McGregor1, Elizabeth A. Wynn1, and Jeffrey T. Garner2 1Geological Survey of Alabama 2Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Prepared in cooperation with U. S. Army, Redstone Arsenal Environmental and Cultural Resources Directorate Under Contract No. W9124P-08-P-0094 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 AN ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS AND CRAYFISH FROM SELECTED WATERBODIES ON AND NEAR REDSTONE ARSENAL, MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA, 2008-2009 By Stuart W. McGregor, Elizabeth A. Wynn, and Jeffrey T. Garner ABSTRACT Sampling for freshwater mollusks and crayfish was conducted in springs, streams, swamps, and roadside ditches on and near Redstone Arsenal by the Geological Survey of Alabama in 2008 and 2009. Efforts yielded weathered dead valves of the Tennessee Clubshell, a species of highest conservation priority in Alabama, along with at least nine snail species, including species of highest and high conservation priority in Alabama, at least two taxa of fingernail clams, the Asian Clam, and eight crayfish species. INTRODUCTION The diversity of freshwater aquatic life in North America is centered in Alabama, owing to the geological antiquity of the state, the lack of glaciation, the abundance of large, discrete river basins, and a mild, stable climate, collectively providing ample time, separation, and ambient conditions for speciation (Boschung and Mayden, 2004; Williams and others, 2008). Freshwater mussels are considered one of the most imperiled faunal groups in North America based on the rapid extinction rate and preponderance of imperiled species (Master, 1993; Williams and others, 1993; Lydeard and Mayden, 1995) and drastic reductions in diversity and abundance of mussel populations are documented in many systems (Williams and others, 2008).
    [Show full text]