ML042790396
| ML042790396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/2004 |
| From: | State of AL, Dept of Environmental Management |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML042790396 (24) | |
Text
Alabamas Final 2002 Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet
Background
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that each state identify those waters that do not currently support designated uses, and to establish a priority ranking of these waters by taking into account the severity of the pollution and the designated uses of such waters. For each waterbody on the list, the state is required to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the pollutant or pollutants of concern at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards. Guidance issued in August 1997 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that states also include a schedule for TMDL development. The schedule is included as part of Alabamas Final 2002 List and provides expected completion dates for waterbodies on the list. Expected completion dates range from one to ten years following EPA approval of the Final 2002 list and was established to be consistent with the TMDL completion schedule outlined in EPAs settlement agreement with plaintiffs in the 1998 TMDL lawsuit. As a result, TMDL completion dates for many of the segments shown on the Final 2002 Section 303(d) List may be different than those shown on the Final 2000 303(d) List.
Draft 2002 Section 303(d) List Alabamas Draft 2002 Section 303(d) List includes segments of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries that either do not support or partially support their currently designated use or uses.
Most of the waterbodies on the Draft 2002 Section 303(d) List also appeared on Alabamas 2000 Section 303(d) List. The Department has attempted to obtain and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information and the notice soliciting this information is included in Appendix A. The notice was published in Alabamas four major daily newspapers, appeared on the Departments web page, and was mailed to the Departments general mailing list. The Draft 2002 §303(d) List has been developed using the Final 2000
§303(d) List as the starting point. Data in EPAs STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database, information from §319 nonpoint assessments, special watershed studies, other federal and state agencies, industries, and watershed initiatives were evaluated as the Draft 2002 §303(d) List was compiled. Any individual or organization may submit additional data or information during the advertised comment period relative to water quality impairment in waterbodies in Alabama.
Chemical, physical, and biological data collected primarily during the previous five years have been considered in the preparation of the Draft 2002 §303(d) list. Data older than five years was generally not considered suitable for adding new segments to the list, except when the data may be used to demonstrate water quality trends. Data sources include the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, the Alabama Department of Public Health, the Geological Survey of Alabama, the United States Geological Survey, the Tennessee Valley Authority, other public agencies, universities, county and municipal governments, and industries.
The list contains information such as the waterbody name, county(s) in which the listed segment is located, dates when the data on which the listing is based were collected, cause(s) for the use impairment, the source(s) of the pollutant(s) causing the impairment, the size of the impaired segment, and the location of the listed waterbody. Also included on the list is the segments 1
priority ranking (high, low, medium), which was developed using the prioritization strategy included in Appendix B.
Use-support status for waterbodies was determined in several ways. In cases where the monitored data was primarily chemical data from the water column, use-support status was based on the percentage of measurements not meeting applicable water quality criteria. More specifically, when 10 percent or fewer measurements exceeded a water quality criterion, the waterbody was considered to be fully supporting its designated use. When less than 25 percent but more than 10 percent of the measurements exceeded a water quality criterion, the waterbody was considered to be partially supporting its designated use. When more than 25 percent of the measurements exceeded a water quality criterion, the waterbody was considered to not be supporting its designated use. In other waterbodies, use-support status was assigned based on fish consumption or shellfish harvesting advisories issued by the Alabama Department of Public Health. Where available, biological assessment data were used in combination with other surface water quality data or information to arrive at an overall use support determination.
Changes Since the Final 2000 Section 303(d) List A number of differences exist between the Final 2002 Section 303(d) List and the Final 2000 303(d) List. Many of the changes were to correct errors or omissions in the 2000 list and to provide additional or updated information about waterbodies on the list. Other significant changes since 2000 include the addition and deletion of waterbodies. Table 1 shows the waterbody/pollutant combinations being proposed for addition to Alabamas §303(d) list and the justification for the additions. Table 2 lists the waterbody/pollutant combinations being proposed for removal from the list and the justification for removal.
Changes have also been made to the TMDL completion schedule included on the Final 2002 Section 303(d) List. The changes reflect the pace of TMDL development that can reasonably be expected given ADEMs current funding and staffing levels and the need to meet court-ordered TMDL completion dates. The dates shown are for completion of all TMDLs required for each listed segment. Where more than one TMDL is required for a segment, TMDLs for specific pollutants may be developed well in advance of the expected completion date shown on the list.
Changes Between the Draft and Final Versions of the 2002 Section 303(d) List Table 3 provides the revisions made to the Draft 2002 List as a result of comments received during the public comment period. Minor revisions were also made to the list as a result of additional errors or omissions identified by ADEM staff upon their review of the document.
Dates for TMDL development were again revised since the Draft 2002 List was public noticed, however these revisions are not reflected in Table 3. The Final 2002 303(d) List provides the most current schedule for TMDL development.
Changes to the Final 2002 Section 303(d) List Since Last Submitted to EPA Table 4 provides the revisions made to the Final 2002 List 303(d) List since it was last submitted to EPA Region 4 on September 30, 2002. The majority of these changes were made by the 2
Department to reflect the additional delistings decisions that were made subsequent to September 30, 2002. Delisting documents were prepared by the Department for each of the pollutants removed and were submitted for public review and comment for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003. Upon close of comment period, the Department gathered all public comments related to the proposed delistings and prepared a response to comments package for the administrative record. Based upon public comments received, the only revision made to the proposed delistings in November was a decision not to delist Bayview Lake for Siltation, but include this waterbody with the Final Village Creek and Camp Branch Siltation TMDLs.
Additional changes included 3 segments and 29 pollutants being removed from the 303(d) List as result of Final TMDLs being approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. Cane Creek (HUC AL/06030002-220_01 located in Marshall County of the Tennessee River Basin was added back to the Final 2002 303(d) List for Nutrients due to an inadvertent omission from the 1998 303(d)
List. Also, Pond Creek was added back for Metals, based on comments received by EPA Region
- 4. Minor revisions, such as typographical errors, were also made to the list as a result of additional errors or omissions identified by ADEM staff since the last submittal. In addition, the TMDL schedule was again revised to reflect the most current schedule for TMDL development.
3
Table 1 Alabamas Final 2002 §303(d) List Waterbody / Pollutant Combinations Added to the List The waterbody / pollutant combinations listed in the following table are proposed for addition to Alabamas Final 2002 §303(d) List for the reasons presented in the table.
Waterbody ID Waterbody River Basin County Pollutant Basis for Addition to the Data Name List Source(s)
AL/03150201-040_01 Three Mile Branch Alabama Montgomery Dieldrin Of 7 samples collected by USGS USGS, 1999
- from Lower in 1999, 6 (85.7%) exceeded the Wetumpka Road to freshwater chronic criterion of Its source 0.0019 ug/l for aquatic life.
AL/03150201-080_01 Catoma Creek - Alabama Montgomery Fecal Coliform Of 52 samples collected within this ADEM, 2000 from Alabama segment in 2000 - 2001, 9 (17.3%)
River to Ramer exceeded the single sample Creek criterion of 2000 colonies/100 ml.
AL/Neely Henry Lake Neely Henry- Coosa Etowah Priority Organics Alabama Fish Consumption ADPH, May Res_02 from Big Wills (PCBs) Advisory issued by the Alabama 2001, April 2002 Creek to Weiss Department of Public Health in Dam Powerhouse May 2001 and April 2002 advising No Consumption of channel catfish.
AL/03170008-070_01 Escatawpa River- Escatawpa Mobile Mercury Alabama Fish Consumption ADPH, April from AL/MS Advisory issued by the Alabama 2002 Stateline to Its Department of Public Health in Source April 2002 advising No Consumption of largemouth and spotted bass.
AL/03160204-040_02 Tensaw River-from Mobile Baldwin Mercury Alabama Fish Consumption ADPH, April Mobile Bay to Advisory issued by the Alabama 2002 Mobile River Department of Public Health in April 2002 advising Limited Consumption of largemouth bass.
4
Waterbody ID Waterbody River Basin County Pollutant Basis for Addition to the Data Name List Source(s)
AL/03140106-170_01 Styx River-from Perdido-Escambia Baldwin Mercury Alabama Fish Consumption ADPH, April Perdido River to Its Advisory issued by the Alabama 2002 Source Department of Public Health in April 2002 advising No Consumption of largemouth bass and Limited Consumption of channel catfish.
AL/06030002-220_01 Cane Creek Tennessee Marshall Nutrients This pollutant was inadvertently ADEM, January removed from ADEMs 1998 2003 303(d) List.
5
Table 2 Alabamas Final 2002 §303(d) List Waterbody / Pollutants Removed from the 2000 List The waterbody / pollutant combinations listed in the following table are proposed for removal from Alabamas 2000 §303(d) List and will not be included on the Final 2002 §303(d) list for the reasons presented.
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/03150203-180_01 Cub Creek Alabama Wilcox Organic Enrichment Low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in
/Dissolved Oxygen Cub Creek are due to natural (OE/DO) conditions. A benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment conducted by ADEM in 1999 showed good ratings. In addition, the point source contributing to low DO levels when the segment was originally listed was removed in 1992. Data collected by ADEM in 1999 and 2000 revealed DO levels less than 5 mg/l.
However, the low DO levels can be attributed to natural conditions based on the physical characteristics of the stream and its associated watershed. In addition, the 1999 & 2000 sampling event was conducted during drought conditions which resulted in minimal flows (less than 0.2 cfs) and low velocities within the stream. Potential nonpoint sources of oxygen demanding substances in the Cub Creek watershed where found to be negligible.
6
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/03150203-180_01 Cub Creek Alabama Wilcox Nutrients Elevated nutrient levels in Cub Creek are attributable to natural conditions. A macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment conducted by ADEM in 1999 showed good ratings. In addition, the point source contributing nutrients to the stream when the stream was originally listed was removed in 1992.
Data collected by ADEM in 1999 and 2000 indicated nutrient concentrations (i.e. total phosphorus) were decreasing as a result of the point source being removed. Potential nonpoint sources that may contribute to the elevated nutrient levels in Cub Creek were found to be negligible.
AL/03160109-020_01 Duck Creek Black Warrior Cullman OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/03160109-020_02 Long Branch Black Warrior Cullman OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, Ammonia 2002.
AL/03160109-080_01 Thacker Creek Black Warrior Cullman OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, Ammonia 2002.
AL/03160110-080_01 Rock Creek Black Warrior Winston OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/03160110-090_01 Crooked Creek Black Warrior Cullman OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, Ammonia 2002.
AL/03160111-050_01 Graves Creek Black Warrior Blount OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/03160111-150_01 Short Creek Black Warrior Jefferson Metals Of 22 samples collected by ADEM in 2001-2002, no violations of water quality criteria for metals were reported.
AL/03160111-140_01 Camp Branch Black Warrior Jefferson Metals Of nearly 40 samples collected by ADEM in 2001-2002 for various metals, only one violation of zinc occurred.
7
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/03160111-140_02 Village Creek Black Warrior Jefferson OE/DO Of 119 samples collected, only four violations were reported. The reported violations represented less than 10% of the total samples collected at each sampling station respectively.
AL/03160111-140_02 Village Creek Black Warrior Jefferson Ammonia Of 98 samples collected, one violation was reported. 99% of samples were meeting water quality criteria.
AL/03160111-140_02 Village Creek Black Warrior Jefferson Non-Priority Of 36 samples collected for Benzene, Organics (BETX) Toluene, Ethyl-Benzene, and Xylene no violations of the water quality criteria for BETX were reported. BTEX, a priority organic, was used as the indicator based on historical information gathered during the delisting analysis.
AL/03160111-140_03 Bayview Lake Black Warrior Jefferson OE/DO Of 28 samples collected by ADEM in 2002 at a 5 foot depth, no violations of the water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen were reported.
AL/03160111-140_03 Bayview Lake Black Warrior Jefferson Ammonia Of the 40 samples collected by ADEM in 2001-2002, no violations of EPAs recommended ammonia criterion were reported.
AL/03160111-140_03 Bayview Lake Black Warrior Jefferson Pesticides In October 1997, pesticides were spilled into Bayview Lake as a result of a warehouse fire upstream. Data collected in 2002 by ADEM at various stations in Bayview Lake were meeting water quality criteria for pesticides.
AL/Bankhead Res_01 Black Warrior River Black Warrior Jefferson OE/DO Dissolved oxygen excursions were due (Bankhead Lake) to the reservoir turning over during late September and October of each year. These events are naturally occurring phenomena typical in reservoirs and lakes within the Southeast.
8
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/03150202-060_01 Shades Creek Cahaba Jefferson OE/DO Of a total of 216 samples collected at 19 stations along Shades Creek, only 5 samples exceeded ADEMs water quality criterion for DO. This represents a 2% exceedance, which is well below the 10% threshold. In addition, the major point source contributing to the historical DO violations has been removed from the stream.
AL/03150106-080_01 Black Creek Coosa Etowah Priority Organics The pollutant for this segment was (PCBs) mistakenly included on previous
§303(d) lists. The 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 Fish Consumption Advisory lists published by the Alabama Department of Public Health do not include a consumption advisory for Black Creek or the Black Creek embayment of Lake Neely Henry.
9
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/03160205-050_01 Caney Branch Mobile Baldwin Pathogens (Fecal In 2001, ADEM collected 22 fecal Coliform) coliform samples, none of which exceeded the single sample maximum criterion of 2000 col/100ml. The same data were used to calculate 4 sets of geometric mean values to evaluate against the geometric mean criterion of 200 col/100ml (i.e. swimming criterion for fecal coliform). Results of the geometric mean computations demonstrated compliance with the fecal coliform criterion of 200 col/100ml.
Also, according to the Weeks Bay Watershed Project conducted in 2001, Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been implemented to inhibit fecal coliform pollution from entering Caney Branch. Such BMPs include hardened cattle crossings and fences to prevent livestock from entering the stream.
AL/03160205-060_01 Magnolia River Mobile Baldwin OE/DO Data collected by the Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) in 1995-1998 and by ADEM in 1998 and 2001, reported only 10 of 102 (9.8%) samples less than the dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/l. 9 of the 10 low dissolved oxygen samples occurred at the same station, which is tidally influenced.
AL/03160205-060_02 Unnamed Tributary to Mobile Baldwin Pathogens (Fecal Fecal coliform data collected by GSA Magnolia River Coliform) in 1995-1998 and by ADEM in 1998 and 2001, reported only 4 of 64 (6.3%)
samples exceeding the single sample maximum criterion of 2000 col/100ml.
10
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/03140301-040_01 Conecuh River Perdido-Escambia Covington OE/DO Of 46 samples collected by ADEM from 1990-2001 in Gantt Reservoir and Point A Reservoir, no violations of the water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen were reported.
AL/03140301-040_01 Conecuh River Perdido-Escambia Covington Pathogens Of 47 samples collected by ADEM from 1990-2001 in Gantt Reservoir and Point A Reservoir, no violations of water quality criteria for pathogens were reported.
AL/Tallapoosa R_01 Tallapoosa River Tallapoosa Cleburne OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/03150108-250_01 Wolf Creek Tallapoosa Randolph Ammonia Data collected by ADEM in 2001 OE/DO reported no violations of EPAs recommended ammonia criterion. 9 of 9 samples collected were less than 0.015 mg/l at all three sampling locations. Data collected in 2001and 2002 by ADEM reported no violations of the dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/l. 42 of 42 samples were above 5.0 mg/l, with a minimum of 7.4 mg/l and a maximum of 13.6 mg/l.
AL/06030001-270_01 Scarham Creek Tennessee Marshall Pesticides EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, Ammonia 2002.
OE/DO Pathogens AL/06030002-070_01 Cole Spring Branch Tennessee Jackson OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-100_01 L. Paint Rock Creek Tennessee Marshall OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-190_01 Chase Creek Tennessee Madison OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-220_01 Cane Creek Tennessee Marshall OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-230_01 Aldridge Creek Tennessee Madison OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
11
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/06030002-250_02 Indian Creek Tennessee Madison OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-300_01 Limestone Creek Tennessee Limestone OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-390_01 Swan Creek Tennessee Limestone OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-390_01 Round Island Creek Tennessee Limestone OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030002-390_01 Mallard Creek Tennessee Lawrence OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/06030005-010_01 Big Nance Creek Tennessee Lawrence Pesticides EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, Ammonia 2002.
OE/DO Pathogens AL/06030006-040_02 Harris Creek Tennessee Franklin OE/DO EPA Approved TMDL on October 31, 2002.
AL/Wheeler Res_01 Tennessee River Tennessee Lawrence Temperature / Temperature readings in excess of 86°F thermal are due to natural conditions. Mean modification temperature values in the photic zone (top 4 meters of the water column) are statistically similar to values measured at other locations along the Tennessee River.
AL/Wheeler Res_01 Tennessee River Tennessee Lawrence pH pH readings in excess of 8.5 s.u. are due to natural conditions. Mean pH values in the photic zone (top 4 meters of the water column) are statistically similar to values measured at other reservoir forebay monitoring stations along the Tennessee River. Wheeler Reservoir is in compliance with the recently established chlorophyll-a criterion.
12
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/06030006-040_01 Lost Creek Tennessee Franklin pH pH readings in excess of 8.5 s.u. are due to natural conditions. Mean pH values in the photic zone (top 4 meters of the water column) are statistically similar to values measured at the reservoir forebay monitoring station on the Cedar Creek Reservoir. Cedar Creek Reservoir is in compliance with the recently established chlorophyll-a criterion.
AL/06030002-440_01 Second Creek Tennessee Lauderdale OE/DO Data collected by ADEM and TVA in 1997 and 1998 reported no violations of the dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/l. 6 of 6 samples were above 5.0 mg/l, with a minimum of 7.4 mg/l and a maximum of 8.6 mg/l AL/06030002-320_01 Piney Creek Tennessee Limestone OE/DO Data collected in 1997 by TVA, and in Pesticides 1998 and 2000 by ADEM, reported no Siltation violations of the dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/l. 38 of 38 samples were above 5.0 mg/l.
Data collected in 1997 by TVA, and in 1998 by ADEM, reported no violations of water quality criteria for pesticides.
Physical, chemical, and biological data collected in the same years (1997-1998), indicates full use support.
AL/06030001-160_01 Dry Creek Tennessee Jackson pH Of 6 pH samples collected by ADEM in Metals 2001-2002, all were within the Siltation acceptable pH range of 6.0 - 8.5 s.u.
Physical, chemical, and biological data collected in the same years, indicates full use support for Siltation.
13
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Pollutant Good Cause Justification for Removal AL/06030001-160_02 Hogue Creek Tennessee Jackson pH Of 9 pH samples collected by ADEM in OE/DO 2001-2002, all were within the Nutrients acceptable pH range of 6.0 - 8.5 s.u.
Data collected by ADEM in 2001-2002 reported no violations of the dissolved oxygen criterion (DO) of 5.0 mg/l. 10 of 10 DO samples were above the DO criterion of 5.0 mg/L. Physical, chemical, and biological data collected, indicates full use support for Nutrients.
AL/06030001-160_03 Warren Smith Creek Tennessee Jackson pH Of 8 pH samples collected by ADEM in 2001-2002, all were within the acceptable pH range of 6.0 - 8.5 s.u.
AL/06030001-160_04 Rocky Branch Tennessee Jackson pH Of 8 pH samples collected by ADEM in Siltation 2001-2002, all were within the acceptable pH range of 6.0 - 8.5 s.u.
Physical, chemical, and biological data collected, indicates full use support for Siltation.
AL/06030001-160_05 Coon/Flat Rock Creek Tennessee Jackson pH Of 18 samples collected by ADEM in Metals 2001-2002, two were slightly above the Siltation acceptable pH range of the 6.0 - 8.5 s.u.
However, these elevated pH readings were due to natural conditions as a result of photosynthetic activity. In addition, Alabama Water Watch (AWW) data for pH collected during 1997-1999 supports ADEMs findings.
Physical, chemical, and biological data collected, indicates full use support.
AL/06030005-040_01 Town Creek Tennessee Lawrence Organic Enrichment Data collected at four locations on
/Dissolved Oxygen Town Creek from 1996-1998 revealed (OE/DO) no violations of the dissolved oxygen criterion (DO) of 5.0 mg/l. 21 of 21 DO samples were above 5.0 mg/L.
14
Table 3 List of Revisions to the Draft 2002 §303(d) List as a Result of Public Comments Received Waterbody ID Waterbody River County Revision Name Basin AL/03150201-080_01 Catoma Creek Alabama Montgomery Typographical Error: Replaced USGS 1999 with ADEM 2000 as the correct data source for listing Catoma Creek for pathogens. (Table 1, Row 2 of the Fact Sheet)
AL/03160109-020_02 Long Branch Black Cullman Upon review of available data, Warrior ADEM has determined that no data is available from 1990 for listing purposes; therefore 1990 was deleted from the Final 2002 List.
AL/03160109-040_01 Eightmile Black Cullman Typographical Error: ADEMs Creek Warrior Public Water Supply (PWS) use classification was added as an additional designated use of Eightmile Creek.
AL/Cahaba River_04 Cahaba River Cahaba Bibb, Shelby Typographical Error: Siltation was added back as a cause of impairment for this segment. It was inadvertently omitted from the Draft 2002 List.
AL/03150103-080_01 Black Creek Coosa Etowah Typographical Error: The Department inadvertently left Contaminated sediments on the Draft 2002 list as a cause of impairment. As a result, the Department removed contaminated sediments as a cause of impairment for the Final 2002 List.
AL/03150105-180_01 UT to Weiss Coosa Cherokee Typographical Error: Blayplay Lake Creek was revised to read Ball Play Creek. This is the downstream location of the impaired segment.
AL/03160205-020_02 Dog River Mobile Mobile Mobile River was deleted and replaced with Mobile Bay as the correct downstream location for this segment.
AL/06030005-040_01 Town Creek Tennessee Lawrence Wheeler Reservoir was deleted and replaced with Wilson Lake as the correct downstream location for this segment.
15
Waterbody ID Waterbody River County Revision Name Basin AL/06030001-160_04 Rocky Branch Tennessee Jackson Rocky Branch was originally listed on the 1996 303(d) List as being impaired for pH and siltation. A correction was made to the Final 2002 List, to reflect the above by replacing the No with a Yes under the 1996 303(d)? Column heading.
AL/06030002-060_01 Guess Creek Tennessee Jackson Typographical Error:
Guess Creek has a priority rank of High (H). The rank was omitted from the Draft 2002 List.
AL/06030002-160_01 Mountain Fork Tennessee Madison Onsite wastewater systems was added as an additional source that may be contributing to the pathogen impairment.
AL/06030002-180_01 Brier Fork Tennessee Madison Land Development was added as an additional source that may be contributing to the unknown toxicity and siltation impairments.
AL/06030002-210_02 Yellow Bank Tennessee Madison Urban Runoff was added as an Creek additional source that may be contributing to the organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen (OE/DO) impairment.
AL/06030002-210_03 Flint River Tennessee Madison Urban Runoff was added as an additional source that may be contributing to the organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen (OE/DO) impairment.
AL/06030005-160_01 Pond Creek Tennessee Colbert Metals were added back as pollutants of concern based on comments received by EPA Region 4.
AL/03160107-080_01 Sipsey River Upper Pickens Typographical Error: Sispey River Tombigbee was deleted and replaced with its correct spelling of Sipsey River.
16
Table 4 Additional Revisions to the Final 2002 §303(d) List since last submitted to EPA on September 30, 2003 Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Revision AL/03160109-020_01 Duck Creek Black Warrior Cullman TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the segment was removed from list.
AL/03160109-020_02 Long Branch Black Warrior Cullman TMDLs for OE/DO and Ammonia were approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutants were removed from list.
AL/03160109-080_01 Thacker Creek Black Warrior Cullman TMDLs for OE/DO and Ammonia were approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutants were removed from list.
AL/03160110-080_01 Rock Creek Black Warrior Winston TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/03160110-090_01 Crooked Creek Black Warrior Cullman TMDLs for OE/DO and Ammonia were approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutants were removed from list.
AL/03160111-050_01 Graves Creek Black Warrior Blount TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the segment was removed from list.
AL/03160111-140_01 Camp Branch Black Warrior Jefferson Delisted for Metals. ADEM prepared a Delisting Document (ADEM, November 2002) for this pollutant which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas Final 2000 303(d) List. A public notice period to receive and review comments on the delisting decision was provided on November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
17
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Revision AL/03160111-140_02 Village Creek Black Warrior Jefferson Delisted for OE/DO, Ammonia, and Priority Organics (BTEX). ADEM prepared Delisting Documents for these pollutants which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List. (ADEM, November 2002). A public notice period to receive and review comments was provided on November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/03160111-140_03 Bayview Lake Black Warrior Jefferson Delisted for Organic Enrichment, Ammonia, and Pesticides. ADEM prepared Delisting Documents for these pollutants which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List. (ADEM, November 2002). A public notice to receive and review comments was provided on November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/Bankhead Res_01 Black Warrior River Black Warrior Jefferson Delisted for Organic Enrichment. ADEM prepared a (Bankhead Lake) Draft Delisting Document dated November 2002 for this pollutant which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List. (ADEM, November 2002). Public notice to receive and review comments was provided for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/03150202-060_01 Shades Creek Cahaba Jefferson Delisted for Organic Enrichment. EPA recommended Shades Creek be delisted for OE/DO based on recent data collected. EPA provided public notice on the delisting decision with the Draft TMDL for Shades Creek.
AL/03140301-040_01 Conecuh River Perdido-Escambia Covington Delisted for Organic Enrichment and Pathogens.
ADEM prepared a Delisting Document for these pollutants which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List. (ADEM, November 2002). Public notice to receive and review comments was provided for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/Tallapoosa R_01 Tallapoosa River Tallapoosa Cleburne TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the segment was removed from list.
18
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Revision AL/06030001-160_01 Dry Creek Tennessee Jackson Delisted for Siltation. ADEM prepared a Delisting Document for this pollutant which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List.
(ADEM, November 2002). Public notice to receive and review comments was provided for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/06030001-160_04 Rocky Branch Tennessee Jackson Delisted for Siltation. ADEM prepared a Delisting Document for this pollutant which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List.
(ADEM, November 2002). Public notice to receive and review comments was provided for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/06030001-160_05 Coon/Flat Rock Creek Tennessee Jackson Delisted for Siltation. ADEM prepared a Delisting Document for this pollutant which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d) List.
(ADEM, November 2002). Public notice to receive and review comments was provided for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/06030001-270_01 Scarham Creek Tennessee Marshall TMDLs for Pesticides, Ammonia, OE/DO and Pathogens were approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutants were removed from list.
AL/06030002-070_01 Cole Spring Branch Tennessee Jackson TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-100_01 L. Paint Rock Creek Tennessee Marshall TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-190_01 Chase Creek Tennessee Madison TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-220_01 Cane Creek Tennessee Marshall Nutrients was added back as a pollutant of concern due to AL/06030002-220_01 Cane Creek Tennessee Marshall TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
19
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name River Basin County Revision AL/06030002-230_01 Aldridge Creek Tennessee Madison TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-250_02 Indian Creek Tennessee Madison TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-300_01 Limestone Creek Tennessee Limestone TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-390_01 Swan Creek Tennessee Limestone TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-390_01 Round Island Creek Tennessee Limestone TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030002-390_01 Mallard Creek Tennessee Lawrence TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
AL/06030005-010_01 Big Nance Creek Tennessee Lawrence TMDLs for Pesticides, Ammonia, OE/DO and Pathogens were approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutants were removed from list.
AL/06030002-220_01 Cane Creek Tennessee Marshall Nutrients was added back to Cane Creek as a pollutant of concern. It was inadvertently removed from ADEMs 1998 303(d) List.
AL/06030005-040_01 Town Creek Tennessee Lawrence Delisted for Organic Enrichment. ADEM prepared a Delisting Document for this pollutant which provided the justification for removal from Alabamas 303(d)
List. (ADEM, November 2002). Public notice to receive and review comments was provided for the period November 4, 2002 through January 3, 2003.
AL/06030006-040_02 Harris Creek Tennessee Franklin TMDL for OE/DO was approved by EPA on October 31, 2002. As a result, the pollutant was removed from list.
20
APPENDIX A Public Notice Soliciting Available Data and Information for 2002 303(d) List 21
210 NOTICE REQUESTING DATA AND INFORMATION FOR PREPARATION OF ALABAMAS DRAFT 2002 SECTION 303(d) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that each state identify those waters that do not currently support designated uses, and establish a priority ranking of the waters taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the waters. For each water on the list, the state is required to establish the total maximum daily load (TMDL) at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards.
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has begun development of the draft 2002 Section 303(d) list and is soliciting data and information for consideration during preparation of the list. In order to be fully considered in this process, the data should be submitted to ADEM by April 30, 2002. If possible, the data should be submitted in electronic format.
While the Department will consider all data submitted, we reserve the right to incorporate only those data that meet minimum quality standards. In addition, the Department is not bound by interpretations provided by data submitters. It should also be noted that the Department is unable to pay a fee for the use of data. Data and information should be submitted to the following contact person:
Lynn Sisk ADEM - Water Division P.O. Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Mr. Sisks phone number is 334-271-7826. His e-mail address is ls@adem.state.al.us.
Copies of Alabamas draft 2000 Section 303(d) list can be viewed at www.adem.state.al.us/EnviroProtect/Water/Surface/tmdl/pdf/Draft%202000%20303d%20list.pdf.
This notice is hereby given this March 19, 2002, by authorization of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
_Original Signed By:___
James W. Warr, Director 22
APPENDIX B Prioritization Strategy 23
2002 §303(d) List - Prioritization Strategy Is the waterbody fully supporting its uses Do Not List based on data collected within the past 5 Yes years ?
No Low Priority Is the waterbody partially supporting or not supporting designated uses due to background conditions, physical Yes characteristics, or other causes not readily addressed by the Total No Maximum Daily Load process1 ?
Is the waterbody designated Outstanding Alabama Water, Outstanding No National Resource Water or a tributary to or upstream of such waters ?
Has a control strategy2 been developed Yes to address the partial-support or non-Yes support status ? Medium Priority No Is the waterbody designated Outstanding Alabama Water, Outstanding Is the waterbody partially supporting Yes National Resource Water or a tributary No designated uses ?
to or upstream of such waters ?
No Yes High Priority 1 Examples of other causes not readily addressed by the TMDL process include in place contaminants, flow regulation/modification, unknown sources, and atmospheric deposition.
2 Examples of control strategies include wastewater treatment upgrades or removal, best management practice implementation, and permit modifications.
24