United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
EPA 904/9-78-009
JUNE 1978
Environmental
Impact Statement

Cahaba River Wastewater
Facilities Jefferson,
Shelby and St. Clair
Counties, Alabama
Project No. C010269-01

    Appendices

-------
      APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX I. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Page
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Discussion Papers
Tables AF-1
Figures A 126
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
Discussion Papers
Tables AI—66
Figures AI—87

-------
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
DISCUSSION PAPERS
Page
SOILS DESCRIPTIONS Al—i
BEDROCK-VEGETATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AI-6
SPECIES OF ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AI—8
FOREST COVER TYPES Al—1O
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CAHABA RIVER AI—19

-------
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1—1 Pollution Sources Along The Upper Cahaba River AI—24 & AI-25
1—2 Summary Of Cahaba River Fish Kills AI—26
AI—l Monthly Temperature Ranges AI—26a
AI—2 Ambient Air Quality Standards Of Alabama AI—27
AI—3 1975 Air Pollutant Concentrations In The
Birmingham Area AI-28
AI—4 Cahaba River Basin Geologic Formations AI—29 to AI—31
AI—5 General Engineering Characteristics Of Rocks In
The Greater Birmingham Area AI—32 & AI33
AI—6 Aquifer Characteristics AI—34 to AI—36
AI—7 Amphibians And Reptiles Reported In The Upper
Cahaba River Drainage Basin (Mount 1975) AI—37 to AI—40
AI—8 Rare and Endangered Species Of The Upper Cahaba
River Basin A 141
AI—9 Concentrations Of Major Water Quality Parameters
In The Study Area AI—42 to AI—46
Al—lO Water Use Classifications AI—47 to AI—50
Al—il Probable Aquatic Plants Of The Cahaba River AI—51 and AI—52
AI—12 A List Of Invertebrates Collected From Twelve
Sections Of The Upper Cahaba River In Sept. 1976 AI—53 to AI—57
AI—13 Mussels From The Upper Cahaba River AI—58
AI—14 Locations And Descriptions Of Stations, Cahabe
River Sub—Basin A 159
AI—15 Pollution Sensitive Forms — Macroscopic
Invertebrate Organisms — Cahabe River Basin AI—6O
(USD1 1967)

-------
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Cont’d)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
AI—l6 Pollution Tolerant Forms — Macroscopic AI—61
Invertebrate Organisms — Cahaba River Basin
(USD1 1967)
AI—l7 Fishes Of The Cahaba River AI—62 to AI—64
AI—18 Summary Of Cahaba River Fish Kills AI—65

-------
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following Page
1 Diagrammatic Map Of Cahaba River AI—19
Al—i Seasonal Wind Roses For The Greater Birmingham Area AI—65
AI—2 Air Quality Monitoring Locations And Pollution Sources AI—65
AI—3 Typical Noise Patterns AI—65
AI—4 Topographic Features AI—65
AI—5 Geology AI—65
AI—6 Soils Limitations On Waste ater Disposal AI—65
AI—7 Land Cover Map AI—65
AI—8 Drainage Basins AI—65

-------
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
DISCUSSION PAPERS
Page
POPULATION AND LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS AI—66
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS AI—71
WATER SUPPLY STUDY AI—74
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES AI-76
BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS BOARD RATE SCHEDULE AI—82
MAJOR REVENUE PROVISIONS OF THE 1977 JEFFERSON
COUNTY SEWER ORDINANCE AI-84

-------
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
AI—19 Comparison Of Employment By Major Industrial Category
For The United States, Alabama And The BRPC Region
1960—1970 AI—87
AI—20 County Employment Characteristics 1970 AI—88
AI—21 Employment Characteristics For Municipalities In The
Study Area 1970 AI—89
AI—22 Income Comparison 1960—1970 AI—90
AI—23 Income Characteristics For Municipalities In The
Study Area 1970 AI—91
AI—24 Labor Force Characteristics AI—92
AI—25 Labor Force Characteristics For Municipalities In
The Study Area AI-93
AI—26 Number Of Establishments 1973 AI—94
AI—27 Analysis Of Coal Seams In The Cahaba Coal Field AI—95
AI—28 Privately Owned Wastewater Collection And Treatment AI—96 and
Systems A197
Al—29 ‘Jater Quality At Shades Mountain Filter Plant AI—98
AI—3O Production At Shades Mountain Filter Plant A 199
AI—31 Summary Of Supply And Treatment Capacities Of
Existing And Proposed Facilities AI—lOO
AI—32 Summary Of Supply And Treatment Requirements A l—lOl
AI—33 Study Area Property Tax Rates Per $100 Assessed Value AI—l02

-------
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following Page
Al— 9 Mineral Extraction AI—1O2
Al—lO Flow Diagram of the Patton Creek WWTP AI— 1 02
A l—il Flow Diagram of the Cahaba WWTP AI—1O2
AI—12 Flow Diagram of the Leeds WTP AI— 1 02
AI—13 Flow Diagram of the Trussville WWTP AI— 1 02

-------
PART A, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

-------
SOILS DESCRIPTIONS
HARTSELLS LINKER GROUP
Hartsells soils are moderately deep, 20” to 40” thick, well
drained, and are on upland ridges. Slopes range from 2 to
25 percent. They typically have brownish, loamy surface
layers over brownish, loamy subsoils. Hartsells soils are
underlain by sandstone. Permeability is moderate (0.6 — 2
inches per hour) and infiltration and runoff rates are medium.
These soils have no flooding or high water table hazards.
Linker soils are moderately deep, well drained, and are on
uplands. Slopes range from 1 to 20 percent. They typically
have brownish, loamy surface layers over reddish, loamy
suSsoils and are underlain by sandstone.
TOWNLEY ENDERS ALBERTSVILLE GROUP
Townley soils are moderately deep (20 to 30 inches thick),
well drained, and are on uplands. Slopes range from
2 to 45 percent. They typically have brownish, loamy
surface layers over reddish clayey subsoils. Townley
soils typically are silt barns underlain by level bedded,
consolidated shale. Permeability is slow (less than 0.2
inches per hour). These soils are well drained, with no
seasonal water table or flood hazard. Runoff and infiltra-
tion rates are medium.
Enders soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 2 to 45 percent. They typically have
brownish, gravelly, loamy surface layers over reddish,
clayey subsoils that have grayish and brownish mottles in
the lower part.
Albertsville soils are deep, well drained, and are on
uplands. Slopes range from 2 to 15 percent. They typically
have brownish, loamy surface layers over yellowish and
brownish, clayey subsoils. Albertsville soils are underlain
by shale.
COLBERT TALBOTT DOWELLTON GROUP
Colbert soils are deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly
drained, and are on uplands. Slopes range from 1 to 20
percent. They typically have brownish, loamy, surface layers
over brownish, clayey subsoils. Colbert soils are underlain
by limestone.
AI-l

-------
Talbott soils are moderately deep, well drained, and are
on uplands. Slopes range from 2 to 25 percent. They
typically have brownish, loamy, surface layers over clayey
subsoils that are reddish in the upper part and brownish
in the lower part.
HECTOR MONTEVALLO GROUP
Hector soils are shallow, less than 20” thick, well drained,
and are primarily found on uplands and steep ridge sides.
Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. They typically have
brownish, gravelly, loamy surface layers over brownish, loamy
subsoils. Hector soils are underlain by sandstone. Hector
soils have moderately rapid permeability (2 — 6 inches per
hour), medium infiltration and medium runoff rates. These
soils have no flooding or high water table hazards.
Montevallo soils are shallow (less than 20” thick) well
drained, and are found on uplands ridge sides and tops.
Slopes range from 2 to 45 percent. They typically have
grayish, shaly, loamy surface layers over brownish, shaly,
and loamy subsurface layers and subsoils. These soils
typically are silt barns underlain by level bedded shale.
Permeability is moderate (0.6 — 2 inches per hour), infiltra—
tion is medium and runoff medium to rapid. They have no
flooding or high water table hazards.
BODINE FULLERTON HECTOR GROUP
Bodine soils are deep, somewhat excessively drained, and
are on uplands. Slopes range from 5 to 60 percent. They
typically have brownish, cherty, and loamy surface and
subsoil layers.
Fullerton soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 2 to 40 percent. They typically have
brownish, cherty, and loamy surface layers over reddish, cherty,
and clayey subsoils.
Hector soils are shallow, less than 20” thick, well drained,
and are primarily found on uplands and steep ridge sides.
Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. They typically have
brownish, gravelly, loamy surface layers over brownish, loamy
subsoils. Hector soils are underlain by sandstone. Hector
soils have moderately rapid permeability (2 — 6 inches per
hour), medium infiltration and medium runoff rates. These
soils have no flooding or high water table hazards.
Al-?

-------
Slopes range from 2 to 40 percent. They typically have brownish,
cherty, and loamy surface layers over reddish, cherty, and clayey
subsoils.
Decatur soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 1 to 25 percent. They typically have dark
brownish, loamy upper subsoils over dark reddish, clayey lower
subsoils.
Colbert soils are deep, moderately well td somewhat poorly
drained, and are on uplands. Slopes range from 1 to 20 percent.
They typically have brownish, loamy surface layers over brown-
ish, clayey subsoils. Colbert soils are underlain by limestone.
BODINE HECTOR ASSOCIATION
Bodine soils are deep, somewhat excessively drained, and are
on uplands. Slopes range from 5 to 60 percent. They typically
have brownish, cherty, and loamy surface and subsoil layers.
Hector soils are shallow, less than 20” thick, well drained,
and are primarily found on uplands and steep ridge sides.
Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. They typically have
brownish, gravelly, loamy surface layers over brownish, loamy
subsoils. Hector soils are underlain by sandstone. Hector
soils have moderately rapid permeability (2 — 6 inches per hour),
medium infiltration and medium runoff rates. These soils have
no flooding or high water table hazards.
NINVALE BODINE FULLERTON ASSOCIATION
Minvale soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 2 to 45 percent. They typically have
brownish, cherty, and loamy surface layers over reddish,
cherty, and loamy subsoils.
Bodine soils are deep, somewhat excessively drained, and
are on uplands.. Slopes range from 5 to 60 percent. They
typically have brownish, cherty, and loamy surface and
subsoil layers.
Fullerton soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 2 to 40 percent. They typically have
brownish, cherty, and loamy surface layers over reddish, cherty,
and clayey subsoils.
AI—3

-------
HECTOR ROCKLAND, LIMESTONE ALLEN ASSOCIATION
Hector soils are shallow, less than 20” thick, well drained,
and are primarily found on uplands and steep ridge sides.
Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. They typically have
brownish, gravelly, loamy surface layers over brownish, loamy
subsoils. Hector soils are underlain by sandstone. Hector
soils have moderately rapid permeability (2 — 6 inches per hour),
medium infiltration and medium runoff rates. These soils have
no flooding or high water table hazards.
Rockland, limestone, is a land type that represents a large
component of limestone exposed at the surface.
Allen soils are deep, well drained, and occupy upland positions.
Slopes range from 2 to 40 percent. They typically have brownish,
loamy surface layers over reddish, loamy subsoils.
MONTE VALLO TOWNLEY ASSOCIATION
Montevallo soils are shallow (less than 20” thick) well
drained, and are found on uplands ridge sides and tops. Slopes
range from 2 to 45 percent. They typically have grayish, shaly,
loamy surface layers over brownish, shaly, and loamy subsurface
layers and subsoils. These soils typically are silt barns
underlain by level bedded shale. Permeability is moderate
(0.6 — 2 inches per hour), infiltration is medium and runoff
medium to rapid. They have no flooding or high water table
hazards.
Townley soils are moderately deep (20 to 30 inches thick),
well drained, and are on uplands. Slopes range from 2 to 45
percent. They typically have brownish, loamy surface layers
over reddish clayey subsoils. Townley soils typically are
silt barns underlain by level bedded, consolidated shale.
Permeability is slow (less than 0.2 inches per hour). These
soils are well drained, with no seasonal water table or flood
hazard. Runoff and infiltration rates are medium.
DECATUR FULLERTON GROUP
Decatur soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 1 to 25 percent. They typically have dark
brownish, loamy surface layers and dark brownish, loamy upper
subsoils over dark reddish, clayey lower subsoils.
Fullerton soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.
Slopes range from 2 to 40 percent. They typically have
brownish, cherty, and loamy surface layers over reddish,
cherty, and clayey subsoils.
AI-4

-------
CREWACLA CONGAREE LOBELVILLE LOCUST LEADVALE GROUP
Chewacla soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained, and
occupy flood plain positions. Slopes are less than
2 percent. They typically have brownish, loamy surface
and upper subsoil layers over grayish, ioamy lower subsoils.
Lobelville soils are deep, moderately well drained, and
occupy bottomland positions. Slopes are less than 3 percent.
They typically have brownish, cherty, and loamy surface
layers over cherty and loamy subsoils that are brownish in
the upper part and grayish in the lower part.
Leadvale soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes. These soils have
brown silt loam surface soil layers that are about 8 inches
thick. The subsoil layers consist of a yellowish brown silt
loam layer over a mottled silty clay loam fragipan. The
underlying material is shale. These soils are poorly suited
for the application of wastewater treatment plant effluent
because they are moderately well drained, have moderately slow
permeability (0.2 to 0.6 inches per hour), and have a seasonal
water table.
LEADVALE SERIES
Leadvale soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes. These soils have
brown silt loam surface soil layers that are about 8 inches
thick. The subsoil layers consist of a yellowish brown silt
loam layer over a mottled silty clay loam fragipan. The
underlying material is shale. These soils are moderately well
drained, have moderately slow permeability (0.2 to 0.6 inches
per hour), and have a seasonaily high water table.
CHEWACLA SERIES
Chewacla soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained, and occupy
flood plain positions. Slopes are less than 2 percent. They
typically have brownish, loamy surface and upper subsoil layers
over grayish, loamy lower subsoils.
FULLERTON DECATUR COLBERT ASSOCIATION
Fullerton soils are deep, well drained, and are on uplands.

-------
BEDROCK-VEGETkTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
With regard to forest site quality, sandstone derived sites differ
little from shale derived sites on the same topographic positions and
the same aspects and they will support the same plant communities. Crests
and upper slope positions of sandstone—shale ridges are of poor site
quality. They are inherently dry sites, soils are thin and erodable and
on some of the -more rugged ridge tops bare outcrops of sandstone are pre-
sent. These sites are predominantly pine or pine and dry site tolerant
hardwood areas. Common natural pine species include Shortleaf Pine,
Virginia Pine and the “mountain variety” of Longleaf Pine. Common Hard-
woods usually include Blackjack Oak, Chestnut Oak and Mockernut Hickory.
Poor quality site conditions extend down the hills on the Southeast and
Southwest facing slopes to lower slope positions. The best quality site
conditions in sandstone and shale are found along the overflow areas of
streams and branches which disect the ridges and also on the Northeasterly
and Northwesterly facing slopes of upland sites. The best sites are
usually occupied by natural stands of Hardwoods such as Chestnut Oak,
White Oak, Mockernut and Pignut Hickory, Scarlet Oak and Post Oak from
approximately upper slope position to mid slope position. Moist lower
slopes contain such hardwood species as, Yellow—Poplar, White Oak,
Sweetgum, Red, Maple and Pignut Hickory. Naturally occurring pine
species of the best sandstone—shale sites include Loblolly Pine, Virginia
Pine and Shortleaf Pine.
Loblolly Pine is usually considered to be a moist site tolerant
species (in this study area) but it has been planted extensively in
-many plantations throughout the study area and may be found off of its
natural sites.
Naturally occurring forest types on chert structural ridges differ
little from those found on sandstone—shale ridges. The most important
consideration is the fact that the Fort Payne Chert is highly resistant
to weathering and thus soils are thin and unproductive and site quality
is- poorer than the sandstone—shale structural ridges. Dry site conditions
persist further down slope than on sandstone—shale ridges. Basic species
composition of stands will be much the same but dry site tolerant species
will be found farther down slope and moist site tolerant species will be
less in evidence than on sandstone—shale sites.
The Fort Payne Chert probably produces some of the poorest sites
to he found in this study area.
The Cahaba Valley area, on the eastern edge of the study area, is com-
posed of the OdenirLlle, Newala and Longview Limes tones and the Chepultepec,
and Copper Ridge Dolomites. These are probably the best and potentially
most productive forest sites in the study area. The limestone—dolomite
region is dominated by agricultural and urban development and much of the
forest cover that originally inhabited the area has long since been removed.
AI-6

-------
Slope gradients are not as steep as in the chert and sandstone—shale
structural ridges. A slightly different plant community, which tends
toward greater occupancy of available sites by hardwood species dominates
here. Naturally occurring pine stands, due to the calcareous nature of
the soils were not in the past as wide spread as in the other geologic
areas. Today, much unproductive agricultural land has been planted in
pine, Tmostly, Loblolly Pine. Under natural circumstances hardwood species
would be more tolerant of calcareous soils than would be pine species.
Najor th fferences In hardwood c mpo ttion between limestone—dolomite
and sandstone- shaie, chart arc the app •arsnce of greater nmnbers of such
species as Shargbark Hickory, Green Ash, Basswood, Beech, Hackberry and
Water Oak.
Al- 7

-------
SPECIES OF ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
Sport hunting and trapping are important recreational pursuits in
the project area. The following species are legally hunted.
Turkey — Gobblers only Nov. 19 - Jan. 22
Deer — Bucks only Nov. 19 — Jan. 22
Deer — Runters choIce Jan. 19 — Jan. 22
Deer — Bow and Arrow Oct. 15 —. Jan. 22
Bobwhite Quail Nov. 20 — Feb. 28
Rabbit Oct. 15 — Feb. 28
Squirrel Oct. 25 — Jan. 10
Raccoon and Opossum Oct. 15 — Feb. 28
Beaver, Nutria, Groundhog No closed season
Starlings, Crows, Blackbirds No closed season
Fox and Bobcat No closed season
Dove Sept. 18 — Nov. 3
and
Dec. 24 — Jan. 15
WOodcock Nov. 28 — Jan. 31
Coot Dec. 2 — Jan. 20
Duck Dec. 2 - Jan. 20
Goose Nov. 12 — Jan. 20
The following species are designated as furbearers and are trapped:
Bobcat Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Fox Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Mink Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Muskrat Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Nutria Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
AI-8

-------
Opossum Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Otter Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Raccoon Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Skunk Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Weasel Nov. 20 — Feb. 20
Beaver No closed season
The following data collected on the Cahaba Wildlife Management Area
over a seven year period illustrates the rate that the demand for deer
hunting has increased over time.
Nan Days of
Year Recreation Deer Harvested
1969 — 1970 476 4
1970 — 1971 748 9
1971 — 1972 1,980 19
1972 — 1973 1,903 20
1973 — 1974 2,182 38
1974 — 1975 1,214 22
1975 — 1976 1,713 42
The economic damage to forests and agricultural crops as a result of
a deer herd which exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment were
discussed with Ralph Allen, Q ief of Game Nanagement. Hunter and land—
o iner opposition to Hunter Choice seasons in many areas has allowed for
an undesirable increase in deer density in many areas.
AI—9

-------
FOREST COVER TYPES
cover Types S.A.F.
Symbol Equivalents
P Longleaf pine — shortleaf pine 70
Type Description
Pine make up 70 percent or more of the basal area of the overstory.
Longleaf pine and shortleaf pine, in any combination, usually make up
the bulk of the pine component. Loblolly pine and eastern redcedar
occur sporadically. Virginia pine never occur. The most common hard—
wood associates are inockernut hickory, blackjack oak, post oak, and scar-
let oak. Less common hardwood associates Include southern red oak,
sassafras, black cherry, red maple, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, and
sourwood.
P Mixed pines 75,80
Type Description
Pine makes up 70 percent or more of the basal area of the overstory.
Longleaf, shortleaf, and Virginia pine, in any combination, usually make
up the bulk of the pine component. Loblolly pine is a common associate.
Eastern redcedar occurs sporadically. The most connnon hardwood associates
are mockernut hickory, blackjack oak, and chestnut oak. Less common
hardwood associates include pignut hickory, northern red oak, post oak,
scarlet oak, southern red oak, white oak, sassafras, sweetgum, black
cherry, eastern redbud, red maple, black tupelo, flowering dogwood and
sourwood.
P Loblolly pine (upland) 81
Type Description
Pine makes up 70 percent or more of the basal area of the overs tory.
Loblolly pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine component. Shortleaf
pine and Virginia pine are common associates. Longleaf pine and eastern
redcedar occur sporadically. The most common hardwood associates are
chestnut oak, post oak, and white oak. Less common hardwood associates
include mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, American beech, black oak,
northern red oak, scarlet oak, southern red oak, yellow—poplar, sweetgu i,
black cherry, red maple, Axerican basswood, flowering dogwood, and sour—
wood.
P Shortleaf pine — loblolly pine 81
Type Description
Pine makes up 70 percent or more of the basal area of the overstory. Lob—
buy pine and shortleaf pine, in any combination, usually make up the
bulk of the pine component. Virginia pine is a common associate. Eastern
Al—b

-------
redcedar occurs sporadically. Longleaf pine does not occur. The most
common hardwood associates are post oak and white oak. Less connnon
hardwood associates include mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, black oak,
blackjack oak, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, southern red oak, yellow—poplar,
sassafras, sweetguin, black cherry, American holly, red -maple, yellow
buckeye, flowering dogwood, and sourwood.
P Loblolly pine — shortleaf pine 81
Type Description
Pine makes up 70 percent or more of the basal area of the overstory.
Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine, in any combination, usually make up
the bulk of the pine component. Longleaf pine, Virginia pine, and
eastern redcedar occur sporadically. The most cormuon hardwood associates
are blackjack oak, post oak, southern red oak, and white oak. Less common
hardwood associates include mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, shagbark
hickory, black oak, northern red oak, scarlet oak, water oak, American
el-rn, yellow—poplar, sweet—gum, black cherry, eastern redbud, red maple,
1ack tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green ash.
P Loblolly pine (drainage) 81
Type Description
Pine makes up 70 percent or more of the basal area of the overstory.
Loblolly pine makes up the bulk of the pine component. The other pines
and eastern redcedar occur sporadically. The most common hardwood
associates- are water oak, white oak., yellow—poplar, and sweetgum. Less
common hardwood associates include pignut hickory, shagbark hickory,
hazel alder, American beech, chestnut oak, northern red oak, southern
red oak, black cherry, red maple, flowering dogwood, and green ash.
PH Longleaf pine — shortleaf pine —
upland hardwoods
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Longleaf pine and shortleaf pine, in any combination usually make up
the bulk of the pine component. Loblolly pine is a coimnon associate.
Eastern redcedar occurs sporadically. Virginia pine never occurs. The
most corm n hardwoods are rnockernut hickory, blackjack oak, and post
oak. Other common hardwoods are chestnut oak, scarlet oak, and southern
red oak. Less common hardwood associates include pignut hickory,
American beech, black oak, northern red oak, white oak, American elm,
sassafras, sweetgum, black cherry, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, and
vourwood, In some cases the less common species may become important
stand components.
Al—li

-------
PH Mixed pines — upland hardwoods 76
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Longleaf, shortleaf, and Virginia pine, in any combination, usually make
up the bulk of the pine component. Loblolly pine is a common associate.
Eastern redcedar occurs sporadically. The most common hardwoods are
inockernut hickory, blackjack oak, chestnut oak, and post oak. A corn—
-mon hardwood associate is scarlet oak. Less common hardwood associates
include pignut hickory, black oak, northern red oak, southern red oak,
white oak, yellow—poplar, sassafras, sweetgum, black cherry, red maple,
black tupelo, flowering dogwood, and sourwood. In some cases the less
common species may become important stand components.
PH Loblolly pine upland hardwoods
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Lobloily pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine component. Shortleaf
pine and Virginia pine are common associates. Longleaf pine and eastern
redcedar occur sporadically. The most common hardwoods are mockernut
hickory, chestnut oak, and white oak. Other common hardwoods are pignut
hickory, post oak, scarlet oak, yellow—poplar, and sweetguxn. Less common
hardwood associates include bitternut hickory, shagbark hickory, American
beech, black oak, blackjack oak, northern red oak, southern red oak, water
oak, sassafras, black cherry, eastern redbud, red maple, black tupelo,
flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green ash. In some cases the less common
species may become important stand components.
PH Shortleaf pine — chestnut oak — 76
white oak — hickory
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Shortleaf pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine component. Loblolly
pine and Virginia pine are common associates. Eastern redcedar occurs
sporadically. Longleaf pine never occurs. The most important hardwoods
are northern red oak, post oak, scarlet oak, and southern red oak. Less
common hardwood associates include pignut hickory, shagbark hickory,
American beech, black oak, blackjack oak, yellow—poplar, sweetguxn, black
cherry, yellow buckeye, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and
common persimmon. In some cases the less common species may become
important stand components.
AI—12

-------
PH Loblolly pine — white oak 82
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Loblolly pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine component. Shortleaf
pine and Virginia pine are common associates. Eastern redcedar occurs
sporadically. Longleaf pine never occurs. The most important hardwood is
white oak. Other common hardwoods are pignut hickory, post oak, scarlet
oak, southern red oak, and yellow—poplar. Less common hardwood associates
include -mockernut hickory, shagbark hickory, American beech, black oak,
chestnut oak, northern red oak, water oak, winged elm, sassafras,
American sycamore, black cherry, red maple, yellow buckeye, black tupelo,
flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green ask. In some cases the less common
species -may become important stand components.
PH Loblolly pine — shortleaf pine —
post oak — southern red oak
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine, in any combination, make up the
bulk of the pine component. Longleaf pine is a common associate. Virginia
pine and eastern redcedar occur sporadically. The most important hardwoods
are post oak and southern red oak. Other common hardwoods are blackjack
oak, scarlet oak, and white oak. Less common hardwoods are blackjack oak,
scarlet oak, and white oak. Less common hardwood associates include
inockernut hickory, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, black oak, chestnut
oak, chinkapin oak, northern red oak, water oak, American elm, yellow—
poplar, sassafras, sweetguiu, black cherry, eastern redbud, red maple,
black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green ash. In some cases
the less common species may become important stand components.
PH Loblolly pine — oak — sweetgum 82
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of me.
Loblolly pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine compoi ent ut short
leaf pine often is the dominant pine. Virginia pine and eastern redcedar
occur sporadically. Longleaf pine never occurs. The most important
hardwoods are scarlet oak, southern red oak, water oak, white oak, and
sweetguin. Post oak is a common associate. Less common hardwood associates
include black willow, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory,
hazel alder, American beech, northern red oak, American elm, winged elm,
yellow—poplar, sassafras, black cherry, eastern redbud, red maple, yellow
buckeye, American basswood, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood,
and green ash. In some cases the less common hardwood species may become
important stand components.
AI—13

-------
PH Loblolly pine — branch 82
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Loblolly pine makes up the bulk of the pine component. The other pines
and eastern redcedar occur sporadically. The most important hardwoods are
white oak, yellow—poplar, and sweetgum. Other common hardwoods are water
oak, red maple, and green ash. Less common hardwoods include black
willcw, bitternut hickory, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, shagbark
hickory, hazel alder, American hornbeam, American beech, black oak,
blackjack oak, chestnut oak, post oak, scarlet oak, southern red oak,
American elm, winged elm, sugarberry, sweetbay, American sycamore, black
cherry, boxelder, American basswood, black tupelo, and flowering dogwood.
In som cases the less common species may become important stand
components.
PH Loblolly pine — swamp hardwoods
Type Description
30 to 70 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of pine.
Lob buy pine is the only pine found in the swamps. Eastern redcedar
ccurs sporacthally. The most important hardwoods are water oak,
thite oak, s :eetgum, and red maple. Other common hardwoods are bitter—
nut hickory, southern red oak, willow oak, black tupelo, and green ash.
Less common hardwood associates include black willow, pignut hickory,
hazel alder American hornbeam, swamp chestnut oak, American elm,
sugarberry, sweetbay, yellow—poplar, American sycamore, and boxelder.
In some cases the less common species may become important stand
components.
H Blackjack oak — mockernut hickory
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overs tory is made up of
pine. Longleaf pine and shortleaf pine make up the bulk of the pine
component. Loblolly pine and eastern redcedar occur sporadically.
Virginia pine does not occur. The most common hardwoods are mockernut
hickory and blackjack oak. Other common hardwoods are chestnut oak,
post oak, scarlet oak, and southern red oak. Less common hardwood
associates include pignut hickory, black oak, northern red oak, white
oak, sassafras, sweetgum, black cherry, black tupelo, flowering dogwood,
and sourwood. In some cases the less common species may become important
stand components.
AI—14

-------
H Mockernut hickory — white ash —
blackjack oak
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Longleaf pine is the most common pine. Loblolly pine, shortleaf
pine, and eastern redcedar occur sporadically. Virginia pine does not
occur. The most important hardwoods are mockernut hickory and post oak.
Other common hardwoods are blackjack oak, chestnut oak, scarlet oak,
southern red oak, white oak, yellow—poplar, and sweetgum. Less common
hardwood associates include pignut hickory, black oak, northern red oak,
sassafras, black cherry, red maple, black tupleo, flowering dogwood, and
sourwood. In some cases the less common species may become important
stand components.
H Chestnut oak — mockernut hickory
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. The pine component may be made up of any of the pines, in any
combination, but shortleaf pine often is the most important pine.
Eastern redcedar occurs sporadically. The most important hardwoods are
mockernut hickory, blackjack oak, chestnut oak, and post oak. Other
common hardwoods are pignut hickory, scarlet oak, and white oak. Less
common hardwood associates include shagbark hickory, black oak, northern
red oak, southern red oak, winged elm, sugarberry, yellow—poplar,
sassafras, sweetgum, black cherry, eastern redbud, black locust, red
maple, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green ash. In
some cases the less common species may become important stand components.
H Oak — hickory
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. The pine component may be made up of any of the pines, except
longleaf pine, in any combination. Eastern redcedar occurs sporadically.
The most important hardwoods are pignut hickory, chestnut oak, northern
red oak, and white oak. Other common hardwoods are mockernut hickory,
shagbark hickory, scarlet oak, yellow—poplar, and green ash. Less
common hardwood associates include American beech, black oak, post oak,
southern red oak, American elm, winged elm, common blackberry, sassafras,
sweetgum, American sycamore, black cherry, eastern redbud, black locust,
red maple, American basswood, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood,
and common persimmon. In some cases, the less common species may become
Important stand components.
AI—l5

-------
H Hickory - oak
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basai area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine, in any combination, usually
make up the bulk of the pine component. Virginia pine and eastern
redcedar occur sporadically. Longleaf pine does not occur. The most
important hardwoods are mockernut hickory, chestnut oak, northern red
oak, post oak, and white oak. Other common hardwoods are pignut hickory,
shagbark hickory, black oak, and scarlet oak. Less coi on hardwood
associates include American beech, blackjack oak, southern red oak,
winged elm, yellow—poplar, sassafras, sweetgum, black cherry, eastern
redbud, red maple, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green
ash. In some cases, the less common species may become important stand
components.
H Beech — oak
T ype Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. The pine component is made up of loblolly pine, shortleaf pine,
and/or Virginia pine, in any combination. Eastern redcedar occurs
sporadically. The most important hardwoods are American beech, northern
red oak, and white oak. Other common hardwoods are mockernut hickory,
shagbark hickory, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, yellow—poplar, sweetguin,
and green ash. Less common hardwood associates include pignut hickory,
black oak, post oak, southern red oak, winged elm, sugarberry, sassafras,
black cherry, red maple, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, and sourwood.
In some cases, the less common species may become important stand
components.
H Oak
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Loblolly pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine component but
any of the other pines may be present. Eastern redcedar occurs
sporadically. The most important hardwoods are post oak, scarlet oak,
southern red oak, and white oak. Other common hardwoods are mockernut
hickory, shagbark hickory, yellow—poplar, and sweetgum. Less common
hardwood associates include pignut hickory, American beech, blackjack
oak, chestnut oak, Chinkapin oak, northern red oak, water oak, American
elm, sassafras, black cherry, eastern redbud, red maple, American
basswood, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and green ash. In
some cases, the less common species may become important stand components.
AI—l6

-------
H Oak — sweetgum
f p Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Loblolly pine usually makes up the bulk of the pine component
Shortleaf pine and eastern redcedar occur sporadically. The most
important hardwoods are water oak, white oak, and sweetgum. Other corn cn
hardwoods are pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, American beech, northern
red oak, post oak, scarlet oak, southern red oak, and green ash. Less
common hardwood associates include black willow, bitternut hickory,
mockernut hickory, hazel alder, black oak, swamp chestnut oak, American
elm, sugarberry, yellow—poplar, black cherry, eastern redbud, honeylocust,
red maple, American basswood, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood.,
and common persimmon. In some cases, the less common species may bec rne
important stand components.
Ii Branch hardwoods 59
Type Descriptions
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Loblolly pine makes up the bulk of the pine cmponent but arv i=
the pines may be present. Eastern redcedai occurs sporadically. The
most important hardwoods are water oak, white oak, yello —poplar, and
sweetguin. Other common hardwoods are, American beech, red maple, and
green ash. Less common hardwood associates include black villow,
eastern cottonwood, bitternut hickory, mockernut hickory, pignut h ckory,
shagbark hickory, river birch, hazel alder, American hornbeam, blL :k
oak, chestnut oak, northern red oak, post oak, scarlet oak, southern
red oak, swamp chestnut oak, willow oak, American elm, winged elm, corson
hackberry, sugarberry, sweetbay, sassafras, American sycamore, black
cherry, eastern redbud, honeylocust, black locust, boxelder, yellow
buckeye, American basswood, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, sourwood,
and common persimmon. In some cases, the less common species may
become important stand components.
H Coosa River hardwoods
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Loblolly pine makes up the bulk of the pine component. Longleaf
pine, shortleaf pine, and eastern redcedar occur sporadically. The
most important hardwoods are water oak, white oak, and green ash. Other
common hardwoods are shagbark hickory, northern red oak, sugarberry,
yellow—poplar, sweetgum, American sycamore, and red maple. Less common
hardwood associates include black willow, eastern cottonwood, bitternut
hickory, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, river brich, hazel alder,
American hornbeam, American beech, scarlet oak, southern red oak, swamp
chestnut oak, American elm, black cherry, boxelder, silver maple, American
basswood, black tupelo, flowering dogwood, and sourwood. In some cases,
the less conmion species may become important stand components.
AI—17

-------
H Swamp hardwoods
Type Description
Less than 30 percent of the basal area of the overstory is made up of
pine. Lob buy pine is the only pine found in the swamps. Eastern
redcedar occurs sporadically. The most important hardwoods are water
oak, white oak, sweetgum, and red maple. Other common hardwoods are
bitternut hickory, southern red oak, willow oak, black tupelo, and green
ash. Less common hardwood associates include black willow, pignut
hickory, hazel alder, American hornbeam, American beech, swamp chestnut
oak, American elm, winged elm, sugarberry, sweetbay, yellow—poplar
\merican sycamore, boxelder, American basswood, flowering dogwood, and
:onimon persimmon. Water tupelo occurs as small patches in the wettest
poltions of the swamps adjacent to the streams and in areas of standing
water. In some cases, the less common species may become important
strnd components.
H Hazel alder
Type Description
Hazel alder forms the bulk of the vegetative cover with scattered black
willows, yellow—poplar, sweetgum and other wet site species forming
an over3tory.
H Black willow 95
Type Description
Black willow forms the bulk of the overstory. Eastern cottonwood and
river birch are common associates. Hazel alder also is often present.
AI—l8

-------
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CAHABA RIVER
1. Introduction
To understand and appreciate the complexities of the Cahaba River,
its aquatic organisms, and the many ecosystems within this dynamic
system a description of the river and its physical characteristics is
required. Following this discussion the flora and fauna of the river
will be discussed.
2. Cahaba River Basin
The Cahaba River flows entirely within Alabama in a generally
southwestern direction. It drains an area of 4843 sq. km (1870
square miles) covering portions of Bibb, Chilton, Dallas, Jefferson,
Perry, St. Clair, Shelby, and Tuscaloosa Counties. Principal tribu-
taries are Buck, Cahaba Valley, Mahan, Oakmulgee, Shades and Six Mile
Creeks and the Little Cahaba River. Topographic and geologic features
of the upper reaches of the basin tend to cause rapid runoff with the
resultant wide fluctuation of stream flow, while the lower portions,
because of the flatter topography and changes in geologic formations
exhibit smaller flow variations.
Physical Characteristics of the Cahaba River (Frey, et al 1976;
Foshee, 1975 )
The Cahaba River has its headwaters in the Cahaba Mountains of
Alabama and is a typical spring—fed stream until it nears Trussville,
Alabama. The upper reach of the river can be divided into sections
based on changes in physical characteristics of the river. A 96 km
(59.6 miles) portion of the Cahaba River was surveyed in this study
(Figure 1). Not all sections were similar in length, since accessi-
bility was also a factor in designation of section lengths. Following
are descriptions of the twelve study sections:
Section 1 — Immediately downstream from Echo Lake to 0.4 km (0.25
miles) upstream from Lake—in—the—Woods.
Section 2 — Four—tenths kin (0.25 miles) upstream from Lake—in—the—
Woods to Interstate Highway 59 bridge.
Section 3 — Interstate Highway 59 bridge to Highway 11 bridge at
Trussvjlle.
Section 4 — Highway 11 bridge downstream to old highway bridge near
Lovick, Alabama.
Section 5 — Lovick, Alabama to Grants Mill Road.
Section 6 — Grants Mill Road to Horseshoe Bend near Overton, Alabama,
at river mile (RM) 35.
AI—l9

-------
Figure I. D gromm0tic map sho n r.f.r.nc. points os the portion of the Caheba ivcr covered is The Frey (1976) Survey, and
referred to in the description of the physical c1iaracteristi s discussion.
b
/ $

S l OS I’

‘o .
L.X(/ 1/ V // / J /// / KL
21111 so 1.1 e I I .1 2 1I ctons
- AREA SURVEYED.8Y SECTIONS
Figure 1

-------
Section 7 — Horseshoe Bend to River Run Estates bridge.
Section 8 — River Run Estates bridge to Highway 280 bridge.
Section 9 — Highway 280 bridge downstream to Caidwell Mill Road.
Section 10 — Caidwell Mill Road to Old Montgomery Road.
Section 11 — Old Montgomery Road to the confluence of Patton Creek.
Section 12 — Confluence of Patton Creek to the confluence of Buck
Creek.
Section 1, which includes the headwaters below Echo Lake to approx—
mately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) upstream from Lake—in—the--Woods, is a small
stream 2 to 3 meters (6.6—6.9 feet) wide with a depth of 15 to 20 cen ti—
meters (.5.9—7.9 inches). Seepage from small pools contributed to
minimal flows throughout the reach. The stream bed is generally bedrock
with boulders and pebbles entrapping leaf litter. Small riffles occur at
the end of this stream section as flow increases. The gradient in this
section is about 8.5 meters (in) per km (44 ft/mile). Trees overhand the
stream banks along the entire reach.
Section 2, extending from just above Lake—in—the—Woods to approxi-
mately 0.8 km (O.5in) below 1—59 Bridge, is a more free—flowing stream
with. a 5 to 7 -meter (16.4—22.9 feet) width and depths from 15 centimeters
(5.9 inches) to 1 in (3.3 feet). There are stretches of beautiful riffles
7 to 10 meters (22.9—32.8 feet) long interrupted by an occasional pool.
The stream bed is still bedrock with riffles having large boulders and
slabs covered with river weed. The emergent plants — water willow and
watercress — are found in patches along the stream margin. The river
still drops at a rate of about 8.5 rn per km (44 ft/mile).
The river becomes wider, 10 in (32.8 feet), in Section 3, with some
pools having depths of 1.2 meters (3.91 feet). Riffle areas are fewer
but are much similar to riffle areas of Section 2. However, more silt and
sand are evident in the stream bed than in the previous sections. The
gradient has become reduced and is now about 1.6 in per km (8.45 ft/mile).
Section 4 is a much wider (17 to 35 meters) (55.8—114.8 feet) stretch
of the river. There are long pbols throughout this reach having depths
of 0.2 to 1.1 meters (0.7—3.6 feet). These pools are interrupted by
long riffles of boulders, rocks, slabs, and islands. Three rapids are
present in this section. Steeper terrain is evidenced by bluffs along
much of this river section. Virginia hardwood timber densely line the
stream banks. The average gradient of the river in this section is
1.6 in per km (8.45 ft/mile).
AI—20

-------
The Cahaba River from Lovick, Alabama, to approxImately 6.4 km (3.9
miles) upstream from the dam near Highway 280 (Sections 4 through 8)
maintains the characteristics exhibited in Section 4. The river is
about 15.2 m (50 feet) wide, and consists of long, relatively shallow
pools with solid bedrock bottoms. These pools are broken by long riffles
which consist of large, flat rocks or short cataracts. The bank of the
river is lined with mixed forest which at times contains what appears to
be stands of magnificent virgin timber. Some rocky banks are evident.
Generally the flood plain is restricted by steep terrain which includes
high picturesque bluffs. At times, the river is strewn with large
boulders. The Little Cahaba River which enters the Cahaba River above
U.S. Highway 280, averages about 25—30 feet in width. Rocky shoals,
small islands, drops, low falls and slow moving pools are present. The
banks are usually wooded and hilly with numerous boulder formations,
low bluffs, and rocky hillsides along and just back from the river’s
edge. Several small streams and creeks enter the river at various
points.
Just downstream from Highway 280 (Section 9), the river is impounded
by a low—level dam. At the dam the river is about 45.7 a (150 feet)
wide. This dam affects approximately 0.4 km (0.25 miles) of the river.
In the upper reaches of this stretch of the river, the current moves
slowly downstream to the Cahaba River water treatment pump station intake.
The river banks are lined with hardwood trees, many of which have fallen
into the river. The bottom is bedrock covered with silt and water depth
is uniform, averaging about 2.1 meters (6.9 feet). From the pump station
intake downstream to the low level dam, the physical appearance of the
river is the same, except the water is flowing slowly upstream toward
the pumping station. However, this body of water moving upstream is
visually different from that moving downstream, since it is water being
released from Lake Purdy which travels down the Little Cahaba River and
then up the Cahaba to the pumping station. The portion of the river below
the intake is about 50 meters (164 feet) wide with a maximum depth of 4
meters (13.1 feet) and an average depth of about 3 meters (9.8 feet).
The banks of the river are lined with large trees, many of which have
fallen into the river. The bottom of the river in the downstream portion
near the darn is covered with considerable amounts of silt and organic
material. However, during such time when the flow in the Cahaba River
increases sufficiently to adequately supply the pump station, the portion
of the river between the pumping station and the confluence of the Little
Cahaba River would probably be very similar to the reach of the impound-
ment upstream from the pumping station.
The run—of—the—river dam at the Highway 280 bridge is the first of
a series of low—level dams impounding the river. Damming of the Cahaba
River continues downstream to Caidwell Mill Road, where five small
(approximately 1 meter (3.28 feet) high) private run—of—the—river dams
have been constructed in that stretch of the river (Section 9). Section
9 is virtually pooled its entire length except where riffle areas exist
just downstream of the darns. Maximum water depth was about 1.6 meters
(5.25 feet) or greater in this stretch of the river, and the bottom was
rubble and sediment.
AI—21

-------
From Caidwell Mill Road (County 29) to Montgomery Road (Section 10),
the river was shallow and free—flowing, consisting of riffles and pools
with a bottom of rock outcrops, rubble, and sand intermingled with coal
fines. The river was strewn with fallen trees, which made passage
downstream difficult at times. The river is 12.2 in (40 feet) wide at
County 29 and widens to 15.2 m (50 feet) at Mongtomery Road. Much of
this stretch is bordered by 1.3 to 2.9 meter (6—8 feet) high banks.
These are covered by wide flat areas. Two golf courses are located
along this stretch. A number of islands and flats exist in this stretch
of the river.
Many creeks in Sections 9 and 10, especially those draining mining
areas, formed sedimentation deltas into the Cahaba River.
The Cahaba River from Old Montgomery Road bridge to its confluence
with Buck Creek ranges from 15.2 in (50 feet) wide to about 22.9 in (75
feet) wide just below Buck Creek. In the portions of the river that
were observed, the river coasisted of relatively deep pools divided by
shoals. The bottom of the pools are bedrock and the shoals were
comprised of large, flat rocks interspersed with gravel and sand.
Generally speaking, the terrain along the river is quite steep, although
there are some low—lying agricultural areas interspersed with the rough
terrain. The banks of the river are lined with mature timber, some of
which is falling into the river. The high trash line in the standing
trees indicates extreme flooding conditions exist in this portion of
the river.
The gradient of the river can be divided into three segments. Segment
1 begins at Echo Lake at an elevation of 316.9 in (1040 feet) above mean
sea level (msl) and extends to about Interstate Highway 59 where the
elevation is about 201.1 m (660 feet) above msl. Within this segment,
the river drops about 8.5 in per km (47 ft/mile). The second segment
begins at Interstate Highway 59 and extends to Lovick, Alabama. The
gradient is much reduced within this segment, with an average drop of
about 1.5 in per km (9 ft/mile). The remaining 57 km (36 miles) of the
study area are in Segment 3. In this segment, the average drop of the
river is about 0.8 in per km (4 ft/mile). The total drop in elevation
in the river through the study area is 201 in (670 feet).
Uses of the Cahaba River
The Cahaba River provides recreational uses consisting of boating,
canoeing, swimming, picknicking, biking, hunting, fishing, sightseeing
and camping.
Past and Present Impacts Upon the Cahaba River
Numerous activities within the basin represent potential dangers that
threaten the floral and faunal activity of the Cahaba River. Adverse impacts
upon this river may result from strip mining of coal, stream channelization,
clear cutting without erosion control, sand and gravel mining and washing
operations, or population increases within the basin. In addition, river
enrichment occurs from agricultural and recreational lands adjoining the
river.
AI—22

-------
Specific problems include turbidity increases and sedimentation due
to strip mining, basin development and lagoon breaks, organic debris from
the heavy vegetative growths occurring along the river banks and human
debris (beer cans, paper cups and metal debris) found in access areas
along the river.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)(Frey, et al 1976)
reported pollution sources impacting the river by section (see Figure
1.2) within Jefferson and Shelby counties. Table l.lpresents this data.
Periodically in the past, but apparently not within the last two
years (1974—1976) a series of fish kills has occurred in the river.
In one case, mortalities exceeded 15,000 fishes. Table 1.2 summarizes
these incidents.
AI—2 3

-------
Section 5 - Small creek draining
Jefferson Park area
Section 7 — Two small creeks
near P M 36
Section 8 — adiur. creek near
erton PN 38
Section 0 — Small creek near
RM 40
Section 8 — Fleming Branch
Section 8 — Little Cahaba
Branch
Section 9 — 2.4 (1.5 miles)
upstream fran Caidwell Mill
Road
Section 9 — Fifth dam at Cdld-
well Mill Poad
Section 13 — Oo’-mstream from
Caidwell Mill Road
Table 1—1 Pollution sources alon the Upper Cahaba River
(Frey, et al 1976)
t cation Tyne of Pollution
Section 3 - Near Trussville Siltation and turbidity from construction
along river
Section 4 - Trussville SC? cut— Combined sewage from Trussville
fall 182.8 m (2CC vords) dcwn—
stream from Highway 11
Section 4 — Pir . h t Creek 91.4 Domestic sewage from mobile hcne complex
m (100 yards) ic o stream from
Trussville SC? outfall
Section 4 - Little Cah ca Cruek
Section 4 — Black Creek RN 19
is:harae from Purina Checkerboard Poultry
Processing Plant into small tributary of
Little Cahaba Creek
Black Creek drains strio—mined arua -— no
problem durino course of tudv, but nossi-
ble problems during periods of bach runoff
Creek hj.ghiy enriched -- crcbab1 no coint
source
t w pH draining old stric-mir .e area
Creek apparently carries a hea ’ silt
load during periods of high runoff
Intermittent high sediment load, yellow
clay
Many coal pines
Discharge of Leads SC?, Lake Purdy
Golf course on river bank
Shelby County emergency sewage discharge
Altadena apartments sewage line
AI—24

-------
Table 1—1 (C ntir ued)
I cat ion
Section 10 — Near Highway 31
Section 10 — 0.8 km (0.5 nile)
upstream from High s’ay 31
Section 10 — Just downstream
from Highway 31 bridge
Section 10 — Near Old : ont—
gomery Road bridge
Section 11 - Patton Creek
te of Po1l’ ticn
Highway culvert just upstream from Acton
Creek
Cahaba River sewage treatment plant (STP)
Golf course along river
Industrial waste ditch (marble processing)
Patton Creak STP discharges into Patton
Creek
AI—2 5

-------
Table 1-2 — Summary of Cahaba River Fish Kills
Date Description
1965 Trussville, Alabama; 1750 suckers dead
1965 5475 fishes dead
1968 15,081 fishes dead
August 1970 Centreville, Alabama
Discharge of pentachiorophenol (wood preservative)
by W.E. Beicher Lumber Co.
7415 fish dead including largemouth bass, spotted
bass, walleye, bream, buffalo, drum, channel, flat—
head and bullhead catfish, river red horse, spotted
suckers arid carp.
September 1970 Mann. Bros. Metaiplating Co. had routine spills of
1968 cyanide into creek.
Nay 1965 Also 400 lb. container of calcium sulfate dumped
into river, resulting pH = 10.0; 12,500 fishes dead
including bass, beam and suckers.
1973 Ralston Purina Plant discharges in excess of 1 MCD.
BOD removal 85%,
1973 Caustic soda spill resulted in six dead fish.
AI—26

-------
TABLES
NATURAL ENVI RONtIENT

-------
TABLE Al-I
MONTHLY TEMPERATURE RANGES
CAHABA RIVER BASIN *
100
90
80
70
3
60
- NORMAL DAILY MAXIMUM
50
- NORMAL MONTHLY
40
— NORMAL DAILY MINIMUM
50
J F MA M J J AS 0 N D
MONTH
* TEMPERATURE RANGES RECORDED AT BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
PERIOD OF RECORD 1921-1950
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU “CLIMATES OF THE STATES ALABAMA”
FEBRUARY, 1959.
AI—26a

-------
TABLE AI-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS OF ALABAMA
Contaminant Primary Standard Secondary Standar
Sulfur oxides (as SO 2 ) 0 • 03 a 002 a
050 c
Particulate matter 75 1 60 d
moe 150 e
Carbon monoxide
35 g 35 g
Photochemical oxidants 0 • 08 g
Hydrocarbons O.VeC
Nitrogen dioxide 0 05 a
a Parts per million, annual arithmetic mean.
b Parts per million, maximum 24—hour concentration not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
C Parts per million, maximum 3—hour concentration not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
d Micrograms/cubic meter, annual geometric mean.
e Micrograms/cubic meter, maximum 24—hour concentration not to be
exceeded more than once per year.
Parts per million, maximum 8—hour concentration not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
• g Parts per million, maximum 1—hour concentration not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
AI—27

-------
TABLE AI-3
1975 AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BIRMINGHAM AREA
Downtown North Mountain
Contaminant Birmingham Birmingham Fairfield Leeds Brook
Suspended Particulateg(gm/m 3 ) 82.1 (a)* 136.8 (a)* 74.0 (a) 136.8 (a)* 44.6 (a)
260 (b) 446 (b) 229 (b) 599 (b) 143 (b)
234 (c) 431 (c)* 206 (c) 559 (c)* 109 (c)
Sulfur Dioxide (ppm) 0.002 (a) 0.002 0.005 0.001 —
0.010 (b) 0.015 0.023 0.002 —
0.008 (c) 0.013 0.020 0.002 —
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) 0.029 (d) 0.027 0.020 0.013 —
Carbon Monoxide (ppm) 15 (e) 22 27 — —
9(f) 15 17 — —
10(g) 10 13 — —
<9 (h) <9 11* — —
Ozone (ppm) 0.119 (c) 0.098 0.140 — —
0.113 (f) 0.076 0.086 — —
Total Hydrocarbons (ppm) 10(e) 9(f) 20(e) 12(f) — — —
a. Annual Geometric Mean f. Second Highest 1—Hour
b. Maximum 24—Hour g. Maximum 8—Hour
c. Second Highest 24—Hour h. Second Highest 8—Hour
d. Annual Arithmetic Mean
e. Maximum 1—Hour * Indicates Non—compliance With Primary Standard
Sources: John W. Powell, Statistician, Bureau of Environmental Health, Jefferson County Department of
Health, letter to CFC&C, October 8, 1976.
Ken Barrett, Chief, Technical Services Section, Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission, letter
to GFC&C, October 29, 1976.

-------
TABLE AI-4
CABABA RIVER BASIN
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
Geologic
Map Stratigraphic
Symbol Unit Rock Character
Pennsylvanian ]Ppv Pottsville Sandstone, tan to gray, thin—
Formation to thick— bedded; tan to dark—
gray shale; and many coal beds.
Mississippian. Mpp Parkwood Sandstone, light-gray to white,
Formation fine—grained, thin— to medium—
bedded, and well cemented.
Mpp Pennington Shale, red and tan.
Formation
Mf Floyd Shale Shale, gray to black, light—
brown, and dull green; fine—
grained thin—bedded sandstone;
siltstone and thin ferruginous
beds.
Nb Bangor Limestone, gray to dark blue—
Limestone gray, medium— to thick—bedded
crystalline, fossiliferous, and
and nodules of dark—gray chert.
Nh Hartselle Siltstone, weathers brown in
Sandstone the lower part; and light—gray
fine—grained thin— to medium—
bedded laminated sandstone in
the upper part.
Mfp Fort Payne Limestone, light—gray or
Chert or white, thin— to medium—
bedded, siliceous, and
nodules of light—gray to
dark—gray chert.
Devonian Dfm Frog Mountain Sandstone, tan, gray, or gray
Sandstone with red stain, thin— to medium—
bedded, and sandy shale.
AI—29

-------
TABLE AI—4(Cont’d)
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
Geologic
Map Stratigraphic
System Symbol Unit Rock Character
Silurian Srm Red Mountain Shale, brown, red, and green,
Formation includes ferruginous beds in
the lower half and brown fine—
grained thin— to thick—bedded
sandstone In the upper half of
the formation. The formation
becomes thinner southeastward
in the county.
Ordovician Oc Chickamauga Shale, red and (or) green; red
Limestone coarse—gralned sandstone; and
gray thin— to thick—bedded
limestone. In the northern
part of the county, the basal
part contains a layer of con-
glomerate containing chert
gravel.
Ol i n Little Oak Limestone, dark—gray, thick—
Limestone bedded, coarsely crystalline.
Ol i n Lenoir Limestone, dark—gray, medium
Limestone thick—bedded, finely crystalline.
Olin Mosehiem Limestone, blue-gray, thick-
Limestone bedded, compact, and brittle.
Ool Odenville Limestone, dark—gray, fine—
Limestone grained, siliceous, cherty,
impure, and argillaceous.
Ool Newala Limestone, dark— to pearl—
Limestone gray, thick—bedded and very
little dolomite.
Ool Longview Limestone and dolomite, light—
Limestone gray, thick—bedded, cherty.
AI—30

-------
TABLE AI—4 (Cont’d)
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
Geologic
Map Stratigraphic
System Symbol Unit Rock Character
Ordovician OCu Chepultepec, Dolomite, light— to dark—gray,
and Copper Ridge, medium— to thick—bedded;
Cambrian and Ketona weathers to a cherty clayey
Dolomites subsoil.
Cambrian Cr Rome Shale, red and green inter—
Formation bedded with green to tan thin—
bedded sandstone.
AI—31

-------
TABLE AI—5
GENERAL ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ROCKS
EN THE GREATER BIRMINGHAM AREA
Potential
General Foundation Potential Cut
Map 1 Ease of Stability Slope Stability
Age Formation Symbol Lithology Evacuation 2 Problems Problems
Cambrian Rome -Er Shale Rip None None
Ordovician Chepultepec 0-Eu Dolomite Rip Sinkholes None
and
Cambrian Copper Ridge 0-Eu Dolomite Rip Sinkholes None
Ketona 0-Eu Dolomite Blast Sinkholes None
Ordovician Longview Ool Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
Newala Ool Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
Odenville Ool Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
Mosheim Oc Olm Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
Lenoir Olm Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
Little Oak Olm Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
Chickamauga Oc Limestone— Blast Sinkholes None
Shale
Silurian Red Mountain Srm Shale Blast Mine Subsidence None
Mississippian Fort Payne Mf p Chert— Blast Sinkholes None
Limes tone
Hartselle Mh Sandstone Blast None None
Bangor Mb Limestone Blast Sinkholes None
1
Refers to area mapped on Figure 3—5, “Geology”
2 Ease of Excavation is variable and dependent on the local site conditions

-------
TABLE AI—5(Cont’d)
GENERAL ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ROCKS
IN THE GREATER BIRMINGHAM AREA
Potential
General Foundation Potential Cut
1 Eaáe of 2 Stability Slope Stability
Age Formation Symbol Lithology Evacuation Problems Problems
Mississippian Floyd Mf Shale Blast None Landslide
Parkwood Mpp Sandstone— Blast None Landslide
Shale
Pennsylvanian Pottsville Ppv Sandstone— Blast None Landslide
Shale
Quaternary Alluvium Qal Sand— Rip None None
Gravel—
Clay
1 Refers to area mapped on Figure 3—5, “Geology”.
2 Ease of Excavation is variable and dependent on the local site conditions

-------
TABLE AI-6
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Geologic Ground-Water
Map Stratigraphic Recharge
System Symbol Unit Water—Bearing Properties Potential General Ground—Water Quali
Pennsylvania Ppv Pottsvjlle In places, wells yield as much Low Water Is generally high in
Formation as 165 gpm but generally less iron and some samples have
than 50 gpm. high hardness.
Mississippian Mpp Parkwood Generally a poor aquifer with Low Some samples have high Iron
Formation variable water quality, and hardness.
Mpp Pennington Low Same as above.
Format ion
Hf Floyd Shale Yields water to domestic Low Same as above.
wells. Supplies from dug
wells usually are adequate
during the dry season.
Mb Bangor Yields large amounts of High Water is generally hard.
Limestone water to wells which inter-
sect joints and solution
channels, and as much as
1,500 gpm to springs.
}fh Hartsefle Yields as much as 250 gpm Medium Water has variable hardness
Sandstone in wells, and as much as levels and may have high
1,500 gpm to springs, iron concentrations.
Hf p Fort Payne Yields adequate water to Medium Water has high hardness.
Chert wells for domestic use.
Source for springs that
yield as much as 400 gpm.

-------
TABLE AI-6 (Cont’d)
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Geologic Ground—Water
Map Stratigraphic Recharge
System Symbol Unit Water—Bearing Properties Potential General Ground—Water Quality
Devonian Dfm Frog Mountain No information available. Low
Sandstone
Silurian Srui Red Mountain Yields adequate water to Low Water quality is poor with
Formation wells for domestic use high iron sulfate, hardness,
that is often of poor and dissolved solids.
quality.
Ordovician Oc Chickamauga Yields adequate water to High Water has high hardness.
Limestone domestic wells. Generally
a good aquifer in the
limestone section.
Olm Little Oak Wells and springs yield High Water has high hardness.
Limestone from 2 to 400 gpm that is
used for domestic, stock,
industrial, and public
supplies.
Olin Lenoir Same as above. High Water has high hardness.
Limes tone
Olm Mosehiem Same as above. High Water has high hardness.
Limes tone
Ool Odenville Yields adequate water to wells High Water has high hardness.
Limestone for domestic use and will
probably yield large quantities
to wells that penetrate fractures
and solution openings.

-------
TABLE *1—6 (Cont’d)
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Geologic Ground—Water
Map Stratigraphic Recharge
System Symbol Unit Water—Bearing Properties Potential General Ground—Water Qualit
Ordovician Ool Newala Yields adequate water to High Water has high hardness.
(Cont’d) Limestone wells for domestic use and
will probably yield large
quantities to wells that
penetrate fractures and
solution openings.
Ool Longview Same as above. High Water has high hardness.
Limes tone
Ordovician O€u Chepultepec, Source of water for many High Water has high hardness.
and Copper Ridge, wells and springs. Wells
Cambrian and Ketona 150 gpm and springs as
Dolomites much as 2,500 gpm.
Cambrian Rome Poor aquifer. Low Water quality is generally
Formation poor.

-------
Table AI—7 — Amphibians and Reptii s Reported _ In The Upper Cahaba River
Draina Basin (Mount, 1 )75)
Amphibians — Frogs
Bufo ainericanus — American toad
Bufo terrestris — Southern toad
Bufo woodhousei — Fowlers toad
Acris crepitans — The northern cricket frog
Hyla cinerea — The green treefrog
H yla crucifer — The northern spring peeper
Hyla gratiosa — The barking treefrog
H _ yla versicolcr — Gray treefrog
Pseudacris brachvphona — Mountain chorus frog
Pseudacris triserata feriarum — The upland chorus frog
Gastrophryne carolinensis — Eastern narrow—mouthed toad
Scaphiopus hoibrooki hoibrooki — Eastern spadefoot
Rana areolata sevosa — Dusky gopher frog
Rana catesfeiana — The bullfrog
Rana clamitans — The green frog
Rana palerstris — Pickerel frog
Rana pipiens sphenocephala — Southern leopard frog
Salamande rs
Ambyostoma maculatum — Spotted salamander
Ambyostoma opacuin — Marbled salamander
Ambyostoma tigrinum tigritnim — Eastern tiger salamander
Desmognathus fuscus — Northern dusky salamander
AI—37

-------
Desmognathus monticola - Seal salamander
Eurycea bislineata — Two—lined salamander
Eurycea longeauda guttolineata — Three—lined salamander
Eurycea lucifuga — Cave salamander
Hemidactylium scutatum — Four—toed salamander
Gyrmophilus povshvriticus — Spring salamander
Plethodon dorsalis dorsalis — The zigzag salamander
Plethodon g]utinosus glutir osus — Slimy salamander
Pseudotriton ruber — Red salamander
Neeturus bcyeri — 3eyer’s waterdog
otopthalmus viridescens viridescens — Red—spotted newt
Notopthalmus viridescens louisianensis — Central newt
Siren Intermedia intermedia — Eastern lesser newt
Reptiles
Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus — Eastern slender grass lizard
Qphisaurus ventralis — Eastern glass lizard
Anolis carolinensis carolinensis — Green anole
Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus — Northern fence lizard
Sceloporus undulatus undulatus — Southern fence lizard
Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis — Southern coal skink
Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis — Southern coal skink
Eutneces egregius similis — Northern mole skink
Eumeces fasciatus — Five—lined skink
Eumeces inexysectatus — Southeastern five—lined skink
Eumeces laticips — Broad—headed skink
Al— 38

-------
Scincilla Laterale — Ground skink
Cnemidophorus s xlineatus sexlineatus — Eastern six—lined racerunner
Carphophis aTnoenus ano nu — Eastern worm snake
Cemophora coccinea copel — Northern scarlet snake
Colubar constrictor cc’nstrictor — Northern black racer
Colubar constrictor Driapus — Southern black racer
Diadophis punctatus punctatus — Southern ringneck snake
Diadophis punctatus strictogenys — Mississippi ringneck snake
Elaphe g ittata guttata — Corn snake
Elaphe obsoleta spiloides — Gray rat snake
Faran.cia erytrograi”na ervtrogramma — Rainbow snake
}teterodon platyrhinos — Eastern hognose snake
Heterodon si nus — Southern hognose snake
Lampropeltis calligaster rhonbctnaculata — Mole snake
Lampropeltis getulers niger — Black kingsnake
Lainpropeltis triangulum elapsoides — Scarlet kingsnake
14asticoph1 flagellum flagellum — Eastern coachwhip
Natrix erythrogaster flavigaster — Yellow—bellied water snake
Natrix erythrogaster erythrogaster — Red—bellied water snake
Natrix sipedon pleuralis — Midland water snake
Opheodrys aestivus — Rough green snake
Pituophis melanolecus melanoleucus — Northern Pine snake
Regina septenvittata — Queen snake
Storeria dek yi wrightorum — Midland brown snake
Storeria occioitomaculate occipitotnaculata — Northern red—bellied
snake
AI—39

-------
Tantilia corcr. t — Southeastern crowned snake
Thaznnophis saurit s sauricus — Eastern ribbon snake
That noph s sirta!is sirtalis — Eastern garter snake
Virginia valeriae valeriae — Eastern smooth earthsnake
Micrurus fulvius fulvius — Eastern coral snake
gkistrodor. contortrix mokeson — Northern copperhead
Agkistrodon contortrix contortrix — Southern copperhead
Agkistrodon plscivorus piscivorus — Eastern cottonmouth
Crotalus horridus — Timber or canbrake rattlesnake
Sistrurus tniliarius — Pigmy rattlesnake
Turtles (Reptiles)
Chalydra serpentina serpenti’a — Common snapping turtle
Macroclemys temmincki — Alli tor snapping turtle
Grapternvs geographica — Map turtle
Graptemys pulchra — Alabama map turtle
Pseudetnys concinna concinna — River cooter
Pseudemys scripta elegans — Red—eared pond slider
Pseudemys scripta scripta — Yellow—bellied pond slider
Terrapene carolina carolina — Eastern box turtle
Terrapene carolina triungius — Three—toed box turtle
Kinostemon subrubrum subrubrum — Eastern mud turtle
Sternotherus minor peltifer — Stripe—necked musk turtle
Sternotherus minor depressus — Flattened musk turtle
Sternotherus odoratus — Common musk turtle or stinkpot
Trionyx spiniferus asper — Gulf coast spiney softshell
AI- 4O

-------
Table Al—8 - Rare and Endangered Species of the Upper Cahaba River Basin
(Frey et al 1976 and Alabaz a Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, 1972).
Fish Status
Alosa alahamae — Alabama shad Undetermined
Cottus arolinae imoermatur — Lower Cahaba
Lowland Sculpin Rare
Notropis c eruleus — Blue shiner Rare 1
Notropis ranoscc us — Skygazer shiner Rare 1
Notropis . — Cahabo. shiner Endangered
Noturus n’ nitus — Freckiebelly madtom Endangered
Percina autolineata — Coidline darter Endangered
Percina lenticula — Freckled darter Rare 1
Scaphirynchus nlatorvnchus — Shovelnose Sturgeon Endangered
Amphibians and Reptiles
Desmognathus aeneus — Seepage salamander Endangered
Plethodc’n ciner us sn . — Red—backed salamander Rare 2
Pseudotriton - ntaius diastictus — Midland
mud salanander Rare 2
Farancia ervtr r ’ a — Rainbow snake Undetermined
Lampropeltis .o1iata svspila — Red milk snake Rare 2
*Note: Status defined as follows:
Rare 1 — A species which, although not presently threatened with
extinction, is in such small numbers that it may be
endangered if its environment worsens.
Rare 2 — A species that may be quite abundant where it does occur
but is known in only a few localities or in a restricted
habitat.
AI—41

-------
76/10/28 14° 7.2
149.60 70/10/23 76/03/25 5—15—28.5 5.1—
7 .1—
7.6
15.8 7.7
72/09)08 21—23.4—26 7.0—
7.4—
7.8
76/10/26 14.5 7.7
139.90 72/08/21 72/09/08 22—24—26 7.2—
7.5—
8.1
76/1.0/26 14.1 7.8
1 1.9
1 2.0
ii 1.1
1.9
3.0
15 0.2
1.2
2.2
29 .70
1.65
3.10
ii 1.50
2.47
4.10
1 0.30
0.009 1 0.10
23 0.14
1.23
8.90
24 .00
.688
2.50
12 0.00
0.53
3.40
1 0.00
2 0.12 3 0.20
0.13 0.22
0.14 0.26
5 0.47
0.61
0.77
23 0.05
2.4 1 0.02 1 0.0
2.5 1 0.03 1 0.
1.2 1 0.13 0 0.5
22 .1
. 5
317
• *N% r of Sawlee
**)43fl Mean and Max1
To al
TION NO 3 ± PU,
( mg/i ) ._(is&L J_ T i2L.
* ** * ** * **
2 0.40
0.46
0.51
5 0.15
0.42
0.60
TABLE A1-9
CONCENTRATiONS OP MAJOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN THE STUDY AREA
Do
Te erature • . . Mi i i.
River sawiing Period Mix. Mix. Mean
Mile Mean M Ii No. Max. 215 ) MEJ _ 801 — N _______
Max . .QosLfl ( mg/i ) .Ip Lfl ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i )
* ** * ** * ** * ** * **
C AU RIVER
126.70 64/06/24 68/09/13. 4—17.3—27 7.7
66/07/11 66/07/27 25.6°—28 7.2— 12 5.0 ii 1.6 1 0.40 3
7.6— 7.4 2.2
8.4 9.0 3.7
72/08/21 72/09/08 25.6—28 7.2— 15 5.2 15 0.2
7.6— 5.7 1.6
8.4 6.2 4.2
74/01/01 76/06/08 9—17.8—25 6.7— 28 5.7 28 0.8
7.6— 8.2 2.0
8.1 11.1 3.6
76/10/28 11° 7.2 1 7.6 1 1.9
129.20 583 DATA AVAU.AELE
130.50 76/10/28 12.8 7.0 1 6.0
136.50 76/10/28 110 6.9 1 8.0
137.4066/07/11 66/07/27 26.4° 7.3 12 6.0
7.0
7.7
144.30 72/08/21 72/09/08 25.1—28 15 4.4
5.9
7.3
74/01/01 76/05/19 18.7 7.5 29 7.00
9.25
12.00
147.1066/07/12 66/07/27 24—25—28 7.0— 11 5.4
7.6— 8.3
7.9 9.9
67/03/28 68/09/11 230 7.5
7.6—
7.7
Or I
P0 0 To OP
( mg/i) g/1 )
* *0 * *0
3 0.09
0.15
0.20
5 05
.084
0.15
0.10
0.27
0.40
5 0.05
0.15
0.29
1 0.85
1 1.30
1 0.12
5 0.06
0.098
0.17
1 0.03
1 0.05
5 0.01
0.05
0.12
1 .005
5 .03
.08
.16
1 .005
5 0.15 5 0.18
0.33 0.52
0.49 0.81
76/10/ 26
1.52.80 72/08/21
1 6.6 1 1.9
8 5.9
8.8
11.8
1 8.5 1 3.6
15 5.1 15 0.9
6.5 1.5
7.6 3.0
1 9.7 1 3.2
15 6.2 15 0.5
7.0 1.25
8.5 2.30
1 9.9 1 3.6
1 1.6 1 0.02 1 0.2
1 0.48 1 0.06
1 1.3
5 0,25
0.318
0.40
1 1.4
5 0.25
0.402
0.60
1 1.3
1 0.01 1 0.37
5 0.65
1.76
1 0.01 1 0.10
5 0.66
1.46
2.20
1 0.5 1 0.10
5 0.160
0.274
0.57
5 0.18
0.248
0.31
AI—42

-------
66/07/27 22—25.4—30 11 6.8 11 1.4
7.6 2.5
9.0 3.5
7.1—
7.4—
8.0
14.2 7.6
6f107/27 21—24—29 7.2— 11
7.4—
7.8
14.5 7.6
76 / 0 ,117 8—18—27 7—
7.5—
8
14.1 7.2
66’07 127 2 \—23—27 7.2—
7.5—
7.8
7.2—
7 .5—
7.8
14.2 7.6
5 0.55 5 1.90
0.39 1.11
0.14 0.61
1 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.86
2 0.78 2 1.32 3 1.66
0.76 1.22 1.36
0.74 1.12 1.01
5 0.40 5 0.74
0.87 2.28
1.41 4.40
1 1.6 1 0.01
3 1.14
0.87
0.65
5 0.27
0.22
0.16
5 1.31
0.65
0.33
14 0.016 14 0.016
0.046 .080
0.099 0.15
River Sampling Period
Mile
Beginni.ng D i D&
CABARA RiVER (Cont’d )
165.00 66/07/12
TABLE AI—9 (Contd)
CONCERTRATIONS OP MAJOR WATER QuALITY PARAMETERS IN THE STUDY AREA
DO
Temperature p PUn.
PUn. 146n. Mean Total Oxtho
Mean Mean No. Max. jj N E 3 — N 802 — N NO 3 — N TEN N0 9 N P0 PO Total
Max . Max. ( mg/i) (mg/i ) p fl ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) 1mg/i) ( ag/i ) 1 ( mg/i) (mg/i )
38/21 72/09/08 22—25—30
7611 ‘26
17 .40 66/07/12
/08/21 72/09/08
174.60 /01/01
76 J/26
6 07/l I
7 08/21 72/09 08 20—23—27
9.6 1 3.4
6.9 11 1.5
7.8 3.9
9.1 6.2
1.10
3.25
5 8
5.5
0.8
4.15
12.4
4.5
1.0
1.74
3.0
15 0.2
1.6
3.3
1 1.9
14 5.1 15
6.2
8.1
1 9.3
29 5.1 26
8.7
12.9
1 7.8
10 7.6 10
8.43
9.9
15 3.7
6.8
7.5
1 8.5
76/10/2 8
LIrrLE cABANA RIVER
1.20 61/07/13 66/07/27
76/10/26
2.50 76/10/26
4.00 73/03/04 74/02/23
5 0.2].
0.09
0.03
1 0.1
0.5 3 0.40 1 0.01 1 1.0
0.33
0.30
5 0.13
0.23
0.48
1 0.1
22 0.07
1.31
9.8
1 0.30
5 0.01
0.03
0.05
1 .01
1 0.05
1 0.05
14 .015 14 .002 14 .062
0.21 .009 .132
0.81 .026 .224
1 0.15
5 0.12
0.24
0.52
5 0.08
0.20
0.56
21—22—23 7.3— 10 7.5 10 2.0
7.4— 7.9 2.51
7.6 8.3 3.10
15° 7.7 1 9.5 1 5.4
15° 7.7 1 8.0 1 3.5
16° 7.7 1 8.0 1 3.3
1 0.25
22 0.09
0.377
1.10
1 2.3 1 0.01 1 0.75
5 0.20 5 0.19
0.24 0.48
0.40 1.27
1 .9 1 .05 1 .75
1 1.2 1 0.01 1 0.10
1 1.3 1 0.01 1 0.10
14 0.20 14 0.10
0.826 0.14
2.94 0.23
1 1.3 1 0.05 1 0.10
5 0.45 5 0.26
0.62 0.31
6.94 0.42
76/_0 124
4.50 No Date Available
7.60 66/07/12 66/07/27 22—27—32
72/08/21 72/09/08 22—27—32
7.6—
8.5—
9.6
7.6—
8.5—
9.6
11 8.3
10.2
12.1
15 4.9
8.11
13.60
10 2.2
2.8
4.5
16 1.2
6.01
8.60
5 0.25
0.45
0.88
AI—43

-------
TABLE AI-9 (Cont’d)
CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR WATER QIJALIrS PARAMETERS IN TIlE STOOP AREA
DO
S erature .18!._
RiVSr Sa ling Period I4in. Mean Total Ortho
Mile — Mean Mean No. Max. Q jj NH - N NO 2 N NO - N TEN N02+N0 7 Q _ Total P
Ind a xEe RinniaR Max . Max. ( ag/i ) J p La ( rag/i) ( ag/i) ( ag/i) ( ag/i) ( ag/i ) Q fl ( mg/i) (mg/i )
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
LITtLE CABAJA RIVER (Contd )
9.40 72/08/2i 72/09/08 21—22—24 7.5— 15 4.90 i5 0.80 5 0.iO 5 0.30 5 0.38 5 0.32
7.8— 6.02 2.46 0.335 0.65 0.54 0.80
8.8 7.00 6.8 0.63 1.05 0.78 1.74
73/03/04 74/02/23 14 0.036 i4 .004 14 0.29 14 0.20 14 0.30 13 .04814 .075
0.125 0.14 0.47 0.726 0.485 .214 0.309
0.231 0.40 0.70 1.76 0.740 .470 0.66
76110/26 15° 7.7 1. 6.5 5. 4.6 3. .07 1 1.4 1 0.8 1 .45
i2.70 66/07/28 66/08/3.5 21—23—24 7.4— 11 8.3 ii i.iO
7.6— 7.9 1.56
8.4 7.6 2.50
66/07/1.2 72/09/08 20—22—26 7.1— 26 2.6 26 .70 1 .30 8 .08 1 .01 1 .20 7 .250 7 .130 3 .140 3 .050 5 .380
7.5— 4.9 2.41 .35 .738 .298 .766 .096 .843
7.9 8.0 4.70 .81 1.40 .460 1.88 1.40 1.35
74/01/01 76/05/17 il—i8.5—25 7.3— 29 3.2 27 .80 24 .080 22 .070
7.6— 6.9 3.93 1.76 .429
7.9 9.7 9.0 9.70 .85
68/11/01 17 8.3
13.70 76/10/26 15° 7.5 1 4.9 1 13.5 1 0.20 1 1.3 1 .50
15.60 72/08/21 72/09/08 17—21—23 7.4— 15 4.70 iS .60 5 .030 5 .100 S .250 5 .090
7.6— 5.93 i.55 1.58 .396 .452 .348
7.8 7.10 4.20 .380 .850 .860 .750
76/10/26 14° 7.6 i 6.7 1 3.1 1 0.07 1 0.9 1 0.35 1 0.2
16.60 76/10/26 iS° 7.6 1 5.7 1 3.6 1 0.05 1 0.9 1 0.40 1 0.2
16.70 72/08/21. 72/09/08 19—21—23 1.4— 15 4.70 15 0.60 5 0.030 5 0.10 5 0.25 5 0.090
7.6— 5.93 1.55 0.158 0.396 0.452 0.348
7.8 7.10 5.20 0.380 0.850 0.86 0.750
76/10/26 14.2 7.5 i 6.1 1 4.1 1 0.05 1 1.4 1 0.45 1 0.2
BUCE CRIER
0.00 76/10/28 12° 7.3 1 10.2 1 8.4 1 0.08 1 0.4 1 0.03 1 0.25
1.80 76/10/28 12.5° 7.5 1 10.4 1 ii 1 0.05 1 1.4 1 0.11 1 0.25
2.30 74/01/01 76/04/15 6.5—iB—28 1.2— 28 5.80 28 0.20 21 0.17 20 0.06
7.6— 8.00 1.83 1.01 0.36
8.0 11.00 3.40 6.7 2.10
4.50 66/07/il 66/07/27 21—22.7—24 7.1— i2 4.90 12 0.90 1 0.20 2 0.20 1 0.01 1 0.4 1 0.38 1 0.36 3 0.70 3 0.53
7.3— 6.30 2.14 0.20 0.74 0.60
1.5 7.60 4.60 0.20 0.80 0.68
76/1.0/28 11.5° 7.3 1 7.6 1 2.9 1 0.18 1 1.6 1 0.86 1 0.62
6.00 66/07/11 66/07/27 21—21—23 7.2— i2 4.50 ii 2.70 1 0.22 1 0.32 1 0.44
7.3— 5.65 5.82
7.5 6.50 11.0
76/10(28 12.5 7.4 1 7.5 1 1.5 1 0.01 1 1.1 1 0.54 1 1.0
*Number of Saraplea
**Min m ja, Mean and Maxirnux
AI—4a

-------
13 0.005 13 0.001 13 0.010
0.056 0.001 0.048
0.30 0.005 0.136
8 .010 8 .001 8 .008
.064 .011 .024
.315 .072 .048
1 0.05
Total Ortho
TEN P0 POa Total
( /1) ( pg.I1) ( /1 )
* ** * ** * ** * ** *
1 0.9 1 0.77 1 0.1
1 8.0 1 0.10 1 2.1
2 1.74 2 0.90 3 2.91 3 2.18
1.84 0.175 3.48 2.63
1.94 0.26 4.33 2.98
20 0.204
1.33
3.22
13 .005 13 .
.015 .
.039 .21
8 .005 8 .
.056 .
.270 .N
River Sa 1inB Period
Nile
Beginning Ending
BUCK CREEK (Coutd )
6.8 76110/28
PATTON CREEK
0.20 76/10/28
0.70 66/07/11 66/7/27
1.00 74/01/01 75/12/22
TABLE AI—9 (Cast ‘d)
CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR MATER QONLTTT PABM!ETKRS IN THE STUDY AREA
Do
T erature L N ut.
Nun. M m. Mean
Mean Mean No. Max. !2 B. 2!I _! NR — N NO 3 - N — N
Max . Max. 3!2L ( I’) C /’) ( WI’) ( pgf 1) ( .g/1) ( /1 )
* ** a ** * ** * ** * **
12.0 7.4 1 8.6 1 1.2 1 0.01
12.0 7.1 1 5.7 1 14.7 1 5.3
25—28—31 7.0— 12 2.50 12 2.00 1 0.90 3 .50 1 0.008 1 0.30
7—4— 3.41 5.09 .62
7.9 6.50 7.60 .70
8—19—28 6.1— 24 1.90 22 1.20 17 0.25
7.5— 6.31 11.48 1.14
8.8 15.20 31.50 2.61
7.45 1 3.0 1 0.15
3.20 NO DATA AVAILABLE
BIG BLACK CREEK
0.00 76/10/26 13.5 7.3
1.90 67/23/29 67/11/02 NO PERTINENT DATA
031 CREEK
— 73/03/04 74/02/23
UNMAI4ED CREEK (to Lake Purdy )
— 73/03/04 74/02/23
CAI4ABA VALLEY CREEK
0.00 76/10/26 12.7 7.4
— 66/07/11 66/07/27 23—24—26 7.5—
7.6—
7.8
1 1.0 1 0.1 1 0.20
1
1 9.2 1 1.0
12 5.20 12 0.60
7.30 1.66
8.10 2.50
13 0.100
1.127
4.60
8 .100
.57
2.10
1 1.0
13 0.010
0.049
0 • 136
8 .008
.035
.115
1 0.02 1 0.05
LITTLE SHADES CREEK
— 76/10/28
STINKING CREEK
— 76/10/26
LITTLE CAMERA CREEK
— 76/10/26
CEGUT CREEK
— 76/10/26
PEAVIME CREEK
— 76/10/28
•Naxber of Sazples
** u5j*. Mean anS Maz1 oa
100
13.8
130
14.5
12.0
7.0 1 9.0
7.2 1 8.25
7.5 1 9.2
7.5 1 9.4
7.3 1 10.1
1 3.5
1 3.6
1 3.0
1 3.9
1 0.7
1 0.06
1 0.1
1 0.01
1 0.01
1 0.01
1 1.3 1 0.01 1 0.10
1 0.8 1 0.01 1 0.10
1 1.1 1 0.05 1 0.10
1 0.8 1 0.6 1 0.3
1 2.3 1. 0.01 1 0.05
AI—45

-------
nO Samples
**944flj 5 Mean and Maximum
Sources: USgpK—STORET USGS, AWIC, Birmingham Planning Commission (208 agency).
TABLE Al—9 (Cont’d)
CONCENTEATIOSS 00’ MAJOR WATER QUALITT I’AY ,ANETERS IN TOE STUDY AREA
DO
Mm.
Mean
No. Max. ROD
Sampi . __
Or . N
( mgi )
* **
10.9 7.5 1 10.4 1 0.8
Total Ortho
NH - N NO 7 — N NO 3 - N 1KM N0 2 +NO P0 P0 4 Total P
_fl ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i ( mg/i) (mg/i )
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * *a * **
1 1.0 1 0.01 1 0.10
3 0.01 3 0.05
3 0.01 3 .06
0.02 .07
0.06 .10
2 0.014 2 0.06
0.037 0.08
0.060 0.10
Temperature
River Sampling Period Mitt.
Mile Mean
Index Begtm 3 0& •
Win.
Wean

PRAIRIK BROOK
— 76/10/28
1 0.01
LAKE PUREE Al 11501
Depth
0 73/03/19 73/11/02
3 0.04
3
0.80 3
0.03
5 73/03/19 73/11/02
3
6.6
8.33
9.6
3 0.06
0.12
0.23
3
0.40 3
0.73
1.30
.06
.11
.14
10—13 13/03/19 73/71/02
2
1,2
4.90
8.6
2 0.07
0.20
0.33
2
0.40 2
0.65
0.90
0.11
0.13
0.14
LAKE PORnO AT 11502
O 73/09/19 73/11/02
—
3 .03
.09
.20
3
.80 3 .03
1.13 .08
1.60 0.18
5—6
3
3.10
7,23
10.40
3 .03
.07
.13
3
.20 3 .050
.507 .047
.80 .060
10—12
2
9.0
8,75
10.4
2 .03
.035
.04
2
.20 2 .03
.45 .03
.70 .03
15
2
0.0
3.9
7.8
2 .031
.036
.040
2
.80
.80
.80
.03
.08
.13
18—20
2
7,6
8.10
8.7
2 .040
.045
.050
2
.20 2 .03
.40 .05
.60 .08
25
2
0.0
3.7
7.4
2 .056
.058
.060
28 73/09/19 73/11/02
1
7.4
1 0.06
35
2
0.0
2.3
4.6
2 .07
.84
1.61
40
1
0.40
1 1.46
45
1
4.4
1 0.08
LAKE P0800’ AT 11503
0 73/03/19 73/11/02
2
7.8
8.8
8.8
3 0.04
0.097
0.20
3
0,40
0.833
1.50
3 .04 3 .006
.077 .001
0.14 .014
3
.03
.033
.04
6
2
1.2
4.5
7.9
2 0.03
0.115
0.20
2
0.20
0.055
0.90
2 0.04 2 .013
0.075 .0135
0.11 .014
2
.03
.035
.04
12
1
8.8
1 0.04
1
0.20
1 0.05
1 .013 1
0.04
3 .009 3
.010
.7 512
3 .012 3
.016
.022
2 .009 2
.012
.014
2 .007 2
.017
.026
2 .011 2
.0126
.014
2 .016 2
.035
.051
1 0.013 1
2 .025 2
.047
.067
1 0.82 1
1 0.026 1
.03
.047
.06
.03
.047
.06
.03
.045
.06
.05
.05
.05
.04
.045
.05
.03
.07
.11
0.06
0.05
0.165
0.28
0.14
0.05
2 .20
.55
.90
1 0.60
2 0.20
1.30
2.40
1 2.10
1 0.30
2 .09
.10
.11
1 0,04
2 .007
.011
.015
1 0.05
1 0.’
AI—46

-------
TABLE Al—lO
WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS
CLASSIFICATIONS OF INTRASTATE WATERS OF THE CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ADOPTED BY THE WATER IIIPROVEMENT COMMISSION
AND APPROVED BY EPA EFFECTIVE 15 FEB 78
ft r4 O)
,-I WIJ
‘.4
1J ‘.4


C) .,.4 c
.rl g CJtO ,-4
. .
Stream From To
Cahaba River Alabama River ** Junction of Lower Little X
Cahaba River
Cahaba River ** Junction of Lover Little Dam near U. S. Highway 280 X
Cahaba River
Cahaba River Darn near U. S. Highway 280 Grant’s Mill Road X
Cahaba River Grant’s Mill Road U. S. Highway 11 X
Cahaba River U. S. Highway 11 its source X
thilders Creek Cahaba River its source X
Oakmulgee Creek Cahaba River its source
Little Oakrnulgee Oakmulgee Creek its source **x
Rice Creek Cahaba River its source X

-------
TABLE Al—b
INTRASTATE WATERS OF ThE CAHABA RIVER BASIN
0 . a)
0. ‘ . 1-4
r4 a)
-l C 4 -
I -I ‘-.1 ,-l
a) r1 (
U Z I -lr-4

C) r4 C 4J
r4 8
6
___ .a -4
Stream From To
Waters Creek Cahaba River its source **)(
Old Town Creek Cahaba River its source **)
Blue Outtee Creek Cahaba River its source
Affonee Creek Cahaba River its source
Haysop Creek Cahaba River its source X
Schultz Creek Cahaba River its source **)
Little Cahaba River Head of Lake Purdy its source (junction of Mahan X
and Shoal Creeks)
Sixmjle Creek Little Cahaba River its source
Nahan Creek Little Cahaba River its source X
Shoal Creek Little Cahaba River its source X
Caf fee Creek Cahaba River its Source X
*Shades Creek Cahaba River Jefferson County Line X

-------
TABLE Al—lO
INTRASTATE WATERS OF ThE CAHABA RIVER BASIN
L$ 4
r4 Q)
,-4 C 4-J
r1 rI
U r1 C

rJ
r1 B
i-I D ,
rl C l )
Stream From To ____________
Shades Creek Jefferson County Line Shades Creek STP x-
*Shades Creek Shades Creek Sewage its source X
Treatment Plant
Rocky Brook Shades Creek its source x
Buck Creek Cahaba River Cahaba Valley Creek X
Buck Creek Cahaba Valley Creek its source Xl
Cahaba Valley Buck Creek its source X
Creek
Peavine Creek Buck Creek its source X
Oak Mountain X
State Park Lakes
Patton Creek Cahaba River its source xl
Little Shades Cahaba River its source x
Creek
lAlthough classifications remain the same for some segments, criteria applicable to classifications
have been upgraded.

-------
TABLE Al—lO
INTRASTATE WATERS OF THE CAHABA RIVER BASIN
0 )
‘ 4- I ••e -i
•i-I r o
,-4 c 4J
o . i
•rI
. .I-l p..
.0 •,-1 U) I.I’ti
r4 bO
Stream From To u r
Little Cahaba River Cahaba River Head of Lake Purdy X
(Jefferson—Shelby
Counties)
Little Cahaba River Head of Lake Purdy Corporate Limits, City of X l
(Jefferson County) Leeds
0 1.
Little Cahaba River Corporate Limits, City of Leeds its source X
(Jefferson County)
Pinchgut Creek Cahaba River its source X’
**A nded on June 18, 1973, in accordance with a public hearing conducted on May 3, 1973.
on October 16, 1972, in accordance with a public hearing conducted on September 18,1972.

-------
Table Al —li Probable Aquatic Plants Of The Cahaba River
Common cattail Typha lalifolia
*Bur_reed Sparganiurn atnericanum
Pondweeds Potamogetan spp.
*Pondweed Potanogetan airericanus
Horned pondweeds Zannichellia palustris
Pipewort Ericcaulon conDressurn
Naiads Najas spp.
Mermaid weed Proserpinaca spp.
Water parsnip Slum suave
Dropwort Oxyopolis spp.
Water violet Hottonia inflata
Gratiola vir iniana
False puinpernel Lindermia dubia
Bladderwort Utricularis spp.
Water fern Azolla carolinana
Rush Juncus spp.
Water plantain Alisma plantago — aguatica
Mayaca spp.
Burheads Echr odorus radicans
Yellow—eyed grass Xyris spp.
Arrowhead Sagittario spp.
Wild celery Vallisneria americana
Manna grass Glyceria spp.
Cut grass Leersia spp.
Papsalum spp.
Wild rice Zigania aguatica
Spike rush Eleocharis spp.
Bulrush, club rush Scorpus spp.
ar Peltandra virginica
Duckweed Lemna minor
Great duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza
Wolff ia columbiana
Smartweed knotweed Polygonum spp.
*S rtweed Polygonum ydrotlperoides
*Alhigator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides
Hornwort Cerotophyllutn spp.
* ofltaj1 Ceratopayllum dernersum
Water shield Brasenia schreberi
Cabomba carciiniana
Yellow water lily,
epatterdock Myshar advena
White water lily Nymphaea odorata
Water starwort Callitriche heterophylla
Swamp loosestrife Decodon verticillatus
Primrose willow - Jussiaea spp.
AI—51

-------
Table Al—li :(COnt’d )
*Pa].se loosestrife Ludvi 4 spp.
*Elodea Anacharis occjdentaljs
*Aqliatjc moss Fi jd€ 5
*Ljzardg tail Saurus cernuus
*Yellow water lily Nuphar
*Water willow Justicia americana
*Spjder lily ymenocal1jg
*P,j,,er weed Podostomum
ALGAE
Filainentous green Cladophora
Filamentoug green Rhizoclonjum
Filaxnentous green Stigeoc1onj u
Filamentoug green Ulothrix
Filamentoug green ! pirogyra
Filamentoug green Mougeotia
Filamentoug green Diatoms
Filamentous blue—green Microcoleus sp.
Other bluegreeng
AI—5 2

-------
Table AI—12 A List of Invertebrates Collected prom Twelve Sections
Of The Jpper Cahaba River In September 1976 (Frey et al 1976)—
Refer to Figure 1.2
Section
ORGANISM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Porif era
Sponglllidae
Spongilla sp. x
Turbellaria X
Planariidae x x
Bryozoa
Lophopodidae
Pectinatalla magnifica x
Oligochaeta
Naidiclae
Nais variabilis x x x x x x x
Stylaria lacustris x
Tub I fic idae
Branchiura sowerbyi x x x x x x x
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri x
Isopoda
Asell idae
Asellus sp. x
Lirceus sp. x x x
Amphipoda
Gi min ridae
Crangonyx sp. x
Decapoda
Astac ldae
Cambarinae x
Fallicambarus sp. x
Orconectes jeffersoni x x x x x x x
0. virilis x
X XX X XX
Bydracarina x
Ephemerop tera
Ephemere llidae
Ephemerella sp. x
Epheme ridae
Hexagenia sp. X X
AI—53

-------
Table AI—12 (Cont’d )
Section
ORGANISM 1 2 3 4
Ephemeroptera
Baet idae
Tricorythodes sp. x x x x
Pseudocloeon s . x x
Baetjs sp. x x x x x x x x
Siphlonuridae
Isonychia sp. x x x x x
Heptagenidac
Stenonerna sp. x x x x x x x x x x
Odonata
Gomphldae
Hagenius sp. x x
Droinogotnphus sp.
Lanthus sp. x
Aeschnjdae
Basiaeschna sp. x x
iaeschna sp. x
yeria vinosa x x x x x
Aeschna sp. x x x x
Macromi idae
Didyrnops sp. x x x
Macrornia sp. x x x x x
Coenagrionidae
Ischnura sp. x x x x x
Enallagria sp. x
Chrornagrior . sp. x
Argiasr . x x x x x x x x x x
Calopterygidae
Hetaerfna sp.
Calopteryx sp. x x x x
Hemiptera
Hydrotnet ridae
ydrornetra sp. X
Gerrjdae X X
Gerris sp. X
Veljjdae x x
Mesoveljjdae
Mesoveija sp. X
Nepidae
Ranatra sp. x x
Plecoptera
Peltoperljdae
Peltoperla sp. x
AI—54

-------
Table AI—12 (Cout’d )
Section
ORGANIS 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Plecoptera
Per lidae
Acroneuria sp. x x x
Paragnetina sp. x
Megaloptera
Corydal idae
Corydaluscornutus xx x x x x x x x x
Chauliodes sp. x x
Coleoptera
Ha liplidae
Peltodytes sp. x x
Hydrophilidae
Tropisternus sp. x
Psephenidae
Psephenus herricki x x x x
Ectopria sp. x
Dryopidae
Dryopssp. xx x x x
E linidae
Stenelinis sp. x x x x
Dubiraphia sp. x x
Macronychus glabratus x x x x x x x x
Ancyronyx variegatus x x
Zaitzevia parvula x x
Pti lodactylidae
Anchytarsus bicolor x x
Trichoptera
Phi lopotamidae
Sortosa ap. x
Chimarrasp. x x x x x
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsychesp . x xx x x x x x x x
Cheuxnatopsyche ap. x x x x
Hydroptilidae
Leucotrichia sp. x
Hydroptila sp. x x x x
Leptoceridae
Athripsodes ep. x
Helicopsychidae
Helicopsyche sp. x
Diptera
Chironomidae
Ablabestnyia sp. (janta—parajante) x x x
A. mallochi x x x x x x x
Conchapelopia 8p. x x
Natarsia sp. x
Pentaneura sp. x
Labrundinia Iohannseni x
L. neopilosella x
AI—55

-------
Table AI—12 (Cont’d )
Section
ORGANISM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Diptera
Chironomidae
Prociadius sublettej x x
Corynoneura tans x
Thienemanniella sp. 2(Roback) x x x
rthocladius cariatus x x
0. (thieneinanniella?) x
Cardiocladius sp. x x x
Cricotopus (bicinetus gp) x x x x x
C. ( lossonae?) x x
Cricotopus ( exilis? ) x
Xicrocricotopus (alterriantheree ) z
Rheocricotopus sp.
Chironotnus attenuatus x x
C. crassicaudatus x
Dicrotendipes modestus x x
D. neomodestus x x x x
Glyptotendipes ( tneridiona].ig? ) z
Parachironotnug carinatus x
Paracladopelma sp.?
Cryptochironotnus ( fulvus gp) sp. z
C. ponderosus x
.sp. x
Endochironomus sp. x x
Phaenopsectra(flavjpes gp) sp. x x
P. ( obediens group) sp. x
Tribelos ( juncundus? ) x
x x x
Polypedilum illinoense x z x x x x x x
P. nr. illinoertse Roback 53 x x x x
P. parascalaenum x x
P. fallax x x x x x
Tanytarsus ( flavellus? ) x x x
T.sp. 2 x
Micropsectra sp. 7 Roback ‘57 x
ladotanytarsus sp.
(nr. ap. 2 Roback ‘57) var. 4 x
C. ep. (nr. sp. 2 Roback ‘57) var. 6 x
Rheotanytarsus exiguus X X X
R.sp.3 X
- Ceratopogonidae X
Palpomyia ? sp. 1 x
P.ap.3 x
Undetermined possible Palpomyla x
Simuljdae
Simulium vittatum x x
S. ( tuberosum? ) x x x x
Undetermined genus & sp. X
Tipulidae
pula sp.
Antocha sp. x x
AI—56

-------
Table A112 (Cont’d )
Section
ORGANISM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Culicidae
Anopheles sp. x
Rhagionidae
Atherix varie ata x
Mol lu sc a
Gas t ro p0 da
Physidae
Physasp. x x xx x x
Piano rb idae
Helisorna sp. x
Viviparidae
Caxnpelcria so. x x x x x x
Pleuroceridae
Pleurocera sp. x x x x x x x x
Goniobasissp. xxx xxx xxx x x
Pelecypoda
Unionidae
Fusconia rubida x x x x
Quadrula asperata x x
metaneura x
Tritogonia vernucosa x x x x
Ptychcbranchus reeni x
Ellioptio crassidens x x x x x x x x x
E. arctatus x
Obliguaria reflexa x
Leptodea fra2ilis x
Liguinia recta x x x x
Villosa sp. x x x x
Lampsllls excavata x x x x
Amblema perplicata x x x x x x x x x
Potamilus purpuratus x x
Lampsilis claibornensis x x
Sphaeriidae
Sphaeriutn sp. x x
Corbiculldae
Corbicula manilensis x x x x x x x x x x
TOTAL TAXA 13 45 24 32 51 46 38 41 18 20 37 48
Al—S 7

-------
Table AI—13— Mussels from the Upper Cahaba River (Frey et al 1976)
Organisms Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
Amblema perplicata x x
Anadonta imbecillis x x
Carunculina carvunculus x
Dysnomia metastriata x
Elliptio arctatus x x
Elliptio crassidens x x x
F’lsconaia rubida x x
Lam silis anodontoides x
Lampsilis clarkiana x
Lampsilis excavata x x
Lampsilis claibornensis x
•Lasmigona hoistonia x x
Leptodea fragilis
Li um1a recta x x
Medionidus acutissimus x x
Obliguaria reflexa x x
Pleurobema decisum x
Pleurobema flux x x
Potamilus purpuratus x
Ptvchobranchus greeni x x
Olladrula asp era x x
Ouadrula asperata x x x
Quadrula rurnphiana x
Stro hitus subvexus x
Tritongonia verrucosa x x x
Villosa lienosa x x x
Villosa nebulosa x x
Villosa vibex x
Corbicula leana x x
Study 1 — 1938 study by Van Der Schalie
Study 2 — 1973 study by Baldwin
Study 3 — 1976 EPA study
AI—58

-------
TABLE AI —14
LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF STATIONS
CAHABA RIVER SUB-BASIN
Station Ccunty Locattou Description
014495 Jefferson Ala. Cahaba River — (rIvet ella 173) at u.S. Stones, pebbles, gravel, sand, si:.
y. 11 me russville 3ewa e Width — 50 ft. Current — swift. e .
Treatment Pian: outzail. 5 14.5C. Saapling depth — 1 ft.
014480 Jefferson Ala. Ca1 aba River — triver e lla l6C) at u.S. Pebbles, Rravel, sand, silt. Width —
y. 78. 50 ft. Current — swift. reap. —
Splin.g depth — 1 ft.
014475 Jefferson Ala. Cahnba River — rtver aile 144) at Stones, pebbles, gravel, sand, aud.
Jefferson C: .ocv nvy. óO just soutfl of idth — 80 ft. Current — slow. re .
Cshaba Ee s. 18.0C. SanpLin depth — 10 ft.
014470 Jefferson - Ala. Little Cs”sba ive: — at Jefferson Pebbles, stones, sand, silt. Width —
County .‘y. :, .i :1es above con— -0 ft. Current — swift. teZp. —
fluance with Cna a River (river n:le Saapling depth — 1 ft.
142).
014465 Jefferson Ala. Little Cahsba iver — in Purdy Lake a: Mud, clay, silt. Width — 500 ft.
Jefferson o tv & -y. 1’.3, miles Current — rnoderate. reap. — j8.Q’C.
•bcve confiue:ce with Ca’aba aiver. Sa=pling depth — 20 ft.
014450 Jefferson— Ala. Little Ca o i .ivcr — a: :Ountv road Stones, pebbles, gravel, sand.
Shelby south of s -. :s a out ore o e —idcn — 30 it. Current — svi it. Ie o.
above con!iuec s w.:n e aba River. i3.5C. Sanplxng depth — 1 ft.
Jefferson Ala. Patton Cree — a: Ala. Hwy. 150 about Pebble.. stone., gravel, sand, si c.
e .ile bie : ‘- : .ence with Ca oa Width — 3 ft. Current — swIft. rn.
liver (river . . e 12). 17.0C. Sanpling depth — 1 ft.
014410 Shelby Ala. luck Creek — ,t eIbv County road Stones, pebbles, gr.ivel. silt. Wid: .
shout one ,i :e confluence w:tr 5 ft. Current Sdjft. TaaD. —
Cihaba Volley C: e . Saapling depth — 2 ft.
014405 Shelby Ala. Cahaba V v -ec . — near railroad Stones, pebbles, gravel, sapd. s :.
bridge rt .i m : a aoouc o e .Ldth — SO ft. Current — swtxt. z :.
oils above - -: ..e-:e with Cahaba 0.0C. S pling depth — 1 ft.
liver (nyc: r e
014400 Shelby Ala. Cahaba Ri r - (: ver nile 124) it ?ebbles. gravel, sand, silt. 1d:h
Shelby cuc:y r:ao anout 2 silts soutn 120 ft. Current — swift. eao. —
St Relena. 19.5C. Sanplin depth — 1 ft.
01333 Jefferson Ala. Shades Creri - it Ala. fwy. 149, 2 Sand, pebbles, silt. Width — 30 ft.
elles above :..ea:e with Cahaba Current — vwIit. e 5. — 25.5 C.
liver (rIver .1e 105). Spling depth — 2 tt.
014340 Jefferson Ala. Shades Creek — at Jeffersen county Sand, silt. Width — 30 ft. Current
road about 2 :1e: southwest of aoderate. ?e . — 18.0C. Sanpling
$ease ar lee above confluence iepth — 2 ft.
with Cahaba •. c:.
016285 Shelby Ala. Shoals Cre e — a short distance north Stones, pebbles, gravel, sand, silt.
of Ala. }i .y. 5 at north of Sbeby Width — 40 ft. Current — swift. era.
mcy line les ips:rean fr:: 6.0C. Sasplia$ depth — 1 ft.
nfluence wIth L::le Cahaba R ive:.
014270 libb Ale. Little Ca .fa °iver — at Ala. Ih.rv. 33. Pebbles, gravel, sand, silt. Width —
13 ailes a vo r:tion with Cahaba ICO ft. Current — noderate. 2 . —
liver (river nije 92). l8.O’C. Sanpling depth — 4 ft.
014130 lthb Ala. Cahaba kt a: — ‘river nile 69) at 8ibb Sand, silt. Width — 125 ft. Current —
county m .d stout d iles southvest ci swift. Ten;. — l9.5C. Saaplin;
Irent, depth — 3 ft.
314140 Perry Ala. lice Creek — it Peo ’: :ountv road Sand, silt. Width — 25 ft. Current *
about 6 nil s s;z-east n !Urtcn atut svfft. teefl. — 18.SC. Sanpling
eoe sue u; e - . fr:o iunction witr. depth — 1. ft.
Cahaba R var ‘river i1. 36).
014130 Perry 11*. Cahaba River — (river el I. 32) at Ala. Sand, pebbles, stones, gravel, silt.
43, Vtdth — i SO ft. CLt:e—t — swift.
T p. — 19.3C. Sa=p1in depth — 2 ft.
tsf*r.nc. i con1l -ence of Cahaba Liver w :ft Alabaea River.
AI—59

-------
Table AI—15
Pollution Sensitive Forms — Macroscopic Invertebrate
Organisms — Cahaba River Basin (USD1 1967)
______________STATIONS AND NU ERS OF ORGANISMS Tis’.r ’r .n
ORGANISMS
Clams
Union idae
Stonefl 1 iymphs
Acroneuria
Atoperla
leogenus
leoperla
Nemoura
Perlesta
Phasganophora
Mayfly nyriphss
Baetis
Caenis
Ca l libaetjs
Centroptilum
Ephemerella
Heptagenia
Isonychia
Pseudoc loeon
Stenonema
Caddisfly larvae
Caborius
Cheumatopsyche
Chimarra
Drusjnus
Hydropsyche
Macronemum
Polycentropus
Damselflv nyophs
Argia
Ites
Corydatus
Fishflv larvie
Chauljodes
Alderflv lar .
Sialis
Beetle 1arv e
P phenu
Elmidac
Blackfly lervse
Simul IUI S
5
1
— — — — 18—
1
2 1 1 — — 72
12 8 — — — 4
— 3 — — — —
49 24 15 — — 49
8 — — — 4 4 5 15 1 —
1
— 1
2 — — — 35 — 1 8 1 / —
1
1 J — — —
— — 9 — — — — 1. 1 6 1
6 3 1 — — — 2 3 3
- 1 — — —
1 — 3 1 2
in o in 0 in 0 0 0 in
0. r . r. .o in In
- - -t - _t -.t -t •r -t
- - t -t - - t -t -t - _t
- i-I -4 —4 -4 _4 — -I -4
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
— 1 1
o 0 0 In 0 0 0 0
o - - r— - In
- In In 4 — -4
-t - -r -r -r -
- - — -4 - -4 -4 -
o o o 0 0 0 0 0
Ij. 4
0’
0
1 — — — 12
2
1
12—
2 2 —
4 13— — — 2 — — 5 — — — 2 — —4 4
1 — — —
— —2
1 — —
— 10 3
— — 1
— 16 57
40 —
1
2
6
——30—— 8
— 11 2 15 — 2
— 12 — — — 17
1
76 64 21 — 10 28
: : - - 105
5
13
- — 9 — — —
1 — — 23 — —
— 1 -- 1 2 —
1 1
2 — -. — 2
63 - — — 10
— 44 2 —
I 2 i 2 5 500— -• — -• 18

-------
TABLE AI—16
Iat. s
Plan tida’
- r. s
ra so . e - yi
ther 0 igochaeta
ches
irudinea
Snaj1
Perrjssja
Phys
Orhe P ;nara
Prosc Dr thia
Clar.s
Corb u1a
Spha riidae
Cr vui
a extra ,e s
Ca ar s 1or ;
s 1a:i a- s
CatharLs str ar a
Orc3r.ectes s .
&ro.a—baru c rktL
Pr r is s: :_j fer
Praca 3arus ap.
S r jds
Ga aru
lya1eUa
Srwbura
Aselius
Lirceus
ra2’nfi! rv ’ s
Aeshna
Celithe .js
Didv iops
Drc og ht a
Gamph s
L1bell .ila
Ophiog ;-:
Perithe js
P lathe rjs
Synpetru
Tetra one —ri.
aselflv ar.-
Agrion
Calop ter7x
lachnura
‘ : e larvae
C ’iron: i je
itinr )_ dr
Cerat p ..
ra’ !’v l rve
Tipull...e
dge 1arv
Chac’bor s
Se.-ar-’f v i 3
Psythcd e
‘ a-cefls- . ‘r:a
2 —
2 —
4 5
6
1 — -
— 1 -
1 — -
— 1. -
— — 9 - — -
— — 13 - —
— — 38 1 1 -
1 — — — — -
— 11 — 2 — -
— — 6 — — -
POLLUTION TOLERANT FORMS - MACROSCOPIC INVERTEBRATE ORGANISMS
CAHABA RIVER BASIN (USD1 1967)
0rganism
- S a:1cns and b . ra anjsz.s CoIie ted
0 C 0 3
0’
., . ., . - .5 . .5 -T -t ‘
!
e 0 c c o e o o
— — — — 2 —
— — 3 — 4
3 53 48 31 151 i
1 — 3 1
4 — —
11 — —
— — 17
— 1 —
— — 1
— — 1
— 2 — — — — 18 — I.
— 4 2 — — — I — —
— 5 12 — 45 10 231 29 —
— — — — 6 — — — —
12 - - - - - - - -
2 1 — — 9 — 11 — —
8 — 2 — 6 — — — —
— 23 3 — — 8 — 1 4
— 1 — — 47 — — — —
- — — — — 1 — — —
— — — — — — 1 — —
— — — — 2 — — — —
- — — - 1 — - - -
— — — — 1 — 101 — —
— 14 — — — — — 6 —
17 — — — — 14 — — 17
— — — — — 1 — 1 — —
— — — — I — — — —
— — — — — — — 2 — —
— — — — S — — — — —
1 — — — — — — — — —
— — — — 1 — — — — —
— — — — 1 — — — — —
— — — — — — 1 — — —
— — — — — — — — 5 5
— — — — — — — 4 —
— — — — — — — 3 —
— — — — S — —
— — — — — — 2 * —
— 35 23 — 103 244 549 169 P0 488
- - - - Ii - - - -
— 1 — — — I — 2 — —
— — — 6 — — — — —
— — — 6 — — — — —
1 —
— 2
— —
Ta dae
58 30 170 .2
— — — 6
— — 4 —
- AI—61

-------
Table AI-17— Fishes Of The Cahaba River
Organism Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
Petromyzontidae — lamprey family
Ichthyomyzon — southern brook lamprey
Lampetra aepyptera — least brook lamprey
Po lyodontidae
Polyodon spathula — paddle fish x
Lepisosteidae — gar family
Lepisosteus oculatus — spotted gar
Lepisosteus osseus — longnose gar x X
Amiidae —bowfin family
Amia calva — bowf in
Anguillidae — freshwater eel family
Anguilla rostrata — merican eel ?
Clupeidae — herring family
Alosa alabamae — Alabama shad x
Alosa chrysochloris — skipjack herring
Dorosorna cepedianum — gizzard shad x x
Dorosoma petenerise — threadfin shad x
Hiodontidae — mooneye family
Hiodon tergisus — mooneye
Esocidae — pike family
Esox arnericanus — redf in pickerel x
Esox ni er — chain pickerel x
Cyprinidae— minnow family
Campostorna ancmalum — stoneroller x x x
Cyprinus carpio — carp x x
Ericymba buccata — silverjaw minnow ? x
Hybopsis aestivalis — speckled chub x
y opsis storeriana — silver chub x
ybopsis wincheili — southern chub
Nocomis leptoceDhalus — bluehead chub x
Notemigonus crvsoleucas — golden shiner x x x
Notroinis asoetifrc-’.ns — burrhead shiner x x
Notropis bailevi — rough shiner x
Notropis atherinoides — emerald shiner x
Notropis bellus — pretty shiner x x x
Notrop s caeruleus — blue shiner x x
Notropis callistius — Alabama shiner x x x
Notropis chrosemus — rainbow shiner x
Notropis chr’isocephalus — striped shiner x
Notropis stilbius — silverstripe shiner x x
Notropis rexanus — weed shiner x
Notropis trichroistius — tricolor shiner x x
NotroDis uranosconus — skvgazir g shiner x
Notropis venustus — blacktail shiner x X
AI—62

-------
Table Al-iT... Fishes Of The Cahaba River (Cont’d)
Organism Study 1 Study 2 Study
Notropis volucellus — mimic shiner x x
Notropis xaenocephalus — Coosa shiner x
Notropis sp. — Cahaba shiner x
Opsopoeodus em±liae — pugnose minnow
Phenacobius catostomus — riffle minnow x x
Pimephales promeias — fathead minnow x
Sernotilus atromaculatus — creek chub x x x
Catostomidae — sucker family
Carpiodes cyprinus — quillback
Carplodes veliter — highfin sucker ?
Cycleptus elongatus — blue sucker x
Erimyzon oblongus — creek chub sucker x z
Erimyzon tenuis — sharpf in sucker x
Hypenteliumn etawanum — Alabama hog sucker x x x
Ictiobus bubalus — smailmouth buffalo ?
Minytrema trelanops — spotted sucker x x
Moxostoma carinatum — river redhorse ?
Moxostoma duquesnei — black redhorse x x
Moxostomna erythrurum — golden redhorse x x x
Moxostorna poedilurum — blacktail redhorse x x
Ictaluridae — freshwater catfish family
Ictalurus furcatus — blue catfish ?
Ictalurus nelas — black bullhead
Ictalurus natalis — yellow bullhead x x x
Ictalurus nebulosus — brown bullhead ? x
Ictalurus punctatus — channel catfish x x x
Noturus funebris — black madtom
Noturus gyrinus — tadpole madtom x x
Noturus leptacanthus — speckled madtcm x x
Noturus niunitus — frecklebelly madtom ?
P ylod1ctis olivaris—flathead catfish x
Cyprinodontidae — killifish family
Fundulus olivaceus — black spotted topminnow x x x
Fundulus stellifer — southern studfish x
Poeciliidae — livebearer family
Gambusia affinis — mosquito fish x X X
Atherinidae — silversides family
Labidesthes sicculus — brook silversides
Cottidae — sculpin family
Cottus carolinae zo herus — Ala. banded sculpin x x x
Centrarchidae — sunfish family
Ambloplites rupestris — rockbass x x
Centrarchus rnacropterus — flier x
Chaenbryttus guiosus — wartnouth x
Elassoma zonatum — banded pigmy sunfish ?
Lepomis cyanella — green sunfish x x x
Lepotnis niacrochirus — bluegill x x x
omis marginatus — dollar sunfish x
Lepomis megalotis — longear sunfish x X
AI—6 3

-------
Table AI—17— Fishes Of The Cahaba River
Organism Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
Lepomis microlophus — redear sunfish x x x
Lepomis punctatus — spotted sunfish x x x
l4icropterus cocsae — redeye bass x x x
Micropterus punctulatus — spotted bass x x
Micropterus salmoides — largemouth bass x x x
Pomoxis annularis — white crappie ? x
Pomoxis nigromaculatus — black crappie x x x
Percidae — perch family
Etheostoma chlorosomutn — bluntnose darter x
Etheostoma histri — harlequin darter ?
Etheostotna jordani — greenbreast darter x x
Etheostoma rupestri—rock darter x x
Etheostotna stignaeum — speckled darter x x
Etheostonia swami — Gulf darter x
Etheostoma whippiei — redf in darter x x x
Etheostotna sp. x x x
Percina aurolineata — goidline darter x
Percina caprodes — log perch x x x
Percina copelandi — channel darter x
Percina lenticula — freckled darter
Percina maculata — blackside darter x x
Percina nigrofasciata — blackbander darter x x x
Percina shutnardi — river darter x x
Stizostedion vitreum — walleye ?
Sciaenidae — drum family
Aplodinotus grunniens — freshwater drum x
Study 1 . — Checklist of fishes known from Cahaba River by John S. Ramsey,
Alabama Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit. A question mark
indicates the fish is probably found in the Cahaba River up-
stream from Helena, Alabama.
Study 2 — 201 Report — A list of species collected from Jefferson and
Shelby County, Alabama.
Study 3 — September 1976 EPA Study.
AI—64

-------
Table AI—18 — Suimnary Of Cahaba River Fish Kills
Date Description
1965 Trussville, Alabama; 1750 suckers dead
1965 5475 fishes dead
1968 15,081 fishes dead
August 1970 Centreville, Alabama
Discharge of pentachiorophenol (wood preservative)
by W.E. Beicher Lumber Co.
7415 fish dead including largemouth bass, spotted
bass, walleye, bream, buffalo, drum, channel, flat—
head and bullhead catfish, river red horse, spotted
suckers and carp.
September 1970 Mann Bros. Metalpiating Co. had routine spills of
1968 cyanide into creek.
May 1965 Also 400 lb. container of calcium sulfate dumped
into river, resulting pH = 10.0; 12,500 fishes dead
including bass, beam ar.d suckers.
1973 Ralston Purina Plant discharges in excess of 1 MCD.
BOO removal 85%.
1973 Caustic soda spill resulted in six dead fish.
AI—65

-------
FIGURES
NATURAL ENV I RONMENT

-------
N
SOURCE UNIFORM SUMMARY OF SURFACE WEATHER OBSERVATIONS,
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA. MARCH 1953 - FEBRUARY 1963
NATIONAL CLIMATIC CENTER, ASHEVILLE, NORTH
CAROL IN A
Jul. - Sep.
6.3 mph
FIGURE Al-I
SEASONAL WIND ROSES FOR
THE GREATER BIRMINGHAM AREA
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
Jan. - Mar.
9.8 mph
NNW
N
S
REGION ] U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
QUIET RESIDENTIAL
AVG. RESIDENTIAL
SEMI-COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
rDAYTIML ]
RESIDENTIAL
TRUCKS, BUSES
SOURCE PRIMER ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS, RONALD BARBARO AND
FRANK L CROSS, JR. 1973, WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT.
TYPICAL NOISE PATTERNS
FIGURE 41-3
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
COMMERCIAL
SEMI- COMMERCIAL
------ -
RESIDENTIAL
-
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
I-
G H TIME
• 1
INDUSTRIAL
- ———-
SIDEWALK OR
F COMMERCIAL
40
COMMERCIAL
TRUCKS, BUSES
50
F-
FREIGHT TRAINS
60
70
80
90
REGI0N U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
POPULATION AND LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
A description of existing and future population and land use character-
istics is contained within Chapter II, Part B of the Environmental Impact
Statement. This includes an allocation by subwatershed of existing and
projected basin populations and also the description of future land use
characteristics for the basin. Existing and future population densities
and land use characteristics have been mapped and are presented in Figures
lI—i, 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter II.
Detailed methodologies for population allocation and land use fore-
casting were previously prepared and transmitted to EPA, Region IV.
The following is a summary of the methodologies utilized to develop
population allocations for subwatersheds and land use forecasting in the
Cahaba River Basin.
Methodology for Unconstrained Population Forecasts and Subwatershed
Allocations
The method by which the unconstrained population projections for the
Cahaba Basin Study Region have been produced entails three major steps.
First, select an accepted and plausible set of county—level projections.
Second, convert these into census tract estimates for all tracts over-
lapping the Study Region. Third, convert these census tract estimates
into subwatershed populations within the Study Region.
Step 1 . The county—level projections utilized in this study are
those produced by the Battelle Memorial Institute’s Columbus Laboratories
for the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission.’ These projections are
linked to an economic base analysis of the six—county BRPC region (Blount,
Chilton, Jefferson, Shelby, St. Clair and Walker Counties), designed to
provide employment forecasts in five—year intervals to the year 2000.
Subsequently, following further analysis comparing these forecasts to
others for the region, the BRPC determined to elevate the Battelle pro-
jections by 4.7%. These modified Battelle projections are currently
accepted as the official projections for the BRPC six—county region.
The Battelle forecasting model, known as DEMOS (Demographic—Economic
Modeling System), generates forecast beginning with the 1970 census
enumerations. Four distinct sub—models compose the modeling system
corresponding to these sectors of activity: demographic, economic, housing,
and income. The demographic model simulates growth in population according
to the major components of change: natural increase (i.e. births less
deaths), and net migration. Uniform death (mortality) rates are assumed
throughout the region while birth rates are determined by county and ad—
1 Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories, Economic Base
Analysis of the Birmingham Six—County Planning Area (Columbis, Ohio:
Battelle, Columbus Laboratories, 1976), in several volumes: The study
methodology is summarized in Vol. IV, “Technical Appendix for Major
Modeling Programs.”
Al —66

-------
justed according to U.S. Census Bureau national projections of fertility
trends. These trends, established in the Series E Census forecasts
approach 2.11 births per woman (during her lifetime) by the year 2000.
Marginal adjustments in fertility trends are produced through economic
and demographic interactions within the model system. Migration rates
are established for twelve age cohorts and adjusted according to
economic conditions within the region as a whole. Four distinct pro—
jection series were produced in this manner, each using a different
combination of exogenous parameters. The first is the “baseline” series,
considered by Battelle to be its best estimate because of the strength
of its underlying assumptions. Three alternate scenarios were also
produced. Scenario One assumes “Low U.S. Growth”, while Scenario Two
assumes “Southern Growth” rates, and Scenario Three assumes “High U.S.
Growth” rates. In each instance the Birmingham region was assumed to
follow the respective regional or national trend. Ultimately the BRPC
elected to adopt the second scenario, “Southern Growth” rates. It is
these which are finally elevated by 4.7% to reflect the somewhat more
optimistic projections of the OBERS series. 2
Step 2 . Next, the modified Battelle (Scenario Two) projections were
allocated to census tracts by the BRPC, as follows:
A). Conduct independent housing unit forecasts in five year intervals
by census tract using a regression model whose dependent variahie
was the increase in total dwelling units by tract during the
period 1960—75. The model’s explanatory variable included various
objective characteristics of each tract. Resulting projections
by tract were subsequently further constrained according to space
(vacant land) capacity and maximum residential densities es-
tablished by local ordinances and plans.
B). Adjust housing unit forecasts by tract to insure consistency
with county control totals established in step 1. This required
the conversion of housing to population tabulations assuming
constant family size and vacancy rates except where the Battelle
projections indicated a contrary trend. When the summation of
tract populations within single counties was more than that
specified in step 1, all tract estimates were proportionately
reduced. Alternately, if the tract summation was less than the
county control total estimated in step 1, all tracts were
proportionally increased though tract capacities were never
exceeded.
2 The OBERS projections are produced by a joint effort of the U.S. Depart-
ments of Commerce and Agriculture for the U.S. Water Resources Council for
economic regions, states, water resource areas and SMSA’s. Two separate
national series exist. The first utilizes the U.S. Census Bureau’s Series
C (higher birth rates) national projections, while the second assumes the
lower rates of the Series E national projections. In addition OBERS
assisted in the production of county—level projections for all counties
in the EPA ’s Region IV.
AI—67

-------
Step 3 . In the third and final step, census tract projections are
converted into projections by subwatershed within the Cahaba Basin.
To accomplish this task, the Environmental Assessment Council, Inc. has
created and calibrated a tilt! allocation model called “LANDEV ”.
In overview, the model, LANDEV, allocates the exogenous population
forecasts provided by the BRPC for each of the 16 census tracts to each
subwatershed at five year time intervals. Since the boundaries of
census tracts are not coterminous with those of subwatersheds the entire
Study Region was divided into one—mile square zones , based on the township
and range grid system, to aid in the compilation and updating of base
data. Many of these zones were subsequently divided geographically among
census tracts and subwatersheds to facilitate the allocation procedure.
The heart of the model is a numerical relationship which evaluates
each zones in each census tract according to its developmental “attractive-
ness’ t . Zonal attractiveness scores are subsequently used to apportion
census tract projections among interior zones. The procedure precludes
development on floodplains and steeply sloped terrain. Per capita net
residential space consumption rates defined by census tracts according to
prior development intensities are applied to zonal population allocations
to determine the amount of space consumed per zone per interval of time
(five years). Zonal residential space capacities equal all space (one—
mile square maximum) less undevelopable land, land already in residential
and non—residential (no—extractive, non—farm) use, and some portion of
currently vacant land designated for future non—residential use (according
to rates specific to census tracts). When zonal residential space
capacities are exceeded, the excess allocation of population (residential
development) is diverted to other zones having surplus space within the
census tract, according to attractiveness scores. Zonal space and land
use accounts are continuously updated and wholly consistent. After each
five year increment, zonal totals are tabulated by subwatershed.
Land Use Forecasting Methodology
The forecasting of population and land use are closely connected.
Population translates into households which occupy residential space.
How much and what kind of residential space is preferred by households
and supplied by the area’s developers will determine the pattern of
residential land use. Most land within the Cahaba Basin Study Region
is currently vacant. Within the more developed places, however, the
majority of land is in active residential use.
The basis for the unconstrained land use forecasts are the un-
constrained population projections previously described. These population
projections for the Cahaba Basin Study Region are derived from the
Battelle Memorial Institute’s county—level projections commissioned by
the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission and published in 1974. The
specific Battelle projection series relied upon is that which assumes the
Birmingham six—county region economy will evolve commensurate with overall
growth within the southern states for the foreseeable future. These
projections were subsequently modified (+4.7%) to reflect the higher
growth rates foreseen in an independent assessment of regional growth.
AI—68

-------
The BRPC later allocated these forecasts to census tracts using an
allocation model calibrated to prior development forces within the
region. Subsequently, the Environmental Assessment Council, Inc. applied
its model, “LANDEV” to allocate tract forecasts to subwatersheds within
the Cahaba Basin Study Region. This model allocated amounts of tract
populations to subwatersheds according to their relative developmental
attractiveness subject to the availability of sufficient undeveloped
land. The determinants of residential attractiveness utilized by LANDEV
included both accessibility (to points of employment and prior develop—
Inent) and site factors such as slope, elevation and soil conditions.
This model was calibrated to previous development within the region and
therefore its resulting forecast constitutes a baseline unconstrained by
the availability of wastewater treatment facilities. These subwatershed
forecasts were converted into a regional land use map for the year 2000.
In order to produce the land use map, aggregate zonal population
allocations produced by “LANDEV” were converted to quantities of
residential space and then assigned to sites within individual zones
according to these rules:
1. No residential development would be assigned to lands which
floods or is steeply sloped.
2. No residential development would be assigned to lands on which
alternate activities are already programmed.
3. Regarding developable land not eliminated by either of these
first two criteria, the following general assignment principles
apply:
i. Where no overriding constraints apply, development will tend
to be contiguous.
ii. Programmed development will tend to have sequential priority.
iii. Assignments will reflect developer “propensities” and house-
hold “preferences” to the extent that these can be imputed
to the statistical characteristics of the population pro—
j ections.
Assignments on non—residential development in the several categories
indicated on the land use map are based upon the following general
principles:
1. All current and most already programmed developments are included.
2. Additional future development (particularly industrial and
commercial) about which there exists an emerging consensus among
representatives of the Study Region are also included.
3. Those current facilities which are capable of on—site or adjacent—
site expansion to meet future demands are acknowledged.
AI—69

-------
4. Most additional development not covered by these first three
situations is not documented on the map except when there is
compelling evidence that this development will be likely to occur.
The task of projecting a spatially “extensive” land use such as
residential is far from easy, yet there do exist certain modelling pro-
cedures which will produce plausible projections when large numbers of
individual locational decisions (of developers and households) are
involved and when the zonal repositories of these projections are not
excessively small. Fortunately, these necessary conditions existed in
the Cahaba Basin. The application of LANDEV, consequently, provides
zonal and subwatersheds projections having reasonable tolerances.
The assignment of aggregate zonal population projections to specific
sites within zones is less easily accomplished since the number of
locational decIsions which will be made are often both diverse and non—
uniformly weighted. Consequently few if any models can be reliably
calibrated to this analytic scale. The assignment procedure is there-
fore necessarily subjective, but consistent with previously stated
assignment rules.
AI—70

-------
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Table AI—20 present employment characteristics for the three counties
which are located within the Cahaba River EIS study area. Jefferson
County is the most significant with a 1970 total employment of 232.844.
County employment trends for 1970 indicate that services are the largest
single employer (65,829) in the county. Manufacturing is the second
largest employer in the county. However, during the decade from 1960
to 1970, there was a net loss of 1,952 jobs in manufacturing. Most of
these losses caused by significant employment reductions in the iron and
steel industry in Jefferson County. Wholesale and retail trade has also
shown significant increases from 44,299 jobs in 1960 to 53,848 in 1970.
Government employment increase were relatively small and ranked well
behind national increases in government employment.
Shelby County had a 1970 employment total of only 13,324. Manu-
facturing is the largest employment category in the county with a 1970
level of 4,084. This represents an increase over 1960 levels (3,154),
but the percentage of total employment in manufacturing decreased from
32.3 percent in 1960 to 30.7 percent in 1970. Services are the county’s
second largest employer followed closely by wholesale and retail trade.
St. Clair County is the smallest of the three study area counties
in total employment with a 1970 level of 9,150. Manufacturing is by
far the largest employer with a total of 3,281 in 1970. This accounted
for 35.9 percent of all employment in the county. Once again services
and wholesale and retail trade followed in second and third places.
An interesting employment figure in St. Clair County is the significant
decline in agricultural employment during the decade from 1960 to 1970.
During this period, employment fell from 686 jobs in 1960 to 320 in
1970. This represents a drop in the county’s percent of total employment
from 8.9 percent in 1960 to 3.4 percent in 1970.
Table AI—21 provides another profile of employment characteristics
in the study area. This table reviews employment in the various
municipalities in the study area. Birmingham, which is not actually
located in the study area but yields significant influence on the Cahaba
River, has the greatest total employment of any of the municipalities
with a 1970 employment level of 114,725. Much of this employment is
in either manufacturing (21.6 percent) or wholesale and retail trade
(23.1 percent). Only 10.5 percent of Birmingham’s employment is in the
services category. Much of the services employment is located in
suburban communities. This is substantiated by a review of the employ-
ment data for suburban communities such as Vestavia Hills, Homewood and
Mountain Brook. In each of these communities services account for nearly
25 percent of the employment total. Trade is also a major employer in
these suburban communities. This is supported by the growth of large
shopping centers and other retail outlets in the suburban areas.
Manufacturing is not significant in any of these three suburban communities.
Employment data for Leeds indicates the significance of manufacturing
employment in that community. In 1970, 43.8 percent of the total
AI—7l

-------
employment for Leeds was in manufacturing. Trade and services were
well behind as significant employers.
Income
Total personal income, per capita income and median family income
are good indicators of the economic health of a region. Aggregate
personal income, per capita income and median family income for the
United States, Alabama, the BRPC Region and each of the counties in
the study area is presented in Table AI—22.
The table indicates that per capita income in the region and each
of the counties is below the national level of per capita income. The
BRPC Region’s per capita income of $2,651 is higher than Alabama’s per
capita income of $2,317. Jefferson County has the region’s highest
per capita income of $2,821. Although per capita income for the region
is below national levels, trends from 1960—1970 indicate that the region
is experiencing an average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent, which is
ahead of the nat•ion’s average annual rate of 5.4 percent.
Each of the three counties which are within the study area have a
per capita income below the national level. However, each of the counties
have an average annual growth rate that exceeds the national average of
5.4 percent. This would seem to indicate that the counties in the study
area are closing the gap on the per capita income differential. In 1970
Jefferson County had the highest per capita income in the study area.
However, its average annual growth rate from 1960 to 1970 was the lowest of
the three counties in the study area.
Similar trends are also evident in median family income. Each of
the three counties in the study area have a 1970 median income that is
below the national average. Shelby and St. Clair County each have average
annual growth rates considerably above the national average growth rate.
Table AI—23 presents income data for the various municipalities within
the study area. A review of the data quickly indicates the relative af flu-
ence of the communities of Vestavia Hills, flomewood and Mountain Brook.
Each of the communities have median family income that is well above
national averages. Other communities such as Irondale, Leeds and
Birmingham exhibit income characteristics that are more indicative of
income trends in the region.
Establishments in the Region and Study Area
Table AI—26 presents the number of establishments by employment
category which are located in the state of Alabama, the BRPC Region and
the three counties in the study area.
The table indicates that in 1973 there were 12,819 establishments in
the BRPC Region, of which 2,107 had greater than 20 employees. Wholesale
and retail trade accounted for 37 percent of the establishments and
services accounted f or 29 percent of the total establishments. Manufac—
AI—72

-------
turing establishments were only eight percent of the region’s total, but
nearly 50 percent of these establishments had greater than 20 employees.
A review of the individual counties indicates that 10,463 establish—
merits are located in Jefferson County. This is 82 percent of all establish-
ments in the region. Wholesale and retail trade had the highest number of
establishments in the county (3,797) followed by services (3,205) and
finance, insurance and real estate (1,116). Shelby County had the next
highest number of establishments (545) followed by St. Clair County (327).
Al— 73

-------
WATER SUPPLY STUDY*
Alternative Al — Develop Coosa River and Maintain Lake Purdy — Under
this alternative the Cahaba River would be replaced by developing a new
source of supply from the Coosa River. Raw water would be pumped from
Logan Martin Lake on the Coosa River to the Little Cahaba River. In
addition a new intake facility and pipeline would be constructed to con—
vey raw water from Lake Purdy to the Cahaba Pumping Station.
Alternative A2 — Develop Mulberry Fork and Maintain Lake Purdy —
This alternative would replace the supply from the Cahaba River by
developing a new source of supply from the Mulberry Fork of the Black
Warrior River. Water would be pumped from Mulberry Branch to the Shades
Mountain Filter Plant. The construction of a booster pumping station
would probably be required in the vicinity of the Western Filter Plant.
A new intake facility and pipeline would be constructed to convey raw
water from Lake Purdy to the Cahaba Pumping Station.
Alternative A3 — Develop Locust Fork Near Partridge Crossroads and
Maintain Lake Purdy — This alternative would replace the Cahaba River
by developing a new source of supply from the Locust Fork of the Black
Warrior River near Partridge Crossroads. A dam would be constructed on
Locust Fork with a reservoir being created for use in water supply and
low flow augmentation. Raw water would be conveyed to the Shades Mountain
Filter Plant for treatment and distribution. In addition, a new intake
facility and pipeline would be constructed to convey raw water from
Lake Purdy to the Cahaba Pumping Station.
Alternative A4 — Develop Locust Fork at Smith’s Ford and Maintain
Lake Purdy — Replace the supply from the Cahaba River by developing a
new source of supply from the Locust Fork north of the Black Warrior
River. A dam would be constructed at Smith’s Ford and the resulting
reservoir would be used for low flow augmentation and for water supply.
Raw water would be conveyed to the Shades Mountain Filter Plant for
treatment and distribution. A new intake facility and pipeline would be
constructed to convey raw water from Lake Purdy to the Cahaba Pumping
Station.
Alternative A5 — Develop Big Black Creek and Maintain Lake Purdy —
This alternative would replace the Cahaba River by developing a new
source of supply from Big Black Creek. The proposed dam and reservoir
would be utilized for low flow augmentation as well as water supply. A
new intake facility and pipeline would be constructed to convey raw water
from Lake Purdy to the Cahaba Pumping Station.
*Source: Water Supply Study for the Water Works Board of the City of
Birmingham. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., April 1977.
AI—74

-------
Alternative Bi — Develop Coosa River — Under this alternative the
Water Works Board would replace the entire Cahaba River system with a
new source of water supply from the Coosa River. Raw water would be
pumped directly from Logan Martin Lake on the Coosa River to the Cahaba
Pumping Station. Raw water would be treated at the Shades Mountain
Filter Plant. Since Lake Purdy would no longer be in use, the capacity of
the facilities in this alternative would be larger than in Alternative Al.
Alternative B2 — Develop Mulberry Fork — Replace the Cahaba River
System with a new source of supply from the Mulberry Fork of the Black
Warrior River. Raw water would be pumped to the Shades Creek Filter
Plant for treatment and distribution. The Cahaba Pumping Station could
also be abandoned. Facilities required to develop this supply would be
similar to those of Alternative A2, but would have larger capacities.
Alternative B3 — Develop Locust Fork near Partridge Crossroads —
This alternative would replace the entire Cahaba River system with
construction of a dam and reservoir on Locust Fork of the Black Warrior
River. Raw water would be pumped directly to the Shades Mountain Filter
Plant for treatment and distribution. The Cahaba Pumping Station could
be abandoned. The facilities required to develop this supply would be
similar to those of Alternative A3 but would have larger capacities.
Alternative B4 — Develop Locust Fork at Smith’s Fork — Under this
alternative the entire Cahaba River System would be replaced by a new
source of supply from the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River. This
alternative would involve the construction of a dam and reservoir on
Locust Fork. Raw water would be pumped directly to the Shades Mountain
Filter Plant for treatment and distribution. The Cahaba Pumping Station
could be abandoned, but consideration should be given to a limited
maintenance program that would allow the Board to utilize the Cahaba
River water supply during extreme emergencies. The facilities required
to develop this new supply would be similar to those of Alternative A4,
but would have larger capacities.
Alternative Cl — Raise the Level of Lake Purdy by Ten Feet — This
alternative is currently under active consideration by the Water Works
Board and the Jefferson County Commissioners. Under this proposal, the
level of Lake Purdy would be raised by an additional ten feet. The
intent would be for flow augmentation only, but would also provide
additional flows on the Cahaba River for water supply purposes. This
alternative would cost approximately $7 million including dam construc-
tion, clearing of land and roadway relocation.
AI—75

-------
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Shelby County
Police Protection . The Sheriff’s Department maintains a jail and
courthouse at the county seat. A new jail is under construction. To-
gether the jail and courthouse employ about 20 people.
Fire Protection . Fire departments are located in individual cities.
No county service is provided.
Public Works
Sanitation Pickup and Disposal . Services are franchised out to
private haulers in each of four areas. The service is paid for by users.
There are three landfill sites.
Education
Schools. Eight—hundred people are employed by the county school
system as follows: 550 teachers, 90 busdrivers, 15 maintenance and
mechanical, 100 clerical and miscellaneous help. There are 11,000
students in twenty school buildings.
Libraries . There are eight community libraries and one book mobile
in the county. The county library is a shared facility with the town
library at the county seat (Columbiana). This facility has one full—
time and one part—time librarian as well as five clerical staff. The
county budgets $45,600 for library activities. The county library of
Columbiana has a budget of $77,800 which includes a town contribution.
The county provides materials and processing for the local units,
while the towns provide buildings and payrolls. Towns with facilities
are: Columbiana, Wilisonville, Montevallo, Calero, Alabaster, Vincent,
Pelham, Helena.
Health and Welfare
Hospitals, Clinics, Nursing Homes . The county has one hospital,
Shelby Memoflal; one nursing home, Briarcliff Nursing Home (private)
(both hospital and nursing home are in Alabaster); one clinic for over-
night care; two or three beds (located in Coibra). The following services
are provided by the Health Department: immunization, home health care,
family planning, food inspection, dairy inspection; subdivision develop—
ment control (covers inspection of septic tanks). This department employs
12—14 professionals and 20 people in total.
Welfare Services . The county maintains a pensions and securities
department.
AI—76

-------
Administrative Facilities
The county maintains the following departments: planning, public
works, tax assessors office.
Government Structure
The Probate Judge is chairman of the county commission. There are
four additional commissioners, each responsible for a district. They
meet twice a month.
Jefferson County
As the most urbanized of the three counties in the watershed,
Jefferson has available considerably more in the way of services and
facilities than the other two.*
Public Safety
Police Protection . The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department pro-
vides law enforcement services to the people living in unincorporated
areas of the county. Some small municipalities which do not maintain
their own police departments also receive patrol services from the
county. The department maintains four substations; of these four,
the Cahaba Heights facility lies within the study area.
The Sheriff s Department maintains the following staff, by division:
Patrol Division Uniformed: 112
Civilian: 0
Criminal Division Uniformed: 25
Civilian: 5
Civil Division Uniformed: 31
Civilian: 10
Technical Division Uniformed: 8
Civilian: 24
Jail Division Uniformed: 58
Civilian: 11
Subtotal Uniformed: 234
Civilian: 50
Total 284
*Source for all information for Jefferson County, unless otherwise
noted: “Community Facilities Inventory and Analysis” issued by
Jefferson County Planning and Community Development Office, June, 1976.
Al— 77

-------
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT

-------
There are approximately 160,000 persons served in unincorporated
sections of county by the sheriff’s department. The manpower per 1000
population is 1.8.
In addition to the services of the Sheriff’s Department; the following
cities within the study area maintain a police department:
Hoover has 13 full—time personnel for 3495 people, or 3,7 per 1000.
Leeds has 15 full—time and 8 part—time personnel for 8098 people
or 2.3 per l000.*
Mountain Brook has 44 full—time personnel for 2642 people or 16.7
per 1000.
Trussville has 8 full—time personnel for 3260 people or 2.5 per 1000.
Fire Protection . This service is provided both by municipal fire
departments and by county fire departments. The twelve county fire
districts serve people in the unincorporated areas; however, coverage is
not complete and approximately 84,000 people in the county have no
organized fire protection service. There is an informal agreement that
the nearest municipal department or county fire district able to respond
viii provide service. However, this obligation is not binding. District
service is paid for through fees levied on property owners.
Manpower for fire protection for the county districts within the study
area is as follows:
Bluff Park has 8 full—time and 22 volunteer fireman for 10,500 people
(0.8 per 1000 full time and 2.1 per 1000 volunteer).
Cahaba Heights has 17 volunteers for 5,296 people, or 3.2 volunteers
per 1000.
Rocky Ridge has 10 full—time and 19 volunteer fireman; serving 8968
people or 1.1 full—time and 2.1 volunteers per 1000.
Municipal fire departments are maintained by the following towns
within the study area:
Hoover maintains a department with 12 full—time and 15 volunteer f ire—
n serving 3495 people, or 3.4 full—time per 1000 and 4.3 volunteers per
1000.
Irondale maintains a department with 4 full—time and 20 volunteer
firemen serving 2843 people, or 1.4 full—time per 1000 and 7.0 volunteer
per 1000.
*Weighing part—time as .5 full—time.
Al— 78

-------
Leeds fire department has 4 full—time, 2 part—time and 19 volunteer
firement serving 8098 people, or 2.5 full—time per 1000 and 2.3 volunteer
per 1000.
Mountain Brook fire department has three stations, totalling 46
full—time firemen serving a population of 20,642 or 2.2 full—time per
1000.
Trussville fire department has a staff of 25 volunteers serving
3260 people or 7.7 volunteers per 1,000.
Vestavia fire department employs 36 full—time firemen serving
12,500 people, or 2.9 firemen per 1000.
Health and Welfare
Hospitals, Clinics, Nursing Homes . Jefferson County has 16 hospitals
which provide over 4,400 beds. None of these are located in the study
area. There are also n mierous clinics or health centers throughout the
county. The one in Leeds is the only one in the watershed.
The Jefferson County Health Department also provides dental and
medical facilities by means of mobile clinics, which service rural
areas of the county. The bureaus within the Health Department are:
Conununicable Disease, Dental Care, Environmental Health, Maternal and
Infant Care, Nursing Nutrition and Vital Statistics.
Also available within the county are facilities for the treatment
and care of the blind, vocationally disabled and the homebound,
narcotics addicts, the mentally ill and the retarded. Lastly, 36
nursing homes provide 3,573 beds for care of the aged.
Education
Schools . Jefferson County has nine separate school systems which
maintain 201 active schools with a combined enrollment of 123,250
students.
Within the study area, Mountain Brook maintains six schools, with
225 teachers serving 3,999 students (Student/Teachers Ratio is 19:1).
Vestavia Hills maintains three schools, with 179 teachers serving
3,256 students for a Student/Teacher Ratio of 19:1.
The Jefferson County system itself, both within and without the
study area, maintains 71 schools, staffed by 2030 teachers serving
49,345 students, for a Student/Teacher Ratio of 27:1.
Al— 79

-------
Libraries . The Jefferson County Free Library maintains a central
warehouse facility of 151,000 books, with a staff of 13 employees.
This facility distributes books to local libraries unable to meet
local needs. In addition to the above facility, there are seventeen
municipal libraries. Those within the study area are:
Irondale — 3 full—time personnel
3 part—time personnel
3.5 books per capita
Leeds — 1 full—time personnel
2 part—time personnel
1.0 books per capita
Nountain Brook — 8 full—time personnel
4 part—time personnel
2.4 books per capita
Trussvi l le — 1 full—time personnel
2 part—time personnel
Number of books not available
Vestavia Hills — 7 full—time personnel
2 part—time personnel
2.0 books per capita
Public Works
Sanitation Pickup and Disposal . Jefferson County is divided up
into 35 collection districts with one operator on each d:istrict. Fees
charged homeowners are regulated by the county, but subscription to the
service is not mandatory. In addition to these franchised private ope-
rators, 23 municipalities have established collection services. Munici-
palities with their own collection services in the study area are:
Irondale, Leeds, Mountain Brook, Trussville, and Vestavia Hills. Man-
power levels for the private and municipal services were unavailable.
Solid waste disposal in Jefferson County is handled through sani-
tary landfill. There are fourteen facilities all tolled, maintained by
the county and by municipalities. Two specifically are within or adjoin—
tog the watershed; serving the towns of Mountain Brook and Vestavia as
well as other municipalities.
Administrative Facilities
In addition to facilities mentioned above, the county supports
the following activities: the Jefferson County Courthouse houses
administrative offices and courts, a Law Library and Offices for the
Bar Association. Also found there are the County Commission Chambers,
Offices of the Departments of Public Works, Revenue, etc.
AI—80

-------
A joint city—county Civic Center was recently completed. It
houses a theater, exhibition hail, concert hail, and coliseum.
St. Clair County
The portion of St. Clair County which falls within the study area
is very sparsely settled. Three very small towns, Margaret (685 people),
Moody (504 people), and Whites Chapel (334 people) maintain facilities
as follows:
Margaret: a post office and town hall—4 employees altogether
Moody: a town hall and junior high school—30 employees altogether
Whites Chapel: a town hali—2 employees altogether
AI—81

-------
BIRNINGRAM WATER WORKS BOARD RATE SCHEDULE
The Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham provides water to
the entire Cahaba River EIS study area except for the municipalities of
Trussville and Leeds. These municipalities utilize their own wells and
distribution system for water supply. The Water Works Board recently
adopted the following rate schedule:
Rate Schedule
Per 100 Cubic Feet
For the first 10,000 cubic feet per month
or 30,000 cubic feet per quarter 6O
For the next 20,000 cubic feet per month
or 60,000 cubic feet per quarter 56ç
For the next 35,000 cubic feet per month
or 105,000 cubic feet per quarter 48
For the next 4,734,998 cubic feet per month
or 14,205,000 cubic feet per quarter 35
All over 4,799,998 cubic feet per month
or 14,400,000 cubic feet per quarter 28.9Q
The rate schedule also provides for a minimum charge of $2.40 per month
for 400 cubic feet and $7.20 per quarter for 1,200 cubic feet. Separate
rate schedules are applicable to water supplied through meters larger
than 5/8 inch, fire service connections and for municipal and public
fire hydrants.
The Water Works Board also has a rural rate schedule for water users
in the outlying portions of the system. The following represents the
charges levied under the Board’s rural rate schedule:
Rural Rate Schedule
Per 100 Cubic Feet
For the first 10,000 cubic feet per month
or 30,000 cubic feet per quarter $1.00
For the next 20,000 cubic feet per month
or 60,000 cubic feet per quarter $ .90
For the next 35,000 cubic feet per month
or 105,000 cubic feet per quarter $ .77
For over 65,000 cubic feet per month
or 195,000 cubic feet per quarter $ .56
AI—82

-------
The rate schedule also provides for a minimum charge of $4.00 per month
for 400 cubic feet and $12.00 per quarter for 1,200 cubic feet. Separate
rate schedules are applicable to water supplied through meters larger
than 5/8 inch, fire service connections and for municipal and public fire
hydrants.
The Industrial Water Board of the City of Birmingham provides water
to large volume water users in the Birmingham area. They supply water
to many industries in the area and also supply the Water Works Board of
the City of Birmingham with son of their water. The Industrial Water
Board recently adopted the following water rate schedule:
Average Daily Consumption Based Net Rate per
on Monthly Meter Readings 100,000 Gallons
First 100,000 gallons or less $29.70
Next 200,000 gallons or less $28.35
Next 200,000 gallons or less $27.00
Next 500,000 gallons or less $25.65
Over 1,000,000 $24.30
Al —S 3

-------
MAJOR REVENUE PROVISIONS OF TIlE 1977
JEFFERSON COUNTY SEWER ORDINANCE
Single—Family Residential — A uniform volume charge of $.3O per
hundred cubic feet of water consumption returned to the stream. The
uniform volume charge is levied on the basis of 85% of the metered water
consumption.
Other Domestic Users — A uniform volume charge of $.30 per hundred
cubic feet of metered water consumption is levied for all domestic usage
other than single—family residential.
Other Users — A uniform volume charge of $.3O per hundred cubic
feet of metered water consumption is levied for all other discharges in
which pollutant concentration does not exceed the domestic maximum. For
loadings which exceed the specified standards an industrial surcharge
will be levied.
Minimum Charges — Minimum quarterly and monthly charges are levied
as follows:
Minimum Charge
Meter Size arterly Monthly
5/8 3.60 1.20
3/4 4.50 1.50
1 9.00 3.00
1—1/4 12.00 4.00
1—1/2 15.00 5.00
2 25.50 8.50
3 48.00 16.00
4 79.50 26.50
6 156.00 52.00
8 315.00 105.00
10 360.00 126.00
12 477.00 159.00
Impact Connection Fees — Domestic Users — n impact connection
fee is levied upon each new connection to the sewer system. The fee is
determined at the rate of $300 per equivalent residential unit (ERU).
An ERU is defined as a connection discharging 125 hundred cubic feet
of typically domestic effluent annually. On the basis of typical dis-
charge patterns the following ERU factors are utilized
AI—84

-------
Usage Classification ERU Factor
Single—family residential 1.00
Multi—family residential
One bathroom 0.50
More than one bathroom 0.75
Mobile Home
Standard 0.75
Doublewide 1.00
Hotel/Motel (per room) 0.50
Recreation vehicle pad 0.75
Restaurant (per seat) 0.15
Other — to be determined by Director of Public Works
Non—Domestic Users — Any connection to the system which is non—
domestic by virtue of the volume or rate of flow or level of pollutant
concentrations will warrant an impact connection fee as determined by
the Director of Public Works on a case—by—case basis. The Director
will base his determination upon all factors which significantly
influence the consumption of system capacities including the following
calculation of an ERU factor:
Number of ERU’s = Projected annual volume charge + projected annual
industrial surcharge divided by $37.50 where $37.50 = the volume charge
for 125 hundred cubic feet of typically domestic effluent.
Industrial Waste Surcharges — In addition to the regular sewer ser-
vice charge the county also levies an industrial surcharge. These sur—
charges are in addition to regular sewer service charges and are an
atteirnpt to defray the added costs associated with treating high strength
wastewater. An industrial waste surcharge shall be assessed against
any industry in the county service area whose wastewater characteristics
exceed the following normal wastewater strengths:
BOD 300 ppm
Suspended Solids (ss) 300 ppm
Grease 50 ppm
Detergents 8 ppm
Total Phosphates 8 ppm
Industrial waste is considered any effluent with pollutant loadings in
excess of the above standards. The industrial waste surcharge shall be
determined by application of the following rates:
AI—85

-------
1. BOD 5 — $.07 per lb. in excess of 300 ppm.
2. SS — $.03 per lb. in excess of 300 ppm.
3. At the discretion of the Director of Public Works, on a case—
by—case basis, concentrations of grease, detergents, total phosphates (in
excess of the concentrations set out above) or other pollutants will be
assessed on industrial waste surcharge based upon the higher cost of
treatment of the discharge.
AI—86

-------
TABLES
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT

-------
*tndustries not reported for 1960 only
Sources: Census of Population, 1960 and 1970
TABLE AI—19
COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
FOR THE UNITED STATES, ALABAMA AND THE BRPC REGION
1960—1970
Employment
Cateaorv
Number Employed
United States
Percent Employed
Alabama
Number Employed Percent
Employed
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Communications
and Utilities
Trade
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
Services
Government
Other *
Total
-.1
BRPC Region
Number Employed Percent Employed
1960
1970
1960
1970
1960
1970
1960
1970
1960
1970
1960
1970
4,349,884
2,840,488
6.9
3.5
104,855
46,299
9.6
3.6
6,902
4,574
2.5
1.5
654,006
630,788
1.0
1.0
11,902
8,843
1.1
.8
8,930
5,076
3.4
1.6
3,815,942
4,572,235
5.9
6.0
71,359
82,076
6.7
6.4
16,245
18,201
6.1
6.1
17,513,086
19,837,208
27.1
25.9
282,992
341,575
26.6
26.8
71,884
74,970
27.1
25.4
4,458,147
5,186,101
6.9
6.8
62,990
79,469
6.0
6.2
20,145
23,775
7.6
8.1
11,792,635
15,372,880
18.2
20.1
180,743
226,431
17.0
17.8
51,976
64,242
19.6
21.8
2,694,630
3,838,387
4.1
5.0
31,886
43,817
3.0
3.4
12,230
15,795
4.6
5.4
11,012,559
15,750,836
17.0
20.6
237,839
377,841
22.3
29.6
60,047
76,403
22.6
25.9
5,740,278
8,524,676
8.9
11.1
59,119
69,203
5.6
5.4
9,217
12,280
3.5
4.2
2,608,085
——
4.0
—
22,212
——
2.1
—
8,027
——
3.0
—
64,639,247
76,553,599
100.0
100.0
1,065,987
1,275,554
100.0
100.0
265,603
295,316
100.0
100.0
Final Report Volume II on A Regional Economic Base Analysis of the Birmingham Six—County Planning Region, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, June 30, 1976

-------
TA3LE A1-20
COUNTY lPL0ThENT CRABACTERISTICS
1970
Jefferson Count y Shelby County St. Clair County
Number Employed Percent Employed Number Employed Percent Employed Number Employed Percent Employed
1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
Agriculture 1,457 1,529 .8 .6 666 529 6.8 4.0 686 320 8.9 3.4
Mining 5,812 3,146 2.7 1.2 365 214 3.7 1.6 72 31 1.0 .3
Construction 11,661 12,742 5.4 5.4 976 1,322 10.0 9.4 700 858 9.]. 9.4
Manufacturing 59.241 57,289 27.2 24.1 3,154 4,084 32.3 30.7 2,701 3,281 34.9 35.9
Transportation, Co uni—
cations and Utilities 16,958 19,146 7.8 8.1 694 894 7.1 6.7 389 692 5.0 7.6
Trade 44,299 53,848 20.3 22.6 1,334 2,573 13.7 19.3 1,167 1,497 15.1 16.4
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate 11,307 14,181 5.2 6.0 202 425 2.1 3.2 177 233 2.3 2.6
Services 51,830 65,829 23.8 27.1 1,936 2,880 19.8 21.6 1,239 1,714 16.0 18.7
Government 7,670 10,134 3.5 4.3 273 403 2.8 3.0 418 524 5.4 5.7
Other * 7,185 — 3.3 — 169 — 1.7 — 181 — — 2.3 —
Total 217,844 237,844 100.0 100.0 9,769 13,324 100.0 100.0 1,736 9,150 100.0 100.0
*Indugtrjes not reported for 1960 only
Sources: Census of Population, 1960 and 1970
Final Report Volume II on A Regional Economic Base Analysis of the Birmingham Six—County Planning Region, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, June 30, 1976

-------
TABLE AI-21
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR MUNICIPALITIES
IN TUE STUDY AREA
1970
Employment Vestavia
Category Irondale Trussvi l le Leeds Hills Homewood Mountain Brook Birmingham
Construction 10.8 4.3 4.8 3.8 3.2 3.3 4.9
Manufacturing 20.4 22.0 43.8 17.7 12.7 14.0 216
Transportation, Coimnunications
and Utilities 5.5 10.6 5.8 6.4 7.1 5.3 8.6
Trade 28.4 23.1 19.8 24.7 25.5 25.7 23.1
Finance, Insurance and
Real Estate 5.2 9.9 6.5 14.9 13.5 17.6 8.8
Professional Services 13.3 18.1 10.1 24.9 22.9 25.9 10.5
Public Administration 4.1 4.9 3.0 3.7 4.2 2.5 4.6
All Other 12.3 7.2 6.0 3.9 10.5 5.2 17.9
Total Employment 1,238 1,157 2,495 3,291 9,488 7,070 114,725
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. General Social and Economic Characteristics: Alabama PC (1)C2 .
Census of Population, 1970, Washington, D.C.

-------
TABLE AI—22
INCOME COMPARISON
1960—1970
Aggregate Personal Income Per Ca ita Income Median Family Income
Average Average Average
Annual Annual Annual
Change Growth Change Growth Change Growth
Level of Government 1960 1970 1960—1970 Rate 1960 1970 1960—1970 Rate 1960 1970 1960-1970 Rate
United State8 331,665,000 633,820,960 302,155,960 6.7 1,850 3,119 1,269 5.4 5,660 9,586 3,926 5.4
Alabama 4,070,000 7,980,130 3,910,130 7.0 1,246 2,317 1,071 6.4 3,937 7,266 3,329 6.3
BRPC Region 1,212,000 2,171,866 959,866 6.0 1,519 2,651 1,132 5.7 —
Jefferson County 1,046,000 1,819,520 773,520 5.7 1,648 2,821 1,173 5.5 5,103 8,562 3,459 5.3
Shelby County 35,000 83,377 48,377 9.1 1,089 2,192 1,103 7.3 3,706 7,155 3,449 6.8
St. Clair County 24,000 55,073 31,073 8.7 945 1,970 1,025 7.6 3,496 6,461 2,965 6.3
0
Sources: County and City Data Book 1960, 1970
U.S. Census of Population 1960, 1970
Final Report Volume II on A Regional Economic Base Analysis of the Birmingham Six—County Planning Region,
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, June 30, 1976

-------
TABLE AI- 23
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR MUNICIPALITIES
IN THE STUDY AREA
1970
Vest avia
Irondale Trussville Leeds Hills Homewood Mountain Brook Birmingham
Total Income
($1,000) 8,118 10,164 1,653 4,719 3,777 15,850 77,545
Median Family
Income 7,980 10,652 7,562 16,816 10,063 21,163 7,737
Per Capita
Income 2,564 3,405 2,365 5,673 2.652 8,139 2,577
‘.0
Mean Wage!
Salary 9,060 9,758 8,142 15,811 10,445 20,069 8,223
Percent on
Public Welfare 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.3 0 0.1 1.8
Percent Below*
Poverty Level 14.8 4.2 14.3 2.2 1.0 2.2 17.4
*Percent of Families
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. General Social and Economic Characteristics: Alabama PC (1)—C2.
Census of Population, 1970

-------
TABLE AI-24
LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS
Jefferson County Shelby County St. Clair County
Labor Force
Total 248,259 13,861 9,541
14—17 5,928 431 346
18—24 42,453 2,776 1,557
25—34 51,152 3,110 2,270
35—44 52,317 2,769 2,049
45—64 86,710 4,284 3,018
65+ 9,699 490 301
Female 95,407 4,847 3,102
Unemployed
(Percent) 4.2 3.9 4.1
Sources: Report Volume Ill—A on Tabular SlnvmRries of Demographic — Economic Projections for the Birmingham Six—County
Planning Region, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, June 21, 1976
U.S. Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Alabama PC (1)—C2. Census of
Population, 1970

-------
TABLE At—25
LABOR FORCE ChARACTERISTICS
FOR MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STUDY AREA
Vesta via
Irondale Trussville Leeds Hills }lomewood Mountain Brook Birmingham
Labor Force
Total Labor Force 1,305 1,192 2,590 3,331 9,739 7,214 120,562
Males/Females Over 16 540/377 803/389 1,675/915 2,343/988 5,552/4,172 5,032/2,182 69,201/51,361
Unemp oyment/Rate 20/2.1 35/2.9 95/3.6 40/1.2 254/2.6 144/2.0 5,837/4.8
Male Labor Force 74.6 81.9 77.7 83.0 77.3 81.6 73.6
Participation Rate
Female Labor Force 38.2 34.9 36.2 30.8 46.5 29.7 42.8
Participation Rate
Percent Agricultural 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17 0.13 0.5
Employment
Occupation (Percent )
Professional and Technical 9.4 17.4 9.9 30.2 27.1 32.]. 12.;3
Managers and Administrators 11.8 11.5 7.6 24.9 15.3 29.6 6.9
Sales 8.1 11.4 5.2 15.5 14.6 17.3 7.8
Clerical 14.5 19.2 15.5 17.9 23.5 14.0 19.4
Craftsmen 18.3 18.5 19.0 5.8 7.4 2.8 13.1
Transport 2.7 2.8 3.1 0.3 1.1 0.7 5.0
Laborers excluding Farm 5.6 1.4 4.8 1.2 1.8 0.4 6.1
Farmers 0.4 0 0 0 0.17 0.13 0.2
Service Workers 14.1 9.9 9.7 2.9 4.8 1.0 13.1
Private Household Workers 3.7 0 2.4 0.4 1.7 0.8 4.6
Education
Median Years Completed 10.3 12.2 10.6 14.0 12.8 15.2 11.1
Percent High School/College 31.9/4.9 52.4/10.9 34.3/2.3 38.7/34.9 74.9/24.9 90.1/45.0 44.0/7.4
Illiteracy Rate 10.6 4.0 9.2 0.7 3.1 0.4 8.7
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Alabama PC (l)—C2.
Census of Population, 1970.

-------
TABLE AI—26
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
1973
Employment
Category
Alabama
Region
Jefferson
St. Clair
Shelby
Total
Twenty Plus
Employees
Total
Twenty Plus
Employees
Total
Twenty Plus
Employees
Total
Twenty Plus
Employees
Total
Twenty Plus
Employees
Agriculture
680
44
105
9
75
5
2
0
11
2
Mining
201
80
79
40
48
22
1
1
3
1
Construction
5,415
123
1,339
239
1,022
216
35
4
94
10
Manufacturing
4,663
1,764
963
414
722
328
34
9
72
33
Trana.,Communications
and Utilities
2,075
424
418
117
300
99
24
3
29
7
Trade
21,534
2,370
4,765
734
3,797
699
150
8
192
16
Finance, Insurance and
Real E8tate
4,404
517
1,256
159
1,116
138
16
1
33
4
Services
14,165
1,128
3,655
384
3,205
359
55
5
96
5
Unclassified
1,402
38
239
11
178
9
10
0
15
0
Total
54,539
7,088
12,819
2,107
10,463
1,845
327
31
545
78
Sources: County Business Patterns, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Final Report Volume 11 on A Regional Economic Base Analysis of the Birmingham Six—County Planning Region, Battelle Columbus
Laboratory, June 30, 1976

-------
TABLE AI—27
ANALYSIS OF COAL SEA?
IN THE CAHABA COAL FIELD
Moisture Vol. Matter Carbon Ash Sulfur
Seam Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent B.T.U.
Black Shale 4.6 35.1 57.9 2.4 0.6 14,210
Glass 2.5 31.0 54.6 11.9 0.7 13,030
Gould 2.0 30.2 59.0 7.9 1.8 13,620
Harkness 2.3 32.9 54.7 10.1 2.0 13,320
Helena 3.7 33.5 54.4 8.4 0.6 13,230
Henry Ellen 2.5 33.1 52.9 11.4 0.9 13,090
Nunnally 2.2 34.4 55.4 8.0 1.0 13,570
Thompson 3.0 35.3 54.8 6.9 0.6 13,520
Wadsworth - 36.0 60.0 3.7 0.8 14,830
Source: Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Safety and Inspection, Annual Statistical
Report, Fiscal Year 1975-1976.

-------
TABLE AI—78
PRIVATELY OWNED WASTEWATER
COLLECTION ANT) TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Owner
Subdivisions
Inverness
200,000 GPO currently has a
request to expand with an ulti-
mate goal of approximately
400,000 GPO
90,000 GPO currently
has a request to construct
70 additional apartment units
20,000 GPO
45,000 GPD
14,000 GPO
65,000 GPO
15,000 GPO
35,000 GPO
Size
Location
0 ’
Al tad ena
Cahaba Heights Estates
Eastwood Mobile Homes
Plaza Mobile Homes
London Village Mobile
Homes
Vann Trailer Park
Chateau Orleans
Shelby County - Located on
State Rt. 17 southwest of
U.S. 280.
Shelby County - Located
adjacent to Inverness.
Jefferson County - Northeast
of Irondale.
Jefferson County - Northeast
of Irondale.
Jefferson County - Northeast
of Irondale.
Jefferson County - West of
Trussvi lie
Jefferson County - West of
Trussvil le.
Jefferson County - South of
Mt. Brook.

-------
TABLE AI—28 (Cont’d)
Schools
Mt. Brook High School 23,000 GPD Jefferson County -
City of Mt. Brook
Rocky Ridge Elementary
School 20,000 GPD Jefferson County -
Southeast of Vestavia Hills
Gresham Junior High
School 25,000 GPD Jefferson County -
South of Mountain Brook
Industry
Gold Kist 1,080,000 GPD Jefferson County -
East of Trussville
Country Club
Pine Tree Country Club 15,000 GPD Jefferson County -
East of Irondale
Proposed Facilities
Riverchase 650,000 GPD Shelby County -
North of Peiham and Helena
Unknown 650,000 GPD Jefferson County -
Northeast of Irondale
Unknown 650,000 CPU Tefferson County - U.S. 280
crossing of the Cahaba River.
Source: Alabama Water Improvement Commission.
March, 1977.

-------
TABLE A1-29
WATER QUALITY AT
SHADES M)UNTAIN FILTER PLANT
nthly Maximum 2-Day
Average Finished Water
Turbidity (TU)* Turbidity*
Date Raw Finished ( TU )
July, 1974 4 .13 .23
January, 1975 31 .13 .23
A”gust, 1975 19 .25 .50
January, 1976 20 .61 1.58
July, 19Th 13 .18 .43
January, 1977 25 .77 2.55
* The Maximum Levels in the EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations are 1.0 TU for a monthly average and 5.0 TU for
a two consecutive day average.
Source: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
AI—98

-------
TABLE A1—30
PRODUCTION AT
SHADES 4JUNTAIN FILTER PLANT
Avg. Daily Maximum Day
Year ( mgd) ( mgd) Date
1967 51.1 67.6 June 19
1968 54.2 75.2 July 1
1969 53.0 71.8 Aug. 26
1970 53.5 70.3 July 3
1971 54.5 65.8 June 14
1972 53.5 70.9 June 8
1973 54.7 69.1 Sept. 24
1974 54.7 71.0 July 2
1975 53.1 64.0 June 24
1976 54.6 72.4 July 26
Source: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
AI—9 9

-------
TABLE AI-31
SUMMARY OF SUPPLY AND TREATMENT CAPACITIES
OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Treatment Supply Reliable
Capacity Capacity Capacity
Faci ii ty Avg Max Avg Max Max
Existing Facilities
(From Table 2) 90 133 N/A 120 80 116
Western (Addition) 10 15 10 4
Cahaba Pump Station
(Additional 20-nigd pump) 0 20 0 8
Subtotal 100 148 N/A 140 90 128
IWB - Lewis Smith Lake
“Certain Improvements” N/A 6 0 6
10,000 feet of pipeline N/A 5 0 5
Add’l IWB (1982)
Western (60 mgd total) N/A 30 0 0
Putnam (25 mgd total) N/A 6.5 0 0
Add’l IWB (1987)
Carson (25 mgd total) N/A 14.5 0 9
Total 100 148 N/A 202 90 148
NB. All Values are in million gallons per day (mgd).
Source: Water Supply Study for the Water Works Board of
Birmingham, Alabama. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
April, 1977.
AI—100

-------
TABLE AI-32
SUMMARY OF SUPPLY AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Capacities
Treatment Supply Reliable
Water Demand - 2025 115 167 N/A 167 115 167
Capacity of Existing and
Proposed Facilities 100 148 N/A 202 90 148
Additional Requirements 15 19 N/A -- 25 19
Required Facilities
2nd Expansion of Western
Filter Plant (1988) 10 15 10 15
3rd Expansion of Western
Filter Plant (2004) 10 15 10 j
Total 20 30 20 30
Summary by Treatment
Facility (After 2004 )
Shades Mountain 56 80 46 92 46 80
Western 40 60 N/A 60 40 60
Putnam 12 18 N/A 25 12 18
Carson 12 20 N/A 25 12 20
Total 120 178 N/A 202 110 178
Source: Water Supply Study for the Water Works Board of
the City of Birmingham, Alabama. Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., April, 1977.
Al —lOl

-------
STUDY AREA PROPERTY TAX
RATES PER $100 ASSESSED VALUE
Jefferson County
County Special
State County County School School Municipal
Municipality Tax Tax School Tax District Tax District Tax Tax Tota
Homewood .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 1.75 5.05
Hoover .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 3.30
Leeds .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 .65 3.95
Mountain Brook .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 3.20 6.50
Trussville .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 3.30
Vestavia Hills .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 2.81 6.11
Outside Any Municipality .65 .95 .60 .70 .40 3.30
St. Clair County
Outside Any Municipality .65 1.55 .80 .50 3.50
Shelby County
Outside Any Municipality .65 1.15 .40 .50 .30 3.00
Source: Metropolitan Development Board, Birmingham, Alabama, April, 1976.

-------
FIGURES
MAN-MADE [ NV I RONr 1ENT

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
RAW WASTEWATER
— COMMINUTORS
GRIT REMOVAL
DECANT LIQUOR BASINS
r — —
A __ __
_______ _______( •\ PRIMARY
CL AR! Fl ERS
I -. _ I YSLUDGL,
I PRIMARY TRICKLING
FILTERS
_________ RECIRCULA
SLUDGE
1?__
SLUDGE
-.-.-.-‘
FINAL
ARIFIERS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
BASIN
FLOW
MEASUREMENT
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
C
SOURCE: BIRMINGHAM METROPOLITAN AREA WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN,
BLACK CROW EIDSNESS, INC. ENGINEERS, AUGUST 975
SECONDARY TRICKLING
FILTERS
TO PATTON CREEK
RECI RCULATIDN
RECI RCULATION
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE
PATTON CREEK WWTP
FIGURE AI-IO
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
SLUDGE
THI CKENER
REGION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
RAW WASTEWATER
AERATION
BASINS
HNAL
CLARI H ERS
CHLORINE
COWl ACT
BASIN
RETURN SLUDGE
SLUDGE
THICKENER
DECANT
LIQUOR
WASTE SLUDGE
__t___i I
ii
-1- T
L BL GE
A GO ON
SLUDGE 1
DRYING
BEDS
TO CAHABA RIVER
SOURCE BIRW NGi AM METROPOLITAN AREA WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN,
BLACK CROW EIOSNESS , INC ENGINEERS, AUGUST 1975
FIGURE Al-H
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
CAHABA WWTP
GRIT REMOVAL BASIN

CHLORI NE
FLOW MEASUREMENT
REGION US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
RAW WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
L .
CHLORI NE
CHLORI NE
CONTACT
BASIN
4
SLUDGE
THICKENER
k
i_ I_ i_ fl
111111111
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
TO LITTLE
CAHABA RIVER
9 CE BIRMINGHAM METROPOLITAN AREA WASTE WATER FACILITIES PLAN,
BLACK CROW EIDSNESS, INC. ENGINEERS, AUGUST 1975
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE
LEEDS WWTP
FIGURE AI- 12
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREP &RED FOR
AL U H
DECANT LLOUOR
£
RECI RCULATION
ALUM
FINAL CLARIFIER
FLOW
MEASUREMENT
REGION & US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
RAW WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
BARN INUTOR
FL OW
MEASUREMENT
TANK
SLUDGE
DECANT LIQUOR

$
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTER
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
SOURCE BIRMINGHAM METROPOLITAN AREA WASTE WATER FACILITIES PLAN,
BLACK CROW EIOSNESS, INC. ENGINEERS, AUGUST 1975
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE
TRUSSVILLE WWTP
RETURN WAST J
SLUD SLUDGE!
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
SLUDGE
TO CAHABA RIVER
CHIORI NE
CONTACT
BASIN
FIGURE AI-13
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
COMM INUTOR
F LOW
MEASUREMENT
LOW RATE
TRI CKLI
FILTER
AERATION
BASIN
(OXIDATION
DITCH)
CLARIFI
CLARI Fl ER
REGION US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
APPENDIX II
ALTERNATIVES EVALUAT ION
AND
IMPACTS ANALYSES

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MODELING All-i
INTRODUCTION All-i
HYDROLOGY AiI-2
QUAL—II AII—i3
CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION-GFCC WATER QUALITY MODELING AII-17
QUAL—Il PREDICTIONS FOR LOW FLOW CONDITIONS AII-i8
FlOW AUGMENTATION ALTERNATIVES AII-22
PRELIMINARY LITTLE CAHABA RIVER SIMULATION AII-4i
EPA WATER QUALITY MODELING AII-46
B. COST EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AII-55
INTRODUCTION AII-59
COST EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AII-59
COST EVALUATION OF OTHER WASTEWATER FACILITIES All- 76
C. OPERABILITY EVALUATION All- 84
INTRODUCTION All- 84
EVALUATION CRITERIA All-S 4
EVALUATION PROCEDURES All-S 5
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS All- 86
E. IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION All- 95
INTRODUCTION All- 95
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES All- 95
F. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY All— 96
INTRODUCTION All- 96
METHODOLOGY All- 96
COST EVALUATION All- 97
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION All- 97
IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION All- 98
OPERABILITY EVALUATION All- 98
APPLICATION All- 98

-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page
G. EVALUATION OP NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE All-ill
INFILL POPULATION AII-112
DEVELOPMENT TRACT POPULATION Al 1-112
SCATTER POPULATION Au—uS
TOTAL NO-ACTION POPULATION PROJECTIONS All-ill
POPULATION DISAGCR.AGATION TO SUBWATERSHED AlI-117
H. ESTIMATION OF SEWERED POPULATION BY SUBDRAINAOE BASIN AII-120
I. NON—POINT SOURCE POLLUTION ANALYSIS All- 136
INTRODUCTION All- 136
PROJECTED LAND USE All- 138
MODELING NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION AII-.138
EXISTING AND PROJECTED NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION All- 149
CONCLUSIONS All- 155

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
All—i
All— 2
AII—3
AII—4
All—S
AII—6
AII—7
AII—9
All—lO
All—li
AII—12
AII—l3
AII—14
Page
All- 3
AII-4
AII-6
AII—8 — AII—9
AII—12
AlI-16
Al 1—21
All _2 3
All— 24
All— 25
All— 26 — AII—38
AII-39
A u— 40
All— 42
AII—8
AII—19 — AII—20
Low—Flow Partial—Record Gaging Stations
Calculation of 7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow Runoff Factors
7—Day, 10—Year Low Flows - Cahaba
Stream Gaging Stations
Summary of the Big Black Creek Reservoir System
Reaeration Coefficients and Constants for Flow
Equation — QUAL—Il
Characteristics of Tributary Flows and Wastewater
Discharges — QUAL—Il Calibration
Characteristics of Tributary Flows and Wastewater
Discharges — QUAL—II Verification with June,
1977 Barton Lab Data
QUAL—II Simulations for the Cahaba River — Existing
7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow
QUAL—Il Simulations for the Cahaba River — Existing
7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow
QUAL—Il Simulations for the Cahaba River — Existing
7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow
Sample QUAL—Il Printout
QUAL—Il Simulations for the Cahaba River — Existing
7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow Plus Augmentation
Available by Raising Lake Purdy Dam 10 Feet
QUAL—Il Simulations for the Cahaba River — Natural
7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow
QUAL—Il Simulations for the Cahaba River —
Augmentation from Proposed Middle Black Creek
Reservoir
QUAL—II Simulations for the Cahaba River —
Augmentation from Proposed Big Black Creek
Reservoir
AII—l5
All— 16
All— 43

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont’d)
Table Page
AII—17 QUAL—II Simulations for the Cahaba River —
Augmentation from Three Proposed Reservoirs in
Big Black Creek Basin All- 44
AII—18 QUAL—Il Simulations for the Little Cahaba River —
Existing 7—Day, 10—Year Low Flow All- 45
AII—19 Construction Cost Estimating Curves All— 60
AII—20 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Curves All- 61
Afl—21 Breakdown of Project Overhead as a Percentage of
Construction and Site Costs All— 63
AIl—22 Unit Process Construction and Project Costs, Cahaba
Plant — Leeds—Trussville—Cahaba Alternative All— 64
AII—23 Unit Process Operation, Maintenance, Materials, and
Supply Costs, Cahaba Plant — Leeds—Trussville—
Cahaba Alternative All- 65
AII—24 Spray Irrigation Site Summary All- 66
AII—25 Spray Irrigation Component Costs All- 67
AII—26 Flow Augmentation Systems All- 69
AII—27 Reservoir Costs Summary, Big Black Creek All— 70
AII—28 Little Black Creek Reservoir — Breakdown of Costs All— 71
AII—29 Year 2000 — Salvage Value as a Percentage of Initial
Construction Costs All- 73
AII—30 Operation and Maintenance Cost Present Worth
Calculations — Alternative: Leeds—Trussville—
Cahaba All- 74
AII—31 Capital and Total Cost Present Worth Calculations —
Alternative: Leeds—Trussville --Cahaba All- 75
AII—32 Construction and Project Cost Estimates for Local
Collection Systems All— 78
AII—33 Jefferson County Wastewater Facilities Operation
and Maintenance Costs All- 79

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont’d)
Table Pag
AII-34 Package Treatment Plants for Future Development Tracts AII-81
AII—35 Septic System Costs — Action/No Action AII-82
fl—36 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts AII-87 — AII-94
111—37 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Overton—Cahaba AII-99
111—38 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Upper Cahaba—Cahaba AII—lOO
AII-39 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Leeds—Trussville-Cahaba AtI—lOl
111—40 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Leeds (Cahaba R.) —
Trussville—Cahaba AII-102
111—41 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Trussville—Cahaba AII—103
111—42 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Cahaba AII-104
111—43 Cost Effectivenss Rating for Patton Creek—Upper
Cahaba—Cahaba AII-l05
111-44 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Patton Creek (via
Cahaba River) — Upper Cahaba—Cahaba AII—106
1 11-45 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Upper Cahaba —
Cahaba—Patton Creek Pretreatment AII-107
111-46 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Upper Cahaba Spray
Irrigation — Cahaba A 1I408
111-47 Cost Effectiveness Rating for Leeds Spray
Irrigation — Trussvi lle—Cahaba AII-109
111—48 Cost Effectiveness Rating of Alternatives AII- .lO
111-49 Potential Development within Community Boundaries
(Inf ill Populations) AII-113—114
1 1 1-50 Development Tracts in the Basin AII-116
111—51 Scatter Population Projections A 1 14l8
111-52 No—Action Population Summary AII-119

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont’d )
Table Page
AII—53 AII—l2l — AII-l23
AII—54 AII—124 — AII—l26
AII—55 AII—127 — AII—129
AII—56 AII—130 — AII—132
AII—57 AII—l33 — AII —135
AII—58 AII—137
AI1—59 AII—139
AII—60 AII—l 4 0
AII—61 AII—L41 — AII—142
AII—62 All— 143— AII—144
AII—63
AII—146
AII—64 AII-l48
Al 1—6 5
All— 150— All— 151
A1I—66
Percent Sewered Population — Overton—Cahaba
Percent Sewered Population — Upper Cahaba—Cahaba
Percent Sewered Population — Leeds—Trussville—Cahaba
Percent Sewered Population — Trussville—Cahaba
Percent Sewered Population — Cahaba Alternative
Nonpoint Source Pollution Characteristics
Urban Non—Point Source Loads for a Typical Storm Event
Characteristics of Urban Stormwater
Existing Land Use
Land Use Under the Proposed Action — Year 2000
Temporal Distribution of 6—Hour, 10—Year Storm for
Jefferson County, Alabama
Loading Factors for Urban Runoff Model
Existing Non—Point Source Pollutant Loads for
Selected Parameters — 6—Hour, 10—Year Storm
Event
Projected Non—Point Source Pollutant Loads for
Selected Parameters — 6—Hour, 10—Year Storm
Event, Year 2000
All— 152

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following Page
All—i Stream Schematic, QUAL—Il Modeling —
Cahaba River AII—15
AII—2 QUAL—Il Adjustments at Water Supply
Intake — Cahaba River AII-17
AII—3 Calibration with 1972 AWIC Data —
Dissolved Oxygen AII—20
AII—4 Calibration with 1972 AWIC Data — BOD 5 AII—20
AII—5 Calibration with 1972 AWIC Data — Ammonia A u- 20
AII—6 Calibration with 1972 AWIC Data — Nitrate AII—2O
AII—7 Verification with June, 1977 Barton Lab
Data — Dissolved Oxygen AII—2l
AII—8 Verification with June, 1977 Barton Lab
Data — BOD 5 AII—2l
AII—9 Verification with June, 1977 Barton Lab
Data — Ammonia AII—21
All—lO Verification with June, 1977 Barton Lab
Data — Nitrate AII—21
All—il Stream Schematic, QUAL—Il Modeling —
Little Cahaba River AII-44

-------
A. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MODELING
INTRODUCTION
This section of Appendix II discusses mathematical modeling of hydro-
logy and water quality of the Cahaba River within the EIS study area. Corn-’
puter models have been used in this study to simulate the major physical,
chemical and biological occurences in the river system. The models employed
were adapted to the Cahaba River and were shown to represent past and
existing conditions. Therefore, it was possible to use these programs to
predict future water quality conditions and to determine required wastewater
treatment levels and/or amounts of flow augmentation to prevent serious
deterioration of water quality.
Several past studies of the Cahaba River Basin have employed com-
puter models to varying degrees. These efforts are reviewed here as back-
ground for the development of the mathematical models used in the EIS
preparation.
The Alabama Water Improvement Commission (AWIC), as part of the 303
Ce) study of the Cahaba River Basin, used the EPA water quality model
SNSIM—II. This model performs a steady—state, one—dimensional simulation
of dissolved oxygen, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, and nitro-
genous biochemical oxygen demand.
Mr. Ronald Holley, as part of his graduate degree work, continued
AWIC’s modeling study by doing further work on calibration and verification
of the SNSIM—II model. Sensitivity analyses of five of the model’s
input parameters were also performed by Holley.
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., under contract to EPA,
adapted the water quality models QUAL and DOSAG to the Cahaba River.
Steady-state, one—dimensional simulations of dissolved oxygen, biochemical
oxygen demand, the inorganic nitrogen cycle, phosphate, and conservative
chemical substances could be performed with these calibrated and veri-
fied programs.
In this study, both hydrologic and water quality models were used
to evaluate the effects of proposed wastewater treatment and flow aug—
jnentation alternatives on water quality of the Cahaba River. The pre—
liniinary hydrologic analysis which included use of the U.S., Army Corps
of Engineers model HEC—3 is described in this appendix. The capabilities
and limitations of QUAL—Il, the instream water quality model employed in
this study, are given. Use of QUAL—II involved efforts by GFC&C at cali- ’
brating and verifying the model with available water quality data. This
effort was then refined by the Technical Support Branch of the EPA, Region
IV, resulting in a verified model of the reach from the Cahaba WWTP to Buck
Creek. The results of both GFC&C’s and the EPA’s calibration and veri-
fication efforts are discussed and illustrated later in this section.
AII—l

-------
The GFC&C Qual—Il nodel was used as a preliminary evaluation tool
for various wastewater treatment and flow augmentation proposals. New
NPDES permit, 1983, and year 2000 treatment requirements for the Cahaba
Plant were determined by EPA with the refined version of this model.
Results of these analyses are sirmm r1zed here and in Chapter III of
the EIS.
RYDROLOGY
Analysis of the hydrology of the Cahaba River Basin was a necessary
component of the evaluation of wastewater disposal alternatives. The 7—day,
10—year low flow of the basin was chosen as the critical hydrologic regime
for assessment of water quality; therefore, determination of this low flow
was required. Included In the wastewater disposal alternatives considered
here were several schemes involving flow augmentation from new or expanded
reservoirs. Analysis of streainflow- and reservoir operation was necessary
to quantify the amount of flow augmentation available from these reservoirs.
Low Flow
The 7—day, 10-year low flows were calculated in terms of a low flow
runoff factor for the Cahaba River drainage basin and for the Little Cahaba
River drainage basin. It was assumed that the ratio of median 7—day low
flow to the 7—day, 10—year low flow was constant for the Cahaba River Basin.
This ratio was calculated from records available for several low—flow
partial—record gaging stations located in or near the study area. A suimnary
of this information is given in Table All—i. Values of the median 7—day
low flow runoff factor on an areal basis were also available.
The ratio defined above is also equal to the ratio of the corresponding
runoff factors. This can be seen readily from the following equation:
Median 7—day low flow ( Median 7—day low flow runoff factor) x (drainage are
7—day, 10-year low flow (7 -day, 10—year low flow runoff factor)x(drainage area)
median 7—day low flow runoff factor
7—day, 10—year low flow runoff factor
Therefore, the 7—day, 10—year low flow runoff factor can be calculated
by dividing the median 7—day low flow runoff factor by the ratio of the
low flows. These calculation. for the Cahaba River Basin and the Little
Cahaba River Basin are si nrtarized in Table AII—2.
The 7—day, 10—year low flow runoff factor for the Cahaba River was
adjusted upward to 0.06 cf am for several reasons. The estimated median
7—day low flow at the Lovick gage, the only gage in the Cahaba River portion
of the study area, was 0.087 cfsm. A 7—day, 10—year low flow value on the
order of 0.06 cfsm would reproduce the low flow ratio of 1.4 at the Lovick
gage more closely than the calculated value of 0.04 cfsin. Also, downstream
portions of the Cahaba Basin and areas adjacent to the Basin all have
higher median 7—day low flow runoff factors than the 0.05 cfsm value used
in the calculations. Since all these median 7—day low flow runoff factors
are given on an average areal basis, it is possible that local runoff
factors vary somewhat from these averages.
AII—2

-------
TABLE All-i
LOW-FLOW PARTIAL-RECORD GAGING STATIONS
(a) Median (b) 7—Day,
U.S.G.S. 7—Day 10—Year
Index Low Flow Low Flow Ratio
Number Gage Name ( cfs) ( cfs) ( a)/(b )
02—423300 Cahaba River at Lovick 10.0 7.0 1.4
02—423550 Buck Creek at Helena 17.0 12.0 1.4
02—423398 Little Cahaba River at Leeds 6.2 4.4 1.4
Source: Peirce, L.B., 7—Day Low Flows and Flow Duration of Alabama Streams ,
Geological Survey of Alabama, Bulletin 87, Part A, University, Alabama, 1967.
All— 3

-------
TABLE AII—2
CALCULATION OF 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOW RUNOFF FACTORS
Basin
Cahaba
River
Median 7—Day
Low Flow Runoff
Factor (cfsm) 1
Ratio of
Low Flows 2
1.4
7-Day, 10—Year
Low Flow Runoff
Factor (cfsm)
0.04
0.05
Little
Cahaba River 0.35
1.4
0.25
(1) The values given on Plate 3 for the Little Cahaba River Basin were 0.3—
0.5 cfsm. 0.35 cfsm was used because the estimated median 7—day low
flow at the Leeds gaging station was given as 0.354 cfsm.
(2) See Table All—i.
Source: Peirce, L.B., 7—Day Low Flows and Flow Duration of Alabama Streams ,
Plate 3
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
AII—4

-------
The 7—day, 10—year low flow runoff factor for the Little Cahaba River
was satisfactory as derived. The estimated median 7—day low flow at the
Leeds gage was 0.354 cf sin. The derived 7—day, 10—year low flow value of
0.25 cf sin, therefore, produced the desired low flow ratio of 1.4.
Therefore, the 7—day, 10—year low flow runoff factors derived were
0.06 cfsm for the Cahaba River Basin and 0.25 cfsm for the Little Cahaba
River Basin. These values have been confirmed independently, as is
explained in the next section of this appendix.
Existing and Natural Low Flows
The hydrology of the study area is greatly affected by regulation,
particularly during low flow conditions. Just downstream from the con-
fluence with the Little Cahaba River, the Cahaba is impounded by a low—
level diversion dam to create the required pooi for the Birmingham Water
Works Board Intake. During low flow, virtually all of the Cahaba’s flow
is withdrawn for water supply, releases from Lake Purdy are increased to
meet the water supply demand, and almost no water flows over the diversion
dam. To account for this altered hydrology, two types of 7—day, 10—year
low flow have been identified: natural low flow and existing low flow.
The natural 7—day, 10—year low flow is defined here as the 7—day low
flow that has a recurrence interval of 10 years and that would exist in the
absence of all impoundments, withdrawals and interbasin transfers. Using
the low flow runoff factors derived in the previous section, natural 7—day,
10—year low flows were calculated. At the request of EPA, the U.S.
Geological Survey did an independent estimate of the natural low flow*,
which agreed closely with the estimates done for the EIS. The U.S.G.S.
calculated a flow of 20 cfs in the Cahaba River at U.S. Highway 280
while this study derived a flow of approximately 21 cfs at the same location.
Existing 7—day, 10—year low flows for the Cahaba River were based on
the natural 7—day, 10—year low flow with the following differences: 1) flow
over the diversion dam was assumed to be nonexistent; 2) flow from the
Little Cahaba River included the release from Lake Purdy necessary to
meet the water supply withdrawal; 3) upstream of the water supply diversion
darn, wastewater treatment plant flows to the Cahaba were considered as
additions to the natural low flow, since at low flow the ultimate source
of almost all the flow through the treatment plants is the Little Cahaba
River Basin. A summary of natural and existing 7—day, 10—year low flows
is given in Table AII—3.
Hydrology of Flow Augmentation Alternatives
Determination of the amount of flow augmentation available from the
new or expanded reservoirs included in several of the wastewater disposal
alternatives was necessary. Analysis of the relevant streamfiows and the
operation of these reservoirs was performed.
*Letter to Mr. John Hagan, U. S.EPA, Region IV from Mr. Roy Bingham, U.S.G.S.,
Tuscalosa, Alabama, July 28, 1977.
All—S

-------
TABLE AII-3
7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOWS — CAHABA
River Mile 1 Location Existing (cfs) 2 Natural (cfs )
180.5 Immediately upstream 1.2 1.2
of Trussvllle WWTP
149.6 At water supply intake 11.4 8.8
147.0 Immediately downstream 0.0 20.7
of diversion dam
138.7 Immediately upstream 1.8 22.5
of Cahaba WWTP
(1) See Figure All—i of this appendix.
(2) This includes estimated average wastewater treatment plant f1o s for 1977
and assumed no leakage through the diversion dam.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
kII—6

-------
Because there are no unregulated strearnflow gages other than partial—
record gages on the Cahaba River watershed, records from gages on nearby
watersheds having similar hydrologic characteristics were investigated to
determine the most appropriate station for transposing to ungaged sites of
interest in the Cahaba Basin.
Drainage area, latitude and longitude, location, datum of gage, period
of record, and information relating to the accuracy of the discharge records
and to conditions that affect the natural flow at the gaging station have
been recorded for each station and are presented in Table AII—4.
Since the gages on Hatchet Creek and Turkey Creek had the longest
period of record of the gages investigated, the flows at these gages were
regressed with the corresponding years of records of the other stations.
Results of the regression analysis show the best correlation between the
Turkey Creek gage and the Cahaba River gage near Acton, the Acton data
adjusted to account for the upstream regulation. The linear regression
equation relating the flows at the Cahaba River gage (Y) to the flows at
Turkey Creek (X) is:
Y = 2.828 (X) — 27.16
with the coefficient of correlation equal to 0.969. Since the correlation
between the flows is high, this relationship can be arranged in the follow-
ing form.
Q Turkey Creek/drainage area Turkey Creek\
Slope of Regression line .
Q Cahaba River drainage area Cahaba River
Substitution of the regression line slope and the drainage areas gives a
value of the exponent n equal to 1.002, or essentially unity. This means
that flows to any reservoir site in the Cahaba Basin can be reliably simu—
lated using the flow records of the nearby Turkey Creek gage and a ratio
of the drainage areas.
With the basis of the hydrologic methodology set, alternative
reservoir systems were then evaluated to determine the safe yield. Safe
yield is defined in the glossary of Water and Wastewater Control Engineering ,
1969 Edition, as: “The maximum dependable draft that can be made continuous-
ly on a source of water supply (surface or underground) during a period of
years during which the probable driest period or period of greatest
deficiency in water supply is likely to occur.” This definition applies
equally well to reservoirs supplying augmentation releases f or water quality
contro 1.
Safe yield calculations were performed using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ HEC—3 Computer Model. The model is simply a computerized book-
keeping procedure which accounts for reservoir inf lows, net evaporation
(rainfall—lake evaporation), reservoir releases, and leakage through the
dam. All accounting is based on monthly time intervals. All safe yield
calculations were based on the assumption that 25 percent of reservoir
storage would be held in reserve. This is a generally accepted value in
the field of hydraulic engineering. The purpose of this reserve storage
is twofold: first, to allow for reservoir sedimentation over the life of
AlI—7

-------
TABLE AII—4
STREAM GAGING STATIONS
USGS Drainage Datum of
Index Area Period Latitude! Gage
Number Gage Name ( sq. mi.) of Record Longitude County ( ms l) Remarks
02—423500 Cahaba River near 230 Oct. 1938— 330 21’ 48” Jefferson 375.00 Since 1938 the
Acton Sept. 1957 86° 48’ 48” Birmingham Water Works
Board has withdrawn
water for water supply
from the Board’s
diversion dam located
approximately 11 miles
upstream of the gage.
Flow partly regulated
since 1910 by Lake
Purdy, Little Cahaba
River.
02—423630 Shades Creek near 72.4 Oct. 1964— 33° 19’ 34” Jefferson 480.37 Records good
Greenwood Sept. 1965; 86° 59’ 59”
Oct. 1966—
Sept. 1973;
Oct. 1974—
Current
02—423800 Little Cahaba near 148 Oct. 1957— 33° 03’ 27” Bibb 325.00 Records good
Brierfield Sept. 1970 86° 57’ 10”

-------
TABLE AII—4 (Cont’d.)
STREAM GAGING STATIONS
USGS Drainage Datum of
Index Area Period Latitude! Gage
Number Gage Name ( sq. mi.) of Record Longitude County ( msl) Remarks
02—408500 Hatchet Creek near 244 Oct. 1944— 32° 56’ 42” Coosa 449.00 Records good
Brierfield Current 86° 13’ 06”
02—456000 Turkey Creek at 81.5 Jan. 1944— 33° 44’ 25” Jefferson 345.18 Records good
Morris Current 86° 48’ 45”
Source: USGS, Water Resources Data for Alabama, Water Year 1975 , USGS Water Data Report AL—75—1
USGS, 1970 Water Resources Data for Alabama, Part 1. Surface Water Records .

-------
the project and, second, to limit drawdown for aesthetic and public health
reasons. The critical period of analysis was based on the driest period on
record in the area which occured during the 1945 through 1975 water years.
nnua1 net evaporative losses amounted to 42.0 inches per year based on
records from U.S. Weather Bureau Class—A pans at Demopolis and Lake Martin,
Alzbama and a pan coefficient of 0.78. In summary, the HEC—3 model permits
a computerized solution to the traditional graphical mass curve analysis of
reservoir inflow and demand. The model utilizes an optimization routine
to determine the maximum yield of the reservoir, given 75 percent effective
volume.
Calculations performed for the portion of the Little Cahaba River
watrshed impounded by Lake Purdy alone indicated a safe yield of 21 mgd.
If ater were taken from below Lake Purdy directly, this is the level of
uppi> that could be safely anticipated during the most serious drought
Luring the 1945 through 1975 period of record.
£his safe yield figure is based on an average month—to—month release
rate during extended periods of reservoir drawdown. In general, the iim-
r sition of a variable monthly draft on a reservoir system gives a more
realisti. picture of the effect of peak demand periods coinciding with low
streamfiows. However, this condition is not critical for reservoir systems
nalysis as long as the overall water budget is maintained. HEC—3 main—
:ains a check and balance on the water budget because if variable monthly
drafts were modeled, peak monthly release rates would be accompanied by a
reduced evaporative loss since an increased drawdown means a smaller
reservoir surface area. In addition, average month—to—month demands are
justified by the expectation that peak demands would be curtailed during
critical periods with the imposition of conservation measures.
To supplement this analysis, ten 50—year periods of monthly streamflow
were generated at the Turkey Creek gage and transposed to the Lake Purdy
drainage area using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC—4 computer model.
Statistical simulation is a technique of reproducing the behavior of a
system, in this case the monthly streamfiows, in conformance with a certain
probability distribution based on an analysis of historical streamflow
records. HEC—4 computes the mean, standard deviation, skew coefficient, and
correlation coefficient for each station and calendar month and then gener-
ates hypothetical streamflows by computing a regression equation for each
station and month by the Crout matrix method. These ten sets of synthetic
streamflows, which have a statistical probability of occurring, indicate
a safe yield ranging between 22 and 25 mgd.
Hydrologic modeling indicates the safe yield of the Cahaba River system
at the low—head diversion dam to be 46 mgd. This estimate included allowance
for the estimated existing leakage of 5.6 mgd through the flashboards at
the top of the diversion dam.*
Prinie, Inc., Water Supply Study , prepared for the Water Works
Board of the City of Birmingham, Alabama, April, 1977.
Al 1—10

-------
From this point on it has been assumed that any additional storage
provided either at Lake Purdy or by new impoundments on the Big Black
Creek Basin would be used for low—flow augmentation.
One alternative addressed the feasibility of modifications to the
Lake Purdy Dam to provide 10 feet of additional storage on the Little
Cahaba. Raising the spiliway from elevation 551.0 feet ms1 to 561.0
feet msl will increase the total storage volume from 5,682 million gallons
to about 10,000 million gallons. However, the safe yield of the reservoir
is increased only from 33 cfs (21.3 mgd) to 44 cfs (28.4 ingd).
Assuming that the maximum drawdown elevation associated with 75 per-
cent usable volume in the existing reservoir remains fixed for the situation
of raising the spillway to elevation 561.0 feet msl, the performance of the
two reservoirs can be compared without bias. Effective storage will increase
from 4,260 million gallons to 8,580 million gallons. Defining reservoir
performance in terms of a storage—yield relationship, the performance ratio
for Lake Purdy with existing spiliway elevation is 0.20 billion gallons
(BG) of storage required for each mgd of yield, while the performance
ratio for the reservoir created by raising the spiliway 10 feet increases
to 0.30 BG per mgd of yield.
The results indicate that a significant increase in effective volume
(approximately 100 percent) produces a relatively small increase in safe
yield (approximately 33 percent). This can be explained in part by the
increase in annual evaporation losses caused by increasing the reservoir
surface area.
A system of proposed reservoirs in the Big Black Creek tributary
system in St. Clair County, Alabama has been evaluated. The hydrologic
feasibility of constructing one or more reservoirs in the Big Black Creek
area was examined.
Once again, reservoir inflows to the three reservoir sites were
synthesized by transposing the 31—year record (1945 through 1975) from the
Turkey Creek gage near Norris, Alabama and adjusting for drainage area
ratios. Table AII—5 lists pertinent facts for the Big Black Creek, Middle
Black Creek, and Little Black Creek reservoir sites.
Stage and storage curves were obtained for each of the three proposed
reservoirs from the 201 Facilities plan prepared by Black, Crow and Eidsness,
Inc. Reservoir surface areas were planimetered from USGS 7.5 minute quad-
rangle sheets.
HEC—3 was run for each of the reservoirs with the safe yield computing
to 19 cfs (12.3 mgd) for the Big Black Creek site, 7 cfs (4.5 mgd) for the
Middle Black Creek site, and 15 cfs (9.7 mgd) for the Little Black Creek
site. As was done to supplement the safe yield calculation at Lake Purdy,
HEC —4 was employed to statistically simulate ten periods of 50 years of
monthly streamflows to the reservoir system. A statistical model preserves
the basic seasonal, cyclic fluctuations of monthly streamfiows. These ten
sequences of synthetic streamflows indicate a safe yield ranging between
All—il

-------
TABLE AII-5
SUMMARY OF TEE BIG BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR SYSTEM
Storage
Volume at
Surface
Drainage
Spiliway
Top of Dam
Spiliway
Area at
Area
Elevation
Elevation
(billion
Spiliway
Reservoir
(sq. mi.)
(feet, msl)
(feet, msl)
gallons)
(acres)
Big Black Creek
14.8
668
683
9.775
845
Middle Black Creek
6.5
640
655
1.955
220
Little Black Creek
11.7
660
675
5.865
400
Source: Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater
Facilities Plan , prepared for the Jefferson County Commission, Birming-
ham, Alabama, August, 1975.
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
AII— 1 2

-------
11.6 mgd and 12.9 mgd for the Big Black Creek site, 3.9 mgd and 5.2 iiigd for
the Middle Black Creek site, and between 8.4 ingd and 10.3 mgd for the
Little Black Creek site.
In order to properly assess the additional water supplied by these
reservoirs during low—flow conditions, values for the existing 7—day, 10—
year low flow have to be accounted for. Estimates of the 7—day, 10—year
low flows for the three Big Black Creek tributaries were 1.3 cfs for Big
Black Creek, 0.4 cfs for Middle Black Creek, and 0.7 cfs for Little Black
Creek.
QUAL-IT
Simulation of water quality of the Cahaba River Basin was performed
using the mathematical model QUAL—Il. QUAL—Il is a computer program
originally developed by Water Resources Engineers, Inc. for the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency.* The program has the ability to simulate
the transport and interaction of various water quality constituents and
their effect on dissolved oxygen concentration in streams.
Capabilities
A river basin consisting of a primary river, individual tributaries,
point sources of pollutants to these rivers, and incremental inflow to the
system can be modeled with QUAL—II. Water quality parameters that can be
simulated are dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), organic
nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, orthophosphates, coliform bacteria,
and conservative chemical substances. In addition to modeling the trans-
port and chemical interaction of potential pollutants, QIJAL—Il describes
instream sources and sinks of these substances, including addition of ammonia,
orthophosphates, and BOD from benthic deposits, BOD removal by settling,
impact of algal activity on concentrations of ammonia, nitrate, ortho—
phosphates and dissolved oxygen, and effect of atmospheric reaeration on
dissolved oxygen.
Several important assumptions are embodied in QUAL—li. In reality,
water quality parameters vary with all three spatial dimensions of a river
and also with time. However, certain of these variations may be insignificant
or information about them may not be required for a particular analysis.
In addition, three—dimensional, time—variant models are extremely
complex and are not yet reliable tools for water resources engineering; it
is therefore desirable to make whatever simplifying assumptions are valid.
QUAL—Il is a steady—state model, i.e., a model in which it is assumed
that none of the parameters--being modeled vary with time. Constant values
for flow in the main river and its tributaries and for incremental inflow
to the system are used. Municipal and industrial wastewater flows are
assumed to be constant point sources. These assumption are generally valid
for the level of water quality analysis required for this study.
*P esner, L. A., J. R. Monser, and D. E. Evenson, Computer Program Documen-
tation for the Stream Quality Model QUAL—Il , prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Systems Development Branch, Washington D.C., l1ay, 1973.
AII—l3

-------
In order to evaluate the impact of various wastewater treatment
alternatives on the Cahaba River Basin, the worst case with respect to
water quality must be identified. If water quality goals are met for this
worst case, then it is not necessary to analyze the system under less
severe conditions. The constant 7—day, 10—year low flow in the river sys-
tem was the worst hydrologic case considered here. Thus, there was no neces-
sity to consider temporal variations of flow and water quality with river
stage variations at higher flows. Temporal variations -must be considered
for surface water bodies which are strongly influenced by tidal action suck
as estuaries; this is not the case with the Cahaba River.
An additional consideration in the use of a steady state model is the
availability of data required to calibrate and verify the model. Adequate
data describing flow and water quality of a river system for calibration
and verification of a steady—state model are sometimes not available. With
a non—steady state model, the data requirements are many times greater and
are not likely to be satisfied unless a special data collection effort
geared to the needs of non—steady state modeling is undertaken.
The second major assumption made in QUAL—II concerns the number of
spatial dimensions with which flow and water quality may vary. The equa-
tions describing pollutant transport are averaged over the depth and the
width of the river to give one—dimensional predictions along the length.
of the river. The variation of water quality with depth in a shallow
river such as the Cahaba is generally not significant. Variations over
the width of the river may be more noticeable, but the greatly increased
model complexity and data requirements necessary to account for these
variations are not justifiable here. A one—dimensional simulation such as
QUAL—Il applied with judgment, reasonable factors of safety, and under-
standing of its limitations provides a valid and useful analytical tool for
evaluating wastewater disposal alternatives for the Cahaba River Basin.
River Basin Configuration
The geometry of a river system is represented by a series of comnputa—
tional elements and reaches In QUAL—II. This is a direct result of the
finite difference solution required to solve the system of pollutant trans-
port equations used here. The river is divided into discrete nodes (or
computational elements, as they are called by Water Resources Engineers,
Inc.). Concentrations of the water quality parameters are calculated at
each node, these representing average values for small discrete lengths of
river.
Computational elements are grouped into reaches, which are stretches
of river having constant hydraulic, chemical and biological characteristics.
Flows from tributaries, wastewater sources, incremental inf low and headwaters
are input to QUAL—Il. The model then calculates velocity for each
computational element, using an empirical equation of the form:
V aQm
AII—14

-------
aliere V is velocity in feet per second and Q is flow in cubic feet per
oecond. The coefficient and exponent in this equation are determined
,irical1y and are constant for each reach. The reaeration coefficient
In the oxygen deficit equation is another major hydraulically—dependent
parameter which is constant for each reach. This coefficient may be cal-
culated with one of six empirical formulas included in QUAL—Il or may be
n plied by the model user.
In the GFC&C modeling effort, the Cahaba River was divided into 103
coaputational elements of half—mile length. The elements were grouped into
13 reaches with constant properties. These reaches were almost identical
to those used by AWIC and by Holley in their modeling studies. A stick
diagram of the Cahaba River, as modeled here, is given in Figure All—i.
The river mile numbering system used was derived from previous studies and
from USGS 7—1/2 minute quadrangle maps of the region. River mile locations
of point sources were rounded off to the nearest one—half mile.
The values used for the constants in the flow equations were derived
from low flow information used by AWIC and by Holley in their models. The
reaeration coefficients were calculated by Tsivoglou’s empirical formula*,
a widely accepted formula appropriate for streams like the Cahaba River.
This formula is not included as one of the options of QUAL—II. Values of
the reaeration coefficients and the constants for the flow equation are
suanarized in Table AII—6. The velocity coefficients and exponents shown
reflect the relatively small variability of velocity with flow in the main
channel of the Cahaba River. With approximately constant velocities under
different flow regimes, reaeration coefficients did not have to be recalcu—-
lated for the various alternatives analyzed.
Was tewater Sources and Tributaries
Figure AII—l shows the point sources which were evaluated in this
deling study. All existing and proposed municipal wastewater treatment
discharges were included, as was the Gold—Kist plant in Trussville. Ten
aajor tributaries were included as point sources. Tributaries with
drainage areas less than five square miles were treated as incremental
ri*ioff, which QUAL—Il averages into the river flow over the length of each
reach. The Gold—Kist discharge was combined with the flow from Little
Cahaba Creek since these discharges are located much closer together
than the half—mile computational element length used here and only one point
source per computational element is possible.
For analyses which included the wastewater treatment plant on Patton
Creek, water quality and flow input for the tributary reflected the effects
of the treatment plant. More detailed information about the characteristics
of the point sources is given where appropriate in the remainder of this
appendix.
*Tsivoglou, E. and J. Wallace, t ( aracterization of Stream Reaeration Capacity tt ,
RPAR3 .-72—012, USEPA, Washington, DC, 1972.
AII—l5

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
TABLE AII- .6
REAERATION COEFFICIENTS AND
CONSTANTS FOR FLOW EQUATION — QUAL—II
Reaerat ion
Coefficient Velocity Velocity
Reach ( day ) Coefficient a Exponent m
1 2.40 0.3 0.01
2 2.43 0.3 0.01
3 3.26 0.4 0.01
4 3.26 0.4 0.01
5 1.45 0.4 0.01
6 1.09 0.3 0.01
7 1.09 ;O.4 0.01
8 0.35 0.1 0.01
9 1.05 0.3 0.01
10 1.06 0.3 0.01
11 1.07 0.3 0.01
12 1.09 0.3 0.01
13 1.09 0.3 0.01
Source: Correspondence from Mr. James Mclndoe, Alabama Water Improvement
Commission, to Dr. Thomas Rachford, Gannett Fleming Corddry and
Carpenter, Inc., November 29, 1976.
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
All— 16

-------
Water Supply Withdrawal
In addition to point sources of inflow to a river, QUAL—Il can simu-
late withdrawals of water. There is one major withdrawal in the study area,
namely, the Birmingham Water Works Board intake at approximately river mile
149.6. Approximately 2.0 miles downstream of the intake is the confluence of
the Little Cahaba River with the Cahaba River. Another 0.5 miles downstream
of the confluence, the river is impounded by a low—level dam. From this
diversion dam to the water supply intake, the river flows slowly upstream
during low flow periods.
QIJAL—Il simulates steady one—dimensional flow in a river and cannot
accurately model the unusual hydraulics in the vicinity of the water supply
withdrawal. Therefore, the computational elements in the reaches including
the intake, the Little Cahaba River, and the diversion dam were adjusted as
shown in Figure AII—2. Holley used a similar approximation in his work. At
low flow, virtually all the flow of the Little Cahaba River Is withdrawn
for water supply and there is no flow over the diversion dam. Therefore,
water quality downstream of the diversion dam at low flow was essentially
independent of conditions upstream of the dam and the approximation shown
here was valid. For augmentation alternatives in which there was flow over
the diversion dam, critical water quality was found to occur well upstream
of the water supply intake and again the approximation was valid.
A second small withdrawal at the location of the diversion dam was
used as a computational convenience. This allowed flows to be balanced and
the pool behind the diversion dam to be accounted for.
CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION - GFC&C WATER QUALITY MODELING
No model can be used for predictive purposes unless it has first been
calibrated against one set of data and verified against at least one addi-
tional set of data. Initial estimates of values for reaction rate constants
and reaeratlon coefficients can be varied during calibration to force a
model to represent the data. These variations must be realistic if the
model is to serve its purpose of representing a real system. Once this
first set of data has been fit by the model, the next step is verification
of the model. The water quality predicted by the model using point source
inputs and flow conditions given by a second set of data is compared to
the in—stream water quality data. During verification, no changes are made
with any of the rate constants or other parameters that have been determined
during calibration. If the model’s results compare favorably with the water
quality shown in the data, the model is said to be verified.
AWIC’s 1972 water quality survey data for August 21 to September 8
was obtained from EPA’s STORET program and utilized in the initial efforts
to calibrate this model. This data set was chosen because it was the best,
low flow data set available when the modeling efforts were initiated. For
the calibration, flow information for the Cahaba River and its tributaries
were derived from the 303(e) plan, Holley’s work, and the Lockheed study.
Treatment .plant. flows were obtained from the Birmingham 201 Wastewater
FacilitIes Plan, when this data was not available in the AWIC survey.
Concentrations of dissolved oxygen, BOD, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate
isèrged.f O treatment plants were obtained from data in the 201 report,
NPDES permit information, and judgment based on the performance of similar
AII—l7

-------
WATER SUPPLY INTAKE LITTLE CAHABA RIVER
149.5 149.5
WATER SUPPLY INTAKE
149.0
LITTLE CAHABA RIVER
‘47.5
DIVERSION DAM DIVERSION DAM
147.0 147.0
ACTUAL ADJUSTED
FIGURE Afl2
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
QUAL-IE ADJUSTMENTS DRAFT EIS
AT WATER SUPPLY PRE RED
INTAKE -CAl-IA BA RIVER REGION1 US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
wastewater treatment plants. Table AII—7 gives the point source flows and
water quality characteristics used in the calibration. BOD 5 and dissolved
oxygen (DQ) concentrations in the incremental runoff and ‘ flows
were set at 2 mg/i and 7 mg/i, respectively, except in the more urbanized
reaches near the Trussville and Cahaba was tewater treatment plants (reaches
2 and 11) where values of 5 mg/l DO and 3 mg/i BOD 5 were used. Ammonia
(as nitrogen) and nitrate (as nitrogen) concentrations were set at 0.2 and
0.3 mg/i respectively for incremental runoff and for tributary flows.
Calibration runs were made varying the reaction rates for ROD oxida-
tion, NH3 oxidation and N02 oxidation. Final reaction rates selected were
a ROD oxidatithi rate of 0.25 day , a BOD settling rate of 0.05 dayl, and
rates for ammonia and nitrite oxidation of 0.35 and 1.75 day . Results
from GFC&C’s final calibration run are shown in Figures AII—3 through AII—6.
For use in verification of the model by GFC&C, data collected by
Barton Labs* for June 1, 1977 were chosen. Data for flow, dissolved
oxygen, BOD 5 , NH 3 —N, and N0 3 —N were available for twelve locations along
the Cahaba River and for most point sources. These point source data are
shown in Table AII—8. Incremental runoff flows for each reach were càlcu—
lated by assuming the ratio of runoff to stream flow in the Cahaba River was
approximately the same for the Aug.—Sept. 1972 calibration data as for
the June 1977 verification data. Dissolved oxygen and BOD runoff concentra-
tions were set at the same values that were used in calibration. Runoff
NH 3 —N and N0 3 —N concentrations were set at 0.1 and 0.5 mg/l respectively.
Verification results are shown in Figures AII—7 through All—lU.
QUAL—Il PREDICTIONS FOR LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
Using 7—day, 10—year low flows derived previously in this appendix
to represent critical low flow conditions, QUAL—Il was used by GFC&C f or
preliminary assessment of future water quality conditions in the Cahaba
River. Required treatment levels for the Cahaba plant during these low
flow conditions were determined by EPA for the new NPDES permit and for 1983
and 2000 conditions, using the refined version of the model. (This EPA
modeling effort is described later in this appendix.)
For the GFC&C modeling effort, projections of was tewater flows which
are shown in Table 111—5 of Chapter III for the year 2000 were input to
the model together with the same runoff loadings, reaction rates, and
reaeration coefficients that were used in the calibration and verification.
Tributaries that are not subjected to major was teloads were assumed to have
the same water quality characteristics as the incremental inflows. Simu-
lation of the Little Cahaba River to determine treatment requirements at
the Leeds plant is described separately in this section of Appendix II.
*Jefferson County Commission, Barton Laboratory, “208 Study Water Quality
Data”, 1977.
AII—18

-------
TABLE AII-7
CHARACTERIS1’ICS OF TRIBUTARY FLOWS AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGES — QUAL-Il CALIBRATION 1
Flow DO Temperature BOD 5 NH 3 —N NO 2 —N N0 3 -N
Source ( cfs) ( mg/i) ( °F) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mgJl )
Trussville WWTP 0.9 2.0 77.0 40.0 2.0 0.4 13.0
Pinchgut Creek 0.6 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Gold—Kist and
Little Cahaba Creek 1 - 3.0 2.0 77.0 10.0 1.0 0.2 2.0
Big Black Creek 3.9 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Stinking Creek 1.1 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
H
H
Hogpen Branch 0.7 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Little Cahaba River 59.0 7.5 77.0 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.3
Water Supply Intake —71.0
Diversion Dam —0.5
Little Shades Creek 1.5 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Acton Creek 0.6 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Cahaba WWTP 1.6 3.0 77.0 10.0 5.0 0.5 10.0

-------
TABLE All —i (Cont’d.)
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY FLOWS AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGES - QUAL-Il CALIBRATION 1
Flow DO Temperature BOD 5 NH 3 -N N0 2 —N NO. —N
Source ( cfs) ( mg/i) ( °F) ( mg/i) ( mg7 l) ( tngji) ( mg7l )
Patton Creek WWTP
and Patton Creek’ 6.0 4.0 77.0 20.0 5.0 0.2 0.5
Buck Creek 20.0 7.0 77.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
(1) These are values at the confluence with the Cahaba River.
Sources: U.S.E.P.A. STORET System
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan ,
August, 1975.
White, J. and Johnson, B. C., Black Warrior and Cahaba River Basins Model Project , Lockhead
Missiles and Space Company, Inc., 1974.
Alabama Water Improvement Commission, Water Quality Management Plan: Cahaba River Basin ,
July, 1974.

-------
FIGU1 E A]I-3
J 972
DATA RANGE
MODEL CALIBRATION
CALIBRATION WITH 1972 AWIC DATA - DISSOLVED OXYGEN
E
C
§0
4.0
2.0
FIGURE Afl-4
RIVER MILE
CALIBRATION WITH 1972 AWIC DATA- ROD 5
;SANNET1 FLEMING CORDDRY AND CARPENTER, INC.
T 1972 AWIC
j DATA RANGE
— MODEL CALIBRATION
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
180
6
C
z
“a
I D
x
0
0
“a
0
U)
U)
0
170 160 150 140 130
RIVER MILE
10.0
8.0
6.0
l eO 170 160 150 140 130
REGION & U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
FIGURE MI-5
E
C
z
I I ,
I
z
E
C
z
-I
0
z
2.0
FIGURE A]I-6
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
180 170 I SO I SO 140
RIVER MILE
CALIBRATION WITH 1972 AWIC DATA- NITRATE
SOURCE: GANNETT FLEMING CORODRY AND CARPENTER INC.
J 972
DATA RANGE
— MODEL CALIBRATION
J 972
DATA RANGE
— MODEL CALIBRATION
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
REGION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
170 ISO 150 140 130
RIVER MILE
CALIBRATION WITH 1972 AWIC DATA-AMMONIA
130

-------
TABLE AII-8
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY FLOWS AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGES - QUAL-Il
VERIFICATION WITH JUNE, 1977 BARTON LAB DATA
FLOW
s )
1.1
2.8
DO
( mg / 1 )
7.9
8.0
TEMPERATURE
(°F)
70.
72.
(mg/i)
1.2
(mg/i)
0.02
(mgh)
1.1
(mg 1)
10.0
SOURCE
Trussviile %4WTP
Pinchgut Creek
Gold—Kist and
Little Cahaba Creek 1 -
7.1 6.5 75.
18.0
7.8
0.01
0.1
Big Black Creek
2.6 5.3 74.
1.6
0.2
0.03
0.3
Stinking Creek
Hogpen Branch 2
1.5 5.1 75.
1.0 7.0 75.
3.6
2.0
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
Little Cahaba River
46.0 8.2 66.
1.1
0.1
0.02
0.2
Water Supply Intake
—71.0 — —
Diversion Dam
—0.8 — —
—
—
—
Little Shades Creek
1.0 7.0 73.
3.4
0.02
0.01
0.1
Acton Creek 2
0.8 7.0 73.
2.0
0.02
0.01
0.1
Cahaba WWTP
2.3 6.1 73.
3.7
4.6
0.3
3.0
Patton Creek WWTP
and Patton Creek 1
7.0 2.2 77.
7.8
2.3
0.05
0.5
Buck Creek
23.0 6.4 78.
2.8
0.02
0.04
0.4
(1) These are values at
(2) These are estimated
Source: Jefferson
the confluence with the Cahaba River.
values based on other data shown here
County Commission, Barton Laboratory,
and
“208
on
Study
the
calibration
Water Quality
data.
Data”, 1977.

-------
FIGURE AI [ -7
O BARTON LAB DATA
— MODEL VERIFICATION
E
C
z
I&I
0
‘C
0
0
“a
0
U)
U)
0
VERIFICATION WITH JUNE, 1977 BARTON LAB DATA - DISSOLVED OXYGEN
2.0
FIGURE AII-8
RIVER MILE
VERIFICATION WITH JUNE, 1977 BARTON LAB DATA - BOD 5
O BARTON LAB DATA
— MODEL VERIFICATION
SOURCE: GANNETT FLEMING CORODRY AND CARPENTER INC.
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
REGION & US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
10.0
8.0
0
0
0
0
4.0
0
00
180
ITO 160 150 140 130
RIVER MILE
10.0
8.0
6.0
8
.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
ITO
I SO
140
130

-------
The basic wastewater treatment alternatives described in Chapter III
were simulated for the year 2000 with various treatment plant efficiencies.
It was assumed that the future Gold—Kist plant discharge would have the
characteristics specified in the existing NPDES permit. For the configura-
tion shown here that included the continued operation of the Patton Creek
plant, it is assumed that the plant effluent would be directly discharged
to the Cahaba River just upstream of Patton Creek, by means of an extended
outfall.
Results of the simulations that assume treatment giving 6 mg/i DO,
30 mg/i BOD 5 , 5 mg/i NH 3 —N, and 10 mg/l N0 3 —N for each existing or proposed
treatment plant are shown in Table AII—9. It can be seen that secondary
treatment alone in the year 2000 will not keep dissolved oxygen concentrations
above 5 mg/i in all reaches of the Cahaba River. Results of simulation done
by GFC&C using more stringent treatment levels are shown in Tables All-lO
and All—il. The QUAL—Il printout corresponding to the Leeds—Trussville-
Cahaba configuration shown in Table AIl-lO is given as Table AII-l2.
FLOW AUGNENTATION ALTERNATIVES
Lake Purdy
A possible way to improve water quality conditions along the Cahaba
River below the diversion dam is to augment the river’s flow by increasing
the storage of Lake Purdy and releasing more water during low flow. A
range of quantities of augmented flow were combined with the wastewater
treatment alternatives and these system configurations were evaluated by
GFC&C using QUAL—II. Incremental flow augmentations considered, given here
as flow over the diversion dam, included the following:
1) 11 cfs, the estimated additional safe yield from Lake Purdy which
would be available if the height of the Lake Purdy dam were increased by
10 feet.*
2) 21 cfs, the estimated natural 7—day, 10—year low flow.
These flow augmentations were analyzed for each of the five wastewater treat-
ment alternatives using the projected year 2000 wastewater flows. Runoff
and tributary flows were set at 7—day, 10—year low flow values. The corre—
sponding water quality inputs used were the same as for the evaluation of
alternatives under low flow conditions.
Results of these Lake Purdy augmentation schemes are summarized in
Tables AII—13 and AII—14.
Big Black Creek Basin
Three proposed reservoirs within the Big Black Creek Basin could provide
flow augmentation downstream of the creek’s confluence with the Cahaba River.
*See the hydrology discussion in this section of Appendix II.
AII—22

-------
FIGURE 411-9
FIGURE 411-10
150
140
O BARTON LAB DATA
— MODEL VERIFICATION
O BARTON LAB DATA
— MODEL VERIFICATION
130
RIVER MILE
VERIFICATION WITH JUNE, 1977 BARTON LAB DATA- NITRATE
E SANNETT FLEMING CORODRY AND CARPENTER tNC.
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
REGION N U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
$80
VERIFICATION
£
C
z
z
E
C
z
0
z
ITO 160 150 140 130
RIVER MILE
WITH JUNE, 1977 BARTON LAB DATA - AMMONIA
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
10
0
0.0
ISO
0
0 0
ITO 160

-------
TABLE AII-9
QUAL-II SIMULATIONS FOR THE CAHABA RIVER
EXISTING 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOW
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in—stream River
D.0. BOD5 N1i 3 —N N0 3 —N D.0. below mile of
( mgfl) ( mg/l) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) mm. D.O.
OVERTON - CA}1A A
Overton 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 4.2 155
Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 <1.0 133
CAHABA
Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 <1.0 133
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 173
Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 <1.0 133
TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Trussvil le 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 173
Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 <1.0 133
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 4.6 158
Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 <1.0 133
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AIX—lO
QUAL—Il SI*JLAflC*IS FOR THE CARABA RIVER
EXISTING 7—DAY, 10—YEAR L J YL I
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in—stream River
D.0. BOD 5 NH —N 110 3 —N D.O. below mile of
OVERTON — CAHABA ( mg/i) ( mg/l) ( m h) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) mm, D.0 .
Overton 6.0 20.0 2.0 13.0 5.4 155
Cahaba* 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.1 133
CAHABA
Cahaba* 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.0 133
LEEDS - TRIJSSVILLE - CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 173
Cahaba* 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.0 133
TRUSSVILLE — CMIABA
Trussvil le 6.0 10.0 2.0 13.0 6.3 173
Cahaba* 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.0 133
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.8 158
Cahaba* 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.0 133
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CABABA -
PATTON CREEK
Leeds
Trussvil le 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 173
Cahaba* 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.1 132
Patton Cree1 7.0 8.0 0.5 13.0 5.1 132
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
*Detertnined by EPA, Region IV

-------
TABLE A lt-li
QUAL-It SIMULATIONS FOR THE CAHABA RIVER
EXISTING 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOW
Miii.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in—stream River
D.O. BOD 5 NH 3 —N N0 3 —N D.0. below mile of
( mg/i) ( rag/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) miii. D.O.
OVERTON - CAHABA
Overton 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 >5 155
Cahaba 6.0 4.0 2.0 13.0 >5 133
CARABA
Cahaba 6.0 4.0 2.0 13.0 >5 134
LEEDS — TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Leeds
Trussviile 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 >5 173
Cahaba 6.0 4.0 2.0 13.0 >5 134
TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Trussville 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 >5 173
Cahaba 6.0 4.0 2.0 13.0 >5 134
UPPER CAIIABA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 >5 158
Cahaba 6.0 4.0 2.0 13.0 >5 133
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
1. WY OR AUL IC
PARAMETER
FL( W (CFS)
VELOCITY (FPS )
DEPTH (Fl)
2. MATER QUAI.
ELEM 1 2 3
00 •‘.t
BOO 1.94
(iRON 0.0
NH 0.00
N02 0.00
N03 0.01
*P T
3. a
E’ UNITS ARE
V RAGE
OECAY RATES
K1BOD —
KMH3 a
KNO2 —
KCOLI =
KPDN a
CP4M2 a
* *
AV R AGE
1.2 00
0.101
3.9”
*
15
* * *
TABLE AII—12 SAMPLE QUAL-Il PRINTOUT
* * * * * * FINAL PE OR’ * *
REACH NO. 1.0 ABOVE TRIJSSVTILE SIP
RIVER MILES 181.0 TO 180.5
PARAMETER VALUES * * * * *
HEAD OF REACH END OF P!ACI MAXIMUM MINIMUM
a 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200
— 0.301 0.301 0.301 0,301
a 3.937 3.937 3.937 3,937
ITY PAPAMETER VALUES $ $ * *
4 5 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 11
*
14
16 1 18 IQ 20
MG/I,
VAt.
(1/DAY)
0.25
0.35
0.0
0.0
0.0
EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFORM(1000/IOOML) AND CONSERVATIVE MINEPALS(MG/L*1O)
UESO PEACH COEFCICIFNTS * * * *
SETTLING RATES ( OAV) BENTHOS S(’URCE RATES (MG/FT/DAY) PFAERATION RATE
I 1/OAY)
BOO a 0.05 ROD a 0.0 K2 a 2.400
ALGAE a 0.0 NH3 a 0.0
Pfl4 a 0.0
Ckt .OR 4/ALC,AE
RATTO lUG/MG)
PATIO * 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FTNAL E°0PT * * * * * *
REACH NOe 2•0 TPIJSSV1LLE CAN CR
RIVER MILES 180.5 ‘0 177.0
1. HYD AUIIC PARAMETER VAI.UES * * * * * * *
PARAME T ER HEAD O REACH END O REACH MAXf MUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
CLt)W (CFS) = 3.129 3.720 3.720 3.129 3 574
V IOCITV (FPS) = 0.303 0.304 0.304 0.303 0.304
OEPTH (FT) = 3.975 3.982 3.982 3.975 3.980
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * *
ELFM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
00 6.37 6.39 6.36 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.40
800 12.59 10.90 10.45 10.03 9.62 9.23 8.86
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NII 1.18 1.01 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.83 0.80
M02 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13
. NO 7.90 6.96 6.92 6.89 6.87 6.84 6.82
* MOTE’ UNTTS ARE MG/I, EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFOPM(1000I IOOML) AMO CONSERVATIVE MINERALS(MGfI*10)
. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH COEFFICIENTS * * * *
DECAY RATES ( /0AV) SETTLING PATES (1./DAY) RFNTHOS SOURCE RATES (Mr,/F170&y) PEAEQATION RATF CHIOP A/ALGAE
(1/DAY) RATTO (U(’,/MG)
K 1ROD = 0.25 800 = 0.05 800 0.0 K2 = 2.430 PATIO = 0.0
NH3 = 0.35 ALC AE 0.0 NH! = 0.0
KNO2 = 1.75 P04 0.0
KC O II = 0.0
KR DN = 0.0
kNH2 = 0.0

-------
TABLE All—U (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REDORT * * * * * *
PEACH NO. 3.0 1 AH CR—P PIACK r
RIVER MILES 1 7.) O 171.5
1. HYDRAULIC DARAMETER VALUES * * * * * * *
PARAMETER HEAD OF PEACH END OF PEArH MAXTMUM MINIMUM AVERA C F
FLOW (CFS) — 6.277 6.5’0 6.550 6.414
V!LOCITY (FPS) 0.407 0.408 0.408 0.407 0.40R
DEPTH (FT) 1.660 1.661 1.661 1.660 1.661
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * $ * * * *
ELFM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
00 6.49 6.22 6.02 5.88 5.71 5.70 5.66 .(4 5. 4 5.65 5.67
500 11.03 10.70 10.38 10.07 9.77 9.48 9.20 P.92 P.66 8.40 8.15
r p 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3 4•37 4.21 4.06 3.92 3.78 3.64 3.51 3.39 3.27 3.15 3.04
P402 0.19 0.27 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57
PJfl3 4.2 4.30 4.34 4.39 4.45 4.51 4. B 4.65 4. 2 4.80 4.87
* P1CTE’ UNITS ARE MG/I, EXCEPT FOP FECAL COLIFORM(1000/100ML) AND CDNSERVATIVF MTNFRAIS(MG/L$10)
3. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH COEFFICIENTS * * * *
DECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLIN( RATES (1FDAY) BFNTHOS SOURCE RATES (Mr,/FT/OAY ) REAFRATTON PATE CHLOR A/ALGAE
(1/DAY) RATIO (UG/Mr)
(1800 0.2k 800 0.05 800 = 0.0 K2 = 3.260 RATIO 0.0
KN$43 — 0.35 ALGAE — 0.0 NH3 0.0
KNO2 — 1.75 Pfl4 = 0.0
KCOLI 0.0
KR DN 0.0
KNH2 — 0.0

-------
TABLE All—U (Corit’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REPORT * * * * * *
PEACH NO. 4.0 B BLACK CQ—STINK CR
RIVER MILES 171.5 10 166.0
1. HVOPAULIC PAPAMETEP VALUES * * * * * * *
PARAMETER HEAD OF PEACH ENO OF PEACH MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
GLOW (CFS) = 9.027 9.300 9.300 9.027 9.164
VELOCITY (FPS) = 0.409 0.409 O.40Q 0.409 0,409
DEPTH (FT1 = 1.656 1.6 7 1.657 1. 56 1.656
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * *
ELE 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .6 17 .8 19 20
DO 6.10 6.17 6.23 6.29 6.35 6.41 6.46 6.51 6.56 6.61 ‘ .66
800 6.31 6.14 5.96 5.79 5.63 5.47 5.31 5.16 5.02 4.88 4•74
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3 2.20 2.12 2.05 1.98 1.91 1.84 1.78 1.72 1.66 1.60 l, 5
NC)2 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36
N03 3.68 3.73 3.79 3.85 3.91 3.96 4.01 4.07 4.’ 2 4.16
* NOTE’ UNITS ARE MG/L, EXCEPT FOR FECAL CCLIFORM(1000/100MI) ANO CONSERVATIVE MTNEPALS(MGh*10)
_S AVEPAGEVALUESOFREACHCOEFF!CIENTS * * * *
r ECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLIN( RATES (1/OAV) RENTHOS SOURCE RATFS (MG/FT/nAY) R 4ERATT0N RATE C4LOR AF4LGAF
(1/OAV) PATIO (UG/MG)
K 1BOD = 0.25 800 = 0.05 800 = 0.0 1 (2 3.260 RATIO = 0.0
KNH3 = 0.35 ALGAE = 0.0 NH 0.0
X’1 02 = 1.75 O4 = 0.0
KCOLI 0.0
KPON = 0.0
KNH2 0.0

-------
TABL1 AII—12 (c ‘d)
* * * * * * FINAL PEPOPT * * * * * *
REACH NO. 5.0 STINk CP_HOr,DEN B
RIVCR IIES 166.0 TO 160.c
1. HY DR AUL IC P AR AMF TE P Va I.UE S * * * * * *
DAPAMETER HEAD OF REACH END flF REACH 4AX IM(JM MINIMUM AVERAGE
FLOW (CFS) a 9.967 10.240 10.240 9.967 10.104
VELOCITY (FPS) a 0.409 0.400 0.409 0.409 0.409
DEPTH (F l) a 2.231 2.231 2.2 1 2.231 2.2 1
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * *
ELEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 tO It 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lO 20
DO 6.65 6.53 6.43 6.35 6.28 6.23 6.20 6.17 6.16 6.15 (.15
300 4.44 4.31 4.19 4.08 3.96 3,85 3,75 3.64 3q56 •44 3,35
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3 1.41 1.36 1.32 1.27 1.23 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.07 1.03 1.00
NO? 0.13 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24
N03 4.00 4.04 4.09 4.12 4.16 4.20 4.23 4.27 4.30 4 33 4,36
* NOTE’ UNITS ARE MG/I, EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFORM(1000/IOOML) 4N0 CONSFPVATIVE MINEPALS(MG/L*10)
3. AVERAGE VALUE S OF REACH COE FF1 CT ENTS * * * *
DECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLING RATES (IIDAY) 8FNTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/nAY) REAFRATION RATE CHLOR 4 ALCWA
(1/DAY) RA ’TO (tiC/MG)
1(1800 a 0.25 800 a 0.05 800 — 0.0 K2 — 1.450 PATIO a 0.0
KNH3 a 0.35 ALGAE a 0.0 NH3 a 0.0
KN02 * 1. 5 004 a 0.0
‘(COIl a 0.0
‘(PflN a 0.0
(MHZ — 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REPORT * *
PEACH NO. 6.0 H04 ,°EN BR—GUMSUCK BR
RIVER MILES 160.5 TO 154.0
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
ELEM 1 2 3 4 5
F)Q 6,17 6.12 6.09 6.08 6.07
BOO 3.20 3.09 2.98 2.87 2.77
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.18
N02 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19
N03 4.26 4.29 4.33 4.37 4.40
* NOTE’ UNITS APE MG/I, EXCEPT FOR
H
* * * * * *
7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 i
6.09 6.11 6.14 6.17 6.21 6.24 6.29
2.58 2.4R 2.40 2.31 2.23 2.15 2.08
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.72 0.69 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.55
0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14
4.46 4.49 4.52 4.54 4.56 4.59 4.61
COLIFC1RN(1000/ 100MI) AND CONSERVATIVE MINEPAIs(’4G/1*1O)
3. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH C0E ICIFNTS
* * * *
‘( lBOO =
KNH3 =
I(N02 =
KCOLI =
KRON =
KNH2 =
0.25
0.35
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
BOO = 0.05
ALGAE = 0.’)
BOO = 0.0
NH3 = 0.0
004 = 0.0
PFA RATTON RATE
(1/DAY)
K2 = 1.090
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUE S * * * $ * * *
* * * *
PARAMETER
HEAD OF REACH
EN’) OF REACH
MAXIMUM
MINT UM
AVERAGE
LOW (CFS)
=
10.623
10.900
1.0.900
10.623
10.762
VELOCITY (FPS)
=
0.307
0.307
0.307
0.307
0.307
DEPTH FT)
=
1.259
1.260
1.260
1.259
1.260
6
6. C8
2.67
0.0
0.15
0.18
4.43
ECAL
1.6 17 lB 1.9 20
OECAY RATES ( 1/rAY) SETTLIP4r, PATES (1/DAY) BEP’JTHOS SOURCE PATES (MG/FT/DAY I
C4LOR A /AL ,AF
P4TIfl (UG/MG)
RATIO = 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REPORT * * * * * *
REACH NO. 7.0 r,UMSUCK—RWWB INTAKE
RIVER MILES 154.0 10 149.0
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * * *
PARAMETER HEAD OF REACH END flF REACW MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
cLow (CFS) — 10.930 72.500 72.500 10.930 17.195
VELOCITY (FPS) — 0.410 0.418 0.418 0.410 0.412
DEPTH (FT) — 1.137 1.l5 1.159 1.t3 1.142
2. WATER QUAL I TY PAR A ME IF R VALUE S * * * * * *
ELEM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
00 6.35 6.43 6.51 6.58 6.64 6.70 6.76 6.82 f•97 7.41
500 2.01 1.96 1.91 1.86 1.81 1.76 1.72 1.67 1.63 2.75
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.40 O. 4
N02 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.02
P103 4.E2 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.65 4.66 4.66 4.67 4.67 0.98
‘-4
* NOTE! UNITS ARE MG/L, EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFOPM(I000flOO’4L) AND CONSERVATIVE MINEPALS(MGfL*IO)
3. AVEPAGEVALUESOFREACHCOEFFICIEMTS * * * *
DECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLING RATES (1/DAY) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/DAY) REAERATION QA E Ct4LOR A ALGAE
(1FD AY) RATIO lUG/MG)
K1ROO — 0.25 800 — 0.05 900 — 0.0 K2 • 1.460 RATIO — 0.0
KN$.43 — 0.35 ALGAE — 0.0 NH3 • 0.0
KNO2 • 1.75 P04 - 0.0
KCOLI — 0.0
(RON — 0.0
KNH2 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL RE°ORT * * * * * *
REACH NO. 8.0 MWWB INTAKE— DAM
PIV R MILES 14Q.0 TO 147.0
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * * *
PARAMETER HEAD OF REACH END O REACH MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
FLOW (CFS) 0.325 0.400 0.400 0.325 O.3 2
VELOCITY (FPS) = 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.09Q
DEPTH (FT) 1.483 1.486 1.486 1.483 1.48
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * *
ELEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Do 7•39 7.18 7.03 6.92
800 2.71 2.40 2.14 1.92
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11
N02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
‘103 0.9 0.94 0.91 0.89
* NOTE’ UNITS APE MG/I, EXCEPT OR FECAL COIIFORM(1000/100MI) AND CONSERVATIVE MINEPALS(MG/I*1O)
3. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH COEFFICIENTS * * * *
DECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLING RATES ( JDAY) ENT’-InS SOURCE RATES (MG FT/DAY) PFAER4TION RITE C 4IOP 4/ALG4E
(1/DAY) RATTO U0/MG)
K 1BOD = 0.25 POD = 0.05 BOO — 0.0 1 <2 = O. 50 QATTO = 0.0
I(NH3 = 0.35 ALGAE = 0.0 NH3 = 0.0
KNO2 = 1.75 P04 = 0
KCOLI = 0.0
KR ON = 0.0
KNH2 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REwJRT * * * * * *
PEACH NO. 9.0 r1A IJNNAMED TRTB
RIVER MILFS 147.0 TO 144.0
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * * *
PARAMETER HEAD OF REACH END OF REACH MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
FLOW (CES) — 0.233 0,400 0.400 0,233 0.317
VELOCITY (FPS) — 0.2% 0.297 0.297 0.296 0.297
OEPTH (Fr) — 0.307 0.309 0.309 0.307 0.308
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * *
ELEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
00 6.95 7.01 7.06 7.10 7.13 7.16
800 1.81 1.77 1.74 1.70 1.67 1.64
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MH3 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
N02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
N03 0.85 0.78 0.73 0.70 0.66 0.64
* MOTE’ UNITS ARE MG/L, EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFOPM( l000/IOOML) AM ) C0NS RVATIVE MINEPALS(MG/L*10)
3. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH COEFF!CIEN1S * * * *
DECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLING PATES (1/DAY) RENTHOS SOUR( E PATFS (Mr,/FT/DAY) REAERATION RATE CHLOR A/ALGAE
(1/DAY) RA1TO (UG/MG)
KIROD — 0.25 BOO — 0.05 BOO — 0.0 K? 1.050 P ATjfl = 0.0
KP1H3 — 0.35 ALr,AE — 0.0 NH3 — 0.0
KNO2 1.75 P04 = 0.0
KCOLI - 0.0
KRDN 0.0
KNH2 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REPORT * *
REACH Nfl. 10.0 UNNAMED—I SHADFS CP
RIVER MILES 144.0 TO 142.0
ELEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
00 7.19 7.22 7.24 7.26
BOO 1.60 1.57 1.53 1.50
ORGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MH3 0.12 0. 2 0.12 0.12
‘102 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
N03 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.58
H
* NOTE’ UNITS ARE MG/L, EXCEPT FOR FECAL C0LIFORM(1.000FIOOML) ANt) CONSERVATIVE MINFRAIS(MG/1*1O)
LF
. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH COEF ICIEMTS * * * *
BOD = 0.05
ALGAE = 0.0
BOO = 0.0
NH3 = 0.0
004 = 0.0
REAERA ION RATE CHLOR A/ALGAE
(1/DAy) RATIO (UG/MG)
= 1.060 06TTO 0.0
* * * *
1.
HYDPAULIC
PARAME T ER VALUES
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
PARAMETER
HEAD OF REACH
ENI)
OF REACH
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
CLOW (CFS)
VELOCITY (FPS)
DEPTH (FT)
=
=
=
0.425
0.297
0.575
o.c O f l
0 . 9R
0.576
.500
0.29A
0.576
O.4 5
0.297
0,575
0.462
0.298
0.576
2.
WATER QUALITY
PARAMETER VALUES
*
*
*
*
*
*
16 17 lB 19 20
DECAY RATES (1/DAY)
SETTLING RATFS (1/flAY)
KIBOD =
KNH3 =
KNO2 =
KCOLI =
KRON =
KNH2 =
0.25
0.35
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
BENTHC1S SOURCE PATES (M( /FT/DAY)

-------
TABLE A1I—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL REPORT
* * * * * *
PEACH NO. P.O I SHAOES CR—CAH SIP
RIVER MIlES 142.0 Tfl 138.5
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES
PARAMETER
FLOW (CFS)
VELOCITY (FPS)
flEPTH (Fl)
ELFM 1 2 3 4
00 7•j3 7.17 7.20 7.23 7.25
800 1.75 1.70 1.64 1.59 1.54
(IRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
P4443 0.16 0.16 0.1 0.15 0.14
NO? 0.01. 0.01 0.02 0.02 o•t
P403 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
* NOTE’ UNITS APE MG/I, EXCEPT OR
* * * * * * *
7.25
1.54
0.0
0.14
0.02
0.41
COI!FORM(L)O0/IOOML ) AND CONSERVATIVE
3. AVERAGE VALUES0 REACH COEFFICIENTS
BOO a 0.05
ALGAE a 0.0
* * * *
BOO a 0.0
P1 13 0.0
P04 0.0
REAERA T ION RATE CHLOR A/ALGAE
(LIDAY) RATIO lUG/MG)
K2 — 1.070 RATIO — 0.0
HEAO OF REACH
a 1.229
a 0.301
a 0.581
ENO O REACH
1. 700
0. 302
0. 583
2. WAlER QUALITY PAR A METE P VALUES
MAX IMUM
1.700
0.302
0. 583
MI N I MU N
1.229
O.3’) l
0.581
AVERAGE
1.357
0.3 01,
0.582
I -4
H
$ * * * * *
7.28
1.50
0. 0
0.14
0.02
0.42
FECAL
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
M NEpA 1S(MG L* 1O)
Ki BOD —
KNH3 a
KPIO2 a
KCOL! a
KPON
KPIHZ a
DECAY PATES (1/DAY) SETTLING RATES (1FDAY) REPIITI40S SOURCE PATES (MG/FT/DAY)
0.25
0.35
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * F! NAL REPORT *
REACH NO. 12.0 CAM SIP—DAlTON CR
RIVER MILES 138.5 TO 136.0
2. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * *
ELEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12
5.95 5.73 5.54 5.39 5.25
ROD 7•4Ø 7.13 6.88 6.63 6.39
OQGN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH 1.82 1.75 1.67 1.60 1.53
P402 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.19
‘103 12.10 12.10 12.11 12.13 12.15
* NOTE’ UNITS APE MG/I, EXCEPT FOR FECAI COIIFf’RM(1000/100ML) AND CONSERVATIVE
3. AVERAGE VALUES OF REACH COEF ICIENTS * * * *
BOO = 0.05
ALGAE = 0.0
=
NH3 z 0.0
P04 0.0
REA RATI0N RATE C 1LOR AIALGAE
(1 ,’DAY) R4 jO (U(/MG)
K2 — 1.090 RATIO 0.0
1. HYORAULICPAPANETER VALUES * * * * * * *
* * * * *
DARAMETER
HEAD OF REACH
END OF REACH
MAXIMUM
MINI JM
AVFRAGE
F W (CFS)
—
24.340
24.500
24.500
24.340
24.420
VELOCITY (FPS)
—
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
DEPTH (FT)
—
0.599
0.599
0.599
o•599
0.599
H
P 1 . 1
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
N INERAIS( MG L* 10)
DECAY RATES (1IDAV SETTLING RATES (I OAY) RENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/DAY)
1 (1800 —
KNH3 —
KNOZ =
KCOLI —
1(PDN —
1(NHZ —
0.25
0.35
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0

-------
TABLE AII—12 (Cont’d)
* * * * * * FINAL RFPOPT * *
REACH NO. 13.0 P4TTOON CR—BELOW BUC
RIVER MILES 136.0 10 127.0
2. WAT ER QUALITY PAR A METE P VA LUFS
3. AV ER AGE VALUES OF P EACH COE F FTC! ENTS
* * * * * *
* * * *
1(1800 *
KNH3 —
KNO2 -
(C DLI —
KPON —
KNH2 —
0.25
0.35
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
BOO 0.05
ALGAE — 0.0
PrU) — 0.0
NH3 0.0
P04 — 0.0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Roesner, L.A., J.R. Monser and D.E. Evenson, Computer Program Documentation for the Stream Quality Model QUAL—Il , prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Systems Development Branch, Washington, D.C., May, 1973.
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES * * * * * * *
* * * *
PARAMETER
HEAD OF REACH
END OF REACH
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVEP4( E
CLOW (CFS)
25.728
30.400
30.400
25.728
27.597
VELOCITY (FPS)
•
O.3P)
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
OFDTH (ET)
—
0.506
0.507
0.507
0.506
0. 07
ELEM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
00 5.15
5.08
5.03
4.99
4.98
4.97
4.08
5.00
5.02
5,O .
5.10
5.41
5.46
5.52
5.57
5.63
5.69
5.76
BOO 5.97
5.76
5.56
5.36
5.17
4.99
4.81
4.64
4.48
4.32
4.17
3.74
3.61
3.48
3.36
.24
3.13
3.02
OR(N 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NH3 1.41
1.35
1.29
1.24
1.18
1.13
1.08
1.04
0.99
0.95
0.91
0.78
0.75
0.72
0.69
O.F,6
0.63
0.60
N02 0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.14
$03 11.63
11.67
11.70
11.74
11.7$
11.81
11.85
11. 8
11.92
11.95
11.09
10.39
10.41
10.44
10.47
10.49
10.51
10.54
* NOTE’ UNITS ARE MG/I, EXCEPT FOR
FECAL
COIIFOPM(l’)OoflOOMt) ANO CONSERVATIVF MINEPALS(MC,/L*10)
19 20
OECAY RATES (1/DAY) SETTLING RATES (1/DAY) RFNTHOS SOURCE RATES (MGFFT/C’AY)
PEAFRATTON RATE CI4LO° A/ALGAE
(1/DAY) RATIO (UG/MG)
1(2 — 1.090 RATIfl = 0.0

-------
TABLE AII—13
QUAL-Il SIMULATIONS FOR THE CAHABA RIVER
EXISTING 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOW PLUS
AUGMENTATION AVAILABLE BY RAISING LAKE PURDY DAM 10 FEET
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in-stream River
DO. BOD 5 NH 3 -N N0 3 -N D.O. below mile of
( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) mm. D.O.
OVERTON - CAHABA
Overton 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.6 154
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 5.9 133
CAHABA
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 5.8 133
H
H
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Leeds
Trussvi l le 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 5.9 133
TRUSSVILLE — CAHABA
Trussvi l le 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 5.9 133
UPPER CAll BA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.8 158
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 5.9 133
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AII—14
QUAL-Il SIMULATIONS FOR THE CAHABA RIVER
NATURAL 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOW
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in-stream River
D.O. BOD5 NH 3 -N N0 3 -N D.O. below mile of
( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) mm. D.0.
OVERTON - CAHABA
Overton 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.8 154
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 64 133
CAL-LABA
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 6.2 133
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.7 133
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Leeds
Trussvi lle 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 6.3 133
TRUSSVILLE — CAHABA
Trussville 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 6.3 133
UPPER CAHABA - CA}IABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.8 158
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 6.4 133
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
For this analysis, it has been assumed that flow augmentation from the
Big Black Creek Basin would be allowed to bypass the water supply intake and
the diversion dam. QUAL—Il was used to simulate the following amounts of
augmentation, given as flow over the diversion darn;
1) 7 cfs, the estimated safe yield from the proposed Middle Black
Creek reservoir.
2) 19 cfs, the estimated safe yield from the proposed reservoir on
Big Black Creek upstream of its confluence with Middle and Little Black
Creeks.
3) 41 cfs, the estimated total safe yield from the three proposed
reservoirs in the Big Black Creek Basin.
As with the Lake Purdy augmentation runs, Big Black Creek augmentation was
considered for each of the wastewater treatment alternatives in the year
2000. Characteristics of runoff and the other tributaries were kept at the
values used in the 7—day, 10—year low flow model runs.
The effects of these flow augmentation schemes on the Cahaba River for
the y , OO0 are shown in Tables AII—15 through AII—17.
PRELIMINA1 \.t TTLE CAHABA RIVER SIMULATION
The Leeds stewater treatment plant presently discharges its effluent
to the Little Cahaba River approximately eight miles upstream of Lake
Purdy. The retention of the Leeds plant and continuation of this discharge
to the Little Cahaba River were included in some of the wastewater disposal
alternatives considered in this study. Therefore, QUAL—lI simulation of the
Little Cahaba River downstream of Leeds was necessary to determine future
vastewater treatt vit requirements to meet Alabama water quality criteria,
The Little CahaL , River from the Leeds wastewater treatment plant to
Lake Purdy was divided into 16 computational elements of half—mile length
and three reaches, as shown in Figure All—li! The coefficicnts and constants
in the velocity—flow and depth—flow relations in QIJAL—Il were derived from
information in the AWIC study, as was done for the Cahaba River modeling. Data
from the 1972 AWIC water quality survey were used for preliminary cali-
bration of the model. The BOD removal rate, ammonia oxidation rate and ni-
trite oxidation rate that resulted from the Cahaba River calibration were
also selected for the Little Cahaba River.
The effect of the Leeds wastewater treatment plant discharge on the
Little Cahaba River was then modeled using 7—day, 10—year low flows calcu—
lated from the runoff factors derived in this appendix and the year 2000
wastewater flows given in Table 11 1—5 of Chapter III. The treatment level
required.at the Leeds plant to meet the dissolved oxygen criterion in the
Little Cahaba River is shown in Table AII—18.
AII—4l

-------
TABLE All—iS
QUAL-Il SIMULATIONS FOR THE CAHABA RIVER
AUG4ENTATION FROM PROPOSED MIDDLE BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in-stream River
D.O. BODE NH 3 -N N0 3 -N D.O. below mile of
( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) mm. D.O.
OVERTON - CAHABA
Overton 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.3 154
Cahaba 6.0 8.0 2.0 13.0 5.6 133
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 4.9 133
CAHABA
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 4.8 133
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Leeds
Trusavilie 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 4.9 133
TRUSSVILLE - cABABA _
Trussvil le 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 4.9 133
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.6 158
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.0 133
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AII—16
QUAL-Il SIMULATIONS FOR THE CAHABA RIVER
AUGMENTATION FROM PROPOSED BIG BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in-stream River
D.O. BOD5 NH 3 -N N0 3 -N DO. below mile of
( mg/l) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) mm. D.O.
OVERTON - CA}IABA
Overton 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 6.2 154
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.7 133
CAHABA
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.6 133
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE — CAHABA
H
Leeds
Trussvi l le 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.7 133
TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
Trussville 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.6 133
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 6.1 158
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 5.7 133
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE All-li
QUAL-Il SI!4JLATIONS FOR ThE CAHABA RIVER
AUGMENTATION FROM THREE PROPOSED RESERVOIRS IN BIG BLACK CREEK BASIN
Mm.
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent in-stream River
D.O. BODE NH 3 -N N0 3 -N D.O. below mile of
( mg/l) ( ag /i) ( aRJl) ( mg/i) WWTP (mg/l) mm. D.O.
OVERTON - CAHABA
Overton 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 6.8 154
Cahaba 6.0 20.0 5.0 10.0 5.2 132
CAHABA
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 6.2 134
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHARA
Leeds
Trusavjlle 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 6.4 134
TRUSSVILLE — CAHABA
Trusavjlj.e 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 5.7 174
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 6.3 134
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
Upper Cahaba 6.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 7.0 158
Cahaba 6.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 6.5 132
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
d
REACH
LEEDS WWTP
15.0
2
-11.0
3
7.5
LAKE
PU RD/ ________
CAHABA RIVER
0.0
SOURCE: 7-1/2 USGS QUADRANGLES
GANNETT FLEMING CORODRY AND CARPENTER, INC. 1977
FIGURE All-Il
STREAM SCHEMATIC CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
QUAL-]I MODELING
PREPARED FOR
LITTLE CAHABA RIVER REGI0N U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
“I
TABLE AII—18
QUAL-Il SIMULATION FOR THE LITTLE CAHABA RIVER
EXISTING 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOW
Mm.
Leeds Leeds Leeds Leeds In—Stream River
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent DO Below Mile of
DO (mg/i) BODS (mg/i) NH —N (mg/i) NO 3 —N (mg/i) WWTP (mg/i) Mm. DO
6.0 20.0 2.0 13.0 5.1 11.5

-------
EPA WATER QUALITY MODELING
As discussed earlier in this section of the appendix and in Chapter
III of the EIS, treatment requirements for the Cahaba WWTP for NPDES
permitting purposes and for 1983 and 2000 conditions were determined by
the Technical Support Branch of the EPA, Region IV. The documentation
report for this EPA water quality modeling effort follows.
AIT-46

-------
December 8, 1977
CAH’ . \ i R . L DOCU.V ENTATION REPORT
The following is a description of the mathematical modeling effort of the
Cahaba River performed by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IV, Technical Support Branch. The format of this documentation report is as
foil ow s:
I. The purpose of the modeling effort;
II. The study area;
III. The available data;
IV. The model used, calibration and verification efforts;
V. NPDES and 201 alternatives.
PURPOSE
The Cahaba River Sewage Treatment Plant is located on the Cahaba
River in 3efferson County, Alabama. In order to reissue the NPDES
permit for this facility and to determine future treatment
requirements, it was necessary to datermine the quantity of pollutants
that may be discharged to the Cahaba River without violating water
quality standards. Therefore, the purpose of this modeling effort was to
determine the effluent limitations required for both present conditions
and future alternatives.
Ii had originally been anticipated that modeling conducted as part of
the Environmental Impact Statement development effort on the Cahaba
River would provide the technical basis for establishing these limits.
However, due to certain conditions and circumstances, it was necessary
that the Technical Support Branch perform the necessary examination
of the data and the subsequent modeling effort. This documentation is
an explanation of that effort.
II. THESTUDYAREA
The effluent from the Cahaba River STP ts discharged at river mile
(R.M.) 138.7 (see Figure 1). Preliminary moceling efforts indicated that
the primary zone of influence of the treatment plant on the river, with
respect to DO and UOD, extends approximately ten (10) miles
downstream. After that, the dilution effects of the flow from Buck
Creek (located at R.\i. 130) predominate and the effects of the STP
discharges on dissolved oxygen concentratiuns are negligible. Because
of this, and to account for headwater conditions, the study area was
limited to the Cahaba River from R.M. 144 to R.M. 129.5.
AII—47

-------
-2-
The Cahaba River below the Cahaba River SIP is classified as a Fish
and Wildlife stream by the Alabama Water improvement Commission.
This classification includes a DO criterion of 5.0 mg/I which was
utilized as the control parameter for the modeling efforts described
here.
III . AVAILABLE DATA
Intensive water quality surveys of the Cahaba River system, from river
mile (R.M.) 192.3 to R.M. 93.6, were conducted by Barton Laboratory
(Jefferson County) as a part of the ongoing 208 study of the area. The
data (see Attachment I) from three of the four scheduled surveys were
available for use in the Cahaba River modeling efforts. The fourth
survey was performed in October, 1977 but the results were not used in
this effort.
Time of travel (1.0.1.) studies for the Cahaba River were also available
from Barton Laboratory. Discharge Measurement Summary Sheets for
US.G.S. gaging stations located at R.M. 144 and R.M. 93 were obtained
to supplement and expand the data from the T.O.T. studies. These data
are found in Attachment Ii. A flow versus velocity relationship for the
study area was formulated by developing the relationship for the two
U.S.G.S. gaging stations and graphically comparing these to the T.0.T.
data (see Figure 2). The resulting relationship formulated for the study
area was:
V=O.0265 Q 0 ’ 513
The river mile index (locations of tributaries, point sources, etc., by
R.M.) and low flow estimates utilized by the Cahaba River Environmen-
tal Impact Statement consultants in their preliminary modeling efforts
were employed in this effort. Pertinent low flow data included 7 day/lO
year low flow estimates for the Cahaba River just upstream of the
Cahaba River Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) andestimates for Patton
and Buck Creeks. These estimates were 2.0 cfs, 1.2 cfs, and 12 cfs
respectively.
IV. THE MODEL - CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATiON
EPA ’s QIJAL-il mathematical waler quality computer program was
employed in the Cahaba River modeling effort. The QUAL-Il model
contains a set of interrelated numerical water quality routing models
designed to simulate the longitudinal variations of water quality con-
stituents in a one dimensional, vertically mixed branching river system.
AII—48

-------
CAHABA RIVER FIG. I
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY RN 144.0
DOLLY BROOK RN 43.0
LITTLE SHADES CRK. RN 141.7
RN 139.2 ACTION CRK.
RN 138.7
CAHABA WWTP
PATTON CRK.
WWTP
PATTON CRK. RN 36.1
RN
2.5
RN 134.0
DODD BRANCH
BAILEY BROOK RU 133.1 Jefferson County Line
BLACK CRK. RN 131.9
RN 130.6 BUCK CRK.

-------
CAHABA RIVER
p
0
P Z 2 £11
FIG.2
(0.513)
Y=0.155Q
CAH A BA
HEI GHTS
.092 ft/sec
11.33 cfs
O USGS DATA CAHABA HEIGHTS
BARTON LABS DATA TOT DATA
208 FLOW, VELOCITY DATA
Y = 0.02650
(0.513)
2 3 4 5678910
20 30 405 6 789100
0
0
P
D
0
0
B
D
0
200
Q (cfs)

-------
-3-
Steady-slate condit ions are assumed. The model is capable of
simulating the following constitutents:
1. Dissolved Oxygen;
2. Ammonia;
3. Nitrite;
4. Nitrate;
5. Temperature;
6. Carbonaceous BOD;
7. Benthic Oxygen Demand;
8. Chlorophyll a:
9. Coliforms;
10. Radioactive Material; and
11. Phosphorus.
Only the first six constituents were determined to be appropriate for
the Cahaba River reaches modelled in this effort.
The flows associated with the October, 1976 208 data set were lower
than those of the other two data sets; therefore, the model was cali-
brated against that data set. It should be floted that these flow
conditions were very close to 7Q10 low flow estimates. Input data
included headwater and tributary flows and qual Jty, point source flows
and quality, channel geometry, and the f low versus velocity
relationships.
For the reaches of the Cahaba River from R.M. 144 to R.M. 129, the
reported flows for the October, 1976 intensive survey and the T.O.T.
study were similar. Therefore, the velocities calculated from the
T.O.T. data were input to the mode! for the calibration runs. These
velocities were on the order of 0.! ft/sec. in the reaches under consi-
deration.
Once the velocities were determined, there reaeration coefficients
(K,’s) were calculated by Tsivoglou’s technique. Deoxygenation and
seftling rates employed were those used by the E.I.S. consultant in their
preliminary modeling efforts: (I) K 1 =0.25; (2) K =0.35; and (3) =0.05
base ‘e” 20 C.
AII—49

-------
-4-
Comparisons ilculated versus simulated water quality parameters
are presentc igures 3 throt T 5. Reasonably adequate simulations
were obs. ref ore, no fur& adjustments were made.
Verification ‘: the model was a .np1ished against the May, 1977 and
June, 1977 2Ci data sets. Reported flows and quality were input and
simuIat ons of D.O., BOD , and NH 3 concentrations were run. Figures 6
through 11 are comparisons of observed versus simulated parameters for
the two data sets. Reasonably adequate simulations are observed for
D.O. and NH 3 . The BOD 5 sinulations, however, are not as good. This
discrepancy appears to be aused by:
1. An undefined background bank load of BOD;
2. Due to the relatively low instream BOD con-
centration;
3. A combination of these factors.
V. NPDES AND 201 ALTERNATIVES
As previously stated, the primary purpose of the modeling effort was to
establish NPDES permit limits for the existing 4.0 MGD Cahaba River
STP and effluent limitations for the facility when it is expanded to an
ultimate capacity of from 12 to 16 \IGD. Utilizing the deoxygenation
rates employed in the final calibration run, the formulated velocity
relationship, and calculating new reaeration rates (which change with
changes in Q) the model was used to evaluate each case (4, 12, & 16
MGD). Table 1 presents those effluent limits necessary to meet water
quality standards for the three modelled cases.
It should be pointed out that Patton Creek, which has its confluence
with the Cahaba River at R.M. 136.38, is presently adversely influenced
by the Patton Creek STP. This influence was included in the calibration
and verification model runs. However, in terms of predicting future
effluent limitations, it was ssumed that the Patton Creek SIP would
no longer discharge. Therefore, for the model runs that predicted
future effluent limitation requirements, it was assumed that the quality
of the Patton Creek flows would be comparable to the background
conditions observed f or other area tributares.
It should also be pointed out that effluent limits for the 12 and 16 MGD
cases are less stringent than the limits for the 4 MGD case. This is due
to the fact that with an increase in flow, velocity increases, resulting in
increased reaeration rates. This adds to the assimilative capacity of
the river. The permit for the 4.0 M 1) dow was based on the design
capacity of that facility.
AII-50

-------
CAHABA
RIVER
0
FIG. 3
0
MODEL PREDICITIONS
BARTON LABS DATA
(10/28/76)
150 145 140 135 130
s.o
0
2.0
x
0
RIVER MILES

-------
CAHABA RIVER
0
x
0
MODEL PREDICTIONS
BARTON LABS DATA
(10/28/77)
6.0
FIG.4
4.0
E
0
0
2.0
145
RIVER MILES

-------
CAHABA RIVER
FIG. 5
0
LI
$ .5
E
In
I
z
.30
145
0
X MODEL PREDICTIONS
0 BARTON LABS DATA
(10/28/ 77)
40
$35
130
RIVER MILES

-------
FIG.6
CAHABA RIVER
6/1/77 DATA SET
VERIFICATION
W/ FLOW BALANCE
8•
X MODEL PREDICTIONS
® BARTON LABS
I I I I I I I
44 142 140 I3 136 134 132 130
RIVER MILES

-------
FIG. 7
CAHABA RIVER
6/1/77 VERIFICATION
W/ FLOW BALANCE
X MODEL PREDICTIONS
0 BARTON LABS
I I 1 1
44 42 140 13$ (36 34
(32 (30
.
—4.
E
o .
I.
RIVER MILES

-------
FIG. 8
CAHABA RIVER
6/1/77 VERIFICATION
W/ FLOW BALANCE
X MODEL PREDICTIONS
0 BARTON LABS
44 142
140
2.0
I.0•
136 134 132 130
RIVER MILES

-------
FIG. 9
CAHABA RIVER
5/3/77 DATA SET
VERIFICATION
lo
9-
a-
—1 . I _ 1 _ $ _ —$ I I $ 1 t
te. i
4-
3.
X MODEL PREDICTIONS
2 0 BARTON LABS
I I I
$44 42 40 $38 136 134 $32 130
RIVER MILES

-------
FIG. 10
CAHABA RIVER
5/3/77 DATA SET
VERIFICATION
X MODEL PREDICTIONS
® BARTON LABS
144 142
140
138
I I
136 134 32 130
RIVER MILES
6
5.
E
0
3.
.
2-
.
I ..

-------
FIG. II
CAHABA RIVER
5/3/ 77 DATA SET
VERIFICATION
W/ FLOW BALANCE
=
z
I.
X MODEL PREDICTfONS

44 142 140 138 (36 (34 132 (30
RIVER MILES

-------
TABLE I
FLOW MGD BOD5 mg/i NH 3 -N mg/i D.O. mg/i
4.0 5.0 1.0 7
12 8.0 0.5 7
6.0 1.0 7
16 8.0 0.5 7
7.0 1.0 7
AII—51

-------
Ai t UUALLTY U1V1P
BASIN Cahab ________________STREAM Cahaba River M 136.
STATION NO. C-6 _____
Barton Laboratory ______________
Jefferson County Dept. of Pub1i Works - -
1977 l9
10—28 ; — 6—i ____ _____
SAMPLING DATE
LOCATION_ U.S.G.S._location on down-
stream side 1o ation off U.S.
31 Bains Bridee
.
1. Flow (cfs)
- -
l1.3
R2 27.1
H
2. D.O . (mg/i)
7 I
6_p
3. Time
4. Temp. Water °C
11.0
19
.
5. Tem Amb. cC
BOD 5 (i —c/i)
TTh
i
24
s
7. BOD .- 0 (mg/i)
8.__Rat _Constant_(1/Days)
3.4
36
9. pH
. 9
4
10. ConductiVity .imhos)
u i
1752D7
.
11 IC (rng/1’
13
12. TC (mg/1
28
13. TOC... ( q /1
15
-
14. NH N (mg/1 -
.12
.19
15. NO —NO 2 -N (jngJl)
16. TKN (mg/P
.43
..2
.40
•
_
1 32
17. POET (mg/i)
18. Alkalinity (mg/i CaCO )
19. Hardness (mg/i CaCO 3 )
20. Suspended Solids (mg/i)
21. Total Solids (mg/i)
.5
85
F5
25.0
.5.6
•
_
117
.40
35
147
22. Total Dissolved Splids(mcl/1
102
112
3 ._ prbidity (JTU)
24. Fecal Coliform (/100 ml)
1S ota1 Co11form (/100 ml)
26. Fecal Strep (/100 ml)
27. Total Plaf-e çpunt(/ml)
28. Sulfate &ng/i
H5_E8.&
140
—
, -r
16
160
180
15
?9. Chloride (rig/i)
30. Phenol (mg/U
31. c ( ma/i)
Fats. Oil and Grease (mg/li
: . Color [ APHA)
4.. Plankton Count (I in].)
35. Chlorophyll A,BIC ( i /1)
36. Chlorinated Pesticides(pq/)
3. Fluoride (mg/i)
38. Radioactivity (CPM)
39. Tot 1 v 3 i-11 Sr 1id
41
35
40. y 1 ti1 T)isqo1v c3 süH -1
c
b . c
41. volatile Dis5olved Solids
36
24.5
____
42. Nitrite
.045
.078
—
-
44.
—
____
45.
46.
7.
48.______________________________
—
AII—52

-------
BASIN
WATER QUALITY
STATION NO.
C— 6
LOCATION
Metals Total
51. Cr (i]clI))
Cu (ua/1)
56. Pb
(uc /1)
62. Na (ug/1)
63. Hg (ug/1 ) --
64. Al
5. Se (ug/I)
66. As (ug/ir
67. Sb (ug/l )
Metals Dissolved
Cr
:Llq/g)
90. Pb (Lzg/g)
92. Mn (u /g1
93• (jg7 T
94. Ca
SAMPLING DATE
53.
52. Cd 7j
,. k •;n
2
___ -
6
Fe - ci h --____
58. Mn ( LP_______
• Mg (ucij l) -
60. Ca
K ( sLLP__________
460 C
0701)
1976 19771977
V : I I jI 1 t1 IIIT
I l
2 1 ‘ -
3 )
______ 53 80 10
____—-
40
I2 L
______i__ __ i

135c r1 - III
523J)
1- t H —- -- --
iIi iI I:I
t,u.
69. Cd (ugu l)
J Cu (ugh) -
71. Ni ( g/i _
—--s-—-—
72. Zn (u/i)
73. Pb ( g l) ——-— -
74. Fe (ucs/1)
75. Mn
76. Mg (uo/l)
7 . Ca (uç L11._
78. I( (J s.LLJJ._. — --.— -
T . Na
8DH ” ( iaLlL
- —
1.. - - -_ -

L
1 1. Al (ugh) - -
8i. be -
(ug jj
j b iL3 _________
lietajs_Bepthjc_
—
fl6. c - ( /g)
_L
_
87. Cu
( 9/9I____________
RR. Ni
89. Zn
91. Fe ____ 1
_________ (;.ig/g) _______________
96. Na -—-
AII—53

-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
BASIN Cahab _ STREAM Cahaba River RN13O.77
STATION NO. C 5 LOCATION R.R. Bridge just before the
Barton Laboratory confluence with Bu.ck reek
Jefferson County Dept. of Public Works
1976 1977 1977
SAMPLING DATE L0—28 5-3-- 16—1
-j. Flow (cfs)
8.32
72.5
48.0
1
(mg/
1)
.0
6.1
4 25
3. T ine
:20
12:2
:3:35
4. Temo. Water °C -
. Temp. Anib. °C
6. BOD 5 (mg/i)
. BOD 0 (mg/i)
Constant (1/Days)

10. Co. ductivity (j.imhosj
ii :c (mg/i)
2.8
4.7
. ..9
.4.8J8.1
rp
14
.4 -
21
27
14.9
75
180
3 :-
33
3

222
_____
•
___
.1.
—
.2. ‘C (m /1)
13. TOC. (mg/i)
14. NH 1 . (mg/i)
15 N0 1 —N0 2 —N (mg/i)
1(N ( ng/)
Th7. P0 4 —T ng/1)
18 lka 1 ir ity (mg/i CaCOi)
19. iardness - (mg/i CaCO 3 )
20. Suspended Solids (mg/i)
21. Total Soiids (mg/i)
22. Total Dissolved Solids(iflg/i
4
.0
..30
.03
L5
)
5
15
.1.6
.lR

ri
-4]
15
134
119
.____
. c
.77
in,
-co
.L7.5
L38
120
Al 1—54

-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
STREA’ _ h bi L Ri3Lex____RM 1 44 . 7
STATION NO. C-7
Barton Laboratory ________
Jefferson County Dept. of Public Works
1976
SAMPLING DATE 1a.-2
____ Altaclena Apts
1977 1977
5-
BASIN
Cahaba
LOCATION U.S.G.S. gaging station at the
1. Flow (cfs)
7.67
.____
L_D.0. (mgJl)
k Time
6.2
1
L6.85LL
8.16 8:O5
j. Tern . Water °C
14.0
19
23
Temp. Amb. °C.
j BOD (mg/i)
7 B0D 20 (m /1i
B. Rate Constant ji/Days)
• pH
1.8
6.6_j
-. 13
7.1
20
2
2.9
(75
3.2
94
T23
1
0. ConductivitY (j.imhos)
175
160
187
11 Ic (mg/i)
13
12. TC (mg/i)
23
13. TOC. (mg/i)
10
14. NH 3 —N (mg/i)
.05
01
15. NO —NO 2 —N(rnq/1)
16. TKN (mgJl)
.01
1.6
.27
J..09
.88
17. P0 4 -T (mg/i)
18. Alkalinity (mqJi CaCO 3 )
19. Hardness (mg/i CaCO 3 )
IL Susoended Solids (mg/i)
.2
95
95
5.6
13
.33
7.6
21. Total Solids (mg/i)
106
105
22. TQtal Dissolved Soijds(rflg/1
Turbiditv (JTU)
24. Feca Coliform (/100 ml)
1 • Total Coliforifl (/100 ml)
5.5

93
7.8
34
97
22
12
.26• Fecal Stre p (/100 ml)
.2 • Total Plate ço 3 nt(/m1) —
p 3
____
28. Sulfate (mg/i)
10
15
.2!. Chloride (mg/fl
49 Phenol (mg/I)
sL . CN (mg/i)
Fats, Oil and Grease (mg/fl
.
IL Color (APHA)
.
I L Plankton Count (I ml)
.35. Chlorophyll A,B,C ( g/].)
L Chlorinated PesticidesU.ig/1
.
fl . Fluoride (mg/i)
. Radioactivity (CP 1)
r 2
.95
Sr 1(r1
2 6
20
V1 ti1 Si cp ni Solids
.! Vo1ati1 Di o1v d Solidg
20
13.8
Nitrite
.007
.015
44.
-
i r
o.

-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
BA SIN______________
STATION NO. C-5
STREAM
LOCATION
RN__
SAMPLING DATE
Metals Total
1976 1977
h .0—28 _ _
1977
6—1
51. Cr ( igIl)
..L_ 1
1

150
87
1
52. Cd ( /1)
53. Cu J g/fl
54. Ni ( g/i)
5 . Zn (ug/1)
1

7
1
•
56. Pb (ug/fl
<1
1
2
57. Fe (ug/1)
58. Mn (ugh)
650370
123
150
262
248
60. Ca ug/1)
(ug / 1)
59 . __(ughl)_________________
5300
Th30
O
4300
267W
0
6600
2680
3060
62.Na (ug/1)
f ug/l)
TT 1 iug/1)
—- 1 -

6600
6 . Se big/i)
(ug/ 1 T
____
67. Sb
tug/i)
eta1s Dissolved
68. Cr Tug/]i
69. Cd (ug/1)
70. Cu (u /1 )
71. Ni (u /1)
72. Zn (ugh)
73. Pb (ugh)
74. Fe
75. Mn (ugh)

io. Mg (ugh)
‘7 . Ca (ugh)
76. K
79. Na (ugh)
80. (pg/i)
B1. Al (pg/i)
U2. be (pg/i)
Zi. J .S (pg/i)
84. Sb (pg/i)
taLs nthic
B .5. Cr. (pg/g)
. Cd (pg/gj
87. Cu (ug/g)
88. Ni (ug/g)
.
89.
90. Pb
Pg/g ______________
___
91. Fe (pg/g)
92 Mn (pg/g)
- g r
. Ca (pg/g)
.
.
95. K (pg/g)
96. Na (pg/g)
97.
AII—56

-------
BASIN
WATER QUALITY DATA
S TRt 1
RN__
STATION NO.
C-7
LOCAT ION
1977
l 6—1
Metals Total
51. Cr ( cz!l )
Cd (nci/1
1 (1
52.
SAMPLING DATE
1976 1977
11) 2-k-- 3
7 h i
53. Cu i ’ii
34 Ni u i 1)
55 fl ug/l)
ii___
10
43 25
1
1
56. Pb c.ucTJll
57. Fe ( ig/l)
8 —
TOO
1J
330
2
j182
J____
58. Mn (ug/l)
59. Mg (ugh)
60. Ca (i.ig/l)
•
42 10.0 54
5360 3600
2990
3300 2580437
30003900
61. K (ug/l)
62. Na (ugh
63. Hg (ugh)
II
64. Al (ug/l)
____
65. Se (ug/1
V
66. As lug/i)
7. Sb (ug/l)
Metals Dissolved
68. Cr 1 gil)
Cd (ug/il
70. Cu (ugh) -
Ni (u hl)
72. Zn (u J1)
V
_
.____
V
73. Pb (ugh)
74. Fe (ugh)
75. Mn (nail)
76. Mg (ugh)
77. Ca (ugh)
K (u gIfl
79. Na V (ugh) V
.
1
g (ugh)
L. Al ( g/l)
Se (pgJ1
8i. AS V
.
.
84. Sb
ta1s Ber thic
S. Cr. (2qJg
—
6. Cd ( g/g)
87. Cu (ug/g)
88. Ni (ug/ g)
. Zn iig/g ____________
go. (ug/ )
91. Fe (pg/g$
V
• Mn
93. g (pg/gJ
94. Ca g/gJ
.____
95. K (j.ig/g)
-
V
96. Na
g/g
V
All—S 7

-------
Jj) ‘vc
CAHABA RIVEfl
111/ /.F L 77
REACH
RUN #1 RUN U
RUN #3
?‘1?OM
TO
MILES
TOT
(hrs.
Discj TOT
(cfs.D (hrs.)
(cfs.)
TOT (Disc.
(hrs.)(cfs.)
Pinchgut Cr.
M ] 82.06
Nr. Camp Coleman
RM 178.92
3.14
22.2
13.&
.
.
r. Camp Coleman
Rt4 178.92
Jeff. Co. Hwy. 10
Nr. White’s Chapel
RN 175.47
3.45
13.2
28.4
.
Jeff. Co. Hwy. 10
Jr. White’s Chapel
?4_175.47
u.s. Hwy. 78 BridgE
RAM 166.43
..
9.04
225.0
16.1
‘ _1
J.S. Hwy. 78 Bridge
RN 166.43
Grants’ Mill Rd.
Bridge
RN_161.27
5.16
.
144.0
15.0
rant’s Mill
Rd. Bridge
RN 161.27
River Run
Development
RN 153.58
7.69
79.0

23.01 13.0


228 iF
Hwy. 280 Dam
flr 147.99
Cahaba River Nr. 3.12 j
Cahaba Hgts. Gage
RN 144.87
Cahaba LW.T.P. —
RM 139.09
———
Patton Cr. 2.71 41.5
PM 136.30
5.61 91.;
I
I
-_____ -
:
C3iT ba River Nr.
C3haba Hgts. Gage
RM 144.87
C haba River WWTP
R 139.09
P ttonCx
-____

8.86 \
I
—
145.0j
\\ ‘ i
248.01
.
-
Buck Cr.
RM 130.7•7
Booth Ford
RM 108.66
Booth Ford 22.11 140.0
PM 108.66
Piper Bridge 12.06 94.0
PM 93.6 1
.
e

-------
B. COST EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The cost evaluation of wastewater management alternatives for the Cahaba
River Basin EIS involved many components. This section of the appendix
describes the methodology and basis for the various cost analyses. The first
part of this section deals with costing methodologies and cost analysis pro-
cedures for the wastewater facilities which comprise the alternative manage—
inent systems evaluated in Chapter III. The second part of this section pre-
sents costing procedures used to evaluate other sewerage components and the
no—action alternative wastewater facilities.
COST-EVALUAT ION OF WAS TEWATER MANAGENENT SYSTEMS
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The cost evaluation conducted in the Cahaba River Basin study area
encountered two types of costing situations. The first are the costs for new
plants and the second is for upgrading/expanding existing plants. Both of
these costing situations are complicated by construction phasing. In order
to adequately address these situations, a costing methodology must not only
provide a basis for pricing new facilities, but provide enough flexibility
to price the needed treatment facilities in case of plant expansion and/or
upgrading. It was felt for this study that a costing procedure which could be
applied on a unit by unit basis would be sufficiently flexible. An assembly
of cost estimating curves was selected and was approved by EPA to allow for
the costing of treatment processes on a unit by unit basis. A breakdown of
these costing curves is found in Tables AII—19 and AII—20. These two tables
present the construction cost curves and operating cost curves, respectively,
that were used in the cost estimates.
As noted in Chapter III, various unit processes were selected with
appropriate capacities, as required to meet treatment standards and capacities
for the new plants or upgraded/expanded plants. These unit process capacities
were applied to the construction cost curves listed in Table AII—19 to obtain
basic unit construction cost estimates. These costs were adjusted to reflect
1977 price levels in the Birmingham area using appropriate cost indices. The
construction cost index values assumed for this study are as follows:
EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Index — 216
ENR Construction Cost Index — 1900
The total treatment (plant construction cost was obtained by adding allowances
for electrical, plumbing, and heating/ventilating/air conditioning contracts
at Ii. percent and sitework- at 10 percent of the basic cost estimates.
Total project costs were determined by adding land costs and project
pverhead to the construction costs-. The project. overhead allowance covers
admin1 trative, legal, e ngineering, financial, and related project costs, and
AII-59

-------
TABLE AII—19
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING CURVES
UNIT PROCESS
COST CURVE
Raw WW Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Sludge Pumping
Roughing Filter
Recirculation Pumping
Aeration Basin (GHRDT)
Aeration System (Mechanical)
Final Sedimentation
Return Sludge Pumping
Was tewater Filtration
Catbon Adsorption
Chlorine Contact Tank
Chlorine Feed System
Aeration System (Diffused)
Gravity Thickening (Primary)
Tlotat{on Thickening (Secondary)
Flotation Thickening Pumping
Anaerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Admin strátion& Lab Bldg.
Final. Sédiméütation w/Alum
Aerobic Digestion
Dryjág Beds
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Firm Pump Capacity in MCD
Average Design Flows in MGD
Design Flow (MGD)
Initial Firm Capacity (GPM)
Filter Volume (1000 Ft 3 )
Initial Firm Pumping Capacity (MGD)
Average Design Flow (MGD)
Total Installed Capacity (Horsepower)
Design Flow (MCD)
Firm Pumping Capacity (GPM)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (MGD)
Liquid Volume (1000 Ft 3 )
Avg. Chlorine Use @ Design Flow (lbs/day)
Initial Firm Blower Capacity (1000 CFM)
Average Design Flow
Design Flow (MCD)
Initial Firm Pumping Capacity
Volume (1000 Ft 3 )
Filter Surface Area (Ft 2 )
Average Daily Flow (MCD)
Average Design Flow MGD)
Basin Volume 1000 Ft
Average Design Flow (MGD)
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
1250 Ft 2 /MGD
39,000 Ft 3 /MGD
1 HP/1000 Ft 3 Basin
20 Mm. DT @ 2Q Peak
8 mg/l
25 CFM/1000 Ft 3 Basin
12,200 Ft 3 /MGD
23 Ft 2 /MCD

-------
TABLE AII—20
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COST ESTIMATING CURVES
UNIT PROCESS
COST CURVE
Ra i WW Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Sludge Pumping
Roughing Filter
Recirculation Pumping
Aerat ofl Basin (GHRDT)
Aeratioü System (Mechanical)
Final Sedimentation
Rètürn Sludge Pumping
Wastewater Filtration
Carbon Adsorption
Chlorine Contact Tank
Chlorine Feed System
Aeration System (Diffused)
Gravity Thickener (Primary)
Flotation Thickener (Secondary)
Flotation Thickener Pumping
(To Stabilization)
Anaerobic Digestion
Aerobic Digestion
Drying Beds
Yardwork Maintenance
Plant Administration Labor
Lab Operations
Administration & General Expenses
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Design Flow (MGD)
Avg. Design Flow (MGD)
Surface Area (1000 Pt 2 )
Flow in GPM
Surf ace Area (1000 Pt 2 )
Flow in MGD
Horsepower
Surface Area (1000 Ft 2 )
Flow in GPN
Q in MGD
Q in MGD
Tons/Year
Air Supply (1000 Pt 3 )
Surface Area (1000 Ft 2 )
Flow MGD
Flow in GPM
Volutne(1000 Ft 2 )
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
1250 Ft 2 /MGD
6’ Deep — 39,000 Ft 2 /MGD
1 HP/10Q0 Ft 3 Basin
1430 Ft /MGD
8 mg/l
25 CFM/1000 Ft 3 Basin
50 Ft 2 /MGD
700 Ft 2 /MGD Plus Alum for Removal
of 10 mg/l of P
7.5 GPM Sludge—7 Days Detention
290 Tons/Year/MGD
Air
Ton
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Supply 1000 Ft 3
Dry Solids/Year
Design Flow
Design Flow
Design Flow
Design Plow

-------
amounts to approximately 28 percent of construction costs. The assumed project
overhead breakdown is shown in Table AII—21. Table AII—22 presents an example
calculation of construction and project costs for the Cahaba treatment plant
in the Leeds—Trussville--Cahaba alternative.
The operating costs for the treatment plant alternatives were estimated
using the cost curves listed in Table AII—20. These costs were based on year
2000 wastewater flows and include operation of both existing and new facilities
in the plants. Costs were trended to 1977 price levels in Birmingham using the
above referenced cost indices and an assumed labor cost of $5.00 per hour.
Table AII—23 presents the operating cost calculations for the Cahaba plant
example.
It was necessary to give two cases special costing consideration. The
first is the Trussville Plant which has an oxidation ditch with aeration rotor.
Because there are no cost curves developed f or the process, it was necessary
to estimate the cost of expansion from 1 MGD to 1.25 MGD. The cost of the
present oxidation ditch was obtained from the Jefferson County Sanitation
Department and was used as the basis for a ratio to compute the cost of
expansion. This cost figure was adjusted to account for inflation. The
remainder of the plant expansion which included the final clarifier, return
sludge pumping, the chlorine contact tank, and the chlorine feed system was
priced using the unit cost curves.
Spray irrigation, the other special consideration, is discussed in the
following subsection.
Land Application Facilities
As discussed in Chapter III of the EIS, spray irrigation of treatment
plant effluent from the Leeds and Upper Cahaba plants was evaluated. The
Pine Mountain area north of Leeds was the potential spray irrigation site
selected for this analysis.
The salient characteristics of the Pine Mountain Area pertaining to spray
irrigation are contained in Table AII-.24. Site location is 2.6 and 3.9 miles
from the Leeds and Upper Cahaba treatment plants, respectively (transmission
main lengths). Adaptibilkty of the strip mining portion of the site to land
application is in question and will require more extensive field investigation.
The cost analysis workup was primarily taken from “Costs of Wastewater
Treatment by Land Application”, EPA—430/9—75—003. The cost curves in this 1976
U.S. EPA publication itemize individual components utilized in land application.
Both capital costs and operation and maintenance costs are included in the
analysis. Preapplication treatment costs for both Leeds and Upper Cahaba were
obtained from the cost curves assembled by GFCC, and previously reviewed by
EPA for the Birmingham EIS. Capital costs were related to present (1977)
dollars in the Birmingham area by using the appropriate cost indices.
Table AII—25 lists the capital and operation and maintenance costs
associated with each component of the spray irrigation scheme. The following
points should be noted concerning the cost of several of the components.
AII—62

-------
TABLE AII—21
BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT OVERHEAD
AS A PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION AND SITE COSTS
Item % For Treatment PlantsW % For Land (2 )
Legal, Administrative,
Miscellaneous 1% 1%
Financial, Including Bond
Discounting & Interest
During Construction 6% 6%
Engineering Design 6% 0
Engineering Inspection,
Including General & Direct 5% 0
Contingencies 10% 5%
Total 28% 12%
(1) From letter to R. Koch (GFC&C) from R.D. Erwin, Jr., Sanitary Engineer
Jefferson County Commission dated 3/31/77.
(2) Estimated by GFC&C for spray irrigation land.
All— 63

-------
TABLE AII—22
UNIT PROCESS CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT COSTS
CAHABA PLANT - LE S-TRIJSSVILLE ( jyg
Unit Process
Raw Was tewater Pumping
PreJ.iminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Sludge Pumping
Roughing Filter
Recirculating Pumping
Aeration Basin (6 hr)
Aeration System (Mechanical)
Intermediate Pumping
Final Sedimentation
Return Iudge Pumping (7.5 mgd)
Wastewater Filtration (2)
Carbon Adaorptioti (3)
Chlorine Contact Tank
Chlorine Feed System
Aeration System
Gravity Thickener
Gravity Thickener Pumping
Flotation Thickening
Flotation Thickening Pumping
‘‘ Anaerobic Digester
a’ Vacuum Filter
Administration & Lab Building
Yardvork Maintenance
Plant Administration Labor
Laboratory Operations
Administration. 6 General Expenses
Subtotals — Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Treatment Level 3
HVAC & Plumbing & Electrical 11% of Subtotal
Sitework 10% of Subtotal
Land at $1,500/acre (4)
Project Overhead (28% of all above)
Totals — Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Treatment Level 3
Construction Costs (1)
1982 1989
$ 432,000
230,400
869,000
40,320
432,000
230,400
482,600
172,800
632,000
417,600
748,000
2,448,000
74,900
22,000
74,880
118,500
36,000
268,600
36,000
547,200
460, 800
172,800
Construction Cost Curve
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Sludge Pumping
Trickling Filtration
Recirculation/Intermedjate Pumping
Aeration Basin
Aeration/Mechanical Aerators
Final Clarification
Sludge Pumping
Wastewater Filtration
Carbon Adsorption
Cl 2 Contact Basin
Chlorination Feed Systems
Aeration Diffused Air System
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Pumping
Flotation Thickening
Sludge Pumping
Anaerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Administration & Lab Buildings
(1) Based on Design Flows In Unit Capacities Table.
(2) Applies to Treatment Level 2 and 3 only.
(3) Applies to Treatment Level 3 only.
(4) Treatment Level 1 — 21 acres, Level 2 — 25 acres, Level 3 — 30 acres.
$ 316,000
34,600
201,600
355,600
122,400
331,800
360,000
1,296,000
46,100
51,800
43,200
$1,503,100
$1,863,100
$3,159,100
N/A
$4,893,000
$2,886,000
$2,328,000
$5,802,800
$6,550,800
$8,998,800
$ 9,027,697
$10,193,879
$13,994,941

-------
TABLE AII—23
UNIT PROCESS OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLY COSTS
CAHABA PLANT — LEEDS-TRUSSVILLE—CAHABA
(1) Based on Year 2000 Flows 14.66 mgd. Includes existing and new facilities.
(2) Applies to Treatment Level 2 and 3 only.
(3) Applies to Treatment Level 3 only.
Overation and Maintenance Costs (1)
Unit Process
Maintenance
Materials
Operation and Supply
Total
Raw Wastewater Pumping
4,500
6,000
4,032
14,532
Preliminary Treatment
7,500
17,000
7,776
32,276
Primary Sedimentation
4,000
7,500
3,744
15,244
Primary Sludge Pumping
1,250
2,900
2,304
6,500
Roughing Filter
2,400
3,250
1,512
7,162
Recirculating Pumping
4,500
6,000
4,032
14,500
Aeration System (Mechanical)
7,500
14,000
56,200
77,660
Final Sedimentation
4,250
8,500
4,320
17,100
Return Sludge Pumping (7.5 mgd)
11,000
25,000
21,600
57,600
Wastewater Filtration (2)
11,500
86,900
98,400
Carbon Adsorption (3)
42,500
118,500
161,000
Chlorine Contact
Chlorine Feed System
1,740
7,500
43,100
50,700
.


°‘
Aeration System
Gravity Thickener
Gravity Thickener Pumping
Flotation Thickening
2,600
668
900
5,600
18,800
2,200
15,000
11,808
600
1,768
18,170
20,108
20,100
4,800
33,170
Flotation Thickening Pumping
900
2,200
1,728
4,800
Anaerobic Digester
6,500
11,000
6,624
24,100
Vacuum Filter
5,000
45,000
21,900
71,900
Administration & Laboratory Building
Yardwork Maintenance
17,000
3,466
20,500
Plant Administration Labor
14,000
14,000
Laboratory Operations
23,000
3,888
27,900
Administration & General Expenses
7,200
7,200
Totals — Treatment Level 1
$541,852
Treatment Level 2
$640,252
Treatment Level 3
$801,252
Operation & Maintenance, Materials & Supply Cost Curves
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Sludge Pumping
Trickling Filtration
Recycle/Intermittent Pumping
Activated Sludge Mechanical Aeration (0&M, M&S)
Sedimentation (0&M, M&S)
Sludge Pumping
Wastewater Filtration (O&M, M&S)
Carbon Adsorption
Chlorination (O&M, M&S)
Activated Sludge Diffused Air (0&M, M&S)
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Pumping
Flotation Thickening Annual
Sludge Pumping
Anaerobic Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Yardwork (0&N, M&S)
Plant Administration Labor (0)
Laboratory Operation & Supplies (0, M&S)
Administration & General Expenses (M&S)

-------
TABLE AII-24
SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE SUMMARY
Pine Mountain Area (north of Leeds)
SOIL — HME Hector & Nontevallo (gravelly fine sandy loam)
(shaly silt loam)
HLD Hartsells & Linkar (fine sandy loatns)
SLOPES — 7 — 45%
GROUNDCOVER — Mixed pine (majority) and hardwood forests
Several strip mined areas
LAND USE
ACTIVITIES — Forest harvesting (primarily pine)
Mining
OWNERSHIP — U.S. Steel
LIMITATIONS — Soil pH 4—5.5 (may limit denitrification in soil system)
Slope limitations in some areas
COST — $1,000 — $1500/acre
A1I-66

-------
TABLE AII—25
SPRAY IRRIGATION COMPONENT COSTS
Reference
EPA-430/9—75—0O3
Figure 3
EPA—600/2—76—25O
EPA—43O/9—75—003
Figure 23
EPA—43O/9—75—003
Figure 24, 25
Ibid , Figure 20
Ibid , Figure 21
Ibid , Figure 33
Ibid , Figure 28
Ibid , Figure 41
GFCC Cost Curves
Capital Cost
480,000
151,000
451,000
273,000
253,000
226,000
116,000
119,000
801, 000
3,373,000
560
9,990
5,680
17,540
2,560
56,690
94,000
Capital Cost
855,000
236,000
867,000
500,000
374,000
306,000
342,000
153,000
2,551,000
7,066,000
1,050
17,470
9,400
31,420
3,510
154,300
217,250
Leeds
Operation &
Maintenance
Upper Cahaba
Operation &
_____________ Maintenance
Component
Land
Storage Pond
Field Preparation
Transmission Main
Transmission Pumping
Distribution Pumping
Distribution
Service Roads & Fencing
Preapplication Treatment
Total
970
1,420

-------
1) Land — The cost curve gives total land area required with a 200—feet
peripheral buffer, road areas, storage areas, and building
areas. A maximum application rate of 2 inches/week and annual
nonoperating time of 4 weeks due to cold weather were used.
The year 2000 design loadings were considered.
2) Storage Pond — A pond with sufficient storage for 15 days’ flow was
used as indicated in “Use of Climatic Data in Estimating
Storage Days for Soil Treatment Systems”, EPA—600/2—76—250.
3) Field Preparation — Cost includes site clearing and land leveling.
4) Transmission Mains — Pipe diameter was used to maintain a minimum
velocity of 3.0 to 8.0 feet per second from average to peak
flows.
5) Transmission Pumping — Dynamic head of 150 feet was assumed.
6) Distribution — Center pivot mechanism was employed for Leeds; center
pivot and solid set were used for Upper Cahaba.
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
The conveyance facilities used in this study include pumping stations,
gravity sewers (interceptors), and force mains. The location and layout of
each of these facilities depends a great deal on the actual site topography.
These conveyance facilities were designed for the year 2020 peak flows.
The construction costs for the gravity sewers and force mains were
estimated in detail including items such as mobilization (contractor time to
get his team together and to the site), clearing, excavating and backfilling,
special conditions and crossings, manholes, and type of pipe and installation.
The 0 & M costs for the sewers, however, were considered negligible when
compared to 0 & M costs incurred by other facilities. Consequently, they were
not considered in this evaluation.
The pumping station construction costs were determined from a costing
curve with adjustments for TDH based on topographic considerations. The 0 & M
and M & S costs were also based on established cost curves. These prices were
all adjusted to reflect 1977 Birmingham prices.
Flow Augmentation Facilities
As described in Chapter III and Part A of this Appendix, stream flow
augmentation facilities were components of several of the wastewater management
alternatives considered in the EIS. Three of the four augmentation alternatives
were previously developed by other agencies as noted in Table AII—26. The
project costs for these alternatives were taken from the respective studies
while the 0 & H costs were worked up by GFC&C. The fourth alternative (Big,
Middle, and Little Black Creek Reservoirs) was developed and costed for both
project and 0&M costs by GFC&C in developing the project costs for the
three Big Black Creek reservoirs, the actual breakdown of costs was done only
for the Little Black Creek Reservoir. The costs for the other two reservoirs
were derived using the ratios of the cut and fill volumes of the remaining two
reservoirs to that of the Little Black Creek Reservoir. This breakdown can be
found on Tables AII—27 and AII—28.
AII—68

-------
TABLE AII—26
FLOW AUGMENTATION SYSTEMS
Total Project Annual O&M Estimated Land
Cost (1) Costs Safe Yield Requirements
Alternative ( 1000 $) ( 1000 $) ( cfs) ( Acres )
Lake Purdy Expansion (2) 6,960 25 11 309.4
Big Black Creek
Reservoir 6,458 36 19 1520
Middle Black Creek
Reservoir 2,207 30 7 270
Little Black Creek
Reservoir 5,075 34 15 1070
Combined Big 3 Middle,
& Little Black
Creek Reservoirs 13,739 65 41 2860
Big Black Creek (2)
Basin Reservoir 9,500 45 41 3000
Relocation of Water (2) (3)
Supply Intake to
Lake Purdy 18,000 22
(1) Project costs include construction costs, land and legal,
engineering, financial and administrative costs.
(2) Based on cost information provided by Birmingham Municipal Water
Works Board, and contained in Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. engineering
report, “Water Supply Study for the Water Works Board of the City
of Birmingham, Alabama, 4/77”.
(3) Includes pumping water from Black Creek system to Lake Purdy system.
AII—69

-------
TABLE AII—27
RESERVOIR COSTS SUMMARY
BIG BLACK CREEK
Little Middle Big Total
Darn & Reservoir Construction 2,060,400 983,500 2,726,900 5,770,800
Relocation (Bridge & Highway)
From Other Studies 800,000 400,000 800,000 2,000,000
Total Construction 2,860,400 1,383,500 3,526,900 7,770,800
Engineering Design, Inspection,
Legal and Fiscal Fees
40Z Construction 1,144,200 553,400 1,410,800 3,108,400
Land Purchase $1000/acre 1,070,000 270,000 1,520,000 2,860,000
Project Costs 5,074,600 2,206,900 6,457,700 13,739,200
All— 70

-------
TABLE AII—28
LITTLE BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS
I tern
Cleating & Grubbing
Embankment (cut & fill)
Subsurface Exploration
Riprap — Upstream Face
Unit
Quantity Cost
902 AC
322,636 c.y.
LS
7,000 c.y.
St ($ )
360,800
967,900
50,000
98,000
Service Spillway
Subtotal 1,476,700
Concrete
Stone Bedding
Riprap d/s Channel
1,190 c.y.
320 c.y.
370 c.y.
$200
10
14
238,000
3,200
5,200
Outlet Works
Pipe Conduit (36” 0)
Concrete Piles for Conduit
Diaphragms
Terminal Structures
Riser & Gate Structure
Housing Over Gate Structure
Intake Structures
Subtotal 246,400
Hydraulic Seeding
MP Toe Drainage (24” 12”)
Cutoff Trench Excavation
50 AC
LS
32,800
$500
3
25,000
34,600
98,400
Subtotal 158,000
Mobilization, Bond & Insurance
1.5%
Total 2,029,900
30,500
Relocation (Roads, Bridges, etc.)
Total Reservoir Construction
2,060,400
800,000
Engineering Design, Inspection, Legal & Fiscal
Total Construction
40%
2,860,400
1,144,120
1,070,000
Total
$400
3
14
810’
20
16,200
56 c.y.
300
16,800
LS
20,200
LS
36,800
LS
7,500
LS
8,100
Subtotal 148,800
Land Purchase
TOTAL PROJECT
1,070 AC $1,000
5,074,520
All — f l.

-------
The operation and maintenance costs for the flow augmentation facilities
were estimated using Birmingham Municipal Water Works Board estimates for the
operation and maintenance of Lake Purdy. These costs were adjusted as needed
to approximate the 0 & M costs f or the other reservoir alternatives.
Present Worth Analysis
The U.S. EPA guidelines require that the alternative treatment systems be
evaluated on a present worth and/or equivalent annual cost basis over the
duration of the planning period. In order to compare all alternatives on an
equal basis, the cost effectiveness analysis is extended to all components of
a given alternative. Costs to be considered include all capital costs for
implementing a given project as well as the operation and maintenance costs
needed to adequately ensure effective and dependable facility operation at the
design treatment level. Where facilities are scheduled to function beyond the
end of the planning period, a credit is given for salvage values.
These salvage values account for those treatment plant components that
are normally anticipated to function beyond the 18—year planning period used
for the cost analysis. Salvage values are generally considered as a percentage
of the initial construction costs and although these percentages were not
determined specifically for each alternative, they were based upon previous
investigations of average salvage values for various types of treatment plants.
Table AII—29 summarizes the salvage values for the conveyance systems and
wastewater treatment plants of the various alternatives.
The present worth and equivalent annual cost analysis for the wastewater
treatment facilities is based on 1977 price levels, an 18 year planning
period ending in 2000, and an interest rate of 6.375 percent which is the
federal discount rate to be used for the evaluation of water and related land
resources projects.
The present worth analysis of wastewater facilities costs is composed of
two parts. The first is the operation and maintenance costs and the second
part is the capital and total cost analysis. An example of the procedure can
be found on Tables AII—30 and AII—3l which present the analysis performed on
the Leeds—Trusaville—Cahaba alternative including the three levels of treatment
at the Cahaba plant.
Table AII—30 illustrates the present worth analysis performed on the
operation and maintenance costs £ or the Leeds—Trussville—Cahaba alternative.
Operating costs for initial years of operation were estimated by scaling down
the year 2000 cost using modified flow ratios. Operating costs of plants prior
to upgrading or expanding were based on present County experience. The present
worth calculation was based on a uniform cost gradient from 1985 to the year
2000. All costs were discounted to a 1982 present worth.
The calculation of the capital cost present worth is illustrated in
Table AII—31 for the alternative. As shown in the table, the present worth
analysis was separated into the three construction phases. For each facility
component within each phase, total project costs are discounted to a 1982
present worth. Year 2000 salvage values, computed as previously discussed,
were also discounted to the year 1982 and deducted for the project cost present
worth.
AII—72

-------
TABLE AII—29
YEAR 2000 — SALVAGE VALUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Year of Construction
Type of Facility 1982 1984 1989
Conveyance 1
64 68 78
Wastewater Treatment Plants 2
Equipment 5 10 22.5
Structures 27.5 30 36.25
Total 33 40 59
Pumping Stations 3
Equipment 3.33 6.66 15
Structures 36.66 46.66 48.33
Total 40 53.3 63.3
(1) Conveyance Facilities
50 years — Straightline Depreciation
(2) Was tewater Treatment Plants
1/2 Equipment — 20 Years — Straightline Depreciation
1/2 Structures— 40 Years — Straightllne Depreciation
(3) Pumping Stations
1/3 Equipment — 20 Years — Straightline Depreciation
2/3 Structures— 40 Years — Straightline Depreciation
All- 73

-------
TABLE AII-30
CABANA RIVER BASIN EIS
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS COST ANALYSIS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST PRESENT WORTH CALCULATIONS (1)
ALTERNATIVE: LEEDS -THUS SVILLE-CABA BA
Treatment Plants Conveyance
Cahaba Cahaba Cahaba Facilities Total
level 1 level 2 level 3 Leeds Trussville
Was tewater Flows
1) 1983 (mgd) 9.52 9.52 9.52 .90 .83
2) 1985 (mgd) 10.58 10.58 10.58 1.05 1.06
3) 2000 (mgd) 14.66 14.66 14.66 1.40 1.25
0614 Cost Ratios (2)
4) l983#Z000 .825 .825 .825
5) 1985/2000 .861 .861 .861 .875 .924
O&M Costs
6) Year 2000 542,000 640,000 801,000 155,000 113,000
7) Year 1983—1984 447,000 528,000 661,000 144,000 80,000
(line 4 x line 6)
8) Year 1985 467,000 551,000 690,000 136,000 104,000 10,000
(line 5 x line 6)
‘ 9) 0614 Cost Gradient s,ooo 5,953 7,400 1,266 600
((line 6 — line 8 )/8)
10)1982 P.W. of ‘Fixed Cost’ 4,065,000 4,797,000 6,007,000 1,184,000 905,000
(8. 7052 x line 8) (3)
11)1982 P.W. of Gradient 270,000 321,000 400,000 68,000 32,000
(54.0398 x line 9) (4)
12)1982 P.W. of 1983/84 Costs 815,000 963,000 1,206,000 263,000 146,000
(1.8238 x line 7) (5)
Total Operation and Maintenance
1982 Present Worth for:
Cahaba level 1 5,150,000 1,515,000 1,083,000 107,000 7,855,000
Cahaba level 2 6,081,000 1,515,000 1,083,000 107,000 8,786,000
Cahaba level 3 7,613,000 1,515,000 1,083,000 107,000 10,318,000
(lines 19_21+23)
(1) Present worth analysis based on present (1977) price levels, 18—year planning period ending in 2000, and 6.375 percent discount rate.
(2) Based on one half of the percentage difference of initial flows to design flows.
(3) Composite factor equals 0.88373 x 9.85061.
(4) Composite factor equals 0.88373 x 61.1497.
(5) Composite factor equals 0.94007 + 0.88373.

-------
TAZLE 1. 1 1-31
CAHAM RIVER EIS
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTfl(S COST ANALYSIS
CAPITAL AND TOTAL COST PRESENT WORTH CALCULATIONS (1)
ALTERNATIVE: LEEDS-TRUSSVILLE-CARAEA
Phases 1 (1982) and 3 (1989) Construction Phase 2 (1984) Construction Total Total Grand
Treatment Plants Conveyance Total Treatment Plants Conveyance Total Capital O6 ( Total
Cahaba—l Cahaba—2 Cahaba—3 Severe Pump Sta . _____ Leeds Trussville Severs Pump Sta . _____ ( 8+16) ( Table) ( 17+18)
Phases 1 and 2
1) Project Cost 9,028 10,194 13,995 4,053 623 1,416 513 267 90
2) Project 1982 Present Worth 9,028 10,194 13,995 4,052 623 1,252 453 236 80
(factor x line 1) (2)
3) 200 Salvage Value 2,979 3,364 4,618 2,594 249 567 205 182 48
(factor x line 1) (3)
4) Salvage 1982 Present Worth 979 1,106 1,518 853 82 186 67 60 16
(0.32877 x line 3)
5) Net Present Worth 8,049 9,088 12,477 3,200 541 1,066 386 176 64
(line 2 — line 4)
Phase 3
6) Project Cost 2,328 2,886 4,893 2,017
7) Project 1982 Present Worth 1,510 1,872 3,175 1,309
L (0.64882 x line 6)
“ 8) 2000 Salvage Value 1,374 1,703 2,887 1,573
(factor x line 6) (4)
9) Salvage 1982 Present Worth 452 560 949 517
(0.32877 x line 8)
10) Net Present Worth 922 1,312 2,226 792
(line 7 — line 9)
Total Net Capital 1982
Present Worth for:
Cahaba level 1 8,971 3,902 541 13,504 1,066 386 176 64 1,692 15,196 7,855 23,051
Cahaba level 2 10,400 3,992 541 14,933 1,066 386 176 64 1,692 16,625 8,786 25,411
Cahaba level 3 14,703 3,992 541 19,236 1,066 386 176 64 1,692 20,928 10,318 31,246
(line 10 + line 21)
Average Annual Equivalent
Cost for:
Cahaba level 1 2,184
Cahaba level 2 2,413
Cahaba level 3 2,968
(0.094974 x lines 26, 27, 28)
(1) Present worth analysis based on present (1977) price levels, 18—year planning period ending in 2000, and 6.375 percent discount rate. All coSts in
$l,000’s.
(2) Factor equals 1.00 for Phase 1 and 0.88373 for Phase 2.
(3) Factor equals 0.33 for plants and pump stations and 0.64 for sewers for Phase 1, and 0.40 and 0.68, respectively, for Phase 2. Factor equals 1.00
for spray irrigation land.
(4) Factor equals 0.59 for plants and pump stations and 0.78 for sewers.

-------
Total alternative present worths were obtained by combining the
operating cost and capital cost present worths (reference Table AII—3l) f or
each alternative.
The present worth analysis done on the flow augmentation facilities
differs from the preceeding present worth analysis in two ways. The first
is that no depreciation is assumed for the dams or adjacent land and the
second is that the annual 0 & M costs are assumed to be the same from year to
year.
Local Annual Cost Analysis
The local annual cost analysis is a method by which the economic impact
on the local units is examined. The local annual cost analysis of wastewater
facilities uses the total present worth figure and subtracts from that the
expected federal grant leaving the local share. This local share is converted
into an annual debt service by a debt service factor (.08914) representing
6.375% interest for 25 years and 10% coverage. The 1985 0 & M costs are added
to the annual debt service to obtain the total annual local costs.
It should be noted that on certain alternatives, assumptions were made
which could affect the annual local costs. It was assumed that no federal
grant would be made on any flow augmentation facility. There is also a
possibility of greater than 75 percent federal grant on the spray irrigation
facilities; however, this was not assumed either. If either of these grants
were offered, the local annual costs would be decreased for selected
alternatives.
COST EVALUATION OF OTHER WASTEWATER FACILITIES
In preparation of the cost analysis for the eleven structural alternatives,
certain elements of the overall wastewater treatment facilities scheme were not
considered since they were conmion to all nine alternative plans. Comparison,
however, of the single selected structural alternative with the no—action
alternative necessitates the cost evaluation of certain of these previously
unincluded components. In this cost comparison again, any component which would
be included In both alternatives needs not be considered.
Collection Systems
Five residential areas within the Birmingham EIS study area have been
slated to be included within the regional wastewater facilities scheme. These
areas were selected based upon total local population and population density.
At the present, none of these five areas is serviced by a wastewater conveyance
network and will need to be cost evaluated and now incorporated with the
selected structural alternative cost analysis.
Components included in the cost estimate are the collection laterals,
trunk sewers including wastewater conveyance to the main interceptor, force
mains, and pumping stations. The cost curves utilized in the cost work up
are taken from the EPA—approved, GFC&C—assembled information.
All— 76

-------
The laterals are assumed to be 8” diameter with 6—12 feet cuts yielding
a $23.7/L.F. capital cost. Trunk lines leading to the main interceptor are
12” diameter sewers with 6—12 feet cuts assumed. This results in a $30.0/L.F.
capital cost. Force mains are 4” and 8” diameters at $7.9/L.F. and $l2.6/L.F.,
respectively. Pumping station costs were uniformly estimated to be $40,000
each.
Table AII—32 summarizes the component needs f or each conveyance system
as well as their capital or construction cost.
County—Owned Facilities
If federal funds were not utilized by Jefferson County for its wastewater
facilities, i.e., the no—action alternative were chosen, some combination of
the following four courses of action could be pursued:
1) Utilization of all excess capacity of the existing treatment plants
2) Local funding of the new regional wastewater facilities
3) Local funding of smaller package wastewater treatment plants
4) Use of individual on—lot disposal systems
To locally fund the entire regional wastewater facilities system would
impose prohibitively high local annual costs and therefore is dismissed here
as a feasible option under the no—action alternative.
Under the no—action alternative there would be no capital investments
in new regional facilities, but the operation and maintenance costs would
have to be accounted for in a cost comparison with the selected structural
alternative. The 0 & N costs for the two alternatives would differ, the
selected structural alternative having a higher associated cost.
Table AII—33 lists the 0 & M costs realized for 1974 and the projected
1978 costs. The NPDES Permit flows and 1978 projected average flows are also
shown.
Package Wastewater Treatment Plants
Certain larger residential developments under the no—action plan will be
densely populated enough to financially support a package treatment plant.
Components considered in cost analysis of such a package plant are the WWTP
itself, outfall sewers, and local collection system.
Cost curves obtained from “Wastewater Treatment Facilities of Sewered
Small Communities”, EPA—625/l—77—079 (10/77) were utilized in cost analysis
of the treatment plant and ancillary works. The outfall is a 0—6 feet and
6—12 feet cost averaged cut with a 12” diameter. The collection system is a
6—12 feet cut with an 5” diameter sewer section. Their index adjusted
respective costs are $18.2/LF and $15.8/LF. These cost figures are taken from
the GFC&C assembled cost curves previously reviewed by EPA.
AII—77

-------
TABLE AII—32
CAHABA RIVER BAS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
FOR
LOCAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Collection System
Construction Cost
Project Cost
Cahaba Heights
95,200 ft. of 8—inch collector
1 Pump Station
2,600 ft. of 4—inch force main
Total
$2,256,000
$ 40,000
$ 21,000
$2,317,000
$2,888,000
$ 51,000
$ 26,000
$2,965,000
Mountain Brook
78,000 ft. of 8—inch collector
4,000 ft. of 12—inch trunk
Total
$1,849,000
$ 120,000
$1,969,000
$2,366,000
$ 154,000
$2,520,000
Overton
23,700 ft. of 8—inch collector
3,400 ft. of 12—inch trunk
2 Pump Stations
5,600 ft. of 4—inch force main
Total
$ 566,000
$ 102,000
$ 80,000
$ 44,000
$ 791,000
$ 725,000
$ 130,000
$ 101,000
$ 57,000
$1,013,000
Roebuck Plaza
30,800 ft. of 8—inch collector
18,000 ft. of 12—inch trunk
1 Pump Station
4,600 ft. of 8—inch force main
Total
$ 758,000
$ 540,000
$ 40,000
$ 58,000
$1, 396,000
$ 971,000
$ 692,000
$ 51,000
$ 75,000
$1,789,000
Moody
5,000 ft. of 8—inch collector
23,400 ft. of 12—inch trunk
Total
$ 119,000
$ 702,000
$ 821,000
$ 152,000
$ 899,000
$1,051,000
AII—78

-------
TABLE AII-33
JEFFERSON COUNTY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
O&M Costs Flows
1974 1977—78 NPDES 1977—78
Leeds 22,306 57,300 1.0 1.1
Trussvi lle 27,293 80,000 1.2 1.1
Cahaba 150,022 317,700 2.2 2.4
Patton Creek 81,354 154,000 4.0 4.4
AII—79

-------
The following two assumptions were made concerning the collection system
for these future development areas:
1) Assumed population density was based on three households per acre and
three people per household.
2) 90 feet of sewer per household was assumed.
A graph was developed which relates the number of households within such
a development area to the length of outfall sewer which can be constructed to
a proper receiving stream. A $300 maximum annual user fee constrains the
relationship of these two variables. The graphical representation was developed
by: 1) selecting various sized populations; 2) estimating the total project
cost that would be incurred; 3) amortizing this amount; 4) addIng the 0 & N
annual costs to this amount; 5) taking the difference of this and the $300
maximum user fee. The amount remaining would be available annually over the
period of amortization to initially construct the outfall sewer.
Drawing upon this graphical relationship, areas within the EIS study region
which have been identified as future development tracts were reviewed as to the
feasibility of their supporting a package plant, given their size and distance
from a receiving stream. If the length of outfall sewer for the given develop-
ment area extends to a proper receiving stream (in most cases the Cahaba River)
under the $300 maximum user fee, then the development tract was classified as
being, feasible.
There were eleven development tracts which met the above criteria for
package plants. Table AII—34 itemizes all of the associated package plant
costs incurred for each of these eleven development tracts.
Septic Tank Systems
Under both the selected structural alternative and the no—action alternative,
there exists a portion of the present and future populations which will have
to be served by septic tank systems as a means of wastewater disposal.
At the coimnencement of the analysis period both alternatives will have an
equal number of septic tank services. With the construction of the wastewater
treatment facilities under the selected structural alternative, the number of
services would decline by 50% through the 18—year planning period. Under the
no—action alternative, the number of septic services would decrease slightly,
due to the construction of package plants.
Construction costs were estimated at $1,000 for each new septic tank
service while the operation and maintenance costs were placed at $25 per year
per service. Table AII—35 tabulates the costs incurred for septic tank service
with both alternative plans.
Present Worth Analysis
The present worth analysis for the collection systems, package treatment
plants, and on—lot disposal systems follows the same basic procedures as
previously outlined for present worth analysis of wastewater management systems.
Certain special considerations for the analysis of these facilities, however,
are noted below.
AII—80

-------
TABLE AII—34
PACKAGE TREAThENT PLANTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRACTS
H
c
H
Development
Tract
Year 2000
Population
Outfall
Length
0
Collection System
Length
Total 1982
Present Worth
1985 O&M
68,200
Total Project
Cost
Local Annual Cost
324,000
7,847,800
1
10,800
8,688,800
842,800
2
1,800
0
54,000
1,481,400
20,200
1,530,800
156,700
3
5,060
0
151,900
3,840,100
40,200
4,149,600
410,100
4
1,500
1,000
45,000
1,312,900
18,900
1,336,900
138,100
5
620
2,000
18,000
646,000
11,200
625,000
66,900
6
540
2,500
16,200
601,300
10,100
584,100
62,100
7
450
1,500
13,500
486,600
8,600
467,700
50,300
8
6,050
1,500
180,000
4,457,200
38,300
4,931,700
47,800
9
560
500
16,200
536,800
10,500
507,300
55,700
10
450
500
13,500
452,300
8,600
429,300
46,900
11
450
500
13,500
452,300
8,600
429,300
46,900
Total
22,110,000 243,400
23,680,000 2,354,400

-------
TABLE AII—35
SEPTIC SYSTF24 COSTS
ACTION/No ACTION
Action No Action
Project Cost $ 775,000 $ 2,885,000
Annualized Project
Cost 43,050 160,250
1985 O&M 467,500 506,700
Present Worth
Project Costs 453,150 1,687,300
Present Worth
O&M 4,446,700 4,817,100
Total Present Worth 4,899,900 6,504,000
Local Annual Costs 510,600 666,900
All— 82

-------
Based upon the facilities construction phasing, the five new collection
systems were assumed to take place in the years listed below.
Roebuck Plaza — 1984
Overton — 1989
Moody — 1984
Cahaba Heights — 1982
Mountain Brook — 1982
The eleven package treatment plants were assumed to have been constructed
by 1982. The initial operation and maintenance costs of these facilities were
adjusted downward from the year 2000 full flow cost.
No salvage value was assumed for the septic tanks at the end of the
planning period. Construction was assumed to occur equally over the 18—year
planning period. An annualized project cost is computed rather than the annual
debt service. The operation and maintenance costs for septic tank systems is
a decreasing gradient series since both the action and no action plans decrease
in total number of septic tanks throughout the 18 years.
Local Annual Cost Analysis
Here again the methodology of the local annual cost analysis is as
previously outlined. The annual debt service is added to the annual 0 & M
cost. However, for the septic tank systems, the local annual costs were
calculated by taking the annualized project costs (not debt service) and adding
to this the operation and maintenance costs. Also, no federal grants were
assumed to be available for any of the privately—owned facilities.
AII—83

-------
C. OPERABILITY EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
The operability evaluation of wastewater management system alterna—
tives involves these general considerations: reliability of treatment,
flexibility of operation, and maintainability of facilities. For the
Cahaba River Basin EIS this evaluation was conducted in two parts. The
first was an evaluation of wastewater treatment facilities and the second
involved the evaluation of wastevater facilities combined with flow augmen-
tation facilities. In both cases, certain basic evaluation criteria were
adhered to.
EVALIJAT ION CRITERIA
The general operability evaluation criteria selected for use in de-
termining the alternatives’ operability ratings are summarized below in
outline form:
1. Reliability
a. Lover wastewater treatment levels are more reliable
than higher treatment levels.
b. Multiple facilities are just as reliable as single
facilities.
c. Older facilities are not as reliable as new facilities.
d. Spray irrigation of treatment plant effluent is less
reliable than surface water discharge of effluent.
2. Flexibility
a. There is no difference in flexibility among levels
of treatment.
b. Multiple facilities are more flexible than single
(regional) facilities.
c. New facilities are more flexible than older facilities.
d. Spray irrigation of effluent is less flexible than
surface discharge.
3. Maintainability
a. Facilities with lower wastewater treatment levels are
more maintainable than those with higher levels.
b. Multiple facilities are less maintainable than single
(regional) facilities.
AII—84

-------
c. New facilities are more maintainable than older
facilities.
d. Treatment facilities with spray irrigation of
effluent are just as maintainable as treatment
facilities with surface discharges.
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The evaluation criteria were applied first to the alternative waste—
water treatment systems to determine their relative operability rankings.
The ranking points assigned to each alternative were determined by a
committee of sanitary engineers familiar with the Cahaba Basin facilities.
A total of 1000 points was selected to be available for distribution among
the alternatives. It was judged that approximately one—third should be
assigned to each of the three areas of general consideration, in order to
weigh reliability, flexibility, and maintainability equally. The results
of this analysis are presented in Table 111—17 in Chapter III of the EIS.
In the analysis of the total wastewater management systems, the above
ratings were adjusted to account for the effect of respective fi w augm.n—
tation facilities operating with the treatment plants. The followind riting
adjustments were judged appropriate:
Reliability Flexibility Maintainability Total
No Augmentation 0 0 0 0
Big Black Creek Reservoir —2 2 —2 —2
Lake Purdy Expansion —2 2 —l —1
Black Creek Reservoir —2 2 —2 -2
Black Creek Res. with
Relocated Water Intake —4 2 —3 —5
The results of the overall operability evaluation rating is presented in
Table 111—18 in Chapter III.
AII—85

-------
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In Chapter III of the EIS, an environmental impacts comparison of the
various wastewater management alternatives for the study area was presented.
This section of Appendix II consists of Table AII—36, which gives a detailed
explanation of the various impacts quantified in Chapter III.
Al 1—86

-------
TABLE AII-36
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Basic Alternatives with Surface Discharge
No Action
Increase in local
sourceS from increased
use of package plants
• Continual odor pro-
blems at Lake Purdy and
Lake Paradise
• Potential for odor
creating algal blooms
in Cahaba River
Cahaba
• Decrease in eutrophi-
cation odor at Lake
Purdy and Paradise Lake
• Potential for odor
creating algal blooms
in Cahaba River
Possible construction
problem from placement
of 215,725 feet of
interceptor and force
main on unstable shale
bedrock.
Temporary soil erosion
during construction
from placemont of
215,725 feet of inter-
ceptor.
Upper Cahaba—
Cahaba
• Decrease in eutrophi-
cation odor at Lake
Purdy and Paradise Lake
• Potential for odor
creating algal blooms
in Cahaba River
Possible construction
problem from placement
of 150,400 feet of
interceptor and force
main on unstable shale
bedrock.
Temporary soil erosion
during construction
from placement of
150,400 feet of inter-
ceptor.
Trussville—
Cahaba
• Decrease in eutrophi-
cation odor at Lake
Purdy and Paradise Lake
• Potential for odor
creating algal blooms
in Cahaba River
Possible construction
problem from placement
of 154,750 feet of
interceptor and force
main on unstable shale
bedrock.
Temporary soil erosion
during construction
from placement of
154,750 feet of inter-
ceptor.
Over ton—Cahab a
• Decrease in eutrophi-
cation odor at Lake
Purdy and Paradise Lake
• Potential for odor
creating algal blooms
in Cahaba River
Possible construction
problem from placement
of 200,075 feet of
interceptor and force
main on unstable shale
bedrock.
Temporary soil erosion
during construction
from placement of
200,075 feet of inter-
ceptor.
Patton Creek—
Upper Cahaba—
Cahaba
• Decrease in eutrophi-
cation of Lake Purdy
• Eutrophication of
Paradise Lake varying
with plan of modifica-
tion
• Potential for odor
producing algal blooms
in the Cahaba River
Possible construction
problem from placement
of interceptor and force
main on unstable shale
bedrock, varying with
modification of Patton
Creek:
a) Patton Creek STP
upgraded and discharged to
Patton Creek: 135,875 feet
b) Patton Creek STP
upgraded and discharged
directly into Cahaba
River: 147,950 feet
c) Patton Creek STP
maintained or only
used as pumping station
in either case,
sewage pumped to Cahaba
STP: 150,400 feet
Temporary soil erosion
during construction
from placement of
interceptor, the degree
varying with the Patton
Creek STP modification.
Environmental Factor
Odor
Topography
Geology
Soils
>
5
r
-J

-------
TABLE All—36 (Cont ’d.)
SUI.Q4ART OF sl(;NlyIcp .NT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental Factor
Odor
Topography
Geology
Soils
Leeds—
All Basic
Truseville
Alternatives
Warrior JUver and
Lind t
Black Creek
i_L e
Warrior River
Cahaba River
.Nutrjsnts from Leeds
Potential at site
Potential increase
Impounding may
Increase in odor
SIP may contribute to
Purdy odors; P removal
the STP hould reduce
C,
at
in odor producing
hypoli anion by
raisinl dsmheight
result in Formation
of same odor produc—
ing hypoltanion
potential from
heavy draw down of
lake
this impact
ten feet
• Uecreased eutrophi-
cation of Paradise
Lake
• Potential for odor
producing algal
blooms in the Cahaba
River
• Physical alteratior
of disposal site
Increase in surface
area of lake by 76Z
(730 acres)
Increase in surface
area of water by
impoundment
Decrease in aurface
ares of Lake Purdy
during heavy draw—
down
• Possible construc—
Construction problenu
Moderate construction
Moderate construction
Possible construc—
Possible construc—
Possible construction
tion problems from
79,800 feet of inter—
ceptor and force
main
from placement of
interceptor and force
main on unstable
shale bedrock
problems
problems
tion problems
from placement of
26,000 feet of
transmission main
tion problems from
placement of trans—
mission main on
unstable shale
problems from placement
of transmission main
on unstable shale bed—
rock:
• If Leeds discharges
to the Cahabs River
a) Upper Cahabs—
Cahaba 13.000 feet
on unstable shale
bedrock
bedrock:
a) Coosa River
a) Coosa River 112,000
feet
construction pro—
blem . from addition—
b) Trussville—Cahaba
39,125 feet of which
173,000 feet to
Lake Purdy
b) Mulberry Fork
158,000 feet
al 14.750 feet of
375 feet crosses
b) Mulberry Fork
c) Locust Fork 158,000
force main and
interceptor
stream in 4 locations
c) Overton—Calisba
54,775 feet of which
43,775 feet follows
stream bottom and
375 feet crosses
stream bed in 4
locations
d) Leeds Trussville
Cahaba
1) 2,000 feet if
Leeds only
2) 41,125 feet if
Leeds 5, Trusevijie
158,000 feet
c) Locust Fork
158,000 or 181,000
feet depending on
location of intake
or 181,000 feet depend—
ing on location of
intake
Temporary soil ero—
.ion during conatruc—
tion from placement
of 79,800 feet of
interceptor
Temporary soil ero—
sion during couatruc—
tion from placement
of interceptor, the
degree varying with
alternative
Erosion of baok.
prior to stabiliza—
tion
Erosion of banks
prior to stabilize—
tion
Temporary soil
erosion during
construction from
placement of
26,000 feet of
transmission main
Temporary soil
erosion during
construction from
placement of tram.—
miseioa main vary—
ing with chosen
Temporary soil erosion
during construction
from placement of tram.-
mission main varying
with chosen modif ice—
tion .

-------
TABLE AIl—36 (Con(’d.)
• Loss of agricultural
lands to urbanization
• Loss of natural vege-
tation sad woodlands
to suburban sprawl
• Loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitat to
urbanization
• If urban development
is unplanned the habi-
tat of certain rare
and endangered species
may be encroached upon
Cahaba
• Loss of agricultural
lands to encroaching
urbanization
• Loss of n*tive vege-
tation and woodland to
suburban sprawl
• Temporary loss of
native vegetation over
29,125 feet of inter-
ceptor
• Creation of more
diverse woodland habitat
along interceptor right
of way through secondary
succession
• Loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitat from
urbanization
• Creation of more
diverse wildlife habi-
tat along 29425 feet
of interceptor through
secondary succession
• Temporary loss of
stream bottomland
habitat along 186,000
feet of interceptor
• Potential loss of
southeastern shrew
habitat
SUMMARY OF SIGNIPICMT
ENVIROMMENTAL iMPACTS
Upper Cahaba—
Cahaba
• Loss of agricultural
lands to encroaching
urbanization
• Loss of native vege-
tation and woodland to
suburban sprawl
• Temporary loss of
native vegetation over
27,275 feet of inter-
ceptor
• Creation of more
diverse woodland habitat
along interceptor right
of way through secondary
succession
• Loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitat from
urbanization
• Creation of more
diverse wildlife habi-
tat along 27,275 feet
of interceptor through
secondary succession
• Temporary loss of
streambottomland
habitat along 123,125
feet of interceptor
• Potential loss of
southeastern shrew
habitat
Trusaville—Cahaba
• Loss of agricultural
lands to encroaching
urbanization
• Loss of native vege-
tation and woodland to
suburban sprawl
• Temporary loss of
native vegetation over
34,275 feet of inter-
ceptor
• Creation of more
diverse woodland habitat
along interceptor right
of way through secondary
succession
• Loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitat iron
urbanization
Creation of more
diverse wildlife habi-
tat along 34,275 feet
of interceptor through
secondary succession
• Temporary loss of
stream bottomland
habitat along 120,475
feet of interceptor
Potential loss of
southeastern shrew
habitat
Overton—Cahaba
• Loss of agricultural
lands to encroaching
urbanization
• Loss of native vege-
tation and woodland to
suburban sprawl
• Temporary loss of
native vegetation over
81,425 feet of inter-
ceptor
• Creation of more
diverse woodland habitat
along interceptor right
of way through secondary
succession
• Loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitat from
urbanization
• Creation of more
diverse wildlife habi-
tat along 81,425 feet
of interceptor through
secondary succession
• Temporary loss of
stream hottomland
habitat along 118,650
feet of interceptor
• Potential loss of
southeastern shrew
habitat
Patton Creek—
Upper Cahaba—
Cahaba
• Loss of agricultural
lands to encroaching
urbanization
Loss of native vege-
tation and woodland to
suburban sprawl
• Loss of terrestrial
habitat varying with
Patton Creek STP
modification:
a) Patton Creek STP
upgraded and discharges
into Patton Creek:
12,750 feet of inter-
ceptor
b) Patton Creek SIP
upgraded and discharges
into Cahaba River
12,750 feet of inter-
ceptor
c) Patton Creek SIP
maintained or used as
pump station; in either
case, sewage pumped to
Cahaba SIP: 27,275
feet
Creation of more
diverse habitat along
interceptor right of
way through secondary
succession
Loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitat from
urbanization
Creation of more
diverse wildlife habi-
tat along interceptor
through secondary
succession, the degree
varying with modifica-
tion of Patton Creek
STP
Temporary baa of
stresmbottom land
habitat, the degree
varying with modif i—
cation of Patton
Creek STP
• Potential loss of
southeastern shrew
habitat
Enviroanental Factor No Action
Plants
Miimals

-------
TA3LE AII—36 (Cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF STGNIFICA$T
ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental Factor
Plants
Animals
‘0
0
Lead.—
All Basic
Tru..ville
Alternatives
Warrior River and
Cahaba
Land Disposal
Lake Purdy
Slack Creek
Lake Purdy intake
Warrior River
Cahaba River
toes of agricultur—
al lands to encroach—
ing urbanization
Temporary lose of
natural vsg.taUon
increased growth of
vegetation at site
inundation of approxi—
mately 700 acre. of
pine and hardwood
forest adjacent to
the lake
Inundation of valley
end loss
of upland vegetation
at reservoir site
Temporary loss of
forest cover along
26,000 feet of
transmission main
right of way
Temporary loss of
forest cover along
transmission main
right of way varying
with modification
. Temporary loan of
forest cover along
transmission main
right of way varying
with modification
over 24,825 feet of
interceptor and
. Possible lone of
rare and endangered
force main
plant:
Hymenocaliis
coronaria
• Loss of wildlife
and wildlife habitat
from urbanization
• Creation of more
diverse habitat
. Disruption of
ecosystem at spray
irrigation site
. Loss of approxi—
mateiy 700 acres of
wildlife habitat
adjacent to lake
Inundation and
. Loss of wildlife
habitat from inunda—
tion of valley
. Potential loss of
southeastern shrew
Temporary ions of
wildlife habitat
from transmission
main construction
Temporary loss of
wildlife habitat
from transmission
main construction
Temporary loss of
wildlife habitat
from transmission
main construction
through secondary
loss of 57.9 acres
habitat
succession along
of red cockaded
24,825 feet of inter—
•
woodpecker habitat
ceptor
• Temporary loss of
stream bottoml.nd
habitat along
54,975 feet of
interceptor

-------
TABLE AXI—36 (Cont’d.)
SWO(ARY OF 5i.GNIFIC/JIT
ENvzR Nm U ?AC1
• Continued degradation
of surface waters.
• Potential pathogenic
viral or chemical
contamination of
drinking water supply.
Cahaba
• Greatest potential
for improved water quality
above Cahaba SIT.
• Predicted 7 day, 10
year low flow average
total inotgsxtic nitrogen
concentrations;
a) River miles 179—152 —
approx. 3 mg/i
b) Miles 148—140 —
approx. 0.5 mg/i
c) Below Cahaba S1’P
approx. 14 mg/i
• Nitrogen concentrations
between Miles 179—152
maximum below Gold—
Kist Plant discharge;
some background from
non—point sources.
• Immediately below the
Cahaba SIT total
phosphorous may range
from 4—7 mg/i depending
on flow down Cahaba
River, 20 cia to 2 cfs
respectively.
• Potential for increased
nutrient levels;
a) Upstream from Cahaba
SIT, especially if Gold—
Kist Plant not upgraded,
in natural pools or
impounded areas with
increased detention time
and increased light
level permitting nuisance
algal blooms or spread
of macrophytes.
b) Downstream of Cahaba
SIT for similar reasons;
light—filtering tree
canopy may reduce impact.
• Greatest decrease in
potential of viral and
other contaminants in
drinking water by plac-
ing all SIT effluent
downstream from water
supply intake.
Upper Cahaba—
Cahaba
Predicted day, 10
year low flow average
total inorganic nitrogen
concentrations:
a) River miles 179—152 —
approx. 5 mg/l
b) Miles 148—140 —
approx. 1 mg/i
c) Below Cahaba SIT —
approx. 13 mg/i
• Imnediately below
Cahaba SIT total
phosphorous may range
from 4—7 mg/I depending
on flow down Cahaba River,
20 cfs to 2 cfs
respectively.
Immediately below
Upper Cahaba SIT after
mix with river, total
phosphorous may be on the
order of 1 mg/i at a 7—
day, 10 year low flow
(assuming no input
from Gold—Kist
Plant).
Potential for increased
nutrient levels:
a) Upstream from Cahaba
STP, especially if Gold—
Kist Plant not upgraded,
in natural pools or
impounded areas with
increased detention time
and increased light
level permitting nuisance
algal blooms or spread
of macrophytes.
b) Downstream of Cahaba
SIT for similar reasons;
light—filtering tree
canopy may reduce impact.
Trussyille—
Cahaba
Predicted 7 day, 10 year
low flow average total
inorganic nitrogen
concentration:
a) River miles 179—192 —
approx. 6 isg/l
b) Miles 148—140 —
approx. 0.5 mg/i
c) Below Cahaba SIT —
approx. 13 mg/l
• Immediately below
Cahaba SIT total
phosphorous may range
from 4—7 mg/l depending
on flow down Cahaba River,
20 cfa to 2 cfs
respectively.
Immediately below
Trussville SIT after
mix with river, total
phosphorous may be on the
order of 2 mg/l at a
7 day, 10 year low flow
(assuming no Input from
Cold—Kist Plant).
Potential for increased
nutrient levels:
a) Upstream from Cahsba
SIT, especially if
Cold—Kist Plant not
upgraded, in natural
pools or impounded areas
with increased detention
time and increased light
level permitting nuisance
algal blooms or spread
of macrophytes.
b) Downstream of Cahaba
SIT for similar reasons;
light—filtering tree
canopy may reduce impact.
Overton-Cahaba
Predicted 7 day, 10
year low flow average
total inorganic nitrogen
concentration:
a) River miles 179—152 —
approx. 6 mg/i
b) Miles 148—140 —
approx. 1 mg/i
c) Below Cahaba SIT —
approx. 13 mg/i
Immediately below
Cahaba SIT total
phosphorous may range
from 4—7 mg/i depending
on flow down Cahaba River,
20 c ia to 2 cis
respectively.
Immediately below
Overton SIT after
mix with river, total
phosphorous may be on the
order of 1 mgfl at a
7 day, 10 year low flow
(assuming no input from
Gold—Kist Plant).
Potential for increased
nutrient levels:
a) Upstream from Cahaba
SIT, especially if
Gold—Kist Plant not
upgraded, in natural
pools or impounded areas
with increased detention
time and increased light
level permitting nuisance
algal blooss or aptead
of macrophytes.
b) Downstream of Cahaba
SIP for similar reasons;
light—filtering tree
canopy may reduce impact.
Patton Creek—
Upper Cahaba—
Cahgba
Predicted 7 day, 10 year
low flow average total
inorganic nitrogen
concentrations:
a) River miles 179—152 —
approx. 5 mg/l
b) Miles 148—140 —
approx. 1 mg/l
c) Below Cahaba SIT —
approx. 13 mg/l
Immediately below
Cahaba SIP total
phosphorous may range
from 4—7 mg/l depending
on flow down Cahaba River,
20 cfs to 2 cfs
respectively.
Immediately below
Upper Cahaba SIT after
mix with river, total
phosphorous may be on the
order of 1 mg/l at a
7 day, 10 year low flow
(assuming no input from
Gold—Kist Plant).
Potential for increased
nutrient levels:
a) Upstream from Cahaba
SIT, especially if
Gold—Kist Plant not
upgraded, in natural
pools or impounded areas
with increased detention
time and increased light
level permitting nuisance
algal blooms or spread
of niacrophytes.
b) Downstream of Cahaba
SIT for similar reasons;
light—filtering tree
canopy may reduce impact.
Environmental Factor No Action
Surface Water
‘0

-------
TABLE Ail—36 (Cont’d.)
SU BIARY OF S1t 4IPICMT
4VIRONMENTAL IMPMTS
Environsmn tal Factor
Surface Water
Lake Purdy
• Increase in storage
capacity.
• Increased atreamflow
of Cehaba River.
Black Creek
. Increase in
capacity.
. Only plan to
augment flow in
reaches of the
River.
etorage
upper
Cahabs
Lake Purdy Intake
Warrior River
. Increased water quality
by removing water supply
intake from the Cahaba
River and increasing its
assimilative capacity.
. increased Water
quantity and qual—
ity by removing
water supply in—
take from the
Cahaba River and
increasing its
as. teil ative
capacity.
Warrior River and
Cahaba River
Leeds— All Basic
Trussvilie Alternatives
Cehabs Land Disposal
Predicted 7 day, • Minor increase
10 year low flow in base flow in area
average total of land disposal
inorganic nitrogen site.
concentration: . Some reduction of
a) River miles 179— nutrient input. to the
152 — approx. 6 C.hsbe River system
as _ /i from SIP discharge..
b) Miles 148—140 — . Raduction in amo iit
approx. 1 mg/i of SI? effluent reach—
c) Below Cahaba SIP — tug the water supply.
approx. 13 mg/i
Iasaediately below
Cahaba SIP total
phosphorous may range
from 4—7 mg/i depending
on flow down Cababa
River, 20 c Ia to 2 cfe
respectively.
Imeediately beiow
Trusaville SI? after
mix with river, total
phosphorous may on the
order of 2 as_Il at
7 day, 10 year low
flow (aseuming no
input from Gold—lUst
Plant).
• Potential for
increased nutrient
levels:
a) Ups tream from Cahaba
817, eapecially if
Gold—Kist Plant
no upgraded, in natural
pools or tupounded areas
with increased detention
time and increased light
level permitting
nuisance algal blooms or
spread of macrophy tee.
b) Downstream of Caheba
SIP for similar reasons;
light—filtering tree
canopy may reduce impact.
I-

-------
TA3LE AlI-36 (tont’d.)
SWI ARY OF SIGt4IFICAIrT
FI4VIRtgIM ThL IMPACTS
• Existing aquatic
habitat problems due
to SIP discharges, such
as from the overloaded
Patton Creek SIP, will
continue.
• Continued eutrophi-
cation of Lakes Purdy
and Paradise.
• As the aquatic
habitat continues to
degrade, there will be
an increased threat to
the endangered gold—
line darter and Cahaba
shiner.
Cahaba
• Decrease in eutrophi-
cation of Lakes Purdy and
Faradiss resulting in an
improved aquatic environ—
ewnt of increased diversity.
• Temporary loss of stream
bottom habitat from erosion
along 186,600 feet of
interceptor and force main
of Which 2,550 feet crosses
strea,thed in 25 locations.
• Long term, most improved
Fabitat between Cahaba SIP
and trussville (by all
effluent entering Cahaba
River south of the Cahaba
SIP) if Gold—Kist
Plant is upgraded.
• Disposal of all domestic
wsstewater of the study area
through the Cahaba SIP cre-
ates the potential for de-
graded aquatic habitat
downstream of the plant.
The potential exists for
the habitat of the goidline
iarter and the Caheba shiner
to be affected by nutrient
loadings and residual chlorine
from the tahaba STP.
Upper Cshaba—
Cahaba
Truapeille—
Cahths
Overton—Cahaba
Decrease in eutrophi-
cation of Lakes Purdy and
Paradise resulting in an
improved aquatic environ-
ment of increased diversity.
• Temporary loss of stream
bottom habitat from erosion
along 118,650 feet of
interceptor and force main
of Which 1,250 feet crosses
a streas,bed in 15 locations.
General long—term poten-
tial for degraded aquatic
habitats due to limited
assimilative capacity of
Cahabs River system.
Disposal of most of the
study area’s domestic waste—
water through the Cahaba STP
creates the potential for
degraded aquatic habitat
downstream of the plant.
The potential exists for
the habitst of the goidline
darter and the Cahsbs shiner
to be affected by nutrient
loadings and residual
chlorine iron the Cahaba STP.
Patton Creek
Upper Cahabs—
Cahaba
Decrease in eutrophi-
cation of Lakes Purdy and
Paradise resulting in an
improved aquatic environ-
ment of increased diversity
Temporary loss of stream
bottom habitat from
erosion, the degree depend-
ing upon Patton Creek SIP
modifications:
a) If Patton Creek SIP
diacharges directly into
Patton Creek: 123,125
feet of interceptor of
which 1,350 feet crosses
streams 14 times.
b) If Patton Creek SIP
upgraded and discharges
directly into Cahaba
River: 135,200 feet of
interceptor of which
1,425 feet crosses streams
15 times.
c) If Patton Creek SIP
retained for primary
treatment, with flow going
to Cahaba SIP: 113,125
feet of interceptor of
which 1,350 feet crosses
stream 11 times.
• General long—term
potential for degraded
aquatic habitats due to
limited assimilative capa-
city of Cahaba River
system.
Disposal of most of
the study area’s domestic
wastewater through the
Cahaba SIP Creates the
potential for degraded
aquatic habitat down-
stream of the plant.
• The potential exists
for the habitat of the
goldline darter and the
Cahaba shiner to be
affected by nutrient load-
ings and residual chlorine
from the Cahaba SIP.
Environmental Factor No Action
Aquatic Life
Decrease in eutrophi— . Decrease in eutrophi-
cation of Lakes Purdy med cation of l.akes Purdy and
Paradise resulting in an Pkeadise resulting in as
improved aquatic environ— iaqtroved aquatic environ-
ment of increased diversity. meut of increased diversity.
Temporary loss of stre . .Tesporacy loss of stream
bottom habitat from erosion bottom habitat from erosion
along 113,125 feet of along 120,475 feet of
interceptor and force math interceptor and force main
of which 1,350 feet crosses of whilh 1,575 feet croasea
a streambed in 14 locationa. a streambed in 15 locations.
General long—term potential . General long—term potential
for degraded aquatic habitats for degraded aquatic habitats
due to limited assimilative due to limited assimilative
capacity of Cahabs River capacity of Cahaba River
system. system.
Disposal of most of the . Disposal of most of the
study area’s domestic waste— study area’s domestic waste—
water throuaJ , the Cahaba 511’ water through the Cshaba SIP
creates the potential for creates the potential for
degraded aquatic habitat degraded aquatic habitat
downstream of the plant. downstream of the plant.
The potential exists for • The potential exists for
the habitat of the goldline the habitat of the goldline
darter and the Cahaba shiner darter and the Cahaba shiner
to be affected by nutrient to be affected by nutrient
loadings and residual loadings and residual
chlorine from the Cahaba SIP, chlorine from the Cahaba SIP.
S.
H
‘a

-------
TABLE All—36 (Cont’d.)
SUNMART OF SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmen tel Factor
Aquatic Life
Lake Purdy Intake Warrior River
Lake Purdy
• Increase littoral
zone and resulting
primary and secondary
production.
• Potential increase
in hypoliwion (zone
of eutrophication).
• Increase flow
restoration capa-
bilities and
potential aquatic
diversity within
the Cahaba River.
Black Creek
thanging aquatic
habitat trots
riverine
to lacuatrine
environment.
Potential effect
of mine drainage on
aquatic life in
reservoir.
Warrior River and
Cahaba River
Potential fish
kill from large
draw—down causing
artificial overturn.
Decrease in
littoral zone.
increased fiah
c*tches due to
crowding at draw—
down.
Increased assimilative
capacity of the Cahaba
River by its discontinued
use as a source of
municipal water by the
City of Birmingham.
Leeds—
Trussvilla
Caheba ,
Improved water
quality and aquatic
habitat in Lake
Paradise; nutrients
from Leeds SIP could
adversely affect Lake
Purdy.
Temporary loss of
streets bottom habitat
from erosion along
54,975 feet of
interceptor and
force egin of which
600 feet crosses
the Cahsba River
in 6 locatipns.
General long—term
potential for de-
graded aquatic
habitats due to
limited assimilative
capacity of Caheba
River system.
Disposal of most
of the study area’s
domestic wastewater
through the Cshaba
SIP creates the
potential for de-
graded aquatic habi-
tat downstream of the
plant.
The potential
exists for the habi-
tat of the goldline
darter and the
Cahaba shiner to be
affected by nutrient
loadings and resi-
dual chlorine
from the Cahsba
SIP.
All Basic
Alternatives
Land Disposal
Effects varying
with alterpative
a) Upper Cahaba—
Cs.haba: 15% of sewage
effluent normally
emptied into C8haba
River will be totally
dispersed on land,
resulting in
improved water
quality.
b) Trussvilla-Cahaba:
Force stain will
cross streambed in
4 locales; 7% of
sewage effluent
normally emptied
into the Cahaba
River will be
totally diaperaed
on land resulting
in a potential
for improved water
quality conditions.
c) Overton—Cahaba:
17% of aewage
effluent normally
emptied into the
Cahaba River will
be totally diverted
to land disposal
resulting in a
potential for im-
proved water
quality conditions.
d) Upper Cahaba
Cahaba Patton Creek:
Same as Upper Cahaba
Cahaba.
e) Leeds Trussville
Cahaba:
1) Leede diversion to
land treatment: 8% of
sewage for land
disposal.
2) Trusaville
diversion: 7% of sewage
for land disposal.
p - I
a-

-------
E. IMPLENENTABILITY EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
This evaluation was conducted to determine the implementation potential
of each wastewater alternative. A potential project may be the best engineer-
ing solution but may face serious problems which would make implementation
infeasible. Therefore, it is important that implementation feasibility be
considered as part of our overall evaluation process. This implementability
evaluation was conducted by a team of planners, engineers, and environmental
scientists.
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES
In evaluating implementability, the following evaluation criteria were
utilized:
1. Public Acceptability
2. Institutional and Management Considerations
3. Planning Flexibility
The implementability evaluation is presented in Chapter III, Table 111—23
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The table presents a matrix of
the wastewater and water supply/augmentation alternatives in the Cahaba River
Basin. For each alternative a score of 1—50 was used for the evaluation.
The three separate criteria were then applied to each alternative and, based
upon a qualitative evaluation, points were assigned to each alternative on
the matrix. Within the maximum score of 50 points, each of the three
evaluation criteria were assigned a maximum number of points that could be
assigned to each individual criteria. For the purpose of the evaluation, the
following points were assigned:
Public Acceptability — 25 points
Institutional and Management Considerations — 15 points
Planning Flexibility — 10 points
AII—95

-------
F • COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS METhODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
EPA requires that wastewater management alternatives be evaluated on the
basis of cost effectiveness analysis. This analysis is a methodology for the
selection of an alternative system which efficiently utilizes resources while
minimizing adverse environmental and social impacts. The Cahaba River Basin
EIS cost effectiveness analysis involves the evaluation of trade—of fs among
the monetary costs, environmental impacts, implementability, and operability
of each alternative. The cost effectiveness analysis allows the comparison
of the preceding evaluation factors on a coon base so that each alternative
may be shown on one matrix, represented by one alternative rating value.
Because a project may create a wide range of impacts, the categories in which
these impacts occur must be examined for relative importance. Weighting the
categories allows those factors that are more significant to be represented
more heavily than those that are less significant.
The cost effectivenss analysis methodology involved a numerical matrix
that established ratings for each alternative. This rating system combines
the effects of all the evaluation factors considered. Each of the four evalu-
ation factors was assigned a total number of cost effective rating points and
within each of the evaluation factors, the points were distributed into
various subcategories. Within each alternative, the number of rating points
was totaled and displayed in a matrix showing each water quality management
system according to the was tewater treatment and conveyance configurations
(Table AXI—48).
METhODOLOGY
Each alternative wastewater management system was given a potential of 1000
cost effective rating points. A breakdown of these points according to
evaluation factor and subeategory is found below:
EVALUATION
FACTOR
(Total Cost
Effect. COST ENVIRONMENTAL OPERAB ILITY IMPLEMENT-
Rating ?ts.) ANALYSIS (350) IMPACT (350) ( 150) ABILITY (150 )
1. Present Worth 1. Aquatic
(200) (175)
Category
2. Local Annual 2. Terrestrial
Costs (150) (75)
3. Manmade (100)
After each of the four major evaluation factors and their subcategories
were carefully reviewed and distributed evaluation scores or dollar values,
they were analyzed to determine a function which would accurately translate
the evaluation score/dollars into the cost effective rating points desired.
AII’-96

-------
COST EVALUATION
The cost analysis was broken down into two subcategories: present worth
and the local annual cost. The present worth analysis establishes a total
cost value of the capital expenditures and operating costs of each alternative
over the duration of the 18 year planning period ending in the year 2000 using
an interest rate of 6.375%. The local annual costs reflect more closely the
relative impacts of the alternatives on the systems owner, the Jefferson County
Sanitation Department and its users.* It was determined that the rating
function would inversely relate the project cost (dollars) to the rating point
range. This would result in higher points f or the lower priced alternatives.
The function developed to translate the costs into the rating points
matched the midpoint for the range of costs to the midpoint for the range of
rating points. This methodology resulted in the following functions for
establishing cost—effectivenss point ratings for the two cost evaluation
factors:
3.87 x iü
PRESENT WORTH RATING = PRESENT WORTH (IN DOLLARS)
LOCAL ANNUAL COST RATING = 2.06 x 108
LOCAL ANNUAL COST (IN DOLLARS)
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The environmental impact analysis, which is worth 350 points, utilized a
variety of methodologies: open—celled narrative matrices, interaction matrices,
and an ad hoc evaluation committee. The open—celled narrative matrix provides
a cause—effect relationship between a list of environmental parameters and the
proposed actions. The degree of impact—beneficial, neutral, or harmful — was
quantif led where possible. (The environmental impacts were broken into the
three categories: aquatic environment worth 175 points, terrestrial environ-
ment worth 75 points, and manmade environment worth 100 points). The ad hoc
committee assigned weighted values of relative importance to each environmental
parameter within the three categories. The impacts were determined to be
beneficial (positive), neutral (zero), or harmful (negative) and a magnitude
from 0 to 4 was assigned to each cell. This quantified value multiplied by
the weight for each parameter yielded a weighted score. These weighted scores
were totaled to obtain a grand total for impacts caused by each alternative.
For each category, the impacts were examined to determine the maximum
possible range of scores. An amount was added to adjust each category range to
bring all scores to positive values (> 0). This positive range was then adjusted
to the maximum available rating range by a factor to match the scores to the
rating points. This resulted in the following three functions:
*A more in—depth discussion of this aspect is found in Section B of this
appendix .
AII—97

-------
Terrestrial Impact Rating = (Impact Evaluation Score + 56) (1.5)
Aquatic Impact Rating = (Impact Evaluation Score + 40) (2.3)
Manmade Impact Rating = (Impact Evaluation Score + 68) (.833)
IMPL ENTABILITY EVALUATION
The iinplementability evaluation which is worth 150 points considers the
question of alternative implementability in view of both the public and
political realities within the study area. A more in—depth discussion of
implementability can be found in Section E of this appendix. The three
parameters evaluated were public acceptance, institutional considerations,
and planning flexibility. The actual points were computed using a function
which matched the midpoint of the evaluation score to the midpoint of the
rating points to obtain a factor. This factor multiplied times the evaluation
score yielded the rating points:
2.30 x IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION SCORE - IMPLEMENTABILITY RATING
OPERABILITY EVALUATION
The final evaluation, also worth 150 points, is for the operability of the
facilities. The operability involves three general parameters: reliability
of treatment, flexibility of operation, and facilities maintainability. The
operability of the facilities is discussed in more detail in Section C of this
appendix. These areas were considered for each of the wastewater facilities
alternatives and comparative ratings were established for each of the para-
meters • The actual points were determined using the same formula which was
used for the implementability factor. By matching the midpoint of the evaluation
scores to the midpoint of the rating points, a factor was obtained to multiply
by the evaluation score to get the rating points:
2.54 x OPERABILITY EVALUATION SCORE = OPERABILITY RATING POINTS
APPLICATION
The cost—effectivenss analysis was performed on each of the wastewater
management system alternatives using the above described methodology. Tables
AII—37 through AII—47 present the results of the individual ratings for each
evaluation factor applied to the alternative systems. These cost—effectiveness
ratings are sunanarized for all alternatives in Table AII—48.
AjI—98

-------
TABLE AII—37
CAHABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR OVERTON-CAHABA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Beg.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 108 129 112 lii 112 79
(200)
Local Annual Costs 110 132 95 93 89 52
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 122 122 161 161 161 138
Terrestrial ( 75) 36 36 24 24 24 11
Manmade (100) 53 53 53 56 53 50
INPLEMENTATION 62 62 46 58 49 42
(150)
OPERABILITY 76 86 81 84 92 84
(150)
TOTAL 567 620 572 587 580 456

-------
TABLE AII-38
CARABA RIVER BASIN BIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR UPPER CABANA - CAHABA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Re..
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Re.. Lake Purdy Big Black Creek Basin Re.. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 111 134 115 114 116 81
(200)
Local Annual Costs 117 141 99 98 93 54
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 122 122 161 161 161 138
‘j , Terre.td.al ( 75) 36 36 24 24 24 11
Manmade (100) 53 53 53 56 53 50
IMPLEMEN tAT1ON 81 81 69 76 72
(150) 65
OPERABILITY 76 86 81 84 92
(150) 84
TOTAL 596 653 602 613 611 483

-------
TABLE AII-39
CABANA RIVER BASIN RIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR LEEDS (L. CABABA R.) TRUSSVILLE-CABABA
WATER QUALITY XAN&CEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Rea • Lake Purdy Expana. Big Black Creek Basin Rae. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 125 153 129 128 130 88
(200)
Local Annual Costs 120 145 101 100 95 54
(150)
ENVIRO1 !ENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 106 106 161 161 161 131
Terrestrial ( 75) 56 56 30 33 30 3
Ma unade (100) 53 53 53 56 53 60
IMPLEMENTATION 109 109 95 102 97 90
(150)
OPERABILITY 64 74 69 71 79 71
(150)
TOTAL 633 696 638 651 645 497

-------
TABLE AII—40
CARABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR LEEDS (CAHABA K.) TRUSSVILLE—CA}IABA
WATER QUALITY MM4AGENENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expane. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 125 154 130 129 131 88
(200)
Local Annual Costs 120 145 102 100 95 54
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 115 115 161 161 161 140
Terrestrial ( 75) 45 45 24 24 24 14
Manmade (100) 53 53 53 56 53 60
IMPLEMENTATION 109 109 95 102 97 90
(150)
OPERABILITY 64 74 69 71 79 71
(150)
TOTAL 631 695 634 643 640 517

-------
TABLE All— 4 ’
CABABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR TRUSSVILLE - CABABA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Rae.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 109 132 114 113 115 80
(200)
Local Annual Co8ts 113 137 98 96 92 53
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 122 122 161 161 161 138
Terrestrial ( 36 36 24 24 24 11
Manmade (100) 53 53 56 53 50
IMPLEMENTATION 104 104 90 99 92 85
(150)
OPERABILITY 71 81 76 79 86 79
(150)
TOTAL 608 665 616 628 623 496

-------
TABLE All— 42
CABANA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR CABANA
WATER QUALITY MANAG E) STSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Rae.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Rae • Lake Purdy Expan.. Big Black Creek Basin Re .. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 103 123 107 107 108 77
(200)
Local Annual Cost. 110 133 95 94 90 53
(150)
ENVIBO1 rrAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 122 122 161 161 161 140
Terrsa rjii ( 75) 26 26 17 23 17 8
Manaad (100) 53 53 53 56 53 50
IMPLEMENTATION 74 74 62 72 65 58
(150)
OPERABILITY 71 81 76 79 89 81
(150)
TOTAL 559 612 571 592 583 467

-------
TABLE All— 43
CAJIABA RIVER BASIN ElS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR PATTON CREEK* - UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
WATER QUALITY MM4AGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 105 119 104 103 103 74
(200)
Local Annual Costs 112 125 91 90 84 51
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 115 115 161 161 161 131
Terrestrial ( ) 39 39 26 26 26 8
u Manmade (100) 56 53 50
IMPLEMENTATION 69 69 58 65 60 53
(150)
OPERABILITY 59 69 64 66 74 66
(150)
TOTAL 552 589 557 567 561 433
*vja Patton Creek

-------
TABLE All— 44
CAJIABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR PATYON CREEK* - UPPER CABAISA — CAHABA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Re8. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Rag. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 114 130 112 112 111 78
(200)
Local Annual Costs 122 139 98 97 90 53
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 122 122 161 161 161 138
Terrestrial ( 75) 32 32 24 24 24 15
°‘ Manmade (100) 53 53 53 56 53 50
IMPLEMENTATION 99 99 85 92 88 81
(150)
OPERABILITY 64 74 69 71 79 71
(150)
TOTAL 606 649 602 613 606 486
*vja Cahaba River

-------
TABLE AII—45
CABABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR UPPER CAHABA — CAHABA - PATTON CREEK
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 113 137 117 116 118 82
(200)
Local Annual Costa 114 137 97 96 91 53
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 122 122 161 161 161 138
Terrestrial ( 75) 36 36 24 24 24 11
Manmade (100) 53 53 53 56 53 50
IMPLEMENTATION 97 97 83 90 85 79
(150)
OPERABILITY 64 74 69 71 79 71
(150)
TOTAL 599 656 604 614 611 484
* Prctreatment

-------
TABLE AII— 4 6
CABABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR UPPER CAHABA — SPRAY IRRIGATION - CAHABA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Black Creek Basin Rae.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 104 124 108 107 108 77
(200)
Local Annual Costa 100 127 92 91 86 51
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 129 129 161 161 161 145
Terrestrial ( 75) 30 18 18 18 17
Manmade (100) 5 56 53 50
IMPLEMENTATION 81 81 67 74 69 62
(150)
OPERABILITY 69 79 74 76 84 76
(150)
TOTAL 566 623 573 583 579 478

-------
TAZLE AII-47
CAHABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING FOR LEEDS* — TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Big Slack Creek Basin Res.
Rating No Augmentation No Augmentation Big Black Crk. Res. Lake Purdy Expans. Big Black Creek Basin Res. Water Intake
Factor Treatment Level Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level Treatment Level 1
COSTS
Present Worth 119 145 123 122 124 85
(200)
Local Annual Costs 117 141 100 98 93 54
(150)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Aquatic (175) 113 113 161 161 161 138
Terrestrial ( 7 ) 50 24 27 24 9
Manmade (100) 53 53 56 53 60
IMPLEMENTATION 88 88 76 81 79 72
(150)
OPERABILITY 59 69 64 66 74 66
(150)
TOTAL 599 659 601 611 608 484
* Spray Irrigation

-------
TABLE AII-48
CAHABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING OF ALTERNATIVES
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Wastewater Treatment Big Black Creek Lake Purdy Big Black Creek Basin Big Black Creek Basin Res.
and Conveyance No Augmentation No Augmentation Reservoir Expansion Reservoir Relocate Water Intake
Configuration Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 2 Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1
1. Overton—Cahaba 567 620 572 587 580 456
2. Upper Cahaba—Cahaba 596 653 602 613 611 483
3. Leeds via Little
Cahaba River—Trussville-
Cahaba 633 696 638 651 645 497
4. Leeds via Cahaba River—
Trusaville—Cahaba 631 695 634 643 640 517
5. TrussviJj.e—Cahaba 608 665 616 628 623 496
6. Cahaba 559 612 571 592 583 467
7. Patton Creek via Patton
Creek—Upper Cahaba—
Cahaba 552 589 557 567 561 433
8. Patton Creek via Cahaba
River—Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba 606 649 602 613 606 486
9. Upper Cahaba—Cahaba with
Patton Creek Pretreatment 599 656 604 614 611 484
10. Upper Cahaba—Spray Irriga—
tion—Cahaba 566 623 573 583 579 478
11. Leeds Spray Irrigation-.
Trussvi lle—Cahaba 599 659 601 611 608 484

-------
G. EVALUATION OF NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no—action alternative represents the option to provide no further
federal funding towards the construction of wastewater facilities in the
Cahaba River Basin. This alternative presents a scenario that would involve
only state, local or private investment in the construction of wastewater
facilities. Under a no—action alternative the following concepts would
prevail:
1. Different population.
2. Different land use.
3. Additional on—lot disposal systems.
4. More package plants.
5. No expansion or upgrading of County facilities or I/I correction.
6. Bring existing plants into compliance with treatment requirements.
(a) Divert treatment plant effluent from Patton Creek to Cahaba River.
(b) Add new package plants.
(c) Recondition old package plants with present owners continuing
operation.
(d) Recondition old on—lot systems.
The no—action alternative has been treated similarly to other alternatives
which call for a specific wastewater action. Under the no—action alternative,
growth would continue to occur. However, private, local or state investment
would be required for wastewater facilities rather than reliance upon
federal grants. Under the no—action alternative we have estimated population
projections under such a scenario. In addition, a cost evaluation has been
made of the wastewater facility alternatives under the no—action alternative.
This cost evaluation is presented in Appendix II, B. Cost Evaluation
Methodology.
A major component of the no—action alternative is the development of
population projections to fit the no—action scenario. Under a no—action
development alternative there are three major components which were utilized
to develop the no—action alternative. These components are: inf ill population;
development tract population; and scatter population.
All—ill

-------
INFILL POPULATION
Inf ill population is caused by something we have referred to as the
“inf ill process”. Inf ill developments are generally associated with individual
construction activities in neighborhoods which are already substantially
developed but which have not yet been “built out”. Many established residential
neighborhoods often have a small number of available building lots usually
totalling between 10 and 20 percent of the maximum number of lots. Such areas
may have posed special problems in the past related to ownership, construction
and investments opportunities which have prevented their improvements.
Another area where “inf ill” development Is likely to take place occurs in
between two or more large scale suburban developments. Such development Is
represented by the conversion of farms or empty areas. This conversion of
unimproved lands into buildable lots often takes place as the selling of
individual lots by land owners who may have elected to hold out in anticipation
of greater capital gain or for purposes of reducing capital gains tax or
inheritance tLxes. This process results in a filling in of the remaining
residential lots by builders or owners who in turn are capitalizing on the
development of the infrastructure of a growing community.
Two characteristics Identify both types of inf ill development. First, it
Is relatively slow process and secondly, it is an activity engaged in by
local and generally small construction firms who can better take advantage of
the local real estate market.
The process of determining inf ill populations began with the delineation
of so—called communities within the study area. These areas included the
Leeds area, Trussville area and the large area in the basin encompassing
Hoover—Vestavia Hills—Mountain Brook areas. These were the communities under
our criteria that were defined as areas where “inf ill development” and popu—
lation growth would occur under a no—action alternative. These developments
could utilize any excess capacity in the present sewer system, or install on—
lot systems or package plants. All tract sizes were less than 70 acres except
for several tracts in the Leeds and Trussville areas. Larger tracts would be
considered under the development tract populations to be considered later in
this Section. For each tract, we considered the net developable acreage for
each tract as 75% of the total tract size. This was assuming that 25% of the
tract would be used for transportation network, utility rights—of—way,
recreation, and other public purposes. If the land was generally suitable,
meaning that it could easily accommodate on—lot sewage disposal, it was
determined that a density of 2 dwelling units/acre could be achieved. If the
land was only moderately suitable because of soils or slope limitations then
a density of 1 dwelling unit/two acres would be achieved. From this was
developed the number of potential dwelling units that could be supported by
the various tracts. Population estimates for each tract were then developed
based upon a factor of 3.1 persons/dwelling unit. This figure is the average
figure for the Birmingham SMSA. Table AII—49 presents the infill population
projections developed for the no-action alternative. The year 2000 projection
for the basin is 7,164 persons from inf ill population.
All— 112

-------
TABLE AII-49
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES
(INFILL POPULATIONS)
Size
General Moderate
Suitability Suitability Potential Estimated
Total Size Total/Net Total/Net Dwelling Population
Tract ( Acres) AC I AC AC / AC Units ( 3.1 )
1 60 60/45 0/0 90 279
2 30 30/24 0/0 48 149
5 30 30/22 0/0 44 136
8 50 50/37 0/0 74 229
9 60 60/45 0/0 90 279
11 40 40/30 0/0 60 186
12 40 40/30 0/0 60 186
14 60 60/45 0/0 90 279
15 20 0/0 20/15 8 25
17 10 10/7 0/0 14 43
20 30 30/22 0/0 44 136
21 70 70/52 0/0 104 322
29 50 40/30 10/7 64 198
32 50 0/0 50/37 19 59
33 20 0/0 20/15 8 25
34 50 50/37 0/0 74 229
35 40 40/30 0/0 60 186
37 40 0/0 40/30 15 47
Total 18 750 610/456 140/104 966 2,993
Al 1—113

-------
TABLE AII—49 (Cont’d.)
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES
(INFILL POPULATIONS)
Size
General Moderate
Suitability Suitability Potential Estimated
Total Size Total/Net Total/Net Dwelling Population
Tract (Acres) AC / AC AC / AC Units ( 3.1)
Trussville Area
40 60 60/45 0/0 90 279
41 50 50/37 0/0 74 229
42 180 180/135 0/0 270 837
43 50 50/37 0/0 74 229
45 30 30 / 22 0/0 44 136
Total 5 360 370/276 0/0 552 1,710
Leeds Area
46 320 320/240 010 480 1,488
47 120 120/90 0/0 180 558
49 70 70/52 0/0 104 322
50 20 20/15 0/0 30 93
4 530 530/347 0/0 794 2,461
Totals 27 1,650 1510/1129 140/104 2,312 7,164
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
AII—114

-------
DEVELOPMENT TRACT POPULATION
The second component of the no—action population estimate is the develop-
ment tract population. These are large tracts of land which have been
assembled by developers and are either presently under construction or planned
for construction in the near future. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
provided data on a wide range of large scale residential developments proposed
in the study area. The Chamber classified these developments as: (1) under
construction; (2) looks strong; and (3) probable in time.
Under a no—action scenario many of the planned, large—scale developments
will not be built because of the unavailability of public sewerage. Therefore,
a screening process was developed to determine which of the large developments
would continue to be built under a no—action scenario. First, only developments
classified as “under construction” or “looks strong” were considered. Second,
most developments of less than 50 acres were screened since it might not be
profitable to a developer to install a sewage collection system and package
plant to serve the smaller developments. Third, proximity to the Cahaba River
or Little Cahaba River was also considered since the cost of constructing a
long outfall would cause exhorbitant user charges. A cost curve was established
based upon distance from the Cahaba or Little Cahaba. If the cost curve
indicated that a proposed development would have a charge of greater than
$300/dwelling unit for sewer usage because of the distance from either the
Cahaba or Little Cahaba, then this was also used as a screening factor for any
of the larger developments.
This screening process of development tracts basin provided 15 develop-
ments tracts ranging in size from 57 to 3,000 acres. Based upon the data in
Table All—SO, it is estimated that development tracts will account for a
population growth of 30,631 persons throughout the basin by the year 2000.
This accounts for most of the population growth that will occur in the basin
under the no—action scenario. This assumes that private investment will
continue their interest in the basin without the provision of public waste—
water facilities. This would require the use of privately owned package plants
for each development or the extensive use of on—lot disposal systems.
SCATTER POPULATION
A second component of the small scale suburbanization process consists of
“scatter development”. This component is by far the smallest except in those
areas which have no existing urban or suburban development. The scattered
development refers to the construction activity (almost always in the form of
single family units) which takes place throughout a rural area and which is
neither influenced by large scale development nor inf ill. This form of
development is extremely difficult to predict since the factors influencing it
are unrelated to rational or even political, social, or economic factors.
Consequently, the scatter component of residential activity has been allocated
on the basis of the size of areas which are not environmentally restricted and
in which urban and suburban development is low or absent. The allocation of
scatter population was influenced by two additioi ial factors, namely, the
region’s “suitability” from a residential point of view and its accessibility.
AII—l15

-------
TABLE AII—50
DEVELOPMENT TRACTS
IN THE BASIN
Existing Future Total Projected
Size Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Population
Tract Total Net Units Units Units ( 3.] .xD.U. )
1 3,000 1,740 1,350 2,130 3,480 10,788
2 855 290 200 380 380 1,798
8 98 62 200 200 620
10 103 53 210 210 651
18 1,300 816 296 1,336 1,632 5,059
20 400 244 300 188 488 1,512
24 57 41 100 100 310
38 250 0 200 200 620
41 80 32 174 174 539
46 150 72 62 82 144 446
47 1,400 976 300 1,652 1,952 6,051
52 207 90 0 180 180 558
66 129 84 250 250 775
67 114 74 148 148 458
68 60 40 144 —— — 144 446
Total 15 8,203 4,614 12,116 19,507 9,882 30,631
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
All’- 116

-------
Since few areas have been identified as suitable for large scale
residential development in the northern sector, an attempt was made to factor
in such a component into subsequent suballocation procedures. This was pro-
jected to occur particularly towards the end of the planning period.
Table Afl—51 provides scatter population projection at 5 year Increme s
until the year 2000. A total scatter population of 4,901 persons is proj€ ted
for the basin.
TOTAL NO—ACTION POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Table AII—52 provides a summary of the basin population under a no-action
alternative. Under no—action, a population increase of 42,690 persons or a
total 2000 population of 135,430 is estimated. This estimate is largely
dependent upon the action of major developers who would be faced with the
prospect of no public wastewater facilities. An interesting point abo”t t1 e
no—action population estimate is that it is only 2,779 persons less than the
134,209 that are projected under the unconstrained conditions which foresee
considerable expansion of wastewater facilities.
POPULATION DISAG EGATION TO SUBWATERSHED
The no-action population projections were disaggregated to each subwai er—
shed in order to compare no—action and proposed action population projict on.
by subwatershed. The no—action population projections were disaggreg ted n
the following manner:
1. Infill population was assigned to the subwatershed in which ti e in i1l
tract is located.
2. Development tract population was assigned to the subwatershed in ,hich
the tract is located.
3. Scatter population was distributed on basis of the size of the sub—
watershed.
All—li 7

-------
TABLE AII-51
SCATTER POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Total
Northern Sector 1,723 650 400 400 400 3,573
Central Sector 204 38 71 220 179 712
Southern Sector 553 35 28 — — 616
Totals 2,480 723 499 620 579 4,901
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
All— 118

-------
TABLE AII-52
NO—ACTION POPULATION
SUMMARY
Total
No—Action
Development Tract Population
Infill Population Population Scatter Population Increase
Southern Northern
Sector 2,993 Sector 3,573
Central
Trussville 1,710 Sector 712
Southern
Leeds 2,461 Sector 616
Total 7,163 30,631 4,901 42,696
No—Action Population
Percent Change
1975 2000 in Population
92,734 135,340 46.0
Unconstrained Population
Percent Change
1975 2000 in Population
92,734 138,209 49.0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
All— 119

-------
H. ESTIMATION OF SEWERED POPULATION
BY SUBDRAINAGE BASIN
As a basis f or estimating future wastewater flows in the study area,
use has been made of the subdrainage basin population projections which have
been developed for the Cahaba Basin, as presented in Table 111—25. From these
population projections, future residential and commercial wastewater flows
have been estimated for each alternative utilizing data on present day per
capita water consumption rates. Potential areas to which sewer service should
be provided have been determined with consideration given to factors such as
existing and future population densities, location of existing package treatment
plants to be phased out, the existing and proposed transportation network,
location of proposed residential development, soil suitabilities for on—lot
disposal, and areas of environmental sensitivity. Incorporation of the phasing
concept into the various alternatives is especially appropriate for the Cahaba
Basin in that it facilitates the adjustment of the second—phase wastewater
program should future needs vary from current projections.
The following tables present the percent sewered estimates, on a sub—
drainage basin level, for each basic wastewater management alternative formulated
for evaluation.
Al 1—120

-------
TABLE AIt—53
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
OVERTON-CAHABA
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B—N 50 60 65 65 65 70 70
B—C (upper) o 0 0 5 10 15 20
B C (lower) 0 o 0 0 25 50 50
B—S 15 25 50 60 70 80 90
c 0 0 0 25 30 35 40
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c 0 0 0 50 55 55 60
H 40 55 60 90 90 90 90
I 0 0 0 0 5 10 20
0 0 0 40 55 65 70
K 0 0 0 0 25 45 50
L 40 65 65 75 80 85 90
M 0 0 0 35 60 70 75
N 60 55 65 75 80 85 90
0 0 0 0 0 30 50 70

-------
TABLE AII—53
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
OVERTON—CAHABA (Cont’ d)
SUB—DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 50 75 75
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 50 90 90
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w 55 60 65 80 85 90 90
x 0 0 25 50 60 70 80
Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cc 0 0 0 60 65 70 75
DD 55 55 65 70 75 80 90
EE 45 45 60 75 80 85 90
PF 0 0 95 95 95 95 95

-------
TPLBLE AII—53
CABABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
OVERTON—CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
GC 0 75 80 85 90 95 95
HI! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 75 80 80 85 85
JJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AII-54
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA
SUB—DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B—N 50 60 65 65 65 70 70
B_c(Upper) 0 0 5 10 15 20
.B_dLower) 0 0 0 25 50 50
B—S 15 25 50 60 70 80 90
C 0 0 0 25 30 35 40
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 0 0 0 50 55 55 60
H 40 55 60 90 90 90 90
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 40 65 65 75 80 85 90
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 60 55 65 75 80 85 90
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-------
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
UPPER CAHABA - CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 50 75 75
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 50 90 90
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I. ’,
w 55 60 65 80 85 90 90
x 0 0 25 50 60 70 80
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC 0 0 0 60 65 70 75
DD 55 55 65 70 75 80 90
EE 45 45 60 75 80 85 90
FF 0 0 95 95 95 95 95

-------
TABLE AII—54
CABABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
UPPER CABABA — CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB—DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
GG 0 75 80 85 90 95 95
HR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II 0 0 75 80 80 85 85
JJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AII—55
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B—N 50 60 65 65 65 70 70
B_C(Upper) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B_C(Lower) 0 0 0 0 25 50 50
B—S 15 25 50 60 70 80 90
C 0 0 0 25 30 35 40
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 0 50 55 55 60
H 40 55 60 90 90 90 90
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 40 65 65 75 80 85 90
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 60 55 65 75 80 85 90
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-------
TABLE AII-55
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST&TEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
LEE1)S — TRUSSVILLE - CABABA (Cont’ d)
SUB—DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 50 75 75
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 50 90 90
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W 55 60 65 80 85 90 90
X 0 0 25 50 60 70 80
Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC 0 0 0 60 65 70 75
DD 55 55 65 70 75 80 90
EE 45 45 60 75 80 85 90
PP 0 0 95 95 95 95 95

-------
TABLE AII—55
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERBI) POPULATION
LEEDS - TRUSSVILLE - CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
GG 0 75 80 85 90 95 95
HR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II 0 0 75 80 80 85 85
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AII—56
CABABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
TRUSSVILLE - CANABA
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B—N 50 60 65 65 65 70 70
B—C (Upper) 0 5 10 15 20
(Lower)
— 0 0 0 0 25 50 50
B—S 15 25 50 60 70 80 90
C 0 0 0 25 30 35 40
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B o 0 0 o o 0 o
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 0 0 0 50 55 55 60
H 40 55 60 90 90 90 90
I 0 0 0 0 5 10 20
3 0 0 0 40 55 65 70
K 0 0 0 0 25 45 50
L 40 65 65 75 80 85 90
M 0 0 0 35 60 70 75
N 60 55 65 75 80 85 90
0 0 0 0 0 30 50 70

-------
TABLE AII—56
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
TRUSSVILLE — CAMABA (Cont’d)
SUB-DRAINAGE
1995 2000
.
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 50 75 75
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 50 90 90
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
H w 55 60 65 80 85 90 90
0 0 25 50 60 70 80
Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC 0 0 0 60 65 70 75
D L 55 55 65 70 75 80 90
45 45 60 75 80 85 90
FF 0 0 95 95 95 95 95

-------
TABLE AII—56
CAIIABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
TRUSSVILLE — CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
GG 0 75 80 85 90 95 95
RH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II 0 0 75 80 80 85 85
JJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
TABLE AtI—57
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAIS IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
CAHABA
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B—N 50 60 65 65 65 70 70
B_C ppe ) 0 0 0 5 10 15 20
B_C(b0w ) 0 0 0 0 25 50 50
B—S 15 25 50 60 70 80 90
C 0 0 0 25 30 35 40
I -I
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 0 50 55 55 60
H 40 55 60 90 90 90 90
I 0 0 0 0 5 10 20
3 0 0 0 40 55 65 70
K 0 0 0 0 25 45 50
L 40 65 65 75 80 85 90
M 0 0 0 35 60 70 75
N 60 55 65 75 80 85 90
0 0 0 0 0 30 50 70

-------
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB—DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 50 75 75
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 50 90 90
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
H
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L )
W 55 60 65 80 85 90 90
X 0 0 25 50 60 70 80
Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC 0 0 0 60 65 70 75
DD 55 55 65 70 75 80 90
EE 45 45 60 75 80 85 90
FF 0 0 95 95 95 95 95

-------
TABLE AII—57
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PERCENT SEWERED POPULATION
CAHABA (Cont’d)
SUB-DRAINAGE
BASIN 1975 1980 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000
GG 0 75 80 85 90 95 95
HR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II 0 0 75 80 80 85 85
JJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
‘ i
U,

-------
I. NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
As municipal and industrial wastewaters in the study area become better
controlled by improved collection and treatment, non—point sources may pro-
duce a larger and more significant proportion of organic wastes, suspended
solids, nutrients, grease, oils and other pollutants entering receiving
waters. Nonpoint source pollution may increase as as area becomes more
developed and in some watersheds can become the dominant source of water
pollution. In addition, as the land uses in a developing area changes from
rural to suburban or urban, the nature of the pollutants washed off into
surface waters will change.
Non—point source pollution includes the transport to surface water by
rainfall—runoff and to groundwater by rainfall—infiltration of various con-
taminants from streets and parking lots, industrial plant sites, solid waste
disposal sites, agricultural areas, mining sites, and other land uses and
activities. The general pollution potentials of major non—point sources
in the study area are shown in Table AII—58.
Increases in residential, commercial, and industrial acreage and the
associated land used for transportation corridors will probably cause the
most significant changes in non—point source pollution in the study area.
Fertilizers, weedkillers and other chemicals are found in runoff from resi-
dential areas. The characteristics of runoff from commercial and industrial
areas depend upon the specific uses to which the land is put, but generally
will include sizable concentrations of organics, oil, and grease. Automo-
bile oil and exhaust deposits on road surfaces can be washed off into streams
and lakes during storms.
Non—point source pollutants from agricultural areas Include suspended
solids, oxygen—demanding compounds, nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides.
Runoff from logging activities in forested areas can carry large amounts
of suspended solids and also some organics and nutrients. Active mining
operations can result in heavy metals and huge amounts of sediment being
washed into surface waters.by storms. Also, runoff from coal—mining is
generally acidic in nature. Solid waste disposal in landfills can be a
non—point source of both groundwater and surface water pollution. In addi-
tion to contaminants washed off the surface of landfills, rainfall percola-
ting through landfills produces leachate containing organics, nutrients,
heavy metals, and pathogens.
Short—term non—point source problems may result from construction
activities which remove natural vegetation and cause erosion and transport
of sediment to receiving waters. Spills of various chemicals, particularly
at industrial sites, may be another temporary non—point source of pollution.
In addition to land use, several factors affect the characteristics of
rainfall—runoff reaching receiving waters, including intensity and duration
of particular storm events, time between storms, drainage characteristics
AII— 136

-------
TABLE AII—58
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CHARACTERISTICS
Category Specific Runoff Source General Pollution Potential
Urban Industrial/Commercial Areas Primarily sediments, organ—
Residential Areas ics, pathogens, oil, grease,
Streets and Highways and some nutrients.
Nonurban Agricultural Lands Primarily sediments, nu—
Forests trients, pesticides, herbi-
cides, pathogens, and some
organics
Other Mining Wide variety of contaminants
Construction ranging from metals to exotic
Solid Waste Disposal chemicals
Pollutant Spills
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
All— 137

-------
of an area, and pollutant source control measures such as street cleaning.
Because of the large number of variables, many of which cannot be accurately
quantified, meaningful analysis of non—point source pollution is difficult
without an extensive site—specific, storm—related water quality and quantity
data base. No such data are currently available for the study area. How-
ever, some general water quality information from studies of areas similar
to Birmingham is available and can be used to draw some conclusions about
the Cahaba River Basin. Such information must be utilized cautiously due
to the variability of non—point source pollution characteristics from site
to site.
For the first flush of a typical storm event, the range of residential
and industrial/commercial pollutant loadings to be expected is shown in
Table AII—59. These pollutant loadings will, on the average, result in
stormwater concentrations similar to those shown in Table AII—60.
The land use changes projected for the study area will affect the quan-
tity as well as the quality of stormwater runoff. Increased urbanization
will result in larger areas covered with impervious surfaces, causing in-
creased runoff of rainfall and decreased recharge of aquifers. Also, run-
off will be concentrated and reach streams more quickly in urbanized areas.
Impacts on the hydrology of the study area have been discussed in Chapter V
of the EIS.
PROJECTED LM D USE
A comparison of existing land use and projections of future land use
indicates residential developments will consume an additional twenty—two
square miles by the year 2000, resulting in approximately twenty percent of
the land in the study area being in the residential land use category.
Approximately four square miles of new industrial and commercial develop-
ments are also projected. Some of this new development is projected to
occur on land currently used for agriculture, but most will occur on forest-
ed and undeveloped lands.
Residential, industrial and commercial developments are presently con-
centrated in the lower portion of the study area and around Leeds and Truss—
yule. Table AII—61, which summarizes existing land use, shows this pattern.
Growth In the study area is projected to occur primarily around these exist-
ing cores of development. Projected land use for the year 2000 is shown in
Table AII—62.
MODELING NON—POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
To aid in the identification of potential non—point source pollution
problems in the study area, two computer models developed by the Surveil-
lance and Analysis Division of the EPA, Region IV were used. Evaluation of
pollutant loadings from residential, commercial, and industrial areas during
a selected storm event was performed using the computer model EPAURA. Run-
off of pollutants from agricultural and undeveloped areas was analyzed using
EPARRB, a model designed to assess non—point source problems in rural areas.
AII—l38

-------
TABLE AII—59
URBAN NON—POINT SOURCE LOADS FOR A TYPICAL STORM EVENT
indus trial/Connnercjal
Residential Load Per Acre of
Parameter Load Per Curb Mile Impervious Surface
BOD 5 (lbs.) 1.9 to 61 0.9 to 29
COD (lbs.) 13 to 400 6 to 126
Total Solids (lbs.) 330 to 6000 200 to 2439
Kjel. Nitrogen (lbs.) 0.5 to 2.9 0.5 to 4.4
N0 3 —N (lbs.) 0.01 to 3.3 0.01 to 1.4
Total Phosphates (lbs.) 0.2 to 4.5 0.01 to 1.4
Lead (lbs.) 0.03 to 1.9 0.02 to 0.8
Total Coliforms (MPN) 3.2x1&-° to 17x10 1 °
Fecal Coliforms (NPN) 7x10 6 to 3.1x10 1 °
Source: True, Howard A., “Non—Point Assessment Processes”, April, 1976,
unpublished, taken from Sartor, J. D. and G. B. Boyd, “Water
Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants”, EPA—R2—72—081,
November, 1972.
All— 139

-------
TABLE AII—60
CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN STORI4WATER
Parameter Concentration Range
BOD 5 1 to 700 mg/i
COD 5 to 3,100 mg/I
Total Suspended Solids 2 to 11,000 mg/i
Total Solids 450 to 15,000 mg/i
Organic Nitrogen o.i. to 16 mg/i
!411 3 —N 0.1 to 2.5 mg/i
Total Phosphates 0.]. to 130 mg/i
Chlorides 2 to 25,000 mg/i
Oils 0 to 110 mg/i
Phenols o to 0.2 mg/i
Lead o to 1.9 mg/i
Total Coliforms 200 to i50x10 6 /iOO ml
Fecal Coliforms 55 to liOxiO 6 /iOO ml
Source: Wanielista.,M. P., Y. A. Yousef, and W. M. NcLellon, “Nonpoint Source
Effects on Water Quality”, Journal WPCF , March, 1977.
All— 140

-------
TABLE AII-61
EXISTING LAND USE 1
INDUSTRIAL-
DRAINAGE RESIDENTIAL C( IMERCIAL 2 AGRICULTURAL UNDEVELOPED 3
BASIN ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres )
A 109 27 800 1,535
B 369 220 403 6,713
Bc 578 346 631 10,527
B 8 787 471 860 14,344
C 173 112 1,766 8,548
D 218 504 429 12,705
E 160 83 13 4,166
P 77 70 288 7,366
G 77 74 32 1,648
H 704 173 29 3,600
I 518 114 45 6,100
J 256 30 16 632
K 211 64 16 1,603
L 1,312 362 2,470 12,272
M 326 19 15 837
N 326 218 64 2,598
0 166 34 3 782
P 32 51 0 3,712
Q 346 30 0 1,058
R 10 45 0 1,302
S 3 0 45 1,424
T 1,306 16 0 144
U 0 122 0 922
V 0 141 0 576
W 3,366 67 0 3,485
X 435 8 0 1,016
Y 0 77 0 614

-------
TABLE AII—61
EXISTING LAND USE’ (Cont’d.)
INDUSTRIAL-
RES IDENTIAL COMMERCIAL 2 AGRICULTURAL UNDEVELOPED 3
SUB—BASIN ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres )
Z 32 35 0 2,570
AA 10 6 12 1,048
BB 2 0 51 2,008
CC 26 13 179 1,702
DD 5,913 470 3 5,581
EE 435 22 0 554
FF 112 13 0 1,328
GG 339 35 45 3,024
1111 19 0 0 2,374
II 115 8 141 946
JJ 3 19 0 899
I ’ . ,
TOTAL 18,871 4,099 8,356 132,263
(1) 1975
(2) Includes Resource Production, Public/Semipublic & T.C.U.
(3) Includes Forested & Recreation
Source: Environmental Assessment Council, Inc.

-------
TABLE AII-62
LAND USE UNDER ThE PROPOSED ACTION — YEAR 2000
INDUSTRIAL-
DRAINAGE RESIDENTIAL CONMERCIAL 1 - AGRICULTURAL UNDEVELOPED 2
BASIN ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres )
A 109 27 800 1,535
B 1,177 511 352 5,665
Bc 1,795 767 528 8,992
2,448 1,045 720 12,249
C 320 992 1,530 7,757
D 294 513 429 12,620
E 198 88 13 4,123
F 314 70 288 7,129
G 186 115 19 1,511
H 941 180 38 3,347
‘-4
H
I 678 186 45 5,868
J 307 30 13 584
K 384 64 16 1,430
L 1,811 576 2,470 11,559
N 557 17 13 610
N 416 237 64 2,489
0 454 40 3 488
P 32 55 0 3,708
Q 563 33 0 838
R 10 45 0 1,302
S 6 0 45 1,421
T 1,397 19 0 50
U 0 122 0 922
V 58 141 0 518
W 4,838 71 0 2,009

-------
TABLE AII-62
LAND USE UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTIOI’ — YEAR 2000 (Cont’d.)
INDUSTRIAL-
DRAINAGE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL 1 AGRICULTURAL UNDEVELOPED 2
BASIN ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres) ( Acres )
X 691 10 0 758
Y 0 77 0 614
Z 32 35 0 2,570
AA 45 6 12 1,013
BB 13 0 51 1,997
CC 326 13 159 1,422
DD 6,592 621 3 4,751
EE 685 26 0 300
FF 1,088 16 0 349
GG 2,944 38 0 461
HH 256 0 0 2,137
II 768 31 6 405
JJ 64 26 0 831
(1) Includes Resource Production, Public/Semipublic and T.C.U.
(2) Includes Forested and Recreation
Source: Environmental Assessment Council, Inc.
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

-------
Input required by the models included the storm event for which the
assessments were to be performed and the acreages of residential, indus-
trial/commercial, agricultural and undeveloped lands in each drainage basin.
The required land use information for existing and projected conditions in
the study area was given in Tables AII-6l and AII—62. The storm event se-
lected for analysis was the 6—hour, 10—year storm event, that is, the
6—hour storm event that has a recurrence interval of 10 years. This is a
fairly severe storm event, but it was decided to assess non—point source
pollutant contributions from this adverse storm to determine the worst con-
ditions that might be expected.
The Rainfall—Freq uency Atlas of the United States* shows that the 6—
hour, 10—year storm for Jefferson County is approximately 4.25 inches of
rainfall. Non—point source pollution from rural areas is basically the
result of erosion which will take place throughout the duration of a storm
event. However, pollutant contributions from urban non—point sources come
primarily from the washoff of accumulated organics, chemicals, sediment and
other debris during the first stages of a storm event. Therefore, only the
first 15 minutes of a storm event is considered in the urban runoff model
EPAURA. To determine the rainfall intensity of the first 15 minutes of the
design storm event, it was necessary to develop the hyetograph of the 6—hour,
10—year storm. The 4.25 inches of rainfall were distributed over the 6—hour
period using accepted Soil Conservation Service practice**; results are shown
in Table AII—63.
The Urban Runoff Model
As explained above, EPAURA determines the initial flush of pollutants
from residential, industrial, and commercial acreage in a drainage basin
during the first 15 minutes of the selected storm event. Five major para-
meters were assessed: BOD 5 , Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphates, total
solids, and lead. BOD 5 and Kjeldahl nitrogen represent the major oxygen—
demanding pollutants washed into surface waters by rainfall—runoff. Phos-
phates along with nitrogen are the primary sources of nutrient enrichment
of surface waters. Suspended and dissolved solids entering surface waters
increase turbidity, which may have short—term adverse impacts on aquatic
life. Lead is a heavy metal representative of chemical constituents in
runoff from industrial and commercial areas. It is presently included on
the list of regulated constituents under the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, PL 92 -.523.***
* U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau TP—40, Rainfall—Frequency
Atlas of the United States .
** U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service TP—149, “A
Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds”,
April, 1973.
*** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Manual of Treatment Techniques
f or Meeting the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations”, May, 1977.
AII—145

-------
TABLE AII—63
TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF 6-HOUR, 10—YEAR
STORM FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
Time Cumulative Rainfall
( hours) Rainfall (inches) Intensity (inches/hour )
1 0.27 0.27
2 1.73 1.46
3 3.36 1.63
4 3.83 0.47
5 4.07 0.24
6 4.25 0.18
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service TP—149,
“A Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Water-
sheds”, April, 1973.
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
AII—146

-------
In EPAURA, non—point source loads are derived from loading factors,
given in terms of pounds of constituent per curb mile for residential
areas and pounds per impervious acre for industrial and commercial areas.
The recommended loading factors are given in Table AII—64. Residential
curb miles are calculated in EPAURA by an empirical formula which is a
function of population density. An additional input required by the urban
runoff model, therefore, is the population of each drainage basin; this
information was given in Table 111—25 of Chapter III.
The Rural Runoff Model
Non—point source pollution from agricultural and undeveloped areas is
assessed in EPARRB by means of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. This
rational formula calculates mass of soil loss per acre using the following
six factors: 1) rainfall erosion index, a measure of the erosion potential
of the design storm; 2) soil erodibility factor, a measure of the erosion
characteristics of a particular soil type; 3) slope length factor, a vari-
able to account for the effect the drainage path length has on the amount
of sediment delivered; 4) slope gradient factor, a variable to account
for the effect the drainage path slope has on the amount of sediment de-
livered; 5) cropping management factor, a measure of the effect of vege-
tation on sediment delivery; 6) erosion control practice factor, a measure
of the effect of agricultural erosion control practices.
Using the temporal distribution of rainfall shown in Table AII—63, the
rainfall erosion index was calculated and found to be approximately 31 for
the 6—hour, 10—year storm. Fourteen soil groups have been identified in the
study area, the dominant groups being the Hector—Montevallo and Minvale—
Bodine—Fullerton groups. The soil erodibility factors associated with
these fourteen groups are given in Table 11—4 and the areal distribution
of the soil groups is shown in Figure AI—6.
Slope lengths and slope gradients were estimated for each drainage basin
using USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps of the study area. Cropping management
factors of 0.26 for agricultural areas and 0.012 for undeveloped areas were
specified, values used in previous applications of EPARRB by the Surveil-
lance and Analysis Division of the EPA, Region IV.* It was assumed that
erosion control practice on agricultural lands in the study area was not
significant. For undeveloped land, the erosion control practice factor is
not applicable. Therefore, this factor was set equal to unity for all rural
acreage in the study area.
EPARRE makes several additional computations to determine the pollu-
tant loadings to surface waters resulting from the erosion quantified by the
Universal Soil Loss Equation. Generally, less than half of the soil eroded
will actually reach surface waters. The percentage of eroded soil delivered
is less for large drainage basins than it is for small drainage basins. The
* True, Howard A., HA Gross Assessment of the Little Black Creek, Ga.,
Watershed Rural Runoff Annually, Wet Season and Under Selected Storm
Conditions”, USEPA, Region IV, Athens, Ga., July, 1976, unpublished.
AII—l47

-------
TABLE AII—64
LOADING FACTORS FOR URBAN RUNOFF MODEL
Residential Industrial—Commercial
( lbs./curb mile) ( lbs./imnpervlous acre )
BOD 5 2.0 8.72
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.5 1.13
Total Phosphates 0.26 0.52
Total Solids 430. 697.6
Lead 0.077 0.3226
Source: True, Howard A., “Non—Point Assessment Processes”, April, 1976,
unpublished, taken from Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd, “Water Pollution
Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants”, EPA—R2—72—081, November,
1972.
AII—148

-------
relationship between sediment delivery ratio and drainage basin area has
been derived empirically and this relationship was used to determine the
sediment delivery ratio for each basin.* The soil loss is multiplied by
the sediment delivery ratio in ERARRB to give the mass of eroded material
expected to reach study area streams.
The sediment washed of f rural acreage carries with it agricultural
fertilizers, plant life litter, animal wastes, and other natural and man-
made sources of BOD 5 , nitrogen and phosphorus. To quantify these pollutant
contributions, EPARRB calculates BOD5, total nitrogen, and total phosphate—
phosphorus as percentages of the total sediment load. The model also can
calculate contributions from plant and animal life from input information
on animal populations, forest litter production, and percent of undeve’ opad
land which is forested.
While the soil loss computation can be made on either a orin event
basis or an average basis for longer periods, the animal and plant life
contributions can only be calculated by the rural runoff model for periods
of a month or longer. EPAURA, the urban runoff model, assesses only storm
events. Therefore, the combined use of the two models to analyze t) total
non—point source pollutant loading of a region is not possible uithout 3ome
adjustments by the model user. As described earlier in this apDead x 11
analysis of non—point source pollution in the study area was done for
selected storm event. The percentages of oxygen—demanding pollutants :
the sediment load recotmnended for use in the model were adjusted to refiect
contributions from plant and animal life. The percentages of sedi nt load
used for the major constituents were: 1) BOD 5 — 0.1%; 2) total nitrog& n —
0.1%; 3) total phosphate—phosphorus — 0.08%. Contribution of heai y me als
from rural areas is generally not significant, so lead was not included in
the rural computations as it was in the urban computations.
EXISTING AND PROJECTED NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Modeling Results
Using the procedure described above, the existing non-point source
pollutant contributions to study area streams from urban and rural runoff
were estimated. The loads of each of five pollutants produced during the
6—hour 10—year storm event from residential, industrial/commercial, agri-
cultural, and undeveloped areas were summed for each drainage basin of the
study area and are given in Table AII-65.
For analysis of non—point source pollution under future conditions,
19 of 38 study area drainage basins were identif led as those with the
highest potential for stormwater—related problems. Basins that were pro-
jected to have significant land use changes or that already have a high
percentage of developed land were included in the 19 basins modeled under
year 2000 conditions. Results are summarized in Table AII—66.
* Midwest Research Institute, “Methods for Identifying the Evaluating the
Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants”, EPA—430/0-73—0l4,
October, 1973.
AII—149

-------
TABL1 AII- 5
EXISTING NON—POINT SOURCE POLLUTANT LOADS FOR L LECTED L ARAMETERS -
6—HOUR, 10-YEAR STORM EVENT
TOTAL KJELDA1IL TOTAL
DRAINAGE BOD 5 PHOSPHATE- NITROGEN SOLIDS LEAD
BASIN ( lbs.) PHOSPHORUS b ) ( lbs.) ( million lbs.) ( lbs. )
CAHABA RIVER
A 675 4,700 4,705 5.875 3
B 1,040 3,470 3,515 4.345 22
Bc 2,365 11,325 11,390 14.160 36
B 8 2,880 12,715 12,810 15.905 49
C 2,465 17,225 17,250 21.530 12
D 1,265 9,900 9,995 12.380 50
E 480 2,015 2,030 2.520 1
F 940 6,015 6,030 7.520 7
G 350 1,170 1,185 1.465 7
H 945 3,575 3,610 4.470 19
I 635 2,460 2,485 3.075 12
J 150 500 505 0.625 3
K 435 2,125 2,140 2.660 6
M 150 1,060 1,065 1.330 2
0 180 685 690 8.470 4
P 300 1,355 1,365 1.695 5
Q 200 770 780 0.965 4
R 230 920 925 1.145 4
T 150 120 135 0.155 6
U 375 460 480 0.575 12
W 600 1,430 1,470 1.740 16
X 110 450 455 0.560 2
DD 2,020 2,985 3,120 3.760 63
EE 95 140 145 0.180 3
FF 125 705 710 0.885 1

-------
TABLE AII—65 (Cont’d.)
EXISTING NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTANT LOADS FOR SELECTED PARAMETERS -
6-HOUR, 10-YEAR STORM EVENT
TOTAL KJELDAML TOTAL
DRAINAGE BOD 5 PHOSPHATE- NITROGEN SOLIDS LEAD
BASIN ( lbs.) PHOSPHORUS (lbs.) ( lbs.) ( million lbs.) ( lbs. )
CAHABA RIVER (Cont’d.)
GG 290 1,390 1,400 1.740 4
HH 170 1,330 1,330 1.665 <1
II 195 1,355 1,360 1.695 1
JJ 120 560 560 0.700 2
LITTLE CAHABA RIVER
L 1,220 9,555 9,635 11.960 39
N 3,100 2,050 2,090 2.565 22
S 7,330 5,865 5,865 7.330 <1
V 530 150 175 0.190 14
Y 650 375 390 0.470 7
Z 2,060 1,575 1,585 1.975 3
AA 330 260 260 0.325 1
BB 2,770 2,215 2,215 2.770 <1
CC 3,885 3,080 3,085 3.855 1
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
True, Howard A., “Non—Point Assessment Processes”, U.S.E.P.A., Region IV, April, 1976, Unpublished.
True, Howard A., “A Gross Assessment of the Little Black Creek, Ga., Watershed Rural Runoff Annually,
Wet Season and Under Selected Storm Conditions”, U.S.E.P.A., Region IV, July, 1976, Unpublished.

-------
TABLE AII—66
PROJECTED NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTANT LOADS FOR SELECTED PARANETERS -
6-HOUR, 10-YEAR STORM EVENT, YEAR 2000
TOTAL KJELDAHL TOTAL
DRAINAGE BOD 5 PHOSPHATE— NITROGEN SOLIDS LEA])
BASIN ( lbs.) PHOSPHORUS (lbs.) ( lbs.) ( million lbs.) ( lbs. )
CAHABA RIVER
B 6,965 4,545 4,645 5.690 52
B 11,060 7,305 7,455 9.145 77
B 8 17,580 11,910 12,120 14.910 109
H 3,620 2,505 2,545 3.140 19
J 660 460 465 0.575 3
K 2,605 1,955 1,970 2.445 7
M 615 450 455 0.560 2
0 715 475 490 0.600 5
Q 880 615 625 0.770 5
T 200 80 70 0.075 6
W 1,520 855 905 1.085 20
X 495 345 350 0.430 3
DD 5,170 2,600 2,775 3.285 80
EE 210 80 95 0.105 5
FF 330 195 205 0.245 4
CC 430 175 200 0.230 10
II 340 190 200 0.240 5
LITTLE CAHABA RIVER
N 3,720 2,500 2,545 3.130 24
V 520 130 155 0.175 14
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
True, Howard A., “Non—Point Assessment Processes”, U.S.E.P.A., Region IV, April, 1976, Unpublished.
True, Howard A., “A Gross Assessment of the Little Black Creek, Ga., Watershed Rural Runoff Annually,
Wet Season and Under Selected Storm Conditions”, U.S.E.P.A., Region IV, July, 1976, Unpublished.

-------
If the assumption is made that non—point source pollution in the
basins not included in Table AII—66 would continue at approximately exist-
ing levels, then the percent change in non—point source pollutant loads
from existing conditions to year 2000 conditions for the Cahaba River and
Little Cahaba River watersheds may be calculated. If these comparisons
are made, it can be seen that, overall, the Cahaba River watershed shows
slight decreases in BODç, phosphate, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and solids load-
ings from existing conditions to the year 2000, while showing a substantial
increase in lead runoff. The Little Cahaba River watershed shows small in-
creases in all five parameters.
Given the limits of accuracy of the modeling done here, these changes
in non—point source pollution loads are probably not statistically significant,
with thE possible exception of the large increase in lead in the Cahaba
watershed. However, some further explanation of these trends is still in
order, so that misleading conclusions are not drawn from these results.
As portions of the study area change from rural in character to suburban
or urban, the nature of the pollutants in stormwater runoff from these areas
will also change. Runoff from populated rural areas can be expected to
carry significant amounts of eroded sediment and of nitrogen and phosphorus
from agricultural areas and from plant and animal litter. Urban runoff can
be expected to contain nitrogen and phosphorus, but more noticeably will
contain oil, grease, and a variety of synthetic chemicals and heavy metals,
such as lead, the indicator used in this analysis. Runoff from both urban
and rural areas will contain a variety of biochemical oxygen demanding com-
pounds. Thus, the fact that particular water quality parameters show no
change or even some decrease in magnitude when comparing existing to pro-
jected conditions does not necessarily indicate a stable or improving non-
point source pollution situation. Instead, the types of runoff parameters
present may be changing — some Increasing, some decreasing — in response to
land use changes in the study area.
It should also be pointed out that the projected changes shown here
in non—point source pollutant loads in the study area probably overemphasize
the rural runoff contribution compared to the urban runoff contribution,
due to the assumptions embodied in the models used. The rural runoff model
EPARRB includes nitrogen and phosphorus from plant debris. However, this
nutrient contribution does not enter solution directly, as the model implies,
but only enters solution as the plant matter decays over time. Also, the
rural runoff model calculates pollutant loads from erosion continuing for
the duration of a storm event while the urban model calculates pollutant
loads only from the first flush of a storm event. Thus, for a storm event
of long duration, rural areas are likely to contribute heavier pollutant
loads than urban areas. These assumptions should be kept in mind when
comparing the results in Tables AII—65 and AII—66, especially for drainage
basins in which the land uses are changing from rural to urban.
AII—15 3

-------
Potential Problem Areas
The results from EPAIJRA and EPARRB summarized in Tables AII—65 and
AII—66 are, at best, highly simplified, order of magnitude estimates of
non—point source pollutant loads to be expected during the adverse storm
event analyzed here. Because of the large uncertainty associated with
these estimates, drawing conclusions from the general trends shown by the
modeling is preferable to viewing the results as exact quantifications.
The nature of the mitigative measures appropriate for runoff—related pro-
blems also makes this approach preferable. Correction of existing storm—
water problems can be expensive and difficult. However, if new develop-
ments in areas with high potential for non—point source problems are
designed and built incorporating stormwater control measures, significant
adverse impacts on surface waters may be avoided at lower costs than would
be required to correct runoff problems later.
Several locations in the study area have the potential for non—point
source problems in the future. The Trussville area is projected to
experience continued residential, commercial, and industrial growth. The
watersheds of Pinchgut Creek, Abes Creek and the Cahaba River in the
Trussville area are likely to show changing runoff patterns. For this
area, Tables AII—65 and AII—66 show some increase in the BOD 5 load from
non—point sources, little change in nutrient or solids loadings, and
probably some increase in heavy metals as indicated by the increase in
lead shown for these drainage basins. In areas which change from rural
land uses to urban land uses, it is not totally unusual to see this kind
of decrease in nutrient concentrations, especially nitrogen, in runoff as
the number of fertilizer and plant life litter sources are reduced.* Cor-
responding increases in the mass of heavy metals, grease, oil, and other
types of urban debris being washed off to surface waters are likely in
such regions.
The downstream portion of the study area is projected to be exten-
sively developed in the year 2000. The watersheds of Patton Creek, Little
Shades Creek, Dolly Brook and the Cahaba River downstream of U.S. Highway
280 are areas which may experience stormwater—related problems in the
future. Analysis with EPAURA and EPARRB showed that the mass of BOD 5 and
heavy metals reaching the Cahaba River in this area during storm events
may increase, while nutrient and solids loadings will probably continue
with little change.
The Little Cahaba River — Lake Purdy watershed will have little sig-
nificant change in non—point source contributions to surface waters by the
year 2000, according to EPAURA and EPARRB. Therefore, any water quality
changes that occur in this watershed are likely to be the result of changes
in point sources of pollution. The results given in Table AII—66 would
seem to indicate that the continuing, long—term nutrient contribution to
* Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., “Crabbs Branch Storm Water
Management Study”, prepared for Montgomery County, Maryland, Department
of Environmental Protection, March, 1975.
AII—154

-------
Lake Purdy from rainfall—runoff will probably be as large, if not signi-
ficantly larger, than the nutrient contribution to the reservoir from the
Leeds wastewater treatment plant. However, direct comparison of nutrient
loads from wastewater treatment plants and from runoff is not possible
here. As discussed earlier, a large portion of the nutrient load esti-
mated by EPARRB is nitrogen and phosphorus tied up in plant life litter.
These nutrients can contribute to the eutrophication of the reservoir and
to stimulation of aquatic plant growth in streams only over the long term,
as the plant matter decays and the nutrients return to solution. Nutrients
in the treated wastewater effluent are already in solution.
CONCLUS IONS
The assumptions, limitations, and purposes of this computer modeling
analysis should be kept in mind when examining the results shown in Tables
AII—65 through AII—66 and in the description given above. The detailed
point source pollution analysis in Chapter 5 and Appendix II of the EIS
is primarily in terms of dry weather, low streamf low conditions. On the
other hand, the non—point source analysis refers primarily to wet weather,
high streaiuf low periods. Although the point source and non—point source
problems are not completely independent, it is likely that only one of
these pollutant contributions exerts its maximum influence on area streams
at any given point in time. During dry periods, surface runoff contribu-
tions are minimal, as evidenced by the low background levels of pollutants
seen in the dry weather water quality data collected by Barton Laboratory
of Jefferson County for the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission 208
Study. Point sources are, under such conditions, the primary cause of
any dissolved oxygen deficits that occur. During periods of significant
rainfall—runoff and high streamflow, the adverse impact of point sources
on the dissolved oxygen content of area streams is significantly reduced,
as can be concluded from the water quality modeling results for streamf low
augmentation alternatives given in Appendix II. Therefore, the selection
of the appropriate wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities is not
directly dependent on this non—point source pollution assessment.
In addition to streamf low conditions, antecedent rainfall conditions
will affect the impact non—point source pollution has on area streams,
especially in urbanized areas. Not every storm of a given intensity and
duration, including the storm analyzed here, will always produce runoff
with the same characteristics. The length of time between storm events
affects the mass of pollutants that accumulates and the pollutant concen-
trations in subsequent rainfall—runoff.
With these caveats in mind, one can conclude from the modeling results
that there will be storm events that adversely impact the quality of area
streams on a short—term basis, in terms of both oxygen—demanding sub-
stances and other contaminants. The 19 drainage basins listed in Table
VII—66 have the greatest potential for such problems. In addition, pro-
blems with respect to quantity of runoff may develop in these drainage
basins; these are described in Chapter 5 of the EIS. Any stormwater manage-
ment strategies developed in the future should concentrate on these areas.
AII—l55

-------
Some stormwater management techniques have been described in Chapter
VI of the EIS. It can be seen that many runoff control measures are integral
parts of proper land use planning in new residential, commercial, and
industrial developments. Thus, stormwater management should be a contin-
uing concern of local planning authorities.
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis
of non—point source pollution in the study area:
1) Rainfall—runoff may adversely impact the quality of some
area streams on a periodic, short—term basis.
2) The potential for stormwater—related problems is signi-
ficant in 19 study area drainage basins that have been
identif led in this appendix.
3) The most significant change in quality of runoff from
developing drainage basins may not be in the mass of
pollutants produced, but in the types of pollutants
produced. Developing areas will show increases in con-
taminants of an urban origin, such as oil, grease, and
heavy metals, and a decrease in rural pollutants, such
as fertilizers, plant litter, and sediment.
4) The contribution of nutrients to Lake Purdy from non—
point sources will probably not change significantly by
the year 2000.
5) The resolution of the wastewater treatment facilities
issue appears to be independent of resolution of the
stor ater management problem.
6) Management of study area stormwater problems is closely
tied to land use issues and is best handled in a contin-
uing planning context. The Birmingham Regional Planning
Coninission’s study under Section 208 of PL 92—500 has
begun this planning process.
*tJ.S.COVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:1978 -7L+6 -6 16/ ‘+552 REGION NO.4
AII—156

-------