RESOURCES AND POTENTIALITIES OF THE

UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER VALLEY

A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Division of Graduate Studies Institute of Technology

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science

by

Harvey Chester Brown, Jr.

June 1951 2 4.10 44

RESOURCES AND POTENTIALITIES OF THE UPPER CHATTAHOOCHF7 RIVER VALLEY

Approved:

Date Approved by Chairman 114.7 PA• /fr, ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful acknowledgment is due Professor I. E. Saporta for his editorial advice. I, also wish to thank Mr. Leo Zuber, Planning Technician, Metropolitan Planning Commission for his resourceful suggestions.

I am indebted to the following persons for their generous permission to use published and unpublished materials: Mr. Berkeley Blackman, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army; Er. H. G. Edwards, Chief, Regional

Water Conservation Division, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture; Capt. Garland Peyton, Director, Department of Mines,

Mining and Geology, Georgia State Department of Conservation; Mr. M. T. Thomson, District Engineer, Water Resources Division, U. S. Geological

Survey. PURPOSE OF STUDY

Far too many planning studies are undertaken today which merely com- partmentalize a lot of unrelated facts. Numerous surveys are made annually which simply result in a new collection of data carrying no conviction, pointing no direction on the basis of the new findings.

This is the planning stage in which we find the Upper Chattahoochee

River Valley area at the momenta It should not remain so for long. There are several development projects being planned for the valley in the near future. So it seems the right moment for a comprehensive study of the area which will utilize the many studies already completed by various city, county, state, federal and private organizations; a study which will have unity coming about because of a oneness of direction and a thorough analysis of what the pertinent facts could mean.

This thesis cannot be called the product of one mind. There have been many contributors who provided ideas, theories, research materials, and their valuable time. Their studies, combined in a related framework, should indi- cate a constructive trend for planning the Upper Chattahoochee River Valley in keeping with the best interests of the land and the people. iv

TARTY, OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

PURPOSE OF STUDY • . iii

INTRODUCTION 1 I RESOURCES 2

A. Natural Resources 2

1. Geography 2 2. Topography 5 3. Geology, Minerals and Soils 6 ). Hydrology 14 5. Vegetation 149 6. Fish and Wildlife 55 B. Human Resources 55 1. Economic Optimum 55 2. Demographic Distribution 56

3. Growth, Fertility and Mortality 62 4. Racial Distribution 64 5. Density 65 6. Migration 66 C. Man Made Resources 68

1. Agriculture • • • 68 2. Industry 72

3. Power and Energy 78

4. Buford Dam 80 5. Commerce 82

6. Transportation 85 7. Fuel 87 8. Administrative Patterns 88 9. Security 89

10. Health 91 11. Public Welfare 91

12. Medical Facilities 92

13. Utilities 93 14. Stream Pollution 96 15. Education 99 16. Parks and Recreational Facilities 102

17. Religion 102

II PLANNIKG PROBTEMS AND POTENTIALITIES 104

A. National Objectives 104 1. Considerations 105

2. Cooperative Action among Agencies 105

B. Evaluation . . • • 106

1. Direct and Indirect Costs 106

C. Basic Data . . . . 106 D. Financing 107 1. Reimbursement 108

E. Management 108 1. Compacts 108

F. Reclamation of Land 109 G. Supplying Water 111

H. Complimentary Transportation 112 1. Intra-coastal Waterway 112

2. Rate Consideration 112 I. Hydroelectrical Power 114 vi 1. Integrated Regional System 114

2. Per Capita Consumption 114 J. Fish and Wildlife Protection 116 III CONCLUSION 117

BIBLIOGRAPUY

,1:11 • .4;1 vii

LIST OF MAPS AND CHARTS

Map. 1 Detailed Drainage and Physiographic Divisions 4

Map. 2 Reconnaissance Erosion Survey of 1934 13 Map. 3 Isohyetal, Shoving Average Annual Rainfall 15 Hap. L Isopluval Chart 16 Fig. 5 Excessive Precipitation Frequency 18 Fig. 6 Climatic Summary for Atlanta, Georgia 21

Fig. 7 Annual Precipitation and Run-off, West Point, Georgia . . 2L.

Fig. 8 Flood Frequency 32

Fig. 9 Flood Hydrographs, July 1916 3I

Fig. 10 Flood Hydrographs, January 1925 35 Fig. 11 Flood Hydrography, March 1929 36

Map. 12 Stream Gaging Stations I. Fig. 13 Present and Future Water Needs of the City of Atlanta . . . 45 Map. 14 Major Forest Types • • 5o Map. 15 Forest Industries, National Forest and State Parks . 54

Fig. 16 Estimated Future Population for Georgia 53

Map. 17 Upper Chattahoochee River Basin 61 *

Fig. 18 Population Forecasts of the United States 63 Map. 19 Buford Dam 83

Map. 20 Georgia Water Supplies 94

Map. 21 Georgia Sewage Works . . 95

Map. 22 Estimated Annual Agricultural Flood Damage 110

Map. 23 Inland Waterway 113 *

* NOTE: These maps are the basic reference materials for detailed study , throughout the thesis.

viii

LIST OF TABLES

I Major Soil Characteristics 9 II Rainfall Distribution during Four Great Storms 19 III Rainfall Data 22 IV Number and Monthly Occurrence of Floods 31 V Expected Flood Frequency at West Point, Georgia 33 VI Summarized Flood Source Indications 38 VII Evaluation Series of Floods which Caused Appreciable Inundation, Sweetwater Creek Sample . . . ...... 39 VIII Rainfall Run-off Data for Drainage Area above Leaf, Georgia. . . 40 IX Maximum and Minimum Twenty-four Hour Runoff

X Area and Physiographic Occurrence of Forest Types 51

XI Forest Industries 53

XII Population of the Upper Chattahoochee River Basin 60 XIII Average Value of Farm Land and Buildings 69

XIV Total Land Area, Land in Farms and Land not in Farms 69

XV Farm Land Classified According to Use 71 XVI Agricultural Land Classified According to Cover Condition . . . 71

XVII Distribution of Cropland Harvested 71

XVIII Average Crop Yield per Acre 73 X11 Average Size, Number and Type of Farm 73 ix

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

No. 1 Apalachicola Watershed, Stewart County, Georgia, May 4, 1938 10

No. 2 Apalachicola Watershed, Stewart County, Georgia, October 1, 1936 . . 11

No. 3 Apalachicola Watershed, Stewart County, Georgia, March 11, 1936 12

No. 4 Apalachicola Watershed, Bells Mill, East Fork Little River, April 15, 1928 27

No. 5 Apalachicola Watershed, East Fork Little River, Hall County, Georgia, April 4, 1936 28

No. 6 Apalachicola Watershed, West Point, Georgia on Chattahoochee River, September 24, 1937 29 No. 7 Dunlop Dam on Chattahoochee River near Gainesville, Georgia . 46 No. 8 Dunlop Dam on Chattahoochee River near Gainesville, Georgia . . . . 46 1

RESOURCES AND POTENTIALITIES OF THE UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN

INTRODUCTION

In a day characterized by technologists and specialists, planning offers a unique challenge to the student simply by the breadth of its domain. Perhaps a single research paper could creditably be written on any one of the varied aspects of planning which follow. But such aspects are only segments of the whole. They may be studied separately, but in the field of planning their importance lies in their relation to each other. It is only after a careful analysis is made of the various resources, be they natural, human or man made, that the planning problems become clear and distinct.

Since the beginning of time, water has been a priori to the existence of life. Concomitant with this, water has dominated all human existence.

The early civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt are evidence of this fact.

In the short life of this country, with very few exceptions, an entire nation has grown to maturity along the navigable streams, the harbors and the coastlines. Preliminary examination makes Atlanta seem to be one of these excep- tions, for while she is dependant upon the river for her potable water supply, her actual existence seems to have been dictated by the emergence of three railroad lines at a point slightly below what is now called "five points."

Yet if railroads were the raison d'etre in 1845, that is no longer of para- mount importance today. 2 Atlanta is in the process of spilling over her corporate limits at a rapid pace. Cities no longer need to depend upon concentration for their existence. In January of next year, the Chattahoochee River will become part of Atlanta's city limits. Already the Chattahoochee valley is furnishing sites for new industry, making the future of the valley extremely important.

While it may always have held a great importance to some, it should now be the concern of all thinking individuals.

Man has not always been thoughtful of nature. Some of his activities in exploiting resources have been dangerously destructive. For example, his use of water has all but turned a friend into a rampaging enemy. Destruction of forrests leaving barren hillsides which rains can destroy by slow disinte- gration, removal of top soil fertility by poor agricultural methods, pollution of streams by excess and untreated sewage, attraction of too many wet indus- tries thus making streams poisonous to aquatic life and unpotable to man, all of these and many more abuses make studies of our river basins of the utmost importance. River basins are definable. They circumscribe areas for specific study. Without such limits the planner is at a loss to snow how broad or small the research problem should be. Each watershed cannot be considered as a self containing unit irrespective of adjoining watersheds. On the con- trary, each has an interlocking relationship. But the limitation of time nar- rows down the area of this study to the Upper Chattahoochee River Basin.

I

RESOURCES

A. Natural

1. Geography 3 The Chattahoochee River has its origin in the foothills of the at a point four miles South of Brasstown Ball Mountain. This places its mouth on Wolfpen Ridge in Towns County at an elevation of 4000 feet.

Wolfpen Ridge actually forms the dividing line between the Apalachicola water basin and the Alabama—Coosa basin at their respective northern extremities.

From the source of its existence to the Soque, a distance of 32 miles, the river has an average fall per mile of 89.0 feet for a total of 2851 feet. The

entire length of the Chattahoochee measures 436 miles. This is the length

from the source to Apalachicola River proper which is formed by the confluence

of the two major tributaries, the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, occurring

near River Junction, Florida. This is actually the Southwest tip of the State

of Georgia. Map No. 1 shows this locatibn with its major tributaries and

physiographic divisions. From the confluence of the Chattahoochee and Flint

rivers to the Gulf of Mexico the river measures 112.8 miles. The major basins to each side of the Apalachicola basin are the Altamaha and the Alabama Coosa.

: Length : : Average all Chattahoochee Apalachicola System: Miles : Elevations : Fall : Per Mile

Source to Soque River 32 :4000 to 1149: 2851 : 89.0

Mouth of Soque to Chestatee River: 34 :1149 to 980: 169 : 4.98 Mouth of Chestatee to Buford Dam : 16 : 980 to 918: 62 : 3.88

Buford Dam to Vinings (Atlanta) : 50 : 918 to 750: 168 : 3.36

Vinings to Columbus : 141 : 750 to 190: 560 : 3.97

Columbus to Flint River : 163 : 190 to 45: 145 : 0.89

Flint River to Gulf of Mexico : 112.8 : 45 to 0: 45 : 0.402 Totals : 548.8 : 14000 : P AI, A.(HIC01, WVI

SCALE. OF MILIS 10 0 m 20 30 40 Showing DETAIL DRAINAGE

ALABAMA

's 3.C.

ALA. j GA.

'47,,c10 LOCATION MAP

0 e xl M Soil Conservation Serviee 5 By reference to Map No. 1, page t, it will be noted that of the 19,3421 square miles (12,378,758 acres) of area drained by the Apalachicola system,

2,824 square miles are in Alabama, 2,635 square miles are in Florida and the 2 remaining 13,883 square miles are in Georgia. The Chattahoochee River has a drainage area of 9,484 square miles of which 6,828 square miles is located in Georgia. 3

2. Topography

The head of the Apalachicola Basin lies within the Blue Ridge Mountains where undulating topography causes variences from 980 to 4768 feet in eleva- tion. This land is rugged and precipitous in comparison to the topography for the rest of the state of Georgia. The rest of the Upper Chattahoochee River Basin is comprised solely of the Piedmont Plateau. In fact, this plateau occupies fully one-third of the entire Apalachicola Basin and is greatly responsible for much of the tremen- dous silt deposits of the entire system. The Piedmont Plateau extends below

Atlanta, Georgia, until it reaches the Pine Mountain district which rises several hundred feet above the general area. The entire plateau is hilly and undulating. There is so little level land that most agriculture was developed along the river banks whenever the river stretched out in occasional flat areas. The inter-stream areas are just as rolling and as the parent stream is approached the land becomes steep and broken.

1U. S. Army Engineers show 19,500. These figures were planimetered from U. S. G. S. Base maps. 2 Run-off and Waterflaw Retardation and Soil Erosion Prevention for Flood Control Purposes (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil. Conservation Service, Regional Office, Spartanburg, South Carolina, 19)40), p. 1. (This report, not for public distribution, will not be out for 6 months.)

3Frederic R. Harris, Report on the Conservation and Utilization of Water Resources in the State of ueorgia (r. R. harms, Inc., -consulting Engineers, New York City, N. Y., 1945), p. 77. 6

The rest of the Apalachicola Basin is made up of the Upper, Middle and

Louver Coastal Plains. Topography varies from almost flat land in the Lower

Coastal Plain to undulating in the Upper Coastal Plain. In the Alabama

Sector and eastward as the Chattahoochee is crossed the land goes from rough to gently sloping.

3. Geology and Soils

The geology and soils of the watershed occur in eighteen formations, groups or phases and makes one of the most facinating studies that can be 4 found in any watershed. The three major provinces, viz., Crystalline, Paleo- zoic and the Coastal Plain all have a direct bearing on the entire basin with possibly the Paleozoic being the least representative as it occurs only at the very northern tip of the basin around Mountain area. The

Fall line which runs irregularly from Augusta through Macon to Columbus,

Georgia, forms the southern boundary of the Crystalline area and the northern reach is terminated by the Cartersville Fault. This Crystalline Belt was classified forty years ago as pre-Cambian in age but today the meta-sediments and some of the more recent granites and volcanics which have injected the original shales, sandstones and limestones give the belt validity in both the pre-Cambian and Paleozoic age. The industrial potential of this ancient

Crystalline Belt is better than average. Asbestos, chlorite, chromite, copper, corundum, feldspar, gold, granites, kyanite, marbles, mica, precious stones, pyrite, talc are just a few of the industrial minerals that are prominent. 5'

14Geologic Map of Georgia, Georgia Division of Nines, Mining and Geology.

5Garland Peyton, Industrial Minerals of Georgia (Paper read to meeting of Georgia Academy of Science, Athens, Ga.), Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin #56, Atlanta, Georgia, Pp. 1-2. 7 The Paleozoic Age had its importance as a producer of barite, bauxite, red iron ores, high content calcium and magnesium limestones, manganese, road 6 materials, sand, gravel, shale, slate and tripoli. Most of the Paleozoic rocks are highly folded into sharp anticlines and synclines and were faulted at the close of the Paleozoic era. 7 It is for this reason that the Appalachian present topography consists of the more resistant sandstones as ridges and the valleys consist of the non-resistant rocks such as limestone and shale. It is for this reason also that streams adjust themselves to the soft rocks of the valley rather than try to cross structural trends.

The Coastal Plain does not occur in the Upper Chattahoochee Watershed that since it does occur in the Appalachicola basin proper, it will be men- tioned. Briefly, it lies south of the aforementioned Fall line and is the youngest geological province. It comprises about 50% of the Appalachicola Basin and about three-fifths the area of the entire state. The oldest exposed formation is the Fall line. By deep drilling it is possible to determine earlier Mesozoic formations which do show on the geologic map of Georgia but are actually not physically exposed. Kaolins occur along the eastern edge of the central part of the Flint watershed and constitute almost 80% of the total supply of white clays used in the United States. They are also used as coating and filling clays in the manufacture of china and whiteware. Kaolin is used in the manufacturing of refractories. Fullers earth located in Decatur County almost at the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee is of tremendous importance to this country and is fast becoming a big factor in the state's economy. It is used admirtbly for processing mineral oils. The Fullers earth

Ibid., p. 4. 7Ibid., p. 3. 8 which is not located in our basin but in Twiggs County which is in the central part of the Altamaha River Basin is used for clarifying animal and vegetable 8 fats and oils.

At the headwaters of Chattahoochee the cultivated areas are largely lowlands. The uplands are in forest. The Ashe and Porter soil series that

Predominated in this area have high absorption characteristics tendlng to prevent erosion. Where they are not eroded the friable to sandy loam surface 9 extends down to a depth of from six inches to twelve inches. Erosion has already occurred due to early attempts in Georgia history to cultivate on steep slopes after the lowlands had been farmed out and due also to the frequency of forest fires. See table I, p. 9, for the physiographic occur- rence, relief, origin, physical characteristics and susceptibility to erosion of the twenty-five major soil series found in the Apalachicola Basin. The soil provinces were previously sho7n on Map No. 1, p. 4. The Crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Plateau are responsible for the

Cecil and Appling 'roil series being predominant. They have a friable and absorptive sandy loam or loan surface that ranges from eight to fourteen inches deep. 10 They are moderately erodible, but since the agricultural methods followed were without respect to the soil this area is in serious condition. The following photographs, numbers 1, 2 and 3, should be studied with Map No. 2, p. 13.

Due to poor internal drainage and the impervious he:nry clay subsoils of this plateau the land now has reached a seriously eroded condition. In

8Garland Peyton, op. cit., pp. 5-10.

9Run-off and 7Iaterflow Retardation and Soil Erosion Prevention for Flood Control Purposes, op. cit., p. 3.

10Ibid., pp. 4- 6.