Smith County, Mississippi

HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE,

Jason Andrew McIlwain

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geosciences in the Department of Geosciences

Mississippi State, Mississippi

May 2007

Jason Andrew McIlwain

2007

HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE,

SMITH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Jason Andrew McIlwain

Approved:

______

Darrel W. Schmitz Brenda L. Kirkland Professor of Geology Assistant Professor of Geology (Head of Department of Geosciences (Committee Member) and Director of Thesis)

______

James H. May Christopher P. Dewey Adjunct Professor of Geology Assistant Professor of Geology (Committee Member) (Graduate Coordinator)

______

Phillip B. Oldham Dean of College of Arts and Sciences Name: Jason Andrew McIlwain

Date of Degree: May 5, 2007

Institution: Mississippi State University

Major Field: Geosciences

Major Professor: Dr. Darrel W. Schmitz

Title of Study: HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE, SMITH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Pages in Study: 140

Candidate for Degree of Master of Science

The Oakohay Creek watershed in Smith County, Mississippi, has been proposed as a site for the development of a reservoir. The site has been assessed for hydrogeologic suitability. There were three components to the site assessment. The first component involved examining the hydrologic characteristics of the drainage basin. Discharge and stage were monitored at eight sites, providing data for the development of hydrographs. The second component of the study was based on studying the site’s geology. The geology was studied through field reconnaissance, surface mapping, interpretation of geophysical well log data, and development of cross sections. The third component of the study involved the assessment of water quality within the basin. Samples were taken for analysis by the Mississippi State Chemical

Laboratory. The results of the site assessment indicate that the proposed site is not suitable based on the hydrology, geology, and water quality of the study area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completion of this thesis has been dependent on the guidance, wisdom and contributions of many individuals. I would like to thank the many people that have assisted me and allowed me to successfully complete this project. I would like to thank Dr. Darrel Schmitz (head of the thesis committee) for his guidance, help, and encouragement to finish this work. I would also like to thank Dr. James

May (committee member) for his many hours of work in the field, his ideas, and his input on the thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Brenda Kirkland (committee member) for her assistance with writing the thesis and her input on the project. I extend thanks to Dr. John Mylroie for his input on the karst-related aspects of the project. I would like to thank Jonathan McMillin for his many hours of work and assistance in the field and for listening to my rambling in the office. I would also like to thank a number of people and organizations for data, including: Dr.

Charlie Wax, Dr. Mary Tagert, Rita Jackson, Pickering Engineering, and The

North American Coal Corporation. I would like to thank the United States Forest

Service for funding this project. I would also like to extend gratitude to a number of people I’m sure I have neglected to mention here for their assistance with the completion of this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

II. SETTING...... 3 Location...... 3 Climate ...... 8 Topography ...... 9 Geology...... 9 Stratigraphy ...... 14 Structure ...... 19 Soils...... 19

III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 20 Regional Investigations...... 20 General Surface – Groundwater Interactions ...... 21 Groundwater – Surface Water ...... 23

IV. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM...... 28 Hypothesis...... 30 Objectives...... 30

V. METHODOLOGY...... 32 Methods of Investigation...... 32

VI. RESULTS ...... 37

Hydrology ...... 37 iii Site A-1...... 37 Site A-2...... 38 Site A-3...... 39 Site A-4...... 41 Site A-5...... 42 Site A-6...... 44 Site A-7...... 46 Site A-8...... 46 Water Quality...... 51 Geology...... 57

VII. DISCUSSION...... 66

Hydrology ...... 66 Water Quality...... 68 Geology...... 71

VIII. CONCLUSIONS...... 89

REFERENCES...... 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED ...... 96

APPENDIX

A Cross Sections...... 97

B Stream Monitoring Locations ...... 104

C Chemical Analysis Data...... 114

D Discharge Data ...... 128

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Thirty year mean climate data...... 8

2. Stratigraphy of exposed Smith County strata. Modified from Luper, 1972, and May, 1974. Description of Marianna Formation from May, 1974...... 11

3. Stage/discharge data for sites A-1 – A-8...... 50

4. Twenty-four hour rainfall totals for Raleigh, MS on the six dates discharge measurements were taken. Data from the National Weather Service...... 51

5. High flow chemical analysis data for sites A-1 – A-8. Samples were taken 10/17/2006...... 52

6. High flow data for concentrations of metals for sites A-1 – A-8. Samples were taken 10/17/2006 ...... 53

7. Base flow chemical analysis data for sites A-5, A-6, and A-8. Samples were taken 8/23/2006 ...... 54

8. Field Measurement water quality data...... 55

9. Maximum contaminant levels of select constituents along with samples taken exceeding MCL. Blanks indicate that levels did not exceed MCL...... 70

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Location, highways, and towns of Smith County, Mississippi ...... 4

2. Proposed Smith County reservoir site ...... 6

3. Proposed Smith County reservoir site ...... 7

4. Surface geology of Mississippi. From Rawlings, 2005 (modified from MARIS, 2003) ...... 12

5. Surface geology of Smith County near the proposed reservoir site, from MARIS data. Dashed red line indicates approximate location of Figure 6...... 13

6. Surficial geology of study site, modified from Luper, 1972. Green line indicates approximate dam location...... 14

7. Glendon Formation outcrop in Oakohay Creek. Red arrow indicates a hard limestone ledge (gray). Yellow arrow indicates a marl layer (green). A second hard limestone ledge is indicated by the blue arrow at the water level of the creek...... 16

8. Fossiliferous Glendon Formation limestone...... 17

9. Catahoula, Bucatunna, Byram, and Glendon formations exposed at the Smith County Lime Plant. Yellow lines indicate approximate contact. Hat on Bucatunna for scale ...... 18

10. Land surface water flow and processes. From Deming, 2002...... 24

11. A: Example of an annual hydrograph indicating the flow potential of a stream in a karst basin. Q1 – Q4 correspond to the lower figure. B: Stages of development of a karst drainage system. Q1 is the most immature while Q4 is the most mature. From White, 1988...... 27

vi 12. Outcrop of the Glendon Formation in Oakohay Creek...... 29

13. Dissolutional features of Glendon Formation outcrop. Arrows Indicate some features. Quarter for scale...... 30

14. Location of stream monitoring sites in relation to the proposed reservoir...... 34

15. Wading rod and current meter usage at Site A-1...... 35

16. Bridge board, sounding reel and current meter usage at Site A-5...... 35

17. Hydrograph for Site A-1...... 38

18. Hydrograph for Site A-2...... 39

19. Hydrograph for Site A-3...... 40

20. Base flow conditions at Site A-3 (Yellow Bill Creek). Channel is approximately 15 feet (4.5 m) wide. Taken 10/11/2006 ...... 41

21. Hydrograph for Site A-4...... 42

22. Base flow conditions at Site A-5 (Oakohay Creek). Taken 10/11/2006...... 43

23. High flow conditions at Site A-5 (Oakohay Creek). Taken 10/17/2006...... 44

24. Hydrograph for Site A-5...... 45

25. Hydrograph for Site A-6...... 45

26. Hydrograph for Site A-7...... 47

27. Site A-8 during base flow (Oakohay Creek). Taken 10/11/2006...... 48

28. Site A-8 (Oakohay Creek) during high flow conditions. Taken 10/17/2006...... 48

29. Hydrograph for Site A-8...... 49

30. Log-discharge hydrograph for Site A-8...... 49

vii 31. Borehole locations of drilling conducted by Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc...... 59

32. BCD buggy-type drill rig used for drilling and collecting samples from boreholes B-1 through B-5...... 60

33. Core sample of Glendon Formation taken from boring B-5 ...... 61

34. Borehole locations of logs acquired from the MDEQ and locations of boreholes described in the Smith County Geology and Mineral Resources bulletin...... 62

35. Borehole locations of logs acquired from the North American Coal Corporation...... 63

36. Locations of seismic borings for which driller’s logs were provided by Tellus Operating Group and Pickering Engineering ...... 64

37. Cross section locations for cross-sections A – A’ through E – E’...... 65

38. Eroded block of Glendon Formation limestone in Oakohay Creek showing dissolutional features...... 72

39. BCD drill rig drilling borehole B-8...... 73

40. Core sample from borehole B-8. Dissolutional features are indicated by red arrows. Quarter for scale ...... 74

41. Core sample from borehole B-5. Light gray core is hard limestone, dark gray core is marl. Quarter for scale...... 75

42. Weathered Glendon Formation limestone at the Smith County Lime Plant...... 77

43. Recently exposed unweathered Glendon Formation limestone at the Smith County Lime Plant ...... 78

44. Cross section A-A’. Blue arrow indicates area where fractures may be present in the Glendon Formation ...... 79

45. Cross section D-D’. Blue line indicates proposed dam location. Blue arrow indicates one area where fractures may by present...... 80

46. Cross section E-E’. Blue arrows indicate areas where fractures may be present ...... 81

viii 47. Blind holes drilled during seismic exploration in Smith County...... 82

48. Cross sections A-A’, C-C’, and E-E’ intersect areas where blind holes drilled during seismic exploration are prevalent ...... 83

49. Red lines indicate the approximate length of the proposed reservoir that is in contact with the Glendon/Marianna formations ...... 85

50. Idealized valley profile along the proposed reservoir site. Location of the Glendon/Marianna formations is indicated by the green formation. The hills in the background are along the western side of the valley. The proposed dam is located at distance 0 miles ...... 86

51. Cross section along the dam site from B-5 to B-1 created by Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc. for a report to Pickering Engineering. The Bucatunna outcrop can be seen in the west abutment (indicated by the red arrow). From Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc., 2006...... 88

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis was to determine if the geology and hydrology of a proposed site along Oakohay Creek in Smith County, Mississippi, is suitable for a proposed reservoir. The proposed site is located in the southern part of

Bienville National Forest. A reservoir has been proposed as a source of potential income for the county’s roads and schools (Ballweber and Stiel, 2005). A need for additional income has developed as a result of declining timber sales from

Bienville National Forest. Twenty-five percent of timber sales from the national forest are used to fund roads and schools in the county from which the timber was cut (Ballweber and Stiel, 2005). The proposed site for the reservoir would impound Oakohay Creek northwest of the town of Raleigh. The proposed dam location extends roughly from the southwest quarter of Section 22, T3N, R7E, through Section 27, T3N, R7E, into the western edge of Section 26, T3N, R7E.

A maximum pool elevation of 394 feet (120 m) has been proposed, and provides the footprint used in this proposal. Oakohay Creek is primarily a runoff-fed watershed, with spring-flow providing little water to the creek (Luper, 1972). At a pool height of 394 feet (120 m), the proposed reservoir would have a surface

1 area of approximately 2700 acres (~ 1093 ha). This study characterizes the geologic and hydrologic properties of the Oakohay Creek watershed to determine if adequate water is available to fill and maintain a reservoir of the proposed size and if the geology of the reservoir site is sufficient. Water quality analysis determines the quality of water in Oakohay Creek in the study area.

CHAPTER II

SETTING

Location

Smith County is located in the south central part of Mississippi. The county encompasses about 635 square miles (1,645 km2) or 406,500 acres (~

164,000 ha) (Thornton, 2006). Smith County is bounded by Simpson and Rankin counties to the west, Jones and Covington counties to the south, Jasper County to the east, and Scott County to the north (Thornton, 2006). At its widest points, the county is 24 miles (38.6 km) east to west, and 30 miles (48.3 km) north to south (Luper, 1972). Smith County lies within three of Mississippi’s twelve physiographic provinces (from north to south): the Jackson Prairie, the Long

Leaf Pine Hills, and the Piney Woods (Luper, 1972). The county seat of Smith

County is Raleigh, located near the center of the county. Raleigh is approximately 40 miles (64.4 km) east-southeast of Jackson, Mississippi, the state capital. Smith County’s population was just over 16,000 at the time of the

2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). The county’s population has increased and decreased throughout the 20th century, from a low of 13,000 in

3 Smith County, Mississippi

Legend - Primary Roads 1111 City Limits

------, Miles 0 2 4 8

Created November 30, 2006 Projection: MSTM -- NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS

Figure 1. Location, highways, and towns of Smith County, Mississippi.

4 1900, to a high of 19,400 in 1940 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Figure 1 provides a map of Smith County, indicating the location, major highways, and towns of the county.

The study area is located in the northwestern quarter of the county, west of Highway 35 and north of Highway 18. The area comprises the upper reaches of the Oakohay Creek drainage system. The Oakohay Creek drains southward, eventually into the Leaf River, which finally drains into the Pascagoula River and on to the Gulf of Mexico. Figure 2 is a map of the location of the proposed reservoir site in relation to the rest of the county. The background imagery is a topographic map (Digital Raster Graphic) of the area. Figure 3 is essentially the same with 2006 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) data

(photography) as the background.

As seen in Figure 3, the landcover is primarily forest land, with some pasture land as well. Numerous chicken farms are also present in the vicinity of the study site. The presence of chicken farms is a cause for concern. Runoff from the farms could adversely affect water quality. Typically, chicken house waste, called litter, is spread on pastures adjacent to the houses. The litter is spread on the fields as a fertilizer, however, certain constituents (such as lead, zinc, or arsenic) occurring in high concentrations within the litter, can be detrimental to water quality.

5 Proposed Smith County Reservoir

0 0.5 1 2 3

Legend

-- Primary Roads Created November 29, 2006 - City Limits Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS D Proposed Reservoir

Figure 2. Proposed Smith County reservoir site.

6 Proposed Smith County Reservoir

Legend LJ Proposed Reservoir

Created February 22, 2007 Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS 0 0.5 2 3

Figure 3. Proposed Smith County reservoir site.

7 Climate

Smith County features a humid subtropical climate that derives moisture from the Gulf of Mexico (Thornton, 2006). The study area is subject to an average of just over 61 inches (155 cm) of rain per year based on National

Weather Service (2006) data (Table 1). The data were averaged for two locations near the study site. Thirty year normal data were available for the nearby towns of Bay Springs (~15 miles (24 km) to the southeast) and Forest

(~20 miles (32 km) to the north). Using the averaged data, the mean annual temperature of the study area is slightly over 64°F (17.8°C). Temperature extremes range from average daytime highs of 91.6°F (33.1°C) in July, to average nighttime lows of 35.0°F (1.7°C) in January. Average rainfall per month is highest in January, March, and April and lowest in August, September, and

October (Table 1).

Table 1. Thirty year mean climate data.

onth Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Maximum Temp. ('F) 568 62.5 70.2 765 828 88.8 91.1 910 86.7 77.7 67.5 59.4 759

Forest, MS Minimum Temp. ("F) 33.9 36.9 43.6 49.9 58.6 65.4 69.2 68.1 62.8 50.5 42.4 36.6 51.5 Precipitation (in.) 6.18 5.56 6.54 5.87 4.83 4.38 5.59 4.27 3.74 3.74 5.42 5.82 61.94

Maximum Temp. ('F) 58.8 63.6 71.3 77.3 83.5 89.7 92.1 91.5 87.2 78.6 68.7 61 .1 77.0 Bay Springs,MS Minimum Temp. ("F) 36.1 39.2 45.0 50.2 58.7 66.6 69.8 69.2 64.2 52.0 44.1 38.5 52.8

Precipitation (in.) 6.20 5.22 7.10 6.16 5.37 4.49 5.35 3.51 3.72 3.27 4.79 5.11 60.29 Maximum Temp. ('F) 57.8 63.1 70.8 76.9 83.2 89.3 91.6 91.3 87.0 78.2 68.1 60.3 76.5

Average Minimum Temp_("F ) 35.0 38.1 44.3 50.1 58.7 66.0 69.5 68.7 63.5 51.3 43.3 37.6 52.2 Precipitation (in.) 6.19 5.39 6.82 6.02 5.10 4.44 5.47 3.89 3.73 3.51 5.11 5.47 61.12

8 Topography

Smith County’s topography is described by Thornton (2006) as “hilly and highly dissected, except for in the smoother, less sloping areas that parallel large streams.” The areas that parallel the streams are alluvial plains and terraces.

Elevations range from a high of 605 feet (184.4 m) in the northwestern corner of the county to a low of 230 feet (70.1 m) in the southeast corner of the county

(Thornton, 2006). The county is drained into two major drainage systems. The northwestern corner of the county that drains into the Strong River is part of the

Pearl River basin (Thornton, 2006). The rest of the county drains into the

Pascagoula River basin through the Leaf River and Oakohay Creek (a tributary of the Leaf River) (Thornton, 2006).

Geology

Surficial geology of Smith County is composed of Eocene through Recent deposits associated with both marine and non-marine deposition (Table 2)

(Luper, 1972). The units (excluding alluvium and terrace deposits) strike approximately west-northwest to east-southeast and dip approximately south- southwest. Regional dip is generally less than 35 ft/mile (6.6 m/km) (Tew, 1991;

Toulmin, 1977). Figure 4 illustrates the surface geology of Mississippi, while

Figure 5 and Figure 6 provide the surface geology of the proposed reservoir site.

In Figure 5, the surface location of the Forest Hill Formation is represented by the bright green color, the Vicksburg Group is represented by the tan color, and the

Catahoula is represented by the dark green color. The surface mapping is from

9 MARIS (Mississippi Automated Resource Information System). In Figure 6

(modified from Luper, 1972), the Forest Hill is mapped in light orange, the

Vicksburg Group is mapped in dark orange, the Catahoula is mapped in peach, the Citronelle is mapped in gray, and alluvium is mapped in blue. The Forest Hill

Formation, the Vicksburg Group, the Catahoula Formation and Alluvium deposits are of particular interest with respect to the study area.

10 Table 2. Stratigraphy of exposed Smith County strata. Modified from Luper, 1972, and May, 1974. Description of Marianna Formation from May, 1974.

SYSTEM SERIES GROUP STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT THICKNESS LITHOLOGIC CHARACTER

Sand, fine- to coarse-grained, Alluvium 0-40’ silt, clay, some organic material, gravel. RECENT

Sand, light-tan to buff, fine- to coarse-grained. Gravel, chert, Terrace Deposits 0-158’ and quartz, with scattered clay lenses. QUATERNARY Sand, red to reddish-orange, fine- to coarse-grained. Gravel, Citronelle Fomation 0-135’ PLEISTOCNE chert and quartz, with scattered clay lenses. Clay, tan, gray to reddish-gray, sandy in part, abundant Hattiesburg Formation Up to 90’ ferruginous concretions, minor

amount of gray to tan, fine- to medium-grained sand. Sand, gray, tan to buff, kaolinitic, silty, locally indurated,

MIOCENE MIOCENE forming sandstone, fine- to Catahoula Formation Up to 550’ medium-grained. Clay, gray, buff to light-tan, maroon. Silt, light-gray, white to tan, kaolinitic, locally indurated. Clay, dark-gray to black, micaceous, sparingly Bucatunna Formation 24'-84’ fossiliferous, silty, finely carbonaceous, chocolate-brown on outcrop. Marl, greenish-gray, glauconitic, Byram Formation 5’-22’ fossiliferous, clayey.

Limestone, gray to light-gray, fossiliferous, slightly sandy with

Glendon Formation alternating beds of gray, fossiliferous marl. TERTIARY TERTIARY 15’-59’ Limestone, light gray to VICKSBURG VICKSBURG yellowish gray, fossiliferous, Marianna Formation argillaceous. Soft and more

OLIGOCENE OLIGOCENE homogenous than Glendon, with hard ledges in lower part. Marl, greenish-gray sandy to very sandy, glauconitic, Mint Spring Formation 5’-23’ fossiliferous, pyretic. Sand is medium- to coarse-grained. Sand, gray to light-gray, fine- grained, silty, micaceous. Clay, Forest Hill Formation 97’-164’ dark-gray, carbonaceous, silty, thin beds of lignite.

Clay, blue-gray to light-olive- gray, fossiliferous, calcareous, Yazoo Formation 200’-329’ weathers to pale-orange and

EOCENE gray mottled color. JACKSON

11 GEOLOGY OF MISSISSIPPI

STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN C] ALLUVIUM Quarternary [ D COASTAL DEPOSITS [ Pliocene D CITRONELLE PASCAGOULA/HATTIESBURG .,g, Miocene. [ D z D CATAHOULA [ D VICKSBURG/CHICKASAWHAY Oligocene D FOREST HILU RED BLUFF CLAY D JACKSON GROUP C] cocKFIELD

Q) D COOK MOUNTAIN C: Q) C] KOSCIUSKO Cl Eocene 0 Q) D ZILPHAIWINONA '"Cl. D TALLAHATTA/NESHOBA SAN C] WlLCOX LJ NAHEOLA Paleocene [ D PORTERS CREEK CJ CLAYTON - PRAIRIE BLUFF/OWL CREEK -RIPLEY (MCNAIRY SANO) -RIPLEY DEMOPOLIS CHALK CJ COFFEE SAND CJ MOOREVILLE CHALK CJ EUTAW (TOMBIGBEE SANO) CJ EUTAW TUSCALOOSA CJ MERAMAC, OSAGE Carboniferous [ CJ CHESTER GROUP Devonian - CHATTANOOGA SHALE 2004 IUGS Stratigraphic Classification

s 23 April 2005 MSTM NAO 1983 Data Source: Maris, 2003

Figure 4. Surface geology of Mississippi. From Rawlings, 2005 (modified from MARIS, 2003).

12 Surface Geolo

0 0,5 ..

- City Limits -- Primary Roads D Proposed Reservoir

Geological Formation - Catahoula D Vicksburg Group C~ated Februaryf1~' 007 Forest Hill Projection: Msm ._ NAO 83" Source Data1 MARIS

Figure 5. Surface geology of Smith County near the proposed reservoir site, from MARIS data. Dashed red line indicates approximate location of Figure 6.

13 Alluvium

Of Citronelle Formation Of Ov

Catahoula Formation Ov Qa

Vicksburg Group

Qa Mc Forest Hill Formation Mc Pc

SCALE 0 i 4 MIL!.S

Figure 6. Surficial geology of study site, modified from Luper, 1972. Green line indicates approximate dam location.

Stratigraphy

The facies of the relevant formations range from fluvial to marine, with both siliciclastic and carbonate deposition. The oldest of the relevant formations, the Forest Hill, outcrops in the upper reaches of the study area. The Forest Hill is a series of micaceous sands and carbonaceous clays, interbedded with thin lignite seams (Luper, 1972). The Forest Hill was deposited as a package of progradational deltaic and fluvial deposits during a regression (Tew, 1991). The

14 Forest Hill unconformably overlies the Yazoo Formation of the Jackson Group and is unconformably overlain by the Vicksburg Group.

The Vicksburg outcrops across the location of the proposed reservoir.

The Mint Spring Formation is found at the base of the Vicksburg Group. The

Mint Spring consists of greenish-gray, fossiliferous, glauconitic, pyritic, sandy marl and greenish-gray, medium- to coarse-grained, glauconitic, fossiliferous sand (Luper, 1972). The Mint Spring was deposited as a fining upward sequence in response to transgression (Tew, 1991; Coleman, 1978). The depositional environment was shallow-water and high-energy (Tew, 1991). The

Marianna Formation overlies the Mint Spring Formation. Following Luper (1972), the Marianna will be included with the Glendon Formation for the remainder of the study. The Marianna can be difficult to distinguish from the Glendon in Smith

County. The Marianna is composed of fossiliferous, argillaceous, light-gray to yellowish-gray limestone (May, 1974). The upper portions are usually homogenous while the lower portions can contain ledges. The depositional environment is similar to the Glendon Formation. The Glendon Formation is found above (stratigraphically) the Marianna (Figure 7). The Glendon contains alternating beds of hard limestones and soft marl that are similar in composition: gray, glauconitic, arenaceous, argillaceous, and fossiliferous (Figure 8) (Luper,

1972). The Glendon deposits represent maximum transgression followed by subsequent regression and progradation of highstand carbonate deposition

Figure 7. Glendon Formation outcrop in Oakohay Creek. Red arrow indicates a hard limestone ledge (gray). Yellow arrow indicates a marl layer (green). A second hard limestone ledge is indicated by the blue arrow at the water level of the creek.

(Tew, 1991). The alternating beds of limestone and marl represent repetitive shallowing-upward sequences (Tew, 1991). The Byram Formation disconformably overlies the Glendon. The Byram is a greenish-gray, glauconitic, fossiliferous, clayey marl (Luper, 1972). The boundary between the Byram and the Glendon represents a regressive event, followed by transgression and deposition of the Byram, a marine shelf deposit (Tew, 1991). The Bucatunna

Formation conformably tops the Byram. The Bucatunna is a dark-gray to black, slightly fossiliferous, micaceous, carbonaceous, bentonitic, silty clay (Luper,

1972). The Bucatunna was deposited as part of a progradational, regressive

Figure 8. Fossiliferous Glendon Formation limestone.

systems tract (Tew, 1991). Depositional environments of the Bucatunna range from shallow marine pro-delta to marginal marine in nature (Tew, 1991).

The Miocene Catahoula Formation, which unconformably overlies the

Bucatunna, outcrops near the proposed dam site. The Catahoula is composed primarily of gray-tan to buff, fine- to medium-grained, silty, kaolinitic sand, with minor amounts of lignitic, gray, buff, tan, maroon, and micaceous clays and light- gray white to tan silts (Luper, 1972). The Catahoula is considered to be fluvial in origin with some marginal deltaic deposits near the base of the formation in certain areas (Day, 1987). The majority of the formation exhibits characteristics 17 of fluvial deposition, including lenticular bedding and paleochannels cut into the

Bucatunna filled with Catahoula sands (Day, 1987). An exposure of the

Catahoula, Bucatunna, Byram, and Glendon formations can be seen in Figure 9.

Recent Alluvium is present along Oakohay Creek and its tributaries. The

alluvium and terrace deposits consist of sands, gravels, silts, and clays (Luper,

1972).

Catahoula

Bucatunna

Byram

Glendon

Figure 9. Catahoula, Bucatunna, Byram, and Glendon formations exposed at the Smith County Lime Plant. Yellow lines indicate approximate contact. Hat on Bucatunna Formation for scale.

18 Structure

Structural elements of Smith County geology could have an impact on the implementation of the reservoir. While no surface faulting appears to be present, shallow subsurface faulting or fracturing may have an impact on the reservoir

(deep fault systems are present as well, but do not affect the study site). Salt domes in the deep subsurface seem to affect the surface units. Salt domes are known to occur in Smith County, at depths (to salt) of approximately 2000 to

2500 feet (610 to 760 m) (Luper, 1972). At the surface, the doming is reflected in the dip angles and erosional patterns of the surface units. The effect of the doming on the Glendon/Marianna formations is the most important with respect to the proposed reservoir. A discussion of the structure affecting the

Glendon/Marianna is included in Chapter VII.

Soils

Soil associations in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir site include the

Smithdale-Lucy-Ruston, Savannah-Ora-Stough, and Mantachee-Kirkville-Jena

(MARIS, 2006). The soils are fine sandy to silty loams that are typically moderately well-drained to well-drained (Thornton, 2006). Organic content is low to medium for each of the soil formations. The parent materials of the soils include the Forest Hill Formation, the Vicksburg Group, the Catahoula Formation,

Terrace Deposits and Alluvium Deposits.

CHAPTER III

LITERATURE REVIEW

An examination of the relevant literature focused on three components important to the research project: regional surface and shallow subsurface geology, regional hydrogeology/hydrology, and general reservoir/stream interaction studies. Regional studies of both the geology and hydrogeology/hydrology were limited in both number and their examination of relevant aspects. However, some useful studies have been completed in the area.

Regional Investigations

Whatley (1950) researched the stratigraphy of the Glendon Formation near Vicksburg, Mississippi. A detailed study of the Glendon was performed by examining surface exposures and analyzing samples in the laboratory. Boswell

(1970) reported on the available water resources of Smith County and the surrounding counties. The area was studied for the potential water supplies for municipal and industrial usage. Luper (1972) provided a detailed report on the surface geology and shallow subsurface of Smith County. Within the report,

20 Baughman (1972) examined the water resources (surface water and groundwater) of the county. Coleman (1978) reported on the stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Vicksburg Group in Mississippi. Formations of the Vicksburg Group were redefined and depositional environments were established for the formations. Day (1987) studied the stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Catahoula Formation in southeast Mississippi.

Day focused on differentiating unnamed units within the Catahoula Formation. A study on sequence stratigraphy, facies development, and paleogeography of

Oligocene deposits in southern Alabama and Mississippi was conducted by Tew

(1991) in a master’s thesis. Tew’s study examined the strata to produce depostional sequences that could be associated with paleogeographic reconstructions of the study area. A number of other studies completed in the region, but with less relevance to this study, were consulted but not cited in the

Literature Review. The references for the consulted material are included in a bibliography.

General Surface – Groundwater Interactions

Winter and others have completed much research on surface – groundwater interactions (Winter and others, 2000; Winter and others, 1998; Mau and Winter, 1997, Winter and others, 1988; Winter and Carr, 1980; and Winter,

1984, Winter, 1976). The research often focused on lake-groundwater interactions in the northern part of the United States. Lewelling and others

(1998) examined the hydraulic connectivity between a river and groundwater in

21 Florida. Methods of investigation included analysis of hydrologic and geologic records, evaluation of seismic-reflection profiles, seepage investigations, and thermal infrared image interpretation. Smakhtin (2001) provides a general review of low flow hydrology. Nemeth and Solo-Gabriele (2003) developed a numerical model for the estimation of channel leakage into an aquifer. The numerical model was based on the Darcy and transmissivity equations. Turkmen and others (2002) investigated seepage problems in the foundation of a dam in

Turkey. The damsite was underlain by karstified Paleocene carbonates. Various methods were used to determine flowpaths for the water after remediation efforts had proven unsuccessful. Romanov and others (2003) studied the effects on dam sites of dissolutional widening of fractures in soluble rocks. The study concluded that the increased hydraulic gradients caused by a reservoir would greatly accelerate the dissolutional process within a span of a few decades.

In 2005, Rawlings completed a master’s thesis examining the hydrologic and geologic setting of a reservoir site in Choctaw County, Mississippi. The study utilized analysis of flow data, the construction of a groundwater model, and the development of cross sections from borehole data to determine suitability of the site with respect to available water and surface strata. A number of texts were consulted as well as part of the review process, including a number of texts on various aspects of geology (Domenico and Schwartz, 1998, Fetter, 2001,

Deming, 2002, and Schwarz and Zhang, 2003).

22 Groundwater – Surface Water

Insight into the interactions of groundwater and surface water is necessary to understand the hydrologic conditions present within a drainage basin. The interactions occur through multiple processes. Rainfall recharges aquifers, confined or unconfined, through infiltration. Springs can form as aquifers intersect the topography within a basin. Connectivity can be established between streams and aquifers, resulting in gaining streams or losing streams.

Karstification of carbonates, such as the Glendon Formation, can result in the formation of flow conduits allowing rapid movement of water underground, potentially bypassing a dam or flowing into an adjacent drainage basin through the drainage divide upstream of the dam. The interaction processes are impacted by the climate, geology, topography, and hydrologic characteristics present within a basin (Cey et al., 1998). Figure 10 is a simplified model of land surface water flow. Rain falling on a land surface enters the ground and begins to flow through it by a process known as infiltration (Deming, 2002). Some water moves over the land surface and is known as overland flow. Overland flow is the primary contributor to quickflow. The rise and fall in stream flow associated with a precipitation event is known as quickflow (Deming, 2002). Water that infiltrates

23 i Precipitation

Groundwater Groundwater t divide divide Interception +

1faapotomsptralioo

,,.- / ...... / ...... ,,. ,,.

--- Groundwater flow

Figure 10. Land surface water flow and processes. From Deming, 2002.

the surface then moves through the unsaturated zone towards the water table by

interflow.

Hydrographs can be used to record the change in discharge over time of a

stream (Deming, 2002). During and following rainfall events, discharge typically

rises quickly followed by a slower drop-off in discharge. The long term

component of stream flow is known as baseflow. Baseflow declines much more

slowly than quickflow, as it is sustained by groundwater flow into a stream. The

decline is known as baseflow recession. Baseflow can be calculated using the

equation:

-at Q = Q0e 3.1

in which Q is discharge at a time after the recession begins, Q0 is discharge at the onset of the recession, a is the basin’s recession constant, and t is time since the onset of the recession (Fetter, 2001). Baseflow can increase the water in a

24 stream, resulting in gaining streams or effluent (Deming, 2002). Baseflow can also decrease the water in a stream, resulting in a losing stream or influent.

Potential complications occur in the Oakohay Creek drainage basin within the study area. The Glendon Formation limestone of the Vicksburg Group outcrops along the proposed reservoir site. Limestones and other carbonate rocks are subject to chemical dissolution by interaction with water, resulting in the formation of karst (White, 1988). The dissolution occurs as calcite reacts with water and carbon dioxide by the following reaction:

2+ - CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 = Ca + 2 HCO3 3.2

Commonly, the dissolution of limestone within karst regions can allow the formation of subsurface flow routes, or conduits. Conduits can permit water loss from the stream channel, even from the basin itself. Conduits in the form of caves are known to have developed in the Glendon/Marianna formations of

Smith County (Luper, 1972, Moore, 2006). Most likely, those reported as caves formed in the Glendon Formation by Luper are actually formed in the Marianna

Formation. Boswell and others (1970) also reported solution channels in the

Glendon Formation. An example of flow patterns and landscape development in karst terrains is provided by Figure 11 (from White, 1988). Figure 11-A is an annual streamflow hydrograph indicating flow during various stages of karst development. The stages (Q1 – Q4) are illustrated in Figure 11-B. The development continues from Q1, an underdrained valley, to Q4, a completely underground drainage system. The Oakohay Creek watershed, if karstified,

25 would most likely be in the Q1 stage of development. Potentially, there is some water loss to karstification associated with the stream system

Springs occur where aquifers intersect topography. In Smith County, they are considered to contribute insignificant amounts of water to stream flow (Luper,

1972). The lack of spring contribution to stream flow is supported by the lack of water during dry periods. Little or no discharge can often be observed during dry times of the year, as confirmed by the author, as well as Luper (1972) and

Boswell and others (1970). During the dry periods, spring flow, if present, would sustain some stream flow.

26 _...... ,._.._,.....,. ______A

°:3--~----~--- = Dry channel used only during floods

& . ..m !

(l:z "' Dry channel In low flCl'N periods o = Underdrained valley ---·----"""----....1 -.------Fall Winter_ Spring Summer B

, t_1

Figure 11. A: Example of an annual hydrograph indicating the flow potential of a stream in a karst basin. Q1 – Q4 correspond to the lower figure. B: Stages of development of a karst drainage system. Q1 is the most immature while Q4 is the most mature. From White, 1988.

CHAPTER IV

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The proposed location for the implementation of an impoundment of

Oakohay Creek presented a problem from a geologic standpoint. Initial field reconnaissance of the area revealed lower than expected water discharge in the streams. Water flow was stagnant at several of the targeted sample locations.

While these initial observations were made during low-flow conditions, stagnant streams were not expected. Further investigation and analysis yielded a potential cause of low water flow in the form of dissolutional conduits formed in limestone of the Glendon/Marianna formations. Surface outcrops of the Glendon

Formation were found just upstream of the proposed location of the dam. The outcrops in the creek exhibit dissolutional features associated with the formation of karst (Figures 12 and 13). Karstification of the limestone could present three problems. Dissolution near the dam site could allow water to bypass the dam, compromising the impoundment’s potential to maintain the designed water level.

Another problem arises when the reservoir begins to fill. As the water level rises, potential contacts of the Glendon/Marianna formations in the adjacent valley walls could allow water to leave the Oakohay Creek drainage and reservoir

Figure 12. Outcrop of the Glendon Formation in Oakohay Creek.

through subsurface conduits and enter the adjacent Leaf River or Little Oakohay

Creek drainage basins. The potential loss of water from either case would make implementation of an impoundment a difficult proposition. A third problem could arise through instability of the dam site. Dissolution of the limestone beneath the dam could allow collapse of material into the void space that was created.

29 Hypothesis

The proposed reservoir site will not be suitable for the implementation of an impoundment structure based upon geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the site.

Figure 13. Dissolutional features of Glendon Formation outcrop. Arrows indicate some features. Quarter for scale.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to assess the geologic and hydrologic properties of the study area to determine if the site is suitable for the 30 development of a reservoir. Of particular interest were the Glendon/Marianna formations of the Vicksburg Group. Potential dissolution of the

Glendon/Marianna formation limestones could complicate or prevent implementation of the proposed reservoir. Direct objectives of this project included:

1. Establish the occurrence of the Glendon/Marianna formations and their

condition with respect to dissolution.

2. Determine hydrologic characteristics of the basin.

3. Determine water quality of the available water within the basin.

CHAPTER V

METHODOLOGY

Methods of Investigation

There were three components to the investigation of the proposed reservoir site. The first component involved analysis of initially available data and field mapping of the Glendon/Marianna formations to determine characteristics of the site’s geology. The available data included geophysical logs and/or driller’s logs from the Mississippi Department of Environmental

Quality (MDEQ) Office of Geology, North American Coal Corporation, and Tellus

Operating Group, as well as descriptions of stratigraphy from boreholes constructed for Luper’s (1972) Smith County Geology and Mineral Resources.

The acquired geophysical logs were interpreted for stratigraphy. Eight boreholes were drilled by Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc. (BCD) specifically for this project. The boreholes were logged by the MDEQ and interpreted by BCD. Core samples were taken and tested by BCD. Outcrops of the Glendon/Marianna formations were mapped in Oakohay Creek. A total of five cross sections were developed using the available data. A sixth idealized cross section/ profile of the proposed reservoir was also created. The goal of the geologic component of the

32 investigation was to determine the location and condition of the relevant geologic formations.

The second component of the investigation examined the hydrology of the study area. The hydrologic assessment of the basin was based on the monitoring of the available surface water at eight locations (designated A-1 – A-

8) along Oakohay Creek and its tributaries (Figure 14). Location maps and imagery of each location are available in Appendix B. The sites were monitored for both discharge and stage at various flow levels. Discharge measurements were made using either a Price Type AA current meter or a Pygmy current meter along with a wading rod (Figure 15) or a bridge board and sounding reel (Figure

16) attached to the current meter. Flow conditions determined the equipment used to make the measurements, as high flow conditions at some sites required the use of the sounding reel and bridge board. Measurements were made using standard U.S.G.S. procedures of using the current meter to measure the velocity of the stream at ten separate segments across the width of the stream, then multiplying the velocity of the stream segment times the area of the segment to obtain a discharge for that segment. The discharges of the ten separate segments can then be summed to determine the total discharge of the stream.

Discharge data are provided in Appendix D. Additional discharge estimates were made using a statistically significant estimation method from Hanks and others (2003). The method involves measuring the width of the stream, then measuring an average depth for the width of the stream, then utilizing floating

33 Legend

-- Primary Roads

- City Limits -- Streams • Site D Proposed Reservoir

Created November 29, 2006 0 0.5 1 2 Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS

Figure 14. Location of stream monitoring sites in relation to the proposed reservoir.

Figure 15. Wading rod and current meter usage at Site A-1.

Figure 16. Bridge board, sounding reel and current meter usage at Site A-5.

35 objects, such as leaves, to determine the velocity by timing the movement of the debris over a measured distance (typically one to three feet (0.3 to 0.9 m)).

Stage was monitored from a specific point on a bridge or culvert crossing the stream at each site except forone (Site A-8). Site A-8 required the installation of a stage gage to monitor depth of water and aid in estimation of discharge during high flow events due to the lack of a bridge and therefore the ability to either measure stage or high flow discharge using the procedures used at the other seven sites. The stage and discharge data were used to develop stage- discharge hydrographs. The hydrographs establish the relationship between stage and discharge for the stream at the monitoring location.

The third component of the study determined water quality of the drainage basin. Water-quality analyses were conducted utilizing both field equipment and analysis by the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory. Water quality was monitored at the eight sites by taking samples at both low flow and high flow for analysis by the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory. Only three samples were available for the low flow sampling due to five of the eight stream monitoring sites being dry during low flow conditions. The analysis is a standard water analysis used by the Mississippi Department of Health that measures pH, turbidity, select inorganics, and select metals. Field measurements were taken using either a

YSI Model 6920 or an In-Situ Troll 9500 sonde. Each sonde contains sensors for measuring nitrate, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, turbidity, and temperature.

CHAPTER VI

RESULTS

Hydrology

A total of 45 readings on six dates were taken at the eight sites. The data acquired were then used to create stage-discharge hydrographs for each site.

The hydrographs are presented along with select photographs of sites A-1 – A-8 in figures 17 -- 29. Discharge data are summarized in Table 3. Twenty-four hour rainfall totals at Raleigh, Mississippi for the period ending on the date the discharge measurements were made are available in Table 4.

Site A-1

Site A-1 is located at a road crossing (elevation of 415 feet) where

Highway 481 crosses Mile Branch, a tributary of Yellow Bill Creek, which is a tributary of Oakohay Creek. Six measurements were made at this site. The highest recorded discharge was 9.24 ft³/s (2/11/2006), while the lowest recorded discharge was 0.73 ft³/s (12/5/2006). While the December reading was the lowest recorded discharge, the stream was dry at A-1 during base flow. The stream is dry during base flow conditions due to the lack of stream flow in the

37 area. The hydrograph for A-1 (Figure 17) provides a reasonable fit (r² = 0.7539) for the data to the logarithmic trendline that establishes the hydrographic curve for the site.

SiteSite A-1

0.1 Discharge (CF Discharge(ft³/s)

0.01 405 406 407 y = 9.6166Ln(x) - 19.599 StageStage(ft) (ft) 2 I R = 0.7538

Figure 17. Hydrograph for Site A-1.

Site A-2

Site A-2 is located at the intersection of County Road 481–A-1 and Mile

Branch. Site A-2 is located approximately one-third of a mile (metric) downstream of Site A-1. Six measurements were made at this site. The highest recorded discharge was 9.90 ft³/s (2/11/2006), while the lowest recorded discharge was

1.37 ft³/s (5/8/2006). The site is dry during base flow conditions, just like Site A-1

38 and other sites within the study area. The hydrograph for Site A-2 (Figure 18) features a poor fit of the data to the trendline of the graph (r² = 0.3036).

Site A2 A-2-

Discharge(CF I Discharge(ft³/s)

1 9 98 397 3 39 400 y = 2.7842Ln(x) - 1.9556 StageStage(ft) (ft) 2 I R = 0.3511

Figure 18. Hydrograph for Site A-2.

Site A-3

Site A-3 is located at the point where Highway 481 crosses Yellow Bill

Creek. The site is approximately 1.5 miles upstream of where Yellow Bill Creek flows into Oakohay Creek. A high discharge of 77.91 ft³/s was taken on

2/11/2006. The low discharge of 1.10 ft³/s was recorded on 12/5/2006. The stream was impacted by debris lodged against the bridge on the date of the low discharge. The hydrograph for Site A-3 provides a good fit (r² = 0.851) of the

39 data to the trendline (Figure 19). Site A-3 is also dry during base flow conditions

(Figure 20).

SiteSite A-3 A-3

100 • 10

I 1 • I Discharge (CF Discharge(ft³/s)

0.1

02 06 4 403 404 405 4 y = 43.049Ln(x) - 90.482 Stage (ft) Stage(ft) R2 = 0.8615

Figure 19. Hydrograph for Site A-3.

Figure 20. Base flow conditions at Site A-3 (Yellow Bill Creek). Channel is approximately 15 feet (4.5 m) wide. Taken 10/11/2006.

Site A-4

Site A-4 is located at the intersection of Highway 481 and a small tributary of Yellow Bill Creek. The site is approximately 1300 feet west of Site A-3. Five measurements were made at the site. The highest discharge recorded was 9.48 ft³/s on 2/11/2006. The lowest recorded discharge was 0.15 ft³/s on 12/5/2006.

The site was dry during base flow conditions. The fit of the data to the trendline of the hydrograph was reasonable (r² = 0.7925) (Figure 21).

41 SiteSite A4A-4-

10 - --

1 I . Discharge(CF I Discharge(ft³/s)

0.1 402 403 404 y = 6.9225Ln(x) - 12.952 Stage(ft) 2 Stage (ft) I R = 0.8464

Figure 21. Hydrograph for Site A-4.

Site A-5

Site A-5 is located where County Road 502 crosses Oakohay Creek. The site is the northernmost of any in the study area, approximately six miles north of the proposed dam location. Six measurements were made at this site. The highest recorded discharge of 352.33 ft³/s was measured on 2/11/2006. The accuracy of the February reading is questionable, as the stream was overbank in a highly vegetated area, limiting the effectiveness of the current meter. The lowest recorded discharge was 9.09 ft³/s on 1/24/2007. However, during baseflow conditions there is no measurable flow, but water is present in the stream (Figure 22). Figure 23 provides a view of the stream at high flow conditions. The hydrograph for Site A-5 provides a poor fit of the data to the trendline, however, an explanation can be found in Chapter VII (Figure 24).

Figure 22. Base flow conditions at Site A-5 (Oakohay Creek). Taken 10/11/2006.

Figure 23. High flow conditions at Site A-5 (Oakohay Creek). Taken 10/17/2006.

Site A-6

Site A-6 is located at the point where Boykin Church Road crosses

Oakohay Creek. The site is located approximately 2.5 miles downstream of Site

A-5. Six measurements were made at this site. The highest recorded discharge was 335.11 ft³/s on 2/11/2006. The lowest recorded discharge was 6.06 ft³/s on

3/29/2006. During base flow conditions, water was present, but no flow was detectable. The discharge data provide an excellent fit to the trendline (r² =

0.9091) (Figure 25).

44 SiteSite A5A-5-

1000

100

I 10 Discharge (cf Discharge(ft³/s)

395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 StageStage(ft) (ft) y = 96.425Ln(x) - 236.44 R2 = 0.3356

Figure 24. Hydrograph for Site A-5.

SiteSite A6 A-6-

1000

100

, ' 10 icag (CF Discharge Discharge(ft³/s)

0 3 4 5 7 8 38 381 382 3 38 38 386 38 y = 144.33Ln(x) - 328.5 StageStage(ft) (ft) R2 = 0.9088

Figure 25. Hydrograph for Site A-6.

45 Site A-7

Site A-7 is located at the intersection of Boykin Church Road and a small unnamed tributary of Oakohay Creek. Five readings were made at this site. The highest recorded discharge for this site was 13.00 ft³/s on 2/11/2006. The lowest recorded discharge was 0.64 ft³/s on 10/17/2006. The stream is dry during base flow conditions. The data provided a reasonable fit to the trendline (r² = 0.7998)

(Figure 26).

Site A-8

Site A-8 is located on Oakohay Creek near the proposed dam site, approximately 0.5 miles (0.31 km) east of Boykin Church Road. There is no public road access to the site, only a small trail. High flow measurements at the site proved problematic due to the lack of a bridge to use the sounding reel and bridge board from. Only estimates of high flow discharge could be made. To aid in making the estimates, a stage gage was installed at the site and zeroed to the center of the creek channel. Stakes were place at measured intervals on the east bank of the stream to facilitate width estimates from the west bank during overbank conditions. Six measurements were made at this site. The highest recorded discharge was 504.00 ft³/s on 2/11/2006. The lowest recorded discharge was 5.00 ft³/s on 12/5/2006. During base flow, the stream has been observed with no discharge (Figure 27). A few small standing pockets of water were present but there was no flow. A view of the stream at high flow is provided by Figure 28. The fit of the data to the trendline is relatively poor at this site (r² =

46 0.4855) (Figure 29). Due to the poor correlation, an alternative model was also used for Site A-8. In the alternative model, log of the discharge was plotted on the y-axis against stage on the x-axis (Figure 30). A linear correlation provided a much better fit of the data to the trendline (r² = 0.8436).

SiteSite A7A-7-

100

.~ / 1 icag (CF Discharge

Discharge(ft³/s) I I 0.1 382 383 384 StageStage(ft) (ft) y = 5.6606Ln(x) - 5.3172 R2 = 0.7999 I

Figure 26. Hydrograph for Site A-7.

Figure 27. Site A-8 during base flow (Oakohay Creek). Taken 10/11/2006.

Figure 28. Site A-8 (Oakohay Creek) during high flow conditions. Taken 10/17/2006.

48 SiteSite A8 A-8-

1000

100

10 Discharge (CFS Discharge(ft³/s)

6 7 8 9 0 1 5 8 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 345 3 3 3 3 3 3 352 353 354 3 356 357 3 StageStage(ft) (ft) y = 128.85Ln(x) - 329.47 R2 = 0.4855

Figure 29. Hydrograph for Site A-8.

Site A-8

3.5

2.5 • 2 ..------1.5 oo Dischar Logof 1

0.5 •

0 Log of DischargeMeasurements 344 346 348 350 352 354 356 358 y = 0.1745x - 59.377 Stage (ft) R2 = 0.8436

Figure 30. Log-discharge hydrograph for Site A-8.

Table 3. Stage/discharge data for sites A-1 – A-8.

SITE DATE STAGE (FT) DISCHARGE (FT³/S) A-1 2/11/2006 406.6 9.24 3/29/2006 405.9 3.70 5/8/2006 406.2 3.64 10/17/2006 406.4 3.82 12/5/2006 405.8 0.73 1/24/2007 406.1 3.16 A-2 2/11/2006 397.9 9.90 3/29/2006 399.2 5.54 5/8/2006 397.4 1.37 10/17/2006 398.8 4.77 12/5/2006 397.3 1.54 1/24/2007 397.5 1.69 A-3 2/11/2006 405.6 77.91 3/29/2006 402.9 9.71 5/8/2006 404.0 23.08 10/17/2006 403.1 10.85 12/5/2006 402.6 1.10 1/24/2007 402.8 5.42 A-4 2/11/2006 404.0 9.48 3/29/2006 402.8 0.38 5/8/2006 NO DATA NO DATA 10/17/2006 402.9 1.16 12/5/2006 402.4 0.15 1/24/2007 402.9 1.83 A-5 2/11/2006 402.0 352.33 3/29/2006 395.5 9.14 5/8/2006 399.3 10.32 10/17/2006 399.7 184.25 12/5/2006 398.2 10.85 1/24/2007 398.1 9.09 A-6 2/11/2006 387.5 335.11 3/29/2006 381.2 6.06 5/8/2006 380.9 41.90 10/17/2006 383.1 110.59 12/5/2006 378.7 14.75 1/24/2007 381.0 11.39 A-7 2/11/2006 383.8 13.00 3/29/2006 382.1 1.30 5/8/2006 NO DATA NO DATA 10/17/2006 382.4 0.64 12/5/2006 NA 0.00 1/24/2007 382.3 1.34 A-8 2/11/2006 357.0 504.00 3/29/2006 348.0 24.50 5/8/2006 351.1 151.28 10/17/2006 350.5 165.60 12/5/2006 345.5 5.00 1/24/2007 348.5 28.32

50 Table 4. Twenty-four hour rainfall totals for Raleigh, MS on the six dates discharge measurements were taken. Data from the National Weather Service.

Date 24 Hour Rainfall Total (Inches) 2/11/2006 2.00 3/29/2006 0.03 5/8/2006 1.35 10/17/2006 4.47 12/5/2006 0.00 1/24/2007 0.00

Water Quality

The Mississippi State Chemical Lab analysis data for levels of constituents within the studied samples are provided in Appendix C and summarized in

Tables 5 through 8. Within the tables, the samples for each site are labeled with the site identification number along with H or B (high flow or base flow), e.g. A-1H indicates a sample from site A-1 during high flow conditions. Base flow samples are only available for three sites due to the lack of water in the basin during those conditions. Additional measurements were taken on three occasions using field probes featuring sensors for measuring temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrate, conductivity, and turbidity. The field probe data are provided in Table 8.

51 Table 5. High flow chemical analysis data for sites A-1 – A-8. Samples were taken 10/17/2006.

Data

A-I H A-2H A-3H A-4H A-5H A-6H A-7H A-SH pH 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.5 Turbidity (NTU) 12 22 62 23 26 89 14 17 lnor~nics IRR!!'.!I Bicarbonate Alkalinity <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 17 12 <10 Total Alkalinity <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 14 10 <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Sodium 3.5 3.6 4.4 1.6 3.1 2.4 1.2 3.1 Potassium 3.3 3.5 15.0 7.1 9.2 6.0 3.6 8.3 Calcium 120.0 110.0 5.3 2.4 2.9 3.3 5.7 11.0 Magnesium 5.5 5.8 2.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 2.2 Total Hardness 310.0 310.0 22.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 19.0 37.0 Fluoride <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chloride 5.2 5.3 7.1 2.0 4.3 3.0 1.6 4.1 Sulfate 280.0 280.0 12.0 4.8 5.2 2.4 4.4 2.8 Nttrate Nttrogen 0.43 0.39 3.10 0.98 1.10 0.48 0.45 0.19 Nttme Nttrogen <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Total Nttrogen 0.43 0.39 3.1 0.98 1.1 0.48 0.45 0.19 Total Dissolved Solids 400 380 78 34 44 35 32 70 Cyanide <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Phenol <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Ammonia-N 1.00 <0.1 0.37 0.25 0.40 0.22 0.13 0.46 Total Phosphorous 0.13 <0.1 2.10 1.40 1.60 0.69 20.00 0.65 Biological Oxygen Demand 10 9 11 10 12 11 11 12 Total Coliform (MPN/100 rnl) 230,000 17,000 300,000 22,000 220,000 50,000 230,000 50,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 3,000 3,000 50,000 14,000 140,000 22,000 13,000 22,000

52 Table 6. High flow data for concentrations of metals for sites A-1 – A-8. Samples were taken 10/17/2006.

Data

A-1H A-2H A-JH A-4H A"5H A-6H A-7H A-8H Metals IRl!!I!l Aluminum 2.5 2.7 3.9 2.7 3.3 3.4 1.4 1.1 Antimony <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Arsenic <0.001 <0.001 0.0032 <0.001 0.0011 0.0012 <0.001 0.0032 Barium 0.094 0.092 0.063 0.034 0.049 0.053 <0.022 0.046 Beryllium <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Ca

53 Table 7. Base flow chemical analysis data for sites A-5, A-6, and A-8. Samples were taken 8/23/2006.

-effow Data A-5B A-6B A~B pH 6.2 I 6.3 I 6.4 T urbid ity (NTU) 11 .-0 I 9.3 I 20.0 ln org,!!nic s ,Qr2m ) B icart)onate A lkalin ity 49 39 39 T otal Alk.ali nily 40 32 32 F i t:t:: C1:111> u 11 Oiu JUllt:: <10 <1 0 < 10 S odium 9.2 8.8 7.4 P,otassium 8.0 7.9 7.3 calcium 8.5 8.2 10.0 r.l agnesium 3.8 3.3 2.5 T otal Hardness 37 34 36 F luoride <0 .1 <0.1 <0 .1 Chlo ride 7.3 6.0 4.7 Sul fate 8.3 1 1.0 8.1 N itrate N itrogen <0 .1 <0.1 0.17 N itrite Nitrogen <0 .1 <0.1 <0 .1 T otal N itroge n <1 <1 <1 T otal D issolved S olids 86 83 78 C _yonide ~0.0 2 --.: 0 .02 --.: ·0. 0 2 P henol <0 .1 <0.1 <0 .1 A mmonia -N 0.14 0 .10 0.19 T otal Phosphorous <0 .1 <0.1 0.49 Biolog ical Oxygen O em.and 3 4 2 T otal Coliform 1300 1300 1100 Fe ca l Coli i:Jrm 170 50 2 40

M etals U;mm) A luminum 0.180 -0.092 0.460 A nmlony 0.-00 39 < 0.·00 1 <0.0 01 Arsenic 0.-0024 0.003 0 0 .·0025 B.ariu m 0.067 -0.059 0.060 BcryUium <-0 . 0 01 -< 0 .-00 1 <:0 .0 01 C admium <0.001 < 0.·00 1 <0.0 01 Chromiu m <0.01 < 0.01 <·0.01 C•oppe r 0.069 -0.037 0.028 11"00 3.2 3.0 3.0 Lead 0.-0061 < 0.·00 1 <0.0 01 r.l anganese 0.97 1 .20 0.8 8 IA errury < 0.0005 <0.0005 < 0.000S Nickel <0.05 < 0.05 <·0.05 Selenium 0.-0021 < 0.·00 1 <0.0 01 S ilver <0.004 < 0.·00 4 <0.0 04 T halium <0.001 < 0.·00 1 <0.0 01 Zinc <0.02 < 0.02 <·0.02

54 (%) n (%) ygen .3 .3 .6 .6 .3 .1 .1 .7 Oxyge Ox 34 13.3 13.3 22 26.2 26.2 89 77 74 70 143.1 143.1 141.1 141.1 1 102.7 102.7 ved ved l l sso sso ) Di (NTU (NTU) Di .6 .6 .7 .7 .6 ty ty 4.4 8.5 04 9.0 9.0 10.1 10.1 10.6 10.6 47 2 26.0 26.0 21.3 21.3 6 36 35.5 35.5 3 idi rbidi urb Tu ) T l em cm / i L µS ( luS EL EL EL EL EL .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ty ty .0 .0 6.9 6.9 NN NN NN 44.4 59 08 92 50 ivi ivi ANNE ANN 92 14 1 1 1 146.0 146.0 1 130.5 4 292 290 CH CHA CH CHA CHA duct n Conduct Co ) om) ppm ( lo .8 .8 .0 .5 .2 NA NA NA te 84 99 98 93.9 93.9 76 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY 101.2 101.2 a trate tr Ni Ni ty data.ty 53 58 li pH pH 6. 6.83 6.83 7.64 7.64 7.48 7.12 7.19 91.5 ter qua wa (°C) (°C) 2 7.19 102.7 6 6.57 55 55 50 ata .4 .4 . . ature ature r r urement 1:3 19 25.61 25.61 6. 20.62 20.62 6.85 24.74 24.74 empe Meas Tempe T rementD 4 6 26 5 te te 2005 2006 -6 Measu / / A-4 18.60 6.73 A-8 18.93 A-7 A-8 A-1 A- A- A- A-1 A-2 A-3 19. 20.14 A-2 A-5 A A-7 2D A-3 Si Si 11 23 able 8. Field 5/ 8/ F ield

55 s) /s) / 3 (ft3 (ft e 75 39 32 85 09 73 69 54 83 . . . .42 rg 1.10 1.10 1. 1. 1.34 1. 0. 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 9. 3.16 3.16 5.00 5.00 5 11 14 10. 28 h a h sc scharge Di %) Di (%) n( .3 .3 .0 .6 .1 .9 .9 .7 .7 .1 .6 .6 .5 .8 .2 5.6 Oxyge Oxygen 20 07 03 00 06 71.1 71.1 96 99 95 98 73 98.9 69 52 81.2 81.2 11 1 1 1 1 1 ed ved lv l sso sso Di Di lU) NlU ( (N .9 .9 .6 .6 .9 .2 .1 .6 .0 ty ty 7.4 2.5 2.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.5 6.7 6.7 1 40.3 40.3 22 21.5 21.5 26.8 26.8 75 70 35 30 36 30 171.0 171.0 idi idi rb Turb Tu em) Si Siem Siem (1,1 lu 1 .5 .5 .1 .9 .5 .3 .6 .0 .0 .1 .7 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 6.6 6.6 8.1 8.1 vity vity 28. 25 07 03 96 30 89 i i 95 11 11 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 287 234 218.6 218.6 303 58 uct nd Co Conduct m) 1 4 1 oo 69 (ppm) l 36 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 087 000 te 26 0. 0. ra trate Nit 16 16 0 28 03 70 98 94 67 84 87 86 80 pH pH Ni 4. 7.14 7.14 7.28 7.28 0 7. 7. 7. 6. 7.28 7.28 0 6. 6. 6.64 0. 8. C) (°C ta re 4 NA 0.02 ure(° Da tu 24 76 30 96 98 70 65 56 85 89 rat nt 4. 8.14 8.14 8. 8.0 8. 8.40 ed} e inu mp reme Te Tempera (Cont Measu te te 2007 2006 / le 8. 8. le A-4 A-4 7. A-8 A-8 A-5 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-4 A-4 A-6 A-7 6. 6.74 5. 7. A-1 A-3 8.81 7. A-1 A-1 A-2 A-3 5. 6. A-5 A-5 5.51 7. A-2 A-2 8. A-8 A-8 5. Si Si /5/ 24 1/ 12 Field

56 Geology

The geologic assessment of the site involved three components: acquisition and interpretation of available geophysical log and drilling log data, development of cross sections based on the acquired data, and mapping of the

Glendon/Marianna formations with respect to the proposed reservoir site.

Eight borings were completed by BCD specifically for this project (Figures

31, 32, and 33). Five of the borings were located along the dam axis, and three were located along the footprint of the reservoir. All eight borings were logged by the MDEQ and interpreted by BCD. Core samples and split spoon samples were taken at each of the eight borings and analyzed by BCD.

A total of four logs were acquired from the Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality (Figure 34). The logs were from water wells drilled near the study area. Descriptions of ten borings near the study area were available through the Smith County Geology and Mineral Resources bulletin. The borings were made in the 1970’s to acquire stratigraphic information for the bulletin.

Seventeen geophysical logs and drilling logs were acquired from the North

American Coal Corporation (Figure 35). The borings were drilled for exploration purposes in the early 1980’s. The geophysical logs from the borings were interpreted for stratigraphy.

Additional drilling logs were acquired from Tellus Operating Group and

Pickering Engineering. The logs were from approximately 1,000 borings made near the study site for 3-D seismic exploration not associated with this project

(Figure 36). The available logs were of little use from a stratigraphic standpoint;

57 however, the logs were used to determine areas where the drillers lost circulation. In this area, lost circulation can be associated with solution conduits or vugular porosity within the Glendon/Marianna formations. A total of 94 logs reported lost circulation.

The available data were combined to create five cross sections of the study area (location map – Figure 37; cross sections – Appenix A). Vertical lines, or sticks, indicate locations of boreholes along the cross sections. Depth is approximated as well using the sticks, with the sections being terminated at an elevation above sea level of 300 feet (91.4 m) and most boreholes extending below that elevation. Utilizing the cross sections and mapped outcrops of the

Glendon/Marianna in Oakohay Creek, an idealized profile of the Oakohay Creek valley and a map indicating where the footprint of the lake comes in contact with the Glendon/Marianna formations were created.

58 Boreholes --- BCD

-- Primary Roads • BCD Boreholes Proposed Reservoir

Created February 9, 2007 Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 0.25 0.5 1 Source Data: MARIS and Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc.

Figure 31. Borehole locations of drilling conducted by Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc.

Figure 32. BCD buggy-type drill rig used for drilling and collecting samples from boreholes B-1 through B-5.

Figure 33. Core sample of Glendon Formation taken from boring B-5.

61 -- Primary Roads

- City Limits • Boreholes D Proposed Reservoir

Created November 29, 2006 Milesl Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 0.5 1 2 3 Source Data: MARIS, MDEQ, lo and Smith County Bulletin

Figure 34. Borehole locations of logs acquired from the MDEQ and locations of boreholes described in the Smith County Geology and Mineral Resources bulletin.

62 Boreholes NAC

-- Primary Roads

- City Limits • Boreholes D Proposed Reservoir

Created February 8, 2007 0 0.5 1 2 Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS and North American Coal Cor

Figure 35. Borehole locations of logs acquired from the North American Coal Corporation.

63 Seismic Boring Locations

-- Primary Roads

- City Limits • Seismic Shot Holes D Proposed Reservoir

Miles Created February 15, 2007 0 0.5 1 2 Projection : MSTM - NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS and Tellus O eratin Grou

Figure 36. Locations of seismic borings for which driller’s logs were provided by Tellus Operating Group and Pickering Engineering.

64 Cross Section Lines

-- Primary Roads

- City Limits D Proposed ReseNoir

--===---=====:J Miles Created February 8, 2007 0 0.5 1 2 3 Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 Source Data: MARIS

Figure 37. Cross section locations for cross sections A – A’ through E – E’.

CHAPTER VII

DISCUSSION

Hydrology

The hydrologic assessment of the site was used to help determine available water supply for the proposed reservoir. For the hydrologic assessment of the study site, discharge and stage were monitored at various flow levels and used to produce stage – discharge hydrographs. The hydrographs and discharge data are presented in Chapter VI. A late design change to the alignment of the dam resulted in two additional streams flowing into the reservoir, Cantwell Branch and Indian Charlie Branch. The two streams were unfortunately not monitored for discharge or water quality during the study due to time constraints.

A number of things can be determined based on the data acquired and conditions observed in the study area. The amount of water available in the study area is minimal for the development of a reservoir. Very little spring flow supports the streams in the area during base flow conditions. At the dam site monitoring location (A-8), there was virtually no discharge during base flow. All of the tributaries of Oakohay Creek were dry for the majority of three months

66 during 2006. Rainfall totals were below average for 2006 (53” for 2006 – 61” for an average year), having some effect on stream flow (National Weather Service,

2006). Based on observed conditions, particularly during the spring, spring flow is not abundant even during periods of average rainfall. Following rainfall, recession of the streams is extended. The water level will remain elevated for a relatively long period of time (several hours). The streams would not be classified as “flashy” streams, particularly Oakohay Creek.

Some problems do exist with the correlation of the hydrographs that were developed; however, the problems can be at least partially explained. For all of the sites, more data would improve the correlation of the hydrographs. For Site

A-2, an erroneous measurement, either discharge or more likely stage, is most likely the cause for the problems with that hydrograph. Analysis of the hydrograph (r² = 0.3718) for Site A-5 reveals a problem with the data for the stream. Four relatively close discharge measurements (9.09, 9.14, 10.32, and

10.85 ft³/s) were made at significantly higher stages (398.1, 395.5, 399.3, and

398.2 feet respectively). The most likely explanation is that the stream is impacted by a beaver dam or other obstruction allowing a maximum discharge of approximately 9 to 11 ft³/s to pass through it. This would explain why, at a stage of 399.7 feet, a discharge of 184.25 ft³/s was measured. Apparently, the obstruction is overtopped once the stream reaches a certain stage, allowing the discharge to increase accordingly. Based on the available data, the obstruction affecting Site A-5 is located upstream of Site A-6. However, based on observed conditions in the field, A-6 can be affected by similar obstructions at times. The

67 poor fit of the data to the trendline for Site A-8 is most likely the result of estimating the high discharges. At high water levels, the accuracy of the estimation method would be poorer than at low water levels. Another possibility is that the stream is affected by an obstruction (or obstructions) downstream, similar to sites A-5 and A-6. Due to the low correlation of the model, another model was applied to Site A-8 as well. The alternative model, using log of the discharge and a linear plot instead of the actual measurement and a logarhythmic plot, provided a much better correlation and appears to fit the site better than the model used at the other sites

Water Quality

Water quality analysis of the basin relied on sample analysis by the

Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory and measurements taken using field probes. Samples were taken for lab analysis during both high flow and base flow conditions for the stream monitoring locations (A-1 through A-8). A number of samples contained levels of constituents higher than Maximum Contaminant

Level (MCL) for Mississippi bottled water standards (Table 9). All eight high flow samples exceeded MCL for at least one contaminant. High levels of manganese, iron, and aluminum were the most common contaminants higher than MCL. The three common contaminants are probably high in concentration as a result of erosion of natural material; however, the presence of poultry farms may have an influence on the concentrations. Poultry litter, spread as a fertilizer on local pastures, is naturally high in phosphorous and nitrogen. A number of trace

68 elements are added to poultry feed and may be added to poultry litter as well

(Jackson et al., 2003). The elements added to the feed are intended to boost growth, health, and egg production among the poultry. Certain amendments

(such as alum) may be added to poultry litter as well to reduce the impact on the environment of spreading the litter as a fertilizer (Sims and Luka-McCafferty,

2002). The additives can result in the accumulation of high concentrations of certain elements in the soils, which may then be mobilized by rainfall. Aluminum, iron, and manganese are among the elements that can occur at elevated levels in association with poultry farming. Copper and zinc are elements that commonly occur at elevated levels due to poultry farming, however, neither are at elevated levels based on the water quality analysis (Jackson et al., 2003). Therefore, the high concentrations of iron, manganese, and possibly aluminum are believed to occur as a result of erosion, not poultry farms. The possibility does exist for the accumulation and concentration of the high level constituents due to evaporation of water from the reservoir. As water evaporates from the reservoir, increasingly higher levels of the metals are left behind. Levels could become high enough to cause problems for a recreational reservoir.

69 20 350 1. 1 1. 1. A-SH A-SH 0. 7H 1.4 A- 6H 65 320 0069 3.4 0. 0. 0. 87 220 L. 0074 0. 0. 0. MC H A-5H A- 11 -4 077 0. A 0. exceeding taken 3H 130 0130 0.40 A- 0. 0. samples 2H 35 th 350 280 0. wi 0. MCL ong ong al ng H A- di 33 350 -1 2.5 2.7 3.9 2.7 3.3 280 ee 0. 0. L. xc E nstituents es co 200 mpl A-6B A-6B A 1. M C exceed M Sa select not not 10 05 05 30 1 1 4 2 5 050 001 002 002 006 004 005 of els of 10 10 did 0050 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 250 250 500 0. 0. 0. 0. MCL v 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. le els v Levels le t inant m that nta co cate aminan lids t indi So ml n en Con ed lnn en ge aximum ml lv oa lanks o og B so itr itr lnn itr is N r N c 9. M ry ony anics l N D ol ol ls mium llium ride ride mium er o o rt1 o anide rium ry lenium lfate v tal tal cke o eta anaanese ercu hl itrate itrite on on lu luminum rseni hen il ntim ead Maximum M Zinc Thalium To To Se S Su Coppe Cad Chr Cv C ln L M M Ba Be Ni P N N F Ir A A A

70 Geology

The geologic assessment of the basin uncovered potential hazards with the placement of the reservoir. The reservoir site selected is situated atop the

Vicksburg Group. The Vicksburg Group contains three formations of concern, the Glendon/Marianna formations and the Bucatunna Formation. The

Glendon/Marianna formations are the major cause for concern within the study area. The Glendon/Marianna contains beds of limestone that are subject to dissolution by water. Dissolution of limestone can form interconnected vugular porosity or conduits allowing water to move rapidly through a limestone unit.

Additionally, fractures within a limestone can be widened by dissolution, eventually resulting in cave formation. A reservoir situated upon solutioned limestone would be at risk for loss of water.

The Glendon/Marianna formations, most likely the Marianna, are known to have developed caves in the eastern part of Smith County. All evidence indicates that the Glendon/Marianna has developed interconnected vugular porosity or solution conduits in areas near the reservoir site. Dissolutional features have been seen in outcrop of the Glendon Formation in Oakohay Creek

(Figure 38).

The drilling conducted by BCD encountered solution cavities while drilling boring B-8 (Figure 39). Three attempts were made to drill a boring at site B-8.

The first attempt to drill encountered the Glendon at a depth of 21.5 feet (6.5 m), losing circulation of drilling fluids at a depth of 27 feet (8.2 m). The rig was moved approximately 20 feet (6.1 m) then a second attempt was made. The

Figure 38. Eroded block of Glendon Formation limestone in Oakohay Creek showing dissolutional features.

second attempt encountered the Glendon at a depth of 29 feet (8.8 m), losing circulation at 30 feet (9.1 m). An effort was made to drill through the Glendon without drilling fluids in the second hole. The drill bit dropped seven feet (2 m) into an opening upon penetrating a few inches of limestone. Drilling was then abandoned at the second hole and the rig was moved approximately 200 feet (61 m) to the north for another attempt. The third attempt encountered the Glendon at a depth of 21 feet (6.4 m), losing circulation almost immediately. A loss of circulation of drilling fluids is indicative of voids in the subsurface, most likely in the form of interconnected vugular porosity or conduits that have formed in the

Figure 39. BCD drill rig drilling borehole B-8.

Glendon/Marianna limestones. A seven foot drop of the drill bit seems indicative of a large opening, such as a conduit or cave, formed in the Glendon/Marianna formations. Core samples obtained at boring B-8 clearly show solution features formed in the Glendon (Figure 40). The core from B-8 has a distinctly different color than the cores taken from the other seven borings. The B-8 sample has a tan/light orange coloration to the limestone while the typical core samples of the limestone had a gray coloration (Figure 41). Figure 41 provides a picture of core samples from borehole B-5. The light gray core is hard limestone of the Glendon

Formation, while the dark gray is marl from the Glendon. The coloration is clearly different from the tan coloration of the hard limestone from borehole B-8.

Figure 40. Core sample from borehole B-8. Dissolutional features are indicated by red arrows. Quarter for scale.

As seen at the Smith County Lime Plant, the Glendon weathers to a yellowish-tan color, while unweathered Glendon is a light gray color (Figures 42 and 43). One potential explanation for the dissolutional features present near hole B-8 is the development of paleokarst. Paleokarst is a term used to indicate a previously active karst formation environment. Paleokarst may have formed in this area as a result of subaerial exposure of the Glendon Formation during the past, most likely during the Miocene/Oligocene unconformity. The distribution of blind holes follows most closely the surface outcrop of the Vicksburg Group, where paleokarst development would have been the most pronounced. As seen

Figure 41. Core sample from borehole B-5. Light gray core is hard limestone, dark gray core is marl. Quarter for scale.

in figures 40-43, the coloration of the core sample from hole B-8 closely matches the coloration of weathered Glendon limestone from the Smith County Lime

Plant.

Another possibility is that the limestone has been fractured. The fractures can be widened by dissolution allowing water to move freely through the limestone. Fracturing could occur as a result of geologic structures affecting the area. Salt domes are common in southern Mississippi; one is located near the town of Raleigh, just southeast of the proposed reservoir. Three cross sections

(A-A’, D-D’, and E-E’) indicate doming affecting the formations (Figures 44, 45, 75 and 46). Fracturing of the limestone may have occurred in association with the doming. The arrows on the cross sections indicate areas where fracturing may be present. Fracturing could allow preferential dissolution along the fractures.

Dissolution can widen fractures at an ever-increasing rate, particularly when the groundwater is pressurized by a reservoir (Romanov et al., 2003). Unsustainable water loss can be the end result, leading to a failure of the reservoir due to an inability to maintain the designed water level.

A significant number (~10%, 94 of ~1000) of borings drilled for seismic exploration near the study site lost circulation (Figure 47). The borings that lost circulation (also known as blind holes) fall along strike of the Vicksburg Group and seem to be more prevalent on the ridges rather than the valley of Oakohay

Creek. The distribution of blind holes seems to support the evidence for fracturing of the limestone allowing preferential dissolution along the fractures.

Three cross sections (A-A’, C-C’, and E-E’) cross areas where blind holes were encountered. Two of the cross sections (A-A’ and E-E’) have indicate uplift affecting the Glendon/Marianna formations. The areas indicated as possible fracture zones in Figures 44 and 46 coincide with areas where blind holes are prevalent (Figure 48). While only five of the blind holes are located in the footprint of the proposed reservoir, the clear evidence for extensive karst development affecting the Glendon/Marianna formations would almost certainly have an impact on a reservoir developed at the proposed location.

Figure 42. Weathered Glendon Formation limestone at the Smith County Lime Plant.

Figure 43. Recently exposed unweathered Glendon Formation limestone at the Smith County Lime Plant.

78 A' 51000 54000 42000 45000 48000

36000 39000 A' 33000 - 0 A 3000 (Feet)

27000 Section Distance 4000 2 ormation ormation F F ormation Cross F 1000 ormation Hill F 2 Spring orest F Yazoo Mint eposits Glendon D errace D 18000 nd and T ege L ion mation ormat Alluvium F For 5000 1 Formation D yram Cironelle B Bucatunna 2000 1

9000 6000 Formation. Formation. 3000 A

0 450 350 650 550 500 400 600 Figure 44. A-A’. Cross section in bepresentthe Glendon area Blue may arrow indicates fractures where

> C 0 "' "' iii !!:,

33000 : 30000 7000 2 24000

D' I -· -· omation 000 F 21 Hill _ D

.._... O«St F ) 8000 ion feet 1 . y ,e ( ,e leg;end l stanc Sect 5000 Di 1 2000 1 Cross 9000

6000 3000 indicates one area where fractures may bepresent. one indicatesarea fractures where D 0

0 0 450 400 350 65 60 500 550 , • , , : : : >· >· QI QI c : cu ... w .s!! IL .2 Figure 45. D-D’. Cross section proposeddam Blueline location. indicates Blue arrow

80 E' 42000 45000 36000 39000 33000

30000 E' 27000 E - E

(Feet) Section 21000 24000

Distance on U ormation orna F F Cross orma1ion F Iii Qrmatlon F pring ! H ! S e• IMdon For MJru G 15000 18000 09!p0ti1t,.; llff'Hi• T rmd Legend 12000 .1m lon lon t t uvh . ion t ll A FollNIUOII ma Forma r l • Fo nn oula tu h on•ll•Forma r 9000 yram

B Sut,i Clt Caa 6000 3000 E 0

550 350 500 450 400 300 650 600 Ill C: 0 Figure 46. E-E’. Cross section bepresent. fractures areas Blue wheremayarrows indicate w i" ; !6.

81 ------x.. -'~' " . • . ,',J r a._~,.+-) --P'V , I · ~ /., •

Legend

-- Primary Roads D Proposed Re servoir • Blind Holes

Geological. Fo rmation - Catahoula D Vicksburg Group D ForestHill

Projection. M. MARIS and Source Data. 1·n Grou Tellus O era 1

Figure 47. Blind holes drilled during seismic exploration in Smith County.

82 - City Limits -- Primary Roads D Proposed Reservoir • Blind Holes

Geological Formation

- Catahoula D Vicksburg Group D ForestHill

Miles Created February 19, 2007 Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 0 0.5 1 2 3 Source Data: MARIS and Tellus Operating Group

Figure 48. Cross sections A-A’, C-C’, and E-E’ intersect areas where blind holes drilled during seismic exploration are prevalent.

83 Three problems caused by the Glendon/Marianna formations could occur: 1) loss of water to adjacent drainages 2) loss of water beneath the dam 3) instability of the dam site. Loss of water to adjacent drainages could occur if the porosity or conduits within the Glendon/Marianna are developed enough to allow movement of water through the drainage divides. Approximately 50% of the length of the footprint of the proposed reservoir will be in contact with the

Glendon/Marianna formations at the maximum pool elevation (Figure 49). The contact extends from in the creek near the dam site, up onto the ridges that parallel the length of the reservoir to the north. An idealized valley profile is provided in Figure 50, indicating the approximate position of the

Glendon/Marianna formations with respect to the reservoir. Loss of water beneath the dam may be a bigger problem than loss to adjacent drainages. The increased hydraulic gradient (due to the amount of water the reservoir would contain) would force water into the limestone. Solutional features could then allow down-dip movement of water through the Glendon/Marianna, bypassing the dam by going under it. Instability of the dam could occur if dissolution of the limestone below the dam creates voids or increases void sizes. Material above the voids could then collapse downward into the open space. The stability of the dam and the reservoir itself could then be compromised.

Numerous examples exist of reservoirs developed on carbonates that have leakage problems, dam instability problems, or even dam failure. Three such examples are the Logan Martin Dam, the Hales Bar Dam, and the Haig Mill

Dam. In east-central Alabama, the Logan Martin dam and reservoir was

84 Glendon Contact

Proposed Reservoir Glendon Contact

Created February 9, 2007 2Miles l Projection: MSTM - NAO 83 0.5 1 Source Data: MARIS

Figure 49. Red lines indicate the approximate length of the proposed reservoir that is in contact with the Glendon/Marianna formations.

85 550 Idealized Profile of the Oakohay Creek Valley

500 Glendon Format.ion North -

450 i°Q) !:!:. C .2 400 Q) iii

350

300 ------...... ------~------l-- 0 2 3 4 5 Distance (Miles)

Figure 50. Idealized valley profile along the proposed reservoir site. Location of the Glendon/Marianna formations is indicated by the green formation. The hills in the background are along the western side of the valley. The proposed dam is located at distance 0 miles.

developed along the Coosa River in the 1960’s on folded and faulted Knox Group carbonates. The reservoir experienced a loss of 650 ft³/s (18.4 m³/s) through solutionally widened fractures and conduits near the dam site as of 1993

(Redwine, 1993). An attempt to remediate the leakage was made by pumping grout to a depth of 500 ft (152 m) to seal off the conduits and fractures. Another example is the Hales Bar Dam of Tennessee. Located on the Tennessee River west of Chattanooga, the Hales Bar Dam was constructed in the early 1900’s

(White, 1988). The reservoir is underlain by Mississippian limestones featuring minor faulting. Solutionally widened fractures allowed leakage under the dam.

By 1939, leakage from the reservoir approached 1700 ft ³/s (48.14 m³/s). 86 Extensive remediation efforts, including grouting and the development of a concrete cut-off, were undertaken to limit the leakage. The Haig Mill Dam in

Georgia was constructed in the early 1990’s. The dam is located on Haig Mill

Creek and overlies carbonates of the Knox Group and Lenoir Formation (Kath et al., 1995). Extensive efforts were made to prevent or limit leakage. Preventative measures included the pouring of grout curtains, application of clay blankets, and the development of a trench system. Obviously, any efforts to limit reservoir leakage in a karstified environment will lead to increased cost for the development of a reservoir.

Another geologic concern is the Bucatunna Formation. The Bucatunna is a formation of montmorillonitic clays that are subject to shrinking and swelling.

The Bucatunna is prominent in the west abutment of the proposed dam (Figure

51). Shrink-swell clays present in a dam abutment could cause problems with the stability and integrity of a dam, possibly leading to leakage at the abutments or failure of the dam.

It It

20 20

300 300

320 320

3aQ 3aQ

4DO 4DO

• •

.. ..

j j

; ;

( (

J J

ril ril

··· ···

......

1. 1.

in in

.. ..

section section

······ ······

ne ne

ng ng

n n

··

: : No

U.KE U.KE

......

·w

nU: nU:

ndo

~l=IPPI ~l=IPPI

•··

"" ""

ole

......

PRO

U/20/(lf U/20/(lf

In In B

Gle

limes

. . .

......

i, i,

~ "

;. ;.

;o ;o

OUHTY OUHTY

.r .r

IITY, IITY,

FAC( FAC(

SMITlf SMITlf

~lllf ~lllf

...... SUBSU

.. ..

1 1 11,,,, 11,,,,

houla

......

.. ..

;=====+===1=::t ;=====+===1=::t

......

, ,

_="';a,

fl ~. ~.

a~-~-

Level Level

===-:

Lake Lake

ll1 ll1

pn1

cmdllbn, cmdllbn,

nof nof

the the

D11 D11

mmr mmr

~==

and and

lhown lhown

bOll"911f~. bOll"911f~.

llnM llnM

lbtn,111111 lbtn,111111

lar- ffl'Glwn ffl'Glwn

Th, Th,

SNFlgurtlfor ::r!'\!T:.:•mf4Xll ::r!'\!T:.:•mf4Xll

.. .. ~:::::::.::::=::::t

G.200S.,. G.200S.,.

(nf){Ptt11tra1lt111 (nf){Ptt11tra1lt111

COn"111 COn"111

h.amtcol11mn h.amtcol11mn

tri

IIM,._N(ll..,,-H) IIM,._N(ll..,,-H)

Coll-slo!i Coll-slo!i

WOW WOW

= = W • • W

report to Pickering Engineering.report to The canbeseen Bucatunna outcrop in abutment the west by Burns From arrow) Inc.,the 2006.red (indicatedCooley Dennis,

tll=llrrllon"'1i)'f) tll=llrrllon"'1i)'f)

-21X1•:IC,,..11911

•

· ·

0 0

" "

,.. ,..

,o ,o ., .,

. .

,nri1

.. ..

11111• 11111•

.....

......

· ·

......

.------,------~------;------;-----,------,-----....,...----,----"T74

320

360 360

3ao 3ao

420 .OD .OD

Figure 51. B-5 theB-1 damtoalong byfrom created site Cross forsection Burns CooleyDennis, Inca

0 0 IILIINScoa..tJtlDallS.IHt. IILIINScoa..tJtlDallS.IHt.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSIONS

The hydrology, geology, and water quality of the proposed reservoir site on Oakohay Creek in Smith County, Mississippi have been assessed to determine the suitability of the site for the reservoir. Development of a reservoir at the proposed location seems questionable at best. The hydrology of the area is not particularly well suited to support a reservoir of the proposed size due to the lack of spring flow. Spring flow would not support the reservoir during the summer months. Consecutive drought years would almost certainly lead to a much lower than desired water level. The geology of the site is the most concerning problem. The Glendon/Marianna formations of the Vicksburg Group outcrop across the proposed reservoir location. The Glendon/Marianna formations contain beds of limestone that show clear evidence for dissolution in the study area. Dissolution can form flow paths within the limestone for water to escape an impoundment, either bypassing the dam or flowing into an adjacent drainage basin. Dissolution of limestone beneath the damsite could cause instability or failure of the dam. Four lines of evidence indicate that dissolution will be a problem at the site:

89 1) Caves, formed through dissolution of the Glendon/Marianna

formations, are known to exist in eastern Smith County.

2) Ninety-four boreholes drilled during seismic exploration in Smith

County were blind holes, a term used to indicate a loss of circulation of

drilling fluids, typically as a result of voids in the subsurface.

3) One boring conducted specifically for this study lost circulation and

eventually dropped the drill bit into a seven foot deep opening in the

subsurface.

4) Solution cavities were observed in outcrops of the Glendon Formation

in Oakohay Creek.

Based on the available data, the Glendon/Marianna formations are not suitable to develop a reservoir on at the proposed location. The Bucatunna

Formation of the Vicksburg Group presents another problem with the site. The

Bucatunna consists of clays of a shrink-swell nature. The Bucatunna outcrops in the west abutment of the proposed dam site. Shrink-swell clays in the dam abutment could cause instability or failure of the dam. At the very least, extensive and costly remediation may be necessary to prevent problems, with failure of the dam, and possibly loss of life, as a potential result of neglecting to address the geologic hazards.

The present water quality in the area does not appear problematic for the proposed reservoir. Higher than MCL levels of aluminum, iron, and manganese are common among high flow samples taken from the study area. The high levels are most likely the result of erosion of naturally occurring materials. One

90 concern is that as the lake fills, assuming it fills, evaporation would further concentrate the already high levels of aluminum, iron, and manganese, and possibly increase the levels of other constituents to unsafe levels.

The lack of abundant spring flow, dissolution of the Glendon/Marianna limestone, and presence of Bucatunna Formation shrink-swell clay in the dam abutment make the development of a reservoir at the site risky, at best. Further study of the nature of the Glendon/Marianna formations at the site seems necessary to determine the extent of remediation efforts that will almost certainly be needed if the project is to be continued. Additional hydrologic studies should be conducted to improve on the hydrographs created for this study. Further assessment of the source of the high concentration metals should be pursued as well. Based on the findings of this study, the currently proposed site is not suitable and should be abandoned.

REFERENCES

Ballweber, J., and Steil, K., 2005, Purpose and Need for a Large Multi-Use Lake in Smith County, Mississippi, Mississippi State University GeoResources Institute.

Baughman, W.T., 1972, Water Resources of Smith County, In Luper, E.E., 1972, Smith County Geology and Mineral Resources, Mississippi Geological, Economic, and Topographical Survey, Jackson, MS.

Boswell, E.H., 1970, Water for industrial development in Clarke, Jasper, Lauderdale, Newton, Scott, and Smith Counties, United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Washington, D.C.

Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc., 2006, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Smith County Lake, Smith County, Mississippi, Report No. 060784.

Cey, E. E., Rudolph, D. L., Parkin, G. W., and Aravena, R., 1998, Quantifying groundwater discharge to a small perennial stream in southern Ontario, Canada: Journal of Hydrology, v. 210, p 21-37.

Coleman Jr., J.L. 1978, Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the Carbonates of the Vicksburg Group (Oligocene) in Mississippi and Adjacent Areas, Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.

Day, L.A., 1987, Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the Catahoula Sandstones and Associated Facies in Southeast Mississippi, Master’s Thesis, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.

Deming, D., 2002, Introduction to hydrogeology, McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Domenico, P. A., and Schwartz, F. W., 1998, Physical and chemical hydrogeology, 2d ed, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Fetter, C. W., 2001, Applied hydrogeology, 4th ed, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.

92 Hanks, M.G., Hughes, A.M., McIlwain, J.A., and Schmitz, D.W., 2003. Estimated Discharge Versus Measured Discharge of Selected Streams in the Ackerman Unit of the Tombigbee National Forest, Mississippi: Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs, v.35, no. 6.

Jackson, B.P., Bertsch, P.M., Cabrera, M.L., Camberato, J.J., Seaman, J.C., and Wood, C.W., 2003, Trace Element Speciation in Poultry Litter, Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 32, p. 535-540.

Kath, R.L., McClean, A.T., Sullivan, W.R., and Humphries, R.W., 1995, Engineering impacts of karst: Three engineering case studies in Cambrian and Ordovician carbonates of the Valley and Ridge Province, In Beck, B.F., ed., 1995, Karst Geohazards – Engineering and Environmental Problems in Karst Terranes, A.A. Balkema,

Lewelling, B.R., Tihansky, A.B., and Kindinger, J.L., 1998, Assessment of the Hydraulic Connection Between Ground Water and the Peace River, West- Central Florida, Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4211, United States Geological Survey.

Luper, E.E., 1972, Smith County Geology and Mineral Resources, Mississippi Geological Survey Bulletin 116, Mississippi Geological, Economic, and Topographical Survey, Jackson, MS.

Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS), 2003-2006, GIS data warehouse, www.maris.state.ms.us.

May, J. H., 1974, Wayne County Geology and Mineral Resources, Mississippi Geological Survey Bulletin 117, Mississippi Geological, Economic, and Topographical Survey, Jackson, MS.

Mau, D. P. and Winter, T. C, 1997, Estimating groundwater recharge from streamflow hydrographs for a small mountain watershed in a temperate humid climate, Ground Water, v. 30, no. 3, p. 390-395.

Moore, C.M., 2006, Dissolution Caves of Mississippi, Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State University.

National Weather Service Forecast Office, Jackson, MS, 2005, 30 year (1971- 2000) normal climate data for Bay Springs, Forest, Mississippi, www.srh.noaa.gov/jan/climate, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Jackson

National Weather Service, 2006-2007, Climatological Data – Mississippi, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.

93 Nemeth, M. S., and Solo-Gabriele, H. M, 2003, Evaluation of the use of reach transmissivity to quantify exchange between groundwater and surface water, Journal of Hydrology, v. 273, (1-4), p. 145-159.

Rawlings, L.D., 2005, Geology and Hydrology of the Proposed Upper McCurtain Creek Watershed Impoundment, Choctaw County, Mississippi, Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State University.

Redwine, J.C., 1993, Logan Martin dam deep grouting program: Hydrogeologic framework in folded and faulted Appalachian karst, In Beck, B.F., 1993, Applied Karst Geology, A.A. Balkema.

Romanov, D., Gabrovšek, F., and Dreybrodt, W., 2003, Dam sites in soluble rocks: a model of increasing leakage by dissolutional widening of fractures beneath a dam, Engineering Geology, v. 70, p. 17-35.

Schwartz, F.W., and Zhang, H., Fundamentals of Groundwater, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Sims, J.T., and Luka-McCafferty, N.J., 2002, On-Farm Evaluation of Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) as a Poultry Litter Amendment: Effects on Litter Properties, Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 31, p. 2066-2073.

Smakhtin, V.U., 2001, Low flow hydrology: a review, Journal of Hydrology, v. 240, p. 147-186.

Tew, B.H., 1991, Sequence Stratigraphy, Lithofacies Relationships and Paleogeography of Oligocene Strata in Southeastern Mississippi and Southwestern Alabama, Master’s Thesis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Thornton, R.M., 2006, Soil Survey of Smith County, Mississippi, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Toulmin, L.D., 1977, Stratigraphic distribution of Paleocene and Eocene fossils in the eastern Gulf Coast Region, Geological Survey of Alabama, v. 1, i. 13.

Turkmen, S., Özgüler, E., Taga, H., and Karaogullarindan, T., 2002, Seepage problems in the karstic limestone foundation of the Kalecik Dam (south Turkey), Engineering Geology, v. 63, p. 247-257.

United States Census Bureau, 2006, State & County QuickFacts: Smith County, Mississippi, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28129.html.

94 Whatley, A.F., 1950, The Stratigraphy of the Glendon Limestone in the Vicksburg Area, Mississippi, Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State College, State College, MS.

White, W.B., 1988, Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains, Oxford University Press, New York.

Winter, T. C., 1976, Numerical simulation analysis of the interaction of lakes and ground water, United States Geological Survey Circular 1001, USGS, Denver

______, 1984, Modeling the interrelationship of groundwater and surface water. In Schnoor, J. L, ed, Modeling total acid precipitation impacts, in Acid Precipitation Series, 5, 89-119, Butterworth Publishers, Boston.

Winter, T. C. and Carr, M. R., 1980, Hydrologic setting of wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake area, Stutsman County, North Dakota, Water-resources Investigations, United States Geological Survey, p. 80-89. USGS, Denver

Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., and Alley, W. M., 1998, Ground water and surface water: A single resource, United States Geological Survey Circular 1139. USGS, Denver

Winter, T. C., LaBaugh, J. W., and Rosenberry, D. O., 1988, The design and use of a hydraulic petentiomanometer for direct measurement of differences in hydraulic head between groundwater and surface water, Limnology and Oceanography, v. 33, no. 5, p. 1209-1214.

Winter, T. C., Mallory, S. E., Allen, T. R., and Rosenberry, D. O., 2000, The use of principal component analysis for interpreting ground water hydrographs. Ground Water, v. 38, no. 2, p. 234-246.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED

Cooke, C.W., 1923, The correlation of the Vicksburg Group, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 133. USGS, Denver.

Cooke, C.W., 1935, Notes on Vicksburg Group, AAPG Bulletin, v. 19, p. 1165- 1166.

Lowe, E.N., 1915, Mississippi, its geology, geography, soils and mineral resources, Mississippi Geological Survey Bulletin 12, Mississippi State Geological Survey, University, MS.

MacNeil, F.S., 1944, Oligocene stratigraphy of southeastern United States, AAPG Bulletin, v. 28, p. 1318-1319.

Mellen, F.F., 1942, Mississippi agricultural limestone, Mississippi Geological Survey Bulletin 29, Mississippi State Geological Survey, University, MS.

Mellen, F.F., 1941, Warren County Mineral Resources, Mississippi Geological Survey Bulletin 43, Mississippi State Geological Survey, University, MS.

Stephenson, L.W., Logan, W.N., and Waring, G.A., 1928, The ground-water resources of Mississippi, United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 576, USGS, Denver.

APPENDIX A

CROSS SECTIONS

97 Legend

- Primary Roads

- City Limits D Proposed Reservoir

Created February a 2007 0 0.5 1 2 Projection: MSTM _ NAD 83 Source Data: MARIS

98 54000 A' 51000 48000 45000 42000 39000 36000 A' 33000 - A 30000 et) Fe ( 000 27 Section Distance ormllion omwlon F f omwlon Cross in f Ol'fflilllon H F 21000 24000 on Sf)l'W'll) nd orHI po'.lit1J YilllDO F Mini Gle Dc- 8000 1rn11;, n 1 T and Legend m "-rviu ormation arion Al onnllion F «mMbi f 5000 F 1 Form MW111.i1 yram lronda •ahO!.,la C B But C 12000 C 9000 6000 3000 A I I 0 50 500 400 450 600 5 350 300 "' "' C 0 '" > w ;:, .; !:.

99 00 420 8 ' 39000 36000 33000 30000 8' 27000 8 - Formation fonnttlon Fonnanon 24000 HIii Formil'lion, S,prin!il ion t Yazoo Forest Mini OIOfldon Otpo$lls (Feet} 21000 C Ttrf1,CI Sec nci a Legend lon 1 :a 8000 Alhl'VIUlfl Form Distance 1 Fonna.tion , FotlftBt»n ouQI a.m C r By &leatun.nia Cltah Cross 000 15 rJ 12000 9000 6000 (\ \ 3000 I 8 I I 0 ·-i -l 450 400 350 300 650 600 550 5oo > C i,j iiJ .9 .9 l

100 45000 C' 42000 36000 39000 33000 30000 C' C - on i 24000 27000 ~ (feet) (i/ Sect 21000 lon l itlorJ. n io mi t omu Distance F Fo F-oFffl11tloo orma oss F l 18000 .Spmg Ya:;:oo FOf" MKJI Glilrldon Cr Dtpotib r TerfK4' <::::l, 15000 •rid L@,g@nd ion L ma JIIVklm tion AI ormadon For FoJ'ffllllion F rma " lil l Fo nna 12000 u " yrwn lll•hQut. B ChrOM C Bucat [1 9000 6000 3000 C I -l -l L 300 550 ,oo 350 450 400 600 iii I

101 D' 33000 30000 JI __ ...... ,___._...,____,__ uon . orma F FDflNlllon ,ormati(NI --- F 21000 24000 27000 tu Form;11ion D - D' SiJrin9 orHt Yaioo F Mint Glendon Ollp;,tits on i •ra:• D (Feet) T 1111111 I L01Jend luvium Uon . Al Sect Formation Fonna&n F~tion Distance - Fortn11 am !.. r· )' ua1unn• Cl(ron40i1 B B CNhoulll 12000 15000 18000 u Cross r-. ------'----- 9000 A 6000 Q i:::;;;;i, 3000 I D 0 7 --1--1------l 350 300 650 550 450 400 - ~ D iii t=

102 E' 42000 45000 36000 39000 30000 33000 000 27 E - E' (Feet) Section 21000 24000 istance D 8000 ion t 1 ion l o,matlon OrrM F F Cross o orma1lon F Foma HUI I Sprln 1 too Jn OrH lendon 5000 F Ya M G 1 De,po.tl• ..nc• T and ejjend 2000 L 1 lon lan 1 rmilt Alluvium o FonnalHMli Form,,tlon 111 n Forma fllm 9000 By Buul1.m Cltron•hf CMlllh0\111 6000 3000 E 0 550 400 350 300 600 500 450 > ., QI C w

103

APPENDIX B

STREAM MONITORING LOCATIONS

104 Legend

-- Primary Roads

- City Limits -- Streams

• Site LJ Proposed Reservoir

Created November 29, 2006 0 0.5 1 2 Projection: MSTM - NAD 83 Source Data: MARIS

105 400 800

, • I . . ) ~- -- ' . ·--~· ..• I , .. J I .... I ..... ___. _. .. I .I -- --- I... -&.'- . \·~ ' + .--·' .--.__ .-_..l ,.. ' -~·· ,,,,,--. .__, ..,· l __.. -~ --·

106 Monitoring Site A-2

200 400 800

107 Stream Monitoring Site A-3

Feet I 1,200

.- I , ·-· I

Hwy 481

• ... I l I I r . \ I I \ I I

108 Monitoring Site A-4

.. ""...

Hwy 481 • • • 1/,l \ f \ ½•'.i lI J Lw ' I ,r·•-.. ,· l /; 1 , • / •? I r 1 ~o -~d 539_. Yellow BilHCreek

109 Monitoring Site A-5

? .-,r- .__.______,.. _..-,• -~ _ _. ----

....- .. _..

110 Monitoring Site A-6

111 Monitoring Site A-7

Feet I 1,200

•

112 Stream Monitoring Site A-8

113

APPENDIX C

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DATA

114 MISSISSIPPI DA. KEVIN L. ARMBRUST State Chemist STATE CHEMICAL LABORATORY REBA INGRAM BOX CR - STATE, 39762 MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI Director, IAS Division TELEPHONE: (662) 325-8599 FAX (662) 325-7807

September 5, 2006

Analysis No. 36,298-36,300

Analysis of Water Marked:

Received on 8-23-06 from MSU Dept. of Geosciences Attn: Jason Mcilwain Addresi; Box 9537, Miss. State, MS 39762

RESULTS:

MSCLNo. Sample Identification

36,298 ASB 36,299 A6B 36,300 A88

Results are presented in attached reports from our analysis of the above water samples for analytes required by the Mississippi State Department of Health.

State Chemist

PLEASE GIVE NUMBER WHEN REFERRING TO THIS ANALYSIS 042790/5-03

115 ------

WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR BOTTLED WATER REQUIRED BY MS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

MSCLNo. 36,298 Sample ID pH 6.2

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 11

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE MCL' Bicarbonate Alkalinity as caco, 49 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 40 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 9.2 Potassium 8.0 Calcium 8.5 Magnesium 3.8

Total Hardness as CaCO3 37 Fluoride <0.1 4.0 Chloride 7.3 250 Sulfate 8.3 250 Nitrate Nitr-09en <0.1 10.0 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 1.0

Total NOJNO2 Nitrogen <1 10.0 Total Dissolved Solids 86 500 Cyanide <0.02 0.2 Phenol <0.1 0.001 Ammonia-N 0.14 Total Phosphorus <0.1 BOD, 3 Total Coliform 1300 Fecal Coliform 170

*Maximum Contaminant Level for Secondary Contaminants

METALS PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE MCL' Aluminum 0.18 0.20 Antimony 0.0039 0.006 Arsenic 0.0024 0.05 Barium 0.067 2.0 Beryllium <0.001 0.004 Cadmium <0.001 0.005 Chromium <0.01 0.1 Copper 0.069 1.0 Iron 3.2 0.30 Lead 0.0061 0.005 Manganese 0.97 0.05 Mercury <0,0005 0.002 Nickel <0,05 0.1 Selenium o.oon 0.05 Silver <0.004 0.1 0 Thallium <0.001 0.002 Zinc <0,02 5.0

'MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level for Primary or Secondary Contaminants Those values preceded by a "less than· sign(<) indicate ' None Detected' at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

116 WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR BOTTLED WATER REQUIRED BY MS STA.TE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

MSCLNo. 36,299 Sample ID A6B pH 6.3

PHYSICA.L DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NITU 9.3

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION 0 SAMPLE MCL Bicarbonate Alkalinity as caco, 39 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 32 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 8.8 Potassium 7.9 Calcium 8.2 Magnesium 3.3 Total Hardness as CaCO, 34 Fluoride <0.1 4.0 Chloride 6.0 250 Sulfate 11 250 Nitrate Nitrogen <0.1 10.0 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 1.0 Total NOJ NO2 Nitrogen <1 10.0 Total Dissolved Solids 83 500 Cyanide <0.02 0.2 Phenol <0.1 0.001 Arnmonia-N 0.10 Total Phosphorus <0.1

BOD5 4 Total Coliform 1300 Fecal Coliform 50

•Maximum Contaminant Level for secondary Contaminants

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE MCL" Aluminum 0.092 0.20 Antimony <0.001 0.006 Arsenic 0.0030 0.05 Barium 0.059 2.0 Beryllium <0.001 0.004 Cadmium <0.001 0.005 Chromium <0.01 0.1 Copper 0.037 1.0 Iron 3.0 0.30 Lead <0.001 0.005 Manganese 1.2 0.05 Mercury <0.0005 0.002 Nickel <0.05 0.1 Selenium <0.001 0.05 Silver <0.004 0.1 0 Thallium <0.001 0.002 Zinc <0.02 5.0

•MCL = Maximum Contaminarnt Level for Primary or Secondary Contaminants Those values preceded by a "less than· sign(<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

117 WATER QUALITY ANAi..YSES FOR BOTTLED WATER REQUIRED BY MS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

MSCLNo. 36,300 Sample ID A8B pH 6.4

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 20

INORGANICS PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE MCL' Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaC03 39 Total Alkalinity as caco, 32 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 7.4 Potassium 7.3 Calcium 10 Magnesium 2.5 Total Hardness as CaC03 36 Fluoride <0.1 4.0 Chloride 4.7 250 Sulfate 8.1 250 Nitrate Nitrogen 0.17 10.0 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 1.0 Total NO/N01 Nitrogen <1 10.0 Total Dissolved Solids 78 500 Cyanide <0.02 0.2 Phenol <0.1 0.001 Ammonia-N 0.19 Total Phosphorus 0.49 BOD. 2 Total Coliform 1100 Fecal Coliform 240

"Maximum Contaminant Level for Secondary Contaminants

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE MCL' Aluminum 0.46 0.20 Antimony <0.001 0.006 Arsenic 0.0025, 0.05 Barium 0.060 2.0 Beryllium <0.001 0.004 Cadmium <0.001 0.005 Chromium <0.01 0.1 Copper 0.028 1.0 Iron 3.0 0.30 Lead <0.001 0.005 Manganese 0.88 0.05 Mercury <0.0005 0.002 Nickel <0.05 OJ Selenium <0.001 0.05 Silver <0.004 0.10 Thallium <0.001 0.002 Zinc <0.02 5.0

"MCL = Ma-ximum Contaminant Level for Primary or Secondary Contaminants Those values preceded by a "less than· sign(<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

118 MISSISSIPPI DR. KEVIN L. ARMBRUST State Chemist S TATE CHEMICAL LABORATORY REBAINGRA M BOX CR - MISSISSIPPI STATE, MISSISSIPPU3 9762 Director, IAS Division TELEPHONE: (662) 325-8599 FAX (662) 32!H807

November 1, 2006

Analysis No. 36,718-36,725

Analysis of Water Marked:

Received on 10-18-06 from MSU Dept. of Geoscience.s Attn: Jonathan McMillin A ddress Box 9537, Miss State, MS 39762

RESULTS:

MSCLNo. Sample Identification 36,718 A-1H 36,719 A-2H 36,720 A-3H 36,721 A-4H 36,722 A-5H 36,723 A-6H 36,724 A-7H 36,725 A-SH

.l'··i'· ,,. r~lt•~--'.vJ<.'/~• State Chemi.st

PLEASE GIVE NUMBER WHEN REFERRING TO THIS ANALYSIS

042790/S-03

119 MSCL No. Sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, N/TU 12 pH 6.7

INORGANICS PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 <10 Total Alkalinity as caco, <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 3.5 Potassium 3.3 Calcium 120 Magnesium 5.6 Total Hardness as CaCO3 310 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 5.2 Sulfate 280 Nitrate Nitrogen 0.43 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NO:,INO, Nitrogen 0.43 Total Dissolved Residue 400 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 1.0 Total Phosphorus 0.13 BOD5 10 Total Colifom, (MPN/100 ml) 230,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 3,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 2.5 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic <0.001 Barium 0.094 Beryllium <0.002. Cadmium <0.001 Chromium <0.01 Copper 0.12 Iron 0.33 Lead 0.0015 Manganese 0.35 Mercury <0.0005 Nickel <0.05 Selenium 0.014 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc 0.011

Those values preceded by a "less than" sign(<) indicate "None Detected' at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

120 MSCL No. Sample 10

PHYSICAL DETERMINATION$ Turbidity, NTU 22 pH 6.6

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO, <10 Total Alkalinity as caco, <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 3.6 Potassium 3.5 Calcium 110 Magnesium 5.8 Total Hardness as caco, 310 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 5.3 Sulfate 280 Nitrate Nitrogen 0.39 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NOJNO2 Nitrogen 0.39 Total Dissolved Residue 380 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N <0.1 Total Phosphorus <0.1 8005 9 Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 17,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 3,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 2.7 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic <0.001 Barium 0.092 Beryllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium <0.01 Copper 0.18 Iron 0.35 Lead 0.0033 Manganese 0.35 Mercury <0 00D5 Nickel <0.05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc <0.01

Those values preceded by a "less than· sign ( <) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

121 MSCL No. sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 62 pH 6.5

INORGANICS PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaC03 <10 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <1 0 Sodium 4.4 Potassium 15 Calcium 5.3 Magnesium 2.0 Total Hardness as CaCO3 22 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 7.1 Sulfate 12 Nitrate Nitrogen 3.1 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NOJ NO2 Nitrogen 3.1 Total Dissolved Residue 78 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 0.37 Total Phosphorus 2.1 BO05 11 Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 300,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 50,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 3.9 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic 0.0032 Barium 0.063 Beryllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium <0.010 Copper 0.12 Iron 0.40 Lead 0.013 Manganese 0.13 Mercury <0.0005 Nickel <0,05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc 0.022

Those values preceded by a "less than" sign(<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

122 MSCLNo. Sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 23 pH 6.0

INORGANICS PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaC03 <10 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 1.6 Potassium 7.1 Calcium 2.4 Magnesium 1.2

Total Hardness as CaCO3 11 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 2.0 Sulfate 4.8 Nitrate Nitrogen 0.98 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NO/ NO2 Nitrogen 0.98 Total Dissolved Residue 34 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 0.25 Total Phosphorus 1.4 BOD5 10 Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 22,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 14,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 2.7 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic <0.001 Barium 0.034 Beryllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium 0.11 Copper 0.13 Iron 0.25 Lead 0.0048 Manganese 0.077 Mercury 0.0006 Nickel <0.05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc 0.013

Those values preceded by a "less than· sign (<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

123 MSCL No. Sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 26 pH 6.1

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaC03 <10 Total Alkalinity as caco, <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 3.1 Potassium 9.2 Calcium 2.9 Magnesium 1.3 Total Hardness as CaCO3 12 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 4.3 Sulfate 5.2 Nitrate Nitrogen 1.1 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NO:,INO2 Nitrogen 1.1 Total Dissolved Residue 44 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 0.40 Total Phosphorus 1.6 BOD5 12 Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 220,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN 100 ml) 140,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 3.3 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic 0.0011 Barium 0.049 Beryllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium 0.014 Copper 0.15 Iron 0.87 Lead 0.0074 Manganese 0.22 Mercury <0.0005 Nickel <0.05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc 0.014

Those values preceded by a "less than· sign(<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

124 MSCLNo. Sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 89 pH 6.2

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO, 17 Total Alkalinity as caco, 14 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 2.4 Potassium 6.0 Calcium 3.3 Magnesium 1.3 Total Hardness as CaCO3 14 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 3.0 Sulfate 2.4 Nitrate Nitrogen 048 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NO/NO2 Nitrogen 0.48 Total Dissolved Residue 35 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 0.22 Total Phosphorus 0.69 BOD5 11 Total Coliform (MPN.100 ml) 50,000 Fecal Colifonn (MPN/100 ml) 22,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 3.4 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic 0.0012 Barium 0.053 Beryllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium 0.013 Copper 0.1 0 Iron 0.65 Lead 0.0069• Manganese 0.32 Mercury <0.0005 Nickel <0.05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc <0.01

Those values preceded by a "less than· sign(<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

125 MSCLNo. Sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 14 pH 6.2

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 12 Total Alkalinity as caco, 10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 1.2 Potassium 3.6 Calcium 5.7 Magnesium 1.1

Total Hardness as CaCO3 19 Fluoride <:0.1 Chloride 1.6 Sulfate 4.4 Nitrate Nitrogen 0.45 Nitrite Nitrogen <:0,1 Total NO/ NO2 Nitrogen 0.45 Total Dissolved Residue 32 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 0.13 Total Phosphorus 20 BODS 11 Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 230,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 13,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 1.4 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic <0.001 Barium <0.022 Bel)lllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium 0.010 Copper 0.11 Iron 0.18 Lead 0.0042 Manganese 0.026 MerCUl)I <0.0005 Nickel <0.05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc <0.01

Those values preceded by a "less than· sign ( <) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per Liter.

126 MSCL No. Sample ID

PHYSICAL DETERMINATIONS Turbidity, NTU 17 pH 6.5

INORGANIC$ PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 <10 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 <10 Free Carbon Dioxide <10 Sodium 3.1 Potassium 8.3 Calcium 11 Magnesium 2.2 Total Hardness as caco, 37 Fluoride <0.1 Chloride 4.1 Sulfate 2.8 Nitrate Nttrogen 0.19 Nitrite Nitrogen <0.1 Total NO3'NO2 Nitrogen 0.19 Total Dissolved Residue 70 Cyanide <0.02 Phenol <0.1 Ammonia-N 0.46 Total Phosi,horus 0.65 BOD5 12 Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 50,000 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 22,000

PARTS PER MILLION SAMPLE Aluminum 1.1 Antimony <0.001 Arsenic 00032 Barium 0.046 Beryllium <0.002 Cadmium <0.001 Chromium 0.010 Copper 0.053 Iron 1.2 Lead 0.0024 Manganese 0.35 Mercury <0.0005 Nickel <0.05 Selenium <0.001 Silver <0.004 Thallium <0.001 Zinc <0.01

Those values preceded by a "less than· sign(<) indicate "None Detected" at the reported lower level of detection. Parts Per Million = Milligrams Per liter.

127

APPENDIX D

DISCHARGE DATA

128

SITE A-1 2/11/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.15 11 0.6195 1.1 1.3 0.885885 2.45 11 0.6195 1.2 1.3 0.96642 3.75 16 0.892 1 1.3 1.1596 5.05 16 0.892 1 1.3 1.1596 6.35 17 0.9465 0.9 1.3 1.107405 7.65 16 0.892 0.85 1.3 0.98566 8.95 14 0.783 0.85 1.3 0.865215 9.25 16 0.892 0.8 1.3 0.92768 10.55 16 0.892 0.6 1.3 0.69576 11.85 15 0.8375 0.45 1.3 0.4899375 0.8266 0.875 Total Discharge = 9.2431625

SITE A-2 2/11/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.5 13 0.7285 0.1 1 0.07285 2.5 19 1.0555 0.7 1 0.73885 3.5 27 1.4915 0.8 1 1.1932 4.5 29 1.6005 0.8 1 1.2804 5.5 25 1.3825 0.9 1 1.24425 6.5 30 1.655 0.8 1 1.324 7.5 37 2.0365 0.9 1 1.83285 8.5 32 1.764 0.8 1 1.4112 9.5 17 0.9465 0.7 1 0.66255 10.5 4 0.238 0.4 1.5 0.1428 1.28985 0.69 Total Discharge = 9.90295

129 SITE A-3 2/11/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.5 34 1.873 1.8 3 10.1142 4.5 28 1.546 2.2 3 10.2036 7.5 37 2.0365 3.5 3 21.38325 10.5 27 1.4915 3 3 13.4235 13.5 17 0.9465 4.3 3 12.20985 16.5 15 0.8375 3 3 7.5375 19.5 4 0.238 2.2 3 1.5708 22.5 4 0.238 2 3 1.428 25.5 0 0.02 1 2 0.04 1.025222222 2.55555556 Total Discharge = 77.9107

SITE A-4 2/11/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.5 13 0.7285 1.5 1 1.09275 2.5 12 0.674 1.9 1 1.2806 3.5 8 0.456 1.9 1 0.8664 4.5 12 0.674 1.6 1 1.0784 5.5 13 0.7285 1.8 1 1.3113 6.5 18 1.001 1.7 1 1.7017 7.5 16 0.892 1.5 1 1.338 8.5 5 0.2925 1.4 1 0.4095 9.5 4 0.238 1.5 1 0.357 10.5 0 0.02 1.1 2 0.044 0.57045 1.59 Total Discharge = 9.47965

130 SITE A-5 2/11/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 10.5 7 0.4015 2.4 9 8.6724 19.5 7 0.4015 4.4 9 15.8994 28.5 13 0.7285 6.4 9 41.9616 37.5 3 0.1835 7.5 9 12.38625 46.5 24 1.328 10 9 119.52 55.5 25 1.3825 9.6 9 119.448 64.5 10 0.565 7.1 9 36.1035 73.5 2 0.129 3.5 9 4.0635 82.5 2 0.129 2.2 9 2.5542 91.5 0 0.02 2 9 0.36 96 0 0.02 0.9 2 0.036 0.4887 5.36 Total Discharge = 352.33245

SITE A-6 2/11/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 5 2 0.129 3.4 7.5 3.2895 14.5 0 0.02 1.1 9.5 0.209 24 20 1.11 6.7 9.5 70.6515 33.5 13 0.7285 9 9.5 62.28675 43 12 0.674 8.2 9.5 52.5046 52.5 20 1.11 10 9.5 105.45 62 5 0.2925 9 9.5 25.00875 71.5 2 0.129 9 9.5 11.0295 81 1 0.0745 6.4 9.5 4.5296 90.5 1 0.0745 4.4 10.5 3.4419 94 For Profile 3.4 NA 0.468111111 6.72 Total Discharge = 335.1116

SITE A-7 2/11/2006 131 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.5 10 0.565 2.5 1 1.4125 2.5 6 0.347 2.6 1 0.9022 3.5 3 0.1835 2.7 1 0.49545 4.5 2 0.129 2.8 1 0.3612 5.5 3 0.1835 2.8 1 0.5138 6.5 10 0.565 3 1 1.695 7.5 13 0.7285 2.8 1 2.0398 8.5 19 1.0555 2.7 1 2.84985 9.5 17 0.9465 2.4 1 2.2716 10.5 8 0.456 0.5 2 0.456 0.51595 2.48 Total Discharge = 12.9974

SITE A-3 5/8/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.2 14 40 0.783 1.8 2.4 3.38256 3.6 14 43 0.729767442 1.2 2.4 2.10173023 6 20 40 1.11 1.6 2.4 4.2624 8.4 22 40 1.219 1.5 2.4 4.3884 10.8 15 40 0.8375 1.5 2.4 3.015 13.2 12 40 0.674 1.5 2.4 2.4264 15.6 9 44 0.465909091 1.5 2.4 1.67727273 18 7 42 0.383333333 1.2 2.4 1.104 20.4 4 47 0.205531915 0.7 2.4 0.34529362 22.8 4 43 0.222790698 0.7 2.4 0.37428837

Total Discharge = 23.0773449

132 SITE A-5 5/8/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.6 0 0 0 1.2 3.2 0 4.8 0 0 0 2 3.2 0 8 0 0 0 3 3.2 0 11.2 0 0 0 4 3.2 0 14.4 2 62 0.090322581 4 3.2 1.15612903 17.6 4 44 0.218181818 3.7 3.2 2.58327273 20.8 4 40 0.238 3.3 3.2 2.51328 24 4 43 0.222790698 3 3.2 2.1387907 27.2 5 53 0.225660377 2.2 3.2 1.58864906 30.4 2 50 0.1072 1 3.2 0.34304 2.91111 Total Discharge = 10.3231615

SITE A-6 5/8/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3.15 4 46 0.209565217 2.2 6.3 2.90457391 9.45 13 50 0.5868 3.1 6.3 11.460204 15.75 12 54 0.504444444 3.4 6.3 10.8052 22.05 7 50 0.3252 3.1 6.3 6.351156 28.35 5 50 0.238 4.2 6.3 6.29748 34.65 4 56 0.175714286 3.7 6.3 4.0959 40.95 3 63 0.123809524 3.7 6.3 2.886 47.25 0 0 0 3.7 6.3 0 53.55 0 0 0 3.7 6.3 0 59.85 0 0 0 1.6 6.1 0

Total Discharge = 41.89594

133 SITE A-7 5/8/2006 Station Rev. Velocity Depth Width Discharge 1.5 10 0.565 2.5 1 1.4125 2.5 6 0.347 2.6 1 0.9022 3.5 3 0.1835 2.7 1 0.49545 4.5 2 0.129 2.8 1 0.3612 5.5 3 0.1835 2.8 1 0.5138 6.5 10 0.565 3 1 1.695 7.5 13 0.7285 2.8 1 2.0398 8.5 19 1.0555 2.7 1 2.84985 9.5 17 0.9465 2.4 1 2.2716 10.5 8 0.456 0.5 2 0.456 0.51595 2.48 Total Discharge = 12.9974

SITE A-1 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3.5 0 0 1 1 0 4.5 10 46 0.493913 0.9 1 0.44452174 5.5 19 40 1.0555 0.9 1 0.94995 6.5 19 42 1.00619 0.9 1 0.90557143 7.5 19 41 1.030244 0.9 1 0.92721951 8.5 8 45 0.407556 0.85 1 0.34642222 9.5 7 44 0.366818 0.5 1 0.18340909 10.5 4 63 0.158413 0.4 1 0.06336508 11.5 0 0 0.3 1 0 12.5 0 0 0.15 1 0

Total Discharge = 3.82045907

134 SITE A-2 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 5.6 0 0 0 0.7 1.2 0 6.8 8 44 0.416364 1.4 1.2 0.69949091 8 8 44 0.416364 1.7 1.2 0.84938182 9.2 8 46 0.39913 2 1.2 0.95791304 10.4 7 42 0.383333 2 1.2 0.92 11.6 4 45 0.213778 2.35 1.2 0.60285333 12.8 4 43 0.222791 1.65 1.2 0.44112558 14 4 50 0.1944 1.1 1.2 0.256608 15.2 1 40 0.0745 0.5 1.2 0.0447 16.4 0 0 0 0.1 0.8 0

Total Discharge = 4.77207269

SITE A-3 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3.2 32 40 0.79952 1 1.4 1.119328 4.6 47 41 1.132146 1 1.4 1.58500488 6 34 41 0.827629 1 1.4 1.15868098 7.4 55 44 1.2317 1.05 1.4 1.810599 8.8 52 42 1.220267 1 1.4 1.70837333 10.2 44 43 1.013935 0.9 1.4 1.27755795 11.6 46 40 1.13566 0.7 1.4 1.1129468 13 36 41 0.874478 0.55 1.4 0.6733481 14.4 33 40 0.82353 0.3 1.4 0.3458826 15.8 11 43 0.276884 0.15 1.4 0.05814558

Total Discharge = 10.8498672

135 SITE A-4 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3 0 0 0 0.5 1 0 4 7 41 0.392195 0.8 1 0.3137561 5 5 49 0.242449 0.8 1 0.19395918 6 5 49 0.242449 0.8 1 0.19395918 7 4 49 0.197959 1 1 0.19795918 8 0 0 0 0.9 1 0 9 2 50 0.1072 0.75 1 0.0804 10 5 45 0.262222 0.7 1 0.18355556 11 0 0 0 0.7 0.75 0 11.5 0 0 0 0.5 0.75 0

Total Discharge = 1.1635892

SITE A-5 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3.3 0 0 0 0.6 6.6 0 9.9 0 0 0 2.5 6.6 0 16.5 2 51 0.10549 3.9 6.6 2.71531765 23.1 3 55 0.138909 4.2 6.6 3.85056 29.7 5 45 0.262222 6 6.6 10.384 36.3 21 41 1.136585 7.5 6.6 56.2609756 42.9 23 41 1.242927 7.5 6.6 61.524878 49.5 21 41 1.136585 6.6 6.6 49.5096585 56.1 0 0 0 4.1 6.6 0 62.7 0 0 0 1.3 6.6 0

Total Discharge = 184.24539

136 SITE A-6 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3.5 0 0 0 3.3 7 0 10.5 18 42 0.954286 4.5 7 30.06 17.5 13 49 0.598367 4 7 16.7542857 24.5 13 43 0.67907 4.8 7 22.8167442 31.5 13 43 0.67907 5.2 7 24.7181395 38.5 10 44 0.515455 4.5 7 16.2368182 45.5 5 0 0 5 7 0 52.5 0 0 0 4.5 7 0 59.5 0 0 0 2.9 7 0 66.5 0 0 0 1 5.5 0

Total Discharge = 110.585988

SITE A-7 10/17/2006 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 2.8 0 0 0 0.4 1 0 3.8 0 0 0 0.9 1 0 4.8 2 61 0.091475 1.3 1 0.11891803 5.8 3 62 0.125484 1.4 1 0.17567742 6.8 2 41 0.126341 1.4 1 0.17687805 7.8 3 56 0.136786 0.5 1 0.06839286 8.8 3 59 0.130847 0.5 1 0.06542373 9.8 1 52 0.061923 0.5 1 0.03096154 10.8 0 0 0 0.35 1 0 11.8 0 0 0 0.5 1.7 0

Total Discharge = 0.63625163

137 SITE A-1 1/24/2007 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 2.1 9 40 0.51388 0.15 0.6 0.046249 2.7 20 40 1.1202 0.2 0.6 0.134424 3.3 33 40 1.83676 0.2 0.6 0.220411 3.9 34 40 1.89188 0.3 0.6 0.340538 4.5 40 42 2.11761 0.3 0.6 0.38117 5.1 43 40 2.38796 0.4 0.6 0.57311 5.7 34 40 1.89188 0.4 0.6 0.454051 6.3 20 40 1.1202 0.35 0.6 0.235242 6.9 29 40 1.61628 0.4 0.6 0.387907 7.5 25 40 1.3958 0.35 0.8 0.390824

Total Discharge = 3.163927

SITE A-2 1/24/2007 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 2 0 0 #DIV/0! 0.5 1 3 1 40 0.07292 1.15 1 0.083858 4 3 40 0.18316 2.8 1 0.512848 5 2 40 0.12804 2 1 0.25608 6 3 40 0.18316 1.9 1 0.348004 7 3 45 0.164787 1.2 1 0.197744 8 3 40 0.18316 1 1 0.18316 9 2 40 0.12804 0.55 1 0.070422 10 2 40 0.12804 0.3 1 0.038412 11 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.5

Total Discharge = 1.690528

138 SITE A-3 1/24/2007 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 3.6 9 42 0.490257 0.5 2 0.490257 5.6 11 42 0.595248 0.85 2 1.011921 7.6 11 44 0.569 0.9 2 1.0242 9.6 10 40 0.569 0.8 2 0.9104 11.6 8 40 0.45876 0.6 2 0.550512 13.6 5 40 0.2934 1.1 2 0.64548 15.6 3 46 0.161591 1.3 2 0.420137 17.6 2 42 0.12279 1 2 0.245581 19.6 2 52 0.1026 0.6 2 0.12312 21.6 0 0 #DIV/0! 0.4 1.9

Total Discharge = 5.421608

SITE A-5 1/24/2007 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 2 0 0 #DIV/0! 0.8 3 0 5 0 0 #DIV/0! 2 3 0 8 0 0 #DIV/0! 2.7 3 0 11 1 41 0.071576 3.1 3 0.665653 14 1 45 0.066796 3.5 3 0.701353 17 3 48 0.1556 3.7 3 1.72716 20 3 40 0.18316 3.1 3 1.703388 23 6 41 0.340454 3 3 3.064083 26 4 50 0.194184 2.1 3 1.223359 29 0 0 #DIV/0! 1.4 3 0

Total Discharge = 9.084997

139 SITE A-6 1/24/2007 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 4 0 0 0 1.8 6 0 10 1 50 0.061896 2.1 6 0.77989 16 6 42 0.332771 1.8 6 3.593931 22 2 40 0.12804 2.1 6 1.613304 28 3 40 0.18316 3 6 3.29688 34 2 41 0.125351 2.8 6 2.1059 40 0 0 0 2.5 6 0 46 0 0 0 2.6 6 0 52 0 0 0 2.4 6 0 58 0 0 0 0.5 6 0

Total Discharge = 11.38991

SITE A-8 1/24/2007 Station Rev. Time Velocity Depth Width Discharge 5.4 20 40 1.1202 0.6 2.8 1.881936 8.2 19 42 1.01521 0.8 2.8 2.274069 11 12 41 0.663107 1.4 2.8 2.599381 13.8 14 42 0.752733 1.6 2.8 3.372245 16.6 17 43 0.889465 1.9 2.8 4.731954 19.4 14 44 0.719327 1.8 2.8 3.625409 22.2 21 43 1.094563 2.3 2.8 7.048984 25 15 46 0.736757 0.5 2.8 1.031459 27.8 14 41 0.770659 0.7 2.8 1.510491 30.6 8 42 0.437762 0.2 2.8 0.245147

Total Discharge = 28.32108

140