DOCSLIB.ORG

Zebra Mussel Assessment in 1997 That Has Served Figure 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zebra Mussel Assessment in 1997 That Has Served Figure 1 Zebra Mussels in South Carolina: The Potential Risk of Infestation by Steven de Kozlowski and Chris Page S.C. Department of Natural Resources and Jack Whetstone Clemson University S.C. Sea Grant Consortium This report was initiated by the South Carolina Zebra Mussel Task Force and supported by CLEMSON South Carolina Department of Natural Resources E X T E N S I O N South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium and Clemson University Jointly funded by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium and Clemson University 2002 The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, religion, disability or age. Direct all inquiries to the Office of Human Resources, PO Box 167, Columbia, SC 29202. Total Copies - 300 • Total Cost - $2,417 • Cost per Copy - $8.00 02WR3607 SOUTH CAROLINA ZEBRA MUSSEL TASK FORCE Steve de Kozlowski - S.C. Department of Natural Resources, Co-chair Rick DeVoe - S.C. Sea Grant Consortium, Co-chair Butch Younginer - S.C. Department of Health & Environmental Control Reese Edwards - S.C. Governor’s Office John Inabinet - S.C. Public Service Authority Larry Setzler - S.C. Ports Authority Robin Socha - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Charleston) Bill Bailey - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Savannah) Ed EuDaly - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chuck Jennings - U.S. Coast Guard Cam Ferguson - Greenville Water System Andrew Fairey - Charleston Commissioners of Public Works Eddie Dearybury - Spartanburg Water System Bud Summers - City of Columbia Arnie Gnilka - Duke Power Company John Pearrow - S.C. Electric and Gas Company Michael Swing - Carolina Power and Light Company S.C. Rural Water Association S.C. Chamber of Commerce, Technical Committee Zebra Mussels in South Carolina: The Potential Risk of Infestation by Steven de Kozlowski and Chris Page S.C. Department of Natural Resources and Jack Whetstone Clemson University S.C. Sea Grant Consortium This report was initiated by the South Carolina Zebra Mussel Task Force and supported by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium January 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction:..................................................................................................... 1 Zebra Mussel Biology and Dispersal:.............................................................. 2 Impacts of Zebra Mussel Infestations: ............................................................. 4 Assessment Method: ........................................................................................ 6 Water Quality Parameters and Associated Suitability Criteria .................... 6 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................. 6 Temperature....................................................................................... 7 pH ..................................................................................................... 7 Calcium ............................................................................................. 7 Salinity .............................................................................................. 8 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 9 Potential for Colonization............................................................................ 9 Potential Sources of Introduction ............................................................. 10 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 11 Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... 12 References...................................................................................................... 13 Appendix: Summary of Water Quality Data from Primary Monitoring Stations ......................................................................................................... 15 ACE Basin ................................................................................................ 17 Santee Basin ............................................................................................. 18 Savannah Basin ......................................................................................... 20 Pee Dee Basin............................................................................................ 21 Zebra Mussels in South Carolina: The Potential Risk of Infestation Introduction: Non-native invasive species, such as zebra as a model for several states. Because three of mussels, cost the U.S. economy an estimated our largest rivers, the Broad, Catawba, Pee Dee, $137 billion annually in lost production and and several smaller rivers originate in North control costs (Pimentel et al., 2000). In the Carolina, we adopted their methodology for this absence of native predators and diseases, exotic assessment. Together, the North Carolina and organisms may develop very large populations South Carolina assessments provide a uniform that create severe ecological and economic zebra mussel risk assessment for three major problems. When such invasions occur in our river basins in the South Atlantic Slope Drainage. lakes and rivers they can disrupt whole aquatic Hopefully, this document will serve as a ecosystems and impair important municipal, valuable resource for public and private water industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses of use interests to plan for and prevent major our waterways. adverse impacts from zebra mussels when they The S.C. Department of Natural Resources finally arrive. (SCDNR) attempts to prevent and manage aquatic invasive species problems through its Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. Following Zebra Mussel Biology and Dispersal: the introduction of zebra mussels in the Great The zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, is Lakes, the SCDNR and S.C. Sea Grant a freshwater bivalve mollusk (mussel) native to Consortium formed the Zebra Mussel Task Force the drainage basins of the Aral, Black and to help identify interested parties and to bring Caspian Seas in Eastern Europe and western focus to this issue. Composed of representatives Asia. They can reach lengths of up to two inches from the public and private sector, the task force but are usually about the size of a fingernail (10- has served as an effective communication and 20 mm). education network for those entities most at risk Adult zebra mussels have conspicuous dark of being impacted by zebra mussel infestations. parallel stripes across the shell, hence the The main objective of this study was to common name “zebra” mussel. While these determine the relative risk of zebra mussel zebra stripes are usually in regular striped infestations in public waters throughout the state. patterns, a variety of patterns can occur in local Although several excellent risk assessments have populations (Fig. 1). been conducted independently by electric and water utilities in South Carolina, these studies focused primarily on water bodies used by the utilities, which left large areas of the state unstudied. In addition, water quality criteria used to assess the potential for zebra mussel colonization were not consistent among all the studies, so the results were not directly comparable. A secondary objective was to develop a risk assessment that was not only useful to South Carolina but complimented existing assessments in the region. Fortunately, North Carolina conducted an excellent statewide zebra mussel assessment in 1997 that has served Figure 1. Variations in zebra mussel shell patterns. The Potential Risk of Infestation 1 Adult zebra mussels have conspicuous byssal were successfully introduced into North America threads extending from the lower portion of the in the 1980’s in Lake St. Clair in the Great Lakes shell, which are used to attach to hard, through ballast water discharge. Once submerged substrates (Fig. 2). The mussels often established, they spread rapidly throughout the attach to each other creating “barnacle-type” Great Lakes, Hudson River and upper colonies. Reproduction is sexual with females Mississippi River systems by 1991. Zebra producing up to one-half million eggs per year. mussels have exhibited strong genetic plasticity After fertilization, eggs hatch into veliger larvae, and have tolerated hostile environments beyond which disperse with other plankton in the water their traditional environmental ranges in their column. Veliger larvae change into postlarvae, native area. It was initially thought that water remain planktonic for a while, and then settle on temperatures in the southern United States would and attach to smooth, hard objects where they prohibit colonization in this area but by the mid develop into adults. Zebra mussels feed by 1990’s zebra mussel colonies were documented filtering plankton from the water. They are well as far south as Louisiana on the Mississippi known for their filtering efficiency and ability to River, as far west as Oklahoma on the Arkansas clarify water. River, and as far east as Knoxville on the Tennessee River (Fig. 3). Currently, they do not occur in the Atlantic slope drainages from Virginia south to Florida. Figure 2. Byssal threads used to anchor to substates. In South Carolina, adult zebra mussels may be confused with two other small bivalves, Corbicula (Asiatic clam) and Mytilopsis. Figure 3. Documented zebra mussel range in the United States as of November 2000. Corbicula can be distinguished
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Georgia Coast Saltwater Paddle Trail
    2010 The Georgia Coast Saltwater Paddle Trail This project was funded in part by the Coastal Management Program of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grant award #NA09NOS4190171, as well as the National Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCRM or NOAA. September 30, 2010 0 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center Project Team .......................................................... 3 Planning and Government Services Staff ................................................................................................... 3 Geographic Information Systems Staff ....................................................................................................... 3 Economic Development Staff .......................................................................................................................... 3 Administrative Services Staff .......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Page 574 TITLE 33—NAVIGATION and NAVIGABLE WATERS § 1804
    § 1804 TITLE 33—NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS Page 574 SHORT TITLE (11) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: From St. For short title of title II of Pub. L. 95–502 as the ‘‘In- Mark’s River, Florida, to Brownsville, Texas, land Waterways Revenue Act of 1978’’, see section 201 of 1,134.5 miles. Pub. L. 95–502, set out as a Short Title of 1978 Amend- (12) Illinois Waterway (Calumet-Sag Chan- ment note under section 1 of Title 26, Internal Revenue nel): From the junction of the Illinois River Code. with the Mississippi River RM 0 to Chicago § 1804. Inland and intracoastal waterways of the Harbor at Lake Michigan, approximately RM United States 350. (13) Kanawha River: From junction with For purposes of section 4042 of title 26 (relat- Ohio River at RM 0 to RM 90.6 at Deepwater, ing to tax on fuel used in commercial transpor- West Virginia. tation on inland waterways) and for purposes of (14) Kaskaskia River: From junction with 1 section 1802 of this title, the following inland the Mississippi River at RM 0 to RM 36.2 at and intracoastal waterways of the United States Fayetteville, Illinois. are described in this section: (15) Kentucky River: From junction with (1) Alabama-Coosa Rivers: From junction Ohio River at RM 0 to confluence of Middle with the Tombigbee River at river mile (here- and North Forks at RM 258.6. inafter referred to as RM) 0 to junction with (16) Lower Mississippi River: From Baton Coosa River at RM 314. (2) Allegheny River: From confluence with Rouge, Louisiana, RM 233.9 to Cairo, Illinois, the Monongahela River to form the Ohio River RM 953.8.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH CAROLINA 2020 DRAFT 303(D) LIST Upper Broad Broad River Basin
    NORTH CAROLINA 2020 DRAFT 303(D) LIST Upper Broad Broad River Basin AU Name AU Number Classification AU_LengthArea AU_Units AU ID Description Broad River Basin 03050105 Upper Broad BROAD RIVER 9-(22)a C 1.8 FW Miles 12499 From Carolina Mountain Power Company to US 64/74 Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008 BROAD RIVER 9-(22)b1 C 6.3 FW Miles 13396 From US 64/74 to Cove Creek Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008 Cleghorn Creek 9-26-(0.75) C 1.5 FW Miles 13295 From 90 meters south of Baber Road to the Broad River Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008 Catheys Creek 9-41-13-(6)b C 1.9 FW Miles 12701 From confluence with Hollands Creek to S. Broad R. Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 1998 Mill Creek 9-41-13-3 WS-V 4.5 FW Miles 12705 From source to Catheys Creek Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008 Hollands Creek 9-41-13-7-(3) C 2.2 FW Miles 12709 From Case Branch to Catheys Creek Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 1998 Sandy Run Creek 9-46-(1) WS-IV 10.4 FW Miles 13221 From source to a point approximately 0.7 mile upstream of SR 1168 Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2018 Hinton Creek 9-50-15 C 13.2 FW Miles 12777 From source to First Broad River Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
    [Show full text]
  • Page 551 TITLE 33—NAVIGATION and NAVIGABLE WATERS § 1804
    Page 551 TITLE 33—NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS § 1804 Pub. L. 95–502, set out as a Short Title of 1978 Amend- (12) Illinois Waterway (Calumet-Sag Chan- ment note under section 1 of Title 26, Internal Revenue nel): From the junction of the Illinois River Code. with the Mississippi River RM 0 to Chicago § 1804. Inland and intracoastal waterways of the Harbor at Lake Michigan, approximately RM United States 350. (13) Kanawha River: From junction with For purposes of section 4042 of title 26 (relat- Ohio River at RM 0 to RM 90.6 at Deepwater, ing to tax on fuel used in commercial transpor- West Virginia. tation on inland waterways) and for purposes of (14) Kaskaskia River: From junction with section 1802 1 of this title, the following inland the Mississippi River at RM 0 to RM 36.2 at and intracoastal waterways of the United States Fayetteville, Illinois. are described in this section: (15) Kentucky River: From junction with (1) Alabama-Coosa Rivers: From junction Ohio River at RM 0 to confluence of Middle with the Tombigbee River at river mile (here- and North Forks at RM 258.6. inafter referred to as RM) 0 to junction with (16) Lower Mississippi River: From Baton Coosa River at RM 314. Rouge, Louisiana, RM 233.9 to Cairo, Illinois, (2) Allegheny River: From confluence with RM 953.8. the Monongahela River to form the Ohio River at RM 0 to the head of the existing project at (17) Upper Mississippi River: From Cairo, Il- East Brady, Pennsylvania, RM 72.
    [Show full text]
  • Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13Th) Edition
    Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13th) Edition T OF EN CO M M T M R E A R P C E E D U N A I C T I E R D E S M T A ATES OF U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) RDML Timothy Gallaudet., Ph.D., USN Ret., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere National Ocean Service Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management Cover image courtesy of Megan Greenaway—Great Salt Pond, Block Island, RI III Preface Distances Between United States Ports is published by the Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to the Act of 6 August 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a and b), and the Act of 22 October 1968 (44 U.S.C. 1310). Distances Between United States Ports contains distances from a port of the United States to other ports in the United States, and from a port in the Great Lakes in the United States to Canadian ports in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Distances Between Ports, Publication 151, is published by National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and distributed by NOS. NGA Pub. 151 is international in scope and lists distances from foreign port to foreign port and from foreign port to major U.S. ports. The two publications, Distances Between United States Ports and Distances Between Ports, complement each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreation in Florida — 2008
    State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Michael W. Sole Secretary Bob Ballard Deputy Secretary, Land & Recreation DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS Mike Bullock Director and State Liaison Officer Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation and Parks Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is an equal opportunity agency, offering all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or other non-merit factors. OUTDOOR RECREATION IN FLORIDA — 2008 A Comprehensive Program For Meeting Florida’s Outdoor Recreation Needs State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation and Parks Tallahassee, Florida Outdoor Recreation in Florida, 2008 Table of Contents PAGE Chapter 1: Introduction and Background.............................................................................. 1-1 Purpose and Scope of the Plan ........................................................................................1-1 Outdoor Recreation - A Legitimate Role for Government................................................1-3 Outdoor Recreation Defined..............................................................................................1-3 Roles in Providing Outdoor Recreation ............................................................................1-4 Need
    [Show full text]
  • A Visitor's Guide to Accessing Georgia's Coastal Resources
    A Visitor’s Guide to Accessing Georgia’s Coastal Resources Beaches & Barrier Islands Cultural & Historic Sites Rivers & Waterways Wildlife Viewing & Walking Trails FREE COPY - NOT FOR SALE A Visitor’s Guide to Accessing Georgia’s Coastal Resources acknowledgements This Guide was prepared by The University of Georgia Marine Extension Service under grant award # NA06NOS4190253 from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCRM or NOAA. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division and Parks and Historic Sites Division for their assistance and for permission to use certain descriptions, maps, and photographs in the drafting of this Guide. The authors also acknowledge the Coastal Resources Division and particularly Beach Water Quality Manager Elizabeth Cheney for providing GIS maps and other helpful assistance related to accessing Georgia beaches. This Access Guide was compiled and written by Phillip Flournoy and Casey Sanders. University of Georgia Marine Extension Service 715 Bay Street Brunswick, GA 31520 April 2008 Photo Credits: ~ Beak to Beak Egret Chicks by James Holland, Altamaha Riverkeeper ~ Sapelo Island Beach by Suzanne Van Parreren, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve ~ Main House, Hofwyl Plantation by Robert Overman, University of Georgia Marine Extension Service ~ J. T. Good, A Chip Off the Block by Captain Brooks Good table of contents Acknowledgements. 2 Map of Georgia Coastal Counties and the Barrier Islands. 5 Foreword. 6 1. Beaches and Barrier Islands . 7 a. Chatham County.
    [Show full text]
  • Suwannee River Study Report, Florida & Georgia
    A Wild and scenic River Study AS THE NATIONS PRINCIPAL CONSERVATION AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAS BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER, FISH, WILDLIFE, MINERAL, LANO, PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES. INOIAN ANO TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS ARE OTHER MAJOR CONCERNS OF AMERICA'S "DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES'.' THE DEPARTMENT WORKS TO ASSURE THE WISEST CHOICE IN MANAGING ALL OUR RE­ SOURc.ES SO EACH WILL MAKE ITS FULL CONTRIBUTION TO A BETTER UNITED STATES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Rogers C. 8. Morton, Secretory BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION Jatl'IU $.Watt, otfectot SUWANNEE RIVER Florida • G.eorgia A National Wild and Scenic River Study December 1973 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page_ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Finding .. ,. i Reco111Tiendation i SUMMARY Introduction .•....•.. i i The River .........••. ii Classification ..•... v Protection of Natural Resources •.•.•...•• vi State, Local, and Private Recreation Development viii Management Alternatives . viii Providing Public Use . ••• ix Land Acquisition .... ix Recreation Facilities .• xi The Withlacoochee Segment xi Economic Impact .•.... xii I. INTRODUCTION Wild and Scenic River Studies 2 Background . 3 II. THE RIVER SETTING Location. • . I • I 5 The Resource . I . 5 1 Climate . I . I . 17 Water Resource Development . 17 Cultural Hi story I . I . 20 Economy . • . 21 Population . 22 Landownership • . 23 River Ownership . I . 24 Land Use and Environmental Intrusions I . 24 Recreation . I . • . I . I . • . 29 Nearby Recreation Opportunities . I 36 Significant Features . I . • . I 36 III. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION Appraisal . • • . 39 Classification . 40 Discussion of Classification . • • . • . 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Land Requirements .••.• . 47 Fee Acquisition •• 49 Scenic Corridor . .. • 49 Acquisition Criteria .
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas (GIWW-T)
    TEXAS GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY MASTER PLAN: TECHNICAL REPORT by C. James Kruse Director, Center for Ports & Waterways Texas A&M Transportation Institute David Ellis Research Scientist Texas A&M Transportation Institute Annie Protopapas Associate Research Engineer Texas A&M Transportation Institute Nicolas Norboge Assistant Research Scientist Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Brianne Glover Assistant Research Scientist Texas A&M Transportation Institute Report 0-6807-1 Project 0-6807 Project Title: Texas Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Master Plan Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration Resubmitted: August 2014 TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER This research was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the FHWA or TxDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was conducted in cooperation with TxDOT and FHWA. We acknowledge the guidance and support that the following members of the TxDOT Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) provided: • Sarah Bagwell, planning and strategy director, Maritime Division (project coordinator). • Caroline Mays, freight planning branch manager, Transportation Planning & Programming Division. • Peggy Thurin, systems planning director, Transportation Planning & Programming Division. • Andrea Lofye, Federal Legislative Affairs. • Jay Bond, State Legislative Affairs. • Jennifer Moczygemba, systems section director, Rail Division. • Matthew Mahoney, waterways coordinator, Maritime Division (not a member of the PMC, but provided valuable assistance).
    [Show full text]
  • B-132 Miocene Aquitard and Floridan
    •:.·" :.-.i.'' ~ . ' . ,- ...- ·_, \ .., . '... ;_ .. · -. r··:, • . ·, ., ·'·... ' -~ :7', ....... _ _!. '. ~ ._ .. ,··; :' ..· ~ .. ·. ...,\ ., -~ ', ·, ·, -~ ·, ";. ... _;., , .. ' - '~--~ . ;;.~:· Mio~n·e '.I·· ., aqultard ~ .. ... ; . ~ ; :• o • ~ • I . ·, .~ ,'.' ~ .·'. ·.-· ·,. '' -·' ... • • • '·· j '~ ., -·.: . ~ ~- .. ,- ,• . '·. 1 • ·\ ·( ·, _;~.... -- '._.·,i'' . •.. · •,' . ., - ' ., ': :' }_ '' ... -:·,; ,•,- ''·.'- ·. ·....... ·~. ) • I ;"'!-" .:·:··:'I;· .~ ·.··.. '•. ~.:' ' .:._ ,1, ·... ·' ·..: --~--:. t .... ,, :.' . ·,.;·_ :·:. -·.~. ·. ,..... ' .. ,~~'_.,,,r_: ... !'' . .'. ~ '· . ... ·-.-. : .. ~ . ,' ' :'1- ,. t '. -' • ' ,I ~ ) • ,' .: ·.·-· ::;· ', • '' ~ I : L,' • •':·· ,._. '.1 ,..... _ ; .' f ~ ', I .J' ••• \' .\ ' .. ... '•j'-' ,· ~ ' . ,: -:·. :· ~· ~- ~ ,i,. • _.. ·_, ·-· i_ ·: .•' -~ . -:. .,._ ... •' :. -;~.' ._i.- •':J" .... ' ' .. ·-. ...._ .. : ',, :_ ~ ,'. ,. -~· . '-.·.·,'·:::·-1''• THE MIOCENE AQUITARD AND THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER OF THE GEORGIA I SOUTH CAROLINA COAST: GEOPHYSICAL MAPPING OF POTENTIAL SEAWATER INTRUSION SITES Anthony M. Foyle Georgia Southern University, Applied Coastal Research Laboratory Vernon J. Henry Georgia Southern University, Applied Coastal Research Laboratory Clark R. Alexander Skidaway Institute of Oceanography GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Harold F. Reheis, Director GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY William H. Mclemore, State Geologist Atlanta 2001 Bulletin 132 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides the Georgia
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways Vol. 1
    10 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY The Boating Geography of Southwest Florida Before Coastal Development One must go back in time to 1890 to regain a sense of Each of these bays historically was separated from the the pre-development state of the waterway we refer to as others through a series of natural barriers. Boat traffic the Sarasota Bay system. At that time, this 54-mile reach between Big and Little Sarasota Bays was impeded by “The of the coast, from lower Tampa Bay to Gasparilla Sound, Mangroves,” a cluster of islands at the mouth of Phillippi enclosed three separate inland bays of varying navigabil- Creek. The only means of traverse was a crooked, narrow ity (Map 1): channel barely 50 feet wide and 0.3 mile long that was 1. Big Sarasota Bay, on the north, is 21 miles long and mostly obstructed by mangroves. The channel was non- stretches from Palma Sola (Sarasota) Pass at the mouth of navigable at low water. No inside waterway passage ex- lower Tampa Bay to Phillippi Creek (south of Sarasota); isted between Little Sarasota and Lemon Bays. A five- 2. Little Sarasota Bay, in the middle, is 12 miles long mile land barrier existed from Roberts Bay just below and ranges from Phillippi Creek to Roberts Bay (present- Casey’s Pass to Alligator Creek, which was the head of day Venice); navigation of northern Lemon Bay. 3. Lemon Bay, to the south, is a 16-mile-long Settlers along this coast were forced to sail the outside embayment from Alligator Creek to the Bocilla Pass area passages between Big Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay and Lower Tampa Bay south of Grove City.
    [Show full text]
  • Barge Traffic on Georgia's Ln.Land Waterways, 1958-1968 and Some Development Potentials
    The Development of Barge Traffic on Georgia's ln.land Waterways, 1958-1968 and Some Development Potentials by Robert E. Van Geuns INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Project E-400-500 1970 Engineering Experiment Station GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECI-iNOLOGY Atlanta, Georgia Project E-400-500 THE DEVELOPMENT OF BARGE TRAFFIC ON GEORGIA'S INLAND WATERWAYS 1958-1968 AND SOME DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS by Robert E. Van Geuns Industrial Development Division Engineering Experiment Station GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY August 1970 Table of Contents Foreword i Acknowledgments ii Surrunary iii Introduction v FRE I GHT TRAFFIC ON GEORGIA'S INLAND WATERWAYS DURING THE 1958-1968 PERIOD 1 General Discussion 1 Total Barge Traffic on the Georgia Atlantic Coast Inland Waterways 3 Brunswick Harbor 4 Savannah Harbor 6 St . Marys River 7 Savannah River below Augusta, Georgia 7 Altamaha River 8 Satilla River 9 Gulf Coast Area: Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers 9 Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama, Area 10 PRESENT AND FUTURE BARGING PRACTICES ON GEORGIA'S I NLAND WATERWAYS 12 Barge Lines Operating on the Georgia Inland Waterways and Types of Tows 12 LASH Vessels and Inland Waterway Transportation 14 Fishybacking by Barge 16 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ON EXISTING AND PROPOSED GEORGIA INLAND WATERWAYS 19 Commodities Transported on the Georgia Inland Waterways 19 Traffic Potentials of Some Proposed Georgia Inland Waterways 21 ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL 27 Graphs 1. U. S. Resident Population, 1958-1968 28 2. Traffic on the U. S. Inland Waterways (exclusive of the Great Lakes) and Gross National Product, Constant (1958) Dollars, 1958-1968 29 Page GraEhs (continued) 3.
    [Show full text]