DOCSLIB.ORG

Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update FINAL Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update Hall County Public Works and Utilities February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background and Study Areas ........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Plan Objectives ................................................................................................. 1-3 1.3 Report Outline .................................................................................................. 1-3 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ....................................... 2-1 2.1 Existing System and Facilities .......................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Sewer Basins .................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Demographics .................................................................................................. 2-5 2.4 Land Use........................................................................................................... 2-8 2.5 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 2-13 2.6 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 2-13 2.7 Policy Considerations ..................................................................................... 2-14 2.7.1 Water Use ....................................................................................... 2-14 2.7.2 Water Reuse ................................................................................... 2-14 2.7.3 Interbasin Transfer ......................................................................... 2-14 2.7.4 Increased Biological Loading .......................................................... 2-15 2.7.5 Nutrient Standards for Lake Lanier ................................................ 2-15 2.7.6 Climate Resiliency ........................................................................... 2-15 2.8 Planning Considerations................................................................................. 2-16 2.8.1 Reliability & Flexibility ..................................................................... 2-16 2.8.2 Ease of Implementation/Constructability ....................................... 2-17 2.8.3 Easement Considerations ............................................................... 2-17 2.8.4 Biosolids Considerations ................................................................ 2-17 3. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Planning Assumptions and Methodology ......................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Per Capita Wastewater Generation................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Per Acre Wastewater Generation Rates............................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Inflow and Infiltration ........................................................................ 3-3 3.1.4 Peaking Factor .................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.5 Septic to Sewer Conversion .............................................................. 3-3 3.2 Wastewater Forecasts ...................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 North Hall Build-Out Wastewater Flows ............................................ 3-3 3.2.2 South Hall Build-Out Wastewater Flows............................................ 3-8 February 2020 Table of Contents i Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update 4. NORTH HALL STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........ 4-1 4.1 Review of the 2011 Recommended Alternative .............................................. 4-1 4.2 Description of the Preferred Development Scenario........................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Collection .......................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Treatment ......................................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................ 4-8 5. SOUTH HALL STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 5-1 5.1 Description of Development Scenario .............................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Collection .......................................................................................... 5-3 5.1.2 Treatment ......................................................................................... 5-5 5.2 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................ 5-8 6. NORTH AND SOUTH HALL COUNTY STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM COST SUMMARY .................. 6-1 6.1 Unit Cost Development ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 North Hall Projected Costs ............................................................................... 6-2 6.3 South Hall Projected Costs ............................................................................... 6-6 6.4 North and South Hall Projected Costs Summary ............................................ 6-12 6.5 Capital Improvement Plan Summary and Maps ............................................. 6-14 6.5.1 Phase I Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps .......... 6-17 6.5.2 Phase II Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps ......... 6-19 6.5.3 Phase III Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps......... 6-22 6.5.4 Phase IV Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps ........ 6-25 7. Financial Management System Study ........................... 7-1 7.1 Identified Alternatives....................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Revenue Requirements and Projections .......................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Expenses – Assumptions .................... 7-1 7.2.2 General Assumptions ........................................................................ 7-2 7.2.3 Existing Wastewater User Rates and Connection Fees .................... 7-2 7.2.4 Customer Base – Existing Service Area ............................................ 7-3 7.2.5 Customer Base – Expanded Service Area ........................................ 7-4 7.2.6 Revenue Requirements – O&M Debt Service and Capital ............... 7-8 7.2.7 Capital Improvement Plan - Base Case............................................. 7-9 7.2.8 Capital Improvement Plan– Master Plan with Expanded Service Area ........................................................................................................ 7-10 ii Table of Contents February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update 7.2.9 Debt Service Payments – Master Plan with Expanded Service Area .................................................................................................... ….7-16 7.2.10 Wastewater Revenue Projections ................................................... 7-18 7.3 Summary of Wastewater Revenue and Expenditures .................................... 7-20 7.4 Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................... 7-24 7.4.1 Sensitivity Analysis Summary.......................................................... 7-29 7.5 Summary ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables Table 2-1: Population and Employment Projections and Annual Average Growth Rates.................... 2-7 Table 2-2: ARC Population and Employment Projections – North Hall Drainage Basins .................... 2-8 Table 2-3: ARC Population and Employment Projections – South Hall Drainage Basins .................... 2-8 Table 2-4: Comparison of Current and Potential Future Land Use in North Hall Study Area ........... 2-11 Table 2-5: Comparison of Current and Future Land Use in South Hall Study Area .......................... 2-12 Table 2-6: North Hall 303(d) Listed Streams ................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2-7: South Hall 303(d) Listed Streams ................................................................................... 2-13 Table 3-1: Wastewater Generation Rates based on District Water Demands for Hall County ............ 3-2 Table 3-2: Per Acre Wastewater Generation Rates Categorized by Land Use Type ............................ 3-2 Table 3-3: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows – North Hall Service Areas ................................... 3-4 Table 3-4: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows by Type – North Hall Service Area ........................ 3-5 Table 3-5: Projected 2030 and 2040 Wastewater Flows – North Hall Study Area ............................. 3-6 Table 3-6: Build-Out Flows for Pipe Segments – Proposed North Hall Collection System .................. 3-6 Table 3-7: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows – South Hall Service Areas ................................... 3-8 Table 3-8: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows by Type – South Hall Service Area ........................ 3-8 Table 3-9: Projected 2030 and 2040 Wastewater Flows – South Hall Study Area ............................ 3-9 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin
    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seventy-Two Stream Segments
    Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seventy-Two Stream Segments in the Oconee River Basin for Fecal Coliform Submitted to: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Atlanta, Georgia January 2007 Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation January 2007 Oconee River Basin (Fecal Coliform) Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Description......................................................................................................1 1.3 Water Quality Standard.....................................................................................................5 2.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 15 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Point Source Assessment ............................................................................................... 16 3.2 Nonpoint Source Assessment........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Integrated 305(B)/303(D) List
    2020 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. More Penholoway Creek Pending data need to be collected and evaluated before it GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Altamaha Supporting 27 1 Butler River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. Branch GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. Altamaha River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Cedar Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek (at Altamaha Not Supporting FC 6 5 EPD needs to determine the "natural DO" for the Donovan Hwy) to Little area before a use assessment is made.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dichotomy Between Growth and Clean Water? the Harpeth River Experience with Citizen Suits and Beyond
    River Management Society Supporting Professionals Who Study, Protect, and Manage RMS SPRING 2017 VOLUME 30, NO. 1 North America’s Rivers Southeast Focus RMS Pro-Purchase News..................... 4 Virginia’s Scenic Rivers ........................ 6 Restoring the Mulberry River ................ 8 Tennessee Wildlife Federation Gift ....... 9 The Obion Basin Fight ........................ 10 Family Fun on the Pascagoula ........... 13 Tennessee River Basin Network......... 14 Conservation Easements - A Tool ....... 15 Bama’s Bone Dry ................................ 16 Wonks, Water, Walls, and... .............. 18 Georgia Water Trails ........................... 21 San Antonio River Authority ................ 24 RMS Chapter Updates ....................... 27 Innovative Tennessee River Project ... 28 Google Earth aerial image of the Franklin sewer plant and Harpeth River. False Dichotomy Between Growth and Clean Water? The Harpeth River Experience with Citizen Suits and Beyond by James M. Redwine The State Scenic Harpeth River, Greater Founded in 1999, the Harpeth River So often, the choice is portrayed to be Nashville, and the Harpeth River Watershed Association is a 501(c)(3) between clean water and growth, with Watershed Association not-for-profit, science-based conservation clean water inevitably the loser. The organization dedicated to protecting the Harpeth River Watershed Association The Harpeth River is among the State Scenic Harpeth River and clean (HRWA) does not believe that this always unique freshwater river systems of the water in Tennessee. To protect the river has to be the case. Rather, HRWA’s recent Southeast. These systems contain some and effect change, HRWA collaborates experience with a citizen suit under the of the greatest variety of aquatic life with landowners, businesses, community, federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (and its in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Integrated 305(B)
    2018 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed TWR 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Penholoway Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed TWR 2002. More data need to Creek Pending be collected and evaluated before it can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Butler Altamaha Supporting 27 1 River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Branch Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Cedar Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek to Ohoopee Altamaha Not Supporting DO, FC 3 4a TMDLs completed DO 2002 & FC (2002 & 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in the Headwaters of the Upper Oconee Watershed
    WATER QUALITY IN THE HEADWATERS OF THE UPPER OCONEE WATERSHED Dwight S. Fisher', Anthony L. Dillard2, E. Lynn Usery3, Jean L. Steiner4 and Constance L. Neely 5 AUTHORS: 'Rangeland Scientist, '-Agricultural Engineer, and 'Soil Scientist, J. Phil Campbell, Sr., Natural Resource Conservation Center, 1420 Experiment Station Road, Watkinsville, GA 30677-2373; 'Associate Professor, Geography Department, 204 GGS, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2502; and 'Assistant Project Director, Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program, 1422 Experiment Station Road, Watkinsville, GA 30677-2373. REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 26 - 27, 2001, at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. Development in the Southern Piedmont of and power generation. The largest municipality the USA is increasing urban demand for clean water for supported by this watershed is the city of Athens. recreation and municipal supplies. Agricultural Our objectives were to focus on the northern portion production is perceived to be a non-point source of of the watershed (Figure 1) and 1) test for significant pollution in this region. To effectively target efforts to variation in water quality and 2) relate the observed reduce agricultural pollution, we are working to water quality to variation in land use and the use of estimate the impact of conservation practices and to conservation practices. develop water-sampling strategies for identifying key areas for conservation efforts. Nine sites were selected METHODS for sampling surface water quality in the headwaters area of the Upper Oconee Watershed of Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rivers of Georgia
    Sl. No River Name Draining Into 1 Savannah River Atlantic Ocean 2 Black Creek Atlantic Ocean 3 Knoxboro Creek Atlantic Ocean 4 Ebenezer Creek Atlantic Ocean 5 Brier Creek Atlantic Ocean 6 Little River Atlantic Ocean 7 Kettle Creek Atlantic Ocean 8 Broad River Atlantic Ocean 9 Hudson River Atlantic Ocean 10 Tugaloo River Atlantic Ocean 11 Chattooga River Atlantic Ocean 12 Tallulah River Atlantic Ocean 13 Coleman River Atlantic Ocean 14 Bull River Atlantic Ocean 15 Shad River Atlantic Ocean 16 Halfmoon River Atlantic Ocean 17 Wilmington River Atlantic Ocean 18 Skidaway River Atlantic Ocean 19 Herb River Atlantic Ocean 20 Odingsell River Atlantic Ocean 21 Ogeechee River Atlantic Ocean 22 Little Ogeechee River (Chatham County) Atlantic Ocean 23 Vernon River Atlantic Ocean 24 Canoochee River Atlantic Ocean 25 Williamson Swamp Creek Atlantic Ocean 26 Rocky Comfort Creek Atlantic Ocean 27 Little Ogeechee River (Hancock County) Atlantic Ocean 28 Bear River Atlantic Ocean 29 Medway River Atlantic Ocean 30 Belfast River Atlantic Ocean 31 Tivoli River Atlantic Ocean 32 Laurel View River Atlantic Ocean 33 Jerico River Atlantic Ocean 34 North Newport River Atlantic Ocean 35 South Newport River Atlantic Ocean 36 Sapelo River Atlantic Ocean 37 Broro River Atlantic Ocean 38 Mud River Atlantic Ocean 39 Crescent River Atlantic Ocean 40 Duplin River Atlantic Ocean 41 North River Atlantic Ocean 42 South River Atlantic Ocean 43 Darien River Atlantic Ocean 44 Altamaha River Atlantic Ocean 45 Ohoopee River Atlantic Ocean 46 Little Ohoopee River Atlantic Ocean
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Comprehensive Plan
    2003 Update of the 2020 Gwinnett County Comprehensive Plan Approved by the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing: February 24, 2004 Effective: _____________ Gwinnett County Department of Planning & Development Planning Division 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045 770-822-7600 2003 Update of the Gwinnett County 2020 Comprehensive Plan Planning Division Gwinnett County Department of Planning & Development 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, GA 30045 770-822-7600 Approved by the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners Public hearing - February 24, 2004 Effective - 2003 Update Gwinnett County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2003 Update of the 2020 Gwinnett County Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary This document is the sixth update of the Gwinnett County 2020 Comprehensive Plan since its original adoption on October 28, 1997. The update revises the comprehensive plan by amending the 2020 Land Use Plan Map, the Natural and Cultural Resources Element, and the Land Use Element which includes the county’s land use policies. This report includes in the Appendix, a “Table of Recommended Changes” to the 2020 Land Use Plan Map. The table includes all the recommended changes including consistency and municipal changes. Consistency changes reflect rezoning decisions, County land purchases and land development consistent with existing zoning. Three Map Change Requests (MCRs) were submitted for consideration for this update. One was later withdrawn. MCRs are applications from property owners to revise the land use designation shown on the Land Use Plan Map for their property. Legal notices were published in the Gwinnett Daily Post announcing a four (4) month window for filing MCR applications. Drafts of the update which include lists of all changes to the 2020 Land Use Plan Map and the proposed 2020 Land Use Plan Map itself, were made available for pubic viewing at all branches of the Gwinnett County Public Library and were posted on the county’s web site.
    [Show full text]
  • B-25 a Preliminary Report on the Drainage Reclamation in Georgia
    /·' l?OSTI ' I' I Ef'I-J PL.l'l'b' I GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF GEORGIA S. W. McCALLIE, State Geologist DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE C. G. ELLIOTT, Chief of Drainage Investigations BULLETIN NO. 25 A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON DRAINAGE RECLAMATION IN GEORGIA The Drainage Situation in Georgia BY S. W. McCallie. State Geologist AND Drainage Examinations and Surveys in Georgia By U. S. Department of Agriculture THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE Geological Survey of Georgia in the Year 1911 (Ex-Officio) His ExcELLENCY, JOSEPH M. BROWN, Governor of Georgia PRESIDENT oF THE BoARD HoN. PHILJP COOK ....................... Secretary of State RoN. J. P. BROWN .......................... State Treasurer RoN. W. A. WRIGHT ..................... Comptroller-General RoN. H. A. HALL .......................... Attorney-General RoN. T. G. HUDSON .............. Commissioner of Agriculture RoN. M. L. BRITTAIN .......... Commissioner of Public Schools LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL GEoLOGICAL SuRVEY oF GEORGIA, ATLANTA, June 15, 1911. To His Excellency, JosEPH M. BRowN, Governor, and President of the Advisory Board of the Geological Survey of Georgia. SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a preliminary report on Drainage Reclamation in Georgia by this department and Drainage Examinations and Surveys in Georgia by the U. S. Department o£ Ag­ Ticulture, to be published as Bulletin No. 25 o£ this Survey. Very respectfully yours, S. W. McCALLIE, State Geologist. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Advisory Board .........................................•....... 3 Letter of Transmittal ......................................... 5 List of Illustrations ........................................... 10 Drainage Conditions in Georgia . ....... 11-26 Swamp ·and overflow lands ................................... 11-26 Introductory ............................................... 11 Swamp lands ............................................. 11·12 Overflow lands ............................................ 12-13 Wet lands ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • GA 2012 305(B) Streams
    2012 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List Streams - Supporting Designated Uses Reach Name/ ID #/ Reach Location/ River Basin/ Criterion Potential Data Source County Use Violated Causes Extent Category Priority Notes Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha 72 miles 1 TMDL completed TWR 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier R030701060401 Jeff Davis/ Appling/ Wayne County Fishing 1,55 Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Butler River Altamaha 23 miles 1 R030701060501 Wayne/ Glynn/ McIntosh County Fishing 1,55 Neels Creek Bear Creek to Ohoopee River Altamaha 6 miles 1 R030701070105 Johnson County Fishing 10 Ohoopee River Cypress Creek to Neels Creek Altamaha 5 miles 1 R030701070107 Johnson County Fishing 10 Anneewakee Creek Lake Monroe to Chattahoochee Chattahoochee 5 miles 1 River R031300020304 Douglas County Fishing 1,16 Baldridge Creek Headwaters to Lake Lanier Chattahoochee 5 miles 1 R031300010822 Forsyth County Fishing 1 Baldwin Creek Douglas County Chattahoochee 4 miles 1 TMDL completed FC 1998. R031300020308 Douglas County Fishing 16 A-17 2012 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List Streams - Supporting Designated Uses Reach Name/ ID #/ Reach Location/ River Basin/ Criterion Potential Data Source County Use Violated Causes Extent Category Priority Notes Bear Creek Near Clermont Chattahoochee 3 miles 1 R031300010406 Hall County Fishing 10 Bear Creek Dorsett Shoals Rd. to Little Bear Chattahoochee 3 miles 1 TMDL completed FC 1998. Creek R031300020313 Douglas County Fishing 1,16 Beech Creek U/S Ross Keith Road Chattahoochee 10 miles 1 R031300020704
    [Show full text]
  • Fully Automated Total Metals and Elemental Speciation Single Platform Introduction System for ICP‐MS
    Elemental Scientific ICP | ICPMS | AA Fully Automated Total Metals and Elemental Speciation Single Platform Introduction System for ICP‐MS C. Derrick Quarles Jr., Ph.D. Sr. Scientist & LC Automation Product Manager Elemental Scientific, Inc. ‐ Atlanta (ESI HQ are located in Omaha, NE) Elemental Scientific, Inc. (ESI) Elemental Scientific, Inc. Omaha, NE, USA © 2019 Elemental Scientific History of Company © 2019 Elemental Scientific Elemental Scientific ICP | ICPMS | AA FAST ‐ “Automated Sample Introduction” What is FAST? © 2019 Elemental Scientific Faster Analysis = More Productive Traditional Autosampler = 5 min per sample ICP-MS Method = 50 s 4 min 10 s = sample flush, read delay, wash Traditional Autosampler = 288 samples in 24 h FAST Autosampler = 1 min 30 sec per sample ICP-MS Method = 50 s 40 s = sample flush, read delay, wash Reduction of 200 s per sample FAST Autosampler = 1200 samples in 24 h Assuming you run samples 24 h straight 1200 vs 288 = 417% More Productive with FAST © 2019 Elemental Scientific Elemental Scientific ICP | ICPMS | AA prepFAST ‐ “Automated Inline Autodilution System” © 2019 Elemental Scientific prepFAST – Inline Dilution © 2019 Elemental Scientific prepFAST – Inline Dilution © 2019 Elemental Scientific Conventional Calibration vs prepFAST Autocalibration © 2019 Elemental Scientific Sample Outside of Calibration Curve Load Sample ICP/ICPMS SOFTWARE Autodilute QC Dilution and Analyze PASS Correction QC Report Data FAIL Re-queue with Intelligent Dilution INTELLIGENT DILUTION © 2019 Elemental Scientific Elemental Scientific ICP | ICPMS | AA prepFAST IC ‐ “Automated Elemental Speciation and Total Metals” © 2019 Elemental Scientific Instrumentation HPLC + ICP-MS prepFAST M5 for Total Metal Analysis prepFAST IC for Speciation and Total Metal Analysis © 2019 Elemental Scientific prepFAST IC Features .
    [Show full text]