DOCSLIB.ORG

Georgia ESI Map Intro

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Georgia ESI Map Intro ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX: GEORGIA INTRODUCTION Spatial distribution of the species on the maps is represented by polygons and points, as appropriate. Associated with each of these Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps have been representations is an icon depicting the types of species or habitat developed for the coastal zone of Georgia. The ESI maps include types that are present. Species have been divided into groups and information for three main components: shoreline and wetland subgroups, based on their behavior, morphology, taxonomic habitats; sensitive biological resources; and human-use resources. classification, and spill vulnerability and sensitivity. The icons Background information, as well as the methods of data collection reflect this grouping scheme. The groups are color coded, and the and presentation, are summarized in the following sections. subgroups are represented by different icons: SHORELINE HABITAT MAPPING MARINE MAMMALS REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS Manatees The intertidal habitats of Georgia were originally mapped Other Reptiles/Amphibians during overflights conducted in the fall of 1984. They were updated onto 1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps by an Whales experienced coastal geologist in January 1997 using recent vertical Turtles aerial photographs from 1993-96 at various scales. Where appro- TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS priate, multiple habitats were delineated for each shoreline FISH Small Mammals segment. Portions of the coast were flown in February 1997 to verify the photointerpretation. The aerial surveys were carried out using a Fish BIRDS fixed-wing aircraft, flying at elevations of 500-1,000 feet and slow air speed. Diving Birds INVERTEBRATES Prediction of the behavior and persistence of oil on intertidal Gulls and Terns habitats is based on an understanding of the dynamics of the coastal Bivalves environments, not just the substrate type and grain size. The Passerine Birds sensitivity of a particular intertidal habitat is an integration of the ELMR Shellfish following factors: Raptors 1)Shoreline type (substrate, grain size, tidal elevation, origin) HABITATS/RARE PLANTS Shorebirds 2)Exposure to wave and tidal energy Wading Birds Rare Plants and Communities 3)Biological productivity and sensitivity 4)Ease of cleanup Waterfowl Reef Communities All of these factors are used to determine the relative sensitivity of intertidal habitats. Key to the sensitivity ranking is an The polygon or point color and pattern are generally the same for understanding of the relationships between: physical processes, all the species in each major group (e.g., birds are green), and match substrate, shoreline type, product type, fate and effect, and sediment the icon colors. The exception is habitat/rare plants which have transport patterns. The intensity of energy expended upon a shoreline several different colors in the Georgia atlas (purple for plants, hot by wave action, tidal currents, and river currents directly affects the pink and blue for different hardbottom reef communities). Also persistence of stranded oil. The need for shoreline cleanup activities associated with each biological polygon or point feature on the map is determined, in part, by the slowness of natural processes in removal is a resources at risk identification number (RAR#), located under of oil stranded on the shoreline. each icon or group of icons. The RAR# references a table on the These concepts have been used in the development of the ESI, reverse side of the map with a complete list of species found in the which ranks shoreline environments as to their relative sensitivity polygon or at the point, as well as the state and federal protected to oil spills, potential biological injury, and ease of cleanup. status (T&E), concentration or abundance, seasonality, and life- Generally speaking, areas exposed to high levels of physical energy, history information for each species. such as wave action and tidal currents, and low biological activity Location-sensitive data provided by the GA DNR Natural rank low on the scale, whereas sheltered areas with associated high Heritage Program (NHP) are not shown on the maps as polygons or biological activity have the highest ranking. A comprehensive points. Instead, only marker icons are shown in the vicinity of shoreline habitat ranking system has been developed for the entire resource occurrence sites. In these instances, the RAR#s under the United States. The shoreline habitats delineated in Georgia are icons are shaded yellow in order to identify NHP data that are not listed below in order of increasing sensitivity to spilled oil. associated with specific polygons or point features. In addition, the 1B)Exposed, Solid Man-made Structures tabular data for species from NHP records does not list the common name of the species in question. In place of the common name, a 3A)Fine-to Medium-grained Sand Beaches general “subelement-level” name is listed which also indicates 3B)Scarps and Steep Slopes in Sand whether the species is rare, threatened, or endangered (e.g., endan- gered wading bird; rare turtle). “Rare” refers to species without T&E 6A)Gravel Beaches status, but which are still considered to be at risk of extirpation or 6B)Riprap extinction. The “rare” descriptor was used for species with global or state conservation status ranks of vulnerable, imperiled, or critically 7)Exposed Tidal Flats imperiled (see Master, 1991). In addition to the difference in species 8A)Sheltered Scarps in Mud name, “occurrence” is listed in the concentration column, identifying the site as an element occurrence record from the NHP program. In all 8B)Sheltered, Solid Man-made Structures other regards, the NHP data included in this atlas are depicted on 8C)Sheltered Riprap the maps and tables as described in the paragraph above. However, the NHP data are not included in the digital ESI database. 9A)Sheltered Tidal Flats There are some species that are found throughout specific 9B)Vegetated Low Riverine Banks geographical areas or habitat types. Displaying the polygons for 10A)Salt- and Brackish-water Marshes these species would cover large areas, making the maps very difficult to read. Thus, species which occur over the majority of certain 10B)Freshwater Marshes geographic areas or habitats are often identified in a small box on 10C)Swamps the maps which states that they are “Present in ...” (e.g., “Present in Atlantic Ocean” or “Present in Wetlands”). This approach informs 10D)Scrub-Shrub Wetlands the user of the presence of these species, while maintaining Each of the shoreline habitats are described on pages 10-16, in readability of the map. In all instances, data for species listed as terms of their physical description, predicted oil behavior, and “Present in ....” exist as polygons in the digital coverages. The use of response considerations. this strategy is implemented on a map per map basis, depending on the location, size, and number of polygons present on each map. SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MARINE MAMMALS Biological information presented in this atlas was collected and Marine mammals depicted in the Georgia atlas include manatees compiled with the assistance of biologists and resource managers from and whales. Bottlenose dolphins are not included due to widespread the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) and other abundance and an assumed low-sensitivity to spills. Bottlenose agencies and groups. Information collected and depicted on the maps dolphins are likely to be present throughout nearly all estuarine and denotes the key biological resources that are most likely at risk in nearshore waters of the study area. Though not threatened or the event of an oil spill. Seven major categories of biological endangered, bottlenose dolphins are protected under the Marine resources are included in this atlas: marine mammals, terrestrial Mammal Protection Act, as are all marine mammals. mammals, birds, reptiles/amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and habitats/rare plants. GA - Page 1 Manatees areas depicted in the atlas are limited to known high- Wading bird feathers and upper body parts can be more extensively use areas which may be occupied in warmer months. In general, contaminated, however, by contact with oiled vegetation. seasonal manatee high-use areas may include estuaries, rivers, and Shorebirds may avoid oiling in many cases, but may be impacted by tidal creeks. Manatees in Georgia may feed on Spartina and algae loss of feeding areas or intertidal prey, particularly during important growing in shallow areas or on floating objects. In addition to direct migration periods. Gulls may be at risk because they are often spill impacts, spill response personnel should be aware of manatee attracted to and will feed on sick or injured prey. This behavior may concentration areas including locations where slow or idle boat speeds result in oiling of feathers and the ingestion of oil. Terns are are posted for manatee protection. primarily at risk when they dive for prey. Raptors may also prey on oiled or injured species and thus may be contaminated themselves or Whale locations depicted in the atlas are largely restricted to a ingest oil. Osprey may also be oiled while diving for fish. Passerine seasonal calving and juvenile area for the endangered Northern right birds are typically not at great risk during spills; however, response whale. The area mapped has been listed as Designated Critical activities can disturb nesting or damage coastal habitat for these Habitat by the National
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stream-Temperature Characteristics in Georgia
    STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA By T.R. Dyar and S.J. Alhadeff ______________________________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 Prepared in cooperation with GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Atlanta, Georgia 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Denver Federal Center Peachtree Business Center Box 25286 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose and scope . 2 Previous investigations. 2 Station-identification system . 3 Stream-temperature data . 3 Long-term stream-temperature characteristics. 6 Natural stream-temperature characteristics . 7 Regression analysis . 7 Harmonic mean coefficient . 7 Amplitude coefficient. 10 Phase coefficient . 13 Statewide harmonic equation . 13 Examples of estimating natural stream-temperature characteristics . 15 Panther Creek . 15 West Armuchee Creek . 15 Alcovy River . 18 Altamaha River . 18 Summary of stream-temperature characteristics by river basin . 19 Savannah River basin . 19 Ogeechee River basin. 25 Altamaha River basin. 25 Satilla-St Marys River basins. 26 Suwannee-Ochlockonee River basins . 27 Chattahoochee River basin. 27 Flint River basin. 28 Coosa River basin. 29 Tennessee River basin . 31 Selected references. 31 Tabular data . 33 Graphs showing harmonic stream-temperature curves of observed data and statewide harmonic equation for selected stations, figures 14-211 . 51 iii ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing locations of 198 periodic and 22 daily stream-temperature stations, major river basins, and physiographic provinces in Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine
    Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact, and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging DRAFT Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS New England District March 2016 Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT MAINTENANCE DREDGING March 2016 New England District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Rd Concord, Massachusetts 01742-2751 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT HISTORY, NEED, AND AUTHORITY .......................................... 1 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 3 4.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 6 4.1 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 6 4.2 Maintaining Channel at Authorized Dimensions............................................. 6 4.3 Alternative Dredging Methods ........................................................................ 6 4.3.1 Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredge....................................................................... 7 4.3.2 Hopper Dredge ........................................................................................... 7 4.3.3 Mechanical Dredge ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contamination Status of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
    ACCUMULATION OF POLYCHLORINED BIPHENYLS IN FISH COLLECTED FROM ST. SIMONS ESTUARY, BRUNSWICK, GEORGIA, USA Hao L1, Senthil Kumar K1, Sajwan K S1, Li P1, Peck A2, Gilligan M1, Pride C1 1 Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Savannah State University, 3219 College Street, Savannah, GA 2 31404, USA; Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, #10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411, USA Abstract Contamination profiles of 17 PCB congeners were determined in five fish species collected at eight sites in St. Simons Estuary, Brunswick, Georgia, USA (which is very close to an LCP Superfund Site). Pinfish collected at Turtle River at Buffalo Swamp had the highest PCBs concentration (143 ng/g wet weight [ww]). Whiting and southern flounder collected at Turtle River at Buffalo Swamp also had higher PCBs concentrations (57 ng/g and 73 ng/g ww, respectively) than the same fish species collected at the other sites (the Mouth of Frederica River, Back River, Mackay River South of Jove Creek, Towers of St Simons, Lower Jekyll Cove, Turtle River at Andrew Island, and Turtle River at Cowpen Creek). The current PCBs concentrations of fish in our study were lower than those reported in previous studies. Introduction Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are toxic to humans and wildlife1. PCBs are ubiquitous chemicals including in marine ecosystems, and posed potential harm to all kinds of living things2-3. St. Simons Estuary is located in Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia. Brunswick has a poor record of environmental protection due to the negative impact of chemical pollution from Linden Chemicals and Plastics (LCP) Superfund Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan
    Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Fisheries Policy Report FP – 3 Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan M. A. Rousseau Massachusetts Division of MarineFisheries Department of Fish and Game Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Commonwealth of Massachusetts June 2008 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Fisheries Policy Report FP - 3 Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan Mark Rousseau Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 June 2008 Massachusetts Division of MarineFisheries Paul J. Diodati - Director Department of Fish and Game Mary B. Griffin - Commissioner Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles - Secretary Commonwealth of Massachusetts Deval L. Patrick – Governor Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................iv I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MA ARTIFICIAL REEF PLAN ............................................................................................................2 1.2 DEFINITION OF AN ARTIFICIAL REEF....................................................................................................................2 1.3 BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY AND AGGREGATION................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Outer Boundaries of South Australia's Marine Parks Networks
    1 For further information, please contact: Coast and Marine Conservation Branch Department for Environment and Heritage GPO Box 1047 Adelaide SA 5001 Telephone: (08) 8124 4900 Facsimile: (08) 8214 4920 Cite as: Department for Environment and Heritage (2009). A technical report on the outer boundaries of South Australia’s marine parks network. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Mapping information: All maps created by the Department for Environment and Heritage unless otherwise stated. © Copyright Department for Environment and Heritage 2009. All rights reserved. All works and information displayed are subject to copyright. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth) written permission must be sought from the Department. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information displayed, the Department, its agents, officers and employees make no representations, either express or implied, that the information is accurate or fit for any purpose and expressly disclaims all liability for loss or damage arising from reliance upon the information displayed. ©Department for Environment and Heritage, 2009 ISBN No. 1 921238 36 4. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Preface.......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 South Australia’s marine parks network...............................................................................8 2 Introduction..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ogeechee River
    I ) f'"I --- , ',, ', ' • ''i' • ;- 1, '\::'.e...,. " .; IL. r final wild and s~;ni;ri~~f'1tu~; MAY, 1984 OGEECHEE RIVER GEORGIA L_ - UNITED STATES DEPARI'MENT OF 'IHE INTERIOR/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE As the Nation's principal conservation a­ gency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility tor most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environ­ mental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through out­ door recreation. The Department assesses our energy and min­ eral resources and works to assure that their development is • in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories un­ der U. S. administration. f Pf /p- I. SUMMARY OF FINDIN:jS / 1 II. CONDUCT OF 'ffiE STUDY / 5 Backgrouoo and Purpose of Study I 5 Study Approach I 5 Public Involvement I 6 III. EVALUATICN / 8 Eligibility I 8 Classification I 8 Suitability I 11 IV. THE RIVER ENVIOC>NMENT / 17 I.ocation and Access / 17 Population I 17 Landownership and Use I 17 Natural Resources / 22 Recreation Resources I 32 Cultural Resources I 35 V. A GUIDE 'IO RIVER PIDTECTICN ALTERNATIVES / 37 VI. LIST OF STUDY PARI'ICIPANI'S AND CXNSULTANI'S / 52 VII. APPENDIX / 54 IWJSTRATIONS/rABLES I.ocation Map I 3 River Classification / 9 Ogeechee River Study Region County Populations / 18 General Land Uses / 19 Typical Ogeechee River Sections Lower Piedmont Segment I 23 Upper Coastal Plain Segment I 24 Lower Coastal Plain / 25 Coastal Marsh I 26 Hydrology I 29 Significant Features I 33 Line-of-Sight Fran the River / 42 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Organizations in the Southeast Handout Watershed Organizations in the Southeast Handout
    E | Attachment E: in the Organizations Watershed Southeast Handout Southeast Watershed Organizations in the Southeast Handout • Lake Lanier Handout - Alternative Nutrient Strategies Brown and Caldwell Alternative Nutrient Strategies This brochure provides information on watershed based collaboration for protecting and enhancing water quality and quantity. Examples from the southeastern United States are presented to show possibilities for further cooperation in the Lake Lanier watershed. Lake Lanier is a vital resource for its immediate restore compliance. These plans may be called neighbors and beyond, including portions of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The plans Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. Lake Lanier may be developed with the use of models and provides water supply and multiple recreation may impose limitations on point sources and/or opportunities including boating and fishing. nonpoint sources. Protecting the lake is important to all stakeholders, especially now regarding nutrients. Since before the lake was created in the 1950s, stakeholders have worked to protect the lake Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, through water conservation, sophisticated the water quality and biological health of thousands wastewater treatment, stormwater management, of waterbodies have been evaluated. State and/or river cleanup events, and other efforts. As growth federal environmental agencies set a water use continues in the watershed, additional efforts will be classification for each waterbody, such as fishing, necessary to
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)
    FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Character of Surface Waters of Georgia
    SliEU' :\0..... / ........ RO O ~ l NO. ···- ··-<~ ......... U )'On no l~er need this publication write to the Geological Sur»ey in Washlndon for ali official maillne label to use In returning it UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CHEMICAL CHARACTER OF SURFACE WATERS OF GEORGIA Prepared In cooperation wilh the DIVISION OF MINES, MINING, AND GEOLOGY OF 'l'HE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 889- E ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director Water-Supply Paper 889-E CHEMICAL CHARACTER OF SURFACE WATERS OF GEORGIA BY WILLIAM L. LAMAR Prepared in cooperation with the DIVISION OF MINES, MINING, AND GEOLOGY OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Contributions to the Hydrology of the United States, 19~1-!3 (Pages 317- 380) UN ITED STATES GOVEHNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1944 For sct le Ly Ll w S upcrinkntlent of Doc uments, U. S. Gover nme nt Printing Office, " ' asbingtou 25, D . C. Price 15 ce nl~ CONTENTS Page- Abstract ___________________________________________ -----_--------- 31 T Introduction __________________ c ________________________________ -- _ 317 Physiography_____________________________________________________ 318 Climate__________________________________________________________ 820 Collection and examination of samples_______________________________ 323 Stream flow __________________________ --------- ___________ c ________ . 324 Rainfall and discharge during sampling years_____________________
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Physicsof Estuariesand Coastal Seas
    1 August 12-16 2012 n New York City The Physics of Estuaries and Coastal Seas Symposium 2 3 Assessing Suspended Sediment Dynamics in the San Francisco Bay-Delta System: Coupling Landsat Satellite Imagery, in situ Data and a Numerical Model Fernanda Achete1, Mick van der Wegen1, Dave Schoellhamer2, Bruce E. Jaffe2 1 UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands 2 U.S. Geological Survey Rivers draining the Central Valley and Sierras of California, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, meet in the Delta before discharging into the northeastern end of the San Francisco Estuary. The Bay-Delta system is an important region for a) economic activities (ports, agriculture, and industry), b) human settling (the San Francisco Bay area hosts 7.15 million inhabitants) and c) ecosystems (the Delta area hosts several endemic species and is an important regional breeding and feeding environment). Human activities, including hydraulic mining and agriculture development have affected the Bay-Delta system over the past 150 years. Other examples of anthropogenic influence on the system are damming of rivers, channels dredging, land reclamation and levee construction. Suspended sediment concentration (SSC) has varied considerably as a result of these activities. The change in SSC has a high impact on ecosystems by influencing light penetration that is closely related to primary production, contaminants distribution and marshland development. Better understanding of the spatial distribution and temporal variation of SSC opens the way to improved understanding ecosystem dynamics in the Bay-Delta system and to assess the impact of future developments such as water export, sea level rise and decreasing SSC levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 0306010606 Augusta Canal-Savannah River HUC 8 Watershed: Middle Savannah
    Georgia Ecological Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2/9/2021 HUC 10 Watershed Report HUC 10 Watershed: 0306010606 Augusta Canal-Savannah River HUC 8 Watershed: Middle Savannah Counties: Burke, Columbia, Richmond Major Waterbodies (in GA): McBean Creek, Savannah River, Butler Creek, Boggy Gut Creek, Reed Creek, Newberry Creek, Rocky Creek, Phinizy Swamp, Fort Gordon Reservoir, Bennock Millpond, Lake Olmstead, Millers Pond Federal Listed Species: (historic, known occurrence, or likely to occur in the watershed) E - Endangered, T - Threatened, C - Candidate, CCA - Candidate Conservation species, PE - Proposed Endangered, PT - Proposed Threatened, Pet - Petitioned, R - Rare, U - Uncommon, SC - Species of Concern. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Please coordinate with National Marine Fisheries Service. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Please coordinate with National Marine Fisheries Service. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) US: T; GA: E Potential Range (county); Survey period: early May Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Survey period: habitat any time of year or foraging individuals: 1 Apr - 31 May. Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) US: T; GA: T Potential Range (county); Survey period: for larvae 15 Feb - 15 Mar. Canby's Dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) US: E; GA: E Potential Range (soil type); Survey period: for larvae 15 Feb - 15 Mar. Relict Trillium (Trillium reliquum) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Survey period: flowering 15 Mar - 30 Apr. Use of a nearby reference site to more accurately determine local flowering period is recommended. Updated: 2/9/2021 0306010606 Augusta Canal-Savannah River 1 Georgia Ecological Services U.S.
    [Show full text]