DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Fat Threeridge, Shinyrayed Pocketbook, Gulf Moccasinshell, Ochlockonee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Fat Threeridge, Shinyrayed Pocketbook, Gulf Moccasinshell, Ochlockonee ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE FAT THREERIDGE, SHINYRAYED POCKETBOOK, GULF MOCCASINSHELL, OCHLOCKONEE MOCCASINSHELL, OVAL PIGTOE, CHIPOLA SLABSHELL, AND PURPLE BANKCLIMBER Draft Final Report | September 12, 2007 prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 prepared by: Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 Draft – September 12, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1T SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Economic Analysis 1-1 1.2 Background 1-2 1.3 Regulatory Alternatives 1-9 1.4 Threats to the Species and Habitat 1-9 1.5 Approach to Estimating Economic Effects 1-9 1.6 Scope of the Analysis 1-13 1.7 Analytic Time Frame 1-16 1.8 Information Sources 1-17 1.9 Structure of Report 1-18 SECTION 2 POTENTIAL CHANGES IN WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT FOR CONSERVATION OF THE SEVEN MUSSELS 2-1 2.1 Summary of Methods for Estimation of Economic Impacts Associated with Flow- Related Conservation Measures 2-2 2.2 Water Use in Proposed Critical Habitat Areas 2-3 2.3 Potential Changes in Water Use in the Flint River Basin 2-5 2.4 Potential Changes in Water Management in the Apalachicola River Complex (Unit 8) 2-10 2.5 Potential Changes in Water Management in the Santa Fe River Complex (Unit 11) 2-22 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS RELATED TO CHANGES IN WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT 3-1 3.1 Summary 3-6 3.2 Potential Economic Impacts Related to Agricultural Water Uses 3-7 3.3 Potential Economic Impacts Related to Recreational Water Uses 3-14 3.4 Potential Economic Impacts Related to Other Water Uses 3-20 3.5 Potential Regional Economic Impacts Related to Water Uses 3-22 3.6 Caveats to Methodology Used to Estimate Economic Impacts Related to Water Needs for the Seven Mussels 3-27 Draft – September 12, 2007 SECTION 4 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO HYDROPOWER, WATER SUPPLY, AND OTHER IMPOUNDMENT PROJECTS 4-1 4.1 Summary 4-1 4.2 USACE Hydropower Facilities 4-5 4.3 Impacts to Water Reservoirs, Non-Federal Hydropower Facilities, and Other Water Projects 4-12 SECTION 5 POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY-RELATED IMPACTS 5-1 5.1 Summary 5-1 5.2 Background 5-1 5.3 Agriculture 5-6 5.4 Urban Runoff 5-9 5.5 Forestry 5-12 5.6 Industrial and Municipal Point Sources 5-13 SECTION 6 ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES 6-1 6.1 Summary 6-1 6.2 Transportation 6-2 6.3 Species Management 6-5 6.4 Deadhead Logging 6-9 6.5 Navigation Dredging, Sand and Gravel Mining, and Non-Native Species 6-12 REFERENCES R-1 APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS A-1 APPENDIX B INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE SEVEN MUSSELS B-1 APPENDIX C FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS AND ENERGY IMPACTS ANALYSIS C-1 APPENDIX D DETAILED UNIT BY UNIT IMPACTS D-1 APPENDIX E COTTON, PEANUTS, AND CORN ACREAGES IN GEORGIA’S CRITICAL HABITAT COUNTIES E-1 Draft – September 12, 2007 APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL, MUNICIPAL, AND RECREATIONAL WATER VALUATION STUDIES F-1 APPENDIX G U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LETTER TO GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES’ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION G-1 Draft – September 12, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the fat threeridge, shinyrayed pocketbook, Gulf moccasinshell, Ochlockonee moccasinshell, oval pigtoe, Chipola slabshell, and purple bankclimber, collectively known as the seven mussels. Sections 3 to 6 of the analysis consider all future conservation-related impacts, including impacts associated with overlapping protective measures of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation in the areas proposed for designation. That is, a portion of these “co-extensive” impacts are forecast to occur regardless of critical habitat designation for the seven mussels. Appendix B estimates the potential incremental impacts of critical habitat designation for the seven mussels by attempting to isolate those impacts that would not be expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the seven mussels. Incremental impacts described in Appendix B and summarized in Exhibit ES-8 are those precipitated specifically by this rulemaking as proposed. 2. The Service proposes to designate as critical habitat 1,186 river miles in 11 units with a lateral boundary of the "ordinary high-water mark" in 45 counties in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.1 Exhibit ES-1 provides a map of these rivers. The lands adjacent to the units comprise a mix of private, State, and Federal lands, which account for roughly 87 percent, 10 percent and three percent of the total area, respectively. 3. The economic analysis focuses on identifying and quantifying impacts of potential changes in existing water uses to maintain flows to conserve the seven mussels. The Service identifies “flow regime,” specifically "permanently flowing water" in the Proposed Rule, as one of the Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) for the seven mussels. In addition, the Service states that the seven mussels cannot survive in impounded ponds, lakes, or intermittent streams. Thus, continuously flowing water is assumed to be a necessary habitat feature for the seven mussels. This analysis therefore assumes that changes in water management and use may occur to conserve the seven mussels, and that these changes could generate economic efficiency and regional economic impacts. This analysis does not make assumptions or recommendations regarding how such changes will occur, or who will bear the cost of these changes in water management and use. 4. This analysis expects most changes in water management and use within proposed critical habitat will occur in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Basin. The Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers are particularly complex hydrological systems. Multiple management structures and numerous withdrawals currently exist on 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Five Endangered and Two Threatened Mussels in Four Northeast Gulf of Mexico Drainages, 71 FR 32746, June 6, 2006. ES-1 Draft – September 12, 2007 the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers; these two rivers converge at Jim Woodruff Dam to form the Apalachicola River. The Chattahoochee River is managed through a series of dams and hydroelectric plants that provide water for hydropower production, flood control, municipal uses, recreation, and other uses. Water in the Flint River Basin is used primarily for agricultural irrigation. Freshwater flowing out of Jim Woodruff Dam supports recreational and commercial fisheries in Apalachicola Bay. 5. Competition for water, and conflicts among water users in the ACF Basin system, exist independent of the seven mussels and will likely continue to occur absent seven mussels conservation efforts. Water demands in the summer and fall periodically exceed the supply of water in the ACF Basin; as the demands increase and the supply remains constant, these shortages are likely to become more frequent and more severe.2 In the Chattahoochee basin, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages a complex system, considering both competing demands and past and future hydrologic conditions in order to optimize the use of stored water.3 During times of drought in the system and reduced inflow from the Flint River due to agricultural irrigation, the USACE has historically used reservoir storage to maintain flows at or above 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on the Apalachicola River.4 Current management in support of federally listed species listed species in the Apalachicola River (i.e., fat threeridge, purple bankclimber, Chipola slabshell, and Gulf Sturgeon) consists of the Modified Interim Operation Plan (Modified IOP) for Jim Woodruff Dam, as described in the Biological Opinion submitted to the Service on February 16, 2007 and approved by the Service on February 28, 2007. Debates continue regarding the appropriate allocation of Chattahoochee water; negotiations over this allocation have been ongoing between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia for over 15 years. These debates have delayed finalization of the USACE's draft 1989 water control plan for the ACF Basin, and will shape the next water control plan for the System. 6. Meeting flows for the conservation of the seven mussels may place additional demands on a system that is already constrained. Estimation of the potential economic impacts that may result from meeting flows for the conservation of the seven mussels requires an understanding of the timing and magnitude of flows. For stream reaches proposed for critical habitat designation, no estimate of required minimum flow for seven mussels 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Water Allocation for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin: Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, September. 3 The USACE is responsible for management of four Federal reservoir projects within the Chattahoochee basin. There are other opportunities for conservation management within the basin that are outside the Federal Reservoir areas, but beyond the authority of the USACE. 4 In their public comment the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers explained the influence of upstream flows on Unit 8 Apalachicola River. The "...Jim Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole has very limited storage capacity and is dependent upon releases from the upstream reservoirs or flows from the Flint River to make releases to meet downstream flow needs. These factors influence a conservative operation at Lake Lanier, in order to conserve storage for future augmentation flows for balancing project purposes throughout the basin and to meet downstream minimum flows...." Public comment letter, submitted by Curtis M. Flakes, Chief, Planning and Environmental Division, Inland Environment Team, Mobile District, U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COMPARISON of PRE- and POST- MPOUNDMENT GROUND-WATER LEVELS NEAR the WOODRUFF LOCK and DAM SITE, JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA Phillip N
    COMPARISON OF PRE- AND POST- MPOUNDMENT GROUND-WATER LEVELS NEAR THE WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM SITE, JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA Phillip N. Albertson AUTHOR: Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, 3039 An-miler Road, Suite 130, Peachtree Business Center, Atlanta, GA 30360-2824. REFERENCE: Procet.dings 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. In 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey The effect of filling the reservoir on ground-water (USGS) and the Georgia Department of Natural levels also is indicated by long-term water-level data Resources, Environmental Protection Division, began a from a well near Lake Seminole in Florida. Sporadic, cooperative study to investigate the hydrology and long-term water-level measurements began at this well hydrogeology of the Lake Seminole area, southwestern in 1950 and have continued during filling of the Georgia, and northwestern Florida. Lake Seminole is a reservoir (1954-1957) until 1982. These data indicate 37,500-acre impoundment that was created in 1954 by that the water level in this well has risen more than 10 the construction of the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam feet since the filling of the reservoir. Prior to filling, the just south of the confluence of the Chattahoochee and hydraulic gradient at this location sloped east and Flint Rivers (fig. 1). Recent negotiations between the northeast to the Chattahoochee River. Now it slopes in a States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over water- southerly direction near the western end of Jim allocation rights have brought attention to the need for a Woodruff Lock and Dam and to the Apalachicola River.
    [Show full text]
  • 11-1 335-6-11-.02 Use Classifications. (1) the ALABAMA RIVER BASIN Waterbody from to Classification ALABAMA RIVER MOBILE RIVER C
    335-6-11-.02 Use Classifications. (1) THE ALABAMA RIVER BASIN Waterbody From To Classification ALABAMA RIVER MOBILE RIVER Claiborne Lock and F&W Dam ALABAMA RIVER Claiborne Lock and Alabama and Gulf S/F&W (Claiborne Lake) Dam Coast Railway ALABAMA RIVER Alabama and Gulf River Mile 131 F&W (Claiborne Lake) Coast Railway ALABAMA RIVER River Mile 131 Millers Ferry Lock PWS (Claiborne Lake) and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Millers Ferry Sixmile Creek S/F&W (Dannelly Lake) Lock and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Sixmile Creek Robert F Henry Lock F&W (Dannelly Lake) and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Robert F Henry Lock Pintlala Creek S/F&W (Woodruff Lake) and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Pintlala Creek Its source F&W (Woodruff Lake) Little River ALABAMA RIVER Its source S/F&W Chitterling Creek Within Little River State Forest S/F&W (Little River Lake) Randons Creek Lovetts Creek Its source F&W Bear Creek Randons Creek Its source F&W Limestone Creek ALABAMA RIVER Its source F&W Double Bridges Limestone Creek Its source F&W Creek Hudson Branch Limestone Creek Its source F&W Big Flat Creek ALABAMA RIVER Its source S/F&W 11-1 Waterbody From To Classification Pursley Creek Claiborne Lake Its source F&W Beaver Creek ALABAMA RIVER Extent of reservoir F&W (Claiborne Lake) Beaver Creek Claiborne Lake Its source F&W Cub Creek Beaver Creek Its source F&W Turkey Creek Beaver Creek Its source F&W Rockwest Creek Claiborne Lake Its source F&W Pine Barren Creek Dannelly Lake Its source S/F&W Chilatchee Creek Dannelly Lake Its source S/F&W Bogue Chitto Creek Dannelly Lake Its source F&W Sand Creek Bogue
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 335-6-11 Water Use Classifications for Interstate and Intrastate Waters
    Environmental Management Chapter 335-6-11 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER DIVISION - WATER QUALITY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 335-6-11 WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE WATERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 335-6-11-.01 The Use Classification System 335-6-11-.02 Use Classifications 335-6-11-.01 The Use Classification System. (1) Use classifications utilized by the State of Alabama are as follows: Outstanding Alabama Water ................... OAW Public Water Supply ......................... PWS Swimming and Other Whole Body Shellfish Harvesting ........................ SH Fish and Wildlife ........................... F&W Limited Warmwater Fishery ................... LWF Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply ................................ A&I (2) Use classifications apply water quality criteria adopted for particular uses based on existing utilization, uses reasonably expected in the future, and those uses not now possible because of correctable pollution but which could be made if the effects of pollution were controlled or eliminated. Of necessity, the assignment of use classifications must take into consideration the physical capability of waters to meet certain uses. (3) Those use classifications presently included in the standards are reviewed informally by the Department's staff as the need arises, and the entire standards package, to include the use classifications, receives a formal review at least once every three years. Efforts currently underway through local 201 planning projects will provide additional technical data on certain waterbodies in the State, information on treatment alternatives, and applicability of various management techniques, which, when available, will hopefully lead to new decisions regarding use classifications. Of particular interest are those segments which are currently classified for any usage which has an associated Supp.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program in Georgia
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program in Georgia David Lekson, PWS Kelly Finch, PWS Richard Morgan Savannah District August, 2013 US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG® Topics § Savannah District Regulatory Division § Regulatory Efficiencies § On the Horizon 2 BUILDING STRONG® Introduction § Joined Savannah District in Jan 2013 § 25 years as Branch Chief in the Wilmington District, NC § Certified Professional Wetland Scientist with extensive field and teaching experience across the country § Participated in regional and national initiatives (wetland delineation and assessment, Mitigation/Banking); Served 6- month detail at the Pentagon in 2012 § Evaluated phosphate/sand/rock mining, wind energy, port and military projects, water supply, landfills, utilities, transportation (highway, airport, rail), and other large-scale commercial and residential projects 3 BUILDING STRONG® Georgia § Largest state east of the Mississippi River TN NC § 59,425 Square miles § Abuts 5 states § 5 Ecoregions SC § 159 Counties AL § 70,000 Miles of waterways § 7.7 Million acres of wetlands FL 4 BUILDING STRONG® Savannah Regulatory Organization Lake Lanier Piedmont Branch Mr. Ed Johnson (678) 422-2722 Morrow Coastal Branch Ms. Kelly Finch (912) 652-5503 Savannah Albany § 35 Team members § 3 Field Offices & Savannah § 3 Branches (Piedmont, Coastal, Multipurpose Management) 5 BUILDING STRONG® Regulatory Efficiencies § General Permits ► Re-issuance of existing Regional and Programmatic General Permits ► New RGP37 for Inshore GADNR Artificial Reefs
    [Show full text]
  • Suwannee River State Park
    HISTORY AND NATURE SUWANNEE RIVER The park contains over 1,800 acres of natural STATE PARK Florida with many features such as sinks, streams, 3631 201st Path SUWANNEE RIVER springs, limestone outcroppings and the rivers. Live Oak, FL 32060 STATE PARK The park has an abundance of plant and animal 386-362-2746 species including gopher tortoise, fox, deer, song Where the scenic Withlacoochee birds, wildflowers and diverse native forests. The joins the historic Suwannee protected Gulf Sturgeon and other fishes and reptiles are abundant in the river. PARK GUIDELINES Early use by Native Americans dates back some • Hours are 8 a.m. until sunset, 365 days a year. 12,000 years. While under Spanish control, the • An entrance fee is required. passage of De Soto’s party occurred in 1540. During • All plants, animals and park property are 1818 Andrew Jackson lead American forces through protected. Collection, destruction or disturbance this area searching for Indian strongholds, believed is prohibited. responsible for raiding settlers. • Pets are permitted in designated areas only. Pets Vestiges of history in the park show how important must be kept on a handheld leash no longer the Suwannee River was to Florida history. One can than six feet and well-behaved at all times. find an earthworks mound built during the Civil • Fishing, boating and fires are allowed in War to defend the railroad crossing that supplied designated areas only. A Florida fishing license confederate troops. The Battle of Olustee in may be required. February 1864 turned back Union forces heading west to destroy this bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Streamflow Maps of Georgia's Major Rivers
    GEORGIA STATE DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY GARLAND PEYTON, Director THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Information Circular 21 STREAMFLOW MAPS OF GEORGIA'S MAJOR RIVERS by M. T. Thomson United States Geological Survey Prepared cooperatively by the Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. ATLANTA 1960 STREAMFLOW MAPS OF GEORGIA'S MAJOR RIVERS by M. T. Thomson Maps are commonly used to show the approximate rates of flow at all localities along the river systems. In addition to average flow, this collection of streamflow maps of Georgia's major rivers shows features such as low flows, flood flows, storage requirements, water power, the effects of storage reservoirs and power operations, and some comparisons of streamflows in different parts of the State. Most of the information shown on the streamflow maps was taken from "The Availability and use of Water in Georgia" by M. T. Thomson, S. M. Herrick, Eugene Brown, and others pub­ lished as Bulletin No. 65 in December 1956 by the Georgia Department of Mines, Mining and Geo­ logy. The average flows reported in that publication and sho\vn on these maps were for the years 1937-1955. That publication should be consulted for detailed information. More recent streamflow information may be obtained from the Atlanta District Office of the Surface Water Branch, Water Resources Division, U. S. Geological Survey, 805 Peachtree Street, N.E., Room 609, Atlanta 8, Georgia. In order to show the streamflows and other features clearly, the river locations are distorted slightly, their lengths are not to scale, and some features are shown by block-like patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • July 3-9, 2011
    Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Law Enforcement Section Field Operations Weekly Report July 3-9, 2011 This report is a broad sampling of events that have taken place in the past week, but does not include all actions taken by the Law Enforcement Section. Region I- Calhoun (Northwest) FLOYD COUNTY On Sunday June 26th, Cpl. Shawn Elmore was working along the Etowah River in Rome and overheard radio traffic from Rome PD about a vehicle getting broken into at the Etowah River boat ramp. Cpl. Elmore responded to the boat ramp and assisted Rome PD officer. Cpl. Elmore located one of the suspects hiding in the woods and the other suspect came out of the river. Three juvenile suspects were detained and charged with entering an auto and criminal damage to property by Rome PD. On June 26th, Cpl. Shawn Elmore was at the Heritage Park boat ramp on the Coosa River in Rome when he was approached by a parent of four teenagers that were caught in a storm on the Etowah River. Cpl. Elmore went to get his patrol vessel and while enroute to the Etowah River boat ramp the four teens called the parents and advised they had gotten out of the river safely and were waiting on a ride on Turner Chapel Rd. On the night of June 26th, Cpl. Shawn Elmore received a call from Floyd E911 about 3 adults and a 3 year-old child stranded on the Etowah River. Cpl. Elmore responded to the scene and assisted Rome/Floyd Fire with a search of the river and the four were located and safely returned to their vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:07-Md-00001-PAM-JRK Document 376 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 26
    Case 3:07-md-00001-PAM-JRK Document 376 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation Case No. 3:07-md-01 (PAM/JRK) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In Phase 2 of this Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”), the Court must evaluate the actions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) in light of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and other similar statutes. Phase 1 of the litigation involved challenges to the Corps’s operations at the northernmost dam and reservoir in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (“ACF”) river basin. Phase 2 challenges those operations at the southernmost dam in the system, the Jim Woodruff Dam, which is located on the Apalachicola River at the border of Georgia and Florida. The parties in this Phase are: the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; the Southeastern Federal Power Customers (“SeFPC”); the cities of Apalachicola, Florida, and Atlanta, Columbus, and Gainesville, Georgia; the Georgia counties of Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton; the Atlanta Regional Commission (“ARC”); the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority; the Board of Water Commissioners of Columbus, Georgia, doing business as the Columbus Water Works (“CWW”); the Lake Lanier Association;1 the Alabama Power 1 The Court will refer to Atlanta, Gainesville, Gwinnett County, DeKalb County, Fulton County, the ARC, the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, and the Lake Lanier Association collectively as “the Georgia parties.” The city of Columbus and the CWW Case 3:07-md-00001-PAM-JRK Document 376 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 26 Company (“APC”); the Apalachicola Bay and River Keeper, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Consumption Guidelines: Rivers & Creeks
    FRESHWATER FISH CONSUMPTION GUIDELINES: RIVERS & CREEKS NO RESTRICTIONS ONE MEAL PER WEEK ONE MEAL PER MONTH DO NOT EAT NO DATA Bass, LargemouthBass, Other Bass, Shoal Bass, Spotted Bass, Striped Bass, White Bass, Bluegill Bowfin Buffalo Bullhead Carp Catfish, Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish,Flathead Catfish, White Crappie StripedMullet, Perch, Yellow Chain Pickerel, Redbreast Redhorse Redear Sucker Green Sunfish, Sunfish, Other Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, Alapaha River Alapahoochee River Allatoona Crk. (Cobb Co.) Altamaha River Altamaha River (below US Route 25) Apalachee River Beaver Crk. (Taylor Co.) Brier Crk. (Burke Co.) Canoochee River (Hwy 192 to Lotts Crk.) Canoochee River (Lotts Crk. to Ogeechee River) Casey Canal Chattahoochee River (Helen to Lk. Lanier) (Buford Dam to Morgan Falls Dam) (Morgan Falls Dam to Peachtree Crk.) * (Peachtree Crk. to Pea Crk.) * (Pea Crk. to West Point Lk., below Franklin) * (West Point dam to I-85) (Oliver Dam to Upatoi Crk.) Chattooga River (NE Georgia, Rabun County) Chestatee River (below Tesnatee Riv.) Chickamauga Crk. (West) Cohulla Crk. (Whitfield Co.) Conasauga River (below Stateline) <18" Coosa River <20" 18 –32" (River Mile Zero to Hwy 100, Floyd Co.) ≥20" >32" <18" Coosa River <20" 18 –32" (Hwy 100 to Stateline, Floyd Co.) ≥20" >32" Coosa River (Coosa, Etowah below <20" Thompson-Weinman dam, Oostanaula) ≥20" Coosawattee River (below Carters) Etowah River (Dawson Co.) Etowah River (above Lake Allatoona) Etowah River (below Lake Allatoona dam) Flint River (Spalding/Fayette Cos.) Flint River (Meriwether/Upson/Pike Cos.) Flint River (Taylor Co.) Flint River (Macon/Dooly/Worth/Lee Cos.) <16" Flint River (Dougherty/Baker Mitchell Cos.) 16–30" >30" Gum Crk.
    [Show full text]
  • Okefenokee Swamp Hydrology
    OKEFENOKEE SWAMP HYDROLOGY Cynthia S. Loftin' AUTHOR: 'Graduate Research Assistant-Ph.D. Candidate, USGS-BRD Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0450. REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 1997 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held 20-22 March 1997, at the University of Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher, Editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. The Okefenokee Swamp is one of North topographic relief is minimal The swamp is a bowl-like America's largest freshwater wetlands. Swamp hydrology depression in the landscape with the trend in ground surface is largely controlled by precipitation and elevation from 38.4 m at Kingfisher Landing in the evapotranspiration; regional topographic features of the Northeast to 33.0 m in the area where the Suwannee River swamp control surface water movements. Manipulations to exits the swamp in the West to 34.75 m at Ellicott's Mound the swamp topography and vegetation communities during in the Southeast near the St. Mary's River outflow. Within this century have affected water movement and variability the swamp are regional topographic highs on large sand- in parts of the swamp. Changes in swamp hydrology since based islands and lows in large prairies. The prairies also the construction of the Suwannee River Sill are generally contain local topographic highs on peat-based islands that restricted to the West Central area bounded by the Pocket, may rise a meter above the surrounding inundated peat Billy's Island, Craven's Island, Minnie's Island, and surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick Reference Fact Sheet
    Okefenokee at a Glance The Okefenokee Swamp is located in Ware, Charlton, and Clinch Counties, Georgia and Baker County, Florida. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge was established by Executive Order in 1936. The Okefenokee Swamp covers 438,000 acres. It is 38 miles in length at its longest point by 25 miles in width at its widest point. The swamp is approximately 700 square miles. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is over 402,000 acres. The wilderness area consists of 353,981 acres and was created by the Okefenokee Wilderness Act of 1974 which is part of the Wilderness Preservation System. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is the largest National Wildlife Refuge in the eastern United States. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which is under the Department of the Interior. The Okefenokee Swamp is approximately 7000 years old. It is a vast peat-filled bog inside a huge, saucer-shaped depression that was once part of the ocean floor. The elevation of the swamp varies. There is a 25 foot drop from the northwest side to the southwest side. The range in elevation is from 128 feet above sea level on the northeast side to 103 feet on the southwest side. The vegetative indicator of the natural swamp line is the presence of the saw palmetto. The Suwannee River is the principle outlet of the swamp. The Suwannee flows from the west side of the swamp and empties into the Gulf of Mexico near Cedar Key, Florida. The Suwannee River is 280 miles long. A small area of the southeastern part of the swamp is drained by the St.
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECT TESTIMONY of PHILIP B. BEDIENT, Ph.D., P.E
    No. 142, Original In The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PHILIP B. BEDIENT, Ph.D., P.E. October 26, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 6 ANY CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OR TIMING OF STATE-LINE FLOW MUST BE COORDINATED AND EXECUTED BY THE CORPS ............................................................... 7 I. The Corps Operates the Federal Reservoir Projects in the ACF Basin as a Single, Integrated System to Balance Multiple Project Purposes ................................................... 9 II. The RIOP Controls Basin-Wide Storage and Releases of Water in the Federal Reservoirs ......................................................................................................................... 17 III. The Corps Operates Its Reservoir System as a Single Unit, and Under Low-Flow Conditions Offsets Increased Flint River Flows by Decreasing Chattahoochee River Releases ................................................................................................................... 25 IV. Increases in Basin Inflow Would Not Increase State-Line Flows into Florida During Low-Flow Conditions or Drought Operations...................................................... 26 REDUCTIONS IN GEORGIA’S WATER USE WOULD NOT RESULT IN INCREASED STATE-LINE FLOWS
    [Show full text]