Field Operations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Evaluation of the Surface-Water Data Network
EVALUATION OF THE SURFACE-WATER DATA NETWORK, SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA, 1982 By Roger P. Rumenik and John E. Coffin U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 84-4245 Prepared in cooperation with the SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Tallahassee, Florida 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch Suite 3015 U.S. Geological Survey 227 North Bronough Street Box 25425, Federal Center Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: (303) 236-7476) CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Background 3 Regional setting 3 Regional hydrologic system 4 Goals of the surface-water data network 5 Evaluation of the surface-water data network 10 Discussion of the evaluation 18 Conclusions 20 Selected references 21 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figures 1.-5. Maps showing location of: 1. Area of investigation 2 2. Current-use stations 7 3. Long-term trend stations 8 4. Stations used in planning and design 9 5. Gaging stations in the Suwannee River basin 13 TABLES Page Table 1. Goals of the surface-water data network 6 2. Streamflow gaging stations in the Suwannee River basin 10 III CONVERSION FACTORS For those readers who may prefer to use International System units (SI) rather than inch-pound units published herein, the conversion factors for the terms used in this report are listed below: Multiply inch-pound units BZ To obtain SI units inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) square mile (mi2 ) 2.590 square kilometer (km2 ) cubic foot per second 0.02832 cubic meter per second (ft3 /s) (m3 /s) IV EVALUATION OF THE SURFACE-WATER DATA NETWORK, SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA, 1982 By Roger P. -
Unsuuseuracsbe
StRd Opelika 85 Junction City HARRIS StRte 96 Geneva StRte 90 96 37 s te e 1 ran TALBOT tR t te S tR e y S V w DISTRICT e 96 Fort Valley 2 Montrose k t 1 S P tR te 96 1 S StR (M TWIGGS e t on Rd iami Valley Rd t R Mac ) R 6 t 2 d Reynolds e 9 S Dublin 9 8 StRt StRte 80 96 StRte 96 Smiths 80 8 PEACH LEE 2 lt Butler 9 S 1 A tR 4 319 7 e t t e StRte 112 2 e MACON t Dudley y DISTRICT 2 R Armour Rd w TAYLOR t R (EmRd 200) SH t StRte 278 Bibb U 4 7 S TAYLOR S 16 0 3 City Upatoi Cr 1 129 11 e t R S t t S 109th Congress of the United StatesR StRte 112 t 32nd (EmRd 200) e MUSCOGEE 3 Phenix G St Reese Rd 6 3 o 2 2 8 Edgewood Rd l 1 e City Forest Rd d 1 Rt e t COLUMBUS 127 e S n t StRte R I t Steam Mill Rd s S Wickham Dr l e Columbus Marshallville 341 s StR te H S w te 2 t R tR Dexter Ladonia Merval Rd 1 te S 1 7 te 127 S y V 185 2 t Rt tRt e 247 ic 2nd Armored Division Rd 7 tR e 127 S t (S o ) S t 0 137 Rte 90) S r Wolf Cr t 57 y 4 d S Perry Rte 2 Upatoi Cr 2 R D tR r e e t t i StRte 41 StRte e 9 StRte n 0 R 23 t n S 126 t S o StRte 6 R StRte 117 R 2 t ( (Airp 1 ) e Rentz o Rd Chester 27 Fort Benning Military Res rt 3 StRte 128 Whitson Rd 4 Cochran 3 22 8 te R TAYLOR Ideal t CHATTAHOOCHEE S MARION StRte 117 StR USHwy 441 Fort Benning te 9 S 0 StRte 26 7 South t Rte 19 129 BLECKLEY 5 Cadwell 13 7 2 7 te 1 RUSSELL StRte 2 StRte 49 HOUSTON tR 1 40 P S e Buena Vista er t StR ry tR te 26 Hwy S S StRt Cusseta tR e 2 te Oglethorpe 6 ( oad 9 26 Montezuma Fire R 00) B u r S n t R t StRte 126 6 B 2 te DISTRICT r S e ) 3 g Hawkinsville t t e R StR 9 r 2 9 -
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. -
Alapaha River Mercury TMDL Report
Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Mercury in the Alapaha Watershed, GA February 28, 2002 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) DEVELOPMENT For Total Mercury in the Alapaha Watershed Including Listed Segments of the Alapaha River: Alapaha River: Sand Creek to US Highway 129 Alapaha River: US Highway 129/GA Highway 11 to Stateline Double Run Creek Alapahoochee River Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Mercury in the Alapaha Watershed, GA February 28, 2002 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) Total Mercury in Fish Tissue Residue In the In the Alapaha River Watershed Under the authority of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is hereby establishing a TMDL for total mercury for the protection of public health associated with the consumption of fish taken from the following segments of the Alapaha River in Georgia: Alapaha River: Sand Creek to US Highway 129 Alapaha River: US Highway 129/GA Highway 11 to Stateline Double Run Creek Alapahoochee River The calculated allowable load of mercury that may come into the identified segments of the Alapaha River without exceeding the applicable water quality standard is 2.62 kilograms per year. The applicable water quality standard is the State of Georgia’s numeric interpretation of their narrative water quality standard for protection of human health from toxic substances. This interpretation indicates that the consumption of fish by the general population is not to exceed 0.3 mg/kg mercury in fish tissue. -
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. -
Lake Seminole Hydrilla Action Plan: Development and Implementation
LAKE SEMINOLE HYDRILLA ACTION PLAN: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Michael J. Eubanks' and Donald M. Morgan' AUTHORS: 'U.S. Army Corps of Eneineers, Mobile District, P.O. Box 2288. Mobile, AL 36628-0001; and 2U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Seminole, P.O. Box 96, Chattahoochee, FL 32324. 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. This paper describes an effort by the U.S. a decrease in adjacent property values. Hydrilla, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to manage the current major problem plant, was discovered on the invasive aquatic plant Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla). lake in 1967. Based on a 1997 survey, this non-native This plant causes serious water resource problems such plant dominates the submersed plant community, which as adverse impacts to small boat navigation, water covers approximately 13,400 acres (40% lakewide), of quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-borne the lake. Total aquatic plant coverage on the lake was recreation, and hydropower production. An integrated approximately 55% (with significant arms of the lake management plan, including several traditional under almost 90% coverage). A number of aquatic chemical, biological, and mechanical methods, was plant management techniques have been utilized since developed to address reducing the coverage of hydrilla project construction in 1957, including chemical on the lake and to enhance restoration of mixed native (herbicides), biological, and mechanical. These costly aquatic plant communities. Two of the hydrilla management options have failed to adequately control management tools that are in the process of the growth of hydrilla. -
Alapahoochee River Watershed R Watershed Restoration Action Strategy R November 2007 ( R
( Alapahoochee River Watershed r Watershed Restoration Action Strategy r November 2007 ( r Compiled by: South Georgia Regional Development Center Mission: To improve watershed health and water quality based upon best management practices, by identifying objectives and goals that are feasible, attainable, and beneficial to the stakeholders. THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH A GRANT FROM THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 319 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT. ( Table of Contents for WRAS Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Glossary .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background Information .............................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Purpose of a WRAS ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 EPA's Nine Key Elements ......................................................................................................... -
Stream-Temperature Charcteristics in Georgia
STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 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 . -
Hydro Conditions Report Dec 2020
SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEMORANDUM TO: Governing Board FROM: Darlene Velez, Chief, Office of Water Resources THRU: Tom Mirti, Deputy Executive Director, Water and Land Resources DATE: January 11, 2021 RE: December 2020 Hydrologic Conditions Report RAINFALL • District-wide total rainfall for the month was 2.77” which is 13% lower than the 1932-2019 average of 3.19” (Table 1, Figure 1). The 12-month period ending December 31st reflected a Districtwide rainfall deficit of 2.05”, slightly widening the deficit of 1.57” at the end of November. Central District counties (Taylor and Lafayette) received the most amount of rain this month while the southern part of the District received the least, less than 1.5 inches in Levy and Alachua (Figure 2). • The 12-month rainfall deficits continued in the Santa Fe, Suwannee, and Waccasassa river basins (Figure 3). Both the Aucilla and Coastal river basin surpluses decreased from November. The Santa Fe, Suwannee and Waccasassa river basins stayed in a 3-month deficit from November to December (Figure 4). The Aucilla and Coastal river basins both entered deficits, from previous surpluses in November. SURFACEWATER • Rivers: Most rivers flows were in the normal range (25 – 75th percentiles) during the month of December (Figure 5). In the coastal area, the Fenholloway River stayed above the 75th percentile but the Econfina moved below the 75th percentile. The Little River and the Withlacoochee River at Quitman rose above the 75th percentile after beginning the month in the normal range (Figure 6). • Lakes: Water levels did not dramatically change at any lakes from November to December (Figure 7). -
Simulated Effects of Impoundment of Lake Seminole on Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Southwestern Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Alabama and Florida
Simulated Effects of Impoundment of Lake Seminole on Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Southwestern Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Alabama and Florida Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5077 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Northern view of Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam from the west bank of the Apalachicola River. Photo by Dianna M. Crilley, U.S. Geological Survey. A. Map showing simulated flow net of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin under hypothetical preimpoundment Lake Seminole conditions. B. Map showing simulated flow net of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin under postimpoundment Lake Seminole conditions. Simulated Effects of Impoundment of Lake Seminole on Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Southwestern Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Alabama and Florida By L. Elliott Jones and Lynn J. Torak Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey Atlanta, Georgia Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5077 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 This report is available on the World Wide Web at http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pubs/ For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. -
Suwannee River Study Report, Florida & Georgia
A Wild and scenic River Study AS THE NATIONS PRINCIPAL CONSERVATION AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAS BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER, FISH, WILDLIFE, MINERAL, LANO, PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES. INOIAN ANO TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS ARE OTHER MAJOR CONCERNS OF AMERICA'S "DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES'.' THE DEPARTMENT WORKS TO ASSURE THE WISEST CHOICE IN MANAGING ALL OUR RE SOURc.ES SO EACH WILL MAKE ITS FULL CONTRIBUTION TO A BETTER UNITED STATES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Rogers C. 8. Morton, Secretory BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION Jatl'IU $.Watt, otfectot SUWANNEE RIVER Florida • G.eorgia A National Wild and Scenic River Study December 1973 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page_ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Finding .. ,. i Reco111Tiendation i SUMMARY Introduction .•....•.. i i The River .........••. ii Classification ..•... v Protection of Natural Resources •.•.•...•• vi State, Local, and Private Recreation Development viii Management Alternatives . viii Providing Public Use . ••• ix Land Acquisition .... ix Recreation Facilities .• xi The Withlacoochee Segment xi Economic Impact .•.... xii I. INTRODUCTION Wild and Scenic River Studies 2 Background . 3 II. THE RIVER SETTING Location. • . I • I 5 The Resource . I . 5 1 Climate . I . I . 17 Water Resource Development . 17 Cultural Hi story I . I . 20 Economy . • . 21 Population . 22 Landownership • . 23 River Ownership . I . 24 Land Use and Environmental Intrusions I . 24 Recreation . I . • . I . I . • . 29 Nearby Recreation Opportunities . I 36 Significant Features . I . • . I 36 III. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION Appraisal . • • . 39 Classification . 40 Discussion of Classification . • • . • . 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Land Requirements .••.• . 47 Fee Acquisition •• 49 Scenic Corridor . .. • 49 Acquisition Criteria . -
August 23, 2005
October 18, 2005 Nikki L. Tinsley, Inspector General U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (2410T) Washington, DC 20460 Dear Inspector General Tinsley: We are writing to you on behalf of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in connection with actions taken (and not taken) by the EPA’s Region IV, Criminal Investigation Division (EPA-CID), in response to numerous complaints received by residents who live in Echols and Lowndes Counties in south-central Georgia. The complaints concern enforcement of the Clean Water Act and, more specifically, the NPDES Program which is a part thereof. The RCRA program is also implicated in this matter. Both of these programs have been delegated by the EPA to the State of Georgia for administration. As you may be aware, there have been significant, protracted discussions, as well as litigation on the issue of the management of surface and ground waters flowing into the State of Florida from our neighbors to the north. These discussions have been undertaken at the highest levels of the state governments of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Concerns repeatedly arise over the discharge of pollutants into waterways that cross all three states. This pollution can impact not only wildlife and vegetation, but also the region’s drinking water supply to the extent that it is allowed to impact the Floridan Aquifer. The purpose of this correspondence is to alert you to complaints received by the EPA from citizens regarding another source of pollution coming from southern Georgia. This pollution is generated by an agricultural concern known as the Coggins Farm Supply operating out of Lake Park, Georgia near Valdosta.