DOCSLIB.ORG

STORAGE ANALYSIS for the ACF, ACT and SAVANNAH RIVER BASINS George Mcmahon' and Pat Stevens'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STORAGE ANALYSIS for the ACF, ACT and SAVANNAH RIVER BASINS George Mcmahon' and Pat Stevens' STORAGE ANALYSIS FOR THE ACF, ACT AND SAVANNAH RIVER BASINS George McMahon' and Pat Stevens' AUTHOR: 1 Principle Environmental Engineer, Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30328; 2 Chief, Environmental Planning Division, Atlanta Regional Commission, 3715 Northside Parkway, 200 Northcreek, Suite 300, Atlanta, Georgia 30327 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 11 and 12, 1995 at the University of Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher, Editor, Vinson Institute of Government, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. The HEC-5 model is used to: 1) evaluate in Lake Lanier from hydropower use to water supply use. operational approaches for reservoirs in the ACF, ACT, and The Corps also proposed a minor reallocation of Lake Savannah River systems; and 2) determine the impacts of Allatoona to meet a portion of the Region's future needs. future Atlanta area water withdrawals and increased In June of 1990, the State of Alabama, later joined by the minimum flows at Columbus, Georgia. A Dependable State of Florida, sued the Corps for inadequate consideration Capacity Operation approach is recommended. This of downstream impacts. In order to address concerns approach maximizes economic benefits of hydropower and precipitating the Alabama lawsuit , the Corps and the states allows other water demands to be met through and beyond of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida entered into a the year 2010. Memorandum of Agreement to perform a comprehensive study of all major water-management objectives in the ACF PURPOSE and ACF Basins. The study is designed to determine the capabilities of the basin's water resources. It will describe This study was performed by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc demands, water availability, evaluate alternatives and (CDM) and coordinated by the Atlanta Regional recommend a coordination mechanism for basinwide Commission(ARC) for DelCalb, Fulton and Gwinnett management and dispute resolution. Initial results are Counties, the Cobb-Marietta Water Authority, the City of scheduled for Fall, 1995. Atlanta, the Columbus Water Works, and the Georgia Power Water managers in the Atlanta Region wanted to conduct Company. The purposes of the study were: 1) To evaluate, a surface water model project to better understand the water compare and suggest specific approaches to operating resources system and the conjunctive uses of reservoir federal reservoirs in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint storage. The Columbus Water Works joined the project to (ACF), the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT), and explore the feasibility of maintaining higher flows at Savannah River Basins for a variety of conjunctive uses Columbus for water quality and navigation. including hydropower, municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, minimum flows for river water supply, water quality and navigation, and reservoir recreation; and 2) To STUDY AREA determine the impacts of increased 2010 Atlanta area water withdrawals and increased minimum flows at Columbus for Three river/reservoir systems were included in this effort: water quality and navigation under drought conditions, in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF) comparison to present (1990) water demands in the ACF which stretches from the north Georgia mountains to the and ACT Basins. Gulf of Mexico; the Alabama-Coosa-Talapoosa River Basin (ACT) which extends from the north Georgia mountains to Mobile Bay in Alabama; and the Savannah River Basin BACKGROUND from north Georgia and North Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean. The surface water model simulates operations for Lakes Lanier and Allatoona, which currently provide most multiple uses in the ACF and ACT Basins. The Savannah of the Metropolitan Atlanta Area's water supply, were River Basin Reservoirs were included only for the purpose of planned, designed, and constructed during the late 1940's simulating their contribution to the hydropower system. and early 1950's. These projects were built for flood control, Hydropower energy and capacity from 10 federal hydropower, and in the case of Lanier, for navigation and reservoirs in these basins are marketed as part of a federal water supply/quality flows for Atlanta. In recent decades hydropower system known as the Georgia-Alabama-South recreation has assumed much greater importance. Carolina system. The projects which make up this system In 1989, after 16 years, the U.S. Corps of Engineers are U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects and include: recommended that the best alternative to provide water Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond Dams on the Savannah supply for the Atlanta Region and Lake Lanier communities River, Buford, West Point, and Walter F. George on the was to "reallocate" or change a portion of the water storage Chattahoochee River, Allatoona Dam on the Etowah River, 294 Carters Dam on the Coosawattee River and Jones Bluff and 107% to 131% of the rated capacity of the projects for 4 Millers Ferry Dams on the Alabama River. hours per weekday on an average annual basis. A federal agency, the Southeastern Power Administration, markets the power from this system and therefore the 10 3. Corps Water Control Plans. This approach dam system is commonly referred to as the SEPA system. associates releases with pool levels and not actual demands. Although the Jim Woodruff project in the ACF Basin is In 1989 the Corps of Engineers developed a water control included in the model, the hydropower energy and capacity plan for the ACF Basin. In 1993 a Water Control Plan was results were not included in summaries because its power is developed for the ACT Basin. Theses plans define "action not marketed as part of the 10 dam system. Also included in zones" for each of the major storage projects in the basins. the study were 12 non-federal hydropower reservoirs owned These zones are used to determine minimum hydropower by the Georgia Power Company and the Alabama Power generation at each project, as well as the maximum possible Company (APCO) and two nonpower reservoirs. Non- assistance for navigation from conservation storage. The federal reservoirs on the Talapoosa and Flint were not Corps water management strategy is to balance operation included. among purposes and projects. Releases from projects will be balanced as near as possible so that the reservoir pools in the same basins will be in the same zones at the same time. The OPERATIONAL APPROACHES ANALYZED number of hours use associated with the Water Control Plans varies by zone. In the ACF, Zones 1 & 2 varies from 4 to 3 The study looked at three different operational approaches hours use and Zones 3 & 4 vary from 3 to 2 hours use. In for providing hydropower capacity and energy in the ACT, Zone 1 is 4 hours and Zone 2 is 2 hours use. conjunction with other nonpower demands. The three approaches analyzed include: 1. Dependable Capacity Operation. This approach is a METHODOLOGY conservation based approach. Its intent is to conserve storage and minimize releases in manner so that the The HEC - 5 Model. essential uses of all users can be met. Hydropower releases are conjunctive with most other uses and determined by the This study used the Corps of Engineers' computer program, firm energy available to support dependable capacity of the HEC-5 Simulation of Flood Control and Conservation system. This is the capacity that is dependable to displace Systems which is referred to as HEC-5. HEC-5 is used to thermal generating capacity. If hydro-capacity is not account for surface water at various locations in a river dependable and power users must purchase power from basin, over a given period of time. The program was existing thermal sources during drought, then the developed by the Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic hydropower allocation really wasn't essential and could be Engineering Center (HEC) to assist in allocating flood put to other water dependent uses. control and conservation storage in a reservoir system. It This approach operates the river/reservoir system to imitates (simulates) the operation of a system of reservoirs in produce the amount of peaking hydropower that is a river basin and is therefore called a simulation model. The dependable during the critical period of drought. A worst program can therefore be used to determine the impact of case planning level approach is used which assumes that alternative ways in which a system of reservoirs are only the generating capacity of the hydro system that can be operated. made simultaneously available to displace thermal capacity The main demands for water storage from a reservoir that in the load can be considered dependable. The average can be simulated by the HEC-5 program include: hours of use of the system is the number of hours per • Municipal and industrial water supply from reservoirs and weekday averaged over a year that the full system's capacity downstream; can actually be made available during the critical drought. • Hydroelectric power generated at the dam; Two and one half (2 1/2) average hours use was used as • Control of downstream flooding; the basis for the dependable capacity alternative approach. • Assurance of minimum flows to assimilate wastewater discharges 2. SEPA System Contract Minimum Energy. The • Adequate river levels to assure navigation approach maximizes energy generation rather than capacity. The HEC-5 model consists of two basic components: This approach operates the system for 4 hours average use reservoirs and control points. These components are per weekday on an average annual basis. This was chosen connected by river channels. Figure 1 includes the federal because It more closely -reflects SEPA's monthly contract and non-federal reservoirs and control points included in the minimum energy commitments which are based on the HEC -5 model for this study. combined output of all system projects operating from 295 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS CCIAWA, ACP I Ceder/ale Crionettfihdonl IUD Table 1: Municipal and Industrial Withdrawals and Carlerefilan ■ /D W/0 Wier Hartwell Ceingell/Pultgo Mon Returns ef Mom /brume Falb COM Relum---- 1990 2010 ACF Withd.
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]
  • 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]
  • Plan for Coosawattee River HUC 10# 0315010204
    Plan for Coosawattee River HUC 10# 0315010204 STATE OF GEORGIA TIER 2 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION 1 Segment Name Coosawattee River Coosa River Basin April 28, 2006 Local Watershed Governments Gilmer County and Cities of Ellijay and East Ellijay I. INTRODUCTION Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plans are platforms for evaluating and tracking water quality protection and restoration. These plans have been designed to accommodate continual updates and revisions as new conditions and information warrant. In addition, field verification of watershed characteristics and listing data has been built into the preparation of the plans. The overall goal of the plans is to define a set of actions that will help achieve water quality standards in the state of Georgia. This implementation plan addresses the general characterist ics of the watershed, the sources of pollution, stakeholder s and public involvement, and education/o utreach activities. In addition, the plan describes regulatory and voluntary practices/control actions (management measures) to reduce pollutants, milestone schedules to show the development of the managemen t measures (measurable milestones), and a monitoring plan to determine the efficiency of the management measures. Table 1. IMPAIRMENTS IMPAIRED STREAM SEGMENT IMPAIRED SEGMENT LOCATION IMPAIRMENT TMDL ID Confluence with Ellijay River to Mountaintown CSA0000011 Coosawattee River Fecal Coliform Bacteria Creek 06022812.004 CEDS TMDL 1 Plan for Coosawattee River HUC 10# 0315010204 II. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE WATERSHED Write a narrative describing the watershed, HUC 10# 0315010204. Include an updated overview of watershed characteristics. Identify new conditions and verify or correct information in the TMDL document using the most current data.
    [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]
  • Riverview Farms
    Georgia’s 2018 CLEAN WATER HEROES Riverview Farms COOSAWATTEE RIVER Organic Family Farm Leaves Clean Water Legacy INTRODUCTION: On the Coosawattee River in north Georgia, it’s not uncommon to see livestock crowded along the banks drinking from (and defecating in) the river. For river users looking for a cool, refreshing swim in those same waters, the question often arises; “Isn’t there a law against that?” The answer is “No.” When it comes to Georgia lawmakers, agriculture is, pardon the pun, a sacred cow, COOSAWATTEE exempt from many fundamental clean water regulations. But at least for one RIVER mile along the Coosawattee in rural Gordon County, you’ll never see a cow in the river. That’s because the Swancy family at Riverview Farms, one of the state’s largest certified organic farms, serve as stewards of the river by observing state buffer laws (from which farmers are exempt), and excluding livestock from water bodies on the farm. As proprietor Charlotte Swancy said: “We don’t want our animals in the water. That just doesn’t seem right. People drink that water.” THE WATER BODY: The Coosawattee River does, in fact, serve as the drinking water source for Gordon County and Calhoun just downstream from Riverview Farms. Formed by the gathering of the Ellijay and Cartecay rivers near Ellijay, the Coosawattee flows out of the north Georgia mountains and some 50 miles to join the Conasauga River near Calhoun and form the Oostanaula. Along the way, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates Carters Lake and Dam, which at 445 feet in height, is considered the tallest earthen dam east of the Mississippi River.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • River Basin Profiles
    APPENDIX A River Basin Profiles The River Basin Profiles (RBPs) are intended to provide watershed-based information and perspectives on potential management issues within each of the Metro Water District’s HUC-8 watersheds. Each profile contains information regarding physical and natural features, land use, population, impaired waterbodies, management issues, and strategies to address those issues. While the strategies contained within the RBP are not required for implementation, they serve as a guide for the types of actions that can be used to address water management issues, primarily within the realm of nonpoint source management. Action Item WATERSHED-8 requires that local governments carry out Watershed Improvement Projects and many jurisdictions develop watershed improvement plans to help direct where and what kinds of projects they carry out. Jurisdictions should look to the RBPs as a starting point for local watershed planning. Additionally, jurisdictions can use the information in the RBP as a foundation for 9-Element Watershed Plans, which are required for a Section 319(h) Implementation Grant. In addition to being a foundational source of information for localized planning, RBPs also provide a high- level perspective of each basin. This high-level perspective further reinforces the interconnectedness of the various water sectors (supply, waste, storm, etc.) and brings in additional elements such as land use. The RBPs do not get into specific details on each subwatershed, allowing for a high-level integration to guide local
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Valley and Ridge Province
    UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 25 Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper, No. 4 MISSISSIPPI PERIOD ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE GEORGIA VALLEY AND RIDGE PROVINCE By David J. Hally Department of Anthropology University of Georgia and James B. Langford, Jr. The Coosawattee Foundation 1988 Reprinted, 1995 For John Wear, energetic pioneer in the archaeology of northwest Georgia TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGJRFS. • • . • . • . • • • • • . • . • • • • . • • . • . • . • . • . • . • • . • . • vi TABLES. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• vii .ACID\1~~ • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • viii INTRODUcrION ••••••••••• 1 THE VALLEY MlD RIDGE PROVINCE 2 PREVIOUS ARCHAEDLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE VALLEY AND RIDGE PROVINCE •••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 13 PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW ••••••••••• 22 EARLY MISSISSIPPI PERIOD {A.D. 900-1200) •••••••• 41 MIDDLE tlISSISSIPPI PERIOD {A.D. 1200-1350) •••••••••• 55 LATE MISSISSIPPI PERIOD (A.D. 1350-1540) •••••••••••• 67 HESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 82 THE CULTURAL RESOURCES 82 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN VALLEY AND RIJ::x:;E PROVINCE I~SSISSIPPIAN ARCHAIDLOGY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 86 RESOURCE SIGf.\!IFICANCE 92 PRESERVING ARCHAIDLOGICAL RESOURCES 93 APPENDIX: PUBLISHED SOURCES FOR TYPE DESCRIPTIONS 98 REV"I:E'VV C~S AND REPLy........................................ 99 REFERENCES CITED ••............•..•.•.....•••.•.....•..•......... 109 v I I 1 FIGURES I I 1. Physiographic provinces of Georgia 3 2. The Georgia Valley and Ridge Province 4 I 3. Physiographic divisions of the Valley and Ridge Province 5 1 4. Distribution of chert resources in the Valley and Ridge Province 7 5. River systems in the Valley and Ridge Province 8 6. Distribution of floodplain soils along major rivers in the Valley and Ridge Province 11 7. Complicated stamped motifs referred to in the text 30 8. Radiocarbon dates for Mississippian sites in the Georgia Valley and Ridge Provi nce and surrounding areas, uncorrected 37 9.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER QUALITY in GEORGIA 2016-2017 (2018 Integrated 305B/303D Report)
    WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2016-2017 (2018 Integrated 305b/303d Report) WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2016-2017 (2018 Integrated 305b/303d Report) Preface This report was prepared by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Department of Natural Resources, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500 (the Clean Water Act) and as a public information document. It represents a synoptic extraction of the EPD files and, in certain cases, information has been presented in summary form from those files. The reader is therefore advised to use this condensed information with the knowledge that it is a summary document and more detailed information may be available in EPD files. This report covers a two-year period, January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017. Comments or questions related to the content of this report are invited and should be addressed to: Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE Suite 1162 East Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334 WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA This page is intentionally blank. WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA CHAPTER 1 Watershed Protection in Georgia The GAEPD is a comprehensive environmental agency Executive Summary responsible for environmental protection, management, regulation, permitting, and Purpose This report, Water Quality in Georgia, enforcement in Georgia. The GAEPD has for 2016-20172016-2017, was prepared by the many years aggressively sought most available Georgia Environmental Protection Division program delegations from the USEPA in order to (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources achieve and maintain a coordinated, integrated (DNR).
    [Show full text]