DOCSLIB.ORG

Historic Flooding in Georgia, 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation Preconstruction Division Office of Bridge Design Historic Flooding in Georgia, 2009 OOpen-File Report 2010–12300 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Powder Springs Creek at Powder Springs, Cobb County, Georgia, September 21, 2009. Photo by Brian E. McCallum, USGS. Historic Flooding in Georgia, 2009 By Anthony J. Gotvald Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation Preconstruction Division Office of Bridge Design Open-File Report 2010–1230 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Gotvald, A.J., 2010, Historic flooding in Georgia, 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1230, 19 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................3 Description of Storms Associated with the Floods ..................................................................................3 Description of the Floods ..............................................................................................................................5 Flood Stages and Streamflows ..........................................................................................................6 Annual Exceedance Probabilities ......................................................................................................7 Summary........................................................................................................................................................10 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................10 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................10 Figures 1–3. Maps showing— 1. A total of 69 Georgia counties that were declared disaster areas because of flooding in 2009 .............................................................................2 2. Daily rainfall totals in Georgia during March 27–29 and April 1–3, 2009 .............3 3. Daily rainfall totals in Georgia from September 16 through 22, 2009 ....................4 4. Photograph showing U.S. Geological Survey hydrographers measuring the Sweetwater Creek flow over Interstate 20 near Atlanta, Georgia, September 2009 .......................................................................................5 5–6. Maps showing— 5. Location of the 238 U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in Georgia that record peak flow, 2009. .........................................................................................6 6. Annual exceedance probabilities of the 238 U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in Georgia that record peak flow, 2009 ..............................................8 Tables 1. T-year recurrence intervals with corresponding percent annual exceedance probabilities for flood-frequency flow estimates ..........................................1 2. Peak stages and flows at streamgages in Georgia with a peak flow that exceeded the 10–percent annual exceedance probability, 2009 ............................12 iv Conversion Factors and Datums Multiply By To obtain Length inch 2.54 centimeter (cm) inch 25.4 millimeter (mm) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha) square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) Volume cubic foot (ft3) 28.32 cubic decimeter (dm3) cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) Flow rate cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C = ( °F – 32 ) / 1.8 Vertical coordinate information is referenced North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. Historic Flooding in Georgia, 2009 By Anthony J. Gotvald Abstract In past flood reports, flood frequencies were expressed as recurrence intervals for selected flood quantiles, such as the “100-year flood.” The use of recurrence-interval terminology Heavy rains in southern Georgia during March 27– is now discouraged by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) April 3, 2009, and in northern Georgia during because it sometimes causes confusion for the general public. September 16–22, 2009, caused severe flooding and The term is sometimes interpreted to imply that there is a set widespread damages to residential, public, and commercial time interval between floods of a particular magnitude when, structures. Of the 159 counties in Georgia, 69 were declared in fact, floods are random processes that are best understood disaster areas because of flooding. The heavy rainfall by using probabilistic terms. While a flood identified by a in southern Georgia resulted in severe flooding in the specific recurrence interval (T-year) is statistically expected Satilla–St. Marys and upper Ochlockonee Basins and to occur, on average, once during the specified period, it may caused approximately $60 million in damages to the public actually occur multiple times during the period or not at all. infrastructure. The heavy rainfall in northern Georgia The terminology associated with flood-frequency resulted in severe flooding on many streams within the estimates is undergoing a shift away from the T-year recurrence upper Chattahoochee, Altamaha, and Coosa–Tallapoosa interval to the annual exceedance probability (AEP) as a Basins and caused 10 deaths, evacuation of thousands of percentage (P-percent). The use of AEP is now recommended residents, and approximately $500 million in damages. because it conveys the probability, or odds, of a flood of a The U.S. Geological Survey computed annual given magnitude being equaled or exceeded in any given year. exceedance probabilities of the peak flows in 2009 at For example, a 1-percent AEP flood (formerly known as the 238 streamgages throughout the State. Record peak flows “100-year flood”) corresponds to the flow magnitude that were recorded at 40 streamgages for the respective periods has a probability of 0.01 of being equaled or exceeded in any of record as a result of the heavy rainfall during the two given year. The percent, P, is computed as the inverse of the multiday events. The peak flows at 33 streamgages T-year recurrence interval multiplied by 100. T-year recurrence exceeded the 1-percent annual exceedance probability intervals with corresponding AEPs are shown in table 1. (100-year recurrence interval), and 19 of these exceeded the 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability (500-year recurrence interval). Table 1. T-year recurrence intervals with corresponding percent annual exceedance probabilities for flood-frequency flow estimates. T-year P-percent annual Introduction recurrence interval exceedance probability Flood data are needed by Federal, State, and local 2 50 agencies to make informed decisions in meeting mission 5 20 requirements related to flood-hazard mitigation, planning, 10 10 and response. For example, the Federal Emergency 25 4 Management Agency (FEMA) needs timely information 50 2 on the magnitude and probability of floods to help respond to flood damage, direct emergency response management, 100 1 protect infrastructure, provide recovery guidance, and plan 200 0.5 for future flood events. 500 0.2 2 Historic Flooding in Georgia, 2009 Rainfall in southern Georgia during March 27–April 3, infrastructure damage occurred to roads, culverts, bridges, and 2009, resulted in floods that exceeded the 1-percent AEP a water-treatment facility (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). at six USGS streamgages, one of which exceeded the Prolonged rainfall in northern Georgia from September 0.2-percent AEP. Because of the magnitude of and damages 16 to September 22, 2009, resulted in floods that exceeded from this flood, a Presidential Disaster Declaration, the 0.2-percent AEP at 18 streamgages. More than 20 inches FEMA–1833–DR (Federal Emergency Management Agency, of rain fell in parts of northern Georgia during this period. A 2009a), was declared for 46 counties (fig. 1) on April 23, 2009. Presidential Disaster
Recommended publications
  • Stream-Temperature Characteristics in Georgia

    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.
  • Leading Manufacturers of the Deep South and Their Mill Towns During the Civil War Era

    Leading Manufacturers of the Deep South and Their Mill Towns During the Civil War Era

    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2020 Dreams of Industrial Utopias: Leading Manufacturers of the Deep South and their Mill Towns during the Civil War Era Francis Michael Curran West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Curran, Francis Michael, "Dreams of Industrial Utopias: Leading Manufacturers of the Deep South and their Mill Towns during the Civil War Era" (2020). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 7552. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7552 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dreams of Industrial Utopias: Leading Manufacturers of the Deep South and their Mill Towns during the Civil War Era Francis M. Curran Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Jason Phillips, Ph.D., Chair Brian Luskey, Ph.D.
  • Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

    Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

    VOLUME 1 OF 4 Cobb County COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACWORTH, CITY OF 130053 AUSTELL, CITY OF 130054 COBB COUNTY 130052 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) KENNESAW, CITY OF 130055 MARIETTA, CITY OF 130226 POWDER SPRINGS, CITY OF 130056 SMYRNA, CITY OF 130057 REVISED: MARCH 4, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 13067CV001D NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: August 18, 1992 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: December 16, 2008 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: March 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 3 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 10 2.3 Principal Flood Problems
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin

    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
  • Ochlockonee River & Bay SWIM Plan

    Ochlockonee River & Bay SWIM Plan

    Draft Ochlockonee River and Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan July 2017 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD George Roberts Jerry Pate John Alter Chair, Panama City Vice Chair, Pensacola Secretary-Treasurer, Malone Gus Andrews Jon Costello Marc Dunbar DeFuniak Springs Tallahassee Tallahassee Ted Everett Nick Patronis Bo Spring Chipley Panama City Beach Port St. Joe Brett J. Cyphers Executive Director Headquarters 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 (850) 539-5999 Crestview Econfina Milton Tallahassee 180 E. Redstone Avenue 6418 E. Highway 20 5453 Davisson Road Carr Building, Suite 225 Crestview, Florida 32539 Youngstown, FL 32466 Milton, FL 32583 3800 Commonwealth Blvd. (850) 683-5044 (850) 722-9919 Tel. (850) 626-3101 Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 921-2986 Ochlockonee River and Bay SWIM Plan Northwest Florida Water Management District July 7, 2017 DRAFT This document was developed in support of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program with funding assistance from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund. ii Ochlockonee River and Bay SWIM Plan Northwest Florida Water Management District July 7, 2017 DRAFT Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SWIM Program Background, Goals, and Objectives ............................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................
  • STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED by SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY By

    STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED by SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY By

    STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED BY SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY by JOHN DAVID HOOK (Under the Direction of Nathan P. Nibbelink and Douglas L. Peterson) ABSTRACT The assessment and monitoring of freshwater habitats is essential to the successful management of imperiled fishes. Recent introduction of recreational multi-beam and side-scan sonar equipment allows rapid, low cost acquisition of bathymetric data and substrate imagery in navigable waters. However, utilization of this data is hindered by a lack of established protocols for processing and classification. I surveyed 298 km of the Ogeechee River, Georgia using low-cost recreational-grade side-scan and bathymetric sonar. I assessed classification accuracy of three approaches to working with recreational- grade sonar and quantified potential spawning grounds for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). I demonstrate that ecologically relevant habitat variables can be derived from low-cost sonar imagery at low levels of processing effort. INDEX WORDS: Side-scan sonar, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), habitat, classification accuracy STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED BY SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY by JOHN DAVID HOOK B.S., Cleveland State University, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2011 © 2011 John David Hook All Rights Reserved STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED BY SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY By JOHN DAVID HOOK Major Professors: Nathan Nibbelink Douglas Peterson Committee: Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman Thomas Jordan Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 201 iv DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this to my parents, John and Joyce, whose continued support, encouragement, and enthusiasm have made all my endeavors possible, and to Emily, whose love and patience seem to know no bounds.
  • Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States

    Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States

    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Geosciences Theses Department of Geosciences 4-20-2009 Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States Usha Kharel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/geosciences_theses Part of the Geography Commons, and the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Kharel, Usha, "Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2009. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/geosciences_theses/15 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Geosciences at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Geosciences Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANALYSIS OF STREAM RUNOFF TRENDS IN THE BLUE RIDGE AND PIEDMONT OF SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES by USHA KHAREL Under the Direction of Seth Rose ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to examine the temporal trends of three monthly variables: stream runoff, rainfall and air temperature and to find out if any correlation exists between rainfall and stream runoff in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces of the southeast United States. Trend significance was determined using the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test on a monthly and annual basis. GIS analysis was used to find and integrate the urban and non-urban stream gauging, rainfall and temperature stations in the study area. The Mann-Kendall test showed a statistically insignificant temporal trend for all three variables. The correlation of 0.4 was observed for runoff and rainfall, which showed that these two parameters are moderately correlated.
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards

    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.
  • Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters 2017

    Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters 2017

    Guidelines For Eating Fish From Georgia Waters 2017 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9000 i ii For more information on fish consumption in Georgia, contact the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1152 Atlanta, GA 30334-9000 (404) 463-1511 Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, S.E. Social Circle, GA 30025 (770) 918-6406 Coastal Resources Division One Conservation Way Brunswick, Ga. 31520 (912) 264-7218 Check the DNR Web Site at: http://www.gadnr.org For this booklet: Go to Environmental Protection Division at www.gaepd.org, choose publications, then fish consumption guidelines. For the current Georgia 2015 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations, Click on Wild- life Resources Division. Click on Fishing. Choose Fishing Regulations. Or, go to http://www.gofishgeorgia.com For more information on Coastal Fisheries and 2015 Regulations, Click on Coastal Resources Division, or go to http://CoastalGaDNR.org For information on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) source reduction, reuse options, proper disposal or recycling, go to Georgia Department of Community Affairs at http://www.dca.state.ga.us. Call the DNR Toll Free Tip Line at 1-800-241-4113 to report fish kills, spills, sewer over- flows, dumping or poaching (24 hours a day, seven days a week). Also, report Poaching, via e-mail using [email protected] Check USEPA and USFDA for Federal Guidance on Fish Consumption USEPA: http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice USFDA: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood.1html Image Credits:Covers: Duane Raver Art Collection, courtesy of the U.S.
  • Evaluation of the Surface-Water Data Network

    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.
  • Streamflow Maps of Georgia's Major Rivers

    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

    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.