EPA 904/9-77-006
PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
EVANS, TATTNALL, AND CANDLER COUNTIES
GEORGIA
^eo sx
ฃ fl \
N PR0^0
-------
PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CKIEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
EVANS, TATTNALL, AND CANDLER COUNTIES, GEORGIA
BY
HUGH C. VICK
DAVID W. HILL
HOWARD A. TRUE
RUFUS J. BRUNER, III
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Surveillance end Analysis Division
Athens, Georgia
March 1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION .... 1
SUMMARY 3
GENERAL ............. 3
STUDY FINDINGS . . . .... 3
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS .... 6
CONCLUSIONS 7
RECOMMENDATIONS 8
STUDY METHODS. . . . . . . . . ... ... 9
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 17
STUDY FINDINGS 20
RANGES AND STATION MEANS . . . . . . . . ... . . . 20
20
General
20
Physical Parameters .
22
Chemical Parameters
24
Bacteriological Parameters
25
TRENDS
LONG TERM BOD 28
ANIMAL POPULATION-DISTRIBUTION . . 29
TIME-OF-TRAVEL STUDIES . . . 29
DIURNAL STUDIES 34
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL NON-POINT SOURCE RUNOFF LOADS FROM
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE AREAS ^
HYDROCOMP WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS 37
37
General
ฆ*7
Temperature , . .
37
Dissolved Oxygen .
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
fecal Coliform
Five-Pay Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOPg)
Nltroggn and Phoqphor^s Socles . . ,
Total Dissolved Solids (TPS)
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS . . . , . .
REFERENCES.
APPENDICES. .
A - Cooperative Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Soil Conservation Service . . . . . .
B - Uater Quality Data-Preimpoundment Study-Cedar Creek Drainage
Basin
C - A Gross Assessment of Cedar Creek, Georgia, Watershed Rural
Runoff Annually* Wet Season, and Under Selected Storm Conditions.
D - Sampling Station Locations
E - Study Area Map *
F - Project Personnel and Special Acknowledgements
Page No.
38
38
39
39
41
51
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
1. Sampling Schedule 10
2. List of Analyses by Location 11
3. Identification Scheme for Salmonella Suspects 13
4. Comparison of Ranges 21
5. Comparison of High Values and Trends 26
6. Livestock Population-Distribution 31
7. Time of Travel Data . 32
8. Comparison of the Combined E-5, E-6 Sub-basins With Station
E-l (Entire Basin) 42
9. Comparison of the E-9 Sub-basin With Station E-l (Entire Basin). . 43
10. Comparison of the E-5, E-6 Sub-basins With the E-9 Sub-basin. . . 44
11. Comparison of the E-6 and E-5 Sub-basins 45
12. Comparison of Fecal Coliform (F.C.) Loadings 46
13. Lbs/day Comparison of the E-5 and E-6 Sub-basins 49
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Annual Precipitation and Hydrographs 15
2. Comparison of Precipitation Incidence and Hydrograph Response
Time 19
3. Time of Travel - May 13-17, 1974 33
4. Long Term BOD, Station E-l 30
5. Frequency Distribution of Impoundment Nutrient Values .... 40
iii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
plans to construct a multipurpose impoundment in southeastern Georgia
near the city of Claxton. At the request of and in support of SCS,
water quality studies were performed in the drainage basin of the pro-
posed Impoundment by personnel of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV, Surveillance and Analysis Division (SAD). The studies were con-
ducted under a cooperative, cost reimbursable agreement between SAD and
SCS. A copy of this agreement [contracts No. Ag-13-SCS-00223 and No. Ag-
13-SCS-00226 (EPA-IAG-R-5-0604)] is enclosed as Appendix A.
PURPOSE
These studies were conducted to:
(1) Determine and record preimpoundment water quality conditions
within the drainage basin of the proposed impoundment;
(2) Provide a basis for predicting the water quality of the im-
pounded waters following project completion;
(3) Provide data for the calibration and verification of the Hydro-
comp Simulation Programming (HSP) model which, if possible,
could then be used to predict future water quality in other
proposed impoundments. These predictions, it was anticipated,
could then be made with a minimal amount of additional data for
model calibration and only for impoundments in the same general
type of area (same climate, soil type and land usage). Unfor-
tunately, local variations proved too great to make this a re-
liable procedure.
-------
Authority
Authority for these studies may be found in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 [PL92-500, Sec. 104(b)(6)].
2
-------
SUMMARY
GENERAL
The proposed Cedar Creek Impoundment will be located in a primarily
rural agricultural section of southeast Georgia near the city of Claxton.
The multipurpose impoundment will have a normal pool area of 387 acres and
a 29,658 acre drainage basin. Natural conditions and both agricultural
and animal husbandry practices provide the only sources of pollution
in the drainage basin. When specific areas of the drainage basin are
considered, two stand out as major contributors of pollution with hea-
vier than normal loads from the above sources. These are the E-5 and
E-6 arms (drainage areas upstream of Stations E-5 and E-6).
STUDY FINDINGS
Ranges and Station Means
Water temperatures ranged from 16ฐ to 23ฐC in May and from 22ฐ to
26ฐC in August. A reevaluation excluding data from the E-5 and E-6 arms
showed little or no effect on these ranges.
Dissolved solids ranged from 8 to 3,120 mg/1 in May and from 4 to
2,202 mg/1 in August. Suspended solids ranged from 2 to 62 mg/1 in May
and from 1 to 22 mg/1 in August. Exclusion of data from the E-5 and
E-6 arms narrowed the range of the dissolved solids for August and the
range of the suspended solids for May.
pH ranged from 5.3 to 6.9 units in May and from 5.0 to 6.4 units in
August. Exclusion of pH data from the E-5 and E-6 arms had little or
no effect on the ranges.
3
-------
Dissolved oxygen (DO) ranged from 2.1 to 6.1 mg/1 in May and from
3.1 to 5.3 mg/1 in August. Exclusion of DO data from the E-5 and E-6
arms narrowed the ranges "by elevating the lower concentrations.
BOD5 ranged from 1.0 to 10.6 mg/1 in May and from 0.3 to 5.1 mg/1
in August. Exclusion of BOD^ data from the E-5 and E-6 arms narrowed the
ranges from both extremes.
Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus species) concentrations varied
widely, even within a given month. Exclusion of data from the E-5 and
E-6 arms caused only a slight reduction in the recalculated May (low flow)
average concentrations, but a large reduction in the August (high flow)
average concentrations. This indicates a large, runoff-oriented nutrient
contribution from these two areas.
Total organic carbon (TOC) ranged from 12 to 20 mg/1 in May and from
12 to 24 mg/1 in August. Exclusion of data from the E-5 and E-6 arms caused
a slight narrowing of the ranges.
Fecal coliform densities ranged from 130 to 5,600 counts/100 ml in
May and from 100 to 2,200 counts/100 ml in August. Exclusion of data from
the E-5 and E-6 arms had no effect on the May ranges; however, it narrowed
the August ranges by approximately fifty percent.
Salmonella were isolated at four of the five stations sampled for
this purpose in May.
Trends
High values (lows for DO) for nearly all parameters occurred during
August. Major exceptions were higher values in May for B0D5 and fecal
coliforms. Trends in Cedar Creek (upstream to downstream) include
slight reductions in both NO2 and NO^-N and Total-P concentrations and a
slight increase in fecal coliform densities.
4
-------
Data from Station E-4 on Cedar Creek (immediately downstream from
its confluence with the E-6 arm) exhibited a slight elevation of values
for almost all parameters.
Long Term BOD
During May, a long term BOD analysis was performed for Station E-l
to determine rate coefficients for mathematical modeling efforts. This
analysis yielded typical rate coefficients.
Animal Population-Distribution Study
This study, performed during Hay, demonstrated that the E-6, E-7,
and E-5, E-8 arms of the drainage basin contained the heaviest animal
population.
Time of Travel Study
This study, using dye tracer techniques, was performed only during
the low flow conditions which prevailed during May. Under these condi-
tions, the average stream velocity for Cedar Creek was 0.25 mph.
Diurnal Studies
These studies (November 1974 and January 1975) revealed no signi-
ficant diurnal variations.
Assessment of Potential NonPoint Source Loads
A gross non-point source assessment (see Appendix C) established
potential loads for typical conditions and evaluated the attenuation
effects of control practices. Numerical results of this assessment
are too voluminous to present in summarized form.
Hydrocomp Predictions
Postimpoundment water quality was predicted by the Hydrocomp simu-
lation Programming Model. The predicted water quality was compared to
Georgia water quality standards. No major problems with violation of
these standards were observed.
5
-------
Potential Problem Areas
Comparisons were made between different areas of the drainage basin
on a lbs/acre/day (combined chemical loadings) basis and on a fecal coliform/
acre/day (fecal coliform loadings) basis. These procedures flagged potential
pollution problems with discharges from the E-5 and E-6 arms. These same
types of comparisons, plus comparison on a total lbs/day (combined chemical
loadings) basis, showed that the E-6 arm held the greater potential for
pollution discharge problems. Comparison of the carbonnitrogen ratios for
the two arms suggests that potential problems originating in the E-6 arm
will be more responsive to correction by control practices.
6
-------
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The high fecal coliform densities encountered plus the Salmonella
isolations in the Cedar Creek watershed, represent storrawater runoff con-
ditions under free flowing stream conditions. After project completion,
retention time in the impoundment will cause a decrease in both fecal
coliform densities as well as the presence of Salmonella. These decreases
should be sufficient to make the waters acceptable for body contact recreation.
(2) Increased residence time in the impoundment will tend to dampen water
quality variations now present in the free flowing stream. The occasional
high nutrient concentrations observed during this study will be more diluted
by the impoundment to levels acceptable for a variety of water uses. However,
persistence of high concentrations for an extended period of time may cause
a problem with algal production in the impoundment.
(3) Potential problems in the E-6 arm of the drainage basin can be partial-
ly, if not completely, alleviated by improved domestic animal and fowl waste
handling practices.
(4) The eutrophication potential for this impoundment will depend on con-
trol of nutrient sources. This control includes the capacity of swampy
areas to assimilate nutrients. The quantitative aspects of such a capacity
are not clearly understood. Qualitative aspects, however, are evidenced
by the data within this report.
7
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) Attempts should be made to arrive at an agreement with local landowners
(especially in the E-5 and E-6 arms of the drainage basin) for the following
purposes:
(a) To contain runoff from swine and cattle feeding areas (especially
during recreational periods of the year);
(b) To avoid more than the minimal application of chicken litter or
animal manure to drainage area soils (either as an agricultural
fertilizer or as a means of disposal) during recreational periods
of the year; and
(c) To avoid the overapplication of chemical fertilizers.
(2) Initially, primary contact recreation in the upper reaches of the
impoundment, especially during heavy runoff periods, should be restricted.
Further fecal collform monitoring should be conducted after the impoundment
has stabilized. The absence of high fecal collform densities would warrant
a removal of this restriction.
8
-------
S^JDY^HET0)DS<
Twelve routine water quality sampling stations were estjiblished on
Cedar Creek and its tributaries. The stations were located ijrom just
downstream of^the^rojuosesl dam site near ^elly^-lle, G^orgjLa tjo its head-
waters near Cgibtgwn, JSeo^gia^ T]je sgmpl^ng gtation ^pcatiorj^g are des-
cribed in Appendix D and shown on the map in Appendix E.
A stage;%ecฎtdeiP anfl-stSff gauge*' weiffe totalled 5and'"fcrcj$B referenced
at Station E-K fftafiF gatfges 'wer^ installed at aS oflier 'Sta SLons except
U!
E-2 and E-3, where stream channel characteristics precluded strain gaug-
es w
ings. Initial stream gaugings were performed prior to initiatigfc of ฃgi.e
sampling progffam St edfch itatibn kcept Ex2 aftd
All station#;we*fe sSkpleTd ftbm rtidgas At oite tcJdt ปeฑofp;the su^fac^
or less, as dictated oy screanraepzn. ฆ scream-suriace ci.cvauj.^i8, as Indi-
cated by staff* gatffce iS&adfikgs^weffe rฃ&orc8ปd ฃงch 'tim^a ^Smpj^ was collected.
Daily samples sf or i^hyd3.ca2?j cK8mi
-------
TABLE 1
SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Station
mrnbet
May. 1974
August,
Month and Day
1974
November. 1974
January, .
L975
Er-1
13
14 15 16 17
7 8 15
29 30
17 18
20 21
13
14
25
B-2
13
14 15 16 17
7 8 15
29 30
N/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/y
.N/V
ฃ/V
m-3
13
14 25 36 17
7 8 15
29 30
"N/V'N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
N/V
N/V
E-A
13
14 33 16 17
7 8 15
29 30
N/V N/V
N/V 21
N/V
N/V
N/V
E-5
13
14 15 16 17
N/V N/V 15
29 30
N/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
N/V
25
B-6 '
13
14 15 N/F H/F
7 8 15
29 30
N/V N/V
N/V 21
N/V
N/V
25
1-7
13
14 15 H/F N/F
N/F -N/F N/V 29 30
N/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
N/V
N/V
B-8
13
14 15 16 17
N/F N/F 15
29 30
N/V N/V
N/V 21
N/V
14
N/V
E-9
13
14 15 16 17
N/F N/F 15
N/F N/F
N/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
14
25
E-10
13
14 15 16 17
N/F N/F 15
N/F N/F
N/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
N/V
25
E-ll
13
14 15 16 17
N/F N/F 15
N/F N/F
ป/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
N/V
25
ซ-12
13
14 15 16 17
N/F N/F 15
N/F N/F
N/V N/V
N/V N/V
N/V
14
N/V
Kay: # -
K/F -
*/V -
Da/ of south
Mo flow, not aopltd
Hot visltad
-------
TABLE 2
LIST OF ANALYSES BY LOCATION
A. On-Site
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. pH
3. Temperature (degrees centigrade)
4. Flow
B. Mobile Laboratory (SAD Laboratory, Athens, GA, after 8/30/74)
1. Biochemical oxygen demand*(5 day)
2. Bacteriological-fecal Coliform (MF Procedure)
C. SAD Laboratory, Athens, Georgia
1. Total phosphate
2. Kjeldahl ttitrogen (TKN)
3. Ammonia nitrogen (NH^-N)
4. Organic nitrogen (TKN minus NH^-N)
5. Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen
6. Total dissolved solids
7. Suspended solids
8. Total organic carbon
9. Long term BOD
-------
were placed on ice and analyses were Initiated within six hours after
collection.
Fecal coliform densities were determined using the membrane filter
technique as outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 13th Edition.
Qualitative determinations for the presence of Salmonella were made
at selected stations by filtering 200 ml of sample through a 0.45u membrane
filter. The filters were then placed in single strength Dulcitol Selenite
Broth. The inoculated enrichment broth was incubated for 18 to 24 hours
2
at 41.5ฐC according to Spino's procedure.
After primary enrichment, an inoculum was streaked onto Taylor XLD,
Agar (XLD), and Hektoen Enteric Agar (HE) plates and incubated for 18-24
hours. Suspected Salmonella colonies were picked from the respective
plates and identified by the scheme outlined in Table 3.
With the exception of the cytochrome oxidase and lysine decarboxylase
methods, the methods and media outlined in Table 3 are described by Ewing.3
Oxidase and decarboxylase activity was determined using Patho-Tec-CO and
#*
Patho-Tec-LD reagent impregnated paper strips, respectively.
Definitive serological identification of Salmonella isolates was
made at the SADAthens laboratory using the standard serological procedures
4
described by Edwards and Ewing.
During the May and August study periods, attempts were made at
gauging stream discharges at a variety of different stream levels at all
stations with staff gauges. This was done in an attempt to prepare
* References 1 through 16 appear on page 51.
** Does not imply endorsement of this product by EPA.
12
-------
TABLE 3
IDENTIFICATION SCHEME FOR SALMONELLA SUSPECTS
Suspect Colony (picked from differential plate)
1
Lysine Iron Asar
I
with^orjgithov^M&^S and acid butt - DISCARDED
Urease Production
Alkaline slant and butt Acid slant and butt; Alkaline slant
ฆ
i
I"*"]
J
!
r h
Positive Negative
DISCARDED
Cytochrome* Oxidase
Positive Negative
DISCARDED
^Lactose: Sodium Malonate: Potassium Cyanide, Indole
Positive Negative
DISCARDED
Lysine decarboxylase: Citrate. H^S. Motility
r
5Siti
0 int
Negative Positive
DISCARDED
Polyvalent 0 Xntisera
i 1
Positive Negative
I DISCARDED
Serological Identification
13
-------
stage-discharge curves for each station. Prom thene curves and the
Individual staff gauge readings acquired during daily sampling visits,
corresponding discharge data ware obtained for most samples. Unfortunate-
ly, it was impossible to gauge discharges at Stations E-4, E-10, and E-ll
at enough different stream stages to properly define a discharge curve
for these stations.
Recording cllmatologlcal equipment, listed below with the indicated
data collection functlon(s), was Installed at the indicated locations In
support of both the sampling program outlined on Table 1 and for calibra-
tion of the Hydrocomp Simulation Programming (HSP) model.
Data Collection
Equipment Function Location*
Rain Gauge Precipitation Sapp*s Farm and Davis'
house
Pyrhellograph Incident solar radiation Sapp's Farm
Hygrothermograph Air temperature and rela- Sapp's Farm
tive humidity
Evaporation Pan and Rate of evaporation Sapp's Farm
Level Recorder
Figure 1 la a graphical presentation of the data obtained from the
stage recorder at Station E-l and the rain gauge at the upper end of the
drainage basin.
As additional support for calibration of the HSP model, five years
of historical cllmatologlcal5 snd hydrologlcal6 data were tabulated end
computer coded for the Indicated locations:
* Refer to Appendix E for exact locations.
14
-------
FlfiVtE i
Alllkl PIECiriTATIIH
All IYIIIGMFIS
APRIL , HAT . . JPNK JOLT . APGOST . SEP
NOVEMBER . DECEMBER
JANUARY
V
NO FT.OW
/\J\_
APRIL MAT TUNE
JBLT AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JAKUAP.Y
-------
Parameter
Location (Georgia)
Precipitation
Maximum and Minimum Air Temperature
Evaporation Rate
Wind Speed
Percent Cloud Cover
Discharge (avg. daily cfs)
Bellville
Brooklet
Metter
Swainaboro
Metter
Brooklet
Ailey
Savannah
Augusta
Caaoochee River near Claxton
16
-------
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The heart of the Evans County Watershed project is a proposed multi-
purpose impoundment on Cedar Creek. This watershed7 is located on the
gently rolling Pleistocene shoreline of the Altanama Upland Division of
the coastal plain near Claxton in southeast Georgia. The impoundment is
to be located in Evans and Tatnall counties. The 46 square mile watershed
extends from Evans County across Tatnall County and into a small portion
of Candler County. The impoundment will cover 387 acres at normal (irri-
gation) pool level. Of these 387 acres, 272 acres will be available for
recreation usage. Maximum flood storage pool will be 635 acres.
Land usage is 35.3% cropland, 6.3% pasture, 49.5% forest, and 8.9%
idle or miscellaneous. Only a few concentrated sources of pollution exist;
these consist primarily of runoff from cattle pastures, swine feedlots, and
layer hen operations. Natural conditions and agricultural practices
create three possible non-point sources of pollution:
(1) Stormwater and possibly irrigation runoff from a land surface
characterized by dendritic drainage patterns,
(2) Subsurface discharge into stream channels from the shallow
groundwater table, and
(3) Benthic decomposition of leaf and pasture litter deposited in
the streams, and from both living and dead bottom-dwelling or-
ganisms.
Land elevation in the study area ranges from 110 to 250 feet above
mean sea level (MSL). Base flows for the perennial streams in the area
average 0.6 cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage area.
During wet portions.of the year, the water table in this area is near
the surface, causing soil moisture values to approach saturation. At these
17
-------
times, even small amounts of rainfall cause Immediate runoff (either surface
or subsurface) and corresponding but slower increases in stream flow.
After extended dry periods, the water table is lowered sufficiently
to cause the smaller tributaries to become dry. The sandy soil becomes very
dry and capable of absorbing large quantities of rainfall without corres-
ponding increases in runoff and stream flow.
As examples, (Figure 2) a rainfall of less than 0.4 inches in August
(wet period) caused a stream flow increase of approximately 2.2 cfs with
less than one day's lag time (time between rainfall and peak stream flow).
During June (a dry period) a two inch rain caused approximately the same
river flow increase as was caused by the 0.4 inch rain in September. The
two-inch June rain, however, had a six day lag time. The hydrograph peaks
on May 8 and 13, and on August 11 and 18 (Figure 2) also demonstrate the
short lag time typical of wet periods.
18
-------
tf)
Ul
X
o
0
<
1
1 5 8 13 17
9 13
TTT
o
hi
SO
*
U
*
o
$
si
41
31
21
1*
0
1 5 9 13 17
MAY
1 5 9 13
JUNE
1? ป 3LJ1
FIGURE 2
COMPARISON OF PRECIPITATION
INCIDENCE AND HYDROGRAPH
RESPONSE TIME
260
. SAMPLING DAYS
11 15 19 23 27 31
AUGUST
-------
STUDY FINDINGS
RANGES AND STATION MEANS
General
Extreme values (lows for dissolved oxygen and highs for most of
the other parameters) usually occurred at stations in the E-5 or E-6
arms of the drainage basin. These two potential problem areas include
Stations E-5 and E-8 and Stations E-6 and E-7 respectively. Analysis of
the data (Table 4) included two modes of comparison: (1) ranges of all
values and (2) ranges of station means, both with and without exclusion
of data from the E-5 and E-6 arms. These data were excluded to emphasize
the effects, or lack of effects, of these two arms on the overall ranges.
Where the overall ranges were significantly changed toward improved con-
ditions, environmental pollution from these arms is indicated for the para-
meter under consideration. This analysis included only data for May and
August, 1974. Data collected in November, 1974 and January, 1975 was only
from a few selected stations. The following discussion is based on the
analysis presented in Table 4.
Physical Parameters
A
Water temperature ranges were not appreciably changed by exclusion
of data from the E-5 and E-6 arms. The ranges reflect seasonal air tem-
peratures and to some extent, the shading effects of heavy summer and
fall vegetative cover (smaller ranges for August values).
* These ranges exclude a single high water temperature reading of 29.8ฐC,
which occurred at Station E-7 on May 13, 1974. Basin highs of 8.1 mg/1 dis-
solved oxygen (DO) and 10.6 mg/1 five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^)
also occurred at this station on the same day. The excluded high temperature
value was considered atypical because of the circumstances surrounding collec-
tion of the sample. The sampling point was located on a small stream immediately
downstream of a very wide, shallow and slow-moving overflow from a small shallow
fish pond. The sample was collected late in the afternoon on a clear, unseason-
ably hot day.
20
-------
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF RANGES
All Stations
E-5 & E-6 Arms Excluded
Parameter
All Data
May August
Station Means
May August
All Data (-)
May August
Station .Means (-)*
May August
pH - units
D.O. - mg/1
BODj - mg/1
Org-N - mg/1
NH3-N - mg/1
TKN - mg/1
N02+N03-N - mg/1
Total P - mg/1
TOC - mg/1
Bacteriological
Fecal Collform -
counts/100 ml
16-23
Physical
Temp. ฐC
Dissolved Solids - mg/1 8-3120
Suspended Solids - mg/1 2-62
Chemical
5.3-6.9
2.1-8.1
1.0-10.6
130-5600
21.5-26
4-2202
1-22
5.0-6.4
3.1-5.3
0.3-5.1
0.18-0.89 0.21-2.2
0.02-0.37 0.01-3.4
0.24-1.17 0.33-5.05
0.01-0.10 0.01-4.0
0.01-0.17 0.01-1.5
12-20 12-24
100-2200
* - Geometric mean for Fecal Coliform.
** - No appreciable change.
19.1-20.4 22.4-23.3
36-838 40-773
3-49
5.5-6.5
2.6-6.8
1.6-8.2
238-2876
2-13
5.7-6.3
3.4-5.2
1.1-3.7
0.24-0.61 0.29-1.27
0.07-0.27 0.06-1.25
0.34-0.88 0.36-2.12
0.01-0.08 0.07-1.03
0.01-0.12 0.03-0.73
13-17 14-21
188-894
**
**
2-23
4.1-7.3
1.0-4.8
**
26-280
**
**
4.6-5.3
0.8-3.5
0.18-0.75 0.33-0.85
0.02-0.35 0.01-0.53
0.24-1.0 0.33-1.20
0.01-0.06 0.05-0.52
0.01-0.09 0.01-0.18
12-16 14-24
130-5600 110-1100
** **
** 75-175
3-16 **
M M
5.0-6.8 4.7-5.2
1.6-2.4 1.3-2.3
0.27-0.42 0.46-0.55
0.07-0.13 0.06-0.22
0.34-0.55 0.49-0.75
0.01-0.04 0.07-0.22
0.01-0.06 0.05-0.13
13-15 16-20
230-756 I88-48O
-------
Dissolved solids ranged from very low to very high during both the May
and August periods of comparison. Suspended solids remained low throughout
the year even after heavy areawide rains. This indicates that very little
sediment is transported from the relatively flat sandy fields to the streams.
In both modes of comparison, exclusion of solids data from the E5 and E6
arms lowered the August values for dissolved solids and the May values for
suspended solids. These exclusions did not appreciably change the values
for the May dissolved solids or the August suspended solids. This indicates
an occasional, but not consistent, effect of the E-5 and E6 arms on these
parameters.
Chemical Parameters
All pH values were low. The magnitudes of these values for both modes
of comparison were not affected by exclusion of values from the E-5 and E-6
arms of the drainage basin.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were variable. The steadily decrea-
sing May concentrations demonstrate the effects of the low to zero flow condi-
i
tions which prevailed on some of the smaller tributaries during that time. The
high of 8.1 mg/1 in May (see footnote in temperature discussion) possibly resulted
from algal oxygen production in the shallow pond. Exclusion of DO data from
the E-5 and E-6 arms narrowed the ranges in both modes of comparison, primarily
by elevating their lower extremes. This indicates that runoff from these two
arms is relatively low in DO.
Some of the five day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,.) concentrations
were relatively high when compared with typical average BOD^ for free flow-
ing upland streams of 1-2 mg/1 and with typical slow flowing swamp water
streams of 2-3 mg/1. This holds true even when the single high BOD^ of
22
-------
10.6 mg/1 for May is excluded (see footnote in temperature discussion). This
is probably the result of domestic animal waste and decaying vegetation in
the low-lying swampy areas of the drainage basin. Exclusion of BOD^ data from
the E-5 and E-6 arms significantly reduced the upper limits of the recomputed
ranges in both modes of comparison. This indicates significant BOD^ contri-
bution from these two arms.
Concentrations of all of the nitrogen species studied and concentrations
of total phosphorus varied widely, even within a given month. The overall
effect of excluding values for the E-5 and E-6 arms was the lowering of the
upper limits of the ranges for both modes of comparison. Specifically, ex-
clusion had only a small effect on the May ranges for all values, and a
moderate effect on the ranges of station means. It did, however, have a
large effect in both modes of comparison for August. This suggests a large
nutrient contribution from the E-5 and E-6 arms.
Examination of the individual nitrogen parameters for May shows a
relatively large contribution from organic nitrogen (Org-N) to the total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) values and a smaller yet significant contribution
from ammonia nitrogen (NK^N). These nitrogen contributions, plus the
fairly small concentrations of both nitrate-nitrite nitrogen (NO2+NO3-N)
and total phosphorus (Total-P) during the low flow conditions in May,
suggest that the largest part of the nutrient pollutional loadings during
drier periods of the year originates from decaying vegetation in the low-
lying swampy areas.
Examination of the same parameters for August shows a much higher TKN,
with the majority as NH3-N. Even though Org-N is the minority species in
this case, it still has a much higher concentration than in May. The high-
er August NH3-N concentrations coupled with the much higher NO2+NO3-N and
23
-------
total-P concentrations, plus much higher runoff-stream-flow conditions, sug
gests large nutrient contributions from animal sources during that month.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations were typical for coastal
plain swampy areas and the ranges of data were small. Exclusion of data
for the E-5 and E-6 arms had no significant effect. There was very little
difference between the comparison periods.
Bacteriological Parameters
Fecal coliform densities were high and very variable during both study
periods with August having lower values for both modes of comparison. Exclu-
sion of values from the E-5 and E-6 arms during May had no effect on the
ranges of all data, but drastically reduced both the magnitude and range of
the station means. This exclusion for August lowered the upper values for
both modes of comparison. The E-5 and E-6 arms were significant contributors
of fecal coliforms.
The high fecal coliform densities represent stormwater runoff under free
flowing stream conditions. After project completion, retention time in the
impoundment will result in greatly reduced fecal coliform densities. No
water should be considered completely safe for body contact recreation, re-
gardless of its fecal coliform density. Some health risks will be involved
for the water user. However, these risks are greatly reduced in waters
with low fecal coliform densities.
Qualitative determinations to detect Salmonella were made at five stations
(E-l,E-3,E-4,E-9, and E-10) during May. Salmonella is a large serologically-
related genus comprised of over 1,300 serotypes. Salmonella is probably
the easiest enteric pathogen to isolate from water. All Salmonella are
considered pathogenic to man and animals.
The presence of Salmonella is proof of fecal contamination from either
man or animals, and establishes the potential of disease contraction resulting
24
-------
from water ingestion. It is important to note that the inverse of this
statement is not true. Failure to isolate Salmonella does not establish
that the water is free of pathogenic organisms.
The following serotypes were isolated during the May study:
Station No. Serotype
E-l Salmonella gaminara
E-4 Salmonella gaminara
Salmonella rubislaw
E9 Salmonella rubislaw
E10 Salmonella laviana
No serotypes were isolated at Station E-3. No Salmonella determina-
tions were made during the August study*
TRENDS
Table 5 shows that the high values (low values for DO) for most para-
meters during both May and August occurred on either the E-5 or E-6 arms of
the drainage basin (Stations E-5 and E-8, and Stations E-6 and E-7, respectively).
The predominance of mainstem (Cedar Creek) highs at Station E-4, immediately
downstream of confluence of the E-6 arm, demonstrates the effect of the E-6
arm on the mainstem.
In the majority of cases, August exhibited the highest station means.
The major exception to this was the occurrence of higher station means for
dissolved solids, suspended solids, BOD5, and fecal coliforms in May. Ex-
clusion of data from the E-5 and E-6 arms changes the comparison to show
August as the highest month for BOD5, but not for fecal coliforms. The
highest fecal coliform densities occurred during the drier period of the
year, both with and without inclusion of data from the E-5 and E-6 arms.
Highs for most of the chemical parameters occurred during the wet period. This
25
-------
TABLE i
COMPARISON OF HIGH VALUES AND TRENDS
Parameter
Basin Highs *
[Sta.#(Value)]
May Aug
Mainstem Highs*
[Sta.#(Value)]
May Aug
Month
With
Highest
Mean
Monthly
Comparative
Means
Aug/May
Upstream-
Downstream
Treads
Physical
o **
Temp. ฐC
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Chemical
pH - units
D.O. - mg/1
BODc
mg/1
Org-N - mg/1
NH3-N - mg/1
TKN - mg/1
N02+N03-N - mg/1
Total-P - mg/1
TOC - mg/1
Bacteriological
Fecal Coliform -
counts/100 ml
E-12(23)
mg/1 E-10(3170)
mg/1 E-7(62)
E-l(6.9)
E-8(2.1)
E-7(10.6)
E-7C0.89)
E-7(0.37)
E-7(l.17)
E-6(0.10)
E-7C0.17)
E-7(20)
E-7(5600)
E-5(5600)
ฃ-2,3,4(26)
E-6(2202)
E-2.5(22)
E-6(6.4)
E-6(3.1)
E-6(5.1)
E-6(2.2)
E-6(3.4)
E-6(5.05)
E-6(0.45)
E-5(4.0)***
E-6(l.5)
E-3(24)
E-7(2200)
E-l(23) E-2,3,4(26)
E-ll(2074) E-12(280)
E-12(23) E-2(22)
E-l(6.9) E-2,3(6.2)
E-ll(4.1) E-4(4.6)
E-l(4.8) E-4(3.5)
E-4(0.75) E-4(0.85)
E-2(0.35) E-3(0.53)
E-2,4(1.0) E-3(l.2)
E-12(0.06) E-4(0.52)
E-12(0.09) E-4(0.18)
E-4,9,ll& E-3(24)
12(16)
E-3(5600) E-l(llOO)
August
May
Same
May
May
August
Same
August
August
August
August
1.1
0.9
May
1.0
1.3
0.5
2.1
4.6
2.4
12.9
6.1
1.2
0.3
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Slight reduction
Slight reduction
None
Slight increase
* - Lows for D.O.
** - These highs do not include a single high value of 29.8 at Station E-7 on May 13.
*** _ This is the only high value at this station. All other values were nซar or below detectable limits.
**** _ Suspended solids were approximately two times higher in August in the lower end of the drainage basin,
and approximately two times higher in May in the upper end.
- Stations in the E-5 or E-6 arms of the drainage basin.
-------
apparent discrepancy in the data is understandable when the hydrogeological
characteristics of the area and the precipitation-hydrograph plots on Figure
2 are considered.
The flat fields and pastures in this area are composed of very permeable,
sandy soil underlain by a shallow ground water table. Chicken litter spread
on croplands and pastures, cow manure dropped on the pastures, and swine drop-
pings in feedlots would all decompose with some of the decomposition products
being leached into the soil following infrequent rains during drier periods.
Very little surface runoff would occur during these periods.
O
According to Davis and DeWiest , surface water runoff does not begin
until the amount of precipitation exceeds the infiltration capacity of the
soil. Part of the infiltration water will experience slow lateral flow above
the groundwater table toward nearby streams. The remainder will reach the
groundwater table and also flow very slowly toward the streams (groundwater
flow.) The rate of surface water flow, infiltration and both lateral and
groundwater flow to the streams, will depend on the grade of the terrain.
Additional factors affecting this rate include soil permeability as well as
both the slope and gradient of the groundwater table.
Material which leaches into the upper part of the soil column during
dry periods slowly migrates toward the streams. This material should reach
the streams fairly rapidly when the water table gradient is raised after
heavy rains. The concentration of material reaching the streams through
groundwater flow should undergo slow "tailing-off" as the accumulated material
is flushed from the groundwater.
On the other hand, some material will reach the streams by surface water
runoff after heavy rains. The rate of surface water flow to the streams will
27
-------
be slowed drastically by both the flat terrain and the woods and swampy
areas which border the streams in this area.
Fecal coliforms reach the streams mainly by surface water runoff.
Both increases and maxima for this parameter usually lag behind hydro-
9
graphic increases and maxima. The high mean fecal coliform counts en-
countered in May and the steady five day decrease in individual counts
(Appendix B) should, according to this argument, represent the declining
slope of a hydrograph. Reference to the May sampling period on Figure 2
shows this to indeed be the case. Figure 2 also shows that all August
sampling was performed during relatively low flows before and after hydro-
graphic maxima. This should and does indicate lower fecal coliform counts
than occurred immediately after the peak discharge.
Of the chemical parameters which show higher values in August, N02+
NOg-N is the most prominent (Table 5 - Monthly Comparative Means column).
These compounds leach through the soil much faster than any other chemical
parameter studied.10,11ป12 values for this parameter (Appendix
B) represent the final stages of groundwater flushing as shown by the "tail-
ing-off" of the long term hydrograph for April and May (Figure 2). The high
values for August, however, represent the initial portion of long-term
groundwater flushing after a long dry period of accumulation (Note on Fig-
ure 2 that rainfall in June and July had little or no effect on the low to
zero flow conditions).
The only upstream to downstream trends which occurred on the mainstem
(Cedar Creek) for any of the parameters were a slight reduction in NO2+NO3-N
and Total-P, and a slight increase in fecal coliform counts.
LONG TERM BOD
Long term BOD (1,4,5,7,10,12,14,16,18, and 20 day) analyses were
performed on a single sample collected from Station E-l on May 17, 1974.
28
-------
A least squares analysis"^ of this data produced the following results:
La ฆ Ultimate Carbonaceous Demand = 1.85 mg/1
" Carbonaceous Rate Coefficient* ฆ 0.18/day
Na = Nitrogenous Oxygen Demand = 3.8 mg/1
= Nitrogenous Rate Coefficient* = 0.022/day
tn ฆ Lag time to initiation of nitrogenous
(2nd stage) oxygen demand = 10 days
Figure 4 is a plot of both the observed values and those predicted
by the following equations:
-k]_t (-kg) (t-tn)
Y=La(1.0-e ) when ttn
Y ฆ oxygen demand at time t
These values are typical and are included for use in any future modeling
efforts with this data.
ANIMAL POPULATION - DISTRIBUTION
During the week of May 13 through 17, 1974, animal population -
distribution data were gathered by a combined team of SAD and SCS person-
nel by interviewing the major farmers in the area. The results are pre-
sented in Table 6.
TIME OF TRAVEL STUDIES
Throughout the same week of May, time of travel studies were performed
by use of dye tracer techniques. Dye injections were made at Stations E-9
and E-3. The results of this study are presented in Table 7 and on Figure 3.
Figure 3 presents only the results of the dye injection at Station E-9. High
stream discharges which partially flooded the swampy areas, precluded time
of travel studies during August. This prevented comparisons between the
two study periods on a time of travel basis.
* Both rate coefficients are to the base e at 20ฐC.
29
-------
3.0
U>
o
2.0
1.0
FIGURE 4
LONG TERM BOD
STATION E-1
PREDICTED
OBSERVED
NITROGENOUS STAGE
FIRST STAGE DEMAND
(CARBONACEOUS)
ป 1 1 1 ' '
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DAYS
-------
TABLE 6
LIVESTOCK POPULATION - DISTRIBUTION
Miles Upstream of Station
Sub-basin Cows Swine Poultry Stream Tributary
E_2 20* ฐ-5 1<6
E-3 20* 0 0.2
E-4 25 2.5 1.0
100 200 1.9 0.9
E-5 40 2.1 1.1
E-6 45,000 0 0.6
100 1.0 1.0
118 1.4 0.4
E-7 50 0.6 0.6
60 0.8 0.3
100 0.8 0.3
E-8 40 250 0.3 0.6
22,000 2.7 1.4
E-9 6 100 UNKNOWN
*Estimated values
31
-------
TABLE 7
TIME OF TRAVEL DATA
"PROM"
STA. #
"TO" DATE/TIME DATE/TIME LENGTH VELOCITY AVG. DISCHARGE (CFS)
STA. # OP DTE OF PEAK OF REACH IN REACH FROM DOMP TIME TO
ARRIVAL MILES MILES/HR PEAK ARRIVAL TIME
, E-l
E-3
E-2
5/13/74
5/13/74
1.750
0.389
19.2
1524
2000
y
1/
E-9
E-4A~
5/13/74
5/14/74
3.000
0.316
16.9
1600
0130
E-9
E-2
5/13/74
5/15/74
9.875
0.256
13.8
1600
0630
fc-9
E-l
5/13/74
5/15/74
12.292
0.251
13.0
1600
1700
y
2/
E-4A
E-2
5/14/74
5/15/74
6.875
0.237
12.5
0130
0630
2/
E-4A
E-l
5/14/74
5/15/74
9.292
0.235
12.1
0130
1700
1/
2/
E-2
E-l
5/15/74
5/15/74
2.417
0.230
9.4
0630
1700
Ij - See attached graph.
2/ - Peak of dye draped at Station E-9.
-------
FIGURE 3
TIME OF TRAVEL'
MAY 13-17, 1974
24
24
24
5/16/74
5/15/74
5/14/74
'Dye dumped into station E-9 at 1600 hours, 5/13/74.
-------
DIURNAL STUDIES
Diurnal studies were performed at Station E-l under ultra-low flow
conditions during November, 1974 and under peaking flood conditions during
January, 1975 (Figure 1). Results of these studies are presented in Ap-
pendix B. No significant diurnal variations were noted during either
period.
34
-------
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL NON-POINT SOURCE RUNOFF LOADS
The gross assessment performed for this drainage basin was accomplished
by applying loading factors to twelve sub-basins which are fully described
by land use, soil type, topographic features, livestock and poultry-popu-
lation-distributions and historic climatic conditions. A detailed report
of this procedure is given in Appendix C with applicable loading factors
stated. A brief summary of the results, both on an annual basis and on. the
seasonal wet period of June through August, follows:
The Cedar Creek drainage basin contains 29,658 acres and is
broken into 12 sub-basins ranging in size from 928 to 5,222 acres.
It undergoes an annual erosion of 99,039 tons and a wet period
erosion of 44,568 tons.
It has an annual sediment delivery of 16,958 tons and a wet
period sediment delivery of 7,631 tons.
A one"Inch per hour storm produces seven percent of the average
annual sediment load.
A two inch per hour storm produces thirty-two percent of the
*
average annual sediment load.
Livestock and poultry produce about three percent of the N,
two percent of the P, and 17 percent of the BOD.
Sediment contains about 85 percent of the N, 96 percent of the P, and
a negligible amount of BOD. This includes dissolved N and P.
Forest and pasture litter provide about twelve percent of the N,
two percent of the P, and 83 percent of the BOD.
* Under average soil moisture antecedent conditions
35
-------
The analysis was performed to establish potential loads for typical
conditions according to relationships stated on page "c" of the report.
Attenuation effects of control practices can be determined using these
calculations; however, it is unlikely that a valid comparison can be
made between stream loads based on sampling and these gross assessment
loads.
36
-------
HYDROCOMP WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS14
General
The postimpoundment water quality of Cedar Creek was simulated
using the combined hydrologic and water quality models known as the Hydro-
comp Simulation Programming (HSP) model. The models were calibrated (or
adapted) to local conditions using observed hydrometeorologic and water
quality data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency. Water
quality in the basin was simulated for a five year period, both with and
without the proposed impoundment. The resulting time series of water
quality constituents was analyzed to determine the percentage of time that
various concentration levels would be exceeded both with and without the im-
poundment. The result of these analyses were compared with Georgia Water
Quality Standards.
Temperature
HSP predicts that the impoundment will dampen out extreme temperatures,
both on an annual and on a seasonal basis. Without the impoundment, viola-
tions of the Georgia water temperature standard of 32.2ฐC would occur ap-
proximately 0.4% of the time on an annual basis and one percent of the
time between June and September. With the impoundment, no violations are
predicted during any portion of the year.
Dissolved Oxygen
HSP predicted that the instantaneous minimum standard of 4.0 mg/1
D.O. would be violated less than two percent of the time on an annual basis,
with or without the impoundment. September is predicted to be the most
critical time of the year for the uncontrolled stream with violations 3.5%
of the time. Under impounded conditions, however, August is the most
37
-------
critical month, with violations predicted six percent of the time. Pre-
dicted violations are spread more uniformly throughout the year without
the impoundment (i.e., June-August with the impoundment, and June-March
without the impoundment).
Hydrocomp used a very high, possibly unrealistic, NH3 nitrification
rate coefficient of 0.1 per hour, rather than a more typical value such as
0.0185 per hour. Consequently, the simulated D.O. concentrations represent
the worst likely conditions; and actual D.O. concentrations may be consider-
ably higher than simulated.
Fecal Collform
HSP simulated both annual and summer fecal coliform concentrations,
both with and without the influence of the lake. The model results clearly
show that violation of Georgia's fecal coliform standard for body contact
recreation will not be a problem for the lake as a whole. In isolated
shoreline areas, where influent and impoundment waters are not well mixed,
problems could develop during some storm events. On an annual basis, pre-
dictions for the uncontrolled stream (for single observations, not for
samples) during some storm events, indicate counts greater than 200/100 ml
69 percent of the time, and greater than 2,500/100 ml one percent of the time.
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODO
Predictions for annual and seasonal BOD5 concentrations with and
without the impoundment were made. No appreciable variations were noted
on the seasonal basis. BOD5 concentrations of less than 5.0 mg/l are ex-
pected 95% of the time on the uncontrolled stream. With the impoundment,
values of less than 3.0 mg/l BOD5 were predicted 100% of the time
* Measured values not to exceed 200 organisms/100 ml based on a geometric
mean of four or more samples taken at least 24 hours apart.
38
-------
Occational high BOD,, values (greater than 9.5 mg/1 one percent of the time)
were predicted in the free-flowing stream, but such occurrences are to be
expected with the animal population found in the watershed.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Species
Predicted concentration frequencies for the various species are
presented on Figure 5. HSP made no predictions as to the eutrophication
potential which would exist at the various nutrient concentrations.
Total Dissolved Solids (TPS)
Hydrocomp predicted that the impoundment would increase the TDS
concentrations slightly above those of the uncontrolled stream (greater
than 90 mg/1 100% of the time with the impoundment and 90% of the time
without the impoundment). However, peak concentrations would occur in
the free flowing environment (greater than 105 mg/1 two percent of the
time without the impoundment and never exceeding 100 mg/1 with the impound-
ment) .
39
-------
FIGURE 5
FREQENCY DISTRIBUTION OF
IMPOUNDMENT NUTRIENT VALUES
0.50
ORGANIC N
NH,-N
0.3
0.20
0.1
90
70
80
60
40
20
10
30
50
CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF OCCURENCE
-------
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS
Although the Hydrocomp Simulation Programming (HSP) Model"^ pre-
dicts no significant violation of Georgia's Water Quality Standards for
the Cedar Creek Impoundment as a whole, potential localized problems may
be prevented by control of non-point pollution sources in some areas.
Below is a more detailed examination of the two potential problem areas
previously discussed in the study findings (E-5 and E-6 arms).
For comparison purposes, the overall drainage basin was divided
into the following combined sub-basins with the indicated areas:
Combined Sub-basin Upstream Area
E-6. E-7* 3.60 mi.2 (2,304 acres)
E-5, E-8* 9.22 mi.2 (5,901 acres)
E-9, E-10, E-ll, E-12* 19.89 mi.2 (12,729 acres)
v
Overall Basin
E-l through E-12 46.34 mi.2 (29,658 acres)
In order to establish the relative magnitude of potential pollutional
problems from a given subbasin area, the sub-basins are compared to one
another and to the overall basin. Detailed comparisons of the combined
loadings (total lbs/acre/day for six parameters - TOC, BOD^, Total-P,
Org-N, NHyN and N02+N03~N) and fecal coliforms/acre/day are presented on
Tables 8-12.
The intermittent occurrence of zero flow conditions in some sub-
basins (described below) prevented comparison of all sub-basins with the
overall basin for the same sampling periods.
* Hereafter called the E-6, E-5, and E-9 sub-basins, respectively.
41
-------
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF THE COMBINED E-5, E-6
SUB-BASINS WITH STATION E-l (ENTIRE BASIN)
Sub-basin
Fractional
Parameter
or
Downstream
Station
8/20/74
8/30/74
Mean
Loadings
E-5, E-6
E-l
TOC
E-5, E~6
88
43
66
4.1
E-l
13
18
16
BOD.
E-5, E-6
13
5.5
9.2
11
J
E-l
0.67
1.0
0.84
Total-P
E-5, E-6
0.64
0.39
0,52
17
E-l
0.034
0.027
0.030
Org-N
E-5, E-6
2.1
1.9
2.0
4.5
E-l
0.46
0.43
0.44
NH,-N
E-5, E-6
1.0
0.29
0.65
12
E-l
0.067
0.044
0.056
no2+no3-n
E-5, E-6
1.3
0.30
0.80
6.7
E-l
0.10
0.13
0.12
Mean
9.2
42
-------
TABLE 9
Parameter
COMPARISON OF THE E-9
SUB-BASIN WITH STATION E-l (ENTIRE BASIN)
Sub-basin
or
Downstream
Station
Loadings -10 lbs/acre/day
5/15/74 5/16/74 5/17/74 Mean
Fractional
Loadings
E-9
E-l
TOC
BOD.
5
Total-P
Org-N
nh3-n
NO2+NO3-N
E-9
3.0
4.4
2.0
3.1
0.21
E-l
26
10
8.7
15
E-9
3.9
0.44
0.18
1.5
0.75
E-l
3.9
0.87
1.1
2.0
E-9
0.04
0.003
0.002
0.015
1.4
E-l
0.018
0.008
0.007
0.011
E-9
0.65
0.10
0.041
0.26
0.90
E-l
0.50
0.16
0.22
0.29
E-9
0.16
0.034
0.01
0.068
0.70
E-l
0.14
0.087
0.065
0.097
E-3
0.02
0.031
0.002
0.018
1.6
E-l
0.018
0.009
0.007
0.011
Mean
0.93
43
-------
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF THE COMBINED
E-5, E-6 SUB-BASINS WITH THE E-9 SUB-Basin
Parameter
Sub-Basin
Loadlngs-10 lbs/acre/day
5/15-17/74 8/29-30/76
Mean Mean
Fractional Loadings
E-5. E-6
E-9
TOC
BODr
5
Total-P
Org-N
nh3-n
no2+no3-n
E-5, E-6
E-9
E-5, E-6
E-9
E-5, E-6
E-9
E-5, E-6
E-9
E-5, E-6
E-9
E-5, E-6
E-9
3.2
1.5
0.015
0.26
0.069
0.018
66
9.4
0.52
2.0
0.67
0.81
21
6.3
35
7.7
9.7
45
Mean
21
44
-------
TABLE 11
COMPARISON OF THE E-6
AND E-5 SUB-BASINS
Fractional Loadings
Parameter
Sub-basin
Loadings-
8/29/74
-10~^lbs/acre/day
8/30/74 Mean
E-6
E-5
TOO
E-6
E-5
150
64
45
42
98
53
1.8
bod5
E-6
E-5
27
7.8
6.7
5.0
17
6.4
2.7
Total-P
E-6
E-5
2.0
0.10
0.78
0.24
1.4
0.17
8.2
Org-N
E-6
E-5
4.0
1.4
1.8
2.0
2.9
1.7
1.7
nh3-n
E-6
E-5
3.3
0.17
0.69
0.14
2.0
0.16
12
no2+no3-n
E-6
E-5
4.2
<0.17
0.78
<0.14
2.5
<0.16
>16
Mean >7.1
45
-------
TABLE 12
COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM (F.C.) LOADINGS
Sub-basin or
Downstream
Station
Loadings-Million F.C./acre/day
8/29/74 8/30/74 Geometric
Mean
Fractional Loadings
E-5. E-6 E-5. E-6 E-6 E-9
E-l E-9 E-5 E-l
E-5, E-6
E-6
E-5
E-l
15.2
29.3
9.71
3.36
4.41
3.7
4.69
1.39
8.19
10.4
6.75
2.16
3.79
7.65
1.54
E-9
E-l
5/15/74
2.12
3.57
5/16/74
0.384
0.944
Geometric
5/17/74 Mean
0.421
0.188
1.07
0.859
1.24
46
-------
Period of Flow
Comparison Comparison Conditions
5/15-17/74 E-9 with E-l "0" flow at E-6
8/29-30/74 E-5, E-6 with E-l "0" flow at E-9
Both periods of comparison, however, represent the same types of
rainfall-streamflow conditions (short response time between rainfall in-
cidence and streamflow increase). See "Description of Study Area" (dis-
cussion of Figure 2) for details on this phenomenon.
Comparison of loadings (Tables 8-12) indicate the following:
(1) The E-5, E-6 combined sub-basins are only 28% of the area
of the overall basin (Station E-l). Compared to the overall
basin, however, they contribute a 9.2 times higher combined
chemical loading (Table 8) and a 3.8 times higher fecal con-
form loading (Table 12).
(2) The E-9 sub-basin contains only 43% of the overall basin area
but is 93% higher in combined loadings (Table 9) and 1.2 times
higher in fecal coliform loadings (Table 12) than the overall
basin.
(.3) The combined E-5, E-6 sub-basins contain only 64% of the E-9
sub-basin area, yet they contribute combined chemical loadings
averaging 21 times higher (Table 10), and coliform loadings
averaging 7.6 times higher (Table 12) than E-9.
(4) The E-6 sub-basin is only 39% as large as the E-5 sub-basin,
but averages both a 7.1 times higher combined chemical loading
contribution (Table 11) and a 1.5 times higher fecal coliform
loading contribution (Table 12) than E-5.
The combined E-5 and E-6 sub-basins clearly contribute a larger
amount of the pollutional load to the proposed Impoundment site than would
47
-------
be indicated by their size. Analysis of data from these two sub-basins
on a total pounds/day basis (Table 13) indicates the following:
(1) The E-5 sub-basin contributes a higher TOC and Org-N
load,
(2) Both sub-basins contribute approximately the same load
of BOD^, and
(3) The E-6 sub-basin contributes a higher load of Total-P,
NH3-N, and N02+N03-N.
The above comparisons suggest plants (leaf litter) in the E-5
sub-basin and animal waste in the E-6 sub basin as the major sources of
pollution. The smaller E-6 sub-basin has 1.4 times as many cattle, 1.3
C
times as many swine, and 2.3 times as many poultry as E-5. Compared
to E-6, the E-5 sub-basin contains 2.6 times the total area, 2.6 times
the stream miles, twice the swampy area and 4.2 times the forest area.
The E-6 sub-basin has a much greater amount of animal and poultry waste
subject both to leaching to the groundwater and surface runoff. The
E-5 sub-basin, however, generates more leaf litter subject to aquatic
decay and transport.
In support of these conclusions, and in an effort to determine the
relative magnitude of the contribution from these two pollutional sources,
the following carbon-nitrogen ratios (C:N) were used as guides.
* The poultry population3"^ in the E-6 sub-basin consists of a single 40,000
to 50,000 layer hen operation located approximately 0.6 stream miles up-
stream of Station E-6. In this operation, the majority of the chicken
litter is spread on surrounding cropland with the remainder placed in a
small, shallow holding pond.
48
-------
TABLE 13
LBS/DAY COMPARISONS OF THE
E-5 AND E-6 SUB-BASINS
Parameter
TOC
bod5
Total-P
ORG-N
nh3-n
no2+no3-n
Sub-basin
E-5
E-6
E-5
E-6
E-5
E-6
E-5
E-6
E-5
E-6
E-5
E-6
8/29/76
378
345
46.2
62.5
0.6
4.7
8.4
9.1
1.0
7.6
<1.0
9.7
8/30/76
250
103
29.7
15.5
1.4
1.8
11.6
4.1
0.8
1.6
<0.8
1.8
Average
314
224
38.0
39.0
1.0
3.2
10.0
6.6
0.9
4.6
<0.9
5.8
49
-------
C:N RATIOS
Non-Point Sources
Min
Max
Mean
Local trees
16
40:1 (White Oak) 98:1 (Red Maple)
59:1
E-5
Animals and Poultry^ 3.4:1 (Swine)
27:1
27:1 (Beef)
12:1
*
E-6
13:1
Realizing that the C:N values for leaf litter and animal or poultry
waste apply to fresh materials, and that those for the two sub-basins rep-
resent partially decomposed material from both sources, the correlations
between basin and source type are good.
These comparisons and correlations suggest that the pollutional
loadings contributed by the E-6 sub-basin will be responsive to improved
animal and poultry waste handling practices. The pollutional loadings
from the E-5 sub-basin, which appear to originate largely from natural
processes, are less subject to control.
* Includes a C:N of 5.1:1 for poultry.
50
-------
REFERENCES
1. American Public Health Association, 1971. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, Thirteenth Edition.
2. Spino, D. F. , 1966. "Elevated Temperature Technique for the Isolation
of Salmonella from Streams", Applied Microbiology, 14, pp. 591-596.
3. Ewing, W. H. , 1962. Enterobacteriaceae Biochemical Methods for
Group Differentiation, Public Health Service Publication No. 734.
4. Edwards, P. R., W. H. Ewing, 1962. Isolation and Grouping of Salmonella
and Shigella Cultures, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, Public Health Service.
5. Climatological Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Environmental Data Service, Asheville, NC.
6. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water
Resources Data for Georgia, 1969-1975.
7. Soil Conservation Service, Evans County Work Plan, Candler, Evans,
and Tattnall Counties, Georgia, 1974.
8. Davis, S. N. and R. J. DeWiest, 1966, Hydrogeology, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
9. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Study, TS-04-73-01,
Bacteriological Preimpoundment Study in the Upper Leaf River Watershed,
Smith County, Mississippi, August, 1972.
10. Sawyer, C. N. , 1960, Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers, New York
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
11. Environmental Protection Technology Series, Quantification of Pol-
lutants in Agricultural Runoff, EPA-600/2-74-005; February, 1974.
12. Environmental Protection Technology Series, Research Status on Effects
of Land Application of Animal Waste, EPA-660/2-75-010, June, 1975.
13. Barnwell, Thomas 0., Nonlinear Estimation of BOD Parameters Using
Marquardt's Comprise Algorithm, PCS&A Branch, Surveillance and
Analysis Division, Region IV, EPA, Athens, GA, January, 1972.
14. Hydrocomp, Inc., July 8, 1976. Study to Predict Post-Impoundment
Water Quality in Two Proposed Reservoirs of Black Creek and Evans
County Watersheds in Southeast Georgia, Report to fulfill U. S.
Soil Conservation Service Contract No. H6-13-SCS-00238.
51
-------
15. Personal communication - data transmitted by letter dated September 8,
1976, from A. B. Walden, Area Conservationist, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Statesboro, Georgia.
16. Personal communication - data transmitted through telephone conver-
sation, October 14, 1976, with Dr. W. Metter, School of Forestry,
Univ. of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
Contract No. AG-13-scs-00223
COOPERATIVE AGIffiEMENT
"between the
MrV! RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.and the
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATIVE TO: Preimpoundment Water Quality Studies
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of May , 197U,
by and "between tho Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV
(referred to as the EPA) and the Soil Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture (referred to as the Service).
AUTHORITY: (l) Foder.:! Water ''olJ.ut.ioxi Control Act Amendments of 1972
(86 Stat. 820) 33 U.S.C. 125U (b)(6)
(2) Section 601 of the Economy Act of June 3ฐป 1932, as
amended (31 TJ.S.C. 686)
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Soil Conservation Service in administering and carrying out
an effective watershed protection program under provisions of Public Law
566 - 83rd Congress, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1003, has a need for preim-
poundment studies of water quality conditions within the drainage basins
of proposed impoundments in Black Creek Watershed, Bulloch County, Georgia
and Evans County Watershed, Evans, Tattnall and Candler Counties, Georgia.
In order to determine existing- stream water quality and to prediot the
quality of water in fcho reservoirs after impoundment, the Soil Conservation
Service is desirous of entering into a financial arrangement with the
Environmental Protection Agency for a preimpoundment study.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has the personnel, facilities
and technical knowledge to make the desired studies and are willing to
enter into a cooperative arrangement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and mutual cove-
nants herein contained, the parties hereto do agree with each other as
follows:
I. THE EPA AGREES:
A. To coimnp'if.f ;'K'
-------
2 Cooperative t.tfvi ซn I No. AG-13-sca- 00223
B. To ccrului.!. two otcr'iea of about one week duration each to determine
the ph.yi; u i .. :u> L chemical quality and the degree of bacteriological
contr'j 'irja. i(>n of: (a) tributaries which will serve as influent
water sources after the lakes are filled, (b) some main channel
points on both Cedar and Little Black Creeks within the boundaries
of the impoundments and (c) main channel points at or immediately
downstream of both dam sites. Work will be performed in accordance
with a prepared detailed study plan (Attachment A).
C. To predict the quality of the impounded waters following project
completion; especially the expected fecal colifonn concentrations
in designated recreational areas of the impoundments.
D. To provide data for the confirmation of a mathematical model which
can be used in the future, with a minimal amount of additional data,
to prodi.il water quality in other impoundments in the same general
type of area ( s;.jds uoil type and land usage).
E. To furnish 3CS with a complete report giving results of studies
conducted under A, B, C and D above within nine (9) months after
effective, datt-, of thio agreement.
F. To periodically furnish the Service itemized hillings for work
accomplished in accordance with study plan (Attachment A).
II. THE SERVICE AGREES:
A. To assist EPA by changing charts on recording instruments at specific
locations within the watersheds.
B. To furnish maps of the study areas and design data for the proposed
impoundments.
C. To assist EPA in gathering land use data within the impoundment
drainage areas.
D. To reimburse EPA for the preimpoundment studies in an amount not to
exceed $15',000 during fiscal year 197U- Payments will be made upon
receipt of itemized billings for work' accomplished.
III. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
A. This agreement shall be effective for the period May 1. 197ii through
June 30. 197U and may be supplemented, amended or renewed for con-
tinued work during subsequent fiscal year.
B. It is the intent of the EPA and Service to continue this agreement
during fiscal year 1975 for completion of work in the study plan.
Renewal will be contingent upon availability of appropriated funds.
a-2
-------
3 - Cooperative Agreement No. AG13-soa-00223
C. This agreement shall be terminated upon completion of the work as
mutually determined by the parties thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the day,
month and year first above written.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
rknU.udtMt
Charles W. Bartlett
Title: Regional Administrator Title: State Conservationist
Region IV
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
yr/,. c'
J&ck E. Ravan
-------
ATTACHMENT A
For copies of or details concerning the study plan, contact:
Dr. David W. Hill
or
Hugh C. Vick
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Surveillance and Analysis Division
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30601
a-4
-------
EPA-IAG-R5-0604
Contract No. AG-13-sos-00226
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
between the
IWIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and the
SOIL* CONSERVATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
RELATIVE TO: Preimpoundment Water Quality Studies
TIIIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July , I97I4,
by and between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV
(referred to as the EPA) and the Soil Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture (referred to.as the Service).
AUTHORITY: (l) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(86 Stat. 820) 33 U.S.C. 12$h (b)(6)
(2) Section 601 of the Economy Act of June JO, 1932, as
amended (31 U.S.C. 686)
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Soil Conservation Service in administering and carrying out
an effective watershed protection program under provisions of Public Law
ฃ66 - 83rd Congress, as--amended, 16 U.S.C. 1003, has a need for preim-
poundment studies of water quality conditions within the drainage basins
of proposed impoundments in Black Creek Watershed, Bulloch County, Georgia
and Evans County Watershed, Evans, Tattnall and Candler Counties, Georgia.
In order to determine existing stream water quality and to predict the
quality of water in the reservoirs after impoundment, the Soil Conservation
Service is desirous of entering into a financial arrangement with the
Environmental Protection Agency for a preimpoundment study.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has the personnel, facilities
and technical knowledge to make the desired studies and is willing to
enter into a cooperative arrangement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and mutual cove-
nants herein contained, the parties hereto do agree with each other as
follows:
I. THE EPA AGREES:
A. To carryout a comprehensive study in the current fiscal year to
achieve the below listed objectives.
a-5
-------
2 Cooperative A^ro-> - AL"13-bcb-O0226
B. To conduct two studies of about one week duration each to determine
the physioal and ohemioal quality and the,degree of baoteriologloal
contamination of: (a) tributaries vhioh will serve as influent
water souroes after the lakes are filled, (b) some main ohaxmel
points on both Cedar and Little Black Creeks within the boundaries
of the impoundments etad (o) channel points at or immediately
downstream of both dam sites. Work will be performed In aooordanoe
with a prepared detailed study plan (Attaohment A).
C. To prediot the quality of the impounded waters following projeot
completion; especially the expeoted feoal ooliform oonoentrations
in designated recreational areas of the impoundments.
D. To provide data for the confirmation of a mathematical model vhioh
can be used in the future, with a minimal amount of additional data,
to prediot water quality in other impoundments In tits same general
type of area (same soil type and land usage)
B. To furnish SCS with a complete report giving results of studies
conducted under A, B, C and 1) above within seven (7) months after
effeotive date of this agreement*
F. To periodically furnish the Service Itemised billings for work
accomplished in acoordance with study plan (Attaohment A).
II. THE SERVICE AGREES:
A. To assist EPA by changing charts on reoordlng instruments at speoiflo
locations within the watersheds*
B. To furnish maps of the study areas and design data for the proposed
impoundments.
C. To assist EPA in gathering land use data within the impoundment
drainage areas.
D. To reimburse EPA for the pre impoundment studies In an amount not to
exceed $23ป1+69 during fisoal year 1975* Payments will be made upon
reoeipt of itemized billings for work aooomplished.
III. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
A. This agreement shall be effeotive for the period July 1. 197li
through January 31. 1975 and may be supplemented, amended or
renewed for continued work during subsequent fisoal year.
a-6
-------
3 Cooperative AkT.-^-.ueut Nou AG13see 00226
B. This agreement shall be terminated upon oompletion of the woric i
mutually determined, by the parties thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the day,
month and year first above written.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
aok E. Ravan
Title: Regional Administrator
Region IV
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Charles W. Bartlett
Title: State Conservationist
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IV, Surveillance & Analysis Division
College Station Road, Athens, GA 30601
SUBJECT: Request for Extension of Cooperative Agreement DATE: May 20, 1975
with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
FROM: 4ASI:David W. Hill
Chief, Special Studies
TO: 4A:Jack E. Raven
Administrator, Region IV, EPA
THRU: 4AS:John A. Little
Director, S&A Division
SUMMARY
The attached amendment to our current Cooperative Agreement
with SCS is Intended to extend the agreement through the next
fiscal year. This will be adequate time to complete and termi-
nate the project and will allow us to take advantage of unused
funds (more then $11,000) committed to the project.
Approximately May 1, 1975, the SCS finalized a contract with
Hydrocomp, a private computer firm specializing in hydrology
and water quality, which will analyze and make detailed (hour-
by-hour) water quality projections from our field data. This
is to be a slvmonth contract, and, consequently, Hydrocomp will
not finish Its work until around November 1, 1975, after which
time we will need to use its findings and report as the major
components of a report from EPA to SCS.
We am currently using the reimbursable funds available through
this cooperative agreement primarily to hire students on the
"Stay-in-School" program to process data. (All field work has
been completed.) An extension of this agreement will allow us
to continue to use the funds remaining in the contrect for
student salaries and other project-related costs. This use of
these funds will not hinder other work in progrees or esslgned
end will also provide Region IV with some very useful weter
quality data and projection techniques that will be valuable in
connection with similar projects which we review for SCS through
the EIS process.
ACTIOS
Please sign the attached amendment to allow us to continue to
use SCS-designated funds during the next fiscal year. Please
sign the original and all four copies of the amendment and return
them to ae.
EM Pom. 1320-4 (lb*. 4.72)
a-8
-------
2
lACKGBOIMP
Co operative Agreement Mo. AG-13~acs00226 (EPA-IAG-R5-0604) and
cover letter dated May 15, 1975, fro* the State Conservationist,
Athens, GA.
David W. Bill
Chief, Special Studies
Enclosures
cc - Bill MeBrlde
a-9
-------
Contract No. AG-13-scs-00226
EPA-IAG-R5-060l|
AMEH3M3MF
to
COOPERATIVE AGREEMEWF
between the
nrxHOMHaniL protection agqicy
and the
SOU CONSERVATION SERVICE
UHITED STATES BEPJKtMfelT 07 AGRICULTURE
RELATIVE TOx Pre impoundment Water Quality Studies
Section III.A. and Amendment are hereby modified as follows:
This agreement shall be effective for the period July 1. 1975
through June 10. 1976 sod may be supplemented, amended or re-
newed for oontlnued work during subsequent fiscal year.
ENVTR0HNB9TAL PROTECTION AGBKX
Title: Regional Administrator
Region IV
SOIL CONSERVATION SBBVICE
UHITED STATES DEPARTMENT 07 AGRICULTURE
Charles W. Bartlett
Title: State Conservationist '
a-10
-------
I -
TIME
1*30
0820
0930
1815
1315
0800
080S
0820
0845
0810
1045
0855
2130
1200
1625
1515
1600
1630
1700
1745
1845
1945
0800
0920
1150
1455
1555
1700
1800
1900
2000
1100
1210
1250
1310
APPENDIX 8
*
WATER QUALITY OATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
ฃ-01 CEDAR CR AT UNK CO RD. BELLVILLE OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00060
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
OEPTrt
WATER
STREAM
DO
600
PH
RESIOUE
RESIDUE
TEMP
FLOW
5 DAY
01SS-105
TOT NFLT
FEET
CENT
CFS
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
2
22.0
38.0
7.0
4.8
5.8
98
8
2
18.0
13.8
7.1
1.5
6.5
31
3
1
20.0
9.8
7.1
2.2
6.9
64
6
1
22.0
7.5
2.1
6.5
73
7
1
20.5
4.8
6.5
1.0
6.3
27
3
1
19.0
4.0
5.9
1.5
b.b
48
4
1.3
22.0
b.8
1.3
5.4
102
4
24.0
6.6
2.4
5.8
6.6
0.8
no
6
23.0
3.7
4.8
1.0
5.6
96
6
22.5
4.B
4.8
1.2
5.8
108
6
11.0
2.0
54
9
14.0
1.1
2.4
32
lb
16.0
1.2
1.9
43
11
17.0
1.5
1.9
48
6
17.0
1.5
2.5
28
16
17.0
1.5
2.6
30
B
17.0
1.5
1.9
48
8
15.0
1.5
1.7
34
6
15.0
1.6
3.1
36
10
15.0
1.6
2.0
35
23
12.0
1.7
1.1
34
8
12.5
1.7
2.4
33
2b
12.0
1.7
2.2
bO
d
13.0
313.0
2.6
112
6
12.5
318.0
3.2
131
b
12.5
323.0
2.6
97
5
12.5
333.0
3.2
90
i*
12.0
343.0
3.1
85
9
11.5
363.0
3.8
97
2
470.0
1.2
74
t
472.0
1.8
74
7
467.0
1.1
75
1
241.0
1.5
55
4
-------
APPEND IA ri
WATER QUALITY uAlA - PkE IMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CHEEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS, TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - -E-01 CEDAK CR AT UNK CO RD. dtLLVILLE OGEECHEE W BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
DATt TIME
740S17 0805
00306
HOD
4 DAY
MG/L
0.8
0031b
dOL)
7 DAY
MG/L
1.3
00322
dOD
10 DAY
MG/L
1 .S
0032ซ
BOD
12 DAY
MG/L
l.tt
00350
BOD
14 DAY
MG/L
2.0
00331
BOD
16 DAY
MG/L
2.2
00333
dOD
Id DAY
MG/L
2.3
00324
BOD
20 DAY
MG/L
2.6
o*
i
to
-------
APPENOIX B
ป
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUOY
CEDAR CREEK ORAINAGE BASIN
EVANS# TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION * E-01 CEDAR CR AT UNK CO RO. BELLVILLE OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00605
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
DEPTH
ORG N
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
N
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
DATE
TINE
FEET
H6/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
740513
1530
2
0.640
0.20
0.84
0.01
0.02
14.0
4600
740S14
0820
2
0.220
0.02
0.24
0.01K
0.01
13.0
1100
7*0515
0930
1
0.190
0.05
0.24
0.01K
0.01K
15.0
310
740515
1815
1
0.360
0.10
0.46
0.01K
0.01
14.0
570
740516
1315
1
0.180
0.10
0.28
0.01
0.01
12.0
240
740517
0800
1
0.300
0.06
0.36
0.01
0.01
12.0
570
740807
0820
0.420
0.06
0.48
0.05
0.07
14.0
150
740808
0845
0.470
0.08
0.55
0.05K
0.06
16.0
230
740815
0810
0.700
0.01K
0.70
0.05K
0.06
16.0
220
740829
1045
0.680
0.10
0.78
0.15
0.05
19.0
1100
740830
0855
0.500
0.05
0.55
0.15
0.03
21.0
350
741117
2130
0.360
0.03
0.39
0.01K
0.03
17.0
1830
741118
1200
0.350
0.01
0.36
0.01K
0.01K
13.0
1870
741118
1625
0.330
0.01
0.34
0.01K
0.01K
13.0
2470
741120
1515
0.230
0.03
0.26
0.01K
0.02
5.0
1650
741120
1600
0.190
0.07
0.26
0.01K
0.05
7.0
1730
741120
1630
0.230
0.01
0.24
0.01K
0.01K
5.0
1800
741120
1700
0.230
0.03
0.26
0.01K
0.02
7.0
3100
741120
1745
0.260
0.03
0.29
0.01K
0.04
5.0
2800
741120
1845
0.230
0.01
0.24
0.01K
0.05
6.0
3800
741120
1945
0.250
0.01
0.26
0.01K
0.02
5.0
2000
741121
0800
0.170
0.01
0.18
0.01K
0.01
8.0
1450
741121
0920
0.190
0.01
0.20
0.01K
0.02
6.0
1380
741121
1150
0.080
0.10
0.18
0.01K
0.02
5.0
1450
750113
1455
0.260
0.11
0.37
0.02
0.06
15.0
16600
750113
1555
0.430
0.06
0.49
0.01
0.05
19.0
14000
750113
1700
0.380
0.05
0.43
0.01
0.07
17.0
18000
750113
1800
0.370
0.06
0.43
0.01
0.06
16.0
18400
750113
1100
0.420
0.07
0.49
0.02
0.06
20.0
13600
750113
2000
0.400
0.07
0.47
0.02
0.11
20.0
11600
750114
1100
0.230
0.20
0.43
0.04
0.05
20.0
13800
750114
1210
0.350
0.05
0.40
0.02
0.05
19.0
16300
750114
1250
0.430
0.06
0.49
0.01
0.05
19.0
19400
750125
1310
0.300
0.01
0.31
0.02
0.02
13.0
200
-------
I -
TIME
1600
0845
0945
1305
0830
0900
0900
0820
1055
0950
TIME
1600
0845
0945
1305
0830
0900
0900
0820
1055
0950
APPENDIX B
**
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUOY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANOLER COUNTIES* 6E0R6IA
E-02 CEDAR CR AT EVANS-TATTNALL CO.LN 06EECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
OEPTH
WATER
DO
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
2
22.0
6.7
3.5
5.7
87
9
0.650
2
18.0
7.0
2.1
6.3
29
5
0.300
1
20.0
6.7
2.1
6.3
65
4
0.260
1
20.0
6.7
1.3
6.2
26
4
0.260
1
19.5
6.3
1.8
6.2
21
7
0.320
21.5
6.2
23.0
2.3
5.9
0.470
26.0
5.9
1.3
78
22
0.510
22.0
5.0
1.4
5.9
114
11
0.400
23.0
5.3
1.4
5.9
94
6
0.450
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
2
0.35
1.00
0.01
0.02
15.0
4600
2
0.04
0.34
0.01K
0.01
14.0
850
1
0.10
0.36
0.C1K
0.01
14.0
280
1
0.10
0.36
0.01K
0.01
13.0
610
1
0.08
0.40
0.01
0.01
15.0
370
480
0.08
0.55
0.05K
0.06
16.0
470
0.04
0.55
0.05K
0.06
16.0
360
0.05K
0.40
0.15
0.03
21.0
560
0.05K
0.45
0.16
0.05
21.0
560
-------
APPENDIX B
*
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUOY
CEOAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-03 CEDAR CR AT FAS ROUTE S1603 OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
DEPTH
WATER
DO
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIOUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
0ISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
740513
1525
1
1.2
81
3
0.250
740514
0900
2
18.0
7.0
1.4
6.2
14
6
0.260
740515
1000
1
20.5
6.4
1.8
5.9
62
6
0.250
740516
1255
1
20.0
6.0
2.1
6.3
8
4
0.300
740517
0845
1
18.0
6.0
1.4
6.3
22
4
0.300
740607
0920
21.5
2.2
6.2
108
14
0.670
740808
0920
23.0
2.1
5.8
0.420
740814
26.0
5.0
740815
0825
0.9
94
4
0.500
740829
1110
22.0
5.1
1.7
5.9
26
16
0.330
740830
1000
22.5
5.2
1.6
6.1
94
4
0.400
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
DEPTH
NH3N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
740513
1525
1
0.02
0.27
O.OlK
0.02
14.0
5600
740514
0900
2
0.04
0.30
O.OlK
0.05
15.0
380
740515
1000
1
0.08
0.33
O.OlK
0.01
14.0
200
740516
1255
1
0.10
0.40
O.OlK
0.01
13.0
170
740517
0845
1
0.10
0.40
0.01
0.05
14.0
1000
740807
0920
0.53
1.20
0.05
0.16
24.0
190
740808
0920
0.23
0.65
O.OS
0.10
14.0
300
740815
0825
O.OlK
0.50
0.05K
0.06
19.0
110
740829
1110
0.05K
0.33
0.05K
O.OlK
21.0
170
740830
1000
0.05K
0.40
0.17
0.05
22.0
220
-------
APPENDIX B
ซ
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-04 CEDAR CR AT FAS ROUTE SI 127 OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
OATE TIME
7*0513
7*0514
740515
740516
740517
740807
740806
740814
740815
740829
740830
741121
1650
0945
1045
1230
0850
1010
0945
0830
1145
1030
1120
00003
depth
FEET
2
1
1
1
1
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
21.0
17.8
20.0
20.0
19.0
23.0
23.0
26.0
22.5
22.0
12.0
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
DO
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
5 DAY
0ISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
6.5
4.2
6.2
81
5
0.750
7.3
2.0
6.2
27
5
0.340
6.8
1.8
6.3
36
6
0.300
6.1
1.7
6.3
24
2
0.300
6.5
1.4
6.2
14
4
0.400
2.0
6.0
114
4
0.600
3.5
5.9
0.440
6.0
1.2
98
6
0.400
4.6
2.8
6.1
26
8
0*390
4.8
1.8
6.1
98
8
0.850
3.2
74
12
0.760
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
OATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
740513
1650
2
0.15
1.00
0.01K
0.03
16.0
950
740514
0945
1
0.11
0.45
0.01K
0.02
14.0
800
740515
1045
1
0.06
0.36
0.0 IK
0.01
14.0
280
740516
1230
1
0.10
0.40
0.01K
0.01
13.0
260
740517
0850
1
0.10
0.56
0.01
0.01
14.0
130
740807
1010
0.45
1.05
0.10
0.17
16.0
500
740808
0945
0.35
0.79
0.05
0.18
14.0
380
740815
0830
0.15
0.55
0.25
0.07
17.0
145
740829
1145
0.09
0.48
0.52
0.11
17.0
860
740830
1030
0.05
0.90
0.19
0.10
20.0
330
741121
1120
0.07
0.83
0.02
0.05
12.0
2800
-------
APPENOIX B
**
WATER QUALITY DATA - PRE IMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* 6E0RGIA
STATION - E-05 CYPRESS FLAT CR AT FAS ROUTE OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
DEPTH
WATER
DO
BOD
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
0ISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
740513
1705
1
22.0
6.6
3.4
5.9
73
11
0.460
740S14
1000
1
18.0
6.6
3.2
6.3
34
6
0.470
740515
1055
1
20.5
5.7
2.8
6.3
45
7
0.330
740516
1220
1
20.0
4.9
2.3
6.1
23
3
0.350
740517
0900
1
16.0
4.6
1.8
6.1
18
4
0.350
740814
25.0
5.6
740815
0850
1.0
76
8
0.450
740829
1200
22.5
5.2
2.2
5.7
36
22
0.400
740830
1040
22.5
5.2
1.9
6.0
96
6
0.740
750125
1455
2.0
47
3
0.320
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
00060
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N021NO3
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
STREAM
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FLOW
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
CFS
740513
1705
1
0.06
0.52
0.01K
0.09
15.0
2100
1.5
740514
1000
1
0.05
0.52
0.01K
0.06
14.0
1100
0.6
740515
1055
1
0.10
0.47
0.01K
0.04
15.0
210
0.2
740516
1220
1
0.08
0.43
0.01K
0.05
13.0
210
0.1
740517
0900
1
0.10
0.45
0.01
0.03
14.0
290
0.0
740814
3.4
740815
0850
0.01K
0.45
4.00
0.10
14.0
370
740829
1200
0.05K
0.40
0.05K
0.03
18.0
600
3.9
740830
1040
0.05K
0.74
0.05K
0.09
16.0
390
750125
1455
0.01
0.33
0.01K
0.03
9.0
205
-------
APPENDIX B
*
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANOLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E06 CEDAR CR UNNMED TRIB.NR MANASSAS OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
DEPTH
WATER
DO
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
7*0513
1645
1
22.0
4.9
4.9
6.2
117
47
0.540
740514
0930
1
17.5
4.0
2.4
6.2
69
5
0.550
740515
1030
1
19.0
3.2
2.5
6.1
89
17
0.500
740807
0950
22.5
5.1
6.4
192
8
1.650
740808
0930
23.0
4.4
6.4
2.200
740815
0840
2.9
2202
10
1.410
740829
1135
22.0
3.8
3.7
6.1
16
14
0.350
740830
1020
22.0
3.1
2.4
6.2
115
6
0.730
741121
1105
12.0
4.8
14
20
2.250
750125
1340
1.7
52
3
0.300
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
00060
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
STREAM
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FLOW
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
CFS
740513
1645
1
0.35
0.89
0.10
0.12
17.0
5400
0.0
740514
0930
1
0.11
0.66
0.09
0.12
12.0
1000
0.0
740515
1030
1
0.16
0.66
0.05
0.13
15.0
1000
0.0
740807
0950
3.40
5.05
0.10
1.50
16.0
100
0.6
740808
0930
2.20
2.40
0.10
0.77
12.0
300
2.6
740815
0840
0.05
1.46
0.10
0.90
22.0
220
740829
1135
0.35
0.70
0.45
0.22
16.0
690
4.0
740830
1020
0.25
0.98
0.27
0.27
16.0
290
1.2
741121
1105
4.30
6.55
0.01K
1.35
16.0
350
0.2
750125
1340
0.03
0.33
0.17
0.07
11.0
260
0.2
-------
APPENDIX B
ป
WATER QUALITY OATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUOY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-07 CEDAR CR UNNMO TRIB MR MANASSAS OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
DEPTH
WATER
DO
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
01SS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
740513
1630
1
29.8
8.1
10.6
6.5
108
48
0.890
740S1*
0915
1
20.0
6.3
5.6
6.3
51
37
0.350
740515
1020
1
21.0
4.6
8.4
6.2
100
62
0.580
740829
1125
22.5
3.8
3.4
5.9
24
20
0.350
740830
1010
22.5
3.4
2.9
5.9
92
6
0.450
00003
00610
00625
00630
OP 650
00680
31616
00060
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02fcN03
T ซ J4
T ORG C
FEC COLI
STREAM
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FLOW
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
M6/L
MG/L
/100ML
CFS
740513
1630
1
0.28
1.17
0.01
0.11
20.0
2500
0.0
740514
0915
1
0.17
0.52
0.05
0.17
16.0
5600
0.0
740515
1020
1
0.37
0.95
0.01K
0.07
16.0
1700
0.0
740829
1125
0.10
0.45
0.05K
0.04
19.0
2200
0.8
740830
1010
0.05K
0.45
0.05K
0.03
22.0
440
0.4
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY OATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANOLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-08 CYPRESS FLAT CR FAS 1683 COLLINS OGEECMEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
depth
WATER
DO
BOD
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
740513
1720
1
21.0
2.9
2.8
5.5
61
8
0.380
740514
1015
1
20.0
4.1
1.5
5.3
20
8
0.180
740515
1110
1
20.0
2.4
1.7
5.3
50
12
0.190
740516
1210
1
21.0
2.6
1.5
5.6
16
2
0.220
740517
0910
1
18.0
2.1
1.3
5.8
35
13
0.250
740815
0900
0.3
71
5
0.340
740829
1210
22.5
1.6
5.5
4
16
0.330
740830
1050
22.5
3.6
0.5
5.6
44
4
0.210
741121
1025
12.0
1.5
22
10
0.220
750114
1320
1.8
14
1
0.320
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
00060
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COL I
STREAM
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FLOW
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
CFS
740513
1720
1
0.11
0.49
0.01K
0.01
13.0
1900
1.5
740514
1015
1
0.06
0.24
0.01K
0.01
12.0
700
1.4
740515
1110
1
0.08
0.27
0.01K
0.01K
12.0
420
0.1
740516
1210
1
0.11
0.33
0.01K
0.01
14.0
150
0.1
740517
0910
1
0.11
0.36
0.01
0.01
12.0
150
0.1
740815
0900
0.01K
0.34
0.10
0.06
12.0
240
740829
1210
0.05K
0.33
0.05K
0.01
19.0
150
0.7
740830
1050
0.19
0.40
0.05K
0.01
15.0
285
0.6
741121
1025
0.10
0.32
0.01K
0.06
5.0
550
750114
1320
0.05
0.37
0.01
0.03
19.0
1700
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY OATA - PREIMPOUNOMENT STUDY
CEOAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-09 CEDAR CR AT FAS S1683 NR COLLINS OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
depth
WATER
00
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIOUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
740513
1600
1
1.4
81
5
0.350
740514
1030
1
18.5
7.2
1.9
6.3
42
4
0.300
740515
1120
1
21.0
6.5
1.9
6.3
SO
2
0.320
740516
1200
1
20.0
6.7
1.3
6.3
91
3
0.300
7*0517
0920
1
17.0
6.1
1.4
6.2
44
2
0.320
740815
0905
0.9
107
3
0.480
750114
1335
1.9
71
IK
0.390
750125
1515
1.0
64
1
0.310
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
00060
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
STREAM
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FLOW
DATE
time
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
CFS
740513
1600
1
0.05
0.40
0.01K
0.02
14.0
1700
740514
1030
1
0.10
0.40
0.01K
0.02
13.0
700
740515
1120
1
0.08
0.40
0.01K
0.02
15.0
230
4.8
740516
1200
1
0.10
0.40
0.01K
0.01
13.0
250
0.8
740517
0920
1
0.08
0.40
0.01
0.01
16.0
730
0.3
740815
0905
0.01K
0.48
0.10
0.06
16.0
170
750114
1335
0.06
0.45
0.01
0.03
21.0
9000
750125
1515
0.06
0.37
0.03
0.83
14.0
170
-------
APPENOIX B
*
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* 6E0RGIA
STATION - E-10 CEDAR CR AT CO RD SE OF COBBTOWN OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003 00010
DEPTH WATER
TEMP
DATE TIME FEET CENT
740513 1735 1 21.0
740514 1045 1 18.0
740515 1130 1 20.5
740516 1145 1 21.5
740517 0930 1 18.0
740815 0915
750125 1540
00300 00310 00400
DO BOO PH
5 DAY
MG/L MG/L SU
6.2
6.7 1.2 6.2
5.8 2.0 6.4
6.0 2.2 6.2
4.4 2.4 6.2
0.9
0.9
00515 00530 00605
RESIDUE RESIDUE ORG N
DISS-105 TOT NFLT N
C MG/L MG/L MG/L
64 2 0.410
38 16 0.370
3120 3 0.320
128 8 0.410
85 3 0.440
68 1 0.240
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBJ
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
740513
1735
1
850
740514
1045
1
0.08
0.49
0.01K
0.02
13.0
140
740515
1130
1
0.06
0.43
0.05
0.01K
15.0
250
740516
1145
1
0.14
0.46
0.04
0.01
15.0
150
740517
0930
1
0.05
0.46
0.06
0.03
14.0
170
740815
0915
0.01
0.45
0.10
0.06
16.0
200
750125
1540
0.06
0.30
0.01
0.01
12.0
280
-------
APPENOIX B
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-ll CEDAR CR UNNAMED CR SE COBBTOWN OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
DATE TIME
00003
DEPTH
FEET
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
00300
DO
MG/L
00310
BOD
5 OAY
MG/L
00400
PH
SU
00515
RESIDUE
DISS-105
C MG/L
00530
RESIDUE
TOT NFLT
MG/L
00605
ORG N
N
MG/L
740513
740514
740515
740516
740517
740815
750125
1745
1100
1140
1130
0935
0920
1550
22.0
18.0
20.0
20.0
19.0
5.2
5.8
5.2
4.7
4.1
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.7
0.5
0.5
6.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
62
6
0.280
52
2
0.340
2074
18
0.270
43
3
0.360
87
3
0.470
58
1
0.230
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N021N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBI
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
740513
1745
1
250
740514
1100
1
0.05
0.33
0.02
0.02
12.0
170
740515
1140
1
0.06
0.40
0.02
0.01
16.0
150
740516
1130
1
0.09
0.36
0.02
0.01
14.0
860
740517
0935
1
0.10
0.46
0.02
0.01
15.0
220
740815
0920
0.01
0.48
0.05K
0.06
19.0
540
750125
1550
0.04
0.27
0.01
0.01
13.0
250
-------
APPENOIX B
ซ
WATER QUALITY DATA - PREIMPOUNDMENT STUDY
CEDAR CREEK ORAINAGE BASIN
EVANS* TATNALL AND CANDLER COUNTIES* GEORGIA
STATION - E-12 CEDAR CR UNNAMED CR NR COBBTOWN OGEECHEE R. BASIN EVANS COUNTY WATERSHED
00003
00010
00300
00310
00400
00515
00530
00605
DEPTH
WATER
DO
BOO
PH
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
ORG N
TEMP
5 DAY
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
DATE
TIME
FEET
CENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
740513
1800
1
23.0
6.3
7*0514
1115
1
20.0
7.2
3.2
6.4
89
19
0.220
740515
1150
1
20.0
6.4
3.1
6.5
67
23
0.390
740516
1105
1
21.0
6.6
2.1
6.5
69
19
0.430
740517
0945
1
18.0
6.3
1.4
6.5
59
5
0.520
740815
0935
0.9
280
14
0.380
750114
1400
0.9
69
1
0.220
00003
00610
00625
00630
00650
00680
31616
00060
DEPTH
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
T P04
T ORG C
FEC COLI
STREAM
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
C
MFM-FCBR
FLOW
DATE
TIME
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
/100ML
CFS
740513
1800
1
650
1.4
740514
1115
1
0.08
0.40
0.01
0.04
16.0
830
1.1
740515
1150
1
0.11
0.50
0.05
0.05
16.0
440
0.7
740516
1105
1
0.08
0.51
0.06
0.09
15.0
390
0.5
740517
0945
1
0.16
0.68
0.C5
0.04
15.0
410
0.5
740815
0935
0.01K
0.38
0.05K
0.12
18.0
950
750114
1400
0.13
0.35
0.02
0.02
19.0
220
7.4
-------
APPENDIX C
A GROSS ASSESSMENT OF CEDAR CREEK, GA, WATERSHED RURAL RUNOFF ANNUALLY,
WET SEASON AND UNDER SELECTED STORM CONDITIONS
This watershed has been subdivided Into twelve areas (See Map - Page B)
to allow reasonably detailed Information to be used on a geographic
basis. This representation seemed best for this particular watershed;
however, some watersheds can be*divided into contained areas based on
land use or equal slope percentages. The locally developed process
EFARRB, "Erosion, Sedimentation and Rural Runoff," is flexible enough
to handle any of these area representations. The descriptive informa-
tion for each area is stated on Page C. The summarization of total
area results for five periods or conditions can be found on Page D
with detailed reports numbered 1 through 5 cross-referenced in the
summary.
The principal soils in the area are: Tifton (K - .24), Fuquay (K - .20)
Cowarts (K - .32), Lakeland (K - .17), Waher (K - .28), Leefield (K - .20),
Kershaw (K ฆ .15), and Troup (K - .17). Slope percentages ranged from
0-3Z In the swamp areas to 0-12X in the highlands, and slope lengths
ranging from 100 to 400 feet were used.
Sediment Delivery Ratios of .05, .10, and .20 were used in various
parts of the watershed, and the local area estimate of 2,900 pounds
per year per acre of Forest/Pasture Litter-fall* was considered appropri-
ate. The ultimate delivery to waterbodies of nutrients from this
litter was estimated at 1%. Standard Cropping Factors (C) were used,
and no Control Practices (P) were assumed.
The calculating process for erosion is the "Universal Soil Loss Equation"
and specific values for Slope Z, Slope Length, R, K, C, and P can be
input to the system to give specific answers; however, Slope Z and Slope
length can be input as ranges and R, K, C, and P can be input as values
with percentage composition based on Land Use, and this results in a
variety of evaluations combining randomly selected components to more
accurately represent the variable nature of actual areas.
The results given on Page D represent the best assessment obtainable with
the knowledge available to the author; this final report represents use of
considerable localized information.
Howard A. True
Anbient Monitoring Section
Water Surveillance Branch
Surveillance and Analysis Division
EPA, Region IV. ERLA
Athens, GA 11/4/76
* Personal communication - data transmitted through telephone conver-
sation, October 14, 1976, with Dr. W. Nutter, School of Forestry,
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
a
-------
CEDAR CREEK WATERSHED
EVANS COUNTY, GA
. ' >
. ซ/ ' . .1 v v
. A'&1\ t:&
SAMPLING POINTS
V y? A., .
rt V\fv\'
V* W.'-
&
c-2
-------
CEDAR CREEK (GA) IMPOUNDMENT WATERSHED ANALYSIS
DATA USED FOR FINAL CROSS ASSESSMENT USING "EPARRB" PLANNING MODEL
Area acraa
Area aq. milea
Blowup acraa
Land uaa Xs
TlTTToptana
(2) Paatura
(3) Foreat
(5) Other
Slope X rang*
Slop* Igth. rang*
E-l
928
1.45
4
K. C. P valuaa i X
7
7
85
1
0-10
150-300
. 28-10
.24-45,
.20-4J
.26-"*
B-2
1362
2.44
10
40
12
40
I 8
I
" 0-10
150-300
.28-10
.24-35
.20-35
.15-20
,26-40
E-3
3712
5.80
10
20
5
60
15
0-10
150-300
E-4
2522
3.94
10
20
6
65
9
0-6
250-40d
Scd. Del. X range
Nutrient X of Scd:
...
P
K
Animal/Fowl Cnt*.ฃ^a
Total Cowa
Dairy Cowa
Swine
Poultry
Kurcat/Paatur* Litter:^
.012-ป3, .012-601)
1.0-100 !l.15-100
10-30 10-30
.10,
.08 i
1.25 j
.10
.08
1.25
i
.28-10
.24-30
.20-30
.26-20
.012-80
1.0-100
10-30
.10
.08
1.25
20
20
.28-40
.24-30
.20-30
.26-20
.012-80
1.0-100
5-15
.10
.08
1.25
125
100
200
Areaa
E-5
3162
4.94
10
25
10
55
10
0-12
100-30C
E-6
979
1.53
6
III
B-8
E-9
10
E-ll |
E-12
Total*
1325
2739
4141
5222
2067 ;
1299
|29.658
2.07
4.28
6.47
8
.16
3.23 |
2.03
| 46.34
5
7
10
10
7 1
3
1 .
60
25
30
60
r
I 40 '
55
4
10
5
2
f 7
10
25
60
60
50
40
25
i
11
5
5
8
15
I10
0-3* o-io"
0-12
0-4
0-12 ] 0-3
55
4
50
11
0-3
350-4001 350-400 150-300| 100-300; 300-400| 100-3001 350-400
.28-20) . 28-20 i
.24-65 .20-801
.20-15
.28-10
.20-90
.28-20 .28-20
.24-30 .24-80
.20-50
.28-20'
.24-15
.20-65
.28-20
. 24-65;
.20-151
.28-20
.20-80
.26-25^ .26-35' .26-60 .26-25 .26-30
.012-751 .012-65; .012-40 .012-75 .012-70
i.o-ioo l.o-100! i.o-ioo i.o-ioo i.o-ioo
.10
.08:
.26-60 .26-40 .26-55
.012-40 .012-60, .012-45(
1.0-100!l.0-100 1.0-100
1.25!
O-IO
0-10
10-30.
10-30
0-10
10-30
0-10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
1.25
1.25
1.25'
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
40
40
216
45000
110
60
100,
401
250
22000
6 :
6i
215,
361
246
981
.67000,
!.l>s/ac/yr.
2*00
2900
2990
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2930
2900
2900
2900
Delivery X
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Composition Z:
N
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
P
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
K
.18
18
.18
.18
.18
.18
,18
.18
.18
.18
.18
.18
BOD
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
TOC
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
11 Each evaluation of the "Univeraal Soil Loee Equation", using randomly aelected value* froat 100 value tablea for land uae,
alope X, alope length, K, C and P, la multiplied by the blowup acre* for accumulation of report quantities.
(Note M2 1299 acrea with blowup factor of 3 acraa ฆ 433 evaluatlona).
2/ Anlmal/Powl count* and Foreat/Paature litter was not uaad in tingle atom event calculationa since primary objective waa
to obtain aroaion and sediment.
c-3
-------
CEDAR CREEK (GA) WATERSHED RURAL RUNOFF GROSS QUANTITIES
Erosion Sediaent Forest/Pasture t N P K BOD TOC Report
Period/Type El Tons Tons Litter Tons Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Kunber
Annual Totals 275 99,039 16.958 267 40,085 28^410 424,897 64,426 280,546 1(a)
Dally Average 271.4 46.5 -7 1,164 177 769 Kb)
(365 Days)
Wet Period Totals 124 44,568 7,631
(June - August)
Period Dally Avg 484.5 83.0
Kปy Dally Av* 30/Mo. 363.1 62.2
AliSUsIISuJLx^&Xg 36/Ho. 415.4 71.1
Single Storm 19 6,843 1,172
(1" per hour)
Sed. Del. - 0-10Z
5-10Z
0-30Z
-Single Stora 88 31,693 5,427
(2" per hour)
Sed. Del. - 0-10Z
5-15Z
0-30Z
Single Stora 88 31,693 7,057
(2" per hour)
Sed. Del. - 20-28Z
(based on drainage area)
120
17,766
12,657
191,208
26,790
123.763
2(a)
1.3
1.0
1.1
193
146
166
138
104
118
2,078
1,558
1*782
291
226
254
1.345
1,018
l'l58
2(b)
m
3
3
Rote: Only erosion and sediaent delivery Is aeanlngful for single stora events.
Data information for all reports has been stated on the data sheet; however, report #5 is a special report with sediaent
delivery percentages calculated froa drainage area sicca (See Pg. 22 "Controls of Water Pollution froa Cropland"), see
S.D. percentages on top of report 5.
A 1" per hour stora event would be expected to occur 2 tlaes In July each year and 1 tine In June and August every 5 years.
A 2" per hour stora event would be expected to occur 1 tiae in each aonth of June, July and August every 5 years.
(period of analysis 1970-1974 at Bellvllle, GA)
-------
Ctu*- l^OuN^t .T
CANuLt*. TiTT'.AL 4 EVAtlS CJwNTItSf LBS
BOD LBS
TOC LBS
AC10 LBS
1 LANO 1 4.01
926.00
306.58
11.94
832.
522.
77S7.
2388.
11990.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PC A100
1.53
0.33
0.01
0.90
0.56
8.36
2.57
12.92
0.0
2 LANO < IV.01
1562.00
7676.85
1466.13
12.44
3144.
2366.
36548.
2488.
12490.
0.
LIVESTOCK/row.
47.
37.
0.
264.
319.
UNIT TOTALS
1562.00
7676.85
1460.13
12.44
3191.
2404.
3*548.
2752.
12810.
8.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PER100
~ .91
0.93
0.01
2.04
1.54
23.40
1.76
8.20
0.0
3 LANO ( 10.0)
3712.00
10137.71
ฃ097.53
37.65
4073.
3446.
52573.
7531.
37806.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOtfL
51.
41.
0.
287.
347.
UNIT TOTALS
3712.00
10137.71
2097.S3
37.65
4924.
3467.
52573.
7816.
38153.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOO
2.73
0.57
0.01
1.33
0.94
14.16
2.11
10.28
0.0
* LANO ( 10.0)
2522.00
2664.00
202.14
26.95
1049.
516.
7150.
5390.
27856.
8.
LIVESTOCK/FOrtL
209.
146.
0.
1*53.
2191.
UNIT TOTALS
2522.00
2664.00
202.14
26.95
1250.
662.
7150.
7343.
29247.
0.
PER ACME LOAOS FOR PERIOO
1.06
0.11
0.01
0.50
0.26
2.84
2.91
11.60
0.0
5 LANO ( 10.0)
3162.00
16675.26
J404.25
30.35
7354.
5520.
85212.
6071.
30477.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOrfL
101.
80.
0.
566.
685.
UNIT TOTALS
3162.00
16675.26
3404.25
30.35
7456.
SbOO.
85212.
6637.
31162.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOO
5.27
1.08
0.01
2.36
1.77
26.95
2.10
9.86
0.0
6 LANO < 6.0)
979.00
910.57
~7.24
8.86
254.
97.
1213.
1773.
8698.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOM.
207.
46.
0.
1056.
1234.
UNIT TOTALS
979.00
910.57
47.24
8.86
461.
143.
1213.
2828.
10132.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.93
0.05
0.01
0.47
0.15
1.24
2.69
10. 35
0.0
7 LANO ( 5.0)
132S.OO
2344.38
113.33
8.41
378.
202.
2864.
1681.
8439.
0.
LIVESTOOK/FOUL
59.
40.
0.
499.
607.
UNIT TOTALS
1325.00
23*4.30
113.33
8.4l
437.
242.
2864.
2180.
9046.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOO
1.77
0.09
0.01
0.33
0.18
2.16
1.6S
6.83
0.0
a LANO < 7.0)
2739.00
vuOO.ov
1882.16
27.78
4264.
3078.
47154.
5556.
27891.
0.
L1VESTOCKSFOML
532.
155.
0.
3868.
4456.
unit totals
2739.OU
90U0.69
1882.16
*7.78
4 796.
3233.
47154.
9424.
32347.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOO
3.29
0.69
0.01
1.75
1.18
17.22
3.44
11.61
0.0
9 LAND < 10.0)
*1*1.00
20 760.34
4187.53
42.02
9131.
6800.
104828.
84U4.
42180.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
157.
91.
0.
2521.
2570.
UNIT TOTALS
*1*1.UU
20760.34
4107.53
42.02
9288.
6892.
104026.
10924.
44756.
b.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PERIOO
5.01
1.01
0.01
2.24
1.66
25.31
2.64
10.81
0.0
10 LAND ( 1(1.0)
3222.00
12946.42
655.57
35.95
1950.
1135.
16510.
7190.
36096.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOO
2.46
0.13
0.01
0.30
0.22
3.16
1.30
6.91
0.0
11 LANO ( 7.0)
2067.00
11957.40
ฃ398.03
16.47
5094.
3878.
60030.
3294.
16534.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOO
5.78
1.16
0.01
2.46
1.88
29.04
1.59
6.00
0.0
12 LANO ( 3.0)
1299.00
2539.49
120.63
0.ฃ4
J90.
213.
3050.
1648.
8273.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
1.95
0.09
0.01
0.30
0.16
2.35
1.27
6.37
0.0
STATE GROUP LANO 2*658.00
990J9.37
16958.11
267.u6
38722.
27773.
*24097.
53*13.
268137.
0.
LiVESTOCK/FOtfL
1364.
637.
0.
11013.
12409.
GEORtelA 29658.00
99039.37
16958.11
267.06
40005.
26410.
*2ปt>97.
64*26
280546.
0.
AREA LANO 29650.00
99039.37
16958.11
267.06
38722.
27773.
424697.
53413.
268137.
u.
LIVESTOCK/FO-L
1364.
637.
0.
11013.
12409.
6RAN0 TOTALS 29658.00
99039.37
16958.11
267.06
40085.
28410.
424897.
64426.
2605*6.
0.
-------
CtD-H CHEEK IMPOUNDMENT
CANOLEHt TATTNAL & EVANS COUNTIES GA.
LANO UNITS 1-12 AfcE DRAINAGE AREAS FOk SAMPLING POINTS E1-E12.
PERIOD MONTHS 1 - 12
a*** DAILY loadings
UNIT/TYPE tPLOT AC.) ACRES S.L. TONS TO HATER BOOIES
SEO. TONS LITTER TONS NIT.LBS PHOS.LBS LBS BOO LBS TOC LBS ACID LBS
1 LAND ( 4.0)
928.00
3.90
0.85
0.03
2.
1.
21.
7.
33.
0.
2 LAND ( 10.0)
1562.00
21.03
4.00
0.03
9.
6.
100.
7.
34.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
1562.00
21.03
4.00
0.03
9.
7.
100.
8.
:s.
0.
3 LAND ( 10.0)
3712.00
27.78
5.75
0.10
13.
9.
144.
21.
104.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
3712.00
27.78
5.75
0.10
13.
10.
144.
21.
105.
0.
4 LANO ( 10.0)
2522.00
7.30
0.77
0.07
3.
1.
20.
15.
74.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
5.
6.
UNIT TOTALS
2522.00
7.30
0.77
0.07
3.
2.
20.
20.
80.
0.
5 LANO < 10.0)
3162.00
45.69
9.33
0.08
20.
15.
233.
17.
84.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
3162.00
45.69
9.33
0.06
20.
15.
233.
18.
85.
0.
6 LAND ( 6.0)
979.00
2.49
0.13
0.02
1.
0.
3.
5.
24.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
3.
3.
UNIT TOTALS
979.00
2.49
0.13
0.02
1.
0.
3.
8.
28.
0.
7 LAND ( 5.0)
1325.00
6.42
0.31
0.02
1.
1.
8.
5.
23.
0.
LI VESTOCK/FOtfL
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
1325.00
6.42
0.31
0.02
1.
1.
8.
6.
25.
0.
8 LAND ( 7.0)
2739.00
24.66
5.16
0.U8
12.
8.
129.
15.
76.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
11.
12.
UNIT TOTALS
2739.00
24.66
5.16
0.08
13.
9.
129.
26.
89.
0.
9 LAND ( 10.0)
4141.00
56.88
11.47
0.12
25.
19.
287.
23.
116.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOwL
0.
0.
0.
7.
7.
UNIT TOTALS
4141.00
t>6.88
11.47
0.12
25.
19.
287.
30.
123.
0.
10 LAND ( 10.0)
5222.00
35.4tf
1.80
0.10
5.
3.
45.
20.
99.
0.
11 LANO ( 7.0)
2067.00
32.76
6.57
0.05
14.
11.
164.
9.
45.
0.
12 LAND ( 3.0)
1299.00
6.9b
0.33
0.0 2
1.
1.
8.
5.
23.
0.
STATE GROUP LAND
29656.00
271.37
40.47
0.73
106.
76.
1164.
146.
735.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOUL
4.
2.
0.
30.
34.
GEORGIA
296S8.00
271.J7
46.47
0.73
110.
78.
1164.
177.
769.
0.
AREA LANO 29658.00 271.37 %t>.*7 0.73 106. 76. 116*. 146. 73S. 0.
LIVESTOCK/FOrfL 4. 2. 0. 30. 3*.
GRAND TOTALS 29658.00 271.37 46.*7 0.73 110. 78. 1164. 177. 76*. 0.
-------
C*-tt;p Iซot
-ANJLC-** TATT'jAL 'ป C^ONTlti* jA . 4*
Zo
EHOMON s SI; FOB So*ซt.W (ฆtl' "JMni j_4 Jll \ 1'Ju.
l.*Nu UNlT-i 1-12 AWE O^Al^Abt AHt-S rO- sAป-lINo "OlNTS tl-cU.
.4 PฃtiJOO MONTHS 6 - 8
UNIT/TrPE tPLOT AC.)
ACปฃS
S.L. TunS
* ป
*
ซ
TO ซATtR BODIES
SED. TONS
LITTER TONS
NIT.LBS
PMOS.LBS
LBS
800 LBS
roc LdS
ACID LBซ
1 LAND ( 4.u>
92 a.GO
6*0 . 9o
13d.o6
5. J7
374.
235.
3*91.
1*75.
5395.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS tOA PEP100
0.69
0.15
0.01
0.40
0.25
3.76
1.16
5.81
0.0
2 LANO ( 10.0)
1562.00
3454.61
657.05
5.60
1*15.
1065.
16446.
1120.
5621.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
12.
9.
0.
66.
80.
UNIT TOTALS
1562.00
34*4.61
657.05
5.60
1*27.
1074.
16446.
1186.
5700.
0.
PEA ACRE LOADS TOR PEP 100
2.21
U.42
0.00
0.91
0.69
10.53
0.76
3.65
0.0
3 LAND ( 10.0)
3712.00
4562.0*
943.67
16.95
2193.
1551.
23658.
3389.
17013.
0.
LtVESTOCK/FOWL
13.
10.
0.
72.
87.
UNIT TOTALS
3712.00
4562.04
943.87
16.95
2206.
1561.
23658.
3461.
17899.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PER 100
1.23
0.25
0.00
0.S9
0.42
6.37
0.93
4.61
0.0
4 LANO ( 10.0)
2*22.00
1196.7V
126.96
12.13
472.
232.
3218.
2425.
12175.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOM.
52.
36.
0.
4M.
548.
UNIT TOTALS
2S22.00
1198.79
126.96
12.13
524.
269.
3216.
2914.
12723.
0,
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.4d
0.05
0.00
0.21
0.11
1.28
1.16
5.04
0.0
5 LAND 1 10.0)
3162.00
7S03.78
1531.90
13.66
3310.
2484.
38346.
2732.
13714.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOM.
25.
20.
0.
142.
171.
UNIT TOTALS
3162.00
7503.7b
1531.90
13.66
3335.
2504.
38346.
2874.
13S85.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERI00
2.37
0.48
0*00
1.0S
0.79
12.13
0.91
4.39
8.0
6 LAND ( 6.0)
979.00
409.76
21.26
3.99
114.
64.
546.
798.
4004.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOML
S2.
11.
0.
264.
309.
UNIT TOTALS
979.00
409.76
21.26
3.99
166.
55.
54b.
1062.
4313.
0,
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PEK100
0.42
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.06
0.56
1.08
4.41
0.0
T LANO ( 5.0)
1325.00
1054.96
51.00
3.76
170.
91.
1289.
756.
3798.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOJL
15.
10.
0.
125.
152.
UNIT TOTALS
1325.00
1054.96
51.00
3.78
105.
101.
1289.
881.
3949.
0
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.60
0.04
0.00
0.14
o.oa
0.97
0.67
2.98
0.0
8 LANO ( 7.0)
2739.00
4050.4b
846.96
12.50
1919.
I3a5.
21219.
2500.
12551.
0,
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
133.
39.
0.
967.
1114.
UNIT TOTALS
2739.00
4050.45
846.96
12.50
2052.
1424.
21219.
3467.
13664.
0.
~>ฃ< ACHE LOADS FOR PEPIOD
I.*6
0.31
0.00
0.75
0.52
7.75
1.27
4.99
0.0
9 LANO ( 10.0)
4141.00
9342.02
lbb*.39
16.91
4109.
3060.
47178.
3782.
18984.
0<
LIVESTOCK/FOUL
39.
23.
0.
630.
642.
UNIT TOTALS
4141.00
9342.02
1864.39
16.91
4148.
3063.
47178.
4412.
19627.
0
PEM ACRE LOAOS FO* PER100
2.26
U.46
0.00
1.00
0.74
11.39
1.07
4.74
0.0
10 LANO < 10.0)
>222.UO
5426.76
293.01
16.18
Ml.
all.
7*33.
3236.
16243.
0
PEซ ACRE LOAOS F0ซ PERIOD
1.12
0.06
0.00
0.17
0.10
1.42
0.62
3.11
0.0
U LANO I 7.9)
2067.00
53*10.47
1079.46
7.ป1
2292.
1745.
27013.
1482.
7440.
0
PE" ACRE LOAOS FOR PEP 100
2.60
0.52
0.00
1.11
0.84
13.07
0.72
3.60
0.0
12 LANO ( 3.0)
1299.00
1142.75
54.37
3.71
175.
96.
1373.
742.
3723.
0
PER ACRE LOAOS FO* PERIOD
o.dซ
0.04
0.00
0.14
0.07
1.06
0.57
2.87
0.0
STATE GROUP LANu
2*658.00
44567.76
7631.10
120.lo
17425.
12*98.
191208.
24 036.
120660.
0
LIVtSTOCK/FOซL
341.
159.
0.
2753.
3102.
GEORGIA
29656.00
44567.76
7631.10
120.16
17766.
12657.
191208.
26790.
123763.
0
AREA LANO 29658.00 44567.76 7631.10 120.1b 17*25. 12*98. 19120b. 2*036. 120660. 0.
LIVESTOCซ/FUซL 3*1. 159. 0. 2753. 3102.
')ปw TOTALS. 29650.00 44567.76 7(,31.10 120.1b 17766. 12657. 191203. 267V0. 123763. 0.
-------
CtUAH Ottซ lMPOUNUปซt.*T
CANDLt", TATTNAL fc fcvANS COUNTIES, OA,
2b
EROSION & SO FOR SUMME* (*ฃT> MONTHS JON JUL & AUG.
LANti UNITS 1-12 ARE DRAINAGE AREAS FOR SAMPLING POINTS tl-tl2.
PERIOD MONTHS 6 - 8
...ซซ~ป daily loaoings ~~~***
UNIT/TYPE I PLOT AC.) ACRES S.L. TONS ~TO WATER BOOIES *
SED. TONS LITTER TONS NIT .LBS PHOS.LBS LBS BOO UBS TOC LBS ACID LBS
1 LAND ( *.0)
928.00
6.97
1.51
0.06
4.
3.
38.
12.
59.
0.
2 LAND ( 10.0)
1562.00
37.55
7.14
0.06
15.
12.
179.
12.
61.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
1562.00
37.55
7.14
0.06
16.
12.
179.
13.
62.
0.
3 LANO < 10.0)
3712.00
49.59
10.26
0.18
24.
17.
257.
37.
105.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
3712.00
49.59
10.26
0.18
24.
17.
257.
38.
186.
0.
4 LAND ( 10.0)
2522.00
13.03
1.38
0.13
5.
3.
35.
26.
132.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
5.
6.
UNIT TOTALS
2522.00
13.03
1.38
0.13
6.
3.
35.
32.
138.
0.
5 LANO ( 10.0)
3162.00
81.57
16.65
0.15
36.
27.
417.
30.
149.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
3162.00
81.57
16.65
0.15
36.
27.
417.
31.
151.
0.
6 LAND ( 6.0)
979.00
4.45
0.23
0.04
1.
0.
6.
9.
44.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
3.
3.
UNIT TOTALS
979.00
4.45
0.23
0.04
2.
1.
6.
12.
47.
0.
7 LAND ( S.O)
1325.00
11.47
0.55
0.04
2.
1.
14.
8.
41.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
1325.00
11.47
0.55
0.U4
2.
1.
14.
10.
43.
0.
6 LAND ( 7.0)
2739.00
44.03
9.21
0.14
21.
15.
231.
27.
136.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
U.
12.
UNIT TOTALS
2739.00
44.03
9.21
0. 14
22.
15.
231.
38.
149.
0.
9 LANO ( 10.0)
4141.00
101.55
20.48
0.21
*5.
33.
513.
41.
206.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
7.
7.
UNIT TOTALS
4141.00
lul.55
20.48
0.21
45.
34.
513.
48.
213.
0.
10 LANO ( 10.0)
5222.00
63.34
3.21
0.18
10.
6.
81.
35.
177.
0.
11 LAND ( 7.0)
2067.00
5b.49
11.73
0.08
25.
19.
294.
16.
81.
0.
12 LANO ( 3.0)
1299.00
12.42
0.59
0.04
2.
1.
15.
8.
40.
0.
STATE 6R0UP LAND
29658.00
4b4.45
82.95
1.31
169.
136.
2078.
261.
1312.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
4.
2.
0.
30.
34.
GEORGIA
29650.00
64.45
82.95
1.31
193.
138.
2078.
291.
1345.
0.
AREA LAND 19650.00 *84.45 61.95 1.J1 109. 136. 2078. 261. 1312.
LIVESTOCK/FOซiL 4. 2. 0. 30. 3*.
GRAND TOTALS 29658.00 *8*.*5 <12.95 1.31 193. 136. 2078. 291. 13*5.
-------
CEOAK Lrffct* lซM>0Uf<0ซซtNT
CA*,uLEซ. TปTT'ซAL 4 EVANS COUNTIES. G*.
2c
LAND UNITS 1-12 AWE ORAjNAGt AREAS FOh SAMPLING PuINTS E1-E12.
PERIOD MONTHS 5 - 5
DAILY LOADINGS
UNIT/TYPE (PLOT AC.)
ACRES
S.L TONS
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
.....
SCO. TONS
LITTER TONS
nit.lbs
PHOS.LBS
LBS
800 LBS
TOO LBS
AC 10 LBS
..........
........
........
.......
1 LAND I 4.01
928.00
5.22
1.13
0.04
3.
2.
28.
9.
44.
0.
2 LANO ( 10.01
1562.00
28.15
5.35
O.OS
12.
9.
134.
9.
46.
1.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
ซ.
0.
t.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
1562.00
28.15
5.35
0.05
12.
9.
134.
10.
47.
0.
3 LANO ( 10.0)
3712.00
37.17
7.69
0.14
16.
13.
193.
28.
139.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
3712.00
37.17
7.69
0.14
18.
13.
193.
28.
140.
0.
4 LANO ( 10.0)
2522.00
9.77
1.03
0.10
4.
2.
26.
20.
99.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
5.
6.
UNIT TOTALS
2522.00
9.77
1.03
0.10
4.
2.
26.
25.
105.
0.
5 LANO ( 10.0)
3162.00
61.14
12.46
0.11
27.
20.
312.
22.
112.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
3162.00
61.14
14.40
0.11
27.
20.
312.
24.
114.
0.
6 LAND ( 6.0)
979.00
3.34
0.17
0. 03
1.
0.
4.
6.
33.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
3.
3.
UNIT TOTALS
979.00
3.34
0.17
0.03
2.
0.
4.
9.
36.
0.
7 LANO ( 5.0)
132S.OO
8.60
0.42
0.03
1.
1.
10.
6.
31.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
1325.00
8.60
0.42
0.03
2.
1.
10.
8.
33.
0.
LANO ( 7.0)
2739.00
33.00
6.90
0.10
16.
11.
173.
20.
102.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
11.
12.
UNIT TOTALS
2739.00
33.00
6.90
0.10
17.
12.
173.
31.
115.
0.
9 LAND ( 10.0)
*1*1.00
76.11
19.35
0.1S
33.
25.
384.
31.
155.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FO*L
0.
0.
0.
7.
7.
UNIT TOTALS
4141.00
76.11
15.35
0.15
34.
25.
384.
36.
162.
0.
10 LAND ( 10.0)
S222.00
47.47
2.40
0.13
7.
4.
61.
26.
132.
0.
11 LANO ( 7.0)
2067.00
43.84
8.79
0.06
19.
14.
220.
12.
61.
0.
12 LANO < 3.UI
1299.00
9.31
0.44
0.03
1.
1.
11.
6.
30.
0.
STATE GROUP LANO
29656.00
363.11
62.17
0.90
142.
102.
1558.
196.
983.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
4.
2.
0.
31.
34.
OEOHOIA
29658.00
363.11
62.17
0.98
146.
104.
1558.
226.
1018.
0.
AREA LANU
29656.00
363.11
62.17
0.98
142.
102.
1558.
196.
983.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOซL
4.
2.
0.
31.
34.
GRANO TOTALS
29650.00
363.11
62.17
0.98
146.
104.
1558.
226.
1018.
0.
-------
CtDAW CREEK IMPOUNDMENT
CANDLE*. TATTNAL &. EVANS COUNTIES. GA.
LAND UNITS 1-12 ARE DRAINAGE AREAS FOR SAMPLING POINTS E1-E12.
ซ PERIOD MONTHS 8-8
UNIT/TYPE (PLOT AC.)
DAILY LOADINGS
ACRES S.L. TONS TO MATER BODIES ~
SED. TONS LITTER TONS NIT.LBS PHOS.LBS LBS BOO LBS TOC LBS ACID LBS
0
1
1 LAND ( 4.0)
928.00
5.97
1.29
0.05
3.
2.
33.
10.
50.
0,
2 LAND ( 10.0)
1562.00
32.20
6.12
0.05
13.
10.
153.
10.
52.
0.
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
1562.00
32.20
6.12
0.05
13.
10.
153.
11.
53.
0.
3 LANO ( 10.0)
3712.00
42.52
8.80
0.16
20.
14.
220.
32.
159.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
UNIT TOTALS
3712.00
42.52
8.80
0.16
21.
15.
220.
32.
159.
0
4 LANO ( 10.0)
2522.00
11.17
1.18
0.11
4.
2.
30.
23.
113.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOKL
1.
0.
0.
5.
6.
UNIT TOTALS
2522.00
11.17
1.18
0.11
5.
3.
30.
28.
119.
0
5 LANO ( 10.0)
3162.00
69.93
14.28
0.13
31.
23.
357.
25.
128.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
3162.00
69.93
14.28
0.13
31.
23.
357.
27.
130.
0
6 LAND ( 6.0)
979.00
3.82
0.20
0.04
1.
0.
5.
7.
37.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOKL
1.
0.
0.
3.
3.
UNIT TOTALS
979.00
3.82
0.20
0.04
2.
1.
5.
10.
41.
0
7 LAND ( 5.0)
1325.00
9.83
0.48
0.04
2.
1.
12.
7.
35.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOซL
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
UNIT TOTALS
1325.00
9. 83
0.48
0.04
2.
1.
12.
8.
37.
0
8 LANO ( 7.0)
2739.00
37.75
7.89
0.12
lb.
13.
198.
23.
117.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
1.
0.
0.
10.
12.
UNIT TOTALS
2739.00
37.75
7 .89
0.12
19.
13.
198.
34.
129.
0
9 LANO ( 10.0)
4141.00
87.07
17.56
0.18
38.
29.
440.
35.
177.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOtfL
0.
0.
0.
7.
7.
UNIT TOTALS
4141.00
87.07
17.56
0.18
39.
29.
440.
42.
184.
0
10 LAND ( 10.0)
5222.00
54.30
2.75
0.15
8.
5.
69.
30.
151.
0
11 LAND ( 7.0)
2067.00
50.15
10.06
0 .07
21.
16.
252.
14.
69.
0
12 LAND I 3.0)
1299.00
10.65
0.51
0.03
2.
1.
13.
7.
35.
0
STATE GROUP LANO
29658.00
415.36
71.12
1.12
162.
116.
1782.
224.
1125.
0
LIVESTOCK/FOWL
4.
2.
0.
30.
33.
GEORGIA
29658.00
415.36
71.12
1.12
166.
118.
1782.
254.
1158.
0
AREA LAND 29658.00 Mb.36 71.12 1.12 162. 116. 1782. 224. 1125. U.
LIVESTOCK/FO-L 4. 2. 0. 30. 33.
GRAND TOTALS 2*658.00 415.36 71.12 1.12 166. 118. 1782. 254. 1158. 0.
-------
NO LIVESTOCK - NO L1TTE* CtDAH C*EEK IMPOUNDMENT
CANDLE*. TATTNAL t. EVANS COUNTIES. GA.
EROSION * SO FOB 1" PER hh STORM - 2 JUL* EVENTS/Vft - 1 JUN & AUG EvENT/5 YB$.
LAND UNITS 1-12 ARE DRAINAGE AREAS FOR SAMPLING POINTS E1-E12.
ป SINGLE STORM *ITm EI = 19.
UNIT/TYPE (PLOT AC.)
ACRES S.L. TONS ~~~TO MATER BODIES
Sฃo. TONS LITTER TONS NlT.LBS PhOS.LBS LBS BOO LBS TOC LBS ACID LBS
ft
I
1
LANO
( 4.0)
928.00
98.42
21.32
0.0
43.
34.
533.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PER 100
0.11
U.02
0.0
0.05
0.04
0.57
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
LANO
( 10.0)
1562.00
530.40
100.88
0.0
202.
161.
2522.
0.
0.
0,
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.34
0.06
0.0
0.13
0.10
1.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
LAND
( 10.0)
3712.00
700.42
144.92
0.0
290.
232.
3623.
0.
0.
0
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.19
0.04
0.0
0.08
0.06
0.98
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
LANO
( 10.0)
2522.00
184.06
19.49
0.0
39.
31.
467.
0.
0.
0
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.07
0.01
0.0
0.02
0.01
0.19
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
LAND
< 10.0)
3162*00
1152.11
235.20
0.0
470.
376.
S880.
0.
0.
0
PER
ACHE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.36
0.07
0.0
0.15
0.12
1.86
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
LANO
< 6.0)
979.00
62.91
3.26
0.0
7.
5.
82.
0.
0.
0
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERI00
0.06
0.00
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
LAND
( 5.0)
1325.00
161.98
7.83
0.0
16.
13.
196.
0.
0.
0
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.12
0.01
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
LANO
( 7.0)
2739.00
621.87
130.04
0.0
260.
208.
3251.
0.
0.
0
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.23
0.05
0.0
0.09
0.08
1.19
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
LAND
( 10.0)
4141.00
1434.35
289.32
0.0
579.
463.
7233.
0.
0.
0
PE*
ACRE
LOAOS FO* PERIOD
0.35
0.07
0.0
0.14
0.11
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
LAND
( 10.0)
5222.00
894.62
45.29
0.0
91.
72.
1132.
0.
0.
0
PEH
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.17
0.01
0.0
0.02
0.01
0.22
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
LANO
( 7.0)
2067.00
6
-------
NO LIVESTOCK - M) LlTTEk CtJAR CREE* IMPOUNDMENT
candle** tattnal i Evans counties, ga.
EKOSION & SD FOR 2" PER MR STORM - 1 tVENT/5 YRS. FOH ฃ ACM WON JUN JซJC & AUG.
LAND UNITS 1-12 ARE DRAINAGE AREAS FOR SAMSUNG POINTS E1-E12.
ปปซ SINGLE STORM *ITH ฃ1= 88.
UNIT/TYPE (PLOT AC.)
ACRES S.L. TONS TO MATER 600IES
SED. TONS LITTER TONS NIT.LBS PHOS.LBS LBS BOO LBS
ปป
TOC LriS ACIO LBS
0
1
M
N)
1
LANO
( #.0)
928.00
455.61
98.75
0.0
197.
158.
2469.
0.
0.
0.
PEw
ACRE
LOADS FOR PER 100
0.49
0.11
0.0
0.21
0.17
2.66
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
land
( 10.0)
1562.00
2456.61
467.24
0.0
934.
748.
11681.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.57
0.30
0.0
0.60
0.48
7.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
LANO
( 10.0)
3712.00
3244.15
671.19
0.0
1342.
1074.
16780.
0.
0.
c.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.87
0.18
0.0
0.36
0.29
4.52
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
LANO
( 10.0)
2522.00
852.47
90.29
0.0
181.
144.
2257.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.34
0.04
0 . 0
0.07
0.06
0.89
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
LANO
( 10.0)
3162.00
5336.08
1089.34
0.0
2179.
1743.
27234.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOAOS FOR PERIOD
1.69
0.34
0.0
0.69
0.55
8.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
LAND
< 6.0)
979.00
2V1.38
15.12
0.0
30.
24.
378.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.30
0.02
0.0
0.03
0.02
0.39
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
LANO
( 5.0)
132S.00
750.19
36.27
0.0
73.
58.
907.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.57
0.03
0.0
0.05
0.04
0.68
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
LANO
( 7.0)
2739.00
2880.31
602.28
0.0
1205.
964.
15057.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.05
0.22
0.0
0.44
0.35
5.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
LAND
( 10.0)
*1*1.00
Ob43.18
1340.00
0.0
2680.
2144.
33500.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.60
0.32
0.0
0 .b5
0.52
8.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
LAND
( 10.0)
5222.00
4143.02
209.79
0.0
420.
336.
5245.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0 . 7Sป
0.04
0.0
0.08
0.06
1.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
LANO
( 7.0)
2067.00
3626.44
767.61
0.0
1535.
1228.
19191.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.8S
0.37
0.0
0.74
0.59
9.26
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
LANO
( 3.0)
1299.00
812.62
36.66
0 * u
77.
62.
967.
0.
0.
0.
PER
ACRE
LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.63
0.03
0.0
0.06
0.05
0.74
0.0
0.0
0.0
GtORGIA
29658.00
31692.83
5426.53
0.0
10853.
8683.
135664.
0.
0.
0.
GRANO TOTALS
29658.00
31692.83
5426.53
0.0
1085.J.
8683.
135664.
0.
0.
-------
NO LIVESTOCK - NO LITTER CEUAR CHEEK IMPOUNDMENT - CANuLtW. TATTNAL ^ EVANS COUNTIES. 6A.
SPECIAL SEDIMENT DELIVERY HATES ซt10(20%).ปE3.Ev<21*).ปE5t<8<22%),#E*<23%>ปฃ11<2**>ป*E2<25%).ปE7.E12126*>ซ#E1ปE6(28%)
EROSION & SO FOR 2" PER HR STORM - 1 EVENT/5 YRS. FOR EACH HON JUN JUL fc AUo.
LANO UNITS 1-12 ARE ORAINAGE AREAS FOR SAMPLING POINTS E1-E12.
SINGLE STORM WITH EI = 88.
UNIT/TYPE (PLOT AC.I
ACRES
S.L. TONS
SEO. TONS LITTER TONS
TO WATER 800IES ซ
NIT.LBS PHOS.LBS L8S
BOO LBS TOC LBS ACID LBS
0
1
U>
1 LAND ( *.0)
928.00
*55.81
127.63
0.0
255.
204.
3191.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PER100
0.49
0.14
0.0
0.28
0.22
3.44
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 LANO ( 10.0)
1562.00
2456.61
614.15
0.0
1228.
983.
15354.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.57
0.39
0.0
0.79
0.63
9.83
0.0
0.0
0.0
3 LANO ( 10.0)
3712.00
3244.15
681.25
0.0
1363.
1090.
17031.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PER 100
0.B7
0.18
0.0
0.37
0.29
4.59
0.0
0.0
0.0
4 LAND ( 10.0)
2522.00
852.47
196.07
0.0
392.
314.
4902.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PERIOD
0.34
0.08
0.0
0.16
0.12
1.94
0.0
0.0
0.0
5 LAND ( 10.0)
3162.00
5336.08
1173.94
0.0
2340.
1878.
29349.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.69
0.37
0.0
0.74
0.59
9.28
0.0
0.0
0.0
6 LAND ( 6.0)
979.00
291.38
81. 59
0.0
163.
131.
2040.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.30
0.08
0.0
0.17
0.13
2.08
0.0
0.0
0.0
7 LAND ( 5.0)
1325.00
7S0.19
195.05
0.0
390.
312.
4876.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.57
0.15
0.0
0.29
0.24
3.68
0.0
0.0
0.0
8 LAND ( 7.0)
2739.00
2880.31
633.65
0.0
1267.
101*.
15841.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.05
0.23
o.o
0.46
0.37
5.78
0.0
0.0
0.0
9 LAND ( 10.0)
*1*1.00
<>6*3. IB
1395.09
0.0
2190.
2232.
34878.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOADS FOR PERIOD
1.60
0.34
0.0
0.67
0.5*
8.42
0.0
0.0
0.0
10 LAND ( 10.0)
5222.00
*143.62
828.70
0.0
1657.
1326.
20718.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.79
0.16
0.0
0.32
0.25
3.97
0.0
0.0
0.0
11 LAND ( 7.0)
2067.00
3826.44
918.33
0.0
1837.
1469.
22958.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOU
1.85
0.44
0.0
0.89
0.71
11.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
12 LAND ( 3.0)
1299.00
812.62
211.29
0.0
*23.
338.
5282.
0.
0.
0.
PER ACRE LOAOS FOR PERIOD
0.63
0.16
0.0
0.33
0.26
4.07
0.0
0.0
0.0
GEORGIA
29658.00
31692.ซ3
7056.73
*
1
o
1
o
1
1*114.
11291.
176419.
0.
0.
0.
GRAND TOTALS
29658.00
31o92.U3
7056.73
0.0
1*11*.
11291.
176419.
0.
0.
0.
-------
APPENDIX D
SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS
Cedar Creek Impoundment - Evans County Watershed
Station
Number . Description
Cedar Creek at unnumbered county road approximately 0.5
miles downstream of proposed dam site (near Evans-Tattnall
county line) - Evans County.
g_2 Cedar Creek where unnumbered county road crosses Evans-
Tattnall county line.
E_3 Cedar Creek at FAS Route S1603 - Tattnall County.
Cedar Creek at FAS Route S1127 - Tattnall County.
E_5 Cypress Flat Creek at FAS Route 1127 - Tattnall County.
ff
E-6 & E-7 Unnamed creeks at unnumbered county roads - Tattnall
County.
g_g Cypress Flat Creek at FAS Route 1683 - Tattnall County.
E_9 Cedar Creek at FAS Route S1683 - Tattnall County.
ft
g_2Q Cedar Creek at unnumbered county road - Tattnall County.
E-ll & E-12 Unnamed creeks at unnumbered county roads* - Tattnall County.
* For exact station location, refer to study area map (Appendix E)
-------
DAVIS HOUSE
# Atlanta
aeon
Study Area
ซ
APPENDIX E
STUDY AREA MAP
< \
&
SAPPS FARM.
Maximum Retention
-------
APPENDIX F
PROJECT PERSONNEL
FIELD AND MOBILE LAB CREWS
Richard L. Baird
Larry Brannen
Tom Cavinder
Hike Chronic
Ralph E. Gentry
David W. Hill
Ray Lassiter
Raymond Lawless
George Leverett
Eleanor Maginniss
Eddie Minchew
Eddie Shollenberger
T. L. Vaughn
H. C. Vick
Roy Weimert
Bob Woodward
Engineer
Co-op
Engineer
Co-op
Microbiologist
Engineer
Stay-in-school-student
Chemist
Co-op
Typist
Co-op
Engineering Technician
Engineering Technician
Environmentalist
Engineering Technician
Co-op
GATHERING AND TABULATION OF HISTORICAL METEOROLOGICAL AND
HYDROLOGICAL DATA
Bryan Green
Elizabeth Korhonen
Ray Lynch
Debora Talkington
H. C. Vick
Stay-in-school-student
Clerk Typist
Stay-in-school-student
Stay-in-school-student
Environmentalist
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people materially contributed to completion of this
study. The authors wish to acknowledge their cooperation and help
in the indicated areas. We sincerely appreciate their assistance.
Mr. J. C. Davis, Jr., Cobbtown, Georgia
- for use of his land for installation of a rain gauge.
Mr. Roscoe Sapp, Soil Conservation Technician, Soil Conser-
vation Service, Claxton, Georgia
- for use of his land for installation of a variety of
meteorological equipment.
- for the Invaluable servicing of meteorological equipment
installed on his land, the servicing of equipment on Mr.
Davis' land, plus the servicing of a river stage recorder
installed at one of the sampling stations.
- for assistance in gathering animal population-distribution
data during the initial phase of the study.
-------
Mr. Arthur Walden, Area Conservationist, Soil Conservation
Service, Statesboro, Georgia
- for his follow-up in gathering additional animal
population-distribution data after completion of
the study.
Mr. Joe A. Stevens, Jr., Planning Staff Leader, Soil
Conservation Service, Athens, Georgia
- for assistance in implementing details of the
cooperative agreement.
------- |