Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Georgia

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Georgia.

At least 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
USGS2006

Reply to comment by F. Molz et al. on “Investigating the Macrodispersion Experiment (MADE) site in Columbus, Mississippi, using a three‐dimensional inverse flow and transport model”

W e are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss further what we think are important met hods and results presented by Barlebo et al. [2004] . W e are especially pleased to enter into a public discussion with four scientists who we regard with such high esteem concerning an important topic of mutual interest.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Cross-Sectional Data for Selected Reaches of the Chattahoochee River within the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Georgia, 2004

This report presents hydrologic data for selected reaches of the Chattahoochee River within the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA). Data about transect location, width, depth, and velocity of flow for selected reaches of the river are presented in tabular form. The tables contain measurements collected from shoal and run habitats identified as critical sites for the CRNRA. In shoal habitats, measurements were collected while wading using a digital flowmeter and laser range finder. In run habitats, measurements were collected using acoustic Doppler current profiling. Fifty-three transects were established in six reaches throughout the CRNRA; 24 in shoal habitat, 26 in run habitat, and 3 in pool habitat. Illustrations in this report contain information about study area location, hydrology, transect locations, and cross-sectional information. A study area location figure is followed by figures identifying locations of transects within each individual reach. Cross-sectional information is presented for each transect, by reach, in a series of graphs. The data presented herein can be used to complete preliminary habitat assessments for the Chattahoochee River within the CRNRA. These preliminary assessments can be used to identify reaches of concern for future impacts associated with continual development in the Metropolitan Atlanta area and potential water allocation agreements between Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

The U.S. Geological Survey and City of Atlanta water-quality and water-quantity monitoring network

Population growth and urbanization affect the landscape, and the quality and quantity of water in nearby rivers and streams, as well as downstream receiving waters (Ellis, 1999). Typical impacts include: (1) disruption of the hydrologic cycle through increases in the extent of impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, roofs, sidewalks) that increase the velocity and volume of surface-water runoff; (2) increased chemical loads to local and downstream receiving waters from industrial sources, nonpoint-source runoff, leaking sewer systems, and sewer overflows; (3) direct or indirect soil contamination from industrial sources, power-generating facilities, and landfills; and (4) reduction in the quantity and quality of aquatic habitats. The City of Atlanta's monitoring network consists of 21 long-term sites. Eleven of these are 'fully instrumented' to provide real-time data on water temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity (intended as a surrogate for suspended sediment concentration), water level (gage height, intended as a surrogate for discharge), and precipitation. Data are transmitted hourly and are available on a public Web site (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/). Two sites only measure water level and rainfall as an aid to stormwater monitoring. The eight remaining sites are used to assess water quality.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Helping solve Georgia's water problems - the USGS Cooperative Water Program

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) addresses a wide variety of water issues in the State of Georgia through the Cooperative Water Program (CWP). As the primary Federal science agency for water-resource information, the USGS monitors the quantity and quality of water in the Nation's rivers and aquifers, assesses the sources and fate of contaminants in aquatic systems, collects and analyzes data on aquatic ecosystems, develops tools to improve the application of hydrologic information, and ensures that its information and tools are available to all potential users. This broad, diverse mission cannot be accomplished effectively without the contributions of the CWP.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Georgia Water-Use Program, 2006

The Georgia Water-Use Program was initiated during 1979, as a cooperative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GaEPD). This ongoing program focuses on collecting, compiling, and disseminating water-use information for the State (Fanning, 2003). These data are stored in a central database, which is maintained by the USGS. Every 5 years, data are aggregated at the county, State, and national level and are published in State and national circulars.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Georgia's Surface-Water Resources and Streamflow Monitoring Network, 2006

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) network of 223 real-time monitoring stations, the 'Georgia HydroWatch,' provides real-time water-stage data, with streamflow computed at 198 locations, and rainfall recorded at 187 stations. These sites continuously record data on 15-minute intervals and transmit the data via satellite to be incorporated into the USGS National Water Information System database. These data are automatically posted to the USGS Web site for public dissemination (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/nwis). The real-time capability of this network provides information to help emergency-management officials protect human life and property during floods, and mitigate the effects of prolonged drought. The map at right shows the USGS streamflow monitoring network for Georgia and major watersheds. Streamflow is monitored at 198 sites statewide, more than 80 percent of which include precipitation gages. Various Federal, State, and local agencies fund these streamflow monitoring stations.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Georgia's Stream-Water-Quality Monitoring Network, 2006

The USGS stream-water-quality monitoring network for Georgia is an aggregation of smaller networks and individual monitoring stations that have been established in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies. These networks collectively provide data from 130 sites, 62 of which are monitored continuously in real time using specialized equipment that transmits these data via satellite to a centralized location for processing and storage. These data are made available on the Web in near real time at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/ Ninety-eight stations are sampled periodically for a more extensive suite of chemical and biological constituents that require laboratory analysis. Both the continuous and the periodic water-quality data are archived and maintained in the USGS National Water Information System and are available to cooperators, water-resource managers, and the public. The map at right shows the USGS stream-water-quality monitoring network for Georgia and major watersheds. The network represents an aggregation of smaller networks and individual monitoring stations that collectively provide data from 130 sites.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Flood-tracking chart for the Chattahoochee River Basin in Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies—operates a flood monitoring system in the Chattahoochee River Basin. This system is a network of 35 automated river stage stations that transmit stage data through satellite telemetry to the USGS Georgia Water Science Center in Atlanta. During floods, the public and emergency response agencies use this information to make decisions about road closures, evacuations, and other public safety issues. The emergency phone number for your area is listed under “Local flood emergency phone numbers.”

Georgia↗
USGS2006

Simulation of selected ground-water pumping scenarios at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia

A regional MODFLOW ground-water flow model of parts of coastal Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina was used to evaluate the effects of current and hypothetical groundwater withdrawal, and the relative effects of pumping in specific areas on ground-water flow in the Upper Floridan aquifer near Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield (HAAF), coastal Georgia. Simulation results for four steady-state pumping scenarios were compared to each other and to a Base Case condition. The Base Case represents year 2000 pumping rates throughout the model area, with the exception that permitted annual average pumping rates for the year 2005 were used for 26 production wells at Fort Stewart and HAAF. The four pumping scenarios focused on pumping increases at HAAF resulting from projected future demands and additional personnel stationed at the facility and on reductions in pumping at Fort Stewart. Scenarios A and B simulate 1- and 2-million-gallon-perday (Mgal/d) increases, respectively, at HAAF. Simulated water-level change maps for these scenarios indicate an area of influence that extends into parts of Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, and Liberty Counties, Ga., and Beaufort and Jasper Counties, S.C., with maximum drawdowns from 0.5 to 4 feet (ft) for scenario A and 1 to 8 ft for Scenario B. For scenarios C and D, increases in pumping at HAAF were offset by decreases in pumping at Fort Stewart. Scenario C represents a 1-Mgal/d increase at HAAF and a 1-Mgal/d decrease at Fort Stewart; simulated water-level changes range from 0.4 to -4 ft. Scenario D represents a 2-Mgal/d increase at HAAF and 2-Mgal/d decrease at Fort Stewart; simulated water-level changes range from 0.04 to -8 ft. The simulated water-level changes indicate an area of influence that extends into parts of Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties, Ga., and Jasper and Beaufort Counties, S.C. In general, decreasing pumping at Fort Stewart by an equivalent amount to pumping increases at HAAF reduced the magnitude and extent of drawdown resulting from the additional pumping. None of the scenarios resulted in large changes in the configuration of the simulated potentiometric surface and related ground-water flow directions. The scenarios simulated vary from the original model only by increasing pumpage less than 1 percent of the total calibrated model withdrawals. The changes in pumpage are located near the center of the original model area. Thus, the scenarios described in this report are considered to be reasonable with no less uncertainty than the original calibrated model.

Georgia↗
USGS2006

U.S. Geological Survey Georgia Water Science Center and Albany Water, Gas, and Light Commission Cooperative Water Program— Summary of activities, July 2005 through June 2006

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been working with the Albany Water, Gas, and Light Commission to monitor ground-water quality and availability since 1977. This report presents the findings for July 2005 through June 2006 and summarizes the ground-water and surface-water conditions for 2005. Water levels in 14 wells were continuously monitored in Dougherty County, Georgia. Water levels in 12 of those wells were above normal, one was normal, and one was below normal. Ground-water samples collected from the Upper Floridan aquifer indicate that nitrate levels have increased in 13 wells and decreased in two wells from a year earlier. A sample also was collected from the Flint River. A trilinear diagram showing the percent composition of selected major cations and anions indicates that the ground-water quality of the Upper Floridan aquifer at the Albany wellfield is distinctly different from the water quality of the Flint River. To improve the understanding of the ground-water flow system and nitrate movement in the Upper Floridan aquifer, the USGS is developing a ground-water flow model in the southwest Albany area, Georgia.

Georgia↗
USGS2005

Use of radio-telemetry to reduce bias in nest searching

We used traditional searching, as well as radio-telemetry, to find 125 Wood Thrush ( Hylocichla mustelina ) nests during 1994–1996 at the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia, USA. We compared daily nest survival rates for 66 nests of radio-marked birds with 59 nests of birds found through systematic searching. By using radio-telemetry, we found Wood Thrush nests in higher elevation pine habitats, in addition to the more usual hardwood forests with moist soils. We found nests of radio-marked birds farther from streams than nests found by systematic searching. Thirty-two percent of radio-marked birds' nests were found at the tops of slopes, compared to 15% of the nests found by traditional searching. In addition, radio-marked birds generally moved up-slope for re-nesting attempts. Although the distribution of nests found with telemetry and searching varied, daily nest survival did not vary between the two groups. Radio-telemetry provided new information about Wood Thrush nesting habitats. We believe radio-telemetry can be a valuable addition to traditional searching techniques; it has the potential to provide a sample of nests free from a priori habitat biases.

Georgia↗
USGS2005

A simple, inexpensive video camera setup for the study of avian nest activity

Time-lapse video photography has become a valuable tool for collecting data on avian nest activity and depredation; however, commercially available systems are expensive (>USA $4000/unit). We designed an inexpensive system to identify causes of nest failure of American Oystercatchers ( Haematopus palliatus ) and assessed its utility at Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. We successfully identified raccoon ( Procyon lotor ), bobcat ( Lynx rufus ), American Crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ), and ghost crab ( Ocypode quadrata ) predation on oystercatcher nests. Other detected causes of nest failure included tidal overwash, horse trampling, abandonment, and human destruction. System failure rates were comparable with commercially available units. Our system's efficacy and low cost (<$800) provided useful data for the management and conservation of the American Oystercatcher.

Georgia↗
USGS2005

American black bears and bee yard depredation at Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia

We studied American black bears ( Ursus americanus ), on the northwest periphery of Okefenokee Swamp in southeast Georgia, to assess landowner attitudes toward bears, estimate the extent of damage to commercial honey bee operations by bears, and evaluate methods to reduce bear depredations to apiaries. We collected 8,351 black bear radiolocations and identified 51 bee yards on our study area. Twenty-seven of 43 home ranges contained ≥1 bee yard, averaging 11.3 and 5.1 bee yards/home range of males ( n = 7) and females ( n = 20), respectively. From 1996 to 1998, we documented 7 instances of bears raiding bee yards within our study area and 6 instances in adjacent areas. All but 1 of the 13 raided yards were enclosed by electric fencing. In the 12 cases of damage to electrically fenced yards, however, the fences were not active because of depleted batteries. Based on compositional analysis, bear use of areas 800–1,400 m from bee yards was disproportionately greater than use 0–800 m from bee yards. Bears disproportionately used bay (red bay: Persea borbonia , loblolly bay: Gordonia lasianthus , and southern magnolia: Magnolia virginia ), gum (water tupelo: Nyssa aquatic and black gum: N. sylvatica ), and cypress ( Taxodium spp.) and loblolly bay habitats, however, compared with slash pine ( Pinus elliottii ) or pine–oak ( Quercus spp.), where bee yards usually were placed. The distribution of bear radiolocations likely reflected the use of those swamp and riparian areas, rather than avoidance of bee yards. Distances to streams from damaged bee yards ( x̄ = 1,750 m) were less than from undamaged yards ( x̄ = 4,442 m), and damaged bee yards were closer to unimproved roads ( x̄ = 134 m) than were undamaged bee yards ( x̄ = 802 m). Our analysis suggests that bee yard placement away from bear travel routes (such as streams and unimproved roads) can reduce bear depredation problems. Our results strongly indicate that working electric fences are effective deterrents to bear damage to bee yards, even in areas frequented by bears. A survey of beekeepers indicated that apiarists often relied on more expensive, less effective, and sometimes illegal methods to protect their bee yards from bears. Beekeepers within bear range should be urged to consider electric fencing, which can almost eliminate bear damage to their yards.

Georgia↗
USGS2005

Home range and survival of breeding painted buntings on Sapelo Island, Georgia

The southeastern United States population of the painted bunting ( Passerina ciris ) has decreased approximately 75% from 1966–1996 based on Breeding Bird Survey trends. Partners in Flight guidelines recommend painted bunting conservation as a high priority with a need for management by state and federal agencies. Basic information on home range and survival of breeding painted buntings will provide managers with required habitat types and estimates of land areas necessary to maintain minimum population sizes for this species. We radiotracked after-second-year male and after-hatching-year female buntings on Sapelo Island, Georgia, during the breeding seasons (late April-early August) of 1997 and 1998. We used the animal movement extension in ArcView to determine fixed-kernel home range in an unmanaged maritime shrub and managed 60–80-year-old pine ( Pinus spp.)-oak ( Quercus spp.) forest. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, we estimated an adult breeding season survival of 1.00 for males ( n = 36) and 0.94 (SE = 0.18) for females ( n = 27). Painted bunting home ranges were smaller in unmanaged maritime shrub (female: kernel = 3.5 ha [95% CI: 2.5-4.5]; male: kernel = 3.1 ha [95% CI: 2.3-3.9]) compared to those in managed pine-oak forests (female: kernel = 4.7 ha [95% CI: 2.8-6.6]; male: kernel = 7.0 ha [95% CI: 4.9-9.1]). Buntings nesting in the managed pine-oak forest flew long distances (≥300 m) to forage in salt marshes, freshwater wetlands, and moist forest clearings. In maritime shrub buntings occupied a compact area and rarely moved long distances. The painted bunting population of Sapelo Island requires conservation of maritime shrub as potential optimum nesting habitat and management of nesting habitat in open-canopy pine-oak sawtimber forests by periodic prescribed fire (every 4–6 years) and timber thinning within a landscape that contains salt marsh or freshwater wetland openings within 700 m of those forests.

Georgia↗