DOCSLIB.ORG

Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, 2006: Volume 1, Georgia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation Preconstruction Division Office of Bridge Design Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, 2006: Volume 1, Georgia Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5043 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Flint River at North Bridge Road near Lovejoy, Georgia, July 11, 2005. Photograph by Arthur C. Day, U.S. Geological Survey. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, 2006: Volume 1, Georgia By Anthony J. Gotvald, Toby D. Feaster, and J. Curtis Weaver Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation Preconstruction Division Office of Bridge Design Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5043 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Gotvald, A.J., Feaster, T.D., and Weaver, J.C., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the southeastern United States, 2006—Volume 1, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5043, 120 p. iii Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................2 Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................4 Data Compilation ............................................................................................................................................4 Peak-Flow Data .....................................................................................................................................4 Physical and Climatic Basin Characteristics ...................................................................................4 Estimation of Flood Magnitude and Frequency at Gaged Stations .......................................................5 Flood Frequency ....................................................................................................................................5 Skew Coefficient ...................................................................................................................................8 Generalized-Skew Analysis ................................................................................................................8 Estimation of Flood Magnitude and Frequency at Ungaged Sites ........................................................9 Regression Analysis .............................................................................................................................9 Regionalization of Flood-Frequency Estimates ..............................................................................10 Regional Regression Equations ........................................................................................................11 Accuracy and Limitations ..................................................................................................................13 Analysis of Gaged Basins within Multiple Hydrologic Regions ..................................................20 Application of Methods ..............................................................................................................................20 Estimation for a Gaged Station .........................................................................................................21 Estimation for an Ungaged Site Near a Gaged Station ................................................................22 Summary and Conclusions .........................................................................................................................23 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................23 Appendix. Development of Generalized-Skew Coefficient .............................................................115 iv Figures 1–2. Maps showing— 1. Study area and ecoregions in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and surrounding States ......................................................................................................3 2. Locations of rural stream-gaging stations in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and surrounding States that were considered for use in the regional regression analysis, 2006 .......................................................................27 3. Graphs showing examples of distributions with zero skew, positive skew, and negative skew ........................................................................................................................8 4. Map showing hydrologic regions and locations of rural streamgaging stations in the study area used in the regional regression analysis .................................................29 5. Graph showing distribution of systematic peak-flow record lengths for rural streamgaging stations used in the regional regression analysis .............................11 6. Maps showing hydrologic regions in Georgia with locations of the rural streamgaging stations used in the regional regression analysis and counties in Georgia .............................................................................................................14 7–8. Graphs showing— 7. Distribution of percentages of the drainage area within a hydrologic region as opposed to drainage areas for the rural streamgaging stations used to develop the regional regression equations ...........17 8. Actual and predicted 1-percent chance exceedance flows for rural streamgaging stations with a portion of the drainage basin within hydrologic region 1 ............................................................................................................20 A1. Map showing locations of streamgaging stations used in the generalized-skew study ...........................................................................................................116 A2. Graphs showing relation of at-site skews to basin drainage area by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ecoregion ..............................................................117 v Tables 1. Summary of rural streamgaging stations in and near Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina that were considered for use in the regional regression analysis, 2006 ................................................................................32 2. Basin characteristics considered for use in the regional regression analysis .................6 3. T-year recurrence intervals with corresponding annual exceedance probabilities and P-percent chance exceedances for flood-frequency flow estimates .........................7 4. Flood-frequency statistics for rural streamgaging stations in Georgia that were considered for use in the regression equations, 2006 ..........................................................56 5. Regional flood-frequency equations for rural ungaged streams with drainage basins that are within one hydrologic region .......................................................13 6. Explanatory variables that are used in the regional regression equations for rural streamgaging stations in Georgia ..................................................................................80 7. Average variance of prediction and standard error of prediction for the regional regression equations ..................................................................................................16 8. Values needed to determine prediction intervals for the regression equations .............18 9. Variance of prediction values for rural streamgaging stations in Georgia that were considered for use in the regression equations .........................................................90 A1. Number of streamgaging stations, by State, used in the study ........................................116 A2. Summary statistics for the Bayesian GLS models for generalized- skew coefficient ........................................................................................................................118
Recommended publications
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin

    List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin

    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards

    Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
  • Of the Wiregrass Primitive Baptists of Georgia: a History of the Crawford Faction of the Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association, 1842­2007

    Of the Wiregrass Primitive Baptists of Georgia: a History of the Crawford Faction of the Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association, 1842­2007

    The “Gold Standard” of the Wiregrass Primitive Baptists of Georgia: A History of the Crawford Faction of the Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association, 1842­2007 A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School Valdosta State University in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History in the Department of History of the College of the Arts July 2008 Michael Otis Holt BAS, Valdosta State University, 2003 © 2008 Michael Otis Holt All Rights Reserved This thesis, “The ‘Gold Standard’ of the Wiregrass Primitive Baptists of Georgia: A History of the Crawford Faction of the Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association, 1842­2007,” by Michael Otis Holt is approved by: Major Professor ___________________________________ John G. Crowley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of History Committee Members ____________________________________ Melanie S. Byrd, Ph.D. Professor of History ____________________________________ John P. Dunn, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History _____________________________________ Michael J. Stoltzfus, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies Dean of Graduate School _____________________________________ Brian U. Adler, Ph.D. Professor of English Fair Use This thesis is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94­553, revised in 1976). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of the material for financial gain without the author’s expressed written permission is not allowed. Duplication I authorize the Head of Interlibrary Loan or the Head of Archives at the Odum Library at Valdosta State University to arrange for duplication of this thesis for educational or scholarly purposes when so requested by a library user.
  • Georgia Water Quality

    Georgia Water Quality

    GEORGIA SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia PHOTO: Kathy Methier Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Suite 1152, East Tower Atlanta, GA 30334 GEORGIA SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY 2015 Update PREFACE The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed this document entitled “Georgia Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategy”. As a part of the State’s Water Quality Management Program, this report focuses on the GAEPD’s water quality monitoring efforts to address key elements identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) monitoring strategy guidance entitled “Elements of a State Monitoring and Assessment Program, March 2003”. This report updates the State’s water quality monitoring strategy as required by the USEPA’s regulations addressing water management plans of the Clean Water Act, Section 106(e)(1). Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Suite 1152, East Tower Atlanta, GA 30334 GEORGIA SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY 2015 Update TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................
  • 2011 Regionally Important Resources Plan Regionally Important Resources 2011 1

    2011 Regionally Important Resources Plan Regionally Important Resources 2011 1

    2011 Regionally Important Resources Plan Regionally Important Resources 2011 1 REGIONALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCES PLAN Southern Georgia July 2011 Prepared by: Valdosta Office 327 West Savannah Avenue Valdosta, GA 31601 Phone: 229.333.5277 Fax: 229.333.5312 Waycross Office 1725 S. GA Parkway, W. Waycross, GA 31503 Phone: 912.285.6097 Fax: 912.285.6126 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary The Purpose The Process The Plan Identification of Resources Introduction Background Designation of Regionally Important Resources Methodology and Process Nomination and Evaluation Research and Data Collection Criteria for Determining Value of RIR Identification of Vulnerability of RIR Stakeholder Review Regionally Important Resources Map Value Matrix Vulnerability Matrix Resource Narrative: Historic & Cultural Resources Resource Narrative: Areas of Conservation & Recreational Value Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholder List Appendix B: Regionally Important Resources Nomination Form Appendix C: List of Regionally Important Resources Appendix D: Regional Resource Plan Briefings and Presentations Appendix E: References 3 Regionally Important Resources Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE PURPOSE Pursuant to Rules of the Department of Community Affairs, Chapter 110-12-4, Regionally Important Resources are defined as “Any natural or cultural resource area identified for protection by a Regional Commission following the minimum requirements established by the Department.” The Regional Resource Plan is designed to: Enhance the focus on protection and management of important natural and cultural resources in the Southern Georgia Region. Provide for careful consideration of, and planning for, impacts of new development on these important resources. Improve local, regional, and state level coordination in the protection and management of identified resources. THE PROCESS The public nomination process resulted in twenty—one nominations from local governments, non-profit agencies, and private citizens.
  • Stream-Temperature Charcteristics in Georgia

    Stream-Temperature Charcteristics in Georgia

    STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA By T.R. Dyar and S.J. Alhadeff ______________________________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 Prepared in cooperation with GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Atlanta, Georgia 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Denver Federal Center Peachtree Business Center Box 25286 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose and scope . 2 Previous investigations. 2 Station-identification system . 3 Stream-temperature data . 3 Long-term stream-temperature characteristics. 6 Natural stream-temperature characteristics . 7 Regression analysis . 7 Harmonic mean coefficient . 7 Amplitude coefficient. 10 Phase coefficient . 13 Statewide harmonic equation . 13 Examples of estimating natural stream-temperature characteristics . 15 Panther Creek . 15 West Armuchee Creek . 15 Alcovy River . 18 Altamaha River . 18 Summary of stream-temperature characteristics by river basin . 19 Savannah River basin . 19 Ogeechee River basin. 25 Altamaha River basin. 25 Satilla-St Marys River basins. 26 Suwannee-Ochlockonee River basins . 27 Chattahoochee River basin. 27 Flint River basin. 28 Coosa River basin. 29 Tennessee River basin . 31 Selected references. 31 Tabular data . 33 Graphs showing harmonic stream-temperature curves of observed data and statewide harmonic equation for selected stations, figures 14-211 .
  • 2020 Integrated 305(B)/303(D) List

    2020 Integrated 305(B)/303(D) List

    2020 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. More Penholoway Creek Pending data need to be collected and evaluated before it GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Altamaha Supporting 27 1 Butler River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. Branch GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. Altamaha River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Cedar Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek (at Altamaha Not Supporting FC 6 5 EPD needs to determine the "natural DO" for the Donovan Hwy) to Little area before a use assessment is made.
  • A Multi-Scale Investigation of Habitat Selectivity in Coastal Plain Stream Fishes

    A Multi-Scale Investigation of Habitat Selectivity in Coastal Plain Stream Fishes

    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern University Honors Program Theses 2019 A multi-scale investigation of habitat selectivity in Coastal Plain stream fishes Hayley A. Robinson Georgia Southern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses Part of the Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Robinson, Hayley A., "A multi-scale investigation of habitat selectivity in Coastal Plain stream fishes" (2019). University Honors Program Theses. 446. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/446 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A multi-scale investigation of habitat selectivity in Coastal Plain stream fishes An Honors Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in Biology By Hayley A. Robinson Under the mentorship of Dr. James H. Roberts Abstract Studying the habitat use of Coastal Plain fishes enables us to develop a deeper understanding of how fishes thrive in this highly variable environment. Based on previous research by Dr. Roberts and his students, Coastal Plain fishes seem to sort into two groups: (1) species selecting stream reaches that continue to flow throughout the summer (i.e., fluvial species [F]) and (2) species occurring in streams that may stop flowing in late summer (i.e., nonfluvial species [NF]). For this study, I took a detailed look at eight of these species, spanning the F-NF gradient, and asked which environmental variables (e.g., water quality, stream size, adjacent land use) most influence species occurrence at the spatial scales of stream reaches and microhabitats.
  • 2018 Integrated 305(B)

    2018 Integrated 305(B)

    2018 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed TWR 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Penholoway Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed TWR 2002. More data need to Creek Pending be collected and evaluated before it can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Butler Altamaha Supporting 27 1 River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Branch Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Cedar Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek to Ohoopee Altamaha Not Supporting DO, FC 3 4a TMDLs completed DO 2002 & FC (2002 & 2007).
  • Satilla River Basin Dissolved Oxygen Tmdls

    Satilla River Basin Dissolved Oxygen Tmdls

    Satilla River Basin Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Department Atlanta, Georgia December 2001 Satilla River Basin Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs Ochlockonee Rive Finalr Table of Contents Section Title Page TMDL Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 3 1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................6 2.0 Problem Understanding............................................................................................. 7 3.0 Water Quality Standards.......................................................................................... 11 4.0 Source Assessment .................................................................................................. 12 5.0 Summary of Technical Approach............................................................................ 16 6.0 Loading Capacity..................................................................................................... 30 7.0 Waste Load and Load Allocations........................................................................... 32 8.0 Margin of Safety...................................................................................................... 32 9.0 Seasonal Variation................................................................................................... 33 10.0
  • WATERSHED ASSESSMENT NOTTELY LAKE WATERSHED This

    WATERSHED ASSESSMENT NOTTELY LAKE WATERSHED This

    WATERSHED ASSESSMENT NOTTELY LAKE WATERSHED Nottely Lake (HUC #060200020806) and Ivylog Creek Drainage (HUC # 060200020808) This watershed assessment is a Plan to Project analysis which means the process of applying the Forest Plan to a site specific project location. This assessment will become a key reference source for NEPA compliance in the future. This is not a decision document. No projects are decided within this document, only opportunities to bring specific locations into plan compliance. All will require site specific analysis and further on the ground inventories. EXISTING CONDITION Identification of 5th level Hydrologic Unit (HU) The two 6th-level HUCs evaluated in this assessment are part of the Nottely River/Nottely Lake 5th-level HUC (#0602000208). The Nottely River/Nottely Lake 5th-level HUC includes the lands from the Blue Ridge divide at Neels Gap to Hogpen Gap to Jacks Knob, north into North Carolina. The watershed is shared with the Nantahala NF in North Carolina and includes the headwaters of Nottely Lake reservoir (Tennessee Valley Authority). The watershed encompasses 137,125 acres, approximately 49,115 acres (36%) of which are National Forest lands. There are approximately 150 miles of perennial streams within the HU. There are eight 6th -level HUC’s within the Nottely River/Nottely Lake 5th-level HUC (Table 1). Table 1. Total acres and NF acres for each 6th-level HUC in the Nottely Lake/Nottely River 5th-level HUC (0602000208). 6th level Total % NF Acres Major Stream NF acres HUCs acres 060200020801 Nottely R. 17,707 11,785 67% (headwaters) 060200020802 Town/Ball Ck.
  • GDOT Powerpoint Template

    GDOT Powerpoint Template

    Fiscal Year 2017 Letting Report Number of Projects Let in FY 2017 (Contractor Low Bid Award Data) GDOT & Local Lets 31; 15% 24; 12% Bridges 15; 7% Roads Enhancements 27; 13% Maintenance 108; 53% Safety Total = 205 As of February 2, 2017 Does not include LMIG Projects Source Construction Bidding Administration Fiscal Year 2017 Letting Report Dollar Amount of Projects Let in FY 2017 (Contractor Low Bid Award Data) $51,521,173; 8% $72,163,488; 11% GDOT & Local Lets Bridges Roads $250,844,464; $238,955,347; Enhancements 39% 37% Maintenance Safety $34,193,278; 5% Total = $647,677,751 As of February 2, 2017 Does not include LMIG Projects Source Construction Bidding Administration Summary Presented to Low Bid GDOT Board Low Bid w/Adjustments (Includes Adjustments) (Awarded to Contractor) (Total Project Obligation) GDOT Let 15 11 11 (Project Count) GDOT Let $171,453,272 $102,399,070 $117,138,755 (Dollars) Local Let 5 N/A Local Let N/A Local Let (Project Count) Local Let $7,295,027 N/A Local Let N/A Local Let (Dollars) *Low Bid Award Amount includes the Deferred and Awarded projects. Does not include Engineering and Inspection, Utilities, Liquid AC, Incentives, LMIG and Rejected projects. As of February 2, 2017 Source Construction Bidding Administration GDOT Let Projects March 2017 Letting GDOT Let Projects March 2017 Letting Primary Primary Congressional Project Project Project ID Description County Work Type District Let By Sponsor M004995 I-16 EB & WB @ BLACK CREEK - SCOUR REPAIR BRYAN Bridges 001 DOT GDOT SR 94 FM LOWNDES COUNTY LINE TO E