DOCSLIB.ORG

Lee County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lee County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas LEE COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Name Community Number LEE COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 130122 LEESBURG, CITY OF 130348 SMITHVILLE, CITY OF 130349 Lee County EFFECTIVE: September 2, 2009 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 13177CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the Flood Insurance Study. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current Flood Insurance Study components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: September 2, 2009 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 Coordination ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 AREA STUDIED ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Scope of Study.................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Community Description...................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Principal Flood Problems.................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Flood Protection Measures .................................................................................................3 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS ....................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses........................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses............................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Vertical Datum.................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS................................................................. 8 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries........................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Floodways........................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS................................................................................................. 12 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP........................................................................................... 13 7.0 OTHER STUDIES....................................................................................................................... 13 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA............................................................................................................... 15 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES................................................................................... 15 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page FIGURES Figure 1 – Floodway Schematic ................................................................................................................. 12 TABLES Table 1 – Summary of Discharges................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2 – Floodway Data............................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3 – Community Map History ............................................................................................................ 14 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles Flint River Panel 01P Muckalee Creek Panels 02P-04P Kinchafoonee Creek Panels 05P-07P Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map iii FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY LEE COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and updates information on the existence and severity of flood hazards in the geographic area of Lee County, Georgia, including the Cities of Leesburg and Smithville; and the unincorporated areas of Lee County (referred to collectively herein as Lee County), and aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study has developed flood risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3. In some States or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence, and the State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them. 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments The sources of authority for this FIS report are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS was prepared to include all jurisdictions within Lee County into a countywide format FIS. Information on the authority and acknowledgments for each jurisdiction with a previously printed FIS report included in this countywide FIS is shown below. Lee County (Unincorporated Areas): The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the May 15, 1991, FIS report were performed by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Contract No. EMW-86-C- 0113, That study was completed in September 1987 (Reference 1). For this countywide FIS, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were performed by URS Corporation, for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), under Contract No. 761-80189. This work was completed in August 2008. Base map information shown on the FIRM was derived from aerial photography 1 produced for Lee County, Georgia, dated 2007 at a scale of 1:20,000. Users of this FIRM should be aware that minor adjustments may have been made to specific base map features. 1.3 Coordination An initial Consultation Coordination Officer’s (CCO) meeting is held typically with representatives of Georgia DNR, the communities, and the study contractor to explain the nature and purpose of a FIS, and to identify the streams to be studied by detailed methods. A final CCO meeting is held typically with the same representatives to review the results of the study. Pre-Countywide Analysis For the May 15, 1991 FIS, an initial CCO meeting was held on January 22, 1986, and attended by representatives of FEMA, Lee County, and the study contractor to explain the nature and purpose of a FIS, and to identity the streams to be studied. The results of the study were reviewed at the final CCO meeting held on June 20, 1990, and attended by representatives FEMA, study contractor, and the community. This Countywide Analysis For this countywide FIS an initial CCO meeting was held on January 28, 2007, and attended by representatives of the Georgia DNR, Southwest Georgia Regional Development Center, Lee County, and the mapping contractor. The results of the study were reviewed at the final CCO meeting held on November 5, 2008, and attended by representatives of Lee County and the City of Leesburg. All problems raised at that meeting have been addressed in this study. 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2.1 Scope of Study This FIS report covers the geographic area of Lee County, Georgia, including the incorporated communities listed in Section 1.1. Approximate analyses were used to study those areas having a low development potential or minimal flood hazards. The scope and methods of study were proposed to, and agreed upon, by FEMA, the Georgia DNR, and the study contractor. Floodplain boundaries have been delineated based on more up-to-date topographic data. 2 2.2 Community Description Lee County is in southwest Georgia and is bordered on the north by Sumter County; on the west by Terrell; on the south by Dougherty County; and on the east by Worth and Crisp Counties. Lee County is served by U.S. Routes 19 and 82; and State Routes 3, 32, 91, 118, 195, and 377. Lee County encompasses an area of 356 square miles. According to the 2006 U.S. Census estimate, the population of Lee County was 32,495 (Reference 2). Lee County has a warm continental climate with hot summers. Temperatures range from an average low of 35 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Kinchafoonee Creek HWI (Lee County)
    1 7/01/2014 Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 What is a Watershed? ..................................................................................................................... 4 Characteristics of a Healthy Watershed ......................................................................................... 4 Benefits of a Healthy Watershed .................................................................................................... 5 Watershed Protection Priorities; Issues and Concerns .................................................................. 5 What is happening in the Watershed (land use, waste water, etc.) .............................................. 6 Description of the Watershed ........................................................................................................ 7 Stakeholder Involvement .............................................................................................................. 10 Identified Resource Issues in the Kinchafoonee Watershed ........................................................ 11 Potential Pollutant Source Assessment ........................................................................................ 12 Recommendations for Maintaining a Healthy Watershed ........................................................... 15 Final Recommendations ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters 2017
    Guidelines For Eating Fish From Georgia Waters 2017 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9000 i ii For more information on fish consumption in Georgia, contact the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1152 Atlanta, GA 30334-9000 (404) 463-1511 Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, S.E. Social Circle, GA 30025 (770) 918-6406 Coastal Resources Division One Conservation Way Brunswick, Ga. 31520 (912) 264-7218 Check the DNR Web Site at: http://www.gadnr.org For this booklet: Go to Environmental Protection Division at www.gaepd.org, choose publications, then fish consumption guidelines. For the current Georgia 2015 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations, Click on Wild- life Resources Division. Click on Fishing. Choose Fishing Regulations. Or, go to http://www.gofishgeorgia.com For more information on Coastal Fisheries and 2015 Regulations, Click on Coastal Resources Division, or go to http://CoastalGaDNR.org For information on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) source reduction, reuse options, proper disposal or recycling, go to Georgia Department of Community Affairs at http://www.dca.state.ga.us. Call the DNR Toll Free Tip Line at 1-800-241-4113 to report fish kills, spills, sewer over- flows, dumping or poaching (24 hours a day, seven days a week). Also, report Poaching, via e-mail using [email protected] Check USEPA and USFDA for Federal Guidance on Fish Consumption USEPA: http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice USFDA: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood.1html Image Credits:Covers: Duane Raver Art Collection, courtesy of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Paddle Georgia 2014 Fall Float on the Flint Oct
    Albany Allemande– Paddle Georgia 2014 Fall Float on the Flint Oct. 10—Flint River Distance: 14 miles Starting Elevation: 190 feet Lat: 31.6022°N Lon: 84.1381°W Ending Elevation: 151 feet Lat: 31.4388°N Lon: 84.1423°W Restroom Facilities: Mile 0 Flint River Hydro Dam Mile 4.7 Radium Springs Boat Ramp Mile 14 Mitchell County Landing Points of Interest: Mile 0.2—Muckafoonee Creek—A short distance up this creek on river right is the 1906 dam that created “Lake Worth.” Today, the dam serves as an overflow spillway for the larger dam on the Flint. This oddly named waterway is a combination of two even more oddly named creeks: Kinchafoonee and Muckalee creeks. The Creek Indian word Kinchafoonee is believed to have meant “Mortar Nutshells” while Muckalee, recorded the Indian Agent Benjamin Hawkins, meant “Pour on me.” While this is the site of one of the first hydro-power dams in South Georgia, the Georgia General Assembly had earlier established laws specifically protecting Kinchafoonee Creek from obstructions that would prevent fish passage. The 1876 law prohibited the construction of any “dam, trap, net, seine or other device for catching fish, unless the channel is left for six feet.” There was, of course, a major loophole in the law: “nothing herein contained shall be so construed to prevent the erection of dams for milling and manufacturing purposes,” and thus a dam came to be built on Kinchafoonee. These lyrical names still echo through the region’s culture. The Kinchafoonee Cowboys is a well-known hony-tonk band from the area and Leesburg’s Luke Bryan, included an ode to fishing, boating, four-wheeling and drinking called “Muckalee Creek Water” on his 2011 album Tailgates and Tanlines.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream-Aquifer Relations and The
    Stream-Aquifer Relations and the Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Lower Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin in parts of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, 1999–2000 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4244 Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photograph: Radium Springs, Albany, Georgia, 1995 Photograph by: Alan M. Cressler, U.S. Geological Survey “Originally called ‘Skywater’ by the Creek Indians who held sacred rites on its banks and later referred to as ‘Blue Springs’ by early Albany residents, ‘Radium Springs’ got its latest name when developer Baron Collier tested the water and found trace elements of radium, thought to be a healing substance at that time. The largest natural spring in Georgia, Radium is considered one of Georgia’s seven natural wonders.” (Albany [Georgia] Area Chamber of Commerce, accessed October 9, 2002, at URL http://www.albanyga.com/cvb/history1918.html) Stream-Aquifer Relations and the Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Lower Apalachicola– Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin in parts of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, 1999 – 2000 By Melinda S. Mosner ______________________________________________________________________________ U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4244 Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey Atlanta, Georgia 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream-Temperature Charcteristics in Georgia
    STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA By T.R. Dyar and S.J. Alhadeff ______________________________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 Prepared in cooperation with GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Atlanta, Georgia 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Denver Federal Center Peachtree Business Center Box 25286 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose and scope . 2 Previous investigations. 2 Station-identification system . 3 Stream-temperature data . 3 Long-term stream-temperature characteristics. 6 Natural stream-temperature characteristics . 7 Regression analysis . 7 Harmonic mean coefficient . 7 Amplitude coefficient. 10 Phase coefficient . 13 Statewide harmonic equation . 13 Examples of estimating natural stream-temperature characteristics . 15 Panther Creek . 15 West Armuchee Creek . 15 Alcovy River . 18 Altamaha River . 18 Summary of stream-temperature characteristics by river basin . 19 Savannah River basin . 19 Ogeechee River basin. 25 Altamaha River basin. 25 Satilla-St Marys River basins. 26 Suwannee-Ochlockonee River basins . 27 Chattahoochee River basin. 27 Flint River basin. 28 Coosa River basin. 29 Tennessee River basin . 31 Selected references. 31 Tabular data . 33 Graphs showing harmonic stream-temperature curves of observed data and statewide harmonic equation for selected stations, figures 14-211 .
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Appendix
    Technical Appendix Question 64.a – Water– Water Quality Quality and and Quantity Quantity Protection Protection - Location- Location A. The project is located in a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12 watershed identified by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) as a priority watershed for water quality purposes. Resource: Map and list of priority watersheds (Attachment 1). If the project falls into a purple area on the map, then it meets this category. Additional Information: Current Approved Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Plan. https://epd.georgia.gov/nonpoint-source-program Contact Person: Joy Hinkle, EPD Watershed Protection Branch Grants Unit Manager, (404) 651-8532 or [email protected]. B. The project is located in a HUC-12 or equivalent size area identified as impacted by or sensitive to hydrologic alteration. Resource: The Capacity Use Areas and Restricted Use Areas identified by GAEPD in the 2006 Flint River Basin Plan (https://epd.georgia.gov/georgia-flint-river-basin-plan), or a similar document. Please refer to pages 23-29 of the Flint River Basin Plan. If the project is located in one of the yellow or pink areas in Figures 0.2 – 0.5, then it meets this category. See Attachment 2 for excerpted Figures from this Plan. Contact Person: Jennifer Welte, EPD Watershed Protection Branch, (404) 463-1694 or [email protected]. C. The project is located in a HUC-12watershed identified by GAEPD as a healthy watershed. Resource: The most recent approved Georgia 305(b)/303(d) list, as provided on this page: https://epd.georgia.gov/water-quality-georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • August 6, 2011
    Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Law Enforcement Section Field Operations Weekly Report July 31-August 6, 2011 This report is a broad sampling of events that have taken place in the past week, but does not include all actions taken by the Law Enforcement Section. Region I- Calhoun (Northwest) BARTOW COUNTY On July 6th, Cpl. Lee Burns, RFC Byron Young, and RFC Barton Hendrix were planning lake patrols at the DNR boathouse when two frantic women approached the officers. The women were concerned that their two sons, who had gone riding on jet-skis several hours earlier, were missing and could not be found. The two teenagers had left from Coopers Day Use Area 1. The rangers immediately initiated a search for the teenagers and searched for over an hour. They finally located the two jet-skis and teenagers at Red Top Mountain State Park. One of the jet-skis had mechanical engine problems. The rangers reunited the missing teens with their families. CHEROKEE COUNTY On July 3rd, Sgt. Mike Barr received information that two blue and white Polaris jet-skis had been stolen from the owner’s driveway near Galts Ferry Day Use Area. Sgt. Barr contacted the owner and found that the jet-skis were on a double trailer parked in a driveway at their residence. The trailer lock had been cut. The Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office was contacted and a stolen report completed. Sgt. Barr received more information on Thursday that the trailer of the jet-skis had been found abandoned on Cox Farm Road.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Chapters 3 to 5
    CHAPTER 3 establish water use classifications and water quality standards for the waters of the State. Water Quality For each water use classification, water quality Monitoring standards or criteria have been developed, which establish the framework used by the And Assessment Environmental Protection Division to make water use regulatory decisions. All of Georgia’s Background waters are currently classified as fishing, recreation, drinking water, wild river, scenic Water Resources Atlas The river miles and river, or coastal fishing. Table 3-2 provides a lake acreage estimates are based on the U.S. summary of water use classifications and Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 Digital criteria for each use. Georgia’s rules and Line Graph (DLG), which provides a national regulations protect all waters for the use of database of hydrologic traces. The DLG in primary contact recreation by having a fecal coordination with the USEPA River Reach File coliform bacteria standard of a geometric provides a consistent computerized mean of 200 per 100 ml for all waters with the methodology for summing river miles and lake use designations of fishing or drinking water to acreage. The 1:100,000 scale map series is apply during the months of May - October (the the most detailed scale available nationally in recreational season). digital form and includes 75 to 90 percent of the hydrologic features on the USGS 1:24,000 TABLE 3-1. WATER RESOURCES ATLAS scale topographic map series. Included in river State Population (2006 Estimate) 9,383,941 mile estimates are perennial streams State Surface Area 57,906 sq.mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Georgia Forward: Road and Bridge Conditions, Traffic Safety, Travel Trends
    Moving Georgia Forward: Road and Bridge Conditions, Traffic Safety, Travel Trends and Funding Needs in Georgia NOVEMBER 2020 Founded in 1971, TRIP® of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction; labor unions; and organizations concerned with efficient and safe surface transportation. Moving Georgia Forward Introduction Accessibility and connectivity are critical factors in a region or state’s quality of life and economic competitiveness. The growth and development of a region hinges on the ability of people and businesses to efficiently and safety access employment, customers, commerce, recreation, education and healthcare via multiple transportation modes. The quality of life of residents in Georgia and the pace of the state’s economic growth are directly tied to the condition, efficiency, safety and resiliency of the state’s transportation system. The necessity of a reliable transportation system in Georgia has been reinforced during the coronavirus pandemic, which has placed increased importance on the ability of a region’s transportation network to support a reliable supply chain. Providing a safe, efficient and well-maintained 21st century transportation system, which will require long-term, sustainable funding, is critical to supporting economic growth, improved safety and quality of life throughout the area. A lack of reliable and adequate transportation funding could jeopardize the condition, efficiency and connectivity of the region’s transportation network and hamper economic growth. TRIP’s “Moving Georgia Forward” report examines travel and population trends, road and bridge conditions, traffic safety, congestion, and transportation funding needs in Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • B-118 Digital Model Approach to Water Supply Management Of
    (.[I\ NZOO ,(r.s ~~ 110.11% A Digital Model Approach to Water-Supply Management of the Claiborne, Clayton, and Providence Aquifers in Southwestern Georgia Lee L. Gorday Jeny A. Lineback Anna F. Long and William H. McLemore GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECfiON DMSION Harold F. Reheis, Director GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY William H. McLemore, State Geologist Atlanta 1997 BULLETIN 118 A Digital Model Approach to Water-Supply Management of the Claiborne, Clayton, and Providence Aquifers in Southwestern Georgia Lee L. Gorday Jerry A. Lineback Anna F. Long and William H. McLemore GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Harold F. Reheis, Director GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY William H. McLemore, State Geologist Atlanta 1997 BULLETIN 118 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................... v INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1 General Background . 1 Climate and Runoff . 1 Previous Investigations . 1 Acknowledgements . 2 Scope of Work ....................................................... 2 CONCEP'fUAL MODEL ..................................................... 3 DIGITAL MODEL ANALYSIS ................................................ 4 Introduction . 4 Model Description . 5 Relation of Digital Model to Conceptual Model . 5 PREDICTIVE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS .................................... 6 General ............................................................ 6
    [Show full text]