LEE COUNTY, 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 Panel 01P Panels 02P-04P 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 winter to an average high of 91°F in the summer. The average annual precipitation of 48 inches is reasonably well distributed throughout the year, but noticeably less rain falls in the late summer and early fall (Reference 3).

2.3 Principal Flood Problems

Most of the flood problems existing in the study area of Lee County are in low-lying agricultural areas. Localized flooding in certain areas not identified in this study may exist.

2.4 Flood Protection Measures

Flood protection measures are not known to exist within the study area. The Georgia Power dam located on the Flint River in Dougherty County, about 2.8 miles south of the Lee County boundary does not provide flood protection to Lee County.

3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS

For the flooding sources studied by detailed methods in the community, standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood-hazard data required for this study. Flood events of a magnitude that is expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 100-year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the 100-year floods, have a 1-percent chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long- term, average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than one year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood that equals or exceeds the 1-percent-annual-chance flood in any 50-year period is approximately 40 percent (4 in 10); for any 90-year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10). The analyses reported herein reflect flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the time of completion of this study. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes.

3

3.1 Hydrologic Analyses

Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish peak discharge-frequency relationships for each flooding source studied by detailed methods affecting the community. Information on the methods used to determine peak discharge-frequency relationships for the streams studied by detailed methods is shown below.

Pre-countywide Analysis

The discharge-frequency relationships for Muckalee and Kinchafoonee Creeks were determined by regional regression equations (Reference 4). For areas where significant urbanization has occurred, these discharges were adjusted using established techniques (Reference 5). A detailed discussion of the methodology used in the hydrologic analyses has been published (Reference 6).

Discharge-frequency curves were prepared for the Flint River in the vicinity of Albany, Georgia. To extend the available flow records and provide estimates for ungaged locations, regional frequency analyses were made using data from the gage locations listed below.

STATION LOCATION PERIODS OF NUMBER (GEORGIA) RECORDS

3475 Near Culloden 1913-23, 1929-31, 1937-74 3495 At Montezuma 1905-74 3505 At Oakfield 1931-33, 1935-58 3525 At Albany 1893-1974 3530 At Newton 1938-47, 1950-55, 1957-74 3560 At Bainbridge 1905-74

Three short-period (15-17 years) gage records of flow data for the Flint River tributaries were correlated to the long period record (82 years) for the Flint River gage at Albany. The records for the tributaries were thereby extended to the equivalent periods of 66 to 72 years. Frequency curves were computed for the correlated record and corrected for the expected probability. Mean annual flood and standard deviation statistics were taken from these curves, plotted against drainage area, and a best fit curve was drawn. Expected probability frequency curves for the tributaries at the required locations were computed using these curves and an equivalent record of 69 years.

A similar analysis was made using records from six Flint River gages, correlating the flow data to those data from the long-period gage record at Albany. These record periods range from 38 to 82 years and the correlations yielded equivalent records of 80 to 82 years. Expected probability frequency curves were computed for these

4 extended record periods and the means and standard deviations were plotted against drainage area.

Using these curves and an equivalent record of 81 years, expected probability frequency curves were recomputed for each of the six gages.

Peak discharge-area relationships for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood for Kinchafoonee Creek and Muckalee Creek are shown in Table 1, “Summary of Discharges”.

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES

DRAINAGE PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs) FLOODING SOURCE AND AREA 10% 2% 1% 0.2% LOCATION (sq. mi.) chance chance chance chance

KINCHAFOONEE CREEK at U.S. Highway 3 676.0 10,100 16,560 20,450 29,480 just upstream of Fowltown Creek 594.9 9,360 15,340 18,910 27,200 at Century Road 591.0 9,330 15,280 18,840 27,090

MUCKALEE CREEK at County Boundary 435.3 7,790 12,720 15,630 22,340 just upstream of confluence of Tributary A 431.4 7,750 12,650 15,550 22,210 just upstream of confluence of Tributary B 424.1 7,670 12,520 15,380 21,980

This Countywide Analysis

Discharges for the 1-percent-annual-chance recurrence interval for all new or restudied approximate study streams in Lee County were determined using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regression equations for the HA3 hydrologic region of Georgia as described in USGS Water Resource Investigation (WRI) Report 93-4016 (Reference 7).

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses

Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the sources studied were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals. Users should be aware that flood elevations shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-foot elevations and may not exactly reflect the elevations shown on the Flood Profiles or in the Floodway Data tables in the FIS report. Flood elevations shown on the FIRM are primarily intended for flood insurance rating purposes. For construction and/or floodplain management purposes, users are cautioned to use the

5 flood elevation data presented in this FIS in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM.

The hydraulic analyses for this study and the pre-countywide study were based on unobstructed flow. The flood elevations shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail.

Pre-countywide Analysis

Cross section data for the detailed study streams were obtained by field surveys. To better define the water-surface profiles along the streams, some cross sections were estimated from adjacent surveyed sections and topographic maps. These cross sections are not shown on the flood profiles of flood boundary maps, but the field- surveyed sections are shown. All bridges and culverts were surveyed to obtain elevations and structural geometry. Cross sections were located above and below bridges and culverts in order to compute the backwater effects of these structures. Locations of selected cross sections used in hydraulic analyses are shown on the Flood Profiles.

Overbank cross sections for backwater analyses of the streams studied in detail were obtained from aerial photographs (References 8 and 9). The below-water sections were obtained by field measurement at bridge structures and interpolated or estimated between structures. All bridges, dams and culverts were field surveyed to obtain elevation and structural geometry data.

Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are shown on the Flood Profiles and on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Roughness coefficients (Manning’s “n”) used in the hydraulic computations were chosen by engineering judgment and based on field observations of the streams and floodplain areas. The roughness coefficients used for Muckalee Creek and Kinchafoonee Creek ranged from 0.040 to 0.045 for channels and 0.060 to 0.140 for overbanks. The roughness coefficients used for the Flint River ranged from 0.045 to 0.070 in the channel and 0.070 to 0.120 for overbanks.

Water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (Reference 10). Starting water-surface elevations for Kinchafoonee and Muckalee Creeks were obtained from the Flood Insurance Studies for the City of Albany and Dougherty County, Georgia (References 11 and 12). Starting water-surface elevations for the Flint River were developed using the slope-area method.

Flood profiles were drawn showing the computed water-surface elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals. In cases where the 2- and 1-percent-annaul- chance flood elevations were close together, due to limitations in the profile scale, only the 1-percent-annual-chance profile has been shown.

6

Hydraulic analyses for this study were based on the effects of unobstructed flow. The flood elevations shown on the profiles are thus considered valid only if the hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail.

This Countywide Analysis

Cross section geometries for the approximate models were obtained from digital terrain data provided by the State of Georgia. For approximate studies performed in this update, the following Manning’s “n” values were used in hydraulic computations:

Channel “n” = 0.05 Overbank “n” = 0.15

Additionally, the starting conditions for the hydraulic models were set to normal depth using a starting slope of 0.005 for all approximate studies performed in this countywide study. Water-surface profiles were computed through the use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) HEC-RAS version 4.0 water-surface profiles computer program (Reference 13). The model was run for the 1-percent-annual-chance storm for approximate studies.

3.3 Vertical Datum

All FIS reports and FIRMs are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum used for newly created or revised FIS reports and FIRMs was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD). With the completion of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD), many FIS reports and FIRMs are now prepared using NAVD as the referenced vertical datum.

Flood elevations shown in this FIS report and on the FIRM are referenced to NAVD. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. It is important to note that adjacent counties may be referenced to NGVD. This may result in differences in base flood elevations across county lines.

For information regarding conversion between NGVD and NAVD, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at www.ngs.noaa.gov, or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following address:

Vertical Network Branch, N/CG13 National Geodetic Survey, NOAA Silver Spring Metro Center 3 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

7 (301) 713-3191

Temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control. Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the Technical Support Data Notebook associated with the FIS report and FIRM for this community. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access these data.

To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for benchmarks shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the NGS at (301) 713-3242, or visit their website at www.ngs.noaa.gov.

For all redelineated streams that were previously studied by detailed methods a vertical datum shift was applied to convert the water surface elevations from NGVD to NAVD. The vertical datum conversion factor utilized in Lee County was calculated to be (-) 0.480 foot from NGVD to NAVD.

4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS

The NFIP encourages State and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS report provides 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevations; delineations of the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains; and a 1-percent-annual-chance floodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and in many components of the FIS report, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevation tables. Users should reference the data presented in the FIS report as well as additional information that may be available at the local community map repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations.

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries

To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent-annual- chance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. Approximate floodplain boundaries in Lee County and all incorporated areas were delineated with digital terrain developed from digital topography made available by the USGS. These digital contours were developed from Digital Elevation Models created for the base mapping program for the Lee County, Georgia area. The approximate equivalent contour interval of the digital terrain data received was 10 ft.

The 1- percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the FIRM. On this map, the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards Zone A. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations, but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data.

8 For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2).

4.2 Floodways

Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood-carrying capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment so that the base flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to one foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.

The floodways presented in this FIS were computed for certain stream segments on the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. The results of the floodway computations are tabulated for selected cross sections in Table 2, “Floodway Data.” The computed floodways are shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2). In cases where the floodway and 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary is shown.

Encroachment into areas subject to inundation by floodwaters having hazardous velocities aggravates the risk of flood damage and heightens potential flood hazards by further increasing velocities. A listing of stream velocities at selected cross sections is provided in Table 2, "Floodway Data." To reduce the risk of property damage in areas where the stream velocities are high, the community may wish to restrict development in areas outside the floodway.

Along streams where floodways have not been computed, the community must ensure that the cumulative effect of development in the floodplains will not cause more than a 1.0-foot increase in the BFEs at any point within the community.

9

BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY ELEVATION SECTION MEAN WITHOUT WITH CROSS WIDTH AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY DISTANCE FLOODWAY FLOODWAY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER (NAVD) (NAVD) (NAVD) FEET) SECOND) FLINT RIVER A 112.131 1,3103 24,700 4.6 200.9 200.9 201.8 0.9 B 113.121 1,6903 19,900 5.8 202.9 202.9 202.9 0.0 C 114.501 2,6003 36,600 3.1 206.7 206.7 207.7 1.0

KINCHAFOONEE CREEK A 10,5002 763 9,420 2.2 193.5 193.5 194.4 0.9 B 13,5002 900 8,477 2.4 194.1 194.1 195.0 0.9 C 16,0802 1,666 13,831 1.5 195.0 195.0 195.9 0.9 D 18,5002 1,352 7,816 2.6 195.4 195.4 196.3 0.9 E 26,9202 1,727 11,540 1.6 199.3 199.3 200.0 0.7 F 28,4502 1,144 11,649 1.6 199.7 199.7 200.4 0.7 G 30,3802 500 4,080 4.6 199.8 199.8 200.6 0.8 H 32,2002 200 2,336 8.1 201.3 201.3 201.8 0.5 I 34,6702 418 6,217 3.0 204.8 204.8 205.1 0.3 J 38,2702 500 8,178 2.3 206.0 206.0 206.4 0.4 K 40,0202 400 6,222 3.0 206.3 206.3 206.9 0.6 L 41,8202 400 5,129 3.7 206.8 206.8 207.3 0.5

1 Miles above Mouth 2Feet above railroad 3Width extends beyond County Boundary

TABLE 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA LEE COUNTY, GA AND INCORPORATED AREAS FLINT RIVER – KINCHAFOONEE CREEK

BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY ELEVATION SECTION MEAN WITHOUT WITH CROSS WIDTH AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY DISTANCE1 FLOODWAY FLOODWAY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER (NAVD) (NAVD) (NAVD) FEET) SECOND) MUCKALEE CREEK A 140 2,788 27,638 0.6 191.8 191.8 192.6 0.8 B 2,090 2,546 20,040 0.8 191.9 191.9 192.7 0.8 C 4,500 1,457 17,255 0.9 192.0 192.0 192.8 0.8 D 9,780 919 6,409 2.4 192.9 192.9 193.7 0.8 E 14,470 959 9,506 1.6 194.6 194.6 195.3 0.7 F 19,190 240 2,188 7.1 195.4 195.4 196.3 0.9 G 22,400 640 5,340 2.9 199.2 199.2 199.7 0.5 H 26,000 432 4,425 3.5 201.0 201.0 201.5 0.5 I 28,010 260 2,203 7.0 202.0 202.0 202.7 0.7 J 30,950 266 2,689 5.7 206.4 206.4 206.8 0.4 K 35,250 396 4,300 3.6 209.9 209.9 210.6 0.7

1 Feet above County Boundary

TABLE 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA LEE COUNTY, GA AND INCORPORATED AREAS MUCKALEE CREEK

The area between the floodway and 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 1-percent-annual-chance flood by more than 1.0 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 1, "Floodway Schematic."

Figure 1: FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC

5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS

For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a community based on the results of the engineering analyses. These zones are as follows:

Zone A

Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS report by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no base (1-percent-annual-chance) flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone.

12 Zone AE

Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS report by detailed methods. Whole-foot BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone X

Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where average depths are less than one foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile (sq. mi.), and areas protected from the base flood by levees. No BFEs or depths are shown within this zone.

6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

The FIRM is designed for flood insurance and floodplain management applications.

For flood insurance applications, the map designates flood insurance rate zones as described in Section 5.0. Insurance agents use zones to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies.

For floodplain management applications, the map shows the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain using tints, screens, and symbols.

The current FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of Lee County. Previously, FIRMs were prepared for each incorporated community and the unincorporated areas of the County identified as flood-prone. This countywide FIRM also includes flood-hazard information that was presented separately on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for each community are presented in Table 3, “Community Map History.”

7.0 OTHER STUDIES

The previous FIS reports for Lee County, Georgia (Unincorporated Areas); City of Albany, Georgia; and Dougherty County, Georgia were available as reference for this countywide study effort (References 1, 11 and 12)

This FIS report either supersedes or is compatible with all previous studies published on streams studied in this report and should be considered authoritative for the purposes of the NFIP.

13

FLOOD HAZARD FLOOD INSURANCE FLOOD INSURANCE COMMUNITY NAME INITIAL IDENTIFICATION BOUNDARY MAP RATE MAP RATE MAP REVISION DATE(S) EFFECTIVE DATE REVISION DATE(S)

Lee County (Unincorporated Areas) May 27, 1977 NONE May 15, 1991 December 5, 1996

Leesburg, City of April 18, 1975 NONE June 17, 1986

Smithville, City of May 27, 1977 NONE June 4, 1987

TABLE 3

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY LEE COUNTY, GA COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY AND INCORPORATED AREAS

8.0 LOCATION OF DATA

Information concerning the pertinent data used in the preparation of this study can be obtained by contacting Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, FEMA Region IV, Koger Center — Rutgers Building, 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Lee County, Georgia (Unincorporated Areas), Flood Insurance Study Report May 15, 1991.

2. 2000 U.S. Census: Lee County, Georgia, Retrieved on August 13, 2008, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13035.html

3. Monthly averages for Lee County, Georgia, Retrieved on August 13, 2008, from http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/sports/wxclimatology/monthly/30233

4. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation 78-137, Floods in Georgia, Magnitude and Frequency; Techniques for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Georgia with Compilation of Flood Data through 1974 , McGlone Price, 1979.

5. ------, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Maps, Scale 1:24,000, Contour Interval 10 feet: Barnesville, Georgia, 1973.

6. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Hydrology Study for Unincorporated Lee County, Atlanta, Georgia, March 1986.

7. ------, Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4016, Estimating Flood Magnitude and Frequency in Rural and Urban Areas in Georgia, 1993.

8. Woolpert Coonsultants, Aerial Photographs. Lee County, Georgia, Scale 1:14400: Mobile, Alabama, January 1986.

9. Jack W. Berry and Associates, Inc., Aerial Photogrammetry, Scale 1:24000, Contour Interval 5 feet, prepared from Photogrammetric Survey, 1975.

10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program, 1984.

11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia, Flood Insurance Study Report March 1985.

15

12. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, Dougherty County, Georgia (Unincorporated Areas), May 1977.

13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Version 4.0, March 2008.

16