Floods in Central and Southwestern Georgia in July 1994

Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 11 and 12, 1995, Athens, Georgia.Parts of central and most of southwestern Georgia were devastated by floods resulting from rainfall produced by Tropical Storm Alberto in July 1994. Whole communities were inundated by floodwaters as numerous streams reached peak stages and discharges far beyond previously known floods. As tributary floodwaters combined and moved downstream in the Flint and Ocmulgee Rivers, peak discharges exceeded the 100-year flood discharges along most stream reaches. Severe flooding resulted in 31 human deaths in towns and small communities along or near the swollen streams. A total of 55 counties in central and southwestern Georgia were declared Federal disaster areas by President Clinton. Several municipal, industrial, and private water systems were inundated and rendered unusable for three or more weeks. Highway travel was disrupted as roadway bridges and culverts were overtopped and, in many cases, washed out. Roughly, 1,000 bridges were closed during the flooding, and about 500 bridges remained closed for several days while the bridges were temporarily repaired. About 140 bridges remained closed for several weeks for extended repairs, and 125 were closed for replacement. Estimates of road and bridge damage in Georgia were in excess of $130 million dollars. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel monitored and reported flood information to other Federal, State, and local agencies from the onset of the storm until floodwaters finally receded. Stage and discharge data from many streams were collected and reported to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the National Weather Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Highway Administration, various State natural resource and highway departments, electrical power companies, and numerous county and city officials as these groups worked to minimize loss of life and property. Flooding was so severe and widespread that 15 USGS gaging stations were severely damaged or destroyed, requiring much of the data to be collected manually and reported by cellular telephone. At the height of the flooding, almost 40 USGS personnel were working in the field to collect and provide hydrologic information vital to protecting life and property.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 with partial funding provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, through the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397). The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of the University of Georgia or the U.S. Geological Survey or the conference sponsors

Summary of Streamflow Conditions for Calendar Year 2000 in Georgia

Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 26 and 27, 2001, Athens, Georgia.Streamflow conditions for calendar year 2000 in Georgia were monitored at 15 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gaging stations throughout the State as part of the drought-monitoring network. These gaging stations have 30 or more years of record and are useful as drought-index stations. Data used in these comparisons for the year 2000 are considered "Provisional Data" and subject to change.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397) or the other conference sponsors

Effects of channel relocation and proposed bridge construction on floodflows of the Catawba River near Marion, North Carolina /

Includes bibliographical references (p. 13).Mode of access: Internet

Flood-Tracking Chart, Flint River Basin, Georgia

Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published the first release of the Flood-Tracking Chart for the Flint River Basin (USGS Open-File Report 01-325) (shown in Figure 1) in December of 2001. The Flood Tracking Chart accompanies the USGS real-time hydrologic data to provide the public with an easy method to track and compare floods in the Flint River Basin. The Flood-Tracking Chart summarizes historical flood events at USGS real-time streamflow gaging stations to help maintain public awareness of the hydrologic conditions in the Flint River Basin

Flood-Tracking Chart for the Chattahoochee River near Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia

Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, March 27-29, 2007, Athens, Georgia.The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates a hydrologic monitoring network in the Chattahoochee River Basin (see Fig. 1), with support from the City of Atlanta, Georgia, as well as Federal, State, and local agencies. The network is comprised of several automated river stage stations that transmit stage data through satellite telemetry to the USGS Georgia Water Science Center in Atlanta, Georgia (see Fig. 2). Using data collected by this network, the USGS has compiled a flood-tracking chart for the Chattahoochee River near Metropolitan Atlanta.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397) or the other conference sponsors

Sediment transport and accretion and the hydrologic environment of Grove Creek near Kenansville, North Carolina /

Includes bibliographical references (p. 29-30).Mode of access: Internet

Development and validation of a novel risk score for the detection of insignificant prostate cancer in unscreened patient cohorts

Background: Active surveillance is recommended for insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). Tools exist to identify suitable candidates using clinical variables. We aimed to develop and validate a novel risk score (NRS) predicting which patients are harbouring insignificant PCa. / Methods: We used prospectively collected data from 8040 consecutive unscreened patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2006 and 2016. Of these, data from 2799 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 on biopsy were used to develop a multivariate model predicting the presence of insignificant PC at radical prostatectomy (ERSPC updated definition3: Gleason 3 + 3 only, index tumour volume < 1.3 cm3 and total tumour volume < 2.5 cm3). This was used to develop a novel risk score (NRS) which was validated in an equivalent independent cohort (n = 441). We compared the accuracy of existing predictive tools and the NRS in these cohorts. / Results: The NRS (incorporating PSA, prostate volume, age, clinical T Stage, percent and number of positive biopsy cores) outperformed pre-existing predictive tools in derivation and validation cohorts (AUC 0.755 and 0.76, respectively). Selection bias due to analysis of a surgical cohort is acknowledged. / Conclusions: The advantage of the NRS is that it can be tailored to patient characteristics and may prove to be valuable tool in clinical decision-making