DOCSLIB.ORG

The Joint Jeff Davis County Comprehensive Plan Jeff Davis County, Denton, and Hazlehurst 2025

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Joint Jeff Davis County Comprehensive Plan Jeff Davis County, Denton, and Hazlehurst 2025 The Joint Jeff Davis County Comprehensive Plan Jeff Davis County, Denton, and Hazlehurst 2025 A Joint Comprehensive Plan for Jeff Davis County, the City of Denton, and the City of Hazlehurst, Georgia in accordance with the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 Prepared By: The Jeff Davis County Comprehensive Plan Executive and Local Planning and Coordination Committees Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Development Center August, 2005 Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Purpose 1 Format 3 Plan Development 3 Acknowledgements 5 Jeff Davis County Community Vision 7 Population 9 Introduction 9 Total Population 10 Households 19 Age Distribution 24 Racial Composition 33 Educational Attainment 44 Income 55 Economic Development 65 Introduction 65 Economic Base 67 Detailed Economic Sector Inventory and Analysis 82 Average Weekly Wages 91 Sources of Personal Income 97 Recent Major Economic Activities 101 Special Economic Activities 102 Labor Force 106 Employment by Occupation 106 Employment Status and Labor Force Characteristics 111 Unemployment Rates 119 Commuting Patterns 123 Local Economic Development Resources 126 Economic Development Agencies 126 Programs 129 Training Opportunities 130 Summary Needs Assessment 134 Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Policies/Actions 137 Natural and Cultural Resources 149 Introduction 149 Natural Setting 149 Public Water Supply Sources 150 Water Supply Watersheds 151 Groundwater Recharge Areas 152 Wetlands 162 Protected Mountains 168 Protected River Corridors 168 Coastal Resources 179 Flood Plains 179 Soil Types 180 Steep Slopes 193 Prime Agricultural and Forest Land 197 Plant and Animal Habitats 203 Major Park, Recreation, and Conservation Areas 206 Scenic Views and Sites 207 Cultural Resources 208 Summary Findings 279 Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Policies/Actions 281 Community Facilities and Services 287 Introduction 287 Transportation 287 Water Supply and Treatment 292 Sewerage System and Wastewater Treatment 295 Solid Waste 297 Public Safety 301 Hospital and Other Public Health Facilities 307 Recreation 306 General Government 311 Educational Facilities 314 Library and Other Cultural Facilities 316 Summary of Needs/Assessment 337 Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Policies/Actions 339 Housing 349 Introduction 349 Types of Housing 349 Age and Condition of Housing 362 Ownership and Vacancy Patterns 371 Cost of Housing 389 Needs Assessment 415 Summary of Needs 418 Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Policies/Actions 421 Land Use 423 Introduction 423 Existing Land Use 425 Land Use Assessment 436 Future Land Use Narrative 441 Future Land Use Strategy and Maps 445 Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Policies/Actions 455 Intergovernmental Coordination 459 Relationship of Governmental Entities and Programs to Local Government 459 Comprehensive Plan Joint Planning and Service Agreements 462 Special Legislation and Joint Meetings or Work Groups for the Purpose of 462 Coordination Local Government Parties or Offices with Primary Responsibility for Coordination 463 Issues Arising from Growth and Development Proposed in Nearby Governments 463 Specific Problems and Needs Identified Within Each of the Comprehensive 463 Plan Elements that Would Benefit from Improved or Additional Intergovernmental Coordination Adequacy of Existing Coordination Mechanisms with Related State 464 Programs and Goals and Implementation Portions of the Local Comprehensive Plan Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Policies/Actions 465 Appendices 473 Appendix A 473 Implementation Strategy and Five Year Short-Term Work Programs 475 Introduction 475 Local Implementation Strategy Format 475 Comprehensive Plan Reports of Accomplishments 479 Jeff Davis County Report of Accomplishments (2001-2005) 481 City of Denton Report of Accomplishments (2001-2005) 519 City of Hazlehurst Report of Accomplishments (2001-2005) 527 Comprehensive Plan Short Term Work Programs 551 Jeff Davis County Short-Term Work Program 553 City of Denton Short-Term Work Program 567 City of Hazlehurst Short-Term Work Program 575 Appendix B 585 The Joint Jeff Davis County Solid Waste Management Plan 587 Introduction 589 Waste Disposal Stream Analysis 589 Waste Reduction Element 597 Yard Trimming Mulching/Composting 598 Collection Element 599 Disposal Element 605 Land Limitation Element 608 Education and Public Involvement Element 616 Jeff Davis County Joint Solid Waste Management Plan Report of 623 Accomplishments City of Denton Joint Solid Waste Management Plan Report of 631 Accomplishments City of Hazlehurst Joint Solid Waste Management Plan Report of 637 Accomplishments Jeff Davis County Joint Solid Waste Management Plan Short Term Work 645 Program (2006-2015) City of Denton Joint Solid Waste Management Plan Short Term Work 649 Program (2006-2015) City of Hazlehurst Joint Solid Waste Management Plan Short Term Work 653 Program (2006-2015) Attachment A – Assurance of Ten-Year Disposal Capacity Letter 657 Appendix C 665 The Jeff Davis County Service Delivery Strategy 667 Appendix D 707 Transmittal Resolutions 709 TABLES P-1 Historic Population and Percent Change, Jeff Davis County Governments, 11 Georgia, and U.S., 1980-2003 P-2 Current and Historic Population Percent Change, Jeff Davis County 12 and Surrounding Counties, 1980-2003 P-3 Population Projections, Jeff Davis County and Georgia, 2004-2025 13 P-4 Population Projections, Jeff Davis County Governments, 2004-2025 14 P-5 Commuting Patterns, Jeff Davis County, 1990 & 2000 14 P-6 Total Number of Households, Jeff Davis County Governments and Georgia, 19 1980-2000 P-7 Average Household Size, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and U.S., 1980-2025 19 P-8 Current and Projected Number of Households, Jeff Davis County and 20 Georgia, 2000-2025 P-8A Historic, Current, and Projected Number of Households and Average 21 Household Size, Denton and Hazlehurst, 1980-2025 P-9 Historic Population Age Distribution, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and 26 U.S., 1980-2000 P-10 Detailed Age Distribution, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and U.S., 2000 27 P-11 Historic Population By Age Distribution, Jeff Davis County Governments, 28 1980-2000 P-12 Projected Population By Age, Jeff Davis County, 2000-2025 29 P-13 Projected Population By Age, Denton, 2000-2025 30 P-14 Projected Population By Age, Hazlehurst, 2000-2025 31 P-15 Projected Population Age Distribution, Jeff Davis County Governments, 32 2000-2025 P-16 Population By Race, Jeff Davis County Local Governments, 36 Georgia, and U.S., 1980-2000 P-17 Percent of Population By Race, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and U.S., 2000 39 P-18 Projected Percent of Population By Race, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, 40 and U.S., 2000-2025 P-19 Projected Percent Change in Population By Race, Jeff Davis County, 41 Georgia, and U.S., 2000-2025 P-20 Projected Population By Race, Jeff Davis County, 2000-2025 42 P-21 Projected Population By Race, Denton, 2000-2025 43 P-22 Projected Population By Race, Hazlehurst, 2000-2025 43 P-23 Educational Attainment, Percent of Persons Age 25 and Older, 47 Jeff Davis County Governments and Georgia, 1980-2000 P-24 Educational Attainment, Percent of Persons Age 25 and Older, 48 Jeff Davis County, Surrounding Counties, and Georgia, 1980-2000 P-25 Educational Graduation Statistics, Jeff Davis County, Surrounding Counties, 50 and Georgia, 1995-2001 P-26 Per Capita Income, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and U.S., 1980-2025 58 P-27 Per Capita Income, Jeff Davis County Governments, Georgia, and 58 U.S., 1980-2000 P-28 Median Household Income, Jeff Davis County Governments, 59 Georgia, and U.S., 1980-2000 P-29 Mean Household Income, Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and U.S., 59 1980-2000 P-30 Household Income Distribution, Jeff Davis County Governments, 1980-2000 60 P-31 Household Income Distribution By Percentage, Jeff Davis County and 61 Georgia, 1980-2000 P-32 Household Income Distribution By Percentage, Denton and Hazlehurst, 62 1980-2000 ED-1 Employment by Economic Sector, Jeff Davis County, 1980-2025 69 ED-2 Percentage Employment by Economic Sector, Jeff Davis County, 70 1980-2025 ED-3 Percentage Employment by Economic Sector, Georgia, 1980-2025 71 ED-4 Percentage Employment by Economic Sector, U.S., 1980-2025 72 ED-5 Earnings by Economic Sector, Jeff Davis County, 1980-2025 77 ED-6 Percentage Earnings by Economic Sector, Jeff Davis County, 1980-2025 78 ED-7 Percentage Earnings by Economic Sector, Georgia, 1980-2025 79 ED-8 Percentage Earnings by Economic Sector, U.S., 1980-2025 80 ED-9 Jeff Davis County Farm Trends, 1964 – 2002 86 ED-10 Average Weekly Wages, Jeff Davis County, 1993-2003 92 ED-11 Average Weekly Wages, Georgia, 1993-2003 93 ED-12 Jeff Davis County Average Weekly Wages As a Percentage of 95 Georgia Average Weekly Wages, 1993-2003 ED-13 Personal Income by Type, Jeff Davis County, 1980-2025 98 ED-14 Percent Personal Income by Type, Jeff Davis County, 1980-2025 99 ED-15 Percent Personal Income by Type, Georgia, 1980-2025 100 ED-16 Employment by Occupation, Jeff Davis County Governments, 1990 & 2000 107 ED-17 Percentage Employment by Occupation, Jeff Davis County Governments, 108 1990 & 2000 ED-18 Percentage Employment by Occupation, Georgia, 1990 & 2000 109 ED-19 Percentage Employment by Occupation, U.S., 1990 & 2000 110 ED-20 Labor Force Participation, Jeff Davis County Governments, 1990 & 2000 112 ED-21 Labor Force Participation by Percentage, Jeff Davis County Governments, 114 1990 & 2000 ED-22 Georgia Labor Force Participation by Percentage, 1990 & 2000 116 ED-23 U.S. Labor Force Participation by Percentage, 1990 & 2000 117 ED-24 Jeff Davis County Labor Statistics, 1990-2003
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]
  • 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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Changes Between the 2014 and 2016 305B/303D List of Waters
    Changes Between the 2014 and 2016 305b/303d List of Waters Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County Basin/Water Type Change from 2014 to Final 2016 List Altamaha Sound McIntosh County Altamaha Added FCG(As) to Category 3 and moved water from Category 1 to Category 3 based on restrictions in 2015 fish consumption guidance book. The water will remain in GAR030701060508 McIntosh Sound/Harbor Category 3 for FCG(As) until a study is completed to quantify the inorganic fraction of arsenic in fish tissue. Brazells Creek Unnamed tributary Altamaha Added pH to Category 3 based on 2014 data from RV_06_2906. Some pH reading approximately 2 mi d/s SR 292 to were above the criteria, but there was only a partial year of data available for review the Ohoopee River (Jan - May and December). GAR030701070507 Tattnall Stream Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River Altamaha Removed DO based on 2009 data from RV_06_2837: DO 2/20. DO criteria met. GAR030701060102 Toombs Stream Little Creek Gum Branch to Honey Camp Altamaha New Category 3 reach based on 2014 data from RV_06_2942. Data is only available Branch from January - May. More data is needed before making an assessment. GAR030701060408 Wayne Stream Little Ohoopee Sardis Creek to Ohoopee River Altamaha FC was moved from Category 5 to Category 4a as the TMDL was approved in 2002. The River fact that the TMDL has been completed had accidentally been left off previous lists. GAR030701070203 Emanuel Stream Milliken Bay Headwaters to Little McMillen Altamaha New not supporting reach for pH based on 2013 data from RV_06_2905.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in Georgia 3-1
    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 the apply during the months of May - October (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]
  • List of Rivers of Georgia
    Sl. No River Name Draining Into 1 Savannah River Atlantic Ocean 2 Black Creek Atlantic Ocean 3 Knoxboro Creek Atlantic Ocean 4 Ebenezer Creek Atlantic Ocean 5 Brier Creek Atlantic Ocean 6 Little River Atlantic Ocean 7 Kettle Creek Atlantic Ocean 8 Broad River Atlantic Ocean 9 Hudson River Atlantic Ocean 10 Tugaloo River Atlantic Ocean 11 Chattooga River Atlantic Ocean 12 Tallulah River Atlantic Ocean 13 Coleman River Atlantic Ocean 14 Bull River Atlantic Ocean 15 Shad River Atlantic Ocean 16 Halfmoon River Atlantic Ocean 17 Wilmington River Atlantic Ocean 18 Skidaway River Atlantic Ocean 19 Herb River Atlantic Ocean 20 Odingsell River Atlantic Ocean 21 Ogeechee River Atlantic Ocean 22 Little Ogeechee River (Chatham County) Atlantic Ocean 23 Vernon River Atlantic Ocean 24 Canoochee River Atlantic Ocean 25 Williamson Swamp Creek Atlantic Ocean 26 Rocky Comfort Creek Atlantic Ocean 27 Little Ogeechee River (Hancock County) Atlantic Ocean 28 Bear River Atlantic Ocean 29 Medway River Atlantic Ocean 30 Belfast River Atlantic Ocean 31 Tivoli River Atlantic Ocean 32 Laurel View River Atlantic Ocean 33 Jerico River Atlantic Ocean 34 North Newport River Atlantic Ocean 35 South Newport River Atlantic Ocean 36 Sapelo River Atlantic Ocean 37 Broro River Atlantic Ocean 38 Mud River Atlantic Ocean 39 Crescent River Atlantic Ocean 40 Duplin River Atlantic Ocean 41 North River Atlantic Ocean 42 South River Atlantic Ocean 43 Darien River Atlantic Ocean 44 Altamaha River Atlantic Ocean 45 Ohoopee River Atlantic Ocean 46 Little Ohoopee River Atlantic Ocean
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Executive Summary
    WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2018-2019 (2020 Integrated 305b/303d Report) Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2018-2019 (2020 Integrated 305b/303d Report) Preface This report was prepared by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Department of Natural Resources, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500 (the Clean Water Act) and as a public information document. It represents a synoptic extraction of the EPD files and, in certain cases, information has been presented in summary form from those files. The reader is therefore advised to use this condensed information with the knowledge that it is a summary document and more detailed information may be available in EPD files. This report covers a two-year period, January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019. Comments or questions related to the content of this report are invited and should be addressed to: Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE Suite 1162 East Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334 WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA ii This page is intentionally blank. WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA iii Table of Contents Chapter 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1-1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (EPD) Used Its 2018 Listing Assessment Methodology in Making Its Listing Decisions
    Summary of Listing Decisions The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) used its 2018 Listing Assessment Methodology in making its listing decisions. This document provides more detail to explain why certain listing decisions were made including (1) how the “natural conditions” provisions in our water quality standards are used when making listing decisions; (2) why 6 waters on Georgia’s coast were removed from Category 3 for FCG(As) – arsenic in fish tissue; and (3) why other waters were placed or remain in Category 3. Assessment of Waters Based on “Natural Water Quality” Chapter 391-3-6-.03(7) of the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control recognizes that some waters of the State “naturally” will not meet the instream criteria and that this situation does not constitute a violation of water quality standards. Many waters in Georgia, specifically areas in South Georgia and near the Coast, have “natural” dissolved oxygen concentrations below the State’s standard dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria (daily average of 5.0 mg/l and an instantaneous minimum of 4.0 mg/l). Many of these waters were placed in Category 3 (Assessment Pending) when the DO criteria were not met, but it was determined that the cause was likely due to natural water quality conditions versus a human caused condition. The placement of waters in Category 3 for DO is explained in more detail later in this document. EPD also considered things such as the presence of beaver dams when evaluating water quality data. While the presence of beaver dams and ponds can help improve water quality by trapping sediment and removing nutrients through increased plant production, the stagnant water in the beaver pond will naturally have different characteristics than a free flowing stream (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Satilla River Basin Management Plan 2002
    Satilla River Basin Management Plan 2002 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia River Basin Management Planning Vision, Mission, and Goals What is the VISION for the Georgia RBMP Approach? Clean water to drink, clean water for aquatic life, and clean water for recreation, in adequate amounts to support all these uses in all river basins in the state of Georgia. What is the RBMP MISSION? To develop and implement a river basin planning program to protect, enhance, and restore the waters of the State of Georgia, that will provide for effective monitoring, allocation, use, regulation, and management of water resources. [Established January 1994 by a joint basin advisory committee workgroup.] What are the GOALS to Guide RBMP? 1) To meet or exceed local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations. And be consistent with other applicable plans. 2) To identify existing and future water quality issues, emphasizing nonpoint sources of pollution. 3) To propose water quality improvement practices encouraging local involvement to reduce pollution, and monitor and protect water quality. 4) To involve all interested citizens and appropriate organizations in plan development and implementation. 5) To coordinate with other river plans and regional planning. 6) To facilitate local, state, and federal activities to monitor and protect water quality. 7) To identify existing and potential water availability problems and to coordinate development of alternatives. 8) To provide for education of the general public on matters involving the environment and ecological concerns specific to each river basin. 9) To provide for improving aquatic habitat and exploring the feasibility of re-establishing native species of fish.
    [Show full text]
  • 303(D) Integrated List and Supporting Documentation Response to Public Comments
    2020 Georgia 305(b)/303(d) Integrated List and Supporting Documentation Response to Public Comments • The Table of Changes between the Final 2018 and Draft 2020 Lists 1. There is a typographical error for GAR031300050405 - Flint River (Flat Shoals Road to Red Oak Creek). In the final line of the “Change” column it says (The Fishing Use “if”) instead of “The Fishing Use is”). Response: The typographical error has been fixed. • Comments regarding Walter F. George Lake (AUIDs: GAR031300031601 & GAR031300031304) 1. The standard that limits chlorophyll a at the dam-pool and mid-lake stations is biased low. The Clean Lakes Study that was used to determine the chlorophyll a standard was based on data that were acquired from 1991 to 1993 when chlorophyll a values were lower than longer term, representative conditions. Higher chlorophyll a values occurred in subsequent years even though the total phosphorus concentration were consistent with or lower than those that occurred during the Clean Lake Study. The criteria should be revised. Response: The chlorophyll a criteria adopted for Lake Walter F. George are protective of the lake’s designated use. The fact that chlorophyll levels have increased since lake criteria were adopted is irrelative. The cause of the increasing chlorophyll levels will be determined when the TMDL is developed and appropriate allocations will be provided to ensure that the chlorophyll criteria is met in the future. As the model is being developed for the TMDL, it may become evident that the lake criteria need to be revised. If this is the case it will be done under a Water Quality Standard revision process.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Peak Discharges and Stages for Gaging Stations in Georgia Through September 1990
    ANNUAL PEAK DISCHARGES AND STAGES FOR GAGING STATIONS IN GEORGIA THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1990 By Glen W. Hess and Timothy C. Stamey U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 92-113 Prepared in cooperation with the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION Atlanta, Georgia 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Federal Center Peachtree Business Center Box 25425 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Annual peak discharges and stage data for streamflow-gaging stations in Georgia Summary 2 Selected references 8 Glossary 10 ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1.-5. Maps showing regional boundary and location of gaging stations in: 1. Northwest Georgia 3 2. Northeast Georgia 4 3. Southwest Georgia 5 4. Southeast Georgia 6 5. Atlanta Metropolitan area 7 TABLES Table 1. Alphabetical list of streamflow-gaging stations 11 2. Annual peak discharges and stage data for streamflow-gaging stations in Georgia, through September 1990 22 111 CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ACRONYMS Multiply To obtain Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer Flow cubic foot per second (ft3/8) 0.02832 cubic meter per second Area square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer VERTICAL DATUM Sea Level-In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)--a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
    [Show full text]