PERFORMANCE AUDIT

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
DNR: Environmental Protection Division State Soil and Water Conservation Commission
September 2001

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor

Performance Audit Operations Division Department of Audits and Accounts

254 Washington St. Atlanta, GA 30334

Introduction
Background
The overall purpose of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is to conserve and protect the state's land and water resources. The Program was established by the General Assembly in 1975 with the passage of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act. Persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on more than 1.1 acres are required by the Act to obtain a permit from their local government or the Environmental Protection Division (EPD). They are also required to implement procedures for preventing and minimizing erosion and the resultant sedimentation. Additional requirements governing erosion and sedimentation were established in August 2000 by the General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities issued by EPD in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. Under the terms of the Permit, persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on five or more acres (up to 250 acres) are required to file a Notice of Intent with EPD, implement erosion and sedimentation control procedures, and conduct monitoring and record-keeping activities to document the amount of sediment entering the state's waters.
Effects of Erosion and Sedimentation
Erosion and the resultant sedimentation have a detrimental impact on the quality of Georgia's waters. This affects aquatic life that depend on the quality of the water for their survival and the state's citizens who depend on water of high quality for municipal, agricultural, and industrial consumption as well as for recreation, power supply, and transportation. As noted in a 1995 report prepared for the Board of Natural Resources (known as the Dirt 1 Report), the effects of erosion and sedimentation include:

a loss of spawning sites, gill clogging, and oxygen depletion for aquatic life, especially in the state's trout streams;
a reduction in the storage capacity of the state's reservoirs and an increase in the cost of treating the water to meet state and federal drinking water standards;
an increase in the cost of power generation resulting from the scouring of turbine blades and a reduction in the usable reservoir storage capacity;
an increase in the level of harmful microorganisms and toxic compounds that are present in the water (as a result of being transported on the surface of the sediment);

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 1

and, a decrease in the aesthetic attraction of water resources.
Once sediment has entered a stream, it may take decades for the sediment to finally be transported to the ocean. As stated in the Report, [t]he fewer sediments entering streams, the faster the streams will be restored to their natural condition.
Sources of Erosion and Sedimentation
Sedimentation of the state's waters resulting from erosion caused by land-disturbing activities is not a recent phenomenon. The Dirt 1 Report found that land-disturbing activities have caused soils to be eroded from the land and deposited in streams throughout Georgia's recorded history. As indicated in the Report, sedimentation in earlier times was primarily the result of poor agricultural practices and inappropriate forest harvesting techniques. While the use of modern conservation practices has greatly reduced erosion and sedimentation from farm and forest lands, modern land-use practices, including road building and land development in rapidly urbanizing areas, also contribute substantially to the sediment deposited in streams. The Report further noted that the implementation of an effective erosion control program for construction activities has proven elusive, resulting in continued and increasing levels of sedimentation in Georgia streams.
During the past 10 years, Georgia's population has increased substantially, with much of the growth occurring in the state's urban areas. From 1990 to 2000, the state's population increased from 6,478,216 to 8,186,453, an increase of 26%. Within the 13-county metropolitan Atlanta area, however, the population increased 39%, from 2,653,613 to 3,698,679. As noted in the Dirt 1 Report, the concentration of development in the northern part of the state is resulting in high levels of erosion and sedimentation in this region. Exhibits 1 and 2 show examples of erosion and sedimentation resulting from land-disturbing activities.
Exhibit 1 Multiple Silt Fences Being Overrun

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 2

Exhibit 2 Use of a Silt Fence Instead of a Detention Pond in Area of Concentrated Flow

Erosion and Sedimentation Prevention Strategies
To prevent and minimize the sedimentation resulting from land-disturbing activities, both the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities require the use of best management practices (BMPs). These are defined as specific conservation and engineering practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. Specific types of best management practices cited in the Erosion and Sedimentation Act include:
developing erosion control plans that conform to the topography and soil type, so as to create the lowest possible erosion potential;
retaining the natural vegetation on the site whenever feasible; minimizing the amount of disturbed area and the duration of exposure; stabilizing the disturbed soil as quickly as practicable; using mulch or temporary vegetation to protect exposed critical areas during develop-
ment; using sediment basins, silt traps, or similar measures to trap sediment in run-off wa-
ter; and, maintaining a 25-foot buffer along the banks of any state waters, except trout streams
in which case a 50-foot buffer is required.
The Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the General Stormwater Permit also specify that the best management practices must be consistent with, or exceed, those practices outlined in the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia published by the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Exhibits 3 and 4 on the following page provide examples of the use of best management practices to control erosion and sedimentation.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 3

Exhibit 3 Good Use of Vegetation, Silt Fences, and Other BMPs

Exhibit 4 Good Use of Vegetation, Silt Fences, and Other BMPs

A state-funded report released in July 2001 by the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Technical Study Committee (known as the Dirt 2 Report) indicated that erosion and resultant sedimentation can be eliminated or reduced by integrating the design of erosion and sediment control systems into the total project effort. The Dirt 2 Report noted that by designing systems that are expected to perform to specified levels, maintaining the systems, monitoring their performance, and making adjustments as necessary, the amount of sediment entering the state's waters could be reduced if not eliminated.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 4

Program Administration
The responsibility for administering the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is divided among the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and county and municipal governments. Brief descriptions of EPD's Water Protection Branch, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Soil and Water Conservation Commission are provided below. More complete information regarding each organization's role in the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is provided in subsequent sections of the report.
Within EPD, the Water Protection Branch is responsible for multiple programs involving water quality issues, including the responsibility for soil erosion and sedimentation control. Personnel within EPD's five regional offices also handle erosion and sedimentation issues as part of their overall responsibility to administer and enforce the state's environmental protection laws and rules.
The state's 40 Soil and Water Conservation Districts were established in 1937 to provide for the control and prevention of soil erosion as well as for other purposes. The Districts are responsible for such activities as conducting research into methods of preventing and controlling erosion; conducting demonstration projects on soil and water conservation techniques; and encouraging and assisting landowners to implement erosion control procedures. In the 16 single-county Districts, there are five supervisors: two appointed by the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission and three elected by voters within their respective counties. In the 24 multi-county districts, there are two supervisors per county: one elected and one appointed, with a minimum of five supervisors per District.
The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission (headquartered in Athens, Georgia) is composed of five Soil and Water Conservation District supervisors who are appointed by the Governor. The Commission provides administrative support to the Districts and is responsible for the development and implementation of conservation practices, including efforts to prevent and reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from urban development as well as agricultural activities. Commission personnel conduct training programs on erosion and sediment control for local government personnel and for persons engaged in land-disturbing activities (such as developers and home builders). The Commission operates six regional offices throughout the state.
Erosion and Sedimentation Act Land-Disturbing Activity (LDA) Permits
The state's Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires persons, firms, or any other legal entity to obtain an LDA permit prior to conducting any land-disturbing activities. The types of activities that require an LDA permit are defined as any activities that may result in soil erosion and the movement of sediments into state water or onto lands within the state (such as clearing, grading, or excavating). Activities such as agricultural practices, surface mining, home landscaping, forestry land management practices, and most projects involv-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 5

ing 1.1 acres or less are exempt from the permit requirement. Other land-disturbing activities, such as construction of single-family residences that are not part of a subdivision, construction or maintenance of roads by state or local governments, and land-disturbing activities conducted by public utilities are also exempt from the LDA permit requirement but must be conducted in compliance with best management practices (BMPs). EPD and local governments are responsible for enforcing compliance with the BMPs as if an LDA permit had been issued.
County and municipal governments are authorized to issue LDA permits if they have been certified as issuing authorities by EPD. Prior to 1994 , the only requirement for a county or municipality to be certified as an issuing authority was to enact comprehensive ordinances (governing land-disturbing activities) enforceable by the county or municipality. In 1994, the Erosion and Sedimentation Act was amended to require counties to employ qualified personnel to implement the ordinances as a condition of being certified.
EPD is responsible for the issuance of LDA permits in those counties and municipalities that have not been certified as issuing authorities. As of May 2001, 135 counties and 236 municipalities (comprising 93.7% of the state's population) had been certified as issuing authorities. EPD was responsible for the issuance of LDAs in the remaining 24 counties and 291 municipalities. It should be noted that EPD is the issuing authority for one or more municipalities in 98 of the 135 counties in which the county government is the issuing authority for the unincorporated areas of the county. Similarly, one or more municipal governments are responsible for issuing LDA permits in nine of the 24 counties in which EPD is the issuing authority.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
To obtain an LDA permit, an applicant must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that demonstrates the land-disturbing activity will be carried out in such a manner as to prevent and minimize erosion and sedimentation. The plan must demonstrate that the applicant will utilize the appropriate best management practices as outlined in the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia.
As specified in the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, the erosion control plans must be approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District in which the project is being conducted. The actual plan reviews, however, are conducted by the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission (for projects in the metropolitan Atlanta area) or by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. NRCS reviews the plans as part of its mission to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, improve, and sustain our natural resources and environment. One of NRCS' partners is the National Association of Conservation Districts (which includes the state's Soil and Water Conservation Districts).
Local issuing authorities may also conduct plan reviews if authorized by the appropriate Soil and Water Conservation District (with the concurrence of the Commission). A formal memorandum of agreement is signed with those issuing authorities that demonstrate they have the capability (through in-house personnel or through contracts with private firms) to review the plans. As of June 2001, 37 local governments had been authorized to review Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for land-disturbing activities taking place within their jurisdictions.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 6

It should be noted that as of July 1, 2000 the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and the State Road and Tollway Authority are required to have an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared for any construction or maintenance project that disturbs five or more acres of land. The nine-member Erosion and Sediment Control Overview Council is responsible for providing guidance on the best management practices for implementing the plans required for GDOT or Tollway projects. The Council is composed of nine members: one appointed by the Speaker of the House, one appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, and seven appointed by the Governor, including one from GDOT, one from EPD, one from the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, a professional engineer, two representatives of the highway contracting industry certified by GDOT, and a chairperson.
Enforcement
The issuing authorities (local governments and EPD) are responsible for conducting periodic inspections of the construction sites for which they have issued LDA permits. It is currently recommended that sites be inspected once a week and after every significant rainfall. If it is determined that a person or firm has failed to obtain the required LDA permit or failed to install and/or maintain the best management practices outlined in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the issuing authorities are authorized to take enforcement action, including suspending or revoking the LDA permit.
Stop-work orders may be issued requiring the person or firm to cease all work on the project until the necessary corrective action has been taken (or a plan has been prepared for taking corrective action within a reasonable period of time). Civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day may be imposed by local courts (in cases in which the local government is the issuing authority) or by a hearing officer (in cases in which EPD is the issuing authority). Legislation enacted in 2000 mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each violation involving landdisturbing activities (other than cases involving a single-family dwelling in which case the minimum penalty is $250). The Erosion and Sedimentation Act specifies, however, that proper design, installation, and maintenance of best management practices constitute a defense against any enforcement action taken for non-compliance with the Act's turbidity limits (that is, the amount of suspended sediments entering the state's waters).
Reviews of Local Governments
The Act requires the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission and/or the Soil and Water Conservation Districts to conduct periodic reviews of local governments as a means of ensuring they fulfill their responsibilities as issuing authorities. The Commission and/or the Districts may provide technical assistance as necessary to improve the effectiveness of the local government's erosion and sedimentation control program. The Act also authorizes EPD to periodically review certified local governments.
The reviews of local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs are currently conducted by District Assessment Teams composed of regional personnel from the Commission, one or more District Supervisors from the District in which the local government is located, and (in some cases) a representative of the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The reviews normally last one day and include an evaluation of the local program's adminis-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 7

trative procedures and on-site examinations of a sample of local projects for which an LDA permit had been issued (such as a subdivision or a public works project).

If the local program is found to be deficient or ineffective, the Commission and/or the Districts are required to notify EPD and request an investigation. Should the investigation indicate the local government is not administering its erosion and sedimentation control ordinances in accordance with its certification agreement, EPD is required to notify the local government that it has 30 days to implement corrective action or its certification may be revoked. During fiscal years 1998 through 2001, 83 local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs were reviewed and one local government (Dawson County) was decertified as an issuing authority by EPD.
Erosion and Sedimentation Act: Summary of Administrative Responsibility
Exhibit 5 summarizes the manner in which the responsibility for administering different provisions of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act is divided among EPD, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and local governments.

Exhibit 5 ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

Area of Responsibility

Conservation Conservation

Local

EPD Districts Commission Governments

Issuing LDA Permits

v

v

Approving Erosion Control Plans

v (1)

v

v

Inspecting Project Sites

v

v

v

v

Taking Enforcement Action

v

v

Evaluating Local Governments

(2)

v

v

Decertifying Local Governments

v

Handling Complaints

v

v

v

(1) The Conservation Districts are responsible for approving the plans; the actual plan reviews are conducted by the Commission, NRCS, or local governments. (2) The Erosion and Sedimentation Act authorizes, but does not require, EPD to review local governments' programs.

General Stormwater Permit
Notice of Intent
Under the federal Clean Water Act, point sources of discharge into streams and lakes (such
as discharges from a wastewater treatment plant) must be permitted under a program called

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 8

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition to covering discharges from industrial sites and wastewater treatment plants, the NPDES Program has been expanded to cover non-point-source (stormwater) runoff from large municipalities, industrial sites, and construction (land-disturbing sites). In conjunction with its responsibility for administering the NPDES Program in Georgia (delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), EPD issued its initial General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities in 1992. After a series of appeals by environmental and other groups, a permit that was acceptable to all parties went into effect in August 2000. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as other organizations contacted during this audit noted that the provisions of Georgia's General Stormwater Permit are the toughest in the nation.
Under the terms of the General Stormwater Permit, persons and firms that engage in a landdisturbing activity on five or more acres that may result in erosion and sedimentation affecting the state's waters are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with EPD. Coverage under the General Stormwater Permit is automatic unless specifically denied by EPD. At the completion of a project, a Notice of Termination must be filed with EPD.
The General Stormwater Permit is valid for three years and will expire in 2003 (but will remain in effect until a new Permit is issued). It is anticipated that when the Permit comes up for renewal it will be revised to cover land-disturbing activities on one acre or more (in accordance with EPA's Phase II NPDES stormwater regulations).
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Pollution Control Plan
In filing a Notice of Intent, the permittee certifies that an Erosion, Sedimentation, and Pollution Control Plan has been prepared by a professional licensed by the state in the field of engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, forestry, geology, or land surveying. The licensed professional preparing the plan must certify that the plan provides for an appropriate and comprehensive system of best management practices required by the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia and the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. Plans do not have to be filed with EPD (unless the site encompasses more than 50 acres of disturbed area) and are not required to be reviewed. It should be noted that the same plan that is prepared in conjunction with the Notice of Intent may be submitted as part of the LDA permit application.
Comprehensive Monitoring Plan
In addition to having an Erosion, Sedimentation, and Pollution Control Plan prepared by a licensed professional, permittees must also have a Comprehensive Monitoring Plan prepared and certified by a licensed professional. Permittees are required to conduct routine inspections of the site's BMPs and to sample the receiving waters or the outfalls (e.g., drainage ditches) throughout the life of the project. The samples are conducted to determine if the amount of sediment entering the state's waters is within acceptable limits, as determined by an increase in turbidity (a measure of the water's clarity). Permittees are required to maintain records of the inspections and file monthly reports with EPD documenting the results of their samples.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 9

Enforcement
Permittees are subject to on-site inspections by EPD personnel to ensure they are in compliance with the terms of the General Stormwater Permit. For each day that a permittee is cited for failure to properly design, install, or maintain the BMPs, the permittee is subject to a civil penalty (fine) of up to $50,000. A second fine of up to $50,000 may be levied for each day that the improperly designed, installed, or maintained BMPs result in the receiving waters or outfalls having an increase in turbidity that exceeds specified limits. The General Stormwater Permit also provides that a person who falsifies or knowingly renders inaccurate monitoring information is subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. Like the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, the General Permit specifies that proper design, installation, and maintenance of best management practices constitute a defense against any enforcement action taken for violations of turbidity limits.
At the time of this audit, EPD was just beginning to conduct on-site inspections of projects for which it had received Notices of Intent. EPD wanted to allow firms to become familiar with the provisions of the Permit (which was issued in August 2000) before it began taking enforcement action.
Summary of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
Exhibit 6 on the following page presents an overview of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program as it would apply to a project that is subject to both the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the General Stormwater Permit.
Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This audit was conducted in response to formal requests from the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Board of Natural Resources for a performance audit of state programs related to erosion and sedimentation, including the General Stormwater Permit. The requests for the audit resulted from a recognition that the current Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is not effective in preventing sediment from land-disturbing activities from entering the state's rivers and streams. In a Resolution adopted on January 24, 2001 (in which the performance audit was formally requested), the Board of Natural Resources noted that there is considerable confusion in the state's erosion and sediment control programs as a result of multiple agencies, duplication of requirements, and overlapping of the state Act and requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. The Board also noted in the Resolution that it was concerned about the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.
This audit focused on the state's implementation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 (as amended) and the General Stormwater Permit issued by EPD in August 2000. The implementation of other state laws, such as the Metropolitan River Protection Act, that are confined to specific areas of the state or that deal with multiple issues, including erosion and sedimentation, were not included in the scope of this audit.
In addition to focusing on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program, the audit addressed the following five questions that were in-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 10

Exhibit 6
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION ACT
Submit LDA permit application & Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan

Is local government certified to issue LDA permits?
Yes

Application reviewed by No EPD; Plan reviewed by NRCS(1) or SSWCC(2)

Yes
Application reviewed by local government

Permit issued by EPD

GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT
Submit Notice of Intent to EPD
Prepare Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control Plan(3)
Prepare Compliance Monitoring Plan(4)
Conduct routine inspections and sample the receiving waters or outfalls throughout the
life of the project

Is local government authorized to review plans?

No

Plan reviewed by NRCS or by

SSWCC

File monthly reports with EPD documenting results
of the water quality samples

Yes
Plan reviewed by local government

File Notice of Termination at project
completion

Permit issued by local government
(1) Natural Resource Conservation Service (2) State Soil and Water Conservation Commission (3) Plan does not have to be submitted to EPD for review unless more
than 50 acres will be subject to land-disturbing activity. (4) Plan does not have to be submitted for review.

cluded in the audit request received from the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee:
To what extent is there coordination between the Environmental Protection Division, local governments, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current governance structure of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program?
To what extent are other governmental agencies hindering the implementation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program?
How does Georgia's system compare to other states, especially South Carolina, North Carolina, and Maryland?
To what extent is the system effective at reducing the cost to taxpayers of removing sediment from drinking water?

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 11

The audit, which focused on fiscal year 2001, was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards for performance audits. The audit methodology included interviews with key personnel of the Environmental Protection Division and the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, reviews of files and records at the Division and the Commission, and on-site visits to Division and Commission regional offices. Interviews were also conducted with local government officials and with representatives of environmental organizations, homebuilders' organizations, and county and municipal government organizations. Among those organizations interviewed as part of this audit were representatives of the upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Homebuilders' Association of Georgia, the Council for Quality Growth, the Georgia Municipal Association, and the Association County Commissioners of Georgia.
Information was also obtained from six other states whose soil conditions are similar to those found in Georgia. These states included Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
This report has been discussed with appropriate personnel representing the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources and the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. A draft copy was provided for their review and comment and pertinent responses have been included in the report as appropriate.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 12

Program Effectiveness

Recommendation No. 1 Action should be taken to develop a more effective system for protecting the state's rivers, streams, and lakes from sedimentation caused by land-disturbing activities. Although there is currently no overall data for determining the amount of sediment that is entering the state's waters, it is generally agreed that there is still too much mud going into our streams (EPD, 2001). The Erosion and Sedimentation Act, passed in 1975, indicated that sediment is entering the state's waters as a result of widespread failure to apply proper soil erosion and sedimentation control practices ... Twenty years later, the Dirt 1 Report noted that implementation of an effective erosion control program for construction activities has proven elusive, resulting in constant and increasing levels of sedimentation in Georgia streams. In July 2001, the Technical Study Committee that prepared the Dirt 2 Report noted that Georgia's streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands are ... filling with dirt at an alarming rate.

Our review of the state's Erosion and Sedi-

mentation Control Program found that the

provisions of the Erosion and Sedimenta-

tion Act and the General Stormwater Permit

would provide the basis for an effective

Program if they

In those cities and counties (certified as issuing authorities) that do not conduct routine inspections or

were fully implemented. Currently, however, the Program only works if

take enforcement local governments

action as necessary, the state's waters are not protected from ongoing sedimentation.

(certified by EPD to issue LDA permits) have the resources and political will to

inspect project sites

on a routine basis and take enforcement ac-

tion as necessary when violations are found. In those cities and counties (certified as issuing authorities) that do not conduct routine inspections or take enforcement action as necessary, the state's waters are not protected from ongoing sedimentation. Analysis of reviews conducted by District Assessment Teams in fiscal year 2001 found that some local governments were doing a good job of managing their erosion and sedimentation control programs while others were allowing construction projects to operate without the required erosion and sedimentation controls.
The results of three reviews conducted by a District Assessment Team in Whitfield County in March, May, and June 2001 are presented below to illustrate what can happen when a local government does not fulfill its obligations to control erosion and sedimentation. It should be noted that no action has been taken by the state regarding the developers whose projects were cited by the District Assessment Team.
March 2001: None of the projects within the County
which the Team visited are in compliance. It [the project site] is one of the worst sites the Team has seen; streams and drainageways have received and continue to receive sediment. The [project] site has had ongoing problems since April 1998 ... with severe Water Quality violations and damage to adjacent properties.
May 2001: There are no BMPs present on the site. There is severe sedimentation of the
stream on the site, and off-site.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 13

June 2001: Severe water quality violations were
noted at most sites. The ... site is a perfect example of what
is wrong with the County program. There are no functional/adequate BMPs on the site, no attempt to control erosion or resulting sedimentation, and work has been allowed to proceed without the proper approved plans and permit.
To develop a more effective Program for protecting the state's waters from sedimentation caused by land-disturbing activities, consideration should be given to:
revising the Erosion and Sedimentation Act to combine the best provisions of the current Act and the General Stormwater Permit;
changing the Program's governance structure so that one agency is ultimately accountable for the amount of sediment entering the state's waters;
compiling baseline data for determining the extent to which the Program is achieving its overall purpose of protecting the state's land and water resources;
improving coordination between EPD and the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission;
establishing more stringent requirements for local governments to be certified as issuing authorities; and,
ensuring that EPD and the Soil and Water Conservation Commission have the resources necessary to fully discharge their responsibilities as required.
Each of these recommendations as well as other recommendations regarding the overall Program are discussed in more detail in the following pages of this report. It should be noted that nothing came to our attention to indicate that any agency or agencies were

hindering the implementation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.
Recommendation No. 2 Consideration should be given to revising the Erosion and Sedimentation Act to combine the best provisions of the current Act and the provisions of the General Stormwater Permit. While there is some duplication between the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the General Stormwater Permit, the substantive provisions of the Act and the Permit would provide the basis for an effective Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program if fully implemented and enforced. The provisions of the current Act and the provisions of the Permit that should be considered in revising the Act are discussed below.
Erosion and Sedimentation Act The Act provides for the involvement of
local governments in controlling erosion and sedimentation. Because of their proximity to land-disturbing activities, local governments should be able to monitor projects on an ongoing basis and respond to problems and complaints in a timely manner. The Act provides for oversight of local governments' programs by requiring periodic on-site reviews by the state. The Act also requires Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans to be submitted for review.
General Stormwater Permit The Permit provides substantial penal-
ties for persons found in violation of the requirements for controlling erosion and sedimentation. Instead of a maximum fine of $2,500 per day per violation (as provided for in the Erosion and Sedimentation Act), the Permit allows fines of up to $50,000 per day per violation. The Permit also allows citizens to file

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 14

suit in federal court against violators. The Permit requires developers to moni-
tor the effectiveness of their Erosion, Sedimentation, and Pollution Control Plans on an ongoing basis.

In addition to providing the framework for a more effective Program, revising the Erosion and Sedimentation Act would serve to eliminate the overlapping requirements between the Act and the Permit (such as requiring developers to obtain an LDA permit and file a Notice of Intent under the Stormwater Permit). Of the six states whose erosion and sedimentation programs were contacted as part of this audit, four have programs similar to Georgia's. These four states require an LDA-type permit and require notices of intent under a General Stormwater Permit. The other two states rely exclusively on their General Stormwater Permits to control erosion and sedimentation; these two states, however, did not have state-mandated permits prior to establishing their General Stormwater Permits.

Recommendation No. 3

Consideration should be given to making

one agency accountable for the overall

effectiveness of the state's Erosion and

Sedimentation Control Program.

Under the Program's current governance

structure, the responsibility for protecting

the state's waters from sedimentation

caused by construc-

Currently, no single agency can be held accountable for the amount of sediment entering the state's rivers and streams.

tion activities is divided among several state agencies as well as county and municipal governments. As

a result, no single

agency can be held accountable for the

amount of sediment entering the state's riv-

ers, streams, and lakes. Two specific areas

in which the division of responsibility im-

pacts the Program's effectiveness are dis-

cussed below.

Unlike most state regulatory programs (including other EPD programs), the responsibility for conducting inspections and for taking enforcement action is divided between two agencies. While the District Assessment Teams (composed of personnel from the Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts) conduct on-site reviews of local governments and construction projects, only EPD can take enforcement action regarding the local government or the developer (if the local government does not take action). Our review found that this division of responsibility has contributed to a lack of enforcement action being taken.
In March 2001, for example, a District Assessment Team's overview of Murray County found that [n]one of the projects within the County are in compliance; [s]ome [of the projects] have severe Water Quality violations, wetlands violations, and stream buffer violations; and [t]here has been no attempt to bring these projects into compliance. No enforcement action was taken by EPD against the developers, however.
As noted by a representative of the Georgia Municipal Association, the current governance structure may result in citizens being unsure of whom to contact with complaints. A citizen may initially contact the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), be referred to EPD or the Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and then be referred to the local government that issued the LDA permit. Once a complainant is referred to the issuing authority, there are no follow-up procedures to ensure that the complaint was subsequently resolved in an appropriate manner.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 15

To improve the overall effectiveness of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program, consideration should be given to making one agency ultimately responsible for the Program. As long as the responsibility continues to be divided among different agencies, however, action should be taken to improve the level of cooperation between EPD and the Commission. This issue is discussed in the following Finding.

Recommendation No. 4

Enforcement of the state's Erosion and

Sedimentation Act could be enhanced

through increased coordination between

EPD and the State Soil and Water

Conservation Commission.

Under current state law, the Commission is

responsible for conducting on-site reviews

of local governments' erosion and sedimen-

tation control programs and for notifying

EPD if it finds that a program is deficient or

ineffective. In turn, EPD is authorized to

investigate and revoke the local govern-

ment's certification as an issuing authority.

State law also authorizes EPD to take

enforcement action in those cases in which

the public interest is at stake and the issuing

authority has failed to secure compliance.

Our review found that there is a general

lack of trust be-

Our review found that tween the two or-

there is a general lack ganizations, with

of trust between EPD and the Commission, with the result that they are not working together in a cooperative, coordinated man-

the result that they are not working together in a cooperative, coordinated manner. This issue

ner.

is further discussed

in the following

paragraphs.

As recommended by the Senate Stormwater Study Committee in 1993, EPD and the Commission should work together to establish criteria for determin-

ing when a local government should be decertified as an issuing authority. Analyses of reviews conducted by the Commission's District Assessment Teams found cases in which local governments' erosion and sediment control programs were deficient or ineffective but had not been recommended for decertification. Similarly, EPD had taken no action to decertify these local governments even though they had received copies of the reviews. Interviews with EPD personnel also indicated that they questioned the accuracy of the reviews.
During fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the Commission recommended that two local governments (Atlanta and Marietta) be decertified as issuing authorities. In both cases, EPD investigated and determined that decertification was not warranted. EPD did, however, place the City of Atlanta on probation and has worked with the City to effect improvements. In fiscal year 2001, EPD decertified Dawson County as an issuing authority even though decertification had not been recommended by the Commission.
In its written response, EPD noted that under its current operating procedure, it will not initiate decertification unless specifically requested by the Commission's Executive Director and only if the necessary supporting documentation is provided. This procedure was established to provide some degree of consistency among the Commission's six regional offices.
Currently, there is a substantial difference of opinion between EPD and the Commission regarding the role of EPD in taking enforcement action. Interviews with personnel at the Commis-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 16

sion's regional offices found that they are frustrated with what they perceive as EPD's unwillingness to take selective enforcement action, such as issuing stop-work orders, against developers who are violating the state's erosion and sedimentation laws (in cases in which the local government is the issuing authority but is not taking any action). As noted by one of the Commission's regional offices, enforcement action by EPD would get the developers' attention. EPD's position is that it does not have sufficient resources to take selective enforcement action in jurisdictions in which the local government is the issuing authority.
In its written response, EPD noted its belief (based on previous enforcement efforts) that without a sustained enforcement presence, many builders will continue to utilize poor erosion and sedimentation controls and play the odds that they will never receive an EPD enforcement action.
Steps should be taken to strengthen the level of cooperation and coordination between EPD and the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. If necessary, consideration should be given to developing a formal memorandum of agreement between the two agencies outlining each agency's responsibilities in achieving the overall goal of protecting the state's land and water resources. As recommended in 1993 by the Senate Stormwater Committee, consideration should also be given to having EPD personnel periodically participate in the on-site evaluations of local governments. For EPD to become more involved in the enforcement of the erosion and sedimentation control ordinances, however, would require additional resources. This issue is discussed in a subsequent Finding.

Recommendation No. 5 Action should be taken to establish specific goals and objectives for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. Currently, data is not maintained by EPD or by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission for determining the extent to which the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is achieving its overall purpose of protecting the state's land and water resources. While it is generally agreed that too much mud is going into our streams, baseline data is not available for measuring the Program's impact on the amount of sediment in the rivers and streams. This issue is discussed below.

For fiscal year 2002, EPD does not have any specific objectives related to erosion and sediment control. The only RBB (Results-Based Budgeting) goal related to the state's waters is to [e]nsure that Georgia's lakes, streams, and groundwater are of the highest possible quality, meeting State and Federal standards at a minimum.

The corresponding RBB objective is

to increase the percentage of the

state's waters that meet water quality

standards using 1994-1995 baseline

data. No baseline data exists, however, for evaluating

Data is not maintained for determining the extent to which the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is

water quality achieving its overall based on the purpose.

amount of

sediment already in the water. As a

result, there is no way to determine if

the state's waters are improving as a

result of the Erosion and Sedimenta-

tion Control Program.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 17

EPD is currently in the process of establishing TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) statistics for the amount of sediment in the water for stream segments in all of the state's 14 major river basins. TMDL data refers to the maximum amount of a specific pollutant that a body of water can assimilate and still meet federal water quality standards. The initial TMDL statistics for sediment will not be completed for all 14 river basins, however, until 2003. Once the TMDL data is compiled, EPD will be able to determine (for selected stream segments) whether the amount of sediment in the water is increasing or decreasing.
It should be noted that information was not available to determine the Program's effectiveness in reducing the cost to taxpayers of removing sediment from drinking water. While sedimentation is the biggest problem for water treatment plants (according to DeKalb County), the cost of removing increased amounts of sediment could not be determined.
The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission's RBB goal for 2002 regarding erosion and sedimentation does not address the amount of sediment entering the state's waters or the quality of the state's waters. For fiscal year 2002, the Commission's goal is for [l]ocal government authorities [to] adopt erosion and sedimentation control ordinances in accordance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975, as amended.
While the 1975 Act mandates county and municipal governments to adopt erosion and sedimentation control ordinances, the Act does not require that

they become certified by EPD to issue LDA permits. Although 24 counties and 291 municipalities are not certified as issuing authorities, these local governments encompass only 6.3% of the state's population.

The TMDL data currently being compiled by EPD should be used in developing more specific Program goals and objectives. In lieu of monitoring the number of local governments that have adopted the erosion and sedimentation control ordinances, the Commission should consider monitoring the number of local governments that are doing an effective job as issuing authorities (as measured by the reviews conducted by the District Assessment Teams).

Recommendation No. 6

Local governments should be required to

more fully demonstrate their ability to

implement an effective erosion and sedi-

mentation control program as a condi-

tion of being certified as an issuing au-

thority by EPD.

As noted by the 1993 Senate Stormwater

Study Committee, the effectiveness of the

overall [Erosion and Sedimentation Con-

trol] Program is de-

pendent upon local

government

devel-

Under the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, lo-

opment and imple- cal governments are

mentation. Under not required to demon-

the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, however, local governments are not required to demon-

strate that they have the resources necessary to implement an effective program as a condition of being certified.

strate that they have

the resources necessary to implement an ef-

fective program as a condition of being cer-

tified.

Prior to a 1994 amendment to the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, local governments

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 18

only had to enact local soil and erosion control ordinances that were at least as stringent as the state's ordinances to become certified as issuing authorities. While the Act was amended in 1994 to require local governments to document that they employed qualified personnel, this additional requirement is of limited value.
Of the 371 local governments certified as issuing authorities, 333 (89.8%) were certified prior to 1994 and were not subject to the requirement. Interviews with EPD personnel also indicated that local governments can satisfy the requirement simply by submitting evidence indicating that one of their staff members has attended a training course sponsored by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Local governments are not required to notify EPD should the trained staff member terminate his or her employment; the certification remains in effect regardless of whether the local government continues to have any trained personnel on staff.
Interviews with environmental groups and homebuilder associations indicated that they were frustrated with the number of local personnel who lacked the training and experience to conduct thorough inspections of construction sites and identify problems in a uniform manner. As noted by representatives of the Homebuilders Association of Georgia, in some areas, enforcement is overzealous and in others it is non-existent.
As a condition of being certified, local governments should be required to demonstrate that they have a sufficient number of trained personnel to conduct regular inspections of all of the projects for which they issue LDA permits. To ensure that local governments remain in compliance with the certification requirements, consideration should be given to requiring them to periodically renew

their certification. Renewal could be contingent on the local government receiving a favorable review by the District Assessment Team. Implementation of any change to the certification requirements would require a change to the Erosion and Sedimentation Act.

Recommendation No. 7 Consideration should be given to requiring builders, developers, and other firms engaged in construction activities to meet certain minimum standards as a condition of conducting land-disturbing activities under an LDA permit or a General Stormwater Permit. Although construction activities are a major source of erosion and sedimentation in the state, builders and developers are not required by state law to meet any minimum standards regarding their knowledge of erosion and sedimentation control procedures. In addition, they are not required to demonstrate a history of compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control practices, to post a bond, or be licensed. These points are discussed below.

Builders and developers are not required

by the Erosion and Sedimentation Act

or by the General Stormwater Permit to

obtain any training regarding erosion

and sedimen-

tation control Builders and developers

procedures. Several local governments, however, such as Rock-

are not required by the Erosion and Sedimentation Act or the General Stormwater Permit to obtain any training regarding erosion and sedimen-

dale County tation control procedures.

and the Cities

of Roswell and Alpharetta, require any-

one who plans to engage in land-

disturbing activities within their juris-

dictions to attend erosion and sedimen-

tation workshops as a condition of ob-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 19

taining an LDA permit. It should be noted that erosion and sedimentation control workshops are offered throughout the state by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Although the Erosion and Sedimentation Act allows issuing authorities to deny LDA permits to persons who have been cited for two or more permit violations within three years of filing the application, this provision is not mandatory. Similarly, the Act allows, but does not require, issuing authorities to require builders and developers to post a bond of up to $3,000 per acre of proposed land-disturbing activity. (If the land-disturber does not comply with the Act, the bond can be called.) The extent to which these provisions have been adopted by local governments could not be readily determined.
A review of licensing requirements in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia revealed that, with the exception of Maryland, all of the states require residential and commercial builders to obtain a license. Only North Carolina, however, tests license applicants on their knowledge of the state's Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act.
Consideration should be given to requiring builders and developers to attend training courses and/or demonstrate their knowledge of erosion and sedimentation control practices as a condition of obtaining a permit. As noted by one writer in a critique of erosion and sediment control plans, the single most important element in ESC [erosion and sediment control] plan implementation is a trained and experienced contractor, as they are ultimately responsible for the proper

installation and upkeep of ESC practices.

Recommendation No. 8 Action should be taken to ensure that EPD and the Commission have the personnel and other resources necessary to fully implement the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. Interviews with EPD and Commission personnel found that they do not have the resources needed to ensure that all of the provisions of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the General Stormwater Permit are fully complied with. Currently, EPD has 15 positions (including regional staff) and the Commission has 12 staff positions (including regional staff) that are dedicated to implementing the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the General Permit on a statewide basis.

These staff persons are responsible for overseeing local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs, reviewing erosion control plans, administering erosion and sedimentation programs on behalf of non-certified local governments, providing education and technical assistance, and administering the NPDES General Permit. Specific areas in which the lack of personnel impacts the Program are discussed below.

The ability of EPD to fully enforce the

provisions of the General Permit with

its current staff is

q u e s t i o n a b l e . The ability of EPD to

From August fully enforce the pro-

2000 through June 2001, EPD reported receiving 11,500 No-

visions of the General Permit with its current staff is questionable.

tices of Intent

(NOIs). In addition to keeping track of

these NOIs, EPD personnel are required

to maintain monthly water quality re-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 20

ports filed for each project site, conduct periodic on-site inspections, and take enforcement action as necessary.
At the time of this audit, EPD was conducting a pilot project within the metropolitan Atlanta area in an effort to determine the number of staff needed to fully enforce the provisions of the General Stormwater Permit (by conducting inspections, identifying problems, and taking enforcement action as necessary). It should be noted that during the period August 2000 through July 2001, EPD focused its efforts on educating builders and developers regarding the provisions of the Permit.
EPD is reluctant to decertify local governments since it lacks the personnel that would be required to administer their local programs. EPD has estimated, for example, that the recent decertification of Dawson County may require three full-time EPD staff to handle the permitting, inspection, and enforcement functions previously performed by county personnel. Because EPD is not staffed to administer local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs, the threat of decertification is of limited value in encouraging them to operate effective programs. Overall, some local issuing authorities may view decertification as a paper tiger since they know that EPD does not have the resources necessary to administer their programs.
The need for the Soil and Water Conservation Commission to have additional resources is also indicated by the small number of local government programs that are reviewed each year and the Commission's inability to meet the demand for additional training programs.

During fiscal years 1998 through 2001, only 83 (22%) of the 371 local government issuing authorities were reviewed by the Commission's District Assessment Teams. Commission staff also indicated that the erosion and sedimentation control workshops it sponsors are in such high demand that they could offer twice as many courses per year if they had the resources.
Without sufficient resources, it is questionable if EPD and the Commission can perform all of the functions necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. As discussed in more detail in the next finding, consideration should be given to increasing EPD's resources by allowing it to charge user fees.

Recommendation No. 9

Consideration should be given to author-

izing EPD to charge user fees sufficient to

offset the additional costs it incurs as a

result of issuing permits, inspecting sites,

and taking enforcement action.

Although certified local governments are

able to charge fees for their erosion and

sedimentation control programs, EPD is not

authorized to charge builders and develop-

ers any type of user

fees. Authorizing Allowing EPD to

EPD to charge fees for processing LDA permit applications and Notices of Intent

charge user fees could result in local governments improving their erosion and sedimentation

(required under the control programs.

General Stormwater

Permit), for conducting inspections, and for

taking enforcement action might result in

EPD being less hesitant to decertify local

governments (with the result that decertifi-

cation would be viewed as a real threat).

For example, EPD could decertify a county

as an issuing authority, contract with an en-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 21

vironmental engineering firm to process the county's LDA permit applications and conduct on-site inspections, and pass the additional costs it incurred on to builders and developers in the form of user fees.
Our review of six other states (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) found that all of them charge fees as part of the General Permit. Alabama, for example, charges a flat fee of $250; Maryland's fee is based on the amount of acreage disturbed (for example, the fee for a project in which 12 acres are disturbed would be $500).
As recommended by the 1993 Senate Stormwater Study Committee, consideration should be given to authorizing EPD to charge user fees. Implementation of this recommendation could result in local governments improving their erosion and sedimentation control programs.
Recommendation No. 10 Action should be taken to facilitate and encourage the development of partnerships between local governments for the purpose of administering erosion and sedimentation control programs. Under the current provisions of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, every city and county in Georgia is responsible for adopting the required erosion and sedimentation control ordinances. If certified by EPD, each local government (regardless of size) is responsible for issuing LDA permits and for enforcing the provisions of the model ordinances. The Act does not provide for or

encourage the development of partnerships among local governments. If a small town, for example, does not have the resources to administer an erosion and sedimentation control program, the Act indicates that EPD must assume the responsibility.
Currently, EPD is responsible for issuing LDA permits and enforcing the erosion and sedimentation control ordinances in 24 counties and 291 municipalities, 217 of which have a population of less than 1,000. Instead of EPD administering the erosion and sedimentation control programs in these 217 municipalities, these municipalities should be encouraged to partner with their county governments to administer the program. It should be noted that 186 of the 217 local governments with less than 1,000 population are located in counties that have been certified as issuing authorities for the unincorporated areas of the county.
Municipalities with populations below a specified minimum should be encouraged, if not required, to partner with their county governments for the administration of erosion and sedimentation control programs. Implementation of this recommendation would provide an alternative to having EPD issue LDA permits, conduct inspections, and take enforcement action for Georgia's smaller municipalities. It should be noted that three municipalities in one Georgia county have signed a memorandum of agreement with their county government to issue LDA permits. The extent to which this is permissible under the current Erosion and Sedimentation Act is questionable.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 22

State Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Recommendation No. 1

Action should be taken by the Commis-

sion to improve its procedures for re-

viewing local governments' erosion and

sedimentation control programs.

Currently, the Commission does not have

any formal procedures governing how the

reviews should be conducted or docu-

mented. No type of checklist or inspection

form is prepared to

No type of checklist or guide the District inspection form is pre- Assessment Teams

pared to guide the Dis- or to verify what

trict Assessment Teams or to verify what was actually looked at during reviews of local governments.

was actually looked at during the review. Although onsite evaluations of

construction sites

are an integral part of every review, no stan-

dards have been established for ensuring

that every Team follows uniform proce-

dures in reviewing the sites. In addition,

the reports prepared by the Teams do not

include an overall score or rating of the lo-

cal government's program. These issues

are further discussed in the following para-

graphs.

Absent any written procedures or checklist to guide the reviews, the Commission cannot ensure that the Teams (led by regional office personnel) conduct the evaluations in a uniform manner. Because the reports are written in a narrative fashion indicating areas for improvement, it cannot always be determined if an area that is not mentioned in an evaluation report was actually reviewed.

A report prepared by a team in Region IV, for example noted that the City of Dublin needed to improve its procedures for handling citizens' complaints

regarding erosion and sedimentation problems. A report prepared the same month by Region III on the City of Forest Park did not mention the City's complaint-handling procedures.
Analyses of evaluation reports also found significant differences in the procedures used by the Teams for reporting the results of their on-site reviews of construction sites. While these on-site reviews are a key component of the evaluations, no standards have been established for ensuring that the Teams evaluate the sites in a consistent manner.
Teams in Region I, for example, present the results of their on-site reviews in extensive detail, with numerous deficiencies cited for many of the sites reviewed; a numeric score, however, is not assigned to any of the sites. In Region III, different Assessment Teams use different methods for presenting the results of their on-site reviews. In some cases, a numeric score was given to each site based on a scale of 0-100 while in other cases the score was based on a scale of 1-10. In still other cases, the results were presented in narrative fashion only.
As part of the evaluation process, the District Assessment Teams are not required to give any type of summary score or rating to the local government's program. Analysis of evaluation reports found cases in which there were no summary statements regarding the program; in other cases, the report indicated that the local government was in compliance with the minimum requirements of an issuing authority. In still

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 23

other cases, the report clearly indicated the local program was unsatisfactory but did not provide a summary rating or numerical score.

Without a summary score or rating, data is not available to measure the overall performance of the local governments' programs, to compare programs in different parts of the state, or to evaluate individual programs over time. The lack of an overall evaluation score also restricts the use of any type of automated system for recording the results of the reviews.

Formal procedures should be established for conducting and documenting the reviews of local governments. Implementation of this recommendation could serve to ensure that local governments are evaluated in a uniform and consistent manner by District Assessment Teams throughout the state.

Recommendation No. 2

Action should be taken to improve the

Commission's procedures for handling

citizens' complaints regarding erosion

and sedimentation control problems.

Currently, the Commission's regional of-

fices are only required to document the

number of complaints received, the source

of the com-

Complete documentation should be maintained for verifying that complaints are fully resolved in a timely manner.

plaints, and the subject of the complaints (including the

name of the issu-

ing authority and the District in which the

complaint occurred). They are not required

to maintain information for verifying that

all of the complaints were actually resolved

or were resolved in a timely manner.

Reviews of the complaint-handling procedures at four of the Commission's six re-

gional offices (which accounted for 96% of the 246 complaints received during the period January-May 2001) found that only Region IV maintained complete documentation for verifying that complaints had been fully resolved in a timely manner.
At one region, information was not readily available for any of the 125 complaints listed on the complaint log to determine how the complaints had been resolved. Region officials also indicated that time constraints prevented them from recording all of the complaints they actually received.
At two of the regions, information was not always available to determine what action had been taken in response to the complaints. Of the 111 complaints received by these two regions, 20 cases were found in which it could not be determined if any action had been taken. In 47 cases, the complaint records did not include follow-up documentation to verify that the complaint had been resolved. In 40 cases, for example, the records only indicated that the region had contacted the issuing authority (for example, called county). Regional personnel indicated they relied on the complainant to call back if the complaint was not resolved appropriately.
More complete information should be maintained to enable Commission management personnel to verify that complaints are fully resolved and are resolved in a timely manner.
Recommendation No. 3 Local governments that have been certified as issuing authorities should be subject to more frequent reviews by the Commission's District Assessment Teams. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires the Commission (and/or the Dis-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 24

tricts) to periodically review local governments to determine if they are fulfilling their responsibilities as issuing authorities. The Commission, however, has not established a formal standard for ensuring that all of the 371 local governments certified as issuing authorities are evaluated within a reasonable time frame.

The only guideline the Commission has established is that each of the six regional offices should conduct at least six reviews per year. This requirement is unrelated to the number of issuing authorities in each region and, on average, means that each issuing authority will be evaluated only once every 10 years. This issue is further discussed in the following paragraphs.

Among the Commission's six regions, the number of issuing authorities ranges from 47 (in Region III) to 91 (in Region V). If each region conducted six reviews per year, the number of years required to evaluate all of the issuing authorities in each region would range from 7.8 years in Region III to 15.2 years in Region V.

During the four-year period from fiscal

year 1998 through fiscal year 2001, the

regions con-

Only 83 (22%) of the ducted a total of

372 issuing authori- 127 reviews.

ties were reviewed The average

during the period 1998 through 2001.

number of reviews conducted

per year by each

region increased from 2.1 for fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 to 8.5 for fiscal

years 2000 and 2001. Because some is-

suing authorities were evaluated more

than once, only 83 (22%) of the 371 is-

suing authorities were reviewed during

the four-year period.

Requiring the regions to conduct a minimum of six reviews per year does not ensure that priority is given to those local governments that have larger populations, have more land-disturbing projects taking place, and issue a greater number of LDA permits. While the larger issuing authorities in the metropolitan Atlanta area were evaluated during fiscal years 1998 through 2001, many of the larger issuing authorities in other parts of the state were not evaluated. Among those issuing authorities that were not evaluated during the period were Chatham County, Cherokee County, Savannah, and Augusta.
Because local governments have a significant impact on the overall effectiveness of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program, they should be subject to more frequent oversight by the Commission. As noted in a previous Finding, however, implementation of this recommendation will require additional resources.
Recommendation No. 4 The continued involvement of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in evaluating local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs should be reconsidered. As authorized by the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, District supervisors currently serve as members of the Assessment Teams that review local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs. Although the supervisors may be knowledgeable regarding erosion and sedimentation issues, their participation in the reviews creates a potential conflict of interest.
Persons who are actively involved in the construction industry, for example, may be elected (or appointed) as District supervi-

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 25

sors and then serve on an Assessment Team reviewing the local government in which they have applied for LDA permits. Similarly, a county commissioner may be appointed as a District supervisor and serve on the Team that reviews his or her county's erosion and sedimentation control program.
The Commission should discontinue the Districts' participation on the Assessment Teams or should develop guidelines that would prevent District supervisors from participating in evaluations in which they might be perceived as having a conflict of interest.
Recommendation No. 5 The Commission should be commended for its efforts to educate local officials, developers, builders, and other persons regarding erosion and sedimentation controls. In fiscal year 2001, the Commission worked with the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and other organizations to sponsor 48 erosion and sedimentation control seminars attended by 2,038 developers, builders, engineers, and city and county em-

ployees. The semi- The Commission nars, which ranged in should be commended

duration from one to eight hours, were held in locations throughout the state.

for its efforts to educate local officials, developers, builders, and other persons regarding erosion and

sedimentation con-

The Commission trols.

(with the assistance

of EPD personnel) also conducted six semi-

nars in Athens for designers and persons in-

volved in preparing or reviewing Erosion

and Sedimentation Control Plans. These

seminars, which ranged from 16 to 21 hours

in length, were attended by 520 persons.

In addition to the seminars, the Commission (with the participation of EPD staff) sponsored nine eight-hour workshops in fiscal year 2001 to update persons concerning the General Stormwater Permit. These workshops, attended by 1,933 persons, were sponsored by the Commission in conjunction with the Districts, NRCS, the Atlanta Homebuilders Association, and the University of Georgia Center for Continuing Education.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 26

Environmental Protection Division

Recommendation No. 1 The Division should take steps to ensure that its six regional offices conduct inspections of LDA-permit sites in accordance with its Enforcement Manual. Although EPD's Enforcement Manual specifies that on-site inspections of landdisturbing activities should be conducted at the beginning and end of each project, this policy is not being fully complied with. A file review of 117 permits issued during fiscal year 2001 found that only 46 (39%) of the project sites had been inspected. Interviews with regional personnel also indicated that the regions have adopted their own informal policies regarding the frequency of inspections. One region, for example, indicated that inspections were conducted when a permit application is received and if a complaint is received regarding the project; another region indicated that a large site may be inspected six or seven times during the course of the project.
Recommendation No. 2 The Division should consider revising its procedures to make it easier for its regional personnel to take enforcement action against persons and firms who violate the provisions of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. Our review of EPD's enforcement procedures found that they could be improved by reducing the amount of time and paperwork required to take action against violators. Although state law was amended in calendar year 2000 to require mandatory fines for certain violations, EPD personnel at three of the five regions indicated they are reluctant to issue Notices of Violation that would require the fines to be assessed because of the amount of paperwork involved. As a result, Notices of Non-Compliance are issued

which do not require the assessment of mandatory fines. It was also indicated that stop-work orders were only issued in cases involving severe violations, in part because of the logistical complication necessitated by having to obtain the EPD Director's signature on the orders.

In its written response to this report, EPD indicated that Notices of Non-Compliance were also issued in those cases in which the sites were deemed to be in substantial compliance even though some deficiencies were noted. While a Notice of Violation was not justified, EPD wanted to inform the site owner of the need to correct the deficiencies.

As an alternative to issuing Notices of Violation or stop-work orders, consideration should be given to making greater use of expedited consent orders. If the violator agrees to the order, he or she can sign the order, mail it to EPD along with a check for the amount of the fine, and the matter is resolved. Currently, expedited consent orders are only being used by EPD's wastewater treatment program and as part of the pilot project involving enforcement of the General Permit.

Recommendation No. 3

Additional action should be taken to en-

sure that complaints filed with EPD are

resolved appropriately.

Although EPD should be commended for

developing a complaint tracking system for

monitoring the re-

ceipt and disposi- EPD should be com-

tion of complaints, it should consider taking additional steps to follow-up on

mended for developing a complaint tracking system for monitoring the receipt and disposition of complaints.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 27

complaints that are referred to the issuing authority. Unless the complainant calls back, it is assumed that the problem has been resolved. It should be noted that a review of the complaint tracking system for calendar years 2000 and 2001 (to date) found that EPD is responding to complaints in a timely manner.
Recommendation No. 4 The Division should continue its efforts to develop a database for keeping track of the Notices of Intent filed in compliance with the General Stormwater Permit. Currently, EPD's regional offices do not have a uniform system for keeping track of the thousands of Notices of Intent (NOI's) that are received by EPD each year. On-site reviews at the five regional offices found

that all of the regions were using different systems: two had devised their own database systems, two had their own spreadsheet systems, and one did not have any type of automated system.
Division personnel have indicated, however, that they are currently working on a web-based system for keeping track of the NOIs received by all of the regions. Implementation of this system will enable the regions to verify that NOIs have been submitted as required and that the projects are complying with the terms of the General Permits (such as submitting the required monitoring reports and submitting the required Notice of Termination at project completion). The system is scheduled to be implemented during the current fiscal year.

For additional information, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director, Performance Audit Operations Division, at 404.657.5220.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Page 28