Georgia's coastal nonpoint source pollution management program, volume 1: management measure compliance assessment

I NC~iAOO.4')... MI

I J.oo( 'P~
I

rnmw[fu

I

GEORGIA'S COASTAL NONPOINT

I

SOURCE POLLUTION

I

~ANAGEMENTPROGRAM

I

Volume I: Management Measure

I

Compliance Assessment

I

Prepared by The Georgia Department of Natural Resources

I

Environmental Protection Division and

the Georgia Coastal Management Program
I September, 2001
I For further Information contact

I

Julie Vann Nonpoint Source Coordinator

I

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 1 Conservation Way

Brunswick, GA 31520

I

julie_vann@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

I

I
Coastal Management Itogram
I

I

I

I Table ofContents

I

I. Introduction and Background

Specifications of the Clean Water Act...

.1-1

I

Specifications of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment... The 6217 Management Area

.1-2 .1-3

Land Use

.1-5

I

Ongoing or Completed Watershed Remediation Projects Water Quality Protection Programs

.1-5 .1-6

Mechanisms for New NPS Programs

.1-8

Administrative Coordination Summary

.1-8

I

II. Implementation Strategy

Programmatic Framework for Implementation

11-1

I

State Laws and Back-up Enforcement Mechanisms Addressing Exemptions to the Erosion and Sedimentation Law

11-6 11-8

Fifteen Year Program Strategy

II-II

I

III. Assessment of NPS Impacts

Prioritization of Remediation Efforts

III-I

I

Accounting for Inland Contributions to Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone

III-7

Georgia's Coastal Incentives Grants

III-8

I

IV. Additional Management Measures

A. Identification of Waters Not Attaining or Maintaining Water Quality Standards

.1V-I

I

B. Identification of Land Uses Causing or Threatening Water Quality Impairments C. Critical Coastal Areas

.IV-1 .1V-2

D. Process to Implement Additional Management Measures

IV-4

I

E. Pollutant Sources for Which Additional Management Measures May be Designated
v . Agriculture

.1V-4

I

Agricultural NPS Programs Backup Enforcement Strategy

Enforceable Policies

V-2

V-7

:

V-8

Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment Control...

V-9

I

Management Measure for Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities Management Measure for Nutrient Management..

V-IO V-15

Management Measure for Pesticide Management..

I

Management Measure for Grazing Management.. Management Measure for Irrigation Water Management.

V-17 V -21 V-22

Targets for Action

I

Schedule for Implementation

V-24 V -26

VI. Forestry

I

Forestry Activities Affecting Water Quality

VI-I

I

I

I I

..
Federal Programs Governing Silviculture

lIDwffilPII VI-2

State Programs Governing Silviculture

VI-2

I

1. Enforceable Policies 2. Nonregulatory Programs

VI-2 VI-3

Local Government Ordinances

VI-4

I

Preharvest Management Measure Management Measures for Streamside Management Zones (SMZs)

VI-5 VI-7

Management Measures for Road Construction/Reconstruction

VI-9

I

Management Measures for Road Management... Management Measures for Timber Harvesting

VI-ii VI-13

Site Preparation Management Measure

VI-I4

I

Fire Management Measures Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Management Measure

VI-I6 VI-17

Forest Chemical Management Measure

VI-I8

I

Wetlands Forest Management Measures

VII. Urban Areas

VI-20

I

Urban Pollutant Sources
Existing Urban Nonpoint Source Programs

Management Agencies for Implementation

VII-l
VII-3 VII-5

I

Federal Agencies Enforceable Georgia Policies

VII-7 VII-8

I

I. URBAN RUNOFF A. New Development Management Measure

B. Watershed Protection Management Measure

VI-8 VII-9

I

C. Site Development Management Measure IL CONSTRUCTION ACTlVITlES

VII-iO

A. Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure VII-12

B. Construction Site Chemical Control Management Measure

VII-I3

I

III. EXISTlNG DEVELOPMENT A. Existing Development Management Measure

VII-14

IV. 111ANAGEMENT MEASURES ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

I

A. New On-Site Disposal Systems Management Measures B. Operating On-Site Disposal Systems Management Measures :

VII-16 VII-17

V. POLLUTION PREVENTION

I

A. Pollution Prevention Management Measure VI. ROADS, HIGHWA YS, AND BRIDGES

VII-19

A. Management Measures for Planning, Siting, and

I

Development of Roads and Highways
B. Management Measures for Bridges

VII-20
p. VII-22

C. Management Measures for Construction Projects

p. VII-22

I

D. Management Measures for Construction Site Chemical Control... E. Management Measures for Operation and Maintenance

p. VII-23 p. VII-24

F. Management Measures for Road, Highway, and Bridge Runoff Systems p. VII-25

I

Conclusion

p. VII-25

I

II

I

I I

.

Implementation Strategy

rnwm[FlJ VII-26

I

Five- Year Im plementation Plan

VIII. Marinas and Recreational Boating

VII-29

I

Federal and State Marina and Boating Programs Projects Within the Coastal Marshlands......... ..

VIII-l VIII-l

Projects Inland of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act

I

Jurisdictional Area Enforcement of Water Quality Violations from Marinas

VIII-2 VIII-2

NPDES (Industrial) Stormwater Program

VIII-2

I

Nonregulatory Programs Applicability of the EPA Management Measures

VIII-3 VIII-4

Enforceable Georgia Policies

VIII-5

I

I. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SITING AND DESIGN

VIII-5

II. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR MARINA AND BOAT OPERATION

I

AND MAINTEIVANCE

VIII-9

Targets for Action

I

Schedule for Implementation

VIII-l3 VIII-l3

IX. Hydromodification

I

I. CHANNEL MODIFICATION Channel Modification Activities in Coastal Georgia

Implementation of State Policies

I

Federal Policy Enforceable Georgia Policies

.IX-l .IX-2 .IX-4 .IX-5

I

Management Measures for Channel Modification A. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface Waters

.IX-6 .IX-6

B. Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration

.IX-6

I

II. DAi'rfS

,

.IX-8

Chemical and Pollutant Control

.IX-9

I

Protection of Surface Water Quality and Instream Riparian Habitat

.IX-9

I

III. STREAM BANK AND SHORELINE EROSION Conclusion

.IX-ll .IX-12

I

X. Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems State Policy

X-l

Protection and Planning for Wetlands and River Corridors

X-l

I

State Policies Governing Construction and Dredging in Wetlands

X-2

I

111

I

I

I Federal Policy

I

Local Ordinances Enforceable State Policies

Enforceable Federal Policies

I

Nonregulatory Prograrns Management Measures

Course of Action

I

XI. Monitoring and Tracking

BMP Demonstration Projects

I

Water Ouality Monitoring Long-term Monitoring Program

Short Term Monitoring Projects

I

Data Analysis Existing Monitoring Data

Ongoing Water Sampling Programs: Local Scale

I

Ongoing Water Sampling Programs: Coastal and Statewide Programs

Management Measure Implementation Assessment and Tracking

Agricultural Management Practice Tracking

I

Forestry Management Practice Tracking Urban Management Practice Tracking

Marina and Recreational Boating

I

Management Practice Tracking Hydromodification Management Practice Tracking

Wetlands Management Practice Tracking

I

XII. Public Education and Participation

Public Involvement in the Plan

I

Public Education Ongoing Educational Programs and Events

New Programs

I

XIII. Conclusion

I

I

I

I

I

iv

I

,
X-4 X-4 X-4 X-5 X-5 X-6 X-9
XI-l XI-l XI-2 XI-2 XI-2 XI-2 XI-3
XI-5 XI-7 XI-7 XI-7 XI-7
XI-8 XI-8 XI-8
XII-l XII-I XII-2 XII-3

I

I

List of Tables

I Table Ill-I: Partially and Nonsupporting Streams on the

I

303(d) list within the Coastal Georgia Area

Table ill-2: 303(d) Waterways in Adjacent Counties to the Coastal Zone

I

Table V-I: Number of Fanning Operations in the Coastal Zone by Farm Type

Table V-2: Erosion and Sedimentation Resulting From

I

Agricultural Land in the Coastal Counties

Table V-3: Size Designations for Large and Small AFOs

I

according to the EPA 6217 (g) Guidance

Table V-4: Acres of Farmland in the Coastal Zone Utilized For Grazing

I

Table VI-I: Area and Percentages of Timberland in the Coastal Counties,

According to Ownership Type

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

v

I

III-2 III-7 V-2
V-9
V-13 V-21
VI-I a

I

I

W@[flY List ofFigUreJ]

I

Figure Ia and Ib: Georgia's Coastal Zone

.1-4

I

Figure 2: Coastal Georgia Water Resources

Figure 3: Coastal Georgia Land Use

I

Figure 4: Coastal Georgia Future Land Use

Figure 5: Conservation Lands of The Georgia Coast..

I

Figure 6: Number of Water Use (Irrigation) Permits by County

I-4a I-Sa .1-Sb .I-6a V-22a

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

VI

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I,
I I I

Appendices

Appendix I:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Appendix 5: Appendix 6: Appendix 7:
Appendix 8:
Appendix 9: Appendix 10: Appendix II: Appendix 12: Appendix 13: Appendix 14: Appendix 15: Appendix 16:
Appendix 17:
Appendix 18: Appendix 19: Appendix 20: Appendix 21: Appendix 22: Appendix 23:

I). OCGA 12-5-20: The Georgia Water Quality Control Act 2). Excerpts from Georgia's Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6 3).OCGA 12-5-171 :Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act Memorandum of Agreement: EPD and CRD for enforcement of the Georgia Air Quality Act, Georgia Water Quality Control Act, and section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act OCGA Article 4, part 2: Shore Protection Act I). OCGA Article 4, part 4: Coastal Marshlands Protection Act 2). Revocable License Application Areas slated for preservation and restoration OCGA 12-7-1 et seq: the Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 Memorandum of Agreement: EPD and SWCC for interagency review of projects involving Erosion and Sedimentation issues, the RBMP projects, nonpoint source pollution projects, and the Federal Farm Bill. Memorandum of Agreement between the EPD, the NRCS, and the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission concerning Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations 1). BMP Compliance Audit form, Georgia Forestry Commission 2). Summary of BMP Compliance Survey Results, 1998 1993 Turbidity Survey at Nine Logging Sites on the Southern Georgia Coastal Plain, GFC Procedure for handling Forestry complaints Storm Water Program for the City of Savannah Savannah River Basin Watershed Project: Nonpoint Source Action Team Action Plan Rules of Georgia Dept. Of Human Resources/Public Health for on-site sewage management systems, GA Admin. Code, Chapter 290-5-26 OCGA 12-15-1: sewage holding tanks Joint Application for Construction Projects within the Jurisdiction of the Coastal Management Program: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Memorandum of Agreement between the Coastal Resources Division and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning construction project review for endangered species on projects slated for Coastal Incentive grant funds. Memorandum of Agreement between the Coastal Resources Division and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning interagency meetings Conditions for Marinas and Commercial Facilities, May, 1997 Enforcement of CW A section 404 City of Savannah Wetlands Protection Ordinance Model Wetland Protection Ordinance for Local Governments, produced by the Georgia Dept. Of Community Affairs Best Management Practices manuals for agriculture, forestry, marinas, wetlands, erosion and sedimentation

Vll

I

I

IDJ fiIJ l~f1U7 E:c~4~ Appendix 24: Georgia Dept. Of Transportation's Standard Specifications and

GDOT's Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor's (WECS) manual

I

Appendix 25: TMDLS in the Coastal Zone as of 200 1 Appendix 26: Source Water Assessment and Implementation Plan

Appendix 27: Phase I Permit for MS4s

I

Appendix 28: Phase I Permit for Stormwater Runoff From Construction Sites Appendix 29: Required Contents of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan, as presented

byNRCS

I

Appendix 30: Commercial and Private Pesticide Applicators Certification manuals and tests Appendix 3 1: The Georgia AntiSiphon Act and Rules, and the GA Pesticide Use and

Application Act of 1976

I

Appendix 32: Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, Volumes I and II Appendix 33: Rules and Regulations for On-Site Sewage Management Systems and Manual for

On-Site Sewage Management Systems

I

Appendix 34: Model Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance Appendix 35: Urban BMP assistance documents

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Vlll

I

I

I

ill ~lr List of Acronyms and AbbreViaIDill

I

ACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

BMP

Best Management Practice

CES

Cooperative Extension Service (of the University of Georgia)

I

CIG CMP

Coastal Incentives Grant (awarded by the Coastal Management Program) Georgia's Coastal Management Program

CRD

Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia DNR

I

CRP

Conservation Reserve Program, a cost-share and technical assistance conservation program provided by the Farm Bill.

CWA

Federal Clean Water Act of 1972

I

CZARA DNR

. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment of 1990 Georgia Department ofNatural Resources

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

I

EPD EQIP

Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia DNR Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a cost-share and technical assistance

conservation program provided by the Farm Bill.

I

FIFRA GADOA

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Georgia Department of Agriculture

GDOT

Georgia Department of Transportation

I

GIS HUC

Geographic Information System Hydrologic Unit Codes developed by the U.S. Geological Survey with the EPD

MOA

Memorandum of Agreement

I

MSD NERR

Marine Sanitation Device National Estuarine Research Reserve

NPDES

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPS

Nonpoint source pollution

I

NOAA NRCS

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service

RBMP

River Basin Management Program

I

RCD RDC

Resource Conservation and Development Council Regional Development Center

SWCC

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

I

SWCD TMDL

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation District Total Maximum Daily Load

U-GA

University of Georgia

I

USDA USFWS

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

I

WHIP

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, a cost-share and technical assistance conservation program provided by the Farm Bill

WRD

Wildlife Resources Division of the Georgia DNR

I

I

I

ix

I

I

I

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

I

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has mandated that every coastal state devise a plan for the control of nonpoint source pollution, the pollution that washes off the land into

waterways with rain runoff. The plan will address five land use categories that have been determined by

I

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be major contributors to nonpoint source pollution: agriculture, sylviculture, urbanization, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification, which is

river channel dredging for deepening or widening channels, and dam construction. The preservation of

I

wetlands will also be addressed. The overall purpose of the plan is to assess the degree to which Georgia's regulatory and nonregulatory pollution control programs carry out the "management

measures" for pollution control that have been established by the EPA, and to enhance existing programs

I

or devise new ones that will control nonpoint source pollution in accordance with these management measures. The plan addresses land uses occurring on scales that are currently not covered under a federal

or state permitting program, for example, a commercial land use that occurs on a site smaller than the

I

minimum size requirement for various permits. Management measures are generalized waste management and resource management

requirements that are specific to a type of pollutant; for example, the EPA has established a management

I

measures for farm animal waste, which states that any animal farming operation over a specified size must contain the animal waste and any rain water runoff that comes in contact with it to a capacity that

will hold water from a 25 year, 24 hour storm event. Another management measure is to divert

I

rain/runoff water away from a waste retention area. There are several engineering structures, practices, and methods that have been developed by the EPA and other agencies that may be used to actually

accomplish these measures. For example, a management measure that calls for a reduction of sediment

erosion from construction sites could be implemented by either planting temporary vegetation over the

I

bare soil or by setting up a silt retention fence around the site. These structures and practices are referred to as "Best Management Practices" for polluted runoff control.

This plan includes chapters devoted to each of the above-mentioned land-use categories. Each

I

land-use chapter consists of the following: I. a description of existing programs that control nonpoint source pollution from that

particular land use, both regulatory and voluntary, incentives-based programs.

I

2. A listing of the US EPA's management measures for that land use. 3. An assessment of to what degree the state of Georgia's existing regulatory and

nonregulatory programs meet these management measures and what the shortfalls are.

I

4. A proposed five-year plan of actions that will be taken by the Department of Natural Resources and other collaborating agencies and industries to address the shortcomings of existing

programs to improve the management of nonpoint source pollution.

.

I

According to current information, non point source pollution from the various land use categories

can be prioritized by county as follows: urbanization is only a major contributor to NPS pollution in

I

Chatham and Glynn Counties. Marinas; in particular a lack of marine sanitation (septic) devices, may be contributing significant NPS pollution to the estuaries of Mcintosh County. Agriculture, in particular,

animal waste therefrom, is likely a key contributor in Brantley, Wayne and Effingham counties.

I

Industrial sylviculture is probably an insignificant contributor in all the coastal counties; the effects of tree harvesting from private landowners is unknown but will be scrutinized. Hydromodification is most

likely an insignificant factor in the coastal zone.

I

Based on the assessments of the existing programs, this plan will pursue the following generalized course of action for all land-use categories:

I

x

I

I. To strengthen existing programs and seek funding for their expansion. 2. To implement the objectives of existing programs that have inadequate funding or other resources, such as the Savannah River Basin Nonpoint Source Action Team Action Plan. 3. To work for the widespread establishment of riparian buffers, especially those that link existing preservation areas. 4. To expand the existing water quality monitoring program in the estuaries and if possible, further inland as funding allows. There is a lack of long-term water quality data in the coastal zone. The data that exists is "patchy", both temporally and spatially. The existing historical data will be compiled into a centralized, easily accessible data base and historical water quality trends will be analyzed and summarized and made easily available to the public, government agencies, and universities. 5. To improve the record-keeping process of the existing programs and reassess their effectiveness. In some instances, in particular in the agriculture sector, there is inadequate data on the number of businesses implementing pollution management practices and inaccurate data on the number of businesses that are practicing in that land-use category. 6. To attempt to increase the effective field staff available for inspection and intervention by collaborating with other natural resource agencies and nonprofit groups. We hope to develop a strategy that unifies the goals of several agencies that, in pursuing their own agenda, each group may incidental1y contribute to the objectives of other groups. 7. To establish BMP demonstrations and encourage industries and the public in general to follow suit. 8. To reevaluate the assessment of relative contributions from each land use and obtain a more accurate assessment.
Coastal Georgia's population and associated development were comparatively small-scale until the mid-1990s. Long term, high-resolution water quality data in the coastal waters is lacking, but there have been very few known water quality problems to date, therefore, the overall goal of the Coastal Nonpoint Source Plan is to prevent nonpoint source pol1ution problems by way of public education and facilitating widespread implementation of best management practices. Coastal Georgia is now in a position to acquire baseline water quality data with which to compare future monitoring data. Emphasis will also be on monitoring economic growth, land use changes, and water pollution management practices.
Xl

o
o
o
o
o o o o o o
o
o
o
o o o
o
o
o

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

L INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Nonpoint source pollution is defined as a wide variety of pollutants, nutrients, and sediment contained in stormwater runoff that emanates from an unspecific region not attributable to a specific outfall. Nonpoint source pollution is a major contributor to water pollution in Georgia, accounting for 52% of the water pollution in Georgia's streams. According to a year 2000 water quality survey conducted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, in the Coastal Zone, 34 of the 42 inland (nonestuarine) waters studied are impaired with respect to their designated use (for fishing, swimming, etc.); as were 10
of the twenty estuarine water sites sampled. As yet, there is little available information assessing the
long term water quality of the state's estuaries. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment of 1990 (CZARA) specifies in section 6217 that each state compile a Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program that assesses areas in the coastal zone where nonpoint source pollution is at unacceptable levels and presents pollution management measures for the general land use categories that are known to contribute to nonpoint source pollution. These land uses are agriculture, silviculture, hydromodification, marinas, and urban runoff (EPA-840-B-92-002, 1993). The plan must be in accordance with section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which calls for the planning and implementation of management measures to control nonpoint source pollution on a statewide basis. The purpose of this plan is to further integrate existing nonpoint source programs currently being conducted by various agencies, to assess their effectiveness, and to implement management measures in areas that have been overlooked or that are still not improving under the programs. This plan is considered an expansion of the state's Coastal Zone Management Program.
The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program must follow a two-pronged approach to coastal water protection: it must utilize existing pollution control programs to mitigate and restore waterways whose quality has been impaired by pollution and also assure the protection of those waterways that are pristine. Where existing programs prove inadequate to accomplish this, new programs will be devised and implemented. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) will take the lead in coordinating and implementing the overall program and will collaborate with other agencies involved in non point source abatement.
Specifications of the CWA
The plan must follow the general mandates of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)of 1987. Georgia's response to the CWA has been mainly in terms of waterway remediation. The portion of Georgia's program addressing nonpoint source pollution includes the completion of a document assessing stream and river water quality problems statewide, called Water Quality in Georgia, 1998-1999. Another document, the Georgia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, describes the actions underway for the amelioration of nonpoint source pollution (NPS) in the state. The final guidance relating to section 319 of the CWA mandates that the state's NPS management programs include the following:
1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measures must be named that will be used to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each source category. 2. Programs to achieve implementation of the BMPs, including regulatory and nonregulatory, aimed at enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, public education, and demonstration projects. 3. A schedule containing annual milestones for implementation of projects and BMPs. 4. A certification by the Attorney General of the State or the chief attorney of any state water pollution control agency which has independent legal counsel, that the laws of the state provide
I-I

adequate authority to implement such a management program. 5. Sources of federal and other assistance and funding for implementation. 6. The federal financial assistance programs and federal development projects for which the state will review individual assistance applications or development projects for their effect on water quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372.
Specifications of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment
According to Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment, enacted on November 5, 1990, The Coastal Nonpoint Source Program must accomplish the following:
I. Identify land uses which may cause or contribute significantly to degradation of a) coastal waters where there is a failure to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or protect designated uses, or b) coastal waters that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings from new or expanding sources. 2. Identify critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters identified under the preceding paragraph. 3. Implement additional management measures applicable to land uses and areas identified under paragraphs 1 and 2 above that are necessary to achieve and maintain applicable water quality standards and protect designated uses. 4. Provide technical assistance to local governments and the public to implement the additional management measures. 5. Provide opportunities for public participation in all aspects of the program. 6. Establish mechanisms to improve coordination among state and local agencies and officials responsible for land use programs and permitting, water quality permitting, and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health and safety. 7. Propose to modify state coastal zone boundaries as necessary to implement NOAA's recommendations under section 62l7(e), which are based on NOAA's findings that inland boundaries must be modified to more effectively manage land and water uses to protect coastal waters.
Goals of the Plan
I. Identify additional nonpoint source-categories that impact coastal waters for which applicable (g) guidance management measures will be implemented. Exempted are those that are subject to the NPDES storm water permit system or other point source permits. 2. To expand and enhance nonregulatory and voluntary NPS programs as a necessary compliment to core regulatory programs. 3. Identify critical coastal areas in need of management measures, that is, any new land uses or expansion thereof that could pose a pollution threat, and also undeveloped areas that serve as critical bird/wildlife habitat, popular recreational areas, and fisheries breeding habitat that require pollution prevention management measures. 4. Develop and implement management measures for the areas identified in goal #3. 5. Identify state-developed additional management measures to be implemented to meet water quality standards and protect designated areas, in the event that implementation of existing management measures results in no improvement in water quality. 6. To continue to revise and update the list of state waters partially supporting or not supporting their designated uses, according to the 305(b) and 303 (d) lists, including waters that may potentially be threatened. 7. Establish additional coastal nonpoint source programs for unsupporting waters as necessary.
1-2

o o o o o o o
o
o o o o o o o
o
o o o

__ -. .. - ..._~.

.,.,

-,-_

_~'-'.

"

I

I

. ':> '~!~rpl?

8. Enhance the role of local governments 10 preventing, abating, and rmtigatrng nOflPointUurce impacts.

I

9. Support and provide technical assistance to local watershed-level nonpoint reduction efforts and provide education and outreach on the role of local decisions in nonpoint source management.

10. Improve public understanding of non point source pollution impacts and the actions that can be taken to

I

prevent and control nonpoint source runoff. Management Measures Addressed By This Plan

I

Management measures are generalized waste management and resource management requirements that are specific to a type of pollutant; for example, the EPA has established management measures for

farm animal waste, which states that any animal farming operation over a specified size must contain the

I

animal waste and any runoff that comes in contact with it to a capacity that will hold water from a 25-year, 24 hour storm. Management measures are defined by the EPA as economically achievable measures to

control the addition of pollutants from NPS, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction

I

achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operation methods, or other alternatives. Each of the 5 land-use categories

described in this document must be assessed as to what degree the state of Georgia practices the

I

management measures listed in the EPA document Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. If any practice that generates NPS pollution is found to

not be following the EPA's management measures, this plan must propose either a change in existing

pollution control programs or a new program to address the measure. Management measures are

I

implemented through Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are a range of engineered structures, land use practices, and methods of controlling runoff or sedimentation, also listed in the EPA's Guidance

document.

I

The 6217 Management Area

I

The area under the jurisdiction of this plan consists of all coastal Georgia counties plus those counties immediately inland (west) and adjacent to the coastal counties, as specified by the Georgia

Coastal Management Program (Figures 1a and 1b). The study area includes the mouths of 5 major rivers:

I

the Savannah River. the Ogeechee River, the Altamaha River, the Satilla River, and the St. Mary's River. Thirty three percent of Georgia's land area drains into the watersheds of the 5 rivers. Ideally, the Coastal

Zone Management area would comprise the entire watersheds of the 5 rivers that pass through it; however,

I

Georgia's coastal watersheds are so large as to occupy at least half of the state and it is impractical to include them in their entirety. The designated area includes every waterway that is influenced by the sea to

even the slightest degree. Using county boundaries simplifies the relationship with local governments and

I

ensures that other programs and agencies in the coastal network can relate to the coastal area boundaries. While it is possible, there is presently no direct evidence that pollution of waterways immediately

inland of the coastal zone contribute significantly to the water quality degradation within the coastal zone.

There are 34 (freshwater) waterways in the designated coastal zone that are listed in Georgia's most recent

I

CWA-305(b) list as impaired and 23 impaired waterways in the adjacent inland counties. Most were due to nonpoint source pollution. Once Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been developed for these

areas, over time the impact of pollution from areas outside the coastal zone on coastal waters may be

I

estimated. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the Georgia coast is home to 547,382 people, with the

majority being in Glynn and Chatham counties. This number is expected to increase by approximately

I

31.9 to 51.6% by the .year 2015 (Coastal Georgia Regional Development Plan, 1998). Most of this increase is expected primarily in Chatham and Glynn counties, with most of the rest occurring in the other counties

I

1-3

I

immediately adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. There is no evidence of significant growth in the inland tier of coastal counties, except possibly in Effingham County. Little development is expected in the counties inland of the coastal zone for as far inland as the coastal plain extends (approximately along a line connecting Macon and Augusta). Thus, any increases in nonpoint source pollution due to urbanization will most Iikely originate within the boundaries of the existing designated coastal zone.
The economy of the region is largely based on the following industries: tourism, which generated an estimated 1.6 billion dollars to the region in 1996; forestry (including paper/pulp and timber), which generates an average of 74 million dollars annually; the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, which generated 171 million and 18 million dollars respectively in 1996; the commercial shrimping industry, which generates an average of 45 million dollars annually, and the military installations of Fort Stewart and Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, which generated 774 million and 115 million in revenue in 1996, respectively (Coastal Georgia Regional Development Plan, 1998).

Relevant Physical Characteristics of Georgia's Coast

The study area lies within the CoastalPlain Physiographic Province and is thus relatively devoid

of topography. The topography that exists is largely due to relic sand bars remaining from former higher

stands of sea level. This topography has resulted in "hammocks" of slightly higher ground, which in the

salt marsh appear as forested islands in the marsh grass. Soils tend to consist primarily of sand in most

areas; with the exception of a superficial layer that is somewhat enriched in organic matter.

The Georgia coast contains 384,000 acres of salt marsh, accounting for one fourth of the

remaining salt marshes in the east coast of the United States. The salt marsh extends an average of4 to 6

miles inland and is dissected by several tidal creeks, some of almost riverine size, in addition to the 5 main

river mouths.

.

The tidal range along the coast of Georgia averages between about 5.5 feet and II feet depending

on the time of month and year. Strong tidal currents result in rapid flushing times in some of the main

estuaries: averaging 7 days in the Altarnaha River, 28 days in the Ogeechee River, 63 days in the Satilla

River, and 65 days in the St. Mary's River (Alber and Sheldon, 1999). The strong currents also keep the

muddy marsh sediments in suspension, resulting in a naturally high turbidity. The coastal marsh has been

found to remove 20 -34% of the nitrate flowing across it during each tidal cycle (Windom et al.. 1998).

There are some seaways that are less well-flushed due to the presence of a "sill" of sediment at the mouth

of the inlet. for example, the Duplin River, ShellbluffCreek, and Cedar Creek (Bough et a!., 1982-3).

The water density front representing the seaward extent of river effluent into the sea is from 5-10

km offshore during times of low runoff to greater than 30 km during high runoff (Blanton et al.. 1978).

Thus, the effects and inputs from the 5 coastal rivers will likely persist within this portion of the coastal

ocean. Conversely, tidal action, as evidenced by the presence of brackish water, has been found as far as 36

km upstream.

Groundwater in the Coastal Area

Most of coastal Georgia's drinking water comes from groundwater. There have been few instances of severe groundwater contamination in Georgia. However, the groundwater is susceptible to contamination from the ground surface in aquifer recharge areas, where the aquifer outcrops near or at the ground surface. Groundwater recharge areas in the coastal zone are depicted in Figure 2.
The depth to water of the shallow aquifer in the Coastal Zone is about 3 to 8 feet (James Harris, GA EPD, personal communication). The shallow aquifer is not used on a large scale for domestic water supply, except in older, rural areas. The aquifer immediately underlying the surficial aquifer is a series of geological formations known as the Miocene Aquifer. Beneath the Miocene Aquifer, at a depth of

1-4

o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o o

'r"

I

COASTAL 'GEORGIA FUTURE

I

LAND USE

I

, . f.
-, ".'

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-':".., . - < / ..t "
,

"J:~; .~',

I I

-'--I
'---'

RURAL

DEVELOPED
'."St] CONSERVATION

N
~

~ MILITARY/FEDERAL

c=J OCEAN

I

o

10

I

I

COASTAL GEORGIA LAND USE

I '.

.> ~ "".~ 7'7. 1.1 .,'

~ "

~ , " \r,-.......

Figure .1 : Present land U!=iC pnticrns ill coastal Gcorgia. i\\, d:ll:l ;'t\';,ilahlc for Charlton, Brnntlcy. :100 Wayne Cnunrics.
IV

- ~ r-==:J RURAL

~ DEVELOPING

N

DEVELOPED

k:J;ili] CONSERVATION
~ MI LITARY IFEDERAL [::=J OCEAN

0

10

20 Miles

0

0

0

0

0

0

..'

0

0

0

0

D

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 n..

. _.. .. -~

--~-~~_._~_

I I

:~::;srseOOc~~1\MCDowell approximately 500 feet,lies theFloridan Aquifer, which

and Steele, 1998), and is the primary source of groundwater in coastal Georgia.

I

The Miocene Aquifer traditionally has not been utilized to a great extent, but the imminent problem in some areas of salt water intrusion into the underlying Floridan aquifer is causing the Miocene

Aquifer to be considered for future developments. Depth to the Miocene Aquifer is approximately 100-

200 feet in the coastal area (McDowell and Steele, 1998) and therefore it is at present in comparatively

I

little danger of contamination by surface waters. However, due to the fractured and unconsolidated nature of the limestone and sediments (respectively) forming this aquifer, increasing groundwater withdrawals

due to increasing development have demonstrated that there are hydraulic links between the aquifers,

I

which "leak" to a degree proportional to the rate of withdrawal. There are small localized groundwater recharge areas where the Miocene Aquifer is virtually at the ground surface (Figure 2).

Water quality monitoring conducted by the Georgia Groundwater Monitoring Network has shown

I

occasional plumes of contaminants in the surficial aquifer. Monitoring results have indicated slight increases in nitrate levels in the recharge areas in the coastal area since 1984. However, in 1991-1996 less

than I percent of the 5000 shallow wells sampled showed contamination of over the maximum

I

contaminant level of 10 ppm. Other minor sources of surficial groundwater contamination are, in decreasing order of

significance, leaking underground storage tanks, radioactive elements (probably naturally occurring),

I

hazardous waste sites, and septic tank leakage. Unlike many other states, there is no evidence of groundwater contamination from pesticides attributable to agriculture.

Land Use

I

Figure 3 represents current land use patterns in the coastal zone. Much of the area is rural except

for Chatham and Glynn counties, which contain large and growing urban centers. Forestry is an extensive

I

industry geographically in all counties.' Agriculture is not a major land use by comparison. Future land use as extrapolated from current trends are depicted in Figure 4.

I

Status of Coastal Georgia's Water Resources

There is as yet little available long-term information concerning water quality in Georgia's

I

estuaries. so any assessment of the program's priorities will based on anecdotal information and frequency of reported water quality violations until more data becomes available. The routine water quality sampling

conducted by the Georgia Coastal Resources Division (CRD) has sampled several estuarine sites in the

I

coastal zone in the past few years; before this, data was limited to 13 stations that were sampled monthly by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) until 1993. The only demonstratable water

quality problems in this area are the impaired estuarine sites listed in chapter 3 and occasional

I

contamination of certain coastal areas by coliform bacteria. This data is from the National Shellfish Sanitation Program conducted by the CRD. There is evidence from studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey that in some areas the surface water and shallow groundwater in the coastal plain contains levels of

nutrients that exceed EPA standards. This is discussed in more depth in the agriculture and urban sections

I

of this plan.

ONGOiNG OR CO/vlPLETED WATERSHED RD"IEDIATION PROJECTS

I

Savannah River Basin Watershed Project

The Savannah River Basin Watershed Project is a "Watershed Protection Approach" project

I

initiated by Region IV of the EPA in 1993. It provides a forum for exchange of technical information and

1-5
I

I

Coastal Georgia Region
Water Resources Map
WATER RESOURCES KEY
[J] Open Water
D Water Recharge Areas
D Surface Water Buffer Areas
Surface Water Intake Public Ground Water
Supply Wells
M1P scale _ 1:53003 Base map compiled from 19CJO U. S Department of Commcrre; Bureau of the CcflSUS TICEfUtine Files. Significant Cround-water Rocharge Neas of Georgia provided by DC" (rom USGS 5OU=, Surface-water lnl<lke Site from USGS 7.5min Quadrangle, Ground-water lnl~ Sites provided by Coastal Georgia Kegional Development Center, GIS Department 1993
Regional Survey. This map is a pktottal reprcsemation of the features
displOlyed; intended for general planning purposes, Prepared by
Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, GIS Department, 1994.
Figure 2: Groundwater recharge zones and public water supplies in the coastal zone. These recharge areas are for the Miocene Aquifer. No data available fur Charlton. Brantley, and Wayne Counties.

o
o n
LJ
o
o o
o
o o
o
o o o
o
o
o o o

I

I

I

CONSERVATION LANDS OF THE GEORGIA COAST

I

= = = = = = .\hl0

10

10

I

I

I

LONG

I

~. ~ %' V

.5'-.

I

WAYNE

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MANAGING AGENCY

o Department of Defense

I

~ National Park Service

Private

I

~ State of Georgia
II US Fish and Wildlife Service

I

joint development of strategies for identifying and prioritizing resource issues in the basin, and improving management of the basin's resources. South Carolina and Georgia are primary partners in the project, along with a variety of other stakeholders, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and regional councils of government. The goal is to cooperatively manage the resources of the basin to conserve, enhance, and protect its ecosystems in a way that allows the balancing of multiple uses. This cooperative planning effort recently selected nonpoint source pollution as one of the highest priority issues for the basin. A nonpoint source action team has been formed to develop plans for implementation of recommendations for each of the high priority issues.
Ebenezer Creek Remediation Progarm A Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319(h) grant has been awarded to the Coastal Resource
Conservation &Development Council (RCD) to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) and monitoring sites at Ebenezer Creek. The demonstrations will include establishing several agricultural BMPs that will ameliorate the eutrophic conditions of the creek by reducing the amount of animal waste, sediment and fertilizer entering the creek from agricultural operations. The project has implemented a permanent water monitoring program in the watershed by way of the Adopt-A-Stream pr~gram. Waterborne sediment (as turbidity), dissolved oxygen, pH. temperature, nitrogen and phosphorus will be monitored on a permanent basis. This program will dovetail with the existing Ebenezer Creek Greenway Project, which is a volunteer program consisting of trash pick-up, public education, and stream bank stabilization along the creek.
The Altamaha River Watershed Sediment and Animal Waste Reduction Project This project was awarded a grant under section 319 of the Clean Water Act in 2000. Several
partners are involved in its implementation, including the Coastal Georgia Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D), the Georgia Nature Conservancy, and The Altamaha Riverkeepers, and the USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). This project seeks to reduce sediment and nutrients in the waterways in 4 hydrologic units (sub-watersheds) within the lower Altamaha River Watershed by constructing agricultural Best Management Practices. Continuous water quality monitoring will be conducted to measure the efficacy of the BMPs and to delineate with certainty the cause of low dissolved oxygen in these waterways. The BMP sites will also serve as demonstration sites for BMP workshops that will be offered to the agricultural community in the area.
W4 TER QUALITY PROTECTION PROGRAMS
There are several presumably pristine areas that are protected by current management programs conducted by the Nature Conservancy and the Parks and Recreation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), depicted in Figure 5. These include the Altamaha BioReserve along the Altamaha River, a lengthy riparian buffer along the Altamaha river. 9 state parks and historic sites (also administered by the Georgia Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Division), 9 DNR-owned wildlife refuges and waterfowl management areas, and 4 National Preserves, including Okeefenokee Swamp in Charlton County. Of the 9 major barrier islands on Georgia's coast, all but 2 (St. Simons and Tybee Islands) are either wildlife refuges or wilderness areas with limited public access. The Georgia EPD is responsible for investigating water quality complaints in all waterways of the state and taking enforcement action against perpetrators to remediate violations of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.
1-6

o o o
o
o
n
o o
o
o o o o o o
o o
o o

I

I

The Altamaha BioReserve

The Altamaha BioReserve is located in McIntosh and Wayne Counties and is administered by the

I

Nature Conservancy. who was responsible for the acquisition of several thousand acres of its area. The Nature Conservancy has a protection strategy for the BioReserve that consists of several educational and

incentives-based programs aimed at the private landowners within the boundary of the BioReserve. TNC

I

works with the private landowners to establish riparian buffers and conservation easements on their property, harvesting timber according to Sustainable Forestry Initiative practices (if necessary), and providing technical assistance for creation of wildlife habitat. Much ofTNC's management strategy is

"threat-driven"; they conduct surveys to locate areas containing endangered species or rare/imperilled

I

species and communites, and focus their outreach efforts in these areas. One of the results of their efforts so far is a 35-mile riparian corridor along the river that is 350 feet wide on a side.

mc also conducts water quality monitoring in the BioReserve. They operate in a collaboratively

I

with the Coastal Resource Conservation and Development Council on the Altamaha River Watershed Sediment and Aminal Waste Reduction Project mentioned above. TNC's role in this project is to conduct

routine water quality monitoring and ultimately to delineate the sources of low dissolved oxygen that have

I

impeded the river's quality. They also have taken the responsibility of cleaning up the great quantites of trash that have been dumped there illegally over time.

I

Suwannee Basin Cooperative Studv The Suwannee River Basin, which lies in Georgia and Florida, has been the focus of an interstate

cooperative river basin study for the past two years. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

I

is leading the project. with local sponsors including soil and water conservation commissions in both states. the Suwannee River Water Management District, the Suwannee River Resource Conservation and

Development (RC&D) Council and the Seven Rivers RC&D council. Participants also include a number

of state agencies and private organizations. The EPD is a member of the study's steering committee and

I

coordinates contributions to the cooperative study with river basin planning for the Suwannee River. Natural resources concerns, including the impact of nonpoint source pollution on water quality,

have been identified and prioritized. Annual pollutant loads have been assessed and integrated with a GIS

I

database to allow prioritization of watersheds in the basin based on relative pollution potentials. Subsequent phases of the study will address four critical issues: water quality, water quantity,

environmental concerns. and interstate/interagency coordination and cooperation.

I

The Georgia Greenspace Program

In 2000 the Georgia legislature passed the Greenspace bill. which establishes a funding source and

I

outreach program to Georgia's county governments that would enable qualified counties to set aside 20% of their land for preservation and conservation. In order to qualify, a county must be experiencing. rapid

development and have a population of 60,000 or more people. Six of the coastal counties, including all

I

but one of those adjacent to the ocean, qualify for this program, which is administered by the EPD and requires participating counties to set up a matching trust fund for land purchase. The Georgia Department

of Community Affairs has compiled and distributed the best available information to qualifying counties

I

on recreational and natural resources and other criteria that would be helpful for counties to decide which areas would be the best purchase for conservation. A Coastal Management Program staff member is part

of the Greenspace Development Committee and is conducting outreach to qualified counties on the need to

include riparian buffer zones and other waterfront areas in the preservation program to protect water

I

quality and aquatic habitat. Adopt-A-Stream

The Adopt-A-Stream program in Georgia is currently expanding into the coastal zone.

I

Once a substantial amount of data is generated, this data will be used for outreach purposes, and an attempt

1-7
I

I

is underway to assess the accuracy of the AAS data by statistically correlating it with data collected by

professional staff.

.

Mechanisms for New NPS Programs

Analysis of monitoring data and records of pollution complaints by the public will determine

which specific land use activities are in need of new nonpoint source control programs. The Georgia EPD

and CRD intend to collaboratively implement the 6217 management measures for unpermitted and if

necessary, permitted land use activities that may impact coastal waters. This will be accomplished to some

extent through existing regulatory programs, but to address those management measures not currently

incorporated into existing policy, nonregulatory strategies will include:

1



revising Phase I and eventually Phase II NPDES municipal stormwater permits to include the o

management measures



educational arid incentives programs, such as offering amnesty from fines under the condition that

a noncompliant business clean up their site and install BOPS within a specified time frame

coordination and expansion of existing programs

~~



Encouraging local governments to implement local ordinances that govern stormwater,

construction site rules, commercial businesses that contribute to nonpoint source pollution

Administrative Coordination Summary

The Coastal Nonpoint Source Advisorv Committee In 1998, a technical advisory committee was established in order to tailor the specific goals of the
6217 plan to coastal Georgia, and to serve as a forum for coordinating existing NPS programs. The committee has members representing all government agencies involved in NPS programs, as well as representatives from the development community. Each land use category was represented as follows:

Table II-I: The composition of the Technical Advisory Committee.

Land Use Category Agriculture
Sylviculture Marinas

Agency Represented
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Coastal Georgia Resource Conservation and Development Council and Seven Rivers RC&D
Natural Resources Conservation Service
University of Georgia Agricultural Extension Service
Georgia Forestry Commission Georgia Pacific Corporation International Paper Corporation
GA Marine Business Association

1-8

o o
o
o
o o o o o o
un
o o o o
o
o o o

I.

1

Urbanization and

hydromodification

I

"r
Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center
Glynn County Public Works

I

1

Wetlands

I

Scientific Community

Chatham County Municipal Planning Commission)
Thomas & Hutton Engineering
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah River District
Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve

1

Four subcommittees consisting of industry and agency representatives were formed for each land

use category in order to assess the degree to which the management measures are addressed in that

I

category and to develop a plan of action; for example, an agriculture subcommittee consisting of the agriculture representatives of the Advisory Committee plus additional agency and industry representatives

convened several times to assess the efficiency of existing NPS programs in agriculture and to devise the

five-year plan of action to address the shortfalls. Thus, the Advisory Committee formed the nucleus of a

I

larger group of stakeholders who were all instrumental in the assessment of present programs and in determining the future course of action.

The Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee is a key mechanism in the coordination of the 6217

I

program. The committee discusses how new programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory, will or could address the 6217 management measures. The members act as representatives for their respective

industries, bringing the information discussed at the advisory meeting back to their peers. Each member of

I

the comm ittee relays the recent developments in existing pollution control programs to the group and updates them on pending programs and proposals. The chief function of the committee was originally to

provide detailed and accurate information to the coastal nonpoint source coordinator for inclusion in the

I

plan: however, in December, 2000 the agricultural subcommittee has additionally volunteered to document BMP implementation goals and provide records of BMP implementation for each existing pollution

control program, for the purpose of monitoring their respective efficacies. It is hopeful that the other

I

nonpoint source subcommittees (for urbanization, wetlands, etc.) will follow suit and begin the BMP monitoring and evaluation process in their industry.

I

Coordination with Other Agencies Public education efforts will be coordinated with the University of Georgia Marine Extension

Service in Brunswick, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Sapelo Island National Estuarine

Research Reserve. The Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve has agreed to provide logistical

I

help with many of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)'s outreach activities and to work with the DNR's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) on collaborative presentations.

The Marine Extension service was awarded a Coastal Incentive Grant through the CRD to

I

implement the Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program in coastal Georgia (see chapter VII). This is an educational and technical support program for municipal officials, commercial

fishermen, and other sectors of the public. This effort will be coordinated with that of the CRD and EPD,

I

who will be active participants in the NEMO program.

1-9
I

I

)(/iFp17
Regarding the statewide NPS plan under CWA section 319, the coastal nonpOiUrOgram

o
o

activities will be addressed in coordination with the goals, objectives, and milestones of the state 319

program.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o
o

o

1-10

o

o

I

I

~ '.1 U .

0) ~ IC'l?

IL IMPLEMENTATIONSTRA TEGY

I

The basic information for targeting specific areas for remediation will be derived from the water quality information listed in Water Quality In Georgia. 1998-99. This document was compiled in

compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, section 305(b). Appendix A in that document lists the

I

status of all the streams and rivers in Georgia with regards to whether they support or do not support their designated uses of fishable, drinking water source, scenic, wild river, recreational, or coastal fishing.

All planning efforts are being established on a watershed scale. Georgia's River Basin

I

Management Programs (RBMPs) produces the baseline data that is used in planning and implementation, including water quality, land use, specific pollution problems, and basin-specific goals for remediation.

The program also prioritizes watersheds according to their need of remediation.

I

Programmatic Framework for Implementation

The Georgia Coastal Zone Management Program

I

The Coastal Management Program (CMP) establishes Georgia as a participant in the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The goal of the program, which is administered by the Coastal

Resources Division of the DNR, is to balance economic development in Georgia's Coastal Zone with

I

preservation of natural, environmental, historic, archaeological, and recreational resources for the benefit of the people. The program established a network of federal, state, and local agencies to address coastal

issues involving:

I



water supply limitations; identification of historic sites;



impacts to endangered species;

I





beach erosion and hazards; water quality degradation; declining fish populations;

I





increased population growth; dredging and disposal; lack of beach access, beach driving permits;



need for energy planning.

I

Activities include permitting and planning, and providing technical assistance and advice on

implementation of best management practices. Permitting activities include enforcement of the Shore

I

Protection Act and the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, and issuing revocable licenses to access state owned bottom lands. The CMP also conducts Federal Consistency reviews: states with approved CMP

plans may reject a federal permit for activities that are inconsistent with the state CMP. Establishment of

I

this program also makes available funding through the Coastal Incentive Grants, which are awarded to local government, state agencies, and research and educational institutions for the implementation of local

water quality management measures.

I

The Coastal Management Network

The Georgia Coastal Management Program addresses the economic development concerns and

I

natural resource issues identified by the citizens of Georgia. Administered by the Coastal Resources Division (CRD), the program is a network of local, State, and federal agencies addressing coastal issues.

By establishing this network, there is more coordination among agencies, better service provided to the

I

taxpayers, and improved management of coastal resources.

II-I

I

I

Local governments assist in long-term planning, economic development, and natural resource

protection through preparation and implementation of the respective comprehensive plans (mandated by

the Georgia Planning Act), local laws and zoning regulations, as well as through their chambers of

commerce and economic development authorities. Through the Georgia Coastal Management Program,

the CRD provides technical assistance to local governments to assist in their planning efforts and address

natural resource issues.

State agencies continue to administer their respective coastal management efforts as defined by

existing Georgia State law. Memoranda of Agreement between the CRD and other State agencies with

regulatory authority in the coastal area help ensure that all agencies act in accordance with the policies of

the Georgia Coastal Management Program. The following State agencies are involved in the Georgia

Coastal Management Program network:



Coastal Resources Division



Department of Community Affairs



Department of Human Resources



Environmental Protection Division



Georgia Department of Transportation



Georgia Forestry Commission



Georgia Ports Authority



Historic Preservation Division



Jekyll Island Authority



Office of the Secretary of State



Parks, Recreation, and Historic Sites division



Public Service Commission



Wildlife Resources Division

Federal agencies continue to administer their respective programs as they are reviewed for consistency with the Georgia Coastal Management Program. Ongoing coordination efforts between the CRD and federal agencies are conducted to ensure communication and consistency. The following federal agencies are involved in the coastal network:



Army Corps of Engineers



Bureau of Land Management



Coast Guard



Department of Agriculture



Department of Defense



National Park Service



National Marine Fisheries Service



Environmental Protection Agency



Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Emergency management Agency



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission



Federal Highway Administration



Federal Law Enforcement Training Center



Fish and Wildlife Service



General Services Administration



Minerals Management Service



Nuclear Regulatory Commission

II-2

o
o
o o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o o o
o o
o
o

I

I

The River Basin Management Plan

In 1992, The state of Georgia, in collaboration with the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), adopted a river basin management planning approach to

I

watershed protection. It is this program that provides the water quality data and land use information that governs virtually all of Georgia's nonpoint source control strategies. It is the mechanism that

generates the CWA-305(b) list and determines the schedule for development of Total Maximum Daily

I

Loads (TMDLs). Plans were designed for each of the major river basins in Georgia and are reassessed and updated

every 5 years on a rotating basis. The plans include a description of each basin, identification of local

I

governments, land use inventories, and specific goals for the watershed implementation strategies and measures to accomplish goals. A monitoring program is implemented, which assesses the water quality

and environmental stressors in the basin.

I

The Georgia Forestry Commission, in collaboration with the National Park Service, participate by inventorying existing data (courtesy of the US Forest Service) for acreage of forest land, ownership

types, and timber types. Trends in forest acreage loss and conversion will be compared with annual

I

urban growth for the development of management decisions. The Georgia Soil and WaterConservation Commission, NRCS, Georgia Agriculture Commission, and University of Georgia College of

Agriculture and Environmental Sciences collaborate in the planning by identifying agricultural water

I

needs and information on watersheds with a high potential for agricultural pollution in each river basin. The US Geological Survey (USGS) is contracted by the Georgia Environmental Protection

Division (EPD) to take routine water quality measurements at various stations. The basin under scrutiny

changes every year, and during a basin's designated year the USGS samples water at the designated sites

I

on a monthly basis for metals, dissolved oxygen, pH, and other indicators of organic loading and nutrient loading. There are a series of "core" sampling stations that are sampled monthly regardless of which

basin is under study. Four of these stations lie in the coastal zone.

I

As of 1999, planning and monitoring have been implemented in two watershed groups in the Coastal Zone: the Savannah-Ogeechee basins, and the Suwannee/SatillaiSt. Mary' s/Ocklockonee basins.

The products of these studies will include: 1. A base-now protection GIS database for each basin, due to

I

be completed by 2000. This database will include all information pertinent to monitoring and assessment of water quality changes in each basin: surface water intakes, landfills. land application sites, National

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges, roads, and hydrography. 2. The watershed

I

delineation project. This has resulted in the establishing of a standard watershed delineation system for Georgia, including sub-basin hydrologic units, each assigned a numerical code by the USGS. Further

subdivision of hydrologic units is currently being undertaken by a consortium of state, federal and local

I

agencies. As the River Basin Management Program (RBMP) progresses, biological monitoring will be

added to the program and biological criteria for wadeable streams will be developed. This will be done

I

by delineating ecoregions based on similar geology, soils, land use, and water quality. Once ecoregions are established, the baseline biological and chemical conditions in each ecoregion will be developed,

which will be used to determine what is acceptable for all streams in each ecoregion. Eventually,

I

"biocriteria" may be developed which will be biological standards for each ecological region. Certain chemical and physical measures of water quality such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH may

eventually be assigned ecological regional standards.

I

Long term priorities are being developed by EPD and all stakeholders during the second iteration of the basin planning cycle. Then program priorities will be set, such as agricultural incentives

programs, use of state revolving loan funds to address impacts on drinking water sources, etc.

I II-3
I

I

Total Maximum Daily Loads In accordance with section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, Total Maximum Daily Loads
will be developed for the water quality criteria violated (e.g., fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, metals) for all water bodies on the Section 303(d) list. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is calculation of the maximum amount of pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. It is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources, and includes a margin of safety and consideration of seasonal variations. The development ofTMDLs will provide the schedule and priorities to which the efforts of the Coastal Nonpoint Source Program will be directed.
TMDLs for fecal coliform were established in FY99 for 101 water bodies delineated on the 303(d) list in the Chattahoochee, Coosa, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Ogeechee, Satilla, Savannah, Suwannee, Tallapoosa and Tennessee River Basins.
The River Basin Management Planning process provides the framework and schedule for developing TMDLs in each of the State's five major river basin groups. Currently, TMDLs must be developed for an additional 736 water quality criteria violations delineated on the Section 303(d) list:

TMDL Development Schedule

River Basin Group

Completion Date

(1) St. Marys, Satil/a, Suwannee, and Ochlockonee - 38 (2) Ocmulgee, Oconee and Altamaha - 263 (3) Savannah and Ogeechee - 55

FYOO FY01 FY04

The State's River Basin Management Planning process, in conjunction with the Unified Watershed Assessment framework, will result in a more focused effort to develop and implement TMDLs. Funding priority (e.g., Section 319(h) Grants, CWSRF) will be given to project proposals which implement the nonpoint source components ofTMDLs that have been approved under Section 303(d) of the CWA; develop and/or implement the nonpoint source components of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies; implement actions to alleviate the criterion violations identified in the Section 305(b) and Section 303(d) lists of waters which are partially or not supporting designated or beneficial used due to nonpoint sources of pollution; and to those impaired waterways that are located within watersheds identified in the Unified Watershed Assessment at Category I watersheds. Implementation ofTMDL strategies has been delegated to the local RDCs, as opposed to having a statewide strategy. This process has only recently begun, and no strategy exists at present for the coastal zone.
The EPD Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement Program will begin issuing NPDES pennits concurrently within a major river basin group beginning with 531. permits in the Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins by December 2003:

II-4

n
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o

I

I

Coastal Incentive Grants The CZARA section 306 and 306(a)Coastal Incentive Grants, which are disbursed by the CRD

each year, are awarded to proposed projects whose theme is water resources. Most often, the grant

I

award criteria is related to nonpoint source pollution. Thus, each year there are approximately 12 to 20 projects funded by ClG grants that work to protect coastal waters on either a local scale or a coast- wide

scale. The grant criteria for the awards in FY200 I are as follows:

I

Main Theme: coastal water quality-related projects

I

I. Projects that lead to implementation or promote the implementation of a project identified in the environmental section of a local government's approved and adopted Local Comprehensive Plan (as

required by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989) that will lead to improvement in the quality of coastal

I

surface water.

2. Projects that lead to implementation or promote the implementation of the water conservation

I

elements of a local government's water supply management plan.

3. Projects that will identify impacts to coastal water quality produced by urban sprawl without

environmental mitigation considerations and that include local government education elements that will

I

emphasize the interconnected nature of land use decisions.

4. Projects that will identify and evaluate potential negative impacts of artificial aquifer recharge

I

processes and evaluate other potential water supply alternatives.

5. Projects that lead to the development and implementation of master drainage plans that emphasize

I

protection of coastal water qual ity and preserve natural flow regimes with minimal disturbance to natural drainways.

I

6. Projects that evaluate the impact of herbicide, pesticide. and other chemical applications on coastal water quality and evaluate alternative methods for achieving desired results. An education component

must be included in these projects designed to education the end users of these chemical applications of

I

alternative methods.

7. Projects that implement (enforce) erosion and sedimentation regulations at the local level.

I

The Georgia Planning Act

The Georgia Planning act establishes provisions for planning by local governments and

I

authorizes the DNR to develop minimum planning standards for the protection of critical natural resources. including wetlands. The Act is intended to cover river corridor protection, water supply

watersheds, and groundwater recharge areas.

I

State Laws and Backup Enforcement Mechanisms

While enforceable mechanisms are not the primary instrument used to address nonpoint source

I

pollution in Georgia. they are increasingly used to complement other mechanisms. Traditional nonpoint source control mechanisms in Georgia include voluntary and technical assistance programs that

emphasize voluntary best management practices - especially in agriculture and silviculture. Georgia,
I II-6

I

I

NPDES Permitting Schedule

River Basin Group

Completion Date

(1) St. Marys, Satilla, Suwannee, and Ochlockonee - 250 (2) Ocmulgee, Oconee and Altamaha - 349 (3) Savannah and Ogeechee - 325

FY07 FY08 FFY06

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program will consider waste load allocation and TMDL issues as appropriate for each discharge. Through December 2003 the EPD Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement Program will revise and reissue or revoke NPDES penn its with point source discharges to water bodies identified on the current Section 303(d) list within 18 months of the date of when the TMDL has been finalized. After December 2003, a wasteload allocation and TMDL, if applicable, must be completed before a NPDES will be issued.
In addition, special provisions have been established which require local governments to conduct watershed assessments prior to receiving an environmental permit from the State that facilitates growth and development, such as a wastewater pennit or a water withdrawal pennit.
The watershed assessment must address the entire service area managed by the local authority and include the followin-g information: identification of and relative contribution of point and nonpoint sources of pollution; identification of measurable environmental and programmatic goals; and identification of pollution controls and natural restoration measures required to achieve clean water and other natural resource goals.
The Source Water Assessment and Protection Implementation Plan (SWAP) In response to the 1996 amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPD has begun
the Source Water Assessment Implementation Plan to protect drinking water supplies and help prevent contam ination from occurring. The following activities are the backbone of the program:
I. Delineate watershed and wellhead protection areas of public drinking water sources. 2. Inventory potential sources of contamination within the delineated assessment areas. 3. Determine water source's susceptibility to significant potential contaminants within the
assessment area. 4. Establish a timetable for completing assessments for all drinking water sources within the
state. S. Report the results of each assessment in individual "Source Water Assessment Plans" to be
made available to the public and public water system owners.
The plan was approved in May 2000 and implementation has begun. In coastal Georgia the vast majority of water supply sources are from groundwater, so implementation of this program within the 6217 management area will be accomplished primarily through 3 of SWAP's constituent programs: the Wellhead Protection Program, EPD; the Drinking Water Monitoring Waiver Initiative, EPD; and the studies being conducted to delineate Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDI).
Assessments of the few surface water intakes in the coastal zone are expected to be completed in
- November, 2003. Georgia's approved SWAPP document is provided in Appendix 26.

II-5

n
,I ~
un
o
r-' i(
LJ
o
n
II
LJ
n
u
o
r"1
iI
LJ n
U
'I
Ii
L.-!
,--,
IuI
n :I
LJ
o

I

. -IirR( fil f?1?

I

s~mJno~~lJ;'"uY even though leading with nther strategies, has recourse to enforcement tools for

pollution problems.

I

The Water Qualitv Control Act The Georgia Water Quality Control Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-29) authorizes the EPO to revise and

enforce rules and regulations governing water quality and quantity, set NPDES permit conditions and

I

effluent limits. This authority extends to streams, rivers. lakes, and subsurface waters for all uses, including agricultural. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of any waste products into said waterways

without a permit. Violators are subject to shutdown of operations and civil penalties of a maximum of

I

$25,000 per day of violation. Criminal (felony) penalties consist of a fine of $5000 to $50,000 per day of violation and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. The Act is used primarily to address agricultural and

silvicultural nonpoint source activities where there is a serious violation of water quality standards and

I

the agency responsible for voluntary BMP implementation and technical assistance cannot secure compliance. Therefore, in situations where the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

(GSWCC) and/or the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) cannot secure satisfactory compliance in

I

their respective sectors, the case is turned over to the EPO for enforcement action as provided for under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.

Agricultural operations fall under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act which sets water

I

quality standards that may not be violated by agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution. Currently, land application systems and 'concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) require permits under the

Georgia Water Quality Control Act. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Board recently

I

promulgated rules on permits for swine feeding operations with over 300 animal units. The rules allow no discharge from the swine feeding operation into surface waters of the State. By October 2001, the

owners or operators of existing swine operations will be required to submit a comprehensive nutrient

management plan to the EPO. Any failure to comply with any condition of the regulation will be

I

deemed a violation of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act and may be punishable in accordance with the penalties provided for in the Act. Similar new rules for non-swine feeding operations were finalized

by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Board in January 2001.

I

Under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, general penn its are required for all land application systems (LAS), including agricultural systems for spreading animal waste, municipal systems

for spreading treated wastewater, and industrial systems for spreading treated wastewater. A general

I

permit can be issued for all facilities in a specific geographic area or to a specific category of LAS facilities. Violations are generally handled by the GSWCC. However, if there is a fish kill or public

health hazard associated with the violation, then the EPO will consider enforcement action.

I

The Water Quality Control Act is the primary backup enforcement authority that can assure compliance with BMPs on a nonregulatory basis. The mechanism by which it may be invoked is usually

citizen complaints. The mechanism is as follows:

I

Upon receiving a citizen complaint, the responsible agency notifies the perpetrator and conducts a field

inspection to determine ifbest management practices were followed, if the potential for water quality

I

problems exists, and who was responsible for the activities (e.g., site preparation or timber harvesting in the forestry sector). Ifproblems do exist, the agency will work with the responsible parties until the

problems are corrected, providing technical assistance and BMP manuals and documents. In situations

I

where the agency cannot get satisfactory compliance, the case is turned over the EPD for enforcement action under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. The EPD will investigate the activity as a

complaint, and Lise the authority of the Water Quality Control Act to either establish a time frame for the

I

perpetrator to implement practices that will meet the management measures, or to levy a fine against the

II-7

I

I

.

...

perpetrator unto! compliance IS achieved.

"/~Ip1J . 0 A :"'\ Ll . ( .. ..., L

In most instances, the nonpoint source land uses addressed by the coastal nonpoint source

program are delegated to other. agencies as follows:

Agriculture: the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) representative or the National Resource Conservation Service representative Forestry: the Georgia Forestry Commission Urbanization: the EPD, CRD (for issues involving the coastal marshlands), Army Corps of Engineers (for issues involving filling off or dredge spoil disposal in wetlands), SWCD, local erosion and sedimentation issuing authority (if any) Hydromodification: Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), EPD Marinas: Coast Guard (for fuel/oil spills, marine head pumpouts), EPD, CRD (for permitting the building of docks)

The Erosion and Sedimentation Act The Erosion and Sedimentation Law of 1975 (O.e.G.A. 12-7-1) is an important aspect of
Georgia's Nonpoint Source control program. It is the jurisdiction of local authorities to grant pennits for land disturbing activities such as clearing, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting and filling. If a local government opts not to adopt erosion and sedimentation ordinances, then the EPD assumes authority of permitting and enforcement, with the CRD acting in an advisory capacity to buffer variance requests. As part of the permitting process, a land disturber must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan to the governing authority describing erosion control techniques to be used. The plan is then reviewed and evaluated by the local Soil and Water Conservation District.

Addressing the Exemptions of the E&S Law There are several land uses that contribute to nonpoint source pollution that are exempt from
permitting under this law. These exempt land uses are required to implement BMPs to the same standards as those land uses that require a permit. Exempt from the Erosion and Sedimentation Law are surface mining/quarrying and land clearing for quarrying, construction of single-family dwellings not part of a larger project (must meet state minimum requirements), agricultural and forestry practices, any project under the technical supervision of the NRCS, projects involving 1.1 acres or less, provided that they are not within 200 feet of state waters, construction and/or maintenance projects of the Department of Transportation or any public transportation-related projects, provided that they meet state minimum requirements, projects undertaken by EMCs or municipal electrical systems, or any public utility under the Public Service Commission, provided that they meet state minimum requirements. These exemptions are subject to modification by local authorities. The mechanisms for ensuring BMP installation for these exemptions are as follows.

Agriculture The SWCC is the responsible agency for supervising BMP installation in the agriculture sector. An Agricultural/Irrigation Technical Task Force was established in response to the Clean Water Act (section 208) to address nonpoint source pollution originating from agriculture. In 1993-4, the Task Force compiled a BMP guide for farmers entitled with Agricultural Best Management Practices/or Protecting Water Quality in Georgia. This guidance is promoted by the SWCC and the NRCS through educational programs and BMP demonstration workshops. BMP implementation is also implemented through federal cost-share programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, and disincentives programs (revocation of financial assistance) such as the Farm Bill Sod busters Program and the Conservation Compliance Program.

II-8

n
II U
n
,I
LJ
o
o
o
o
n
U
n
u
o
n
u
J
Fj
II
LJ

I

I

NPDES Stormwater Management in Georgia

I

As mandated by the EPA's Water Quality Act of 1987 under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, Georgia continues to issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits to regulate storm water discharge from industries and large urban municipalities. Conditions

imposed on permit coverage for a particular municipality or region will be an important mechanism by

I

which the 6217 management measures may be implemented in the Coastal Zone. Phase I stormwater discharge permit coverage, effective since 1992, is applicable to municipalities with a population of over

100,000. The program requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, sometimes involving a

I

stormwater collection system. Phase I Stormwater Permit coverage is also issued to ten industrial subcategories defined in the Phase I Federal Regulations: manufacturing facilities; mining; oil and gas

operations, hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities, recycling facilities; steam electric

I

power generating facilities; transportation facilities; and facilities treating domestic sewage or sewage sludge. (excerpted from the preliminary draft of the Georgia Stormwater Design Manual). Georgia's

Phase I permit for MS4s is provided in Appendix 27.

I

A Phase II general stormwater permit is scheduled to become active in March, 2003. Phase II permit coverage applies to municipalities serving a population of 50,000 people or more, or a population

of greater than 10,000 with a population density of greater than 1000 people per square mile. Other

I

circumstances may qualify areas for coverage under this permit at the discretion of the DNR: high growth potential, whether the city/county discharge is to a "sensitive" waterway, contiguity to an urban

area, if the municipality is a significant contributor of pollutants for whatever reason, or has ineffectively

I

protected local water quality through other programs (based on a TMDL). Four new industrial categories were also added: sewage treatment works with a design capacity of greater than I million gallons per

day; hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities; landfills, land application sites and dumps

that receive industrial waste; and steam electric power-generating facilities.

I

The cities and counties in the Coastal Zone that will be initially subject to stormwater discharge regulation under the Phase II rules are Brunswick, Vernon berg, Hinesville, Waycross, and Glynn County.

It is expected that more areas will be added to this list.

I

. The Phase II permit requirements are very similar to those of Phase I: to develop and implement a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes. among other things, 6 minimum control measures:

I

detection of illicit discharges to the storm water drainage system and removal of same Local Construction Site Stormwater control (sites of I to 5 acres)



post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment

I



pollution prevention

public education program, including informing the public of hazards associated with illegal

discharges and improper waste disposal

I



public involvement in the program

The NPDES Storm water Permitfor Construction Sites

I

In September, 2000, Georgia issued an NPDES general permit for construction activities occurring on sites disturbing more than 5 acres, which is issued and enforced by the EPD. The basic

requirements are that the permittee monitor daily rainfall on the site, have a Erosion, Sedimentation and

I

Pollution Plan similar to the plan required by the Land Disturbing Activity permit issued locally, and monitoring of the turbidity of the receiving water before, during and after land disturbance. Compliance

inspections are only done on a complaint-driven basis due to a shortage of EPD staff. Georgia's Phase I

I

permit for construction sites is provided in Appendix 28.

II-IO

I

I

!O1 (~[iJrtJI

Forestry

, ,_,

In 19i8 the EPO designated the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) to coor inate e implementation of

BMPS by the Forestry industry. A Forestry Nonpoint Source Task Force was created, and one product of

this task force was the Georgia's Best Management Practices for Foresters manual that includes forest road

construction, timber harvesting, site preparation, and forest regeneration. The widespread use of the

BMPS covered by this manual is ensured through a training program for loggers and forestry procurement

specialists called the Master Timber Harvesters Program (described in Chapter VI). Enforcement is

ensured though the routine BMP Compliance Audits conducted by the GFC.

Department of Transportation Projects The EPO has delegated enforcement of the Erosion and Sedimentation law at OaT sites to the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GOaT). GDOTs procedure, summarized below, is documented in
the OaT Construction Guidelines manual (Appendix 24). The GOOT hires construction contractors, who in turn assign a Worksite Erosion Control
Supervisor to the site. This Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor must be an employee of the prime contractor and have at least one year of experience of road construction supervision and be knowledgeable of Erosion & Sedimentation control practices and procedures (section 161, GOOT Special 'Provision of the OaT Standard Specifications, Worksite Control Manual). The erosion control program and the Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor are supervised by the GOOT project engineer. Failure of the contractor to meet the requirements may result in GOOT deducting funding from the contractor's.sum on a daily basis until problems are addressed, and also in terminating the Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor from the project.
The Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor must develop an Implementation Plan for Erosion and Sedimentation Control and present it to GOaT. The Plan must outline the BMPs used, procedures, methods, and the sequence of events such as grubbing clearing, temporary erosion and sedimentation control, and earth-moving. He must have the site patrolled in times of heavy rainfall in order to detect erosion and sedimentation problems and address them immediately. He reports the status of the Bl\.1Ps and what is needed to maintain compliance to the GOaT project engineer weekly.

Single Family Dwellings Both a reactive and a proactive approach is taken to ensure BMP implementation at single family
dwelling construction sites. Regarding the former, BMP inspection and enforcement is conducted on a complaint-driven basis. in most cases by a local issuing authority to which enforcement of the Erosion and Sedimentation Law has been delegated. Regarding the latter. the EPO and CRD are made aware of construction of such dwellings via monthly routine fly-overs conducted by the CRD. These aerial surveys detect land disturbances along the coast and prompt investigations. Unauthorized building sites are then reported to the local issuing authority or investigated by the EPO, in areas where local authorities have declined responsibility for this law.

Projects conducted by Utilities Companies These projects are supervised by the local Erosion and Sedimentation Issuing Authority, who
inspects the sites for BMP compliance.

Surface Mines All surface mines in Georgia are required to obtain a mining permit. The permit, issued by the
EPO, requires that the owner develop a land use plan, detailing erosion control measures and reclamation. They must f Ie a bond of a maximum value of $2500 per acre of affected land to serve as collateral for the reclamation process.

II-9

(, Ii
u
(J
U
n
u
n
LJ If I, II U
n
U
n
,I
U
n
u
o
:)
:I
l.J ,~I
U
~
II
LJ
n LJ
J

.1

I

Fifteen Year Program Strategy

.~ , ".

The purpose of th is strategy is to generally describe the approach that will be used to ensure

I

widespread and effective management of polluted runoff in the coastal zone. Three types of programs are used to meet this general goal: regulatory programs, voluntary programs, and watershed planning

programs. The specifics of which programs are used to implement specific management measures are

I

discussed in other sections of this document. The amount of effort necessary to achieve acceptable levels of management measure implementation and water quality protection varies by NPS source and

measure.

I

Goal: To ensure that all applicable management measures to protect and restore coastal waters will be

implemented within 15 years ofconditional approval ofthis program.

I

This goal will be achieved through implementation of the following objectives. Of the I I coastal

counties, 5 that are the top priority (due to their populations) will be targeted for action in the first 5

I

years. These are: Glynn County (urban category), Chatham County (urban), Brantley (agricultural), Wayne (agriculture and Effingham (agriculture). The remaining counties will be addressed in the second

5 years. The final 5 year period will be used to address remaining gaps in the program and to determine

I

the need and implementation of additional management measures in appropriate areas.
."

Objective 7: Assess the degree to which management measures for all land use

I

categories that are significant sources of polluted runoff are presently implemented in the coastal zone.

Task

I

Improve record keeping and data collection in all land use categories

Schedule 2001-2005

Obtain accurate assessment of current

I

management measure implementation rates. Set management measure implementation goals

2002-2006

for each category of runoff:

I

Glynn, Chatham, Brantley, Wayne, and Effingham Counties

2003-2004

other counties

2006

I

Coordinate with EPD-Atlanta on the state NPS plan and achievement of TMDL recommendations.

2002+

I

Objective 2: Maintain a flexible long-term program strategy that assesses both progress in management measure implementation and in coastal water quality

protection and improvement.

I

Task Develop baseline assessment of water quality

Schedule 2001+

from existing data.

I

Establish a management measure implementation tracking program.

2003-2004

Set 5 year incremental management measure

2004 -2005

I

II-II

I

I

implementation goals for each category or subcategory of runoff, as appropriate Outreach to relevant groups. Provide high-resolution contributions to the 30Sb report (identify specific waterways that are declining). Establish data on a high-visibility webpage. Evaluate and revise the 5 year strategies and the IS-year strategy.

2001+ 2001+
2002+
4 years from conditional approval

Objective 3: Implement any additional management measures necessary to protect coastal waters.

Task Identify coastal water bodies that do not meet standards or that are experiencing declining trends in water quality. Develop watershed strategies to increase the level of management measure implementation, focussing on impaired waters. Through the designated watershed process and the Water Quality Control Act, require mandatory implementation of additional management measures as needed to protect and restore coastal waters. Evaluate need for new regulations or other mandatory implementation. Assess the compliance rates for voluntary implementation of the add itional management measures.

Schedule 2006 2006,2011 and 2016
2007,2012, and 2017
2006,2011 and 2016 2006,2011 and 2016

Objective 4: Ensure that the management measures and BMPs advocated and required by the state are effective at meeting water quality protection goals.

Task Update BMP manuals as needed. Technical assistance to industry/local governments on BMPs and management measures. Analyze water quality monitoring data associated with BMP sites.

Schedule 2007,2012 2001+
ongomg

Objective 5: To support local watershed-level NPS reduction efforts

Task Encourage formation of citizen watershed alliances. Expand Adopt-A-Stream into the coastal zone. NEMO outreach to municipal officials and planners.

Schedule 2001+ 2001+ 2001-2002, and every other year after.

II-12

n
u

n
i

i

LJ

II II \I LJ
n
U

n
LJ
n .i
U
nu

II
II
LJ
n
LJ
If
II
U
(I
Iu I
LJI, II
,n '
~!
U

I

I

[flj IL~~6J -~
III. ASSESSMENT OF NPS

I

Prioritization of Remediation Efforts

Prioritization of waters impacted or threatened by nonpoint source pollution will be refined

I

through the monitoring and assessment component of the River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) process, described in chapter II. The RBMP provides the structure used by the EPD to implement

water protection programs. More specifically, RBMP is the overall programmatic framework in which

I

the EPD will monitor and assess the impacts of nonpoint source pollution and develop nonpoint source management strategies. The River Basin Management plans, which are reiterated every 5 years in a

given basin, address surface and groundwater quality issues as well as water supply, enhancing the

State's capacity for comprehensive, integrated regulatory and nonregulatory management of water

I

resources. State law requires that each plan include a description of the river basin, identification of local governments, land use inventories and statement of plan goals. The plans will also describe

environmental stressors in the river basins, assess water quality and water quantity concerns, and

I

outline the implementation strategies and measures necessary to accomplish the plan's goals, Over the next 5 years, prioritization of waters impacted or threatened by nonpoint source

pollution will be refined through the monitoring and assessment component of the RBMP process. As

I

the RBMP process is fully implemented, prioritization of waters to be monitored and assessed will shift from a statewide to a river basin basis. Geographic targeting methods will then be used to provide an

objective approach to prioritizing issues and watersheds, as well as targeting resources cost-effectively

I

to address priority issues. During the 5-year cycle revision of individual river basin management plans. waters in each river basin will be prioritized for monitoring and assessment by degree of

impairment.

I

1. Georgia's 305(b) 1ist

Current nonpoint source pollution impacts on waterways in Georgia are presented in the most

I

recent CWA Section 305(b) report, Water Quality in Georgia 1996-7. The following information is derived from this report.

All waterways in Georgia have been assigned a designated use, as documented in the Georgia

I

EPD report: Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6. These designated uses include wild and scenic river, recreational, drinking water, fishing, and coastal fishing/propagation of

aquatic life. In the Water Quality in Georgia 305 (b) report, streams and rivers are classified as either

I

supporting their designated uses, partially supporting. or nonsupporting due to pollution. This is referred to as the 305(b) list. A partially supporting stream is one whose chemical data (dissolved

oxygen. pH, temperature, fecal coliform) exceed the water quality standard in 11%-25 % of the samples

collected or if a fish consumption guideline was in place for the water body. A stream designated as

I

not supporting is one whose chemical data exceeded the water quality standard in more than 25 % of the samples collected, a fish consumption ban was in place for the water body or acute or chronic toxicity

tests documented or predicted toxicity at low streamflow in a municipal or industrial discharge to the

I

water body. According to the data for streams listed in the 305(b) list. 20 of the 23 inland. freshwater streams and rivers in the Coastal Zone are either partially supporting or nonsupporting of their

designated use. The impaired waterways are listed in table III-1.

I

The 303(d) (after CWA, section 303(d)) list is a subset of the 305(b) partially supporting and nonsupporting list that excludes streams that have been subjected to remediation measures and

compliance achieved, and those streams that will eventually attain water quality standards through

I

III-1

I

I

~DLs). existing enforceable measures and by the development of TolIDlliilllE.

The

303(d) list is therefore a list of impaired streams in which no successful remediation has yet been

conducted. Streams that have been subjected to successful remediation and achieved compliance are

assigned a numeral "I". A numeral "2" was assigned to those 303(d) streams that would achieve

compliance if subjected to existing enforceable measures. An X was assigned to the remainder, that is,

streams that have not been subjected to successful remedial action, nor would be expected to respond

successfully to existing enforceable remediation measures, and also streams for which no water quality

data is available. It is the coastal zone streams on the 303(d) list that are marked with a 2 or an X, that

are targeted by this program, along with coastal waters. Those waters coded with a 2 are priority 1.

Priority 2 are those segments with contamination by metals, toxic substances, and dissolved oxygen

deficit. Priority 3 are those waters where government programs are being conducted nearby, and so

governmental partners may be available to aid in the process of implementing improvements. Priority 4

are those where urban runoff and general NPS causes metal or fecal coliform bacteria violations. This

prioritization will be periodically updated throughout the cycle of the RBMP, as more data becomes

available.

In addition, the NRCS published a study in 1993 identifying hydrologic units with a high

potential for NPS impact from Agriculture. This is Appendix B in Water Quality in Georgia.

Table Ill-I: Partially and nonsupporting streams In the 303(d) UstIn the coastal area. as excerptedfrom Appendix A, Water Quality in Georgia, 2000. TMDLs have been developed for all the waterways except the estuarine waters and thoseln the Altamaha Basin. whichare scheduled for completion In 2001.

NP = nonpoint source UR = urban source Ind = industrial source

Basin/Stream

Pollutants having/ needing TMDLs

ALTAMAHA

Altarnaha River,

Fish Consumption

Rayonier to Penholoway Guidelines

Creek

Penholoway Creek, Wavne Co.

Dissolved oxygen

OGEECHEE

~ackson Branch,

Fecal Coliform

downstream King

Finishing, Screven Co

Ogeechee River, 30 I to Dissolved oxygen 119

Ogeechee River, 301 to Fish Consumption

Black Creek

Guidelines

traylor's Creek, Yt. Dissolved Oxygen

Stewart/downstream

WPCP discharge to

drainage canal

Status
partially supporting
. partially supporting
Inonsupporting nonsupporting Partially supporting lPartiaily supporting

rmlDL Cause
~tatus?

In

NP

~

NP

y

NP, Ind.

Dr

NP

In

NP

lY

M

III-2

n
u
nu
n
U
o
n
LJ
n
,I
J
n II
U
o
nLJ

n
LJ

n
!

I

LJ

n
,, iI
LJ
o
o

I

I

Triburary ro Taylor's Copper, Mercury, Lead nonsuppcrting

Creek, Fe. Stewart

y

NP

I

Black Creek: Ash

Dissolved oxygen, fecal partially supporting

~

NP

Branch to Mill Creek coliform

near Blitchron

I

Taylors Creek to Canoochee Creek, Fe. Stewart

Dissolved oxygen

~artially supporting

~

M

Canoochee River, Lotts Fish Comsumption

partially supporting

~

NP

I

Cr ro Ozeechee RIver Guidelines

Peacock Creek, Hwy Dissolved oxygen, fecal partially supporting

In

DR

144 to N. Newport

coliform

I

River Casey Canal, canal head Dissolved oxygen, fecal

not supporting

n

DR

to Derenne Ave,

coliform

I

Savannah Casey Canal, DeRenne Dissolved oxygen, fecal

nonsupporting

,

n

DR

Ave to Montgomery coliform

I

Crossroads. Savannah Hayners Creek: Casey dissolved oxygen, fecal

nonsupporting

-

"

n

DR

Canal to Vernon River, coliform

I

Savannah Little Ogeechee River, Fecal Coliform

L. Ogeechee pond to S.

nonsupporting

~

DR

I

of hwv 17. S. Newport River,

fecal coliform, Selenium nonsupporting

upstr. Hwy 17, So.

In

NP

Newport

I

SATILLA

Wavcross drainage canal Fecal coliform

nonsupporting

y

DR

I

Big Creek (s. Prong) to Dissolved oxygen Satilla Riv.

nonsupporting

n

NP

Boggy Creek, dry creek Dissolved oxygen, fecal Inonsupporting

I

to LitlttleSatila Cr. N. coliform Of Screven

In

NP

Cole mans Creek, dry Dissolved oxygen, fecal nonsupporting

I

branch S.of Surrency to oliform Big Satilla Cr.

Little Satilla Creek, Dissolved oxygen, fecal nonsupporting

I

Keene Bay Branch to oliform Dry Branch near Odum

Little Satilla Cr., Boggy Dissolved oxygen

nonsupporting

I

Cr. To Little Satilla River near Screven

n

DR

n

DR

In

NP

I III-3
I

I

Reedy Cr., headwaters Dissolved oxygen, fecal o Big Satilla Cr. Near coliform Screven

~ ]m~

./
nonsupporting

t i ' - '....I '-J

Rose Cr. To White Oak Dissolved Oxygen Creek

'partially supporting

~

Satilla River, Hwy.

Fish consumption guidelines partially supporting

:n

84/GA Hwy. 38 to 6 mi.

Downstream Hwy.

15&121

Buffalo Creek to Satilla Dissolved Oxygen River

'partially supporting

In

Little Satilla River, Big Dissolved oxygen Satilla Creek to 60 foot branch
SAVANNAH

'partially supporting

In

Pipemaker canal,

fish consumption guidelines lPartially supporting

n

Walthough Cr. To

confluence with

Savannah River

Savannah River, Brier fish consumption guidelines partially supporting

n

Cr. to Tide Gate

Ebenezer Creek, Long Dissolved Oxygen

. nonsupporting

~

Bridge to Savannah

River near Springfield

Ebenezer Creek, Runs Dissolved Oxygen, fecal nonsupporting

In

Branch, Cowpen Cr. To coliform

Little Ebenezer Cr.

ST. MARY'S

St. Marys River, N. Dissolved oxygen, fish

partially supporting

n

Prong. headwaters to . consumption guidelines

Cedar Cr.

Spanish Creek, Long Branch to St. Marys

fecal coliform

partially supporting

n

St. Marys River, upstr. Dissolved Oxygen Cabbage bend to Catfish Cr.

partially supporting

In

Boone Cr .. upstream St. Dissolved oxygen Marvs Rvier

nonsupporting

Corn House Cr., upstream St. Marys river

Dissolved oxygen

nonsupporting

Horsepen Cr.,

Dissolved oxygen, fecal

heacwaters to St. Marys coliform

River

Illonsupporting

DR UR UR,M
NP NP
NP'
NP NP NP
NP UR NP NP NP NP

----

111-4

n
u
nLJ
0 0
nu
n LJ
n
II
U
rr
Iu I
0
n
uI I
;l LJ
n
u
n
u
n
LJ
0
n
LJ
0
n
iI
L-J
ufl

I

I

St. Marys tributary 5, Fecal coliform upstream St. Marys

River

I

ESTUARIES

Altamaha Estuary

shellfish ban

nonsupporting

rn'IQ)J) 121

!U ~I

\

u ItJRr I

partially supporting

NP

I

Brunswick Harbor

shellfish ban

partially supporting

Brunswick River

shellfish ban, dissolved partially supporting

I

Cumberland Estuary

oxygen shellfish ban

partially supporting

Doboy Sound

shellfish ban

partially supporting

I

Dunbar Creek

shellfish ban

partially supporting

Dupree creek

shellfish ban, fish

partially supporting

I

Gibson Creek

consumption guidelines
shellfish ban, PCBs, mercury

partially supporting

I

Medway River North River

shellfish ban shellfish ban

partially supporting partially supporting

M, Ind., UR ;M, Ind.
NP M,NP M indo
indo
NP indo

Ossabaw Estuary

shellfish ban

partially supporting

I

Purvis Creek

shellfish ban, PCBs, metals, partially supporting commercial fishing ban

I

Sapelo Sound Savannah Harbor

shellfish ban fecal coliform

partially supporting partially supporting

St. Andrews Sound

shellfish ban

partially supporting

I

St. Catherine's Sound shellfish ban

partially supporting

St. Simons Sound

shellfish ban. dissolved partially supporting

I

Terry Creek

oxygen. fecal coliform shellfish ban, toxaphene

partially supporting

NP Ind.
NP, MA UR,M
1M, NP
MA, NP Ind., NP. UR,M Ind.

Turtle River System shellfish ban, fish

partially supporting

I

Wassaw Sound

consumption guidelines shellfish ban

partially supporting

I

Ind., M
NP, Ind., UR

The conclusion of the 305 (b) report statewide is that point sources have diminished greatly in

I

the past 25 years. but NPS pollution still impairs a significant percentage of Georgia's waterways. The most important issues are those involving fecal coliform contamination (from urban and rural sources),

metals violations (urban runoff), erosion and sedimentation and associated aquatic habitat degradation,

I

nutrient loading from agricultural sources, urban sources. and municipal wastewater treatment plants, and low dissolved oxygen associated with the latter.

I III-5
I

I

-- c----------------~---------~~~--~.

2. The Unified ~atershed Assessment

IT ::ili[jj[E D

.j I

LJ

The Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA), as part of the.tl

ti n P , is the

framework intended to help states bring together a broad array of information on water quality and

resources and to identify watersheds where restoration activities could be most effectively managed.

In July. 1998, the EPD, in collaboration with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and public

stakeholders. the State Conservationist began a Unified Watershed Assessment of Georgia. Resource

data was compiled in the following subjects: 305(b) water quality impairments, local resource concerns

(stakeholders), surface water intake data, and documented threatened species data. Watersheds were

ranked from category I, II. and IV, according to stakeholder input. Results were put into a composite

index, reflecting the relative intensity of all resource data element groupings for each watershed. From

this. the top 3 watersheds in each basin grouping were selected as priority watersheds. There are 2

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUe) sub-watershed units in the coastal zone that are category I; HUC unit #

03060109 within the Savannah River Basin, and unit # 03070201 within the Satilla River Basin. Phase

II of the UW A will result in Watershed Restoration Activity Strategies (WRAS). Six Category I sub-

watersheds statewide have been identified as priorities for available funding through 319(h] grants or

State Revolving Fund Loans. One of these six lies in the coastal zone: the Ebenezer Creek system, a

subbasin of the Savannah River watershed.

'

Georgia's State Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program is responsible for disbursing

CWA section 319 [h] grants for nonpoint source prevention and abatement projects, with priority given

to projects located in Georgia's UW A Category I watersheds. Thus, the UWA watersheds provide the

priority areas for which WRASs will be developed, which in turn will govern the watershed protection

programs of the coastal NPS program. In 2000, the state of Georgia moved to coordinate the efforts of

both of it's Nonpoint Source Programs by way of the UWA. As a result, the Coastal Nonpoint Source

Coordinator was added to the 319 grant proposal review committee, acting as the representative for

coastal issues. Historically, few 319 grants were disbursed in the Coastal Zone. However, in 2000, a

319 grant was awarded to a local agency within the coastal zone to implement a BMP demonstration

and water monitoring project in one of the only two Category I watersheds in the Coastal Zone:

Ebenezer Creek, in the Savannah River Basin.

3. Total Maximum Daily Loads Another tool for assessing nonpoint source impacts is the calculation of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) for each waterway in the 303(d) list. The State's River Basin Management Planning process. in conjunction with the UW A framework, will result in a more focused effort to develop and implement TMDLs. Funding (section 319[h] grants) priority will be given to project proposals which implement the nonpoint source components of TMDLs that have been approved under section 303(d) of the CW A; those that develop and/or implement the nonpoint source components of WRAS; those that implement actions to alleviate the criterion violations identified in the 305(b) and 303(d) lists of waters which do not fully support their designated uses due to nonpoint sources; and those that are located in watersheds designated as Category I by the UWA process.
The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program will coordinate with the State's TMDL development process by using the TMDLs as a basis for prioritizing and developing watershed restoration programs. These programs include, among others, watershed assessments conducted by municipalities as required by Georgia's NPDES permitting program, Agricultural Best Management Practice educational and demonstration programs, and of course, implementation of TMDL plans that will be devised by local governments, with assistance from the EPD and the Coastal Regional Development Center. The development of TMDLs also provides data and the means of attaining several of the 6217 program goals:

nu
o
nu
o o o o o
nu
o
o o o
nu
UnI I
o

III-6
o

o

I I




con;;i~ute JIJ.m~Jr Identification ofland use;:'hich may cau:e or

to

Prioritization of critical coastal areas

U ~tJ



Evaluation of the management measures listed in the (g) guidance required to achieve and

I

maintain water quality standards and designated uses Coordination of other nonpoint source efforts.

I

Accounting for Inland Contributions to Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone

Because the coastal zone, for practical reasons, does not include the entire watersheds of the

I

coastal rivers, consideration will be given to sources that may originate inland and adjacent to the coastal counties. Again, this sort of thing must have geographic limits, so the 303(d) waters and

TMDLs in the counties inland and bordering the coastal zone will be assimilated to a lesser degree in

I

the planning process for the coastal zone. These counties are Appling, Pierce, Ware, Bulloch, Tatnall, Evans, and Screven. The following table lists the TMDLs that have been completed in the counties

inland and adjacent to the Coastal Zone; Bullock, Pierce, Ware, Appling, and Evans, which could

I

potentially be upstream contributors to nonpoint source problems in the coastal zone. If, as the coastal nonpoint source program progresses, water quality improvements are not realized in some areas, this

inland tier of adjacent counties will be targeted by existing programs.

I

-.
Table III-2: 303(d) waterways in adjacent counties to the coastal zone.

I

RIVER BASIN

Pollutants having/ needing ThIDLs

Status

TMDL status? Cause

OCEECHEE BASIN

I

Bull Creek. Strickland Pond to Dissolved oxygen Canoochee River near Daisy

partially supporting n

UR

Canoochee River, Hwy 192 to Dissolved oxygen, fecal partially supporting n

UR

I

15 mile creek. Candler Co.

coliform. fish consumption guidelines

Jackson Branch, upstream

Fecal coliform

partially supporting y

NP

I

King Finishing Co., Screven Co.

Lotts Cr., hwy. 301 to Little Dissolved oxygen

partially supporting n

NP

I

Lotts Cr. Near Register, Bulloch Co.

Cedar Creek. Water Hole Cr Dissolved oxygen, fecal nonsupporting

n

UR

I

to Canoochee River, Evans Co.

coliform

Horse Cr, Little Horse Cr to Dissolved oxygen, fecal nonsupporting

n

NP

I

Ogeechee River near Rocky Ford. Screven Co.

coliform

Nevills Cr .. Bay Gull Cr to Dissolved oxygen

nonsupporting

n

NP

I

Ogeechee River near Rocky Ford. Bulloch Co.

I III-7
I

I

Tenmile Cr., upstream of Canoochee River, Excelsior, Candler Co.
Ogeechee Cr., Rd. 2178 to Ozeechee River. Screven Co.
SATILLA BASIN

Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform
Fecal coliform

Sweetwater Cr., Blackwater Cr. to Big Satilla near Baxley, Appling Co.
Big Satilla Creek, headwaters near Hazlehurst to Sweetwater Cr. Near Baxley, Appling Co.
Waycross City Drainage Canal. Ware Co.
Hog Creek, Hurricane Cr to SatiBa Riv., S. of Nichols, Ware Co.
Little Hurricane Cr., hwy 32 to Hurricane Creek, Pierce/Ware Cos.
SA VA..NNAH BASIN

Fecal coliform
Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform
Fecal coliform Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform

Savannah River, Hwy 78/278 to Johnson's Landing, Burke/Screven Cos.)
Buck Cr .. Downstream Sylvania WPCP to Savannah River. Screven Co.

Fish consumption guidelines
Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform

SUWANNEE BASIN

Greasy Branch. Hwy 84/38 to Okeefenokee Swamp, Ware Co.
Suwannee Creek. headwaters to Little Suwannee Cr. Near Nanor. Ware Co.

Dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen

nonsupporting

n

partially supporting n

partially supporting n

nonsupporting

n

nonsupporting nonsupporting nonsupporting

y
n
-
n

partially supporting n

nonsupporting

y

nonsupporting

n

nonsupporting

n

1II-8
UR NP UR UR

r

UR

NP

NP

NP M

NP NP

4. CQastal Incentive Grants The Coastal Incentive Grants program, administered by the Coastal Resources Division each
year, awards grants to water quality-related projects that either implement a water quality protection/remediation activity or assess the contributions of specific land use activities to nonpoint source pollution in a given region. For example, in recent years, grants have been awarded to the following projects:

o
n
U
n
U
o o o
LnJ
o o
n
u
o
Irr\ U
nI I
L.J
nu
rUI :.
o
n
LJ
o

".
I

I

m-s

Study of Changes in Contaminant Marker Compound Concentrations and Genotoxic Biomarkers During

I

Phases of Development Planned for the Altamaha River Basin, University of Georgia (contaminant marker compounds being pollutants typically associated with urban development such as sliver, zinc

and petroleum hydrocarbons).

I

Biomonitoring for the Georgia Coast: Assessing the Impacts of Contaminants on Aquatic Resources,

University of Georgia, includes the development of a biomonitoring index to assess changes in water

I

quality.

Establishment of a Regional GIS Inventory and Functionality Criteria for Impact Assessment of

I

NearWater On-Site Septic Systems Within Coastal Sections of the Ogeechee and Altamaha Watersheds in McIntosh, County, Georgia (McIntosh County Board of Commissioners/McIntosh Health

Department).

I

In FY2001, the determination of the grant awards will give priority to proposed projects that:

I

1. will identify impactsto coastal water quality produced by urban sprawl without environmental mitigation considerations and that include local government education elements that will emphasize the

interconnected nature of land use decisions.

I

2. Projects that will identify and evaluate potential negative impacts of artificial aquifer recharge

processes and evaluate other potential water supply alternatives.

I

3. Projects that evaluate the impact of herbicide, pesticide. and other chemical applications on coastal

water quality and evaluate alternative methods for achieving desired results. An education component

I

must be included in these projects designed to education the end users of these chemical applications of alternative methods.

I

Coordination with the State NPS Program The schedule of activities and assessments of the CNPS program is hinged on the schedules of
the State's RBMP program and TMDL development, and the 319[h] grants program. The CNPS

program rei ies on the state NPS program for water qual ity data in the inland tier of coastal counties.

I

The CNPS program, in turn, provides the State program, via the RBMP program, with water quality data for estuarine waters.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

IV. ADDITIONALMANAGEMEN~/jJ[f1l

I

After implementation of the management measures outlined in previous chapters, if the priority watersheds continue to have water quality problems, additional management efforts may be required.

These additional measures are intended to provide a second level of pollution control efforts. The

I

process will consist of designing a process for determining whether additional measures are necessary to attain or maintain water quality standards in impaired or threatened waters, and for implementing those

additional measures.

I

A. Identification of Waters not Attaining or Maintaining Water Oualitv Standards

Identification of impaired or threatened waters will be conducted using preexisting assessments

I

from the following sources:



Waters documented in Georgia's 305(b) report as not supporting their designated use (the 303(d)

1ist).



The "Category I" watersheds in Georgia's Unified Watershed Assessment.

I



Appendix B of the state water quality assessment, Water Quality in Georgia. Appendix B lists

waterways that are impaired due to the input of agricultural runoff.



Those waterways recommended by the advisory committee.

I



Updates of the }()5(b)/303(d) lists as they become available through the River Basin

Management Program water monitoring.

I

These will be the subject of additional management measures, if necessary.

B. Identification of Land Uses Causing or Threatening Water Oualitv Impairments

I

The causes ofNPS pollution resulting in water quality impairment must be determined. Land uses responsible for NPS pollution in a particular waterway will largely be determined by watershed

assessments that are part of ongoing State programs:

I

I. Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) Action Strategies. As part of the UWA strategy, the EPD

requires local governments to develop and implement watershed protection plans for new and reissued

I

withdrawal permits for drinking water supplies and for permit expansion or reissuance for municipal wastewater treatment plants, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and Georgia Rules for

Environmental Planning Criteria.

I

2. The River Basin Management Program. Land use and water quality data in each river basin is updated

every 5 years.

I

3. Independent watershed assessments. Several pending projects funded by 319 grants and by Coastal

Incentive Grants will address imperiled or impaired watersheds. As mentioned in other sections of this

document. Ebenezer Creek in the Savannah watershed. a Category I watershed under the UW A, will be

I

the subject of mitigation by comprehensive BMP installation. implemented by a consortium of agricultural agencies in Southeastern Georgia. Another project, to be undertaken by the University of

Georgia through a Coastal Incentive Grant, will conduct a study of "contaminant marker" compounds, or

I

runoff-derived aqueous contaminants that can be used as tracers, at a large development site along the Altamaha River. The study will monitor concentrations of these marker contaminants in the water and in

animal tissue before, during, and after construction at the site.

I IV-l

I

I

C. Critical Coastal Areas Georgia's Coastal Management Program has established a list of environmentally sensitive
coastal areas, described therein as areas of particular concern. These areas require special management attention within the terms of the State's overall coastal program. This special management may include regulatory or permit requirements applicable only to the area of particular concern. It may also include additional public services and maintenance to a designated areas. "Special Management Areas" are, therefore, areas of unique natural resource value, including those exhibiting scarce or r vulnerable natural habitats and physical features; thus offering substantial recreational value; those of particular economic value; and those of vital importance in protecting and maintaining coastal resources. An area or resource must meet one or more of the following criteria to be designated a Special Management Area;
I. The area is a unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat; a unique or fragile physical figuration; or an area of historical significance, cultural value, or scenic importance;
2. The area demonstrates high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources" including fish, wildlife, and endangered species and the various trophic levels in the food web critical to their wellbeing;
.-
3. The area is one of substantial recreational value and or opportunity;
4. The area is one where developments and facilities are dependant upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters;
5. The area has unique hydrologic, geologic, or topographic significance for industrial or commercial development or for dredge material disposal;
6. The area is one of urban concentration where shoreline utilization and water uses are highly competitive;
7. The area is one where, if development were permitted, it might be subject to significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion, settlement, salt water intrusion, and sea level rise; and/or
8. The area is needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal lands or resources including coastal flood plains, aquifers and tier recharge areas, estuaries, sand dunes, coral and other reefs, beaches, and offshore sand deposits.
Following is a list of general Special Management categories:
areas of historic, archaeological cultural and paleontological significance barrier islands marsh hammocks aquifer management and protection economic development areas public access and open space freshwater wetlands navigational channels
IV-2

o
o
nu
o o o o o o
o
o
o o
o o o o o
o

I

I

beaches, dunes and the sand-sharing system rivers and adjacent wetlands

shorebird nesting areas

I

ocean management areas sand deposits.

There are also areas designated for preservation and restoration that must be protected from allogenic

I

NPS pollution. These are listed in Appendix 5.

The Coastal Georgia Regional Development Plan has also recommended for protection some

I

specific critical areas in it's 8-county jurisdiction. Following is a list:

Ebenezer Creek, Effingham County

I

Ebenezer Creek is a natural cypress gum swamp forest in the Savannah River basin, an important spawning ground for striped bass and alligators.

I

Savannah-Ogeechee Canal Constructed in 1820 to connect the Savannah and Ogeechee Rivers. Located in Savannah, Garden City, and Pooler.

I

The Evelvn Grantlv Tni~t along the Altamaha River Delta, Glynn County This is a 2.3 II acre ecologically significant fresh-brackish tidal marsh in the Altamaha delta. The site

provides habitat for osprey, bald eagle, wood stork, peregrine falcon, and shortnose sturgeon.

I

Satilla River Delta, Charlton, Brantley, Camden Counties

A productive estuarine ecosystem.

I

Lower Ogeechee River and floodplain, Effingham and Bryan Counties

An important undeveloped remnant of the river's floodplain and bottomland hardwood forest. Supports

I

economically valuable sport and commercial fisheries including large mouth bass, striped bass, shad, redbreast sunfish. and the endangered shortnosed sturgeon.

I

Bear Island, Effingham County This is a deltaic island in the floodplain of the lower Savannah River basin, six miles east of Rincon.

The site supports virgin palustrine forested wetland which is currently unprotected. Bear Island supports

I

a large variety of important plant and animal species including the threatened pileated woodpecker, the barred owl. and osprey.

I

All Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Present in all coastal counties, this very specialized habitat consists of overmature pine trees infested

with red heart disease.

I

Nesting and Wintering Shorebird Habitat

Georgia is part of the Atlantic Flyway, the migration path for east coast songbirds and wading birds.

I

Continuity of undeveloped feeding grounds along the Flyway is vital to the survival of migrating birds. All River Corridors

I

IV-3

I

I

Wood Stork Habitat for Nesting and Foraging (all wetlands areas) The wood stork requires standing water around nesting trees in order to successfully nest. There is widespread loss of this type of habitat in Florida, resulting in increasing numbers of "refugee" woodstorks arriving in Georgia.
Buffer zones around Refuges and State and National Parks Buffer zones would provide critical protection of these sites from external influences.
South End of Jekvll Island The south beach area is an important sea turtle nesting area, and also supports rare birds.
Jekvll Causeway Wood Stork Roost This area could be threatened by widening the causeway.
Marsh Island, Camden County This is an important nesting area for the white ibis, great and snowy egrets, little blue and tri-colored herons.
All Ground and Surface Water These areas will be considered priority areas.
D. Process to Implement Additional Management Measures If the management measures, as recommended in this document, for the land uses in a watershed
are fully implemented but water quality impairment persists, steps must be designed to implement additional management measures. Once persisting impaired water quality is determined by way of the monitoring program, an evaluation of current management practices for the watershed will be made and salvaged to the degree possible. The technical advisory committee will sojourn and select supplemental management measures that are designed to work under the specific geology, hydrology, land use conditions, and types of contaminants in the impaired system, that will hopefully augment the existing management. The additional measures will be integrated with projects targeting specific watersheds; for example. the REMP. which develops an action plan associated with each basin, and the UW A strategy. These measures will vary according to the situation and the geographic location.
Projects to mitigate the identified NPS sources of water quality impairment will be funded through 319 grants, CIG grants. and possible local sources as available.
E. Pollutant Sources for Which Additional Management Measures Mav be Designated There are at least four sources of pollutants for which there are no specific management
measures, yet which empirical and anecdotal evidence implicates as being a significant contributor to nonpoint source polluition in coastal Georgia. These sources are:
plastic trash, which frequently undergoes stormwater transport unpaved county roads, contributing sediment to waterways untreated household septic waste, piped directly into waterways in absence of an on-site disposal system indiscriminate use of herbicides by the public and also county public works staff
IV-4

r-
.I l~
r-,
:j
e-J
.n.
'1 !I
j
,......, II
U

'i

I
,

.

1r nLJ
ru
nu
n
L.J
J n
LJ
n
LJ

I

I

v. AGRICULTJ])OOLDf?T!

I

Georgia's agriculture community has come a long way in reducing nonpoint source pollution to the State's waters over the past twenty years. However, much needs to be accomplished by agriculture and the

rural community in order to assist in achieving designated uses of Georgia's waters. The Georgia Nonpoint

I

Source Assessment Report, December 1989 indicated that major adverse impacts to State waters from agriculture or in rural environments included: elevated solids concentrations and turbidity, increases in sand

habitats, elevated fecal coliform densities, and high nutrient loadings. However, the report concluded that

I

monitoring data from agricultural watersheds was not sufficient to evaluate agriculture's contribution to water quality problems. A list of waters potentially impacted by agricultural nonpoint source pollution is

delineated in the Georgia Watershed Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment, Cooperative River

I

Basin Study, August 1993. This assessment presented a methodology that compared potential agricultural loadings on 549

NRCS designated watersheds within Georgia. The report concluded that 92 watersheds were priorities, a

majority of which are within the Chattahoochee, Coosa and Altamaha River Basins. This listing has been

I

incorporated into the Section 305(b) Report, Water Quality in Georgia 1994 - 1995. .' According to Water Quality in Georgia, 1996-1997, Appendix B, the two watersheds in the coastal

zone impacted by agricultural runoff are:
I

I

Basin
Satilla

HUC 3070107110

I

Altarnaha

HUC 30701060050
I

Watershed Name-County Est. Miles Impacted

Reedy and Coleman Creeks -

15

App Iing/Wayne

Mushmelon Creek - Long and

25

Tattnall

I

The streams in these two watersheds were added to Georgia's 303(d) list in January 1997. Inadequate aquatic habitat and biota were identified to determine the cause for impairment so the source has yet to be

determ ined.

I

FARt'VIING OPER.\TIONS L'l" COASTAL GEORGIA

I

Agriculture in the coastal Georgia area is a varied mixture of animal operations and commodity production. Although less intensive than other parts of the state, agriculture still provides a significant boost

the local economy generating over $50 million dollars annually. Of the 11 coastal counties, Wayne and

I

Effingham contain the most agriculture. The following information the extent of agriculture in the coastal region and is from the 1997 Census of Agriculture for Georgia (USDA).

I

I V-I
I

I

Number of Farms [1997] Total Agricultural Acres Harvested Cropland [Acres 1997] Irrigated Acres [1995] Irrigated Water Use [MGD 1995] Number of Dairies [1997] Dairy Cattle [Head 1997] Beef Cattle [Head 1997]
Number of Swine Operations [1997] Hogs and Pigs [Head, 1997] Broilers x 1000 [Number, 1997]

s~p) ~ 217,51U 0~ I1f2Ul? 62,842 5,443 9.82 20 697 8,901
86 8,468 2,245

Table V-I: Number of farming operations in the coastal zone by farm type.

AGRICULTURAL NPS PROGRAMS

Georgia's Agriculture Nonpoint Source Management Program is implemented through a statewide non-regulatory approach. Benefits have accrued to Georgia as a result of voluntarily-installed best management practices and the implementation of conservation incentive programs. These voluntary programs are enhanced by numerous financial, technical assistance, education, demonstration, and research activities. Implementation of the Agriculture Nonpoint Source Management Program supports Georgia's River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) process as a critical State initiative to identify priority waters and to target nonpoint source managementactivities.

State Agriculture Agencies
There are a number of federal, state, and local organizations working to address agricultural nonpoint source pollution in Coastal Georgia. The following is a list of these organizations and their responsibi Iities.

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) regulates handling of agricultural animal wastes through a permitting process. Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs) are not required by the state to submit an NPDES permit, however, animal waste discharge is managed by a permit for land application of waste. EPD also investigates citizen complaints relating to waste discharges into waterways.
As part of the EPD' s River Basin Management Plan, the Georgia Soi I and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC), the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDOA), and University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (UGA-CES) collaboratively are implementing an Agricultural Non-Point Source Stream Assessments program, which identifies watersheds with a high potential for agricultural pollution in each river basin.

The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commissions (SWCC) has been designated as the administrating agency (lead agency) for agricultural NPS pollution prevention in the state. The SWCC develops NPS water quality programs and conducts educational activities to promote conservation and protection of land and water devoted to agricultural uses. Primary functions of the SWCC include guidance and assistance to Soil and Water Conservation Districts with their programs and oversight of Georgia's Erosion and Sediment Act. The SWCC, a state agency created by the Georgia legislature in 1937, is empowered to conduct a grants program.

V-2

o o o o
o
o
o
o
o
o o o
c
o o o
o
o
o

I I

. . . . . 1~lm fi1 R~ (SWCDS)'C~tJ\.~iFth Georgia's 40 Soil and Water Conservation Districts

a h SWCD

being com prised of one to nine counties. They are governed by boards of supervisors of loca citizens who

are interested in conserving natural resources and willing to volunteer their time to that purpose. SWCDs

I

provide technical assistance, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and SWCC technicians, to help local producers plan and establish needed soil and water conservation practices. Supervisors also

sponsor information and educational programs along with field days to encourage and demonstrate new or

I

innovative conservation practices for landowners and citizens. Some SWCDs own specialized equipment (no-till drills, planters, grass spriggers, hydroseeders, and mulch blowers) that is available to make possible

the installation of certain conservation practices.

I

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture, cooperates with federal, state, and local organizations to provide financial and technical

I

assistance to landowners, cooperators, producers, and special interest groups. Standards and specifications regarding conservation practices, animal waste management systems, grazing activities, plant materials,

and other BMPs are developed and upgraded by a staff of engineers, agronomists, biologists, soils

scientists, plant material specialists, and the like. Implementation of conservation practices is conducted

I

through an established network of county offices capable of overseeing demonstration projects, Section 3 19[h] projects, Agricultural Conservation Programs (Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wetland

Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, etc.), and a number of other funding vehicles.

I

NRCS convenes a State Technical Committee to oversee and administer activities re-lated to the 1996 Farm Bill, and also provides planning assistance to EPD in river basin management planning and TMDL

development.

I

The Resource Conservation & Development Councils (RC&Ds) are groups of local citizens that

encourage economic development; as well as the wise conservation of natural and human resources.

I

RC&Ds are locally organized within geographic regions served by the USDA. The 1962 Food and Agriculture Act established the RC&D Council Program with USDA employees called coordinators

assigned to help each RC&D. The Coastal RC&D and Seven Rivers RC&D Councils serve Coastal

I

Georgia.

The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service (CES) collaborates with and trains farmers

I

and staff from the other agricultural agencies in several areas, including pesticides handling certification, fertilizer application. and crop management. CES offers training for certification for the Certified Crop

Advisor Program. To date, 258 people have undergone this certification. This program, developed by the

I

American Society of Agronomy in cooperation with agribusiness retail dealers, cooperatives, and manufactures, the USDA, and various trade associations, is to certify the technical competency of

individuals who provide advice to farmers on crop production including nutrient, soils and water, pest and

crop management. The four competency areas are soil fertility, soil and water management, pest

I

management, and crop production. CES also provides technical assistance for farming operations, including waste and nutrient

management, and education. County Extension agents assist in the calculation of nutrient budgets on a per-

I

farm basis. The primary clients for this service are poultry farmers or producers involved in a federal costshare program which requires a nutrient management plan. The plans determine the volume of manure that

can be appl ied to maintain environmentally sound nitrogen loading. In addition, the CES runs the following

I

programs:

The Farm *A*Syst program enables farmers to conduct an environmental self-audit by using a

I V-3

I

I

d~e th~~l]lilllJ[ series ofdetailed w?rksheets that assess their pollution risk to

u'tory;ng

waste storage and disposal, pesticide use practices and containment, their septic tank system, well, and

other operations. The program helps them to identify local resources for technical assistance and financial

assistance to implement pollution control plans. The farmer devises these plans with guidance from the

extension service. Information is provided on the contamination that results from common practices, as

well as technical recommendations that will remediate the problems.

The National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL) is a multidisciplinary research facility of the CES whose directives include: improving water and soil quality and water use efficiency; integrating buffer systems into farms for pollution control; developing alternative pest management strategies and practices that reduce dependence on pesticides; and creating methods to utilize agricultural byproducts as resources.

The University of Georgia Experiment Station Research and Education Garden works through partnerships among research scientists, extension personnel, and the public and private sectors. It has established a database that serves as a benchmark for levels of pesticide use in home and commercial landscapes and in the future will support associated research to establish landscape plots designed to measure pesticide runoff. The station has been working with USDA's Southern Regional Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) to research and develop an IPM manual, including landscaping BMPs for the landscape and lawn-care" industry.

The Georgia Dept. of Agriculture (GADGA) is the primary agency responsible for administering and enforcing several laws directly related to the registration, distribution, sale, use and application of pesticides in Georgia. State laws pertaining to agricultural pesticides include the Georgia Pesticide Control Act of 1976 and the Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1976. The GADOA is also the primary agency responsible for the enforcement of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in Georgia through a cooperative agreement with the US EPA.
The Pesticide Monitoring Network is a cooperative groundwater monitoring program between the GADOA. EPA and the EPD. Groundwater samples are taken from wells throughout the state of Georgia, and analyzed by the GADOA pesticide laboratory for the presence of pesticides. The GADOA and the US Geological Survey are also involved in a similar cooperative effort in which groundwater samples from numerous locations in Georgia are analyzed for the presence of pesticides.

The USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the lead agency administering the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]. CRP is a voluntary program that offers annual rental payments, incentive payments, and cost-share assistance to established long-term ground cover on eligible cropland. The Commodity Credit Corporation makes assistance available in an amount equal to no more than 50 percent of the participant's cost in establishing approved practices. The duration of the contracts is between 10 and 15 years. County FSA offices approve annual rental payments and cost-share assistance for establishing eligible practices.

The USDA Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service (SEWRL) develops the scientific understanding and associated technologies of watershed systems in the Southeastern US essential to maintaining or enhancing the environmental and natural resources while supporting a healthy agricultural economy. The objectives are to study and model biological, chemical and physical processes that impact natural systems, to develop methodologies to optimize soil and water resources in farming without diminishing productivity, technology transfer, and to develop information systems to guide management decisions for regulatory agencies at field, farm, and watershed scales. There is currently

V-4

o
o
o o o o o o o
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o o

I

mr-p17 .9( .

. .>

I

research ongoing in riparian ecosystems, hydrologic processes, .agrichemical science, and Wimal waste programs. Among the products of this research are the GLEAMS model for edge-of-the-field losses of

runoff water, the CREAMS model for pesticide transport in water, and the REMM model for riparian

I

ecosystem management strategies that simulates physical and biological processes in riparian systems.

Resource Management Systems

I

The Agriculture Water Management Coordinating Committee (A WMCC) contends that a nonregulatory approach to soil and water conservation will continue to produce substantial water quality

benefits in Georgia. The A WMCC cooperating agencies conduct a statewide voluntary conservation

I

program to promote nonpoint source management activities through the Agriculture Resource Management System (RNlS) framework. While best management practices is a term used for activities and techniques

that maintain or improve water quality, the term resource management systems is used by agriculture

I

agencies in Georgia to identify the combination of conservation practices and management systems that, when implemented, permit sustained uses of natural resources.

Agriculture agencies promote the use of RMS for water quality management; however, not all

I

agricultural situations call for implementation of the entire system. The AWWlCC, therefore, promotes the voluntary adoption of specific agriculture BMPs as well as RMSs. The A WMCC further supports the

development and implementation of new initiatives.

I

The NRCS, in cooperation with the SWCC, is planning to generate a geo-referenced agricultural database using recently obtained digital orthophotography for the State of Georgia. This stable database

will enable construction of geo-referenced GIS data layers including watersheds, soils, confined animal

operations, and impaired stream segments and water bodies. The GIS data will help identify areas

I

impacted by nonpoint source pollution and evaluate the effectiveness of RMSs and Best Management Practices.

I

BjvIP Implementation

The SWCC is the responsible agency for supervising BMP installation in the agriculture sector.

The SWCC plans and spearheads the statewide agricultural component of the State's Nonpoint Source

I

Management Program and assists EPD in the resolution of agricultural nonpoint source complaints. This program wi II continue to be enhanced with appropriate adjustments made in response to recommendations

from the agriculture community. Priority will be given to Rivl Ss that address confined animal feeding

I

operations. restore and preserve near stream vegetation, and encompass a watershed management approach. The SWCC provides the agriculture community with information on the use and installation of

BMPs and educational materials about animal waste management, erosion and sedimentation control, and

I

stream bank protection. Furthermore, the SWCC collects data and generates computer databases on land use, animal units, and implementation of agriculture BMPs to identify priority water quality concerns.

Georgia's voluntary agriculture conservation program will continue to promote effective adoption ofBMPs

I

by directing State and Federal resources toward priority geographic areas, watersheds, and resource concerns. as determined by the 305(b) report and other EPD water quality programs.

The network of agricultural conservation programs will continue to implement agricultural BMP

I

demonstration projects with a focus on education, training, technical and financial assistance, and development and implementation of new techniques through research. Priority will be given to projects

which implement Watershed Restoration Action Strategies in areas identified by the State's Unified

I

Watershed Assessment as being "in need of restoration." An Agricultural/Irrigation Technical Task Force was established in response to the Clean Water Act (section 208) to address nonpoint source pollution

originating from agriculture. In 1993-4, the Task Force compiled a BMP guide for farmers entitled

I V-5

I

I

@millff!.[nee is Agricultural Best Management Practicesfor Protecting Water

promoted by the SWCC and the NRCS through educational programs and BMP demonstration workshops.

BMP implementation is also implemented through federal cost-share programs such as the Conservation

Reserve Program, and disincentives programs (revocation of financial assistance) such as the Farm Bill

Sodbusters Program and the Conservation Compliance Program.

Since 1990, over $5,200,000 has been dedicated to agricultural BMP demonstration projects in

Georgia. In addition, NRCS has contributed over $4,500,000 in technical assistance dollars to support

these projects. In addition, the CES, SWCC, FSA, GFC, and others have also contributed significant

technical assistance dollars. Over the next five years, the SWCC, NRCS, and EPD plan to expand the

existing agricultural BMP demonstration projects to include the following BMPs: streamside and

streambank protection, filter strips, riparian forest buffer establishment, pesticide mixing, storage and

containment facilities, alternative livestock water supply, heavy use area protection for livestock, and

stream crossings and access areas for livestock. When applicable, demonstration sites will include the

generation of nutrient and pesticide management plans. Water quality monitoring will be conducted to

assess the impact of implementing BMPs. This information will be used to convey the effectiveness of

current management techniques, watershed planning, installed BMPs, and cost-sharing as '!-n incentive at

multi-county field days conducted by the cooperating agencies.

.

The Agricultural Water Management Coordinating Committee (A WMCq has reviewed published

BMPs including 114 practices on which NRCS has set standards and specifications. These practices have

been assessed for their ability to protect surface water quality and, when applicable, groundwater quality.

A WMCC recommends support for 61 specific BMPs in Protecting Water Quality with Best Management

Practices for Agriculture and IS BMPs in Agricultural Best Management Practices jor Protecting Water

Quality in Georgia. The AWMCC further recommends that demonstration projects not be restricted to

these BMPs but to include demonstrate new and innovative BMPs with a potential to reduce nonpoint

source pollution. Some of the most effective BMPs have resulted from fanners and conservation

technicians implementing an idea they felt would work. Many times these attempts are the first iteration of

research.

Incentives-Based Conservation Programs
The 1996 Farm Bill contains conservation provisions that seek to improve the flexibility and efficiency of existing programs by diversifying agency participation in the delivery of programs that protect water quality and related natural resources. In the past, most conservation programs within the USDA have been adm inistered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, now known as the Farm Service Agency (FSA). The NRCS, along with the SWCDs, provide technical assistance to FSA by working with landowners on the implementation of conservation measures. To date, conservation planning assistance through this partnership has devised conservation plans for 15,125,485 acres, or 45% of the 33.5 mill ion acres of privately owned land in Georgia. Additionally, there are over 184,000 acres of land receiving flood prevention benefits from the installation of 351 floodwater retarding structures.
Conservation programs for which NRCS now retains program leadership include the existing Forestry Incentive Program (FIP) and Wetland Reserve Program (WRP); along with newly created programs that include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program CEQIP) which encompasses the old Agricultural Conservation Program and Water Quality Incentives Program; the Wildlife Habitats Incentives Program (WHIP); and the Farmland Protection Program. FSA maintains program leadership for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Agricultural Market Transition Program. Collectively these programs will continue to have a significant and positive impact on Georgia's natural resources.
The conservation program delivery process initiated by the Bill will cause a number of positive events to occur at the local, state, regional, and national levels. The Bill describes a new program delivery

V-6

o
o
o
o o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o o o
o
o o

I I

reso~;c~ con,.;,.;,{.()OOrWe~oITgrams processthatfocuses firstandforemoston

as tools

with which to address the identified concerns. Multiple agencies, therefore, can take advantage of their

common goals to protect and improve the natural resources of this State. New programs in the Bill seek to

I

address high priority environmental protection goals through the cooperative work of Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as an active State Technical Committee. This cooperative effort will continue to

identify and set resource concern priorities thereby establishing Georgia's agricultural priority

I

environmental protection goals. Applying common goals to address resource concerns in many of Georgia's geographic settings, which vary greatly, will encourage multiple agencies to find common

solutions to resource impairment.

I

. Another benefit arising from this new process is the focus on the locally led conservation program delivery process, which should lead to a higher rate of landowner participation. Under a voluntary

approach, the tools (programs) applied can only be effective to the extent that they are used. The process

will result in a sense of ownership at the local level arising from local identification of local resource

I

concerns, needs, and goals. Landowners will better understand the impact of their actions on their' communities and will be better equipped to comply with environmental regulations, including the nonpoint

source components of approved TMDLs.

I

Georgia's RBMP process will be enhanced by these new partnerships and the coordinated effort to select priority resource concerns. The SWCC and NRCS are working to merge the planning process

adopted by the EPO so that the agriculture community's involvement will be evident in every step of the

I

RBMP process.

Backup Enforcement Strategy

I

The SWCC works with EPO, the enforcement agency for the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, to resolve agricultural water quality complaints, where appropriate. The Georgia Water Quality Control

Act (O.e.G.A. 12-5-29) authorizes the EPO to revise and enforce rules and regulations governing water

I

quality and quantity, set NPDES permit conditions and effluent limits. The Act is used primarily to
address agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint source activities where there is a serious violation of water

quality standards and the agency responsible for voluntary BMP implementation and technical assistance

I

cannot secure compliance. Therefore, in situations where the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC) cannot secure satisfactory compliance, the case is turned over to the EPO for

enforcement action as provided for under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.

I

The Water Quality Control Act is the primary backup enforcement authority that can assure compliance with BMPs on a nonregulatory basis. The mechanism by which it may be invoked is usually

citizen complaints. The mechanism is as follows:

I

Upon receiving a citizen complaint, the responsible agency notifies the perpetrator and conducts a

fie Id inspection to determ ine if best management practices were followed,if the potential for water

I

quality problems exists, and who was responsible for the activities (e.g., site preparation or timber harvesting in the forestry sector). If problems do exist, the agency will work with the responsible

parties until the problems are corrected, providing technical assistance and BMP manuals and

documents. In situations where the agency cannot get satisfactory compliance, the case is turned

I

over the EPO for enforcement action under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. The EPO will investigate the activity as a complaint, and use the authority of the Water Quality Control Act to

either establish a timeframe for the perpetrator to implement practices that will meet the

I

management measures, or to levy a fine against the perpetrator until compliance is achieved.

Of the State agriculture agencies, only the GAOOA has enforcement authority. Crop producers are
I V-7

I

I

pesticide~diill~c~ trained in the management measures inthe GADOA's

p[am. If

inspection of sites by the GADOA discovers a situation of noncompliance, the GADOA is authorized to

enforce compliance with the above measures with the denoted laws. Ifan instance of unregistered pesticide

use is discovered, the GADOA will defer the case to the US EPA for enforcement.

The Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1976 and FIFRA give the GADOA the authority

to regulate the use and application of pesticides. This includes the licensing and certification of

commercial and private pesticide applicators and pesticide contractors.

In order to establish compliance with all Georgia pesticides laws and FIFRA, the GADOA

maintains an extensive staff which performs inspections regarding the registration, application, and sale of

pesticides in Georgia. The GADOA also has the authority to inspect establishments where pesticides are

sold, manufactured, and/or distributed. Violations may result in monetary penalties or the revocation of

pesticide certification. In addition to these routine inspections, the GADOA also investigates complaints

regarding pesticide misuse, such as drift from the target area, runoff events, or any use which violates label

instructions.

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

Agricultural activities in Georgia are subject to limited regulation. However, there are many educational, incentive-based programs offered by government agencies to promote voluntary use ofBMPs, and this is the present basis for NPS control in the agriculture sector. The main enforceable policies governing agricultural pollution are:

The Georgia Water Quality Control Act (OCGA 12-5-20): This act authorizes the EPD to revise and enforce rules and regulations governing water quality and quantity, set NPDES permit conditions and effluent limits. This authority extends to streams, rivers, lakes, and subsurface waters for all uses, including agricultural. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of any waste products into said waterways without a permit. Violators are subject to shutdown of operations and civil penalties of a maximum of $25,000 per day of violation. Criminal (felony) penalties consist of a fine of $5000 to $50,000 per day of violation and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

The Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (OCGA 12-5-280) authorizes the Coastal Resources Division to require a permit for any land disturbing activities adjacent to marshlands and at an elevation of 5.6 feet above mean high tide level and lower. Criminal penalties for violation of this act include fines up to $1000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment. Civil penalties for violation are a maximum fine of $10,000 per day for each violation plus liability for restoration costs. This law is enforced by CRD, which can also declare stop-work orders for sites in violation of the law. There are no commercial farming activities adjacent to the tidally influenced areas of the coastal zone as yet, making this act a potential enforceable policy in this context.

The Federal Insecticide. Fungicide. and Rodenticide Act: This law established minimum national standards for the use of pestic ides and regulates the registration, production. disposal, and sale of pesticides. In Georgia FIFRA is administered by the Georgia Dept. Of Agriculture.
Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act (OCGA 2-7-90 et seq) authorizes the Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture to train and certify pesticide applicators and provides criteria for maintenance of the applicant's license. Violation of any portion of this act is a criminal misdemeanor.

V-8

o
o
o
o
o o o o o o
o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o

I

I

MA1'lAGEMENT MEASURES

ffi .

'~~
, .: n)

,~

l?

This Non-Point Source Management Plan for the coastal region of Georgia is requU to address

I

six EPA-mandated management measures. The following information addressed each management measure. their applicability to specific land uses, an assessment of the degree to which the measure is being

met in coastal Georgia, and the BMPs that are recommended by the governing agricultural agency.

I

A. Management Measurefor Erosion and Sediment Control

I

This management measure applies to activities that cause erosion on agricultural land and other land converted to agricultural uses. The intent of this measure is to reduce the mass load of

I

sediment and associated pollutants in runoff reaching a water body for storms of up to and including a lO-year, 24-hour frequency storm.

I

US EPA Management

NonregulatorylIncentives

Measure Satisfied in

Measure Component

Programs

Coastal Georgia?

I

Apply the erosion component of a Farm Bill. [985 (NRCS),

Yes

-

Conservation Management System Sodbuster program. No-till and

(CMS) to minimize the delivery of other conservation tillage

I

sediment from agricultural lands to demonstrations, equipment rental,

surface waters

and incentives (RC&Ds/ SWCDs).

Design practices to settle the

Farm Bill. 1985, Sodbuster

Yes

I

suspended solids and associated pollutants in runoff for IO-year,

program (0iRCS).

24-hour frequency storms.

NRCS Standards and

I

Assessment:

Specifications (from FOTG)

While areas of concern do exist with respect to erosion and sedimentation from agriculture, overall

I

there is probably little agricultural erosion impact in the coastal zone. The Farm Bill provides strong incentives for BMP installation. Part 2 of this management measure is met through the Standards and

Specifications described in section 4 of the Field Office Technical Guide of the NRCS. Any farmer

I

receiving federal subsides must follow these specifications. The following information shows the amount of erosion and sedimentation resulting from

agricultural land in the coastal counties:

I

County

Total Erosion [Tons]

Total Sediment [Tons]

I

Brantley

Bryan

I

Camden Charlton

Chatham

I

Effingham

18,770 28,011
3,828 13,198
4,497 134,527
V-9

2,065 3,081
421 1,452
495 14,798

I

I

Glynn Liberty Long Mcintosh Wayne

3,262 6,706 21,376 2,109 127,028

2,351 211
13,973

Table V-2: Erosion from agricultural land annually by County. (Source: G-J Agricultural Watershed Nonpoint Source Assessment, NRCS. 1993. Is currently being updated through Georgia's StateNonpoint Source Management Program).

The greatest amount of erosion and sedimentation from agricultural land occurs in Effingham and Wayne counties. Yet. even these erosion rates fall well below the average county erosion and sedimentation rates of 256,634 tons and 47,938 tons respectively for all Georgia counties on an annual. basis. Low topography and sandy soils in the coastal region results in lower runoff and flow velocities. The effects of agricultural activities in inland watersheds, however, are felt in the coastal zone.
Conservation tillage can reduce erosion from farm fields in the coastal regions by over 90% compared to traditional tillage methods. The Coastal Georgia RC&D Council and Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority have brought conservation tillage to Southeast Georgia by buying paratills and no till drills and renting them to local farmers in the coastal zone and inland. They currently provide access to 3 no-till drills to local farmers at cost to encourage them to try conservation tillage at low cost and minimal risk.
To date, several ISO-foot riparian/wetland buffers have been installed at agricultural sites in Wayne County. However, limited buffers have been installed elsewhere. One obstacle to farmers' willingness to install buffers is their irrigation systems (often center-pivot). Irrigation systems represent a significant investment for agricultural producers. If faced with installing a forested buffer, farmable (often very profitable) land will be taken out of production, reducing revenues and effectively increasing the initial cost of the irrigation system. CRP and other cost-share programs provide inadequate incentives, when faced with the loss of income due to land out of service.
Expanded information and education efforts are needed to ensure producers are aware of the benefits and cost associated with SNIP adoption, and the potential natural resource impact they can have off of their farm. Currently, SMP education is done by demonstration and technical assistance in implementing SNIPs. Notification of the farming community is done by way of a mailing list of agricultural producers, and press releases to local papers. Typical attendance at no-till demonstrations is 20 to 40 people. Within the southeastern region, 10-15 farmers use the ~o-till planter routinely.

Lead agency: SWCC
B. Management Measure for Wastewater and Runofffrom Confined Animal Facilities
EPA regulations define an animal feedlot operation (AFO) as a lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where animals have been, are or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period; and crops, vegetation forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.
An NPDES permit is required for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which are defined as animal operations that accommodate more than 1000 animal units, or more than 300 animal units where 1) pollutants are discharged into navigable waters through a manmade ditch, flushing system, or similar device; or 2) pollutants are discharged directly into waters that originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility or come into direct contact with the animals.

V-IO

o
o
o
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o o
o
o
o
o

I

.. .., .... l( fi:i Rl?

I

~~ns~e~A ~r. Two or more animal facilities under common ownership can he

a Ligle animal

facility if they adjoin each other or if they use a common area or system for the disposal of wastes.

I

Concentrated animal facilities, as defined above, include areas used to grow or house the animals, areas used for processing and storage of product, manure and runoff storage areas, and silage storage areas.

I

State Regulatory Procedures for AFOs EPO was designated to handle large feedlots and those with unpermitted discharges. The Director

of EPO may designate any AFO, regardless of size, to be subject to the rules described below if such an

I

operation has a history of violating water quality. A cooperative agreement between EPO, SWCC, U-GA, and NRCS dealing with water quality relating to confined animal feeding operations was revised in July

1990 and is in the process of being updated as of 200 1.

I

In Georgia, AFOs housing greater than 1000 animal units have been addressed by Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NRCS, EPO, and the SWCC since 1974. By January, 2001 this number

was reduced to 300 animal units via new State AFO rules (described below). The current MOU was

I

established in 1990 to provide guidelines and the roles of each agency. All designated AFOs must construct an animal waste retention system designed to accommodate wastewater from a 25 year, 24-hr

storm event and develop a comprehensive nutrient management plan. There is to be no discharge of

I

pollutants from any feedlot into surface waters. Waste must be stored in a lagoon, lined with either compacted clay or a synthetic liner and must be designed according to the specifications in the NRCS Field

Office Technical Guide.' Protection of all nearby water supplies and flood plains are- to be considered in the

I

design. Large feedlots are defined as those subject to Federal regulations in 40 CFR 412.10. The present

MOU between the EPD and the NRCS uses animal units as prescribed by Section 2.4 of EPA publication

83 5-B-95-00 1, 1993. Small feedlot operations, defined by the state as those containing less than 300

I

animal units, are encouraged to contact the NRCS, who assists them in designing the waste handling system and in the development of nutrient management plans.

Instead of requiring an NPOES permit, AFOs between 300 and 1000 animal units require a Land

I

Application System permit which may be issued after a 30-day public comment period. There are several buffer zone requirements for the lagoon and spray field; both must be located at least 150 feet away from

adjacent property lines and roadways, and must be at least 300 feet away from any inhabitable dwelling.

I

Monitoring and reporting to EPO are also required, including wastewater applied to designated fields and at least 3 groundwater monitoring wells. Sampling is required is site-specific but usually includes quarterly

monitoring for nitrate, pH, BOO-5, Total Suspended Solids, Total Keldahl Nitrogen, Ammonia, Specific

I

Conductivity, and depth to water. The waste disposal system must operate in a manner such that nitrate levels in groundwater do not exceed 10 mg/L.

With the passing of upgraded non-swine rules in January, 2001, AFOs of this size are also required

I

to do the following: submit a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP), addressing manure handling, land

application of manure and wastewater, site management, record keeping, management of other utilization

I

options, and an emergency response plan. This plan must be developed by a certified specialist (defined by EPO). Waste management must be handled by a certified operator.

I

Special State Provisions for Swine Farms In addition to other State regulatory procedures for AFOs, Georgia's Board of Natural Resources

adopted new amendments to the rules for Water Quality Control for swine operations on June 10, 1999.

I

The new rules more strictly regulate this type of animal operation, and include the following additions:

I

V-II

I

A. Permit bv Rule for operations with 300 to 1000 AU: Must submit a registration form by October 31,2000 Must submit a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan and have a certified operator by October 31, 2001 By October 31,2002, new operations must have waste systems designed and constructed by NRCS guidelines New operations locating within significant ground water recharge areas must be provided with clay or synthetic Iiners with permeability criteria New barns, lagoons and disposal systems shall not be located within a 1OO-yearflood plain
B. fndividual Penn its for 1001 to 3000 AU (2500 to 7500 swine) must additionally provide for the following: Existing operations must obtain an NPDES Permit by October 31,2000 Application will require public notice Must install groundwater-monitoring wells: one down-gradient of each lagoon and 3 for irrigation fields Permits will require monitoring of wells and lagoon effluent Proper closure of lagoons within 18 months New operations must obtain permit, submit CNMP, and have certified operators and waste systems in accordance with NRCS guides prior to beginning feeding New operations will have substantial buffer requirements
Individual permits for facilities above 3,000 AU (2500 to 7500 swine) include the above plus additional stipulations.
Federal Strategy In March, 1999 the USDA and EPA finalized a new Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations. The goal is to minimize water quality and public health impacts from such facilities by coordinated activities among related agencies. The Strategy establishes an expectation that all AFOs develop and implement comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs). A CNMP should address feed management, manure handling and storage, land application of manure, land management, record keeping, emergency response, and closure. Incentives are proposed for both voluntary and regulatory programs to insure that CNMPs are developed and implemented. The goal is to reduce pollutant loading, and minimize the discharge of contaminants in both facility wastewater and in runoff that is caused by storms.
According to the EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ojNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (1993), AFO size designations applicable to the coastal nonpoint source management program are listed in the table below. The small unit designation is for existing units of the specified number of animals only; all new AFOs, regardless of size. will be subject to the specifications of the large systems.
V-12

o
o o o
o o o o o
n
Lj
o o
o
o
o
o

_._- ... .. _.~-_._---- '.'

,

I

I

n

I LARGE UNITS

I SMALLUNITS u/

I

HEAD

ANIMAL UNITS

HEAD ANIMAL UNITS

I

Beef Feedlots Stables (horses)

Dairies

I

Lavers

30e 20C
7d IS,OOC

300

50-299

400

100-199

98

20-6Q

150* 5,000-14,99<;

495**

50-299 200-399
28-97 50-149* 165-494**

I

Broilers

Turkeys

15,00C
I
13,750

150* 5,000-14.99<; 495** 2,475 5,000-13,74<;

50-149* 165-494** 900-2,474

I

Swine

200

80

100-19<:;

40-79

Table v-3: Size designations for large and small AFOs according to the EPA 6217 (g) guidance.

I

*[ffacility has a liquid manure system, as used in 40 CFR Section [22, Appendix 8

H[ffacility has continuous overflow watering, as used in 40 CFR Section [22, Appendix 8

I

Facilities containing fewer than the number of head listed in the small units category are exempt

from this management measure, as are those facilities that are required by Federal regulation 40 CFR

122.23 to apply for and receive discharge permits.

I

Management Measures for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities

I

US EPA Management

Nonregulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal

Measure component

Georgia?

I

Storing facility wastewater for 25- Technical (engineering) assistance year, 24 hour frequency storm (large (NRCS)

No (for the specified farm sizes)

and small units).

I

Storing runoff coming into contact with waste areas as above (large and

no

small units).

I

Design and implement systems that Cost-share programs for lagoon

no

collect solids, reduce contaminant construction: through EQIP, Small

concentrations and reduce runoff to Watershed Program (NRCS)

minimize the discharge in both

I

facility wastewater and in runoff caused by storms up to and

including a 25 year, 24-hour

I

frequency storm (small units). Manage stored liquids and

Lagoon pumpout demonstrations

no

accumulated solids via a waste

and pumpout rental (7 River

I

utilization system.

RC&D).

I

V-13

I

Adequacy of storage unit (proper same lining or wall composition) (EPD).
Assessment: The EPD has begun to address unpermitted AFOs under their new swine and nonswine rules and
regulations for farms with greater than 300 animal units. However, there is little available information on animal feedlot facilities smaller than 300 AU. Therefore, a procedure to acquire an accurate count of them is needed, no centralized source of this information currently exists and there is conflicting information amongst the data that is available.
Thus. EPD has little knowledge of the full extent of small poultry operations in coastal counties. However, a large increase in poultry operations is expected in the near future due to a proposed hatchery, feed mill, and processing center in the area. Once Georgia's new AFO strategy is under way, EPD will keep records of certified AFO operators.
EPD perceives that there is a problem with animal waste runoff in Bulloch, Appling and Tattnall Counties, all of which are just outside of the coastal zone. These areas contribute contaminants that degrade water quality within the coastal zone, in particular, Big Satilla Creek.
Of the types offarms listed in Table V-5, the Broiler farms are all dry manure systems and the Layers are rapidly converting to dry systems. These dry manure farms are of lesser priority than wet manure farms. Layer farms will probably be the most prol ific AFO in the coastal zone in the next decade, so a main priority of this' section of the Coastal NPS program will be to address the wet-manure Layer farms. Other priorities will be dairies and swine farms.
Lagoon construction for unregulated farms can be cost-shared through existing conservation programs such as EQIP and the Small Watershed Program. which are administered by the NRCS. The latter is an intensive planning program for degraded watersheds of less than 250,000 acres. This program is implemented when other incentives and conservation programs fail to improve watersheds impacted by agriculture. Cost-share funds fall far short of demand and need in Georgia Consequently, the agriculture sector of Georgia is seeking to secure a State agricultural cost-share program to provide additional funding for BMP installation. There is currently a bill in the State Assembly (SB 95, 200 I) requesting this costshare program, which lists qualifying projects that include animal waste management systems as well as riparian buffers. irrigation management, and other BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution.
The Southeastern Sustainable Animal Waste Management Workshop, sponsored by the CES, featured speakers, exhibits. and tours on topics including animal waste composting, nutrient management, and related environmental issues. Development and implementation of a regularly scheduled animal waste conference is under consideration. In an independent initiative, an expanded, statewide public information program on animal waste management is planned. It will be implemented to advise farmers of the latest appropriate waste management procedures for confined animal feeding operations. As well, it will result in the training of district conservationists and extension service personnel. Education materials on animal waste management will be distributed to all interested parties by the SWCDs, CES, and NRCS.
The SWCC has implemented a demonstration project with producers to demonstrate effective lagoon maintenance and nutrient utilization through irrigation of lagoon effluent. Cooperating organizations include the SWCD, GA Milk Producers Association, GFBF, GA Pork Producers Association, CES, and NRCS.
Assessment of the impact of animal waste management facilities on water quality in Georgia is also planned. Feedlots, poultry houses and animal wastes are"known to pollute shallow groundwater in other portions of the country. While such pollution has not been recognized as a significant problem in Georgia, EPD will be reassessing the matter by sampling base flo", directly down gradient from large operations. Where applicable, animal waste management facilities capable of impacting surface waters will be
V-14

o o
o
o o o o o o o o
o
o
o o o o o

.",- -:-_~ _0-0;0 ~~.~ __ ~~_

I

apPlie~ w~ere L~mbUrtc~water I

wil be monitored to obtain base line data. BMPs

I

quality assessed. There is a need to distribute information on nutrient management and land application of waste to

small farms. Education and outreach efforts should target those who are unfamiliar with BMPs.

I

Demonstration projects for this purpose can be a powerful educational tool to this end. Lead agency: EPDINRCS

The NRCS is the lead agency on large scale waste management systems. It provides assessments

I

and recommendations for whole farm waste management systems that include hardscape structures. The NRCS has developed specifications for the various structures and set compliance standards. It works in

tandem with the CES, which provides waste nutrient management technical assistance and education.

I

County extension agents assist in the calculation of nutrient budgets on a per farm basis. The primary clients for this service are poultry farmers or producers involved in Federal cost-share programs which

require a nutrient management plan. The plans determine the volume of manure that can be applied to

I

maintain environmentally sound nitrogen loadings.

C. Management Measure for Nutrient Management

I

This management measure applies to activities associated with the application of nutrients to

agricultural lands. It was selected as a method to minimize the amount of nutrients entering ground water

I

through root zone leaching and entering surface water from edge-of-field delivery. It requires AFOs and crop farmers utilizing manure to develop, implement, and periodically update a nutrient management plan,

addressing the timing of nutrient application and the use of agronomic crop production technology to

I

increase nutrient use efficiency. Soil and plant tissue testing should be used routinely.

I

US EPA Management Measure

Nonregulatory Mechanisms

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

Apply nutrients at rates to achieve -Nutrient Management Plans

Partially (for AFOs greater than

I

realistic crop yields

(NRCS/CES) -Use of 7 Rivers RC&D lagoon pumpout facility and liner spreader

300 AU)

I

Improve the timing of nutrient

equipment. -Technical assistance from NRCS

as above

application

-SWCC demonstrations for

irrigation of lagoon effluent

I

-Statewide animal waste management public information

program

I

Use agronomic crop production

same

technology to increase nutrient use

as above

efficiency

I

Assessment:

According to the US Geologic Survey report: Wacer Quality in the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain,

I

1992-1996, there are elevated levels of nitrates attributable to agriculture in the shallow groundwater table in localized areas throughout the coastal plain. This is not evident in surface waters. Phosphorus levels

I

V-IS

I

. _ -._.__ -....- -._._...

I

J

i
i

~ ~)12 illlEJI in streams draining agricultural land, however, exceed the EP

me

C

prevention of nuisance algal growth in 30 % of the stream samples. Thus, agriculturally-derived nutrients are a demonstrated water quality problem in parts of Georgia

o

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) are an essential part of the joint USDA and

EPA strategy on AFOs and are currently required in Georgia for all animal farms housing 300 or more

animal units. A CNMP addresses feed management, manure handling and storage, land application of

manure, land management, record keeping, emergency response, and closure. See Appendix 29 for

Georgia's CNMP elements. Also, within the next 5 years EPA is to place in review water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus. This will represent a significant increase in the number of

:I1.

components required for a technically sound, economically feasible, and site-specific CNMP. Therefore,

LJ

extensive training on how to develop and follow a CNMP will be needed. To meet this management measure, a procedure must be developed to address nutrient management for AFOs with less than 300 AU.

o

CNMPs are drafted by certified planners in the NRCS and U-GA CES. Because the number of plans expected to be developed in the near future presents a workload beyond the scope of the NRCS and CES, the latter are developing a training program to certify not only NRCS and CES staff, but also

o

private consultants in CNMP development.

The University of Georgia Extension Office in Athens is responsible for training certified operators of AFOs. The GADOA will be responsible for maintaining records of CNMP certified

o

planners.

-

Incentives are proposed statewide for both voluntary and regulatory programs to insure that CNMPs are developed and implemented. The goal is to reduce pollutant loading, and minimize the

o

discharge of contaminants in both facility wastewater and in run-off that is caused by storms. A CNMP

should be reviewed and updated at least once every 3 years, or whenever the crop rotation is changed or the nutrient source is changed. Records of nutrient use and sources should be maintained along with

o

other management records for each field. At present, there is no follow-up or updating of nutrient

management plans. This roo must be addressed as the Coastal Nonpoint Source Program develops. In 2000 the Seven Rivers RC&D Council and Satilla SWCD purchased a (chicken) litter spreader

o

to help farmers manage their manure and also to provide an inexpensive fertilizer. This litter spreader

was purchased through a grant from Georgia's Coastal Management Program. The SWCD and RCD rent the spreader to local farmers and also conduct an annual demonstration to introduce poultry

o

producers to this new service. The workshops also cover

recommendations for applying animal waste on cropland and pasture land

the factors affecting nutrient values of the litter or manure



animal waste regulations and BMPs

o



Developing CNMPs.

The litter spreader will help farmers who cannot afford their own equipment and must depend on erratic

o

service from suppliers. The spreader will be available to apply animal waste nutrients according to the farmer's nutrient management plan, spreading litter and manure at the most beneficial time for their operation and the environment ..not when delivery is convenient for the supplier, which is presently often

o

the case. Regarding inorganic sources of nutrients, CES is the lead agency on developing an Agriculture
Fertilizer BMP manual. It will be based on a prototype from Florida. It is targeted for fertilizer dealers

o

and will deal with various fertilizer chemicals, application rates, and application methods. The manual

will be distributed through county extension offices, the GAC membership, and the Georgia Plant and

Food Education Society. The manual was published in 2000; the project is supported by GAC and CES

V-16

o

o

I

I EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

Nonregulatory Programs

I

3. Ensure that the design of road

CWA section 404: Federally

prism and the road surface drainage mandated Road Construction

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

are appropriate to the terrain and

BMPs

I

that road surface design is consistent with the road drainage

structures.

Master Timber Harvester certification

I

4. Use suitable materials to surface CWA section 404: Federally

GFC annual audit Georgia's BMPs for forestry

roads planned for all-weather use to mandated Road Construction

I

support truck traffic.

BMPs.

Master Timber Harvester certification

I

GFC annual audit .'

5. Design road systems to avoid

CWA section 404: Federally

Georgia's BMPs for forestry

I

high erosion or landslide hazard areas. Identify these areas and

mandated Road Construction BMPs

consult a qualified specialist for

I

design of any roads that must be constructed through these areas.

Master Timber Harvester certification

GFC annual audit

I

~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

I

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission

I

Assessment: Consultant foresters are licensed by the GA Secretary of State, which governs the State Board of Foresters. Pre-harvest planning is emphasized in the GA BMP manual and promoted by the

GA Board Foresters. A written plan of operations is the norm, and demonstrates adherence to the

I

planning requirements established by the Board and documented in the Georgia BMP manual (Appendix 23). However, it is estimated that operations associated with timber sales that are not conducted by a

registered consultant have a low compliance rate.

I B. Management Measures for Streamside Management Zones (SMZs)

I

Applicability: This management measure pertains to surface waters bordering or within the area of

operations. SMZs should be established for perennial and intermittent streams; and protection must be

I

given to well-defined ephemeral areas. During periods of heavy water flow SMZs may be expanded across more of the flood plain since spring breakup is both the time of maximum transport of sediments

from the harvest unit and the time when highest flows are present in all watercourses.
I

VI-7
I

I

..-/
EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

3. Consider potential water quality impacts and erosion and sedimentation control in the selection of silvicultural and regeneration systems, especially for harvesting and site preparation.

GA Water Quality Control Act
GA River Corridor Protection Act eGA Dept. Of Community Affairs)

.
Nonregulatory Programs
Erosion and Sedimentation Control BMPs
Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

4. Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying high-erosion-hazard areas and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable.

CWA section 404: Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs

5. Consider additional contributions from harvesting or roads to any known existing water quality impairments or problems in watersheds of concern.

CWA section 404: Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
Ga Water Quality Control Act

Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the following elements where appropriate:

I. Locate and design road systems to minimize. to the extent practicab Ie. potential sediment generation and del ivery to surface waters.

CW A section 404 : Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
GA Water Quality Control Act

2. Locate and design temporary and permanent stream crossings to prevent failure and control impacts
from the road system.

CW A section 404: Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
GA Water Quality Control Act

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry Master Timber Harvesters certification for logging contractors and foresters Landowner Assistance programs to develop management plans which address each element of the EPA Management Measures."
Georgia's BMPs for Forestry Master Timber Harvester Certification Georgia's BMPs for Forestry Master Timber Harvester certification GFC annual audit

VI-6

o
o o o
o
o
o o o o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o

I

I

Effingham: road and right-of-way damage, local permit required.

I

Management Measures

There are 10 management measures related to forestry. Each has several components and so will

I

be addressed separately. A summary table will be presetned for each measure, which includes the measure itself and teh enforceable federal and state policies that support them, and nonregulatory

(voluntary and incentive-based) programs.

I

A. Preharvest Planning Management Measure

I

Applicability: this management measure pertains to commercial harvesting on areas greater than 5 acres and any associated road system construction or reconstruction conducted as part of normal silvicultural

activities. The component for ensuring implementation of this management measure applies to

I

harvesting and road construction activities that are determined by the State agency to be of a sufficient size to potentially impact the receiving water or that involve Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) or

stream crossings. This measure does not apply to harvesting conducted for precommercial thinning or

noncommercial firewood cutting.
I

EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

I

Perform advance planning for

Nonregulatory Programs

forest harvesting that includes

I

the following elements where appropriate:

1. Identify the area to be

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) as Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

I

harvested including location of waterbodies and sensitive areas

amended. Endangered Species Act.

Master Timber Harvesters

such as wetlands, threatened or

(USFWS*)

certification for logging contractors

I

endangered aquatic species habitat areas, or high- erosion-hazard areas (landslide-prone areas) within the

GA Water Quality Control Act

and foresters

harvest unit.

(EPO).

GFC, Forestry Consultants, or

I

Landowner Assistance programs to develop management plans which

address each element of the EPA

I

2. Time the activity for the season

Management Measures. Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

or moisture conditions when the

I

least impact occurs.

Master Timber Harvesters certification for logging contractors

and foresters
I

I
VI-S
I

I

Programs ofthe Georgia Forestry Commission

The Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) is responsible for supervising forestry operations in

Georgia. The GFC investigates complaints from the public about forestry operations and reports to the

EPO and the EPA. In addition, the GFC conducts nonpoint source pollution control programs along two

lines; a training program for employees of large commercial companies, and education and outreach to

landowners who wish to harvest trees from their property.

GFC provides educational material regarding SMPs and Sustainable Forestry Initiatives to the

large timber companies and sawmills in Southeastern Georgia. The timber companies require that their

logging contractors and procurement foresters/supervisors become certified under the Master Timber

Harvesters Program, which is a 3-day course introducing the participants to American Forest and Paper

Association (AF&PA)'s Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Harvest Planning, and Forestry SMPs. This

includes water quality regulations involving riparian buffers and erosion/sedimentation control, wildlife

habitat impacts, endangered species protection, and protection of soil and site quality, as well as other

topics such as safety and business management. To maintain certification, participants must acquire 8

hours of SFI-related continuing education every two years. Four hours must be in SFI-qualified

educational programs to include forest ecology, forest soils, silviculture, wildlife, endangered species,

hydrology, SMPs, harvest planning, and aesthetics. The other 4 hours may be electives in business or

safety. There have been at least 1700 people that have undergone this certification in southeastern

Georgia.

-

-

To reach the smaller logging operator, the GFC conducts public outreach to landowners who

wish to have their forested lands logged on a one-on-one basis. GFC provides these landowners/small

businesses with information and technical assistance about natural resource protection regulations and

SMPS.

The GFC conducts random audits of forestry operations and monitors SMP compliance in all

areas of forestry operations; harvesting, site preparation and regeneration, road construction and stream

crossings and intermediate treatments such as prescribed burning, firebreaks, fertilization and herbicide'

applications, and Streamside Management Zones. A sample GFC audit form appears in Appendix 9.

GFC has found an average compliance rate of 88 %. .

The tracts to be audited consist of a stratified random sample obtained from timber tax returns tiled at the respective county tax assessor's offices. The number of tracts pulled is determined by the latest USFS Timber Drain Survey and is broken down into three strata, non-industrial private landowners, forest industry and public. The tracts are divided as above and chosen by lottery to obtain an approximate 10% sample of the annual harvest. This is presumed to provide a 95% confidence level.

Local Government Ordinances

Local laws, regulations, and ordinances which affect the land ownership of timberlands and the timber management and harvesting practices vary between the various municipalities and counties in the coastal lone. The following counties have passed local ordinances that affect forestry operations:



Camden: road and right-of-way damage, local permit required.

Charlton: road and right-of-way damage, SNIP compliance required. Operations are supervised by the county road superintendent.

Chatham: tree protection zoning ordinance, notification of Chatham County/Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission is required.

VIA

o o
o
o o o o o o
o
o
o o
o
o o o o o

I I

WtaOOtffi~ birds or aquatic life or the physleal destruction of stream

t & felony) consist of

a fine of $5000 to $50,000 per day of violation and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

I

The Rules and Regulations for Water Ouality Control (Ga. Admin. Code Chapter 391-3-6) establishes standards for streams for measurable parameters such as turbidity and temperature, among others, which

are applicable to silviculture.

I

The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 (O.C.G.A. 12-7-1 et seq) may apply in some conditions where timber harvesting practices not consistent with BMPs may be interpreted as being

associated with land conversion activities and therefore the exemption for forestry activities would not

I

apply. Also the Act establishes buffer zones along waterways in which no land disturbing activities are allowed.

The Oil and Hazardous Spills or Releases Act (O.e.G.A. 12-14-1) requires proper handling of oil and

hazardous materials and requires the proper clean up and reporting of spill.

I

The Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1976 (O.e.G.A. 2-7-90 et seq) which is administered by the Georgia Department of Agriculture regulates the proper use and application of pesticides and the

certification of pesticide applicators.

I

2. NON REGULATORY PROGRAMS

I



The Official Code of Georgia provided for the establishment of a State Board of Registration for

Foresters, as well as standards of practice. This board assures that each registered forester

I

practices professional forestry in a manner which protects public welfare and safety. The accepted standards of practice include the Bl'vfPs listed in the forestry BMP manual. Failure to

comply with BMPs under the circumstances in which they are mandatory or any failure to

operate according to the minimum standards established by the board may result in revocation of

I

a forester's license. This act also includes a recommendation that licensed foresters make private landowners aware of BMPs in writing.



As part of the River Basin Management Plan, the Georgia Forestry Commission, along with the

I

National Park Service, are inventorying U.S. Forest Service data for acreage of forest land, ownership types, and timber types. Trends in forest acreage loss and conversion will be

compared with annual urban growth for the development of management decisions for remaining

I

available acreage to meet demands for forest products. Surveys of compliance with BMPs showing compliance rate by river basin will be calculated by the four major forestry activity

categories: timber harvest road construction, site preparation, and reforestation. Compliance

I

problems will be identified by category and examined by ownership type or physiographic region to target educational efforts.



The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission of Georgia has produced a guidance manual

I

entitled On-Site Erosion Control, which illustrates and describes management practices that can be used in many applications, including siviculture, for erosion control.



The Natural Resource Conservation Service holds ongoing week-long agricultural/silvicultural

I

conservation practice workshops for high school students at Alexander Baldwin Agricultural College in Tifton, GA. This workshop will give students hands-on experience in natural

resource conservation and preservation, including soil erosion prevention, wildlife law

I

enforcement, wildlife management, forestry, urban conservation, and coastal resources. To date, approximately 9,800 students have attended this workshop,

I
VI-3
I

I

acemWeW ~eIT.mSion Megahan, 1980; Patrie, 1976). Road-stream crossings

and

sediment (Rothwell, 1983). Soil loss tends to be greatest during and immediately after road construction

because of the unstabilized road prism and disturbance by passage of heavy trucks and equipment (Swift,

1984).

.

Timber Harvesting. Most detrimental effects of harvesting are related to the access and movement of vehicles and machinery, and the skidding and loading of trees or logs. Without the use ofBMPs, the result could include soil disturbance, soil compaction, and direct disturbance of stream channels. The

construction and use of haul roads, skid trails, and landings for access to and movement of logs are the harvesting activities that have the greatest erosion potential.

Regeneration Methods. Mechanical site preparation for planting by large tractors that shear, disk,

drum-chop, or root-rake a site may result in considerable soil disturbance over large areas and has a high potential to deteriorate water quality (Beasley, 1979).

Prescribed Burning. Prescribed burning of slash can increase erosion by eliminating protective cover and

altering soil properties (Megahan, 1980). Burning may also increase stormflow in areas where all vegetation is killed.

Application of Forest Chemicals. Adverse effects on water quality due to forest chemical application

typically result from improper chemical application.

.

Federal Programs Governing Silviculture

Forestry activities on Federal lands are predominantly controlled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management. Federally owned timberlands exist at Fort Stewart (the military base in Liberty County), King's Bay, and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.
Section 404, part 232.3 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) exempts normal, established ongoing silvicultural operations from permitting of discharges of dredge fill into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), provided that the operation adheres to Best Management Practices (BMPs) and to fifteen baseline provisions for forest road construction and maintenance in and across waters of the U.S., as documented in CW A section 3.3, I. A complete listing of these provisions is given in section 3.3.1 of Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry, Appendix 23. A permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) is required in the event of a silivicultural operation that wishes to convert nine specific types of forested wetlands to other uses, including tree plantations. Penalties are levied against offenders by the U.S. EPA.
The U.S. Forest Service has developed preventive land management practices and project performance standards (US EPA, 1991). The Farm Service Agency (FSA), formerly known as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, administers the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) and Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP). Under FIP and SIP, FSA provides cost-share funds to develop, manage, and protect eligible forest land, with emphasis on enhancing water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational resources, and producing timber. Other conservation programs of the Federal Farm Bill. as discussed in the Agriculture section of this report, apply also to owners of forested land.

State Programs Governing Silviculture

1. ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

The Georgia Water Oualitv Control Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-29) makes it unlawful to discharge excessive pollutants into the waters of the state in amounts harmful to public safety, health, welfare, or to animals,

VI-2

o
o
o o o o o
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o
o
o

-------------------

Count~
Brantley Bryan Camden Charlton Chatham Effingham Glynn Liberty Long Mcintosh Wayne Average

Total Acres
286100 283500 417900 509500 284800 285400 269600 329000 257300 272600 412800

Timber Acres
242600 233900 297800 317600 93000 244200 158000 246300 233200 163200 333500

% Timberland 85% 83% 71% 62% 33% 86% 59% 75% 91% 60% 81%
71%

NIPF Acres
75700 79200 154900 135300 40200 172200 40"100 77300 80300 30400 143300

% N!p
31% 34% 52% 43% 43% 71% 25% 31% 34% 19% 43%
39%

Industry Acres
160900 51900 134800 175600 36700 64200 110400 63700 128600 118200 189800

% Industry Gov't Acres

66%

6000

22%

102800

45%

8100

55%

6700

39%

16100

26%

7800

70%

7500

26%

105300

55%

24300

72%

14600

57%

400

49%

% Gov't 2% 44% 3% 2% 17% 3% 5% 43% 10% 9% 0%
13%

Table VI-I: Area and percentages of timberland in the coastal counties, according to ownership type.

r;]
?~ 2j
::ffj

VI. FORESTRY
Introduction
Silvicultural activities have been identified as nonpoint sources in coastal area water quality assessments and control programs. Water quality concerns related to forestry were addressed in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and later, more comprehensively, as nonpoint sources under section 208 of the 1977 Clean Water Act and section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act. Local impacts of timber harvesting and road construction on water quality can be severe, depending on the location and physiography of the region (Brown, 1985; Coats and Miller, 1981; Pardo, 1980).
According to data from the Georgia Forestry Association, forestry and supporting industries is one of the largest contributors to Georgia's economy, contributing approximately 17.3 billion dollars annually. Silviculture is an important industry in Georgia's coastal zone, and is a major land use.
In Georgia's eleven-county coastal zone, forests cover about 2.6 million acres ofland or about 71% of the land area. About 13% of this timberland is owned by the Governments, 49% by the forestry industry, and 39% by nonindustrial private forest landowners. A breakdown of these numbers by county is presented in Table VI-I. Harvested trees feed into six paper mills and numerous saw mills within those eleven counties.
The management measures in this guidance apply only to nonpoint source silvicultural activities. Clean Water Act section 402 regulations for point source permits are exempt these nonpoint silvicultural activities (40 CFR 122.27) except for sites that occur in an area falling under the jurisdiction of Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 requirements. Silviculture operations are exempt from 404 permits, but they must still implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Potential Pollutants And Impacts Associated with Forestry
Studies conducted in other parts of the country have shown that forestry activities can cause significant degradation in water quality (Pardo, 1980. Likens et al., 1970, Norris and Moore, 1971, Eschner and Larmoyeux, 1963; Blackburn et al., 1982). Water quality problems due to forestry are interm ittent due to the periodic nature (as opposed to continuous) of tree harvesting (on the order of once in 20 years or longer), planting, and access road construction. The information below is largely derived from forestry activities elsewhere in the country with more topographical relief, and so the water quality impacts listed below may be less prevalent in Georgia's coast.
Sediment.is often the primary pollutant associated with forestry activities. Other pollutants are nutrients from forest fertilizers, forest chemicals such as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides used to control forest pests and undesirable plant species, organic debris resulting from forestrv activities, and streamflow alterations.
Forestry Activities Affecting Water Quality
The following activities have been shown to adversely affect water quality in the past. Consistent and widespread use of best management practices (BMPs) can greatly reduce the impact on waterways.
Road Construction and Use. Roads are considered to be the major source of erosion from forested lands, contributing up to 90 percent of the total sediment production from forestry operations (Rothwell, 1983;
VI-I

o
o o o o
o
o
o
o o o o o o o o o
o
o

CAFOS/NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Assure that management measures are included in

X

FOTG and CNMP planning criteria

Include management measures in production workshops topics and Iink information with costshare programs

Chicken liner spreader demonstrations and rental

SWCD, Coastal X X X X X X

RCD

Manage-

ment

Program

Assess amount and significance of waste from AFOs that are below 300 AU
Implement animal fann registration

Compile a nutrient management and monitoring manual for small fanners

EPDI CES

Work to implement training workshops and demonstrations for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Development
-in Wayne, Brantley, and Effingham Counties -in Appling, Bulloch and Tatnall counties (funding permitted)

319 funds?

Establish follow-up procedure to assure that CNlvIPs

are updated every 3 years.

I Assess number of nutrient management plans with EPD

I respect to number of AFOs below NPDES limit

Determine the percent of HEL lands currently

EPD.

N/A

X

I

covered by Conservation Compliance Plans (Farm FSA

Bill). and percent of these that have been
i implemented.

i PESTICIDES

Implement a routine pesticide container collection in RCD areas of most abundant agriculture

GENERAL

Investigate the establishment of a supplemental cost-share program for BMP installation to augment existing cost-share programs.

SWCC

Mandate training as part of cost-share programs, such as requiring recipients of financial cost-share funds for poultry dead bird com posters to attend a 2hour seminar on proper operation of the facility and of resu Iting compost.

V-27

o
o o
o o
n
u
o
o o o o o
o
o o o o
o
o

I

I

I

SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The table below is 5-year action plan for coastal NPS control efforts in the agricultural sector, including the

I

estimated year of implementation.

I

TASKS

MONITORING

Lead

Potential

01

02 03 04 05 06

Agency

Funding

I

As part of RBMP, conduct water quality assessments.

Inventory agricultural land use and animal

I

concentrations (GSWCC, NRCS) Monitor surface water quality in priority

watersheds (EPD)

XX

I

Establish and implement a 8MP monitoring

EPD

program

,-

seek funding

implement pilot tracking program

I

expand program according to funding Construct Geo-referenced agricultural database

SWCC, Federal, X X X

identify areas most subject to NPS pollution

NRCS, state,

I

model agricultural impacts on water quality and 8MP effectiveness

U-GACES,

319(h)

-Assess contribution of AFOs <300 AU FSA

I

-Develop mechanism for 8MP adoption rate feedback into database to update.

Develop comprehensive program including

planning. education, certification, record-keeping,

I

reporting. compliance checks, and monitoring. -Require annual reporting of records to

appropriate agency. Require signature

I

statement certifying compliance with penalty for falsification.

I

-Develop system for random compliance checks (for example, promote organization of

farm ing associations to hire a private scout

for rPM compliance checks).
I

EROSrON AND SEDIMENTATrON

I

No-till equipment demonstrations and rental

SWCD. Coastal X X X X X X

RCD

Manage-

ment

I

Program

I

V-26

I

o

o

maintenance and nutrient utilization through irrigation of lagoon effluent.

o

0 Incentives are proposed statewide for both voluntary and regulatory programs to insure that CNMPs are
developed and implemented. The goal is to reduce pollutant loading, and minimize the discharge of contaminants in

both facility wastewater and in run-off that is caused by storms. A CNMP should be reviewed and updated at least

once every 3 years, or whenever the crop rotation is changed or the nutrient source is changed. Records of nutrient

use and sources should be maintained along with other management records for each field. At present, there is no follow-up or updating of nutrient management plans. This too must be addressed as the Coastal Nonpoint Source Program develops.

o

In 2000 the Seven Rivers RC&D Council and Satilla SWCD purchased a (chicken) litter spreader to help fanners manage their manure and also to provide an inexpensive fertilizer. This litter spreader was purchased through a grant from Georgia's Coastal Management Program. The SWCD and RCD rent the spreader to local

o

0 fanners and also conduct an annual demonstration to introduce poultry producers to this new service. The workshops
also cover CES is the lead agency on developing an Agriculture Fertilizer BMP manual.

Pesticide lvfanagement

0 A major problem of pesticide contamination is the stockpiling of pesticide containers, due to the difficulty of

o disposing of them. The"re is an existing program, run by the GADOA, called the Georgia Clean Day, which provides
a collection service periodically for farm and household hazardous waste and containers. This collection service currently does not adequately cover farms in the coastal zone and will be a subject of action for the Coastal NPS

plan. Wayne County is in especial need of pesticide container roundup. The collection service would ideally service

counties on a regular and rotating basis. In support of these efforts, CRD wiII encourage a project that leads to the construction of a pesticide rinse

o

pad and conducts demonstrations for other producers. As a part of the project, a discussion of how to modify

pesticide application during (ongoing) no-till should be included.

nU

0

0

0

0

0
n
U

0

V-25

0

I

I

I

Leading agency: CES

TARGETS FOR ACTION

I

There is a general willingness and interest among agricultural producers to adopt BMPs, but there is a severe

lack of funding for implementation. It is not normally economically feasible for farmers to do these. BMPs that

I

satisfy multiple management measures should be a target for limited funds. If it is necessary to implement enforceable policies, it will be done via local ordinance, as opposed to new

state regulations. The following subcategories of agriculture are perceived as not meeting the (g) guidance

I

management measures and will be addressed by the program in the first five years. New activities will initially consist largely of improvements in record keeping and assessing the magnitude of the problems.

I

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Because of the limited information that is available with respect to AFOs within the coastal counties, a

I

procedure needs to be developed to assess the potential water pollution contribution from AFOs. A part of this procedure will include an inventory on the nature and extent of AFOs in the coastal zone.

To assess the degree of compliance with this management measure, the EPD will amalgamate all existing

I

records on the numbers of dairy, swine, poultry farms in the coastal zone and compile them into a database, along with a record of all complaint inspections regarding AFOs. To assure that all new animal farms are accounted for,

EPD will attempt to establish a registration process for all animal farms, as are to be done for swine farms.

I

EPD will be monitoring the BMP effectiveness by sampling base flow directly down-gradient from large operations. Where appl icable, animal waste management facilities capable of impacting surface waters will be monitored to obtain base line data. BMPs will be applied where they are needed and impact on water quality

assessed.

I

Abandoned animal waste lagoons and holding ponds from bankrupt farms are potential environmental liability. A grant program to properly de-commission these structures would be in order.

I

A Strategy will be developed to address the AFOs of less than 300 AU, including

Developing an educational program on nutrient management and the benefits of land application of

I

animal waste, targeting farm hands and small farm owners. An information packet for animal farmers who have operations with a smaller number of animals than those

that are regulated, and who are not required to create a nutrient management plan. This packet should

I

include information on runoff and the fate of nutrients in waterways, lagoon structural and storage specifications, and the benefits of land application of animal waste. In the poultry business. this information

could be distributed by the CES or by the Poultry Integrators.

I

Nutrient Management

I

A number of the targeted actions described above will help improve nutrient management in coastal counties. However. additional training will be needed to make producers aware of the current requirements for a CNMP.

Additionally, a nutrient management and monitoring manual for small farmers should be developed.

I

A gee-referenced agricultural database is being developed identifying areas most subject to NPS pollution. Potential improvements attributable to BMP adoption need to be incorporated into such a database.

The SWCC has implemented a demonstration project with producers to demonstrate effective lagoon

I V-24

I

lrrigation districts: lag in delivery of Not applicable in Georgia. irrigation water.

Leaching for salt control in soil.

Not applicable in Georgia.

Lim it the amount of water used for frost or freeze protection and retain applied water on site.

Not applicable in Georgia.

Utilization of water leakage to

Not applicable in Coastal Georgia.

support wetlands or wildlife refuges.

il~)fA1 @.
. IU LrL L1 .....

Assessment: There are very limited acres of irrigated lands in the coastal zone of Georgia. What irrigation that
is done is supplemental to the normal rainfall and is only performed to meet the crop requirements at a specific time in the growing cycle. There is little or no chemigation done in the coastal zone.
According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, there is a total of 5443 irrigated acres in entire coastal zone. Wayne County is in the lead with 4637 acres, with Brantley and Effingham counties having 374 and 334 irrigated acres, respectively. All but one of the other 8 counties have 7 or less irrigated acres. According to information Circular 90: Water Use in Georgia By County for 1990, irrigation use in the eleven-county coastal area is 7.35 million gallons or 0.8 % of the total annual withdrawal.
The SWCC has recently added three staff members statewide to provide technical assistance to farmers on matters of irrigation water management. One of these three is located in -Statesboro in Bulloch county. The jurisdiction of this field office includes the coastal zone.
Regarding backflow prevention, the Georgia AntiSiphon Act (Appendix) requires backflow prevention devices on chemigation equipment, and this is monitored by GADOA staff for compliance. In recent years, the GADOA have cited a large number of crop farmers for not having backflow prevention devices. Presently, they have achieved 100 percent compliance.

Leading agency: CES

V-23

o o
o o o o o o o
o
o o o o o
n
U
o o o

I

I

Long

4116

22

I

McIntosh
Wayne

1398 9900

15

I

Table v-L/: Acres of farmland in the coastal zone utilized for grazing. Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture.

The only programs active in Georgia are the afore-mentioned EQIP and Sodbuster programs and

I

the nationwide Grazing Land Conservation Initiative. The Grazing Land Conservation Initiative is an ongoing program based on national guidelines that have been modified to meet the needs and practices in

Georgia. The demonstration projects seek to improve the management of pasture and range lands, to reduce

I

nutrient and sediment loadings, and to improve water quality by implementing Resource Management Systems.

The information component of this program promotes Resource Management Systems by

featuring: (1) BMPs on pasture lands, (2) improvement of stream corridor management, (3) dissemination

I

of forage management information, (4) ecosystem management planning, and (5) identification and removal of barriers to BMP implementation. The Bl'vIPs related to grazing lands are outlined in the

Agricultural Best Management Practices for Protection Water Quality in Georgia.

I

The Grazing Land Conservation Initiative provides three-day hands-on training on grazing land techniques to personnelof the NRCS, GSWCC, SWCD, and CES. In addition, the initiative provides

technical assistance to livestock operators, producers, and consultants. Workshops convey up-to-date

I

grazing land principles-and BMPs including: pasture management, nutrient management, pest management, stream and water body protection, and agricultural waste management systems.

I

Lead agency: SWCC

I

FiManagement Measure for Irrigation Water Management

This management measure addresses irrigation scheduling, efficient application, and the control of

I

tailwater when chemigation is used. The efficient transport of irrigation water, the use of runoff or tailwater, and the management of drainage water are additional considerations. This management measure

is to be applied to activities on irrigated lands, including agricultural crop and pasture land (except for

I

isolated fields of less than 10 acres in size that are not contiguous to other irrigated lands); orchard land; specialty cropland; and nursery cropland.

I

I US EPA Management Measure Nonregulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal

Component

and Incentives

Georgia?

Operate irrigation systems so that Technical assistance from irrigation No

I

the timing and amount of water applied match crop needs.

equipment companies.

When chemigation is used, include N/A (GA AntiSiphon Act governs yes

I

backflow preventers for wells, minimize discharge from edge of

this topic)

field, and control deep percolation.

I

Water rights regarding return flow Not applicable in Georgia. or maintenance of stream flow

V-22
I

I

E.Management Measure for Grazing Management

For the purpose of this plan, grazing management measures are focused on the riparian zone, yet the control of erosion from range, pasture, and other grazing lands above the riparian zone is also encouraged. Application of this management measure will reduce the physical disturbance to sensitive areas and reduce the discharge of sediment, animal waste, nutrients, and chemicals to surface waters.
Range is defined as those lands on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential plant community) is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use. Pastures are those lands that are primarily used for the production of adapted, domesticated forage plants for livestock. Other grazing lands include woodlands, native pastures, and croplands producing forages. The focus of this measure is primarily on grazing management in riparian and wetland areas. For purposes of this guidance, riparian areas are defined (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986; Lowrance et al., 1988) as "vegetated ecosystems along a water body through which energy, materials, and water pass". Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent water body.

US EPA Management Measure Nonregulatory Mechanisms

component

and Incentives

To reduce the physical and water BMP demonstration projects, cost-

chemistry disrurbance near riparian sharing of exclusionary fencing and

zones, wetlands, lakes and ponds by development of alternative water

reducing direct loading of animal supplies (NRCS)

waste and sediment caused by

livestock.

1995 Farm Bill (Sodbusters

program. NRCS)

To implement the components of a Lagoons and fences are cost-shared CMS using the progressive planning by USDA Farm Bill programs. aooroach.

Measure Satisfied in Coastal

Georgia?

yes

-

Yes

Assessment: There is very little impact on the coastal zone by grazing due to the low topography in the area
and the small number and extent of grazing lands. The EPD is funding grazing BMP demonstrations using CWA 319[h] funds.

County
Brantley Bryan Camden Charlton Chatham Effingham Glynn Liberty

Number of Grazing Acres
7124 7238 8277 10,926 2296 7699 5430 3298

I Percent Farmland
grazed
26 28 44 54 26 15 70 16

Percent of Total County Land Grazed
2.6 2.5 2.1 2.2 .8 2.6 2.0 1.0

V-21

(I
J

II

I
I

LJ

o

o

.n.
o

o o o
n
U
o
i1
II
LJ
o
n
U
o
o o o

I

I

."~hen apPlicati~ns ~:e necess~ c~ ~te:ials p,j~nf~"0s n~~ClfiCallY The first clause of BMP #4;

pesticide

consider the persistence, toxrcity, and runoff and leachmg potential of

IS

exists,

I

addressed.

BMP #6: "use lower pesticide application rates than those called for by the label when the pest problem

I

can be adequately controlled using such lower rates." is not specifically addressed but is implicitly followed because the high cost of pesticides encourages minimal use.

I

BMP #9: "Integrated crop management system: A total crop management system that promotes the efficient use of pesticide and nutrients in an environmentally sound and economically efficient manner" is

not specifically addressed.

I

Producers must undergo Private Pesticide Applicator Certification in order to purchase restricted-

use pesticides. The workbook associated with this training, as well as the manual for commercial

certification, is provided in Appendix 30. Private applicators must first watch an informational video and

I

then take a test, whose topics cover basic safety in handling, relevant laws, and appropriate amounts to use per acre.

Related laws include the Georgia Anti-Siphon Act and the Structural Pest Control Act. The

I

Georgia Anti-Siphon Act requires that all irrigation systems used for chemigation be equipped with a backflow prevention device and a low pressure drain, and gives the GADOA the authority to inspect

irrigation systems for such devices. The Structural Pest Control Act gives the GA DOA the authority to

I

regulate the structural pest control industry, which includes companies treating structures for termites and other wood-destroying organisms, as well as household pests.

In order to establish compliance with all Georgia pesticides laws and FIFRA, the GADOA

I

maintains an extensive staff which performs inspections regarding the registration, application, and sale of pesticides in Georgia. These inspections may take place regarding the sites where pesticides are used,

such as farms, nurseries, forests, greenhouses and even lawns. The GADOA also has the authority to

I

inspect establishments where pesticides are sold, manufactured, and/or distributed. Violations may result in monetary penalties or the revocation of pesticide certification. In addition to these routine inspections,

the GADOA also investigates complaints regarding pesticide misuse. such as drift from the target area,

I

runoff events, or any use which violates label instructions. The GADOA has also implemented several programs which act to lessen the potential for both

point source and nonpoint source pollution from pesticides. The Georgia Clean Day program is a waste-

I

pesticide disposal program in which canceled, suspended. or unusable products and are collected and disposed of by an environmental waste disposal company. This program is implemented at numerous

sites throughout the state each year, and by coordinating through the local UGA extension agent in an

area, growers in that area are notified of this activity and can transport any unusable pesticide products in

I

their possession to a site for collection and disposal at no cost to the grower. Funds for this activity have been appropriated through the Georgia State Legislature. The Pesticide Container Recycling Program

helps growers combat the problem of empty pesticide container disposal. Containers must be triple-rinsed

I

and rendered unusable, at which time they may be sent to a recycling location. The degree to which farmers in the coastal zone practice Integrated Pest Management is

unknown, but is estimated to be high. IPM implementation in Georgia is not monitored nor ensured, but

I

is included as a part of all training programs in specialized crop production. These training programs are offered by the County Extension Service.

I

Lead agency: The Georgia Department of Agriculture

V-20
I

I

WfijiWrD: llA~~ cern'ficati.on program. If"inspection 0 f sites by th.e GADOA

ti f no mpliance, the

GADOA is authorized to enforce compliance with the above measures with t e enote ws. If an

instance of unregistered pesticide use is discovered, the GADOA will defer the case to the US EPA for

enforcement.

All pesticides distributed in Georgia must be registered with the GADOA and EPA, all restricted-

use pesticide dealers must be licensed, and any person issued a license, permit, or registration under the

provisions of the Georgia Pesticide Control Act must maintain records pertaining to the delivery,

movement, or holding of any pesticide or device including the quantity, the date of shipment and receipt,

and the name of the consignor and consignee.

The Georgia Pesticide Control Act of 1976 and FIFRA give the GADOA the authority to regulate

the labeling, distribution, storage, transportation, use and disposal of pesticides in Georgia. This includes

the licensing and certification of commercial and private pesticide applicators and pesticide contractors.

Commercial pesticide applicators are those individuals engaged in the application of a pesticide for a fee

and must pass a written examination administered by the GADOA in the appropriate category pertaining

to the nature of their particular method of application, in addition to an examination on general pesticide

use and safety. Private pesticide applicators must be trained as such by the University of.Georgia CES in

order to obtain a license. Pesticide contractors must be licensed as such pursuant to the Georgia Pesticide

Use and Application Act.

The Commercia.-l Pesticide Certification Program includes the following (g)-guidance BMPs:

#2. Consider the soil, geology, hydrology, and physical characteristics of the site including mixing, loading and storage areas for potential for the leaching and/or runoff of pesticides. Soil is not addressed per se. but general geology of the soil (sandy versus gravelly or clayed) an hydrology are stressed, as are proximity of wellheads.

#3. Use IPM strategies to minimize the amount of pesticides applied. IPM strategies include various methods such as biological controls, use of crop rotations to reduce pest problems; destruction of pest breeding, refuge. and over-wintering sites, resistant crop strains, and use of more efficient application methods.

#4. Users must apply pesticides in accordance with the instructions on the label of each pesticide product and. when required, must be trained and certified in the proper use of the pesticide.

#5. Maintain records of application of restricted use pesticides (product name, amount, approximate date of application. and location of application of each such pesticide used) for a 2-year period after such use, pursuant to the requirements in section 1491 of the 1990 Farm Bill.

#8. Recalibrate spray equipment each spray season and use anti-backflow devices on hoses used for filling tank mixtures.

# 10. Proper disposal of unused product and tank rinsewater.

BMP #1: " Inventory current and historical pest problems, cropping patterns, and use of pesticides for each field. This should include the following information for each field: Crops to be grown and a history of crop production; information on soils types; the exact number of acres within each field ... " This BMP is not specifically addressed in the certification manual except for the exact number of acres within each field, but this information is obtained in the seasonal planning process.

V-19

n
LJ
o o
D
LJ
o o
D
D
J
J
lu
J
J
o o
J
o

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

US EPA Management Measure Nonregulatory Mechanisms

Component

and Incentives

Evaluate the pest problems on site.
Evaluate the site's soil and physical characteristics.
Use of integrated pest management strategies.
Consider the persistence, toxicity, runoff potential, and leaching potential of products.

Pesticide applicators certification training program and ongoing recertification credits
Pesticide applicators certification training program and ongoing recertification credits
-Pesticide applicators certification training program and ongoing recertification credits -Specialized crop production workshops (County CES)
as above

Calibrate pesticide spray equipment.

as above

Use of anti-backflow devices on as above hoses used for filling tank mixtures.

Measure Satisfied in Coastal
Georgia? yes
yes
yes

yes ,
yes

yes

-

Assessment: The major agricultural pesticide/herbicides use within the coastal area include 2,4-d, Prowl,
Blazer/Basagran/Trifluralin/Treflan/Trilin, Aatrex/Atrazine, Gramoxone, Classic, Lexone/Sencor, and Lasso [alachlor] (compiled from the Georgia Herbicide Use Survey Summary, Monks and Brown, 1991). Since 1990. the use of alachlor in Georgia has decreased dramatically since peanut wholesalers no longer buy peanurs with alachlor. In both urban and agricultural areas, the herbicide atrazine, metaolachlor, and prometon are commonly found, but do not exceed EPA drinking water standards. Insecticides were not detected in groundwater, and they are more common in streams draining urban areas than in agricultural areas.
Nonherbicide pesticide use is difficult to estimate. According to Stell et al. (1995), pesticides other than herbicides are currently used only when necessary to control some type of infestation (nematodes. fungi, and insects). Other common nonherbicide pesticides include chlorothalonil, aldicarb, chlorpyifos. methomyl, thiodicarb, carbaryl, acephate. fonofos, methyl parathion. terbufos, disulfoton, phorate. triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH), and synthetic pyrethroids/pyrethrins. Application periods of principal agricultural pesticides span the calendar year in the basin. However, agricultural pesticides are applied most intensively and on a broader range of crops from March 1 to September 30 in any given year.
It should be noted that past uses of persistent agricultural pesticides that are now banned might continue to affect water quality within the coastal area, particularly through residual concentrations present in bottom sediments. A survey of pesticide concentration data by Stell et al. (1995) found that two groups of compounds had concentrations at or above minimum reporting levels in 56 percent of the water and sediment analyses. The first group included DDT and metabolites, and the second group included chlordane and related compounds (heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide) - while dieldrin was also frequently detected. The US EPA now bans all of these pesticides for use in the United States. but they might persist in the environment for long periods of time.
Producers are trained in the management measures in the GADOA's pesticide applicators

V-I8

r'
I
;I
LJ

'ILIJI
funding. The fertilizer manual and the nutrient management manual for small farms will be offered to
small producers via ongoing NRCS technical assistance and producer workshops.

Lead agency: NRCS/CES

I'!

The NRCS recommends the following management practices that should be considered in the

J

development of a nutrient management plan:

1.Use of soil surveys in determining soil productivity and identifying environmentally sensitive

J

sites.

2. Use of producer-documented yield history and other relevant information to determine realistic

crop yield expectations. ,.....,

3.Soil testing for pH, phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen.

U

4.Plant tissue testing .

-.
5. Manure, sludge, mortality compost, and effluent testing.

6. Use of proper timing, formulation, and application methods for nutrients that maximize plant

o

utilization of nutrients and minimize the loss to the environment, including split applications and

banding of the nutrients, use of nitrification inhibitors and slow-release fertilizers.

J

7. Use of small grain cover crops to scavenge nutrients remaining in the soil after harvest of the

principal crop, particularly on highly reachable soils. Consideration should be given to

establishing a cover crop on land receiving sludge or animal waste if there is a high leaching potential.

U

8. Use of buffer areas or intensive nutrient management practices to manage field limitations based on environmentally high-risk areas such as Karst topographic areas; lands near surface water;

J

high leaching index soils; irrigated land in humid regions; highly erodible soils; and shallow

aquifers.

J

9. Control of phosphorus losses from fields through a combination of the Erosion and Sediment

Control Measure and the Nutrient Management Measure.

l

\-..1

10. A narrative accounting of the nutrient management plan that explains the plan and its use.

D. Management Measure for Pesticide Management

J

The goal of this management measure is to reduce contamination of surface water and ground water from pesticides, by releasing fewer pesticides and/or less toxic pesticides into the environment and

J

by using practices that minimize the movement of pesticides to surface water and ground water.

J

V-17

J

J

I

I EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies -J LJU L~=.rr..::.l f;~laf0/1' Programs

I

Establish and maintain a streamside CWA as amended management zone along surface

waters, which is sufficiently wide

I

and which includes a sufficient

Endangered Species Act

number of canopy species to buffer

Georgia's BMP's for Forestry GFC annual BMP audit

against detrimental changes in the

I

temperature regime of the waterbody, to provide bank

stability, and to withstand wind

Master Timber Harvesters Certification for logging contractors and foresters.

damage.
I

Sustainable Forestry Initiative

Manage the SMZ in such a way as CWA as amended

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

I

to protect against soil disturbance
in the SMZ and delivery to the stream of sediments and nutrients

GA Water Quality Control Act

GFC annual BMP audit

generated by forestry activities,

I

including harvesting.

Master Timber Harvesters Certification -

I

Manage the SMZ canopy species to None provide a sustainable source of

large woody debris needed for

I

instream channel structure and aquatic species habitat.

Georgia's BMP for Forestry
Master Timber Harvesters Certification

I

Sustainable Forestry Initiative

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission

I Assessment: The section of Georgia's BMP manual for Forestry includes a section on SMZs. It

specifies the minimum width (dependant on bank slope), management practices, and practices to avoid

I

within the SMZ.

Since the slope of the land in the coastal zone rarely, if ever exceeds a 20% grade, the minimum

I

width of an SMZ is 40 feet for a perennial stream and 20 feet from an intermittent stream. Full specifications are provided in chapter 2 of the BMP manual in Appendix 23.

Amongst the BMPs for SMZ management are the required percentages of canopy that must

I

remain undisturbed after harvesting; 50% near a perennial stream or trout stream and 25% along intermittent streams. The manual also forbids the spraying of pesticides in the SMZ, forbids the passage

of firebreaks therein, forbids mechanical site preparation, refueling in the SMZ, and mechanical planting.

I

Periodic inspection of the SMZ to evaluate BMP effectiveness is included. Logging debris is removed from streams.

I

I

VI-8

I

n}fDJJ~,rpT1 n( C. Management Measures for Road ConstructionlReconstruction ':; . I l j LJ
Applicability: This management measure is intended for application by States on lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It is intended to apply to road construction/reconstruction operations for silvicultural purposes, including:

x

The clearing phase: clearing to remove trees and woody vegetation from the road right-of-way

X

The pioneering phase: excavating and filling the slope to establish the road centerline and

approximate grade

X

The construction phase: final grade and road prism construction and bridge, culvert, and road

drainage installation

X

The surfacing phase: placement and compaction of the roadbed, road fill compaction, and

surface placement and compaction (if applicable).

EPA Management Measure
I. Follow preharvest planning (as described under Management Measure A) when constructing or reconstructing the roadway.

Enforceable Policies
Section 404: Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
Board of Foresters certification stipulations

Nonregulatory Programs
-
Master Timber Harvester Certification
GFC water quality staff to inspect construction

2. Follow designs planned under Management Measure A for road surfacing and shaping.

Section 404; Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
Board of Foresters certification stipulations

GFC annual audit Master Timber Harvester Certification
GFC water quality staff to inspect construction

3. Install road drainage structures according to designs planned under Management Measure A and
regional storm return period and installation specifications. Match these drainage structures with terrain features and with road surface and prism designs.

Section 404; Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
Board of Foresters certification stipulations

GFC annual audit Master Timber Harvester Certification
GFC water quality staff to inspect construction
GFC annual audit

VI-9

o
o
o
o
D
o
J
n
J
o
J
]
J J

I

I EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

, PrQiU ams

I

4. Guard against the production of Section 404; Federally mandated

sediment when installing stream

Road Construction BMPs

Georgia's BMP for Forestry Certification

crossings.

I

CWA as amended

Master Timber Harvester

Certification

I

GA Water Quality Control Act

GFC water quality staff to inspect

construction

I On-Site Erosion Control manual

I

5. Protect surface waters from slash Section 404; Federally mandated and debris material from roadway Road Construction BMPs

Georgia's BMP for Forestry

clearing.
I

GA Water Quality Control Act

Master Timber Harvester Certification

I

GFC water quality staff to inspect construction

6. Use straw bales, silt fences,

Section 404; Federally mandated

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

I

mulching, or other favorable practices on disturbed soils on

Road Construction BMPs

unstable cuts, fills, etc.

I

Master Timber Harvester Certification

GFC water quality foresters to

I

inspect construction

On-Site Erosion Control manual

I

7. Avoid constructing new roads in Section 404; Federally mandated

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

SMZs to the extent practicable.

Road Construction BMPs

I

Master Timber Harvester Certification

I

I

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission

GFC water quality foresters to inspect construction

I

Assessment: BMPs must be implemented in order for a forestry operation to be exempt from permitting

I

VI-JO

I

1!j~Jl!D1r)Lt~ili!ljc' under CWA se:tion 404. There has never been a 404 violation in the

forestry operations. Some comphance problems occur from private

n

jurisdictional wetlands.

'. .

A study of turbidity measurements both upstream and downstream of 9 selected logging sites on the lower coastal plain was conducted by the GFC in 1993 (Appendix 10). This survey showed that the highest downstream increase in turbidity was 11.1 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) at average low flow, and in many cases turbidity was decreased downstream of the logging sites.

D. Management Measures for Road Management

Applicability: This management measure applies to active and inactive roads constructed or used for silvicultural activities.

EPA Management Measure
1. Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw periods on roads not designed and constructed for these conditions.
2. Evaluate the future need for a road and close roads that will not be needed. Leave closed roads and drainage channels in a stable condition to withstand storms.

Enforceable Policies
None
None

Nonregulatory Programs
Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
-
GFC Water Quality Foresters to evaluate road use and maintenance
Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
GFC Water Quality Foresters to evaluate road use and maintenance

3. Remove drainage crossings and culverts if there is a reasonable risk of plugging or failure from lack of maintenance.

None

4. Following completion of harvesting. close and stabilize temporary spur roads and seasonal roads to control and direct water away from the roadway. Remove all temporary stream crossings.

Section 404; Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs
GA Water Quality Control Act

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
GFC Water Quality Foresters to evaluate road use and maintenance Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
GFC Water Quality Foresters to evaluate road use and maintenance
On-Site Erosion Control manual

VI-II

o
n
!I LJ
l.
u
o
'l
U
o
o
J J
o
i
:u I
o

I

I

EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

I

5. Inspect roads to determine the need for structural maintenance.

Section 404; Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs

Conduct maintenance practices,

I

when conditions warrant, including

cleaning and replacement of

GA Water Quality Control Act

GFC Water Quality Foresters to evaluate road use and maintenance

deteriorated structures and erosion

I

controls, grading or seeding of road surfaces, and, in extreme cases,

slope stabilization or removal of

On-Site Erosion Control manual

road fills where necessary to

I

maintain structural integrity.

6. Conduct maintenance activities, Section 404; Federally mandated Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

I

such as dust abatement. so that chemical contaminants or pollutants are not introduced into

Road Construction BMPs

GFC Water Quality Foresters to

surface waters to the extent

GA Water Quality Control Act

evaluate road use and maintenance

I

practicable.

I

7. Properly maintain penn anent stream crossings and associated

Section 404; Federally mandated Road Construction BMPs

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

fills and approaches to reduce the

I

likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads, and (b) that fill erosion will occur if the

GA Water Quality Control Act

GFC Water Quality Foresters to evaluate road use and maintenance

drainage structures become

I

obstructed.

I

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission

Assessment: Since most forestry operations in coastal Georgia occur adjacent to forested wetlands, all

I

roads are constructed to be suitable for transport in wet conditions. The shallow topography of the coastal zone presents a relative minimum of erosion potential from improved roads, which in the coastal

zone are usually fortified with gravel or revegetated. It is in the best interest of foresters to stabilize and

I

maintain access roads and drainage structures in the marshy terrain of the coastal zone. Stream crossings are minimized in the planning process in accordance to the BMP manual. The

15 provisions of the CWA, section 3.3.1 for stream crossings are the standard procedure.

I

Temporary access roads usually self-revegetate; the climate in coastal Georgia is very conducive

to rapid weed colonization on virtually any bare soil. When necessary, temporary or obsolete roads are

retired by reshaping and/or constructing water bars at intervals dependant on the road grade; in the

I

coastal zone the distance will average between 125 and 245 feet.

In the coastal zone, where unfilled land is often under standing water for at least parts of the

I

year, well-maintained water control structures on roads are vital for access. It is common for nonindustrial forestry operations to neglect access roads and leave them unstabilized.

I

VI-12

I

E. Management Measures for Timber Harvesting

Iff)m~ifif

Applicability: This management measure applies to all harvesting, yarding, and hauling conducted as part of normal silvicultural activities on harvest units larger than 5 acres. This measure does not apply to harvesting conducted for precommercial thinning or noncommercial firewood cutting.

EPA Management Measure
I. Timber harvesting operations with skid trails or cable yarding follow layouts determined under Management Measure A.

Enforceable Policies
Not applicable in Georgia

2. Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedimentation to the extent practicable. Disperse landing drainage over sides lopes.
.-

CWA as amended
GA Water Quality Control Act
Note: There are no sideslopes in coastal Georgia operations.

3. Construct landings away from steep slopes and reduce the likelihood of fill slope failures. Protect landing surfaces used during wet periods. Locate landings outside of SMZs.

CWA as amended GA Water Quality Control Act

Nonregulatory Programs
Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
Master Timber harvester certification Georgia's BMPs for ,Forestry
Master Timber harvester certification
-
On-Site Erosion Control Manual Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
..
Master Timber harvester certification

4. Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral drainages from logging debris and slash material.

CW A as amended GA Water Quality Controil Act

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
Master Timber harvester certification

5. Use appropriate areas for petroleum storage, draining, dispensing. Establish procedures to contain and treat spills. Recycle or properly dispose of all waste materials. Report all spills to proper govemmant agencies as required.

CW A as amended
EPA 40 CFR part 112
Georgia Oil or Hazardous Materials Spills or Release Act (EPD)

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
Master Timber harvester certification
SPCC (Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter measures) Plan

o o
o
o o
o
J
J
o
o

VI-13
o

I

I

EPA Management Measure

Enforceable Policies

Nonr~latoryPrograms

I

For cable yarding:
I.Limit yarding corridor gouge or soil plowing by properly locating

Not applicable in coastal Georgia

Ul;Jltll

I

cable yarding landings. 2.Locate corridors for SMZs

following Management Measure 8.

I

For groundskidding:

CWA as amended

Georgia's 8MPs for Forestry

I.Within SMZs, operate

I

groundskidding equipment only at GA Water Quality Control Act stream crossings to the extent

Master Timber harvester certification

practicable. In SMZs, fell trees

away from watercourse to avoid

I

sedimentation.

2.Use improved stream crossings

On-Site Erosion Con,trol Manual

for skid trails which cross flowing

I

drainages. Construct skid trails to disperse runoff and with adequate

GFC annual audit
-

drainage structures.

#3 not applicable in coastal

I

3.On steep slopes, use cable

Georgia

systems rather than groundskidding

where groundskidding may cause

I

excessive sedimentation.

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission
I

Assessment: BMPs must be implemented in order for a forestry operation to be exempt from permitting

I

under C\VA section 404. Compliance is excellent for commercial operations (see documentation in Appendix 9). Some compliance problems occur from private landowners operating in jurisdictional

wetlands.

I

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative recommends a maximum of 120 continuous acres for clearcut harvesting. A typical clear-cut area in coastal Georgia is 70 continuous acres . Clear-cutting of sites

are alternated both geographically and temporally, and vegetated buffer zones are maintained.

I F. Site Preparation and Forest Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure applies to all site preparation and regeneration activities

conducted as part of normal silvicultural activities on harvested units larger than 5 acres.
I

Objective: Confine on-site potential NPS pollution and erosion resulting from site preparation and the

I

regeneration of forest stands according to the following:

I

VI-14

I

.. ,._.. -_. _.,_#_ _. .._... _~--

EPA Management Measure
l.Select a method of site preparation and regeneration suitable for the site conditions.

Enforceable Policies

nmfii ~
--...J r..J"\, ..\. I~&~u I~ Pr~~~ams
Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
NRCS County Soil maps to determine species to plant and techniques to use

2. Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site preparation activities on the contour of sloping terrain.

Not applicable in coastal Georgia

3 .Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in streamside management zone.

CW A as amended

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
I

4 .Protect surface waters from logging debris and slash material.

CW A as amended

GA Water Quality Control Act

5. Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment used begins to cause excessive soil disturbance that will increase erosion.

CWA as amended GA Water Quality Control Act

6. Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainages and SMZs to control movement of the material during high runoff conditions.

CW A as amended GA Water Quality Control Act

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry Georgia's BMPs for Forestry Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

7.Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the year. Conduct bedding in sloping areas on the contour.

CW A as amended

S.Protect small ephemeral drainages when conducting mechanical tree planting.

CWA as amended GA Water Quality Control Act

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

Assessment: The above measures are addressed in the Georgia BMP manual for Forestry (Appendix 23).

VI-IS

o
o
J
o
l
c...J
o
n
iI
LJ
o
]
o
o
o
o
D
o

I

I

ff:WA BM~s orde~. f~r be.e~~~l) must be i.mplemented in

a forestry operation to

;. I

I

~ :11:1' section 404. It IS in the b~st econo~lc mter.est of forest?' companies to s. s d oAe a i d . g wet

weather, to conduct bedding operations during the dry time of year, and to t

aint drainage

areas from clogging, as the majority of forestry operations occur in lowland areas WIt sha water

table and standing water is common. Some compliance problems occur from private landowners

I

operating in jurisdictional wetlands, usually regarding the harvesting of natural-growth trees. There is a greater demand for timber during rainy seasons, and it is more profitable for private landowners to

harvest and sell their timber at this time.

I G. Fire Management Measures

I

Applicability: This t measure applies to all prescribed burning conducted as part of normal silvicultural

activities on harvested units larger than 5 acres and for wildfire suppression and rehabilitation on forest

I

lands.

I

EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

Nonregulatory Programs

I. Intense prescribed fire ;hould

CW A as amended

Georgia's BivfFs for Forestry

I

not cause excessive sedimentation due to the combined effect of removal of canopy species and the

GA Water Quality Control Act

GFC Prescribed Burn Certification

loss of soil-binding ability of

I

subcanopy and herbaceous vegetation roots, especially in

GFC Burn Permit conditions

(University of Georgia offers shortcourses in fire/smoke management)

SMZs, in streamside vegetation for

I

small ephemeral drainages. or on very steep slopes.

2. Prescriptions for prescribed fire CW A as amended

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

I

should protect against excessive erosion or sedimentation to the

GFC Prescribed Bum Certification

extent practicable.

GA Water Quality Control Act

(U.G .A. offers short-courses in

fire/smoke management)

I

3. All bladed firelines, for

CWA as amended

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

prescribed fire and wildfire, should

I

be plowed on contour or stabilized

with water bars and/or other

GA Water Quality Control Act

GFC Prescribed Burn Certification

appropriate techniques if needed to

control excessive sedimentation or

I

erosion of the fireline,

(U.G.A. offers short-courses in fire/smoke management)

4. Wildfire suppression and

CW A as amended

Wildfire suppression conducted

I

rehabilitation should consider possible NPS pollution of

and supervised by GFC and/or USFS

watercourses. while recognizing

GA Water Quality Control Act

I

the safety and operational priorities of fighting wildfires.

\,

I

VI-16

I

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission
Assessment: Prescribed burns require a permit from the GFC. Staff conducting the burn must be certified by GFC. Prescribed burns on a typical plantation take place once in 3 years, and burn approximately 2% of the total acreage.
H. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Management Measure
Applicability: This measure applies toall disturbed areas resulting from harvesting, road building, and site preparation conducted as part of normal silvicultural activities. Disturbed areas are those localized areas within harvest units or road systems where mineral soil is exposed or agitated (e.g., road cuts, fill slopes, landing surfaces, cable corridors, or skid trail ruts).

EPA Management Measure

Enforceable Policies

l.Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planting) promptly after completion of the earth-disturbing activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishment of vegetative cover.

CWA section 404 criteria for permit exemption

2.Use mixes of species and treatments developed and tailored for successful vegetation establishment for the region or area.
VI-17

Nonregulatory Programs SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative: Local plan to reforest cutover stands
American Pulpwood Association's (APA) Forestrv Aesthetics Guide
NRCS/DNR- WRD* Game Management Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Stewardship Incentive Program SIP
On-Site Erosion Control manual SF! Sustainable Forestry Initiative: Local plan to reforest cutover stands
American Pulpwood Association's Forestrv Aesthetics Guide
Conservation Reserve Program
Stewardship Incentive Program SIP

o o
o
o o o o o
o
o
J
o o
o o

I

I

EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

I

3.Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on priority areas such as

disturbed areas in SMZs or the

I

steepest areas of disturbance near drainages.

I

I

American Pulpwood Association's Forestrv Aesthetics Guide
CRP
Stewardship Incentive Program SIP

I

Lead Agency: Georgia Forestry Commission

Assessment: A particular area is harvested at a frequency dependant on the type of tree; approximately

I

every 23-25 years for pine crops and approximately 50-60 yrs hardwood. Harvesting is done in areas of less than 120 continuous acres, leaving vegetated buffers around the harvest area. The 15 BMPs

specified by CWA section 404(b) are met in coastal Georgia most often by revegetation. Diversity of the

I

replacement vegetation is enhanced by the rapid propagation of weeds at virtually every time of year in this location.

I

I. Forest Chemical Management Measures

I

Applicability: This measure applies to all fertilizer and pesticide applications (including biological

agents) conducted as part of normal silvicultural activities.

I EPA Management Measure Enforceable Policies

Nonregulatory Programs

I

I.Conduct applications by skilled and, where required, licensed

CW A as amended

Georgia's BMPs for Forestry

applicators according to the

I

registered use, with special consideration given to impacts to

Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1976

University of Georgia Cooperative

nearby surface waters.

Extension Service

I

EPA Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR 156 and 170)

I

I
VI-18
I

I

EPA Management Measure
2.Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropriate for the insect, fungus, or herbaceous species.

Enforceable Policies

3.Prior to applications of pesticides and fertilizers, inspect the mixing and loading process and the calibration of equipment, and identify the appropriate weather conditions, the spray area, and buffer areas for surface waters.

Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1976
EPA Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR 156 and 170)

4.Establish and identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially important for aerial
applications.)

CWA as amended
Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1976

5.Immediately report accidental spills of pesticides or fertilizers into surface waters to the appropriate State agency. Develop an effective spill contingency plan to contain spills.

EPA 40 CFR
Georgia Pesticide Use and and Applicators Act of 1976
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act

Technical assistance from University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service
Georgia's BMPs for forestry
Technical assistance from University of GA Cooperative Extension Service Georgia's BMPs for Forestry
SPCC (Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures) Plan

Georgia Oil or Hazardous Materials Spills or Releases Act

Lead Agency: Georgia Department of Agriculture

Assessment: It is in the best economic interest of any forestry operation to minimize the use of pesticides due to their cost and cost of application. Appl ication is done by professional applicators licensed in pesticide application by the Georgia Department of Agriculture (GA DOA). No application is done in the SMZs. All pesticides are approved by the GA DOA and are approved for aquatic use. Detailed records of amounts, type, and frequency of application are kept by the applicator and these records are audited by GA DOA. In commercial operations the pesticides are applied in two ways:
I. To clear a site of unwanted hardwoods prior to planting, herbicides are delivered by helicopter using rnicrofoil booms, which drip large droplets of the pesticide that do not undergo much dispersion or wind transport. The microfoil booms are capable of very precise delivery to the target area. This is not done much in the coastal zone; there are too few hardwoods in forestry sites to warrant it.

VI-19

o
n
u
n
LJ
o o
o un
o
Cl
o
o

I

I

~ (jj1~aQltl'aj 2. Controlling understory in a plantation is necessary for
severity of fires. Herbicides such as Arsenal and Garlon

e
0 I i:P i d

fEUCing the

c

rcial operations

I

one to three times throughout the growing cycle of a planted area,

s

eve to 8 years. These

applications are delivered by a tractor with two booms after covering the unp ante rth in between the

planting beds so that herbicides are only delivered to the crop row itself.

I

J. Wetlands Forest Management Measures

I

Applicability: This management measure addresses the operational circumstances and management

practices appropriate for forested wetlands.

I

EPA Management Measure

Enforceable Policies

Nonregulatory Programs

I

Plan, operate, and manage normal, CWA as amended

ongoing forestry activities

Endangered Species Manual for protection of specific listed species

(including harvesting, road design

I

and construction, site preparation and regeneration, and chemical

Section 404: Federally mandated road construction BMPs

American Pulpwood Association's

management) to adequately protect

Foresrrv Aesthetics Guide

I

the aquatic functions of forested wetlands.

Endangered Species Act

SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative

I

Master Timber Harvesters

Certification

I

On-Site Erosion Control manual

I

Lead Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I

Assessment: Commercial forestry operations, originally for practical economic purposes, planted harvestable trees on the naturally existing relative uplands that serve as "islands" in the forested wetlands

of coastal Georgia. Large-scale conversion of wetlands would be expensive, high-maintenance, and not

I

worthwhile from a business standpoint. However, commercial forestry companies whose land holdings include wetland areas often harvest hardwoods from the wetlands on their property approximately every

60 years. Mechanical replanting is allowed in wetlands, as categorized into 9 wetland types in the BMP

I

manual but needs a section 404 permit. In spite of this, some large commercial companies choose to conduct no site preparation/replanting in wetlands, but instead a certain number of adult hardwoods are

left standing to provide seed to regenerate the forest.

I

Vegetated buffer zones (usually featuring hardwoods) are left between harvest sites and adjacent wetlands in addition to designated SMZs. Some drainage canals have been cut through wetlands in the

past. Creation of canals that cause minor effects to wetlands is allowed under the silivculture exemption

I

from the section 404 permitting process. To qualify for exemption, canals cannot block or alter natural flow of U.S. waters or convert wetlands to uplands. What qualifies as "minor effects" is difficult to

I

VI-20

I

interpret, so few new canals are presently dug.
Conclusion Despite the scarcity of applicable regulations and permits for forestry in Georgia, nonregulatory
programs have done an excellent job at assuring and auditing BMP compliance amongst commercial forestry operations. The Forestry BMP manual was revised in late 1998, and contains BMPs that directly address all of the EPA management measures.
Commercial operations have been documented as having a high (88%) rate of compliance with management measures through BMP implementation. However, there is less documented information on private landowners with smaller acreage that seek to harvest timber from their property, and it is estimated by the GFC that there is a low rate of compliance with management measures across the board in this sector. Private landowners will typically contract a logger directly, or operate through a forestry consultant or procurement specialist from a commercial company. Forestry consultants and timber procurement specialists are required to be certified with the State Board of Registration for Foresters and thus are well-versed in BMPs and face losing their license if their operations do not meet the minimum operating standards set by the Georgia Board of Foresters. However, there are some loggers who choose not to attend the Master Timber Harvester program, despite the fact that some of the larger timber companies refuse to do ?usiness with loggers who have not had this training. It is likely that private landowners engaging these logging companies are those with the poorest BMP compliance.
To address this problem, The AFPA , via the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, is in the process of mailing information and a survey form to all private landowners of forested lands over 50 acres. The mailing contains abundant information on BMPs, cost-share programs for conservation of forested acres, and associations and agencies that provide free assistance in installing conservation practices and BMPs. The survey assesses the landowner's familiarity with BMPs and sustainable forestry. This outreach is being done on a county by county basis; at the time of this writing five counties have been canvassed and survey results have been returned at a rate of 15~/o.
The GFC is striving to increase outreach and education of private landowners to address this problem. This effort will be monitored by the Coastal Nonpoint Source program.
Due to the excellent documentation and high rate of compliance, no changes are sought in the forestry sector by the Coastal Nonpoint Source Program. However. BMP compliance data will continue to be monitored.
VI-21

J
o
nU
o
J
o o o o
o o o
o o
J

I

I I

The 1990 task force report, We:~:iV~:::~::::iShed!~r!l~b~Jl
source management in Georgia. The task force was convened in 1988 to assist the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources in defining nonpoint source impacts on urban streams. The task force's report

I

emphasized the importance of cooperative partnerships and building working relationships between the units of government responsible for land and water quality management. The task force recognized two

major impediments to effective management of the quality of urban impacted water bodies. The first is the

I

division between statutory responsibilities for water quality, granted to EPD, and local government's Constitutional responsibility for management of the land activities that affect urban water bodies. The

second impediment is the widespread nature of nonpoint sources and the variety of activities which may

I

contribute to impacts from urban runoff. They concluded that management of urban nonpoint source

pollution would require a cooperative partnership between layers of government, the private sector, and the

I

general public.

Urban Pollutant Sources

I

I. Pollutants From Paved Areas

Parking lots, roads, and other paved areas accumulate fluids that leak from automobiles and any

I

auto maintenance conducted on a paved surface; the resulting accumulation of motor oil, gasoline, solvents, and dissolved metals wash into ditches and streams during rain storms. According to the US

Geological Survey Report: Water Quality in the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain. 1992-1996, Lead,

I

Chromium. Zinc, and Mercury were found in urban stream sediment samples at levels that could adversely affect aquatic organisms in several samples (USGS, 1996).

Areas that have a high percentage of pavement can also impact a region's hydrology. An increase

I

in a region's impermeable ground cover (paved areas) reduces the amount of rainwater that can infiltrate into the groundwater. In a severe case this could result in a drop in the decline of the groundwater level

and consequently, a drop in stream base flow. The increased runoff from paved areas enters waterways in

I

a shorter time, resulting in increased flooding and severity. Increased severity of flooding will in turn increase stream bank erosion.

I

2. Pollutants from Residential and Commercial Lawns

Pesticides and herbicides are routinely used in abundance to treat lawns for various recurrent pest

I

problems. The subtropical climate of Georgia is one that supports a robust and diverse population of various pests, which continues to grow and diversify with the continuing problem of imported exotic

insects and plants, including the problematic fire ant. The more common routine pest treatments in Georgia

I

are:



Fire ant control



Weed control

I

Termite control Roach control

Mole cricket control

I

Seasonal mosquito control

I

VII-l

I

I

I I

p~olifecate th~ in[ff)~ fiiJ:[2 Weeds

throughout year in Georgia. It is becoming

U them with herb icides as opposed to mowing or other nonchemical controls.

't;!'j7]""nU

According to the USGS report cited above, pesticides in general are more commonly found in

steams draining urban areas than in agricultural areas. The herbicides atrazine, metaolachlor, and

I

prometon are commonly found in urban streams but do not exceed EPA drinking water standards. Concentrations of the pesticide diazinon exceed guide Iines for protection of aquatic life in urban streams in

about 20% of the water samples taken. Insecticides were not detected in groundwater.

I

Lawn Fertilizers are often applied to turf areas in greater abundance than is needed, especially on

golf courses, which are becoming increasingly abundant in coastal Georgia. In order to meet the high

I

aesthetic lawn standards of golf courses, the latter are treated with a large amount of fertilizer and pesticides. some of which runs off. Fertilizers break down into the nutrients nitrate and phosphate, which

in waterways can trigger rapid algal growth, the die-off of which may lead to low dissolved oxygen levels

I

in the water.

3. Septic Systems

I

On-site septic systems are commonly installed in new subdivisions in the coastal zone. The first occurrence of groundwater is within a few feet of the ground surface, making it likely that contamination

by the septic tank leachate will occur. A great deal of residential development is occurring on the

I

waterfront: if such developments are serviced by on-site septic tank systems, there is a short path from the drainfield to the waterway.

In addition to the fertilizing-type nutrients that exist in septic tank effluent, it may contribute

I

harmful bacteria such as E. Coli and other pathogens.

.i Construction ofRoads and Buildings

I

Building and road construction causes increased erosion of topsoil by stripping off vegetation at the construction site. If there is inadequate erosion control on-site, topsoil (sediment) washes into nearby

waterways. often in great quantities. Too much sediment in waterways has an adverse effect on the fish

I

breeding habitat on the bottom of waterways. Many pollutants, such as dissolved toxic metals, some types

of pesticides. and other synthetic organic compounds adhere to fine sediment particles and will be

I

transported through waterways along with the sediment.

5. Trash

I

Plastic and paper domestic trash is a significant problem along coastal Georgia's river and stream banks as well as in the waterways themselves. In some rural areas, large appliances and furniture are

informally dumped in ditches and canals. Trash pick-up from dumpsters in many rural public areas is

I

infrequent and overflowing dumpsters are common. Plastic trash in the form of bags and wrappers can be fatal to marine mammals, sea birds, and sea turtles once in the marine environment. This kind of trash

enters waterways not only via boaters but with runoff. and also by eolian transport (wind).

I

Urban Areas in the Coastal Zone

Nonpoint source pollution from urban sources is a significant problem in coastal Georgia. As

I

suburban ization increases along the coast, so wi II the as soc iated runoff from paved areas and landscaped

I

I

'0' fil r2~ POPulWfDa)W~1&ac areas. The eleven county coastal area of Georgia has a combined

0 ding

to the 2000 census. The population is mainly centered on the urban area of Savannah /Chatham,

Effingham, and Bryan Counties with a population of293,000, and the smaller urban centers at

Brunswick/St. Simons Island /Glynn County at 67,568, Hinesville/Liberty County at 61,610 and

Kingsland/St. Marys /Camden County at 43,664. The overall population of the area, however, is largely

rural (67%) With 430 people per square mile, only Chatham County's population density exceeds the State

average of 112 people per square mile.

According to the 2000 Census, the population of coastal Georgia increases a substantial 27%

from 1990. This continues a trend in population growth on the coast, which has exceeded 200% since 1930

in some counties. With the influx of expected retirement communities the coastal urban/suburban areas are

expected to increase significantly.

With regards to urban nonpoint source impacts, the focus of this section of the plan will be on the

Savannah metropolitan area and the Brunswick/St. Simons Island area, areas that are characteristically

urban.

Existing Urban Nonpoint Source Programs
Georgia's Statewide Nonpoint Source Program In addition to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater
permitting program, the EPD has had, since 1989, a statewide Nonpoint Source Management Program, established under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, that brings to focus a variety of state agencies and their programs to address components of urban nonpoint source pollution. This program funds various voluntary efforts, including small watershed projects, which address many aspects of the pollution prevention management measure and provide education, outreach and technical assistance to various groups and agencies. In addition, the Coastal Management Program has funded through Coastal Incentive Grants a number of projects aimed at the prevention, monitoring and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution in the coastal area.
The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Control of erosion and sedimentation during urban construction is primarily though the Georgia
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act. It provides a mechanism for controlling erosion and sedimentation from all land-disturbing activities greater than 1.1 acres (any person responsible for land disturbance on an area 1.1 acres or less. within 200-feet of lakes or perennial streams, must prevent sediment from moving beyond boundaries of the property). The Act establishes a permit process for land-disturbing activities, with several exemptions from permitting (described in Chapter II). To receive a permit, an applicant must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan which incorporates specific best management practices (BMPs).
In most of the coastal area, local governments have adopted a general erosion and sedimentation ordinance and have been given the authority (with overview for EPD and the Soil and Water and Conservation Districts (SWCD to issue and enforce permits for land-disturbing activities. In those areas where the local government has not been certified as an issuing authority, the EPD is responsible for issuing and enforcing land disturbance permits.
VII-3

o
o
o o o
o
o
o o
o
o o
o o
o o
o
o

I I

~rf(m~lI
Urban activities exempt from permitting include construction of single-family residences which

are not part of a platted subdivision, construction or maintenance of roads by state and local governments,

I

utilities projects, and land-disturbing activities conducted by public utilities. BMPs that must be used for these activities and other land-disturbing activities incorporate a variety of procedures and technologies,

including maintenance of buffer zones along streams. In the coastal zone, land-disturbing activities shall

I

not be conducted within 25 feet of state waters unless a variance is obtained from the EPD. The Director of the EPD may grant variances allowing construction within the 25 feet buffer with proper justification

and or mitigation. Under the proposed revisions to the policy, variance requests will require

I

documentation of approved erosion and sedimentation control plans and a conservation easement to offset

the encroachment proposed requirements.

I

The Georgia Sewage Holding Tank Act

In Georgia, the Department of Human Resources (GADHR) has primary authority to regulate

I

individual and non-domestic on-site sewage management systems, including septic systems. On- site sewage management systems are regulated under the Georgia Sewage Holding Tank Act which provides

that, for a building permit to be issued, anyon-site sewage management must conform to statewide rules

I

and regulations established by GADHR. Each county board of health is required to assure compliance with these statewide rules and regulations. At a minimum, local regulations specify the locations where systems

may be installed and where installation is prohibited; the minimum lot size or land area to be served by the

I

septic tank or individual sewage management system; the types of residences, buildings, or facilities which may be served by a septic tank or individual sewage management systems; permit requirements for on-site

sewage management systems; and provide for inspections of these systems prior to use. Minimum lot sizes

I

are based. in part. on soil characteristics and susceptibility of groundwater pollution. Local regulations also generally provide for repair or replacement permits for failing systems. In addition, all persons installing

on-site sewage management systems in Georgia must be certified by GADHR. Revised rules and

I

regulations and technical guidance for on-site sewage management were drafted by GADHR in 1999. EPD, under authority of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, works with the local health departments

to provide enforcement in those cases where fail ing on-site systems are impacting waters of the state.
I Protection of Tidal Wetlands

I

The Coastal Marshland Protection Act establishes state regulation of tidal wetlands. The Act limits certain activities and the construction of certain structures in marsh areas and requires permits for other

activities and structures. The Coastal Marshland Protection Act affects over 700.000 acres, including all

I

marshland within the estuarine area of the State. The estuarine area is defined as all tidally-influenced waters, marshes, and marshland lying below a tide-elevation of 5.6 feet above mean tide level. Coastal or

salt marshes are defined by the presence of specified vegetation, intertidal areas, mud flats, and tidal water

I

bottoms. Erecting structures, dredging, or filling marsh areas requires a marsh permit from the Coastal Marshland Protection Committee as directed by the Act.

Exemptions from the Act include activities of the Department of Transportation. public utilities,

I

and federal and state agencies responsible for maintaining navigation of rivers and harbors.

Nonregulatorv Programs

I

The management of our urban streams and rivers is furthered by a range of non-regulatory

I

VII-4

I

programs that complement the above requirements. Non.regUlatoJ],illLiJ flrti'1[:g)1lI1lS,
cinzen Involvement efforts, and technical assistance and education. The Darien River Improvement Project is a pilot program set up to address a variety of pollution
sources to the Darien River. Pollutants entering the Darien River from a small commercial area ranged from leaking fuel storage tanks, a failing lift station, trash and demolition debris, a boat hull servicing center that operated with no BMPs, and other sources. The EPD contacted each commercial property owner that was suspected of contributing to river contamination and offered amnesty from fines if they were willing to clean up their sites according to EPD specifications within a certain time frame. The project consisted of a one-time large-scale cleanup of the existing pollution and two educational workshops that introduced BMPs to all waterfront user groups, explained the pollution contributions to the river, the regulations involved, and the benefits of a cleanup. The project was a tremendous success and will be used as a model for other areas.
Tax benefits for land conservation are provided through the Conservation Use Program. Under this program, Georgia offers a tax incentive to qualifying property owners who wish to enter into a conservation covenant. Wetlands, floodplains, significant biological habitats, undeveloped/barrier islands are included in the conservation program. Tax benefits can also be gained by establishing a conservation easement on property in stream and river corridors under the Georgia Uniform Conservation Easement
- Act. To date there are three land trusts offices in the coastal area: Savannah, Tybee I-sland.. and Sapelo
Island. The recently implemented Georgia Greenspace Program has established a trust fund for rapidly
developing counties in Georgia to apply for land acquisition grants. Purchased land would be permanently protected from development and serve resource protection and passive recreational purposes. The program also established a State Greenspace Commission, that is responsible for establishing program rules and reviewing county grant applications. Eligible and willing participating counties will have to establish a matching Community Greenspace Trust Fund and develop a local greenspace program which would include, among other things, documentation of existing greenspace, modification of existing land use and zoning ordinances, and a 10 year strategy for purchasing 20 percent of the county's land as permanently protected greenspace.
Georgia Adopt-a-Stream is a citizen involvement and water quality monitoring program focusing on nonpoint source pollution. Volunteers adopt a section of stream, river, lake or wetland for one year. During that time they evaluate water quality and habitat conditions, pick-up litter, and increase community awareness 0 f these resources.
A number of other community-based initiatives are under way in Georgia to promote the protection of specific streams and rivers and their watershed. The Georgia Conservancy has initiated a statewide watershed protection group addressing watersheds in each of the 15 major river basins in the state. To date, in the Coastal area, the Ogeechee River group has been convened. In addition the S1. Marys River Basin Management Committee formed by appointed members from the four counties along the St. Marys (Baker and Nassau in Florida, Camden and Charlton in Georgia) has been an active community based watershed group since 1991.
Management Agencies for Implementation
The Georgia EPD has a primary role in management of urban runoff. EPD has been delegated authority to administer a variety of permit programs, including permitting ofstonn water discharges. EPD
VII-5

o
o
o o
o
o
nu
o o
o
o
o
o o
J
o
nu
o

I I

g~oundwater espeCial~,(fJ ,Q f2U ~~~m~f, uses its permit and regulatory powers to ensure

protection,

groundwater recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. Five regional offices are

I

monitoring, inspection, and enforcement under certain permit programs. In addition to these regulatory activities, EPD seeks to assist in development of local solutions to water quality problems; provide

technical information on the water resources of the state; administer grant programs with funds from

I

various sources to support nonpoint source planning and assessment; and implement BMPs and regional or local watershed management initiatives. EPD also conducts a variety of outreach and educational

activities addressing urban runoff in general, regulatory requirements, and cooperative or non-regulatory

approaches.

I

The Georgia Department of Communitv Affairs (DCA) is the state's principal agency responsible for implementing the coordinated planning process established by the Georgia Planning Act.

Responsibilities include promulgation of minimum standards for preparation and implementation of plans

I

by local governments, review of local and regional plans, certification of qualified local governments, development of a state plan, and provision of technical assistance to local governments. Activities under

the Planning Act are coordinated with EPD, Regional Development Centers, and local governments.

I

The Georgia Environmental Facilities Authoritv is primarily a lending organization that assists Georgia cities and counties with loan and financing for projects including water and sewersystem

construction. water system improvements, solid waste facilities, storm water controls, and environmental

I

emergency projects. GEFA provides access to a range of financial and program options for Georgia's local governments.

Regional Development Centers (ROCs) are councils of local governments with memberships

I

consisting of all the cities and counties within each RDCs territorial area. There are currently 16 RDCs in Georgia. It is the responsibility of RDCs to facilitate coordinated and comprehensive planning at local and

regional levels, assist their member governments with conformity with minimum standards and

I

procedures. ROCs also serve as liaisons with state and federal agencies for local governments in each region. Funding sources include members' dues and funds available through DCA.

" As entities with Constitutional responsibility for land management. local governments are

I

delegated a significant role in management of urban runoff. The role of local governments include enacting and enforcing zoning. storm water, and development ordinances; undertaking water supply

planning: and participating in programs to protect wellheads and significant groundwater recharge areas.

In addition to the RDCs. local governments are supported in this role by two other organizations, the

I

Association County Commissioners of Georgia and the Georgia Municipal Association. The Association

of Countv Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) is a private. nonprofit, consensus-building, training, and

legislative advocacy organization for all 159 county government in Georgia. ACCG works to assure

I

Georgia counties can provide the necessary leadership. services, and programs to meet the health, safety, and welfare needs of their citizens. Its yearly policy process gives counties a framework in which to reach

consensus on policies that ACCG will advocate. Natural Resources and the Environment is one of the key

I

policy areas. The Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) helps municipalities become as efficient, effective, responsive, and economically viable as possible so that their citizens may enjoy a high quality of

life. GMA carries out this mission by providing a wide range of services and programs including

I

advocacy. training, low-cost financing, franchise auditing, delinquent business license collection, consulting, technical assistance. and downtown revitalization development.

The Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&D) are groups of local citizens that

I

encourage economic development as well as the wise conservation of natural and human resources. RC&D are locally organized within geographic regions served by USDA. The 1962 Food and Agriculture

Act established the RC&D Council Program, with USDA employees assigned as coordinators to assist

I

each RC&D. There are currently 10 RC&D Councils in Georgia. The Georgia Environmental Organization (GEO) is a nonprofit citizens' organization established

I

VII-6

I

. ' ~D~qjs~I! 111 to pre~e",:e and protect the environment through research, planning, educati

o sr

organlz~tlOn. GEO works through coalition building, technical assistance, an 0

.r

. mg 0

populanze and develop the goal of sustainability locally, regionally, and nationally.

The Georgia Conservancv (TGC) was established in 1967 as a non-profit organization dedicated to

the responsible stewardship of Georgia's vital natural resources. TGC pursues education, open dialogue

and cooperation, long-range planning, and sustained commitment and advocacy to accomplish the goal of

environmental protection with sustained economic vitality in Georgia. The Conservancy's primary focus

areas address water, natural areas, and air.

The Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, public interest corporation that focuses on environmental law. Over the past four years, the Center has provided more than $750,000 in

funding to supplemental environmental projects around Georgia, including numerous waterway-specific

protection and conservation programs. The Center has also had a lead role in lawsuits pursuing

implementation of provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Center's current activities focus on oversight of

compliance with TMDL requirements and the development of watershed policies

The Georgia Environmental Policy Institute (GEPI) is a private, non-profit organization that

provides legal and technical assistance to local governments, community organizations, anp state agencies.

GEPl focuses on the development of proactive environmental protection strategies, including progressive

land use laws and pol icies and facilitation of community involvement. Staff and associates provide

assistance with the development and implementation of local environmental protection ordinances and

policies, with particular emphasis on protection of water quality, wetlands, open space,

and other sensitive resources.

Federal Agencies

The US Armv Corps of Engineers (ACE): in addition to building and operating civil works projects, ACE executes an environmental restoration program in wetlands areas. ACE must issue a Clean Water Act section 404 permit or the appropriate of several Nationwide permits for construction sites near or in wetlands, which govern dredging and fill operations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv (EPA) implements regulatory programs and provides technical assistance and outreach to protect human health and to safe guard the natural environment. Regulatory programs include federal guidance for implementation of state storm water, wellhead protection. and safe drinking water programs. Technical assistance activities include support for urban runoff demonstration projects and participation in regional and local watershed management initiatives.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) cooperates with federal, state, and local units of government to provide technical assistance to landowners, producers, and special interest groups. Technical assistance includes development of standards and specifications for conservation practices, animal waste management systems, grazing activities, and plant materials. Other practices are installed through an established network of county offices, which oversee demonstration projects and implement agricultural conservation programs. Goals and strategies for NRCS currently focus on water resources, soil resources, wildlife resources, animal and plant resource production, and community assistance/urban resources. among others.
The Nature Conservancv (TNC) fills a unique niche among environmental organizations: protecting land and water bodies through acquisition via gifts, exchanges, conservation easements, management agreements, purchases from the Conservancy's revolving Land Preservation Fund, debt-fornature swaps, and management partnerships. The Nature Conservancy operates the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world, managed with sophisticated ecological techniques to preserve plants, animals, and natural communities. Conservation initiatives of the Georgia and Tennessee field offices are supported by individual and corporate contributions, foundation grants and membership dues and are

VII-7

o
o
o
o o o o
o
o o o
o
o o
o o
o
o

I

I I

;ed~ral org~n:~;i~~~~d JAl l? undertaken in partnership with 10e;l, state, and
LAS rre' U Enforceable Georgia Policies

fD) ageff)

L.

L~ I

Georgia Water Qualitv Control Act (0.C.G.A.12-5-20 through 12-5-53)

I

Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 (O.e.G.A. Chapter 12-7-1) Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Qualitv Control (Ga. Admin.Code, Chapter 391-3-6)

Georgia Rules and Regulations for Safe Drinking Water (Ga. Admin. Code, Chapter 391-3-5)

I

Georgia Rules and Regulations for Environmental Planning Criteria (Ga. Admin. Code, Chapter 391-3-16) Georgia Sewage Holding Tank Act (OCGA 12-15-1 throughout 12-15-8)

Georgia Rules bf Dept. Of Human Resources, Public Health, (Ga. Admin. Code, Chapter 290-5-26: On-

site Sewage Management Systems)

I

NPDES Stormwater permit for Construction Actitvities (Rules and Regulations 391-3-6-.16)

Management Measures

I

The following sections describe Georgia's coastal urban NPS program in relation to the

management measures recommended by US EPA.
I L URBAN RUNOFF

I

A. New Development Management Measure

I

US EPA Management Measure

Nonregulatory Mechanisms

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

I

1. a) After construction has been completed and the site permanently

No

stabilized. reduce the average

annual suspended solid loadings by

I

80% or

I

b) Reduce the post-development

Technical assistance: Manual for

loadings of Total Suspended Solids Erosion and Sediment Control in

Yes. Final stabilization req. for

(TSS) so that the average annual

Georgia

LDA (permanent vegetation) and

TSS loadings are no greater than

I

predevelopment loadings

NPDES, Post construction inspection to assure this. In ordinance.

I

2. To the extent practicable, maintain post-development peak

Technical assistance: Urban Streams Assessment and Evaluation No

runoff rate and average volume at Guidelines and Protecting

levels that are similar to

I

predevelopment levels.

Community Streams: A Guidebook for Local Governments

I

Leading Agency: EPO, Local Governments

I

VII-8

I

~4.ble Assessment: Except for the development of roads and bridges, this me[[).[O)
to Savannah/Chatham County and portions of developing Glynn and Camden W'tIes. The "Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia" developed by the State Soil and Water
Conservation Commission provides a reference for development of erosion and sedimentation plans. As part of the permitting process, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan requirements are described at a.C.G.A. 12-7-6 and in the Rules and Regulations at 391-3-7-.04. In addition to the Erosion and Sedimentation Law, the EPD also issues NPDES stormwater permits for construction (Rules and Regulations 391-3-6-.16) for sites with a disturbed land area of over 5 acres.
Neither the Erosion and Sedimentation Act nor the NPDES Storm water Permit for Construction Sites requires an 80% reduction in TSS per se, but does require that construction plans create the lowest practicable erosion potential. The E&S Permits may be conditioned to require a reduction in TSS. This measure may become part of the River Basin Plan. The second component of this measure is currently done at the local level. Section 319 funds are used for education and municipal guidance. The University of Georgia School of Environmental Design has been developed a manual (Appendix 35) that provides a menu from which each municipality can select appropriate provisions and adapt them to local conditions.
In summary, management measure #1 is not met specifically by existing policies and technical assistance programs and manuals. The Phase II Stormwater permit for smaller municipalities may be conditioned to cover these measures in Glynn County, Waycross (Brantley County), and Hinesville (Liberty County). Enforcement of both the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the NPDES stormwater permit for construction is inadequate, primarily due to lack of enforcement staff.
B. Watershed Protection Management Measure
Applicability: To reduce the generation of nonpoint source pollutants and to mitigate the impacts of urban runoff and associated pollutants that result from new development or redevelopment, including the construction of new and relocated roads, highways, and bridges.

US EPA Management Measure
I. Develop a watershed protection program to avoid conversion, to the extent practicable, of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss.
i. Develop a watershed protection
program to preserve areas that provide important water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota.
3. Develop a watershed protection program to protect to the extent practicable the natural integrity of water bodies and natural drainage systems.

Nonregulatory Mechanisms
River Basin Management Plans (EPD)
TMDL implementation
Source Water Assessment and Protection Implementation Plan, as per CWA amendments (EPD) TMDL implementation None

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?
Yes
Yes
Partially

VII-9

o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o o o
o

I

I

Assessment:

:: ( ~ , .'.

.- .

The third component of this measure is only partially supported by existing programs. The

I

Erosion and Sedimentation Law requires a riparian buffer of 25 feet on each bank, precluding interruption of stream and canal integrity. Variance requirements to encroach upon a riparian

buffer provide guidelines on a case-by-case basis that minimize the impact of the encroachment.

I

River basin management plans (described in chapter II) are currently being prepared for each of the fourteen major river basins in the state. Plans will address surface and groundwater quality issues as well as

water supply. State law requires that each plan include a description of the basin, identification of local

I

governments, land use inventories, and statement of plan goals. The plans will also describe environmental stressors in the basin, assess water quality and water quantity concerns, and outline the implementation

strategies and measures necessary to accomplish the pIanOs goals. The 6217 program will coordinate with

I

the RBMP to incorporate these management measures into the river basin planning process for the coastal rivers.

To support the river basin planning process, EPD is developing a base flow protection GIS database

for each river basin. Each of the databases will contain a variety of coverages including geopolitical and

I

environmental data useful in identifying and prioritizing issues, establishing strategic monitoring plans, and developing nonpoint source management strategies. Examples include surface water intakes, landfills, land

application sites, NPDES discharges, roads, hydrography and county boundaries. In keeping with the river

I

basin planning schedule, all databases were completed by January 2000. Of particular interest to the coastal area, GeorgiaOs planning will be complemented by the ACE

Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Study. Authorized in 1996, completion of a reconnaissance study

I

was completed in FY 1999 with the feasibility study beginning the following year. The DNR Wildlife Resources Division collaborated in developing program direction, including planning schedules, priority

issues strategies, task assignments, and resource needs. The watershed delineation project, described above,

I

is coordinated by the USGS, who is mapping the watersheds, with funding and assistance from EPD. The Coastal RDC is coordinating the development of a TMDL strategy for those TMDLs in

the coastal zone. At the time of writing, there are 7 coastal zone TMDLs involved in the strategy, aU

I

for fecal coliform or dissolved oxygen. The coastal nonpoint source program will coordinate with the Coastal RDC in the development process to include the watershed management measures.

Other, smaller-scale subwatershed studies and management plans are and will be developed by local

I

governments who wish to expand their wastewater treatment facilities. The NPDES permit conditions for expansion of municipal treatment systems require a watershed water quality analysis and source water protection plan.

I

C. Site Development Management Measure

Applicability: to reduce the generation of non point source pollution and to mitigate the impacts of urban

I

runoff and associated pollutants from all site development, including activities associated with roads, highways, and bridges.

I

-- - ..... ..

US EPA Management Measure Nonregulatory Mechanisms

Measure Satisfied in Coastal

I

.'
.'
o'
1. Plan, design and developsites to Technical assistance: Manual/or

Partially

Georgia?

protect areas that provide important Erosion and Sediment Control in

I

water quality. beil'efits and/or particularly susceptible to erosion

Georgia

and sedimentation.

Technical assistance from the

I

. 1\\ -10
'"

I

I

I

I

US EPA Management Measure

St.JshbJ Nonregulatory Mechanisms Mea;u\;

in deltstal

Georgia?

I. Plan, design and develop sites to Technical assistance: Manual for

Partially

I

protect areas that provide important Erosion and Sediment Control in

water quality benefits and/or

Georgia

particularly susceptible to erosion

I

and sedimentation.

Technical assistance from the Coastal Management Program staff

Protecting Community Streams: A

I

Guidebook for Local Governments

2. Plan, design, and develop sites to Source Water Assessment and

limit increases of impervious areas, Protection Implementation Plans

No

I

except where necessary.

NEMO Program

I

3. Plan, design, and develop sites to Manual for Erosion and Sediment Yes limit disturbance activities such as Control in Georgia

clearing and grading, and-cut and

fill to reduce erosion and

I

sedimentation.

4. Plan. design, and develop sites to Technical assistance: Urban

I

limit disturbance of natural drainage Streams Assessment and Evaluation Partially (in the instance of stream

features and vegetation.

Guidelines

buffer variances)

I

Erosion and Sedimentation law riparian buffer variance process

I

Leading Agency: EPD, local governments

Assessment: Measures I and 2 are currently inadequately addressed by Georgia programs. The Erosion

I

and Sedimentation Act, the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, and the CWA section 404 permitting process of the ACE all provide some authority to implement management measures 3 and 4. Education and

demonstration projects are perhaps the most effective mechanisms to for limiting impervious areas and

I

minimizing land disturbance activities. This will be addressed by the NEMO program described below. Measure # I is satisfied only within the jurisdictional area of the Coastal Marshlands Protection

Act. This area is defined in the Act as all coastal land whose elevation is 5.6 feet above mean high tide

I

level and lower, which is tantamount to land at the margin of the salt marsh. In order to obtain a Coastal Marshlands Protection Act Permit, land disturbing projects in this jurisdictional area are inspected,

reviewed for federal consistency if necessary, and technical assistance in BMPs is provided. Outside of

the marshlands jurisdiction, this measure is not satisfied: there are no stipulations in the Erosion and

I

Sedimentation Law or the NPDES storm water permit for Construction Activities that specifically protect areas providing water quality benefits or highly erodible areas. Measure #4 is satisfied in the coastal

marshlands and to some degree elsewhere by the Erosion and Sedimentation Act. However, no acts or

I

programs limit construction on sites less than 1.1 acre. Under the Erosion and Sedimentation Act they too

I

VII-It

I

. . ?(/il f2 Tl ra~s~+ t~. are required to use BMPs during construction; however, the compliance and enforcement The EPD can condition municipal stonnwater management permits such that storm water management programs and necessary ordinances be developed to monitor, assess, and implement a plan that might incorporate these measures, but such conditions must be based on an identified need specific to the area. Phase II stormwater permits will be issued initially for the coastal cities of Brunswick. Waycross, and Hinesville, and for Glynn county, and most likely for several other cities once more specific qualification guidelines are developed by EPD.
The University of Georgia Marine Extension Service and the CRD are launching a new educational program aimed at the industrial and municipal communities called Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). NEMO was developed by the University of Connecticut and provides environmental educators with strategies and tools such as GIS images of impervious cover with which to effectively educate municipal officials, county personnel, and developers in mundane terms on nonpoint source pollution problems, key indicators in urbanization that are associated with it, and possible solutions.
The Source Water Assessment and Protection Act (SWAPP) is charged with delineating watershed and wellhead protection areas of public drinking water sources, conducting inventories of potential sources of contamination within the delineated assessment areas, and determining water source's susceptibility to significant potential contaminants within the assessment area. Once this information is available, a plan will be developed for the source water area that will reduce and prevent contamination of the area. Nonpoint source pollution is acknowledged in Georgia as the leading water quality problem, so limits on paved surfaces within the source water areas will doubtless be part of the protection strategy. The NEMO program, which is planned for statewide implementation, will be a prime mechanism for establishing practical and cost-effective ways of reducing pervious surfaces.
II. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
A. Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure

US EPA Management Measure

Non-regulatory Mechanisms

I. Reduce erosion and. to the extent practicable. retain sediment onsite during and after construction.

Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia
Protecting Community Streams: A Guidebook for Local Governments

2. Prior to land disturbance, prepare and implement an approved erosion and sediment control plan or similar administrative document that contains erosion and sediment control provisions.

Urban Streams Assessment and Evaluation Guidelines

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?
Yes
Partially (except for E&S law and NPDES construction permit exemptions).

Leading Agency: EPD and local governments Assessment: The second clause in this management measure is only partially satisfied by Georgia law. There are numerous exemptions to the Erosion and Sedimentation Law which therefore are not compelled
VII-12

o
o
o o o o o
o
o
o o o o o o o
o
o
o

I
I

:0 I~cal Dmepart(A~~j~t~fu!::tion, to produce an erosion and sedimentation plan. There are

ordmf}]

require this. Among these exemptions are construction projects of Georgia's

I[2.i7);.t

I

projects conducted by utility companies, and the construction of single-family houses. The NPDES Stormwater Permit for Construction Sites only addresses sites of 5 acres or greater.

Implementation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act involves local units ofgovemments, the

I

Water Protection Branch of EPD, the GSWCC, and the 40 Soil and Water Conservation Districts across the state. In counties/cities that EPD has designated as issuing authorities, local ordinances are adopted. In

the coastal zone, most county issuing authorities utilize the model Erosion and Sedimentation ordinance

I

supplied by the EPD (Appendix 34). Currently, 8 of the I Icounties in the coastal zone have been certified as issuing authorities, as well as several municipalities.

The EPD is responsible for oversight of these local programs, as well as acting as issuing authority

I

to those counties and cities with no program of their own. The oversight role includes responding to requests for delegation of local issuing authority and recertifying local issuing authorities following

amendment of state law regarding erosion and sedimentation. EPD's oversight activities also include

I

overviews of local programs in areas with significant development underway. The purpose is to ensure that local issuing authorities are complying with their ordinances. Localities are selected for overviews

based on relative growth rates and the number of complaints or requests from EPD regional offices.

I

It is recognized that there is a severe lack of staff to adequately enforce the E&S program, both in local and in state government. In response to this, EPD will be providing Section 319(h) funds to local

issuing authorities as seed money to hire additional personnel and, therefore, increase their capacity for

I

E&S management. Funds will be directed to five issuing authorities for a period of two years with the expectation that local funds will then be available to support the additional staff. In an independent initiative, the Coastal Resources Division will provide funding from itOs Coastal Incentive Grants to the

SWCC to hire an additional staff member to do field inspections of Erosion control BMPs and permit

I

compliance in 2002.

B. Construction Site Chemical Control Management Measure

I

US EPA Management

Non-regulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal

I

Measure

I. Limit application. generation. and Worksite Erosion Control

Georgia?
Partially

migration 0 f toxic substances.

Supervisor's Manual (GA DOT)

I

Commercial Pesticide Applicator

certification program

I

2. Ensure proper storage and

Worksite Erosion Control

Partially

disposal of toxic materials,

Supervisor's Manual (GA DOT)

I

Commercial Pesticide Applicator

certification program

I

I

3. Apply' nutrients at rates necessary None to establish and maintain vegetation

No

without causing significant nutrient

I

Vl1-13

I

runoff to surface waters.

Leading Agency: EPD

Assessment: The third component of this management measure is not currently supported by any

mechanism.

~

Georgia's Commercial Pesticide Applicator Certification program, described in more detail in

chapter V, trains professional landscape contractors in proper use, handling, and storage of pesticides.

Any fuel that is stored on site is stored on pallets and is supervised by the local fire Marshall. The Georgia

Water Quality Control Act provides authority for those applications or incidents that result in an impact to

state waters. Also, Georgia has an Oil and Hazardous Material Spills or Releases Act (OCGA 12-14-1) that

is germane to these measures. The erosion control practices of the GA DOT are described in Chapter II

under "Addressing the Exemptions of the E&S Law". Building contractors are often not familiar with

proper BMP installation, so contractor workshops in these and other management measures are called for.

The Construction Site Chemical Control Handbook, produced by the Virginia Dept. of Conservation and

Recreation, will be adapted and distributed in coastal Georgia.

III. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

A. Existing Development Management Measure

US EPA Management Measure
I. Identify priority local ancl/or regional watershed pollutant reduction opportunities.
2. Develop and implement watershed management programs containing a schedule for implementing appropriate controls.
3. Develop and implement watershed management programs that limit destruction of natural conveyance systems.

Non-regulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

River Basin Management Plans

Yes

Source Water Assessment and

Yes

Protection Implementation Plan

(EPD)

TMDL development

NEMO program (possibly)

No

4. Develop and implement

NPDES stormwater management

Yes

watershed management programs

plans

that, where appropriate, preserve,

enhance or establish buffers along

VII-I4

o o o o o o
n
U
o o
o
o o o o
nu
o
n
U
o
o

I

I

surface water bodies and their

TMDL development

tributaries.
I Leading Agency: EPD

I

Assessment: The River Basin Management Plan to be developed for each of the coastal watersheds may

incorporate management measures 1 and 2. The measures could also be requirements of the stonnwater

management programs required by the permit issued by EPD. The Georgia Stormwater Management

I

Manual developed by the Atlanta Regional Development Center (Appendix 32) are envisioned for use throughout Georgia, and address these management measures. Other authorities or programs that address

these measures are the Water Quality Control Act, and the River Corridor Protection Act, which within the

I

coastal zone only applies to the Altamaha River. Measure #4 is partially met via the stipulation in the Erosion and Sedimentation Act requiring 25

foot riparian buffers adjacent to all waters of the state in developed land, but compliance is poor. This

I

measure is also met via the River Corridor Protection Act, which establishes corridors along major rivers as critical natural resource areas and directs the Department of Natural Resources to establish minimum

criteria for their protection. Protected rivers are defined as any perennial river or watercourse with an

I

average annual flow of at least 400 cubic feet per second. The only coastal river that meets this flow criteria is the Altamaha River. DNR's minimum standards require that each local government which

contains a protected river corridor in its boundaries (i.e., Mclntosh and Glynn Counties) develop a river

I

corridor protection plan which will maintain the integrity of a 1OO-foot buffer area on either side of the river. River protection plans are to be incorporated in local comprehensive plans prepared under the"

Georgia Planning Act.

I

Regarding the Altamaha River. the Nature Conservancy is completing a project focused on watershed management measures designed to protect the Altarnaha River floodplain. Staff at TNC's

Altarnaha River Bioreserve recently developed a land cover classification for the lower Altamaha

I

watershed. collected information on land ownership patterns in the river's floodplain, and completed the second phase of an ecological inventory of the lower Altamaha watershed. In implementing the resulting

conservation plan, TNC will work with public and private partners to design watershed and floodplain

protection measures.

I

Regional Development Centers (RDC) are responsible for providing technical assistance to local governments on river corridor protection. As part of this effort, the Chattahoochee-Flint ROC has

developed a model ordinance for river corridor protection which can be used by local governments in the

I

coastal area. In addition, DCA reviews work plans detailing implementation of local comprehensive plans. Over the next five years, DCA will direct local governments which have not already done so to adopt

ordinances implementing their river corridor protection plans.

I

In the coastal area, there are the Ogeechee-Savannah, Altamaha, Satilla-St. Marys basin groups under the RBMP. During the first iteration of river basin planning, resources have been dedicated to

making programmatic changes, building the required infrastructure. cataloging current management

I

activities. and establishing coordination with a range of agencies and organizations, as described below. The second iteration, as well as those following, will provide opportunities to review issues which were

not fully addressed during the first cycle, to identify new priority issues, and to develop improved

I

strategies for managing water quality and quantity. The five-year reassessment cycle will be coordinated with NPDES permitting, development ofTMDLs, and the 303(d) monitoring plan.

I

I

VII-IS

I

~ew IV. ON-SITE DlSPOSAL SYSTEMS
A. On-Site Disposal Systems Management Measure

'l! .~ ~IJJfJ:li!fi?

Applicability: This measure is applicable to all new OSDS including package plants and small-scale or community treatment facilities not covered by NPDES regulations in order to manage the siting, design, installation, operation and maintenance of all such OSDS.

US EPA Management Measure

Non-regulatory Mechanisms

1. Ensure that new OSDS are located, designed, installed, operated. inspected and maintained to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the surface of the ground and to the extent practicable reduce the discharge of pollutants into ground waters that are closely hydrologically connected-to surface waters.

Manual for On-Site Sewage Management Systems
Guidelines for Drip Irrigation Systems

2. Direct placement of OSDS away from unsuitable areas. Where OSDS placement in unsuitable areas is not practicable. ensure that the OSDS is designed or sited at a density so as not to adversely affect surface waters or ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface water.

As above

3. Establish protective setbacks from surface waters. wetlands, and tloodplains for conventional as well as alternative OSDS.

As above

4. Where conditions indicate that nitrogen-limited surface waters may be adversely affected by excess nitrogen loadings from ground water. require the installation of OSDS that reduce total nitrogen loadings by 50 percent to ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface water.

None (the Rules of DHR Public Health - On-Site Sewage Management Systems (Chap. 2905-26)) do not address nitrogenlimited waters.

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?
Yes
I
-
Yes
Partially
No

Leading Agency: Local County Health Departments, Georgia Department of Human Resources Assessment: The fourth component of this measure is not met by existing mechanisms. Measure 3 is

VII-16

o
o o o o o
o
o
o o o o o o o
o
c
o

I

I
geology/hydrology of the Coastal Zone.

11:

I

The Georgia Department of Human Resources (GADHR) has primary authority to egul individual onsite disposal systems, including septic systems. Title 31 Chapter 3 of the O.C.G.A. J -3

describes the establishment of County Boards of Health, which have the responsibility for enforcing the

I

regulations for onsite sewage management systems. Each of the eleven counties in the Georgia coastal zone has such a board of health, and each has adopted rules for implementing O.e.G.A. 31-3. Each county

has construction permit requirements and monitoring (usually on a complaint-driven basis).

I

For a building permit to be issued, anyon-site sewage management system must conform to statewide rules and regulations established by GADHR. Each county board of health is required to assure

compliance with these statewide rules and regulations. At a minimum, local regulations specify the

I

locations where septic tanks may be installed and locations where installation is prohibited; the minimum lot size or land area to be served by the septic tank or individual sewage management systems; the types of

residences, buildings, or facilities which may be served by a septic tank or individual sewage management

system; permit requirements for installation of on-site sewage management systems; and provide for

I

inspection of these systems prior to use. Minimum lot sizes are based, in part, on soil characteristics and susceptibility of groundwater to pollution. In addition to these requirements, all persons installing on-site

waste management systems in Georgia must be certified by GADHR.

I

Local regulations also generally provide for repair or replacement permits for failing systems; however, this is only enforced on a complaint-driven basis. There is no requirement for an operation

permit, nor are there follow-up inspections after systems are installed and operating.

I

GADHR and EPD have developed a formal Memorandum of Understanding, whereby GADHR will not permit any non-domestic septic system that accepts chemical wastes that could pollute

groundwater. At GADHR's request, the Geologic Survey Branch ofEPD assess potential groundwater

I

impacts from new non-domestic septic systems. If the assessment indicates that a maximum contaminant level is likely to be exceeded, DHR will not permit the system(s) as proposed.

EPD will also enforce remediation of any nondomestic septic system polluting groundwater with

I

chemicals. The EPD Geologic Survey Branch recently inventoried nondomestic septic systems currently in use. Very few of the systems were used for non-sanitary waste and the owners of those systems have

been required to stop disposing of non-sanitary waste, carry out localized groundwater assessments, and to

I

clean up any detected contamination.

.

According to the state rules. septic systems must be set back 25 feet from waterways and 50 feet

from springs and wells. The bottom of the drainfield must be located at least 2 feet above the first

I

occurrence of groundwater. Empirical water quality evidence and a research project on lateral intrusion of tidal creeks into the shallow groundwater (University of Georgia) suggest that these setbacks are

inadequate in the coastal zone.

I

Floodplain considerations are not addressed in the current manual. All other waters such as wetlands and surface waters are addressed.

B. Operating Onsite Disposal Systems Management Measure

I

Applicability: The goal of this management measure is to minimize pollutant loadings from operating

onsite disposal systems. It applies to all OSDS in the coastal area.
I

I

I

VII-17

I

US EPA Management Measure

Non-regulatory Mecha I.

I. Establish and implement policies and systems to ensure that existing OSDS are operated and maintained to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the surface of the ground and to the extent practicable reduce the discharge of pollutants into ground waters that are closely hydrologically connected to the surface waters. Where necessary to meet these objectives. reduce total phosphorous loadings to the OSDS by 15 percent (if the use of lowlevel phosphate detergents has not been required or widely adopted by OSDS users).

None.
(Covered by the Rules of Department of Human Resources Public Health - On-Site Sewage Management Systems (Chap. 2905-26

Establish and implement policies that require an OSDS tobe repaired, replaced. or modified where the OSDS fails. or threatens or impairs surface waters.

None (Covered by the Rules of Department of Human Resources Public Health - On-Site Sewage Management Systems (Chap. 2905-26

Partially. There is no mechanism for addressing total phosphorus . loadings. However, phosphatebearing detergents are banned in Georgia.
Yes

2. Inspect OSDS at a frequency adequate to ascertain whether OSDS are failing.

Inspections are done only at

No

installation or if requested by some

lending institutions prior to sale of a

house with a septic system.

Leading Agencies: Local Health Departments
Assessment: This measure is only partially met by existing regulations. Measure #2 is enforced on a complaint basis by the GAD HR. Regarding measure #3, private septic tanks are only inspected after installation and occasionally when a house with a septic system is purchased by a new owner. Some (financial) lending institutions require such an inspection prior to sale. This inspection is done by the county Environmental Health Specialist. Inspections are also mandatory whenever a system malfunction is reported. The inspection is necessary for a On-Site Sewage Management Repair Permit to be issued.
The local health departments realize that inadequate maintenance is the primary reason for most on-site disposal system malfunctions. O.e.G.A. 31-5 requires that the property owner be responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSDS. Maintenance of the systems must be accordance with the criteria established in the GADHR Manual for Onsite Sewage Management Systems. Where OSDS are to serve facilities under separate ownership, a contract to insure proper operation and maintenance of the system signed by all owners is a precondition to the issuance of a permit for construction of the system. O.e.G.A.3 1-5 has stipulations for performance evaluations of existing OSDS. These evaluations are delegated to local health departments; however, they are rarely done due to limited staff availability. Such

VII-I8

o o o o
un
o o o o o
ufl
o
n
U
o
nu
o o
n
u
o

I

I

evaluations are based on available data relating to the system including:

I



Inspection records of initial system installation



Maintenance records for the onsite system



Site evaluations to determine the current performance of the onsite system

I

A task force has been formed, made up of representatives from both EPD and GADHR, to

consider the need to require state-certified operators for certain onsite systems. The report from this task

I

force should be available in FY2000. In addition, the EPD is considering the issuance of general land treatment that would be applied to most on-site systems. Such a permit would have stipulations for longterm operation, maintenance and monitoring.

I

Untreated Household waste In several rural areas with older dwellings that predate waste disposal regulations, septic waste

from private residences is piped untreated to the nearest river or ditch. This problem can only be

I

addressed by surveillance of river banks during sampling and confronting property owners with the necessity to install a septic tank, enforcing compliance via the Water Quality Control Act. 'This is done on

an ongoing basis by EPD.

I

V. POLL UTION PREVENTION

I

A. Pollution Prevention Management Measure

I

US EPA Management Measure

Non-regulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

Implement pollution prevention and

I

education programs to reduce nonpoint source pollutants

NPDES Phase Il stormwater rules

Partially (commercial activities and

generated from the following

and workshops offered by the

pet excrement are not presently

I

activities. where applicable: - The improper storage. use. and

Cooperative Extension Service

addressed).

disposal of household hazardous

I

chemicals. including automobile fluids. pesticides. paints. solvents, etc.

- Lawn and garden activities,

I

including the application and disposal of lawn and garden care

products. and the improper disposal

I

of leaves and yard trimmings; - Turf management on golf courses,

parks, and recreational areas;

- Improper operation and

I

maintenance of onsite disposal systems:

- Discharge of pollutants into storm

I

drains including floatables, waste oil, and litter

I

VII-19

I

- Commercial activities including parking lots, gas stations, and other entities not under NPDES purview; and - Improper disposal of pet excrement

F>; .....
{OJ[?l1 IJ)/ .,

Leading Agency: EPD, CRD
Assessment: The Phase II NPDES Stormwater permits will address discharge of pollutants into storm drains
and proper storage and use of household hazardous chemicals in it's educational component. Public education programs offered by the County CES include workshops on lawn and garden activities and turf management (including in the commercial sector). Georgia 6217 program must address pollution prevention education in the commercial sector.
The University of Georgia Horticulture Extension Service, through a grant from the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD)ofthe Georgia DNR, is developing guidelines and educational materials for turf management throughout Georgia. Disposal of pet excrement is not a significant problem in coastal Georgia, and is addressed by local ordinances in some counties.
The Coastal Resources Division conducts ongoing public education programs (described in more detail in chapter 12). These programs include leading members of the community in storm drain stenciling, xeriscape education, and general nonpoint source pollution education.
VI. ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES
A. Management Measure for Planning, Siting, and Development of Roads and Highways
Applicability: These management measures are applicable to new, replaced, restored, and rehabilitated
road. highway, and bridge construction projects.

US EPA Management Measure

Non-regulatory Mechanisms

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

I. Plan. site and develop roads and highways to protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible to erosion or sediment loss.

Georgia DOT Design Guidelines (Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor [WECS] manual)
Georgia DOT Standard Specifications and Special Provisions - Construction of Transportation Systems

Partially

2. Plan. site and develop roads and

Yes

highways to: limit land disturbance WECS manual

such as clearing and grading and cut

and fill to reduce erosion and

sediment loss.

VII-20

un
o o o o o o
o
o o
o
o o o o
o
o o
o

I

I

W.ill.!ilrE:sTl Assessment: The siting and design of roads in the jurisdictional area

I

Protection Act are carefully coordinated between the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Ecological Services Branch of the Georgia Coastal Resources Division and the Environmental Protection

Division. Minimization of environmental impacts from nonpoint sources is considered in the Clean Water

I

Act, section 40 I certification process. It would be advantageous to establish a more formal review coordination process, especially in the area of ongoing maintenance of existing roads and bridges in the

coastal area.

I

Projects conducted by the GOOT are exempt from the Erosion and Sedimentation Law and have developed a stringent Erosion control program, which they utilize in lieu of the Manual for Erosion and

Sedimentation Control in Georgia. GOOT specifications require specific erosion and sedimentation

control measures during the life of construction contracts with GOOT. The Erosion control guidelines and

I

BMPs are detailed in the GOOT's Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor's (\VECS) Manual. During the predevelopment phase of road design, the Ecology section of the G DOT assesses the site area for wetlands,

scenic rivers, and other environmentally sensitive aspects and recommends design modifications to reduce

I

the impact of the road on these systems. For example, DOT specifications require that one sedimentation pond be installed for every 1000 feet of roadway until permanent vegetation or other permanent erosion

control method is established on site. Riprap is used around culverts and in any portion of a stormwater

I

drainage system to slow the velocity of storm water runoff, and is also used when road runoff is directed near the vicinity of wetlands and streams containing critical habitat, as determined by the Ecology section

of the GOOT.

I

The DOT Standard Specifications provide guidance on design, construction, and maintenance of the following erosion control measures: baled straw erosion check, bituminous treated mulch, concrete

paved ditches. bitum inous treated roving (to be applied after planting), erosion control mats or blankets (to

I

be applied after planting), erosion control check dams, grassing, permanent soil reinforcing mats (to be applied prior to grassing), reclamation of material pits and waste areas, rip rap, restoration of alteration of

lakes and ponds. sand-asphalt ditch paving, sediment basins, silt control gates, silt retention barriers, sod,

I

sod ditch checks, temporary mulch, temporary grassing, temporary silt fences, and temporary slope drains. Like all other aspects of contracted work, permanent and temporary erosion and sedimentation control

measures are subject to inspection by the state highway engineer or an authorized representative.

I

GOOT requires its contractors to have a Worksite Erosion Control Supervisor (WECS) at work sites five acres and larger. The department provides training to certify GOOT inspectors, contractors, local

government staff, and utility employees as Worksite Erosion Control Supervisors. Training is ongoing,

I

with recertification required every two years. DOT specifications allow for revocation of certification for non-performance and daily contract deductions of up to $1500 for erosion control deficiencies.
Nonpoint source and sediment runoff from private road construction is regulated under the Erosion

and Sedimentation Act and the NPOES Storrnwater Permit for Construction Activities. Additional

I

enforcement under the Water Quality Control Act can be used as required where there are violations of water quality standards.

County Roads in Glynn. Chatham, and Camden Counties are often built in collaboration with the

I

GOOT. In this event. the county roads are built and maintained according to the same specifications as GDOT roads, and a GOOT WECS inspector supervises the worksite. Prior to the design phase, a site

reconnaissance is conducted by a consulting firm to determine the proximity of wetlands, endangered

I

species, and other environmentally sensitive areas. Recommendations are made to reduce the road's impact on nearby sensitive areas and what mitigation may be needed. In Glynn county, county roads that

are not subsidized by GOOT follow the specifications of the Asphalt Institute Manual Series MS-l.

I

Unpaved county roads are abundant in coastal Georgia, and are a significant contributor to

I

VII-2 I

I

L_6 '

..:.. _ _

.... _

'. _ _ . _ ~



~.6

InQ~tl~~eY\j, sedimentation in.watern:ays. In general, BMPs are not used in theiWIiJ"
there any formalized trammg In such for county staff. They are currently not

nor is i these

measures. In response, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission has adapted South Caro rna's

Manual for Unpaved Roads and is offering :2 BMP workshops to contractors and county staff in 2001.

Funded by the Coastal Management Program, this program will be offered annually in the future. Private

and county roads can also be addressed through the Phase II Stonnwater Penn it.

B. Management Measure for Bridges

US EPA Management Measure
Site, design, and maintain bridge structures so that sensitive and valuable aquatic ecosystems and areas providing important water quality benefits are protected from adverse effects,
..

Non-regulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?
Technical assistance: Georgia DOT Partially WECS Manual and

Georgia DOT Construction

f

Guidelines

Georgia Coastal Marshlands

Protection Permit

-

o
o
o o o o
n
U

Georgia DOT Standard Specifications and Special Provisions - Construction of Transportation Systems

o

Lead Agency: Georgia Department of Transportation
Assessment: As in the previous management measure. CWA section 40 I Certification and section 404 Permitting in wetlands (Army Corps of Engineers) are also enforcement tools in this instance. Coastal Marshlands Protection Comm ittee perm its govern this measure within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. which applies to all projects occurring in coastal areas of an elevation 5.6 feet above the mean high tide level or lower. This measure is addressed in the pre-construction phase during site assessment, however, "sensitive and valuable aquatic ecosystems" is subject to a wide range of interpretation.
C. Management Measure for Construction Projects

US EPA Management Measure

Non-Regulatory Mechanisms

I. Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable. retain sediment on-site during and after construction.

Georgia DOT WECS Manual Georgia DOT Construction

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?
Yes

VII-22

o
InI
LJ
o
nu
o o o o

I

I

during and after construction.

Guidelines

I

2. Prior to land disturbance, prepare Georgia DOT Design Guidelines and implement an approved erosion

control plan or similar

Georgia DOT Standard

administrative document that

Specifications and Special

I

contains erosion and sediment control provisions.

Provisions - Construction of Transportation Systems

I

Leading Agency: Georgia Department of Transportation

Assessment: GDOT specifications require specific erosion and sedimentation control measures during the

I

life of construction contracts with GDOT, as described in management measure VI- A. GDOT specifications establish the following standards for control of erosion and sedimentation

during construction of roads and bridges: erosion control features shall be installed and maintained by the

I

contractor to contain erosion within the right-of-way and control discharge of storm water from disturbed areas so that the turbidity of a stream shall not exceed 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) higher than

the turbidity level immediately upstream of construction. For drainage structure construction, the increase

I

in turbidity may be as high as 60 NTU over the upstream reading but may not exceed that level. Turbidity

testing is to be done by QDOT.

_

.

Non point source and sediment runoff from private road construction is regulated under the Erosion

I

and Sedimentation Act, described in the preceding sections. Although road building is exempt from the law, BMP implementation during construction is enforced. Enforcement is done by the issuing authority

under the local ordinance or the State Erosion and Sediment Control Act. The NPDES stormwater permit

I

is enforced by the EPD and presently (as of 200 I) applies only to sites disturbing 5 acres or greater. However, the DOT estimates that only 2 or 3% of all road building projects are less than 5 acres, and it is

likely similar for county roads. Additional enforcement under the Water Quality Control Act can be used

as required (upon referral by the local Issuing Authority or private citizen) where there are violations of

I

water quality standards.

D. Management Measure for Construction Site Chemical Control
I

I

US EPA Management Measure

Nonregulatory Mechanisms

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

I. Limit the application. generation, Georgia DOT Construction

Partially (not for private roads)

I

and migration of toxic substances. Guidelines

I

2. Ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials.

Georgia DOT Design Guidelines

Partially (not for private roads)

I

3. Apply nutrients at rates necessary Georgia DOT Standard to establish and maintain vegetation Specifications and Special

Partially (not for private roads)

without causing significant nutrient Provisions - Construction of

I

runoff to surface water.

Transportation Systems

I

VII-23

I

~wastel~;(t:~eaagement Leading Agency: Georgia Department of Transportation

'1'! !'[j)~

~, Assessment: All three measures are met by the GDOT via their standara- cidc 0 . 0 struction

contractors are bound via terms of tbeir contract to handle and store chemicals'

laws such

as the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act, regulated by EPD's Hazardous

Branch. County roads that are subsidized by the GDOT also meet these measures.

The third component of this measure is met by existing policies of the GDOT, but not necessarily

by self-administered county road projects or private roads. The use of fertilizers and herbicides' in the

construction and maintenance of state roadways is controlled by Georgia Department of Transportation via

specifications approved by the State Agronomist. Most often, when a disturbed bank is permanently

stabilized, it is done by hydroseeding, which sprays a mixture of fertilizer, seed of an indigenous grass,

ground newspaper (mulch) and an adhesive compound on a pounds-per-acre amount prescribed in the

Standard Specifications. Soil samples are analyzed by the GDOT laboratory, who makes

recommendations on the amount of lime, if any, to be applied to the site; again, in pounds of lime per acre.

Water quality violations resulting from failure to apply fertilizers and herbicides properly are

handled under the rules and regulations of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.

E. Management Measure for Operation and Maintenance

US EPA Management Measure'
Incorporate pollution prevention procedures into the operation and maintenance of roads. highways. and bridges to reduce pollutant to surface waters.

Non-regulatory Mechanisms
Georgia DOT Construction Guidelines
Georgia DOT Design Guidelines
Georgia DOT Standard Specifications and Special Provisions - Construction of Transportation Systems

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?
Partially

Leading Agency: Georgia Department of Transportation

Assessment: The Georgia Department of Transportation has numerous guidelines. and specifications that address permanent erosion controls. Inspection of erosion and sedimentation controls, a major factor in this management measure, is stressed in all GDOT projects through two avenues. (I) All projects greater than 5 acres have a certified WECS at the site. (2) The Environmental Compliance Bureau of GDOT conducts periodic audits of sites for compliance with all environmental regulations. There are no existing policies that address this measure for private roads or projects under 5 acres: however, few roads fall into this category. Aside from erosion control procedures, there are none that address other runoff pollutants.
Aspects of pollution prevention could be stressed more in the routine maintenance of roadways and bridges. With support from the P2AD, prepared manuals and training in pollution prevention for local highway departments could lead to more awareness in this area. DOT Environmental Compliance Bureau should expand their responsibilities to the overview of the application of fertilizers and herbicides on DOT road projects.

VII-24

o o o o o o o o o o o
n
U
o o
c
[
I
L
I
L

. ,.t._

I

,.' .

I I

.", RnnoffWem~ ~ 1] "'rnlwill~

F. Management Measure for Road, Highway, and Bridge

U

Applicability: The goal of this management measure is to require that operation and maintenance systems

I

include the development of retrofit projects, where needed, to collect NPS pollutant loadings from existing, reconstructed, and rehabilitated roads, highways, and bridges.

I

US EPA Management

Nonregulatory Mechanisms Measure Satisfied in Coastal

Measure

Georgia?

I

I. Develop and implement runoff

River Basin Management Plans

No

management systems for existing

roads, highways, and bridges to

Phase II Stormwater permit

I

reduce runoff pollutant concentrations and volumes

conditioning

,

entering surface waters.

I

2. Identify priority and watershed

River Basin Management Plans

No

pollutant reduction opportunities

-

(e.g., improvements to existing

TMDL development

I

runoff control structures)

Phase II Stormwater permit

conditioning

I

J. Establish schedules for

River Basin Management Plans

No

implementing appropriate controls.

I

Leading Agency: Georgia Department of Transportation

Assessment:

I

The GDOT's current specifications call for roadside vegetated ditches to treat and drain storm water from state roads. The vegetated swales are seeded with indigenous grasses. There are no

specifications that address any other kind of runoff management systems. Bridges have no runoff

I

pollution management criteria; runoff is funneled through deck drains untreated, with no hindrance to its velocitv.

Programs listed to address this management measure have only recently begun their planning

stage. Through the River Basin Management approach as described previously, specific water quality

I

impacts due to runoff from existing roads and bridges may be identified. EPD and CRD working with GDOT will develop strategies for the implementation of effective controls.

I

Conclusion

Several of the management measures are not currently met. The approach for attaining the

I

management measures will consist of two tiers: the first tier will be to coordinate with the existing regional water quality nonregulatory programs and include the unmet management measures in the development of the watershed/regional water protection plans. This means incorporating the management

measures into the new Phase II stormwater permits in the coastal zone, into the RBMP plans for the

I

Altamaha, Satilla/St. Marys, and Ogeechee/Savannah river basins, the developing TMDLs in the Coastal zone, and the Source Water Protection Plans. This includes the appropriate technical assistance to local

I

VII-25

I

citi~ens Q~S~e~aining ;~~~~s~3J.i~~mg governments and

groups. The second tier will be to deveDJi2)

unmet measures within the existmg program framework, or to modify

programs to accomplish same.

Construction activities and roads, bridges. and highways are only a significant source of potential

NPS pollution in Glynn and Chatham counties, and along the I-95 corridor through McIntosh, Liberty,

Bryan, and Chatham Counties. A dominant proportion of the roads in the other, more rural counties are

unpaved and thus a potential erosion and sedimentation problem. Pollution prevention is apropos to all the

counties, but will be focused initially in Glynn and Chatham due to their relatively large populations. On-

site disposal systems are assumed to be a potential problem throughout the coastal zone.

A study will be made that determines the significance of various potential urban NPS sources; for

example, the contributions of pesticides and fertilizers from golf courses, commercial lawns, and

subdivisions will be researched, as will contributions from the application of herbicides to roadside right-

of-ways and ditches.

IMPLEMENTAnON STRATEGY

The unmet management measures will be incorporated into the following existing programs and permits:

US EPA Management Measure

Existing State Program to be Modified

I-A: New Development

-

I. a) After construction has been completed and the site permanently stabilized, reduce the average annual suspended solid loadings by 80% or

Phase U Storm water permit (presently only applicable to Glynn County, Brunswick, Waycross, and Hinesville)

b) Reduce the post-development loadings of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) so that the average annual TSS loadings are no greater than predevelopment loadings

As above

2. To the extent practicable, maintain postdevelopment peak runoff rate and average volume at levels that are similar to predevelopment levels.

As above

I-B. Watershed Protection
2. Develop a watershed protection program to preserve areas that provide important water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota.

Georgia Greenspace Program TMDL strategy River Basin Management Program Source Water Assessment Plans in coastal zone NPDES municipal wastewater expansion permit condition (requires watershed assessment)

3. Develop a watershed protection program to protect to the extent practicable the natural integrity of water bodies and natural drainage systems.

As above

VII-26

o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
n
L:
I
L
I
L

I

I

II-A. Construction Site Erosion and

I

Sediment Control

2. Prior to land disturbance, prepare and

Phase II Stormwater Rules (in applicable areas)

I

implement an approved erosion and sediment control plan or similar

administrative document that contains

erosion and sediment control provisions.
I VI-A: Planning, Siting, and

I

Development of Roads and Highways
I. Plan. site and develop roads and

highways to protect areas that provide

Phase II Stormwater Rules (in applicable areas)

I

important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible to erosion or

TMDL development

I

sediment loss.

I

2. Plan, site and develop roads and highways to: limit land disturbance such as

Phase II Stormwater Rules (in applicable are~s)

clearing and grading and cut and till to

I

reduce erosion and sediment loss.

VI-B: Bridges

I

Site. design, and maintain bridge structures

so that sensitive and valuable aquatic

Phase U Stormwater permits (where applicable)

I

ecosystems and areas providing important water quality benefits are protected from

TMDL Development

adverse effects.

I

VI-C: Road, Highway, and Bridge

I

Construction Projects

I. Reduce erosion and, to the extent

practicable, retain sediment on-site during Phase U Stormwater permits (where applicable)

I

and after construction.

2. Prior to land disturbance, prepare and

Phase II Stormwater permits (where applicable)

I

implement an approved erosion control plan or similar administrative document

that contains erosion and sediment control

I

provisions.

I

I

VII-27

I

VI-F: Road, Highway, and Bridge Runoff Systems

I. Develop and implement runoff management systems for existing roads, highways, and bridges to reduce runoff pollutant concentrations and volumes entering surface waters.
2. Identify priority and watershed pollutant reduction opportunities (e.g., improvements to existing runoff control structures)

River Basin Management Plans
Phase II Stormwater permit conditioning
River Basin Management Plans Source Water Assessment Plans TMDL implementation

3. Establish schedules for implementing appropriate controls.

River Basin Management Plans Source Water Assessment Plans

VII-28

'I II U
o o o
n
U
n
J
', iI
,i
U
un
o
o
o
o
o o

I

I I

FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATIONPLAiV

"

TASKS

Lead Agency

n I I I
. !,
I

~

rr

Potential 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Funding

I

New and Existing Development

Measure III-A #3, 4: Implement

I

Project NEMO

Incorporate measures III-A, 3 and 4

into the local GA Greenspace

I

initiatives and NEMO

Watershed Planning

X

X

X

X

X

I

Incorporate unmet measures into

EPD

existing watershed planning and

permitting programs

none

XXX ,

I

Construction Activities

.

Hire additional SWCC E&S field

SWCC

I

inspector

Coastal Management Program

Measure VI-A: Contractor/County Coastal RCD

I

Staff Workshop: unpaved road BMPs (includes manual)

Address measure II-A, #2 and VI-C

I

#1and :2 for sites under 5 acres and exempt from E&S law (single fam.

Houses. utilities)

I

Measure Il-B and VI-D: Review professional training programs for

how they handle toxic substances

I

Measure II-B and VI-D#3: Training program using SC's Unpaved Roads

BMP manual. lncludetopic of

I

minimization of nutrient runoff (fertilizer moderation)

Pollution Prevention

I

Technical assistance on fertilizer

EPD,CES

and herbicide application on local

roadways

I

Develop Educational program for

commercial sector

I

On-Site Disposal Systems

X X XX X

I

VII-29

I

Measure IV-B #2 and 3: Develop a mechanism for ensuring the routine inspection of OSDs
Detenn ine areas of Phopsphorus and nitrogen-limited waters
Measure IV-A #4 and IV-B #I: promote nitrogen and phosphorus reduction option via local ordinance
Amend a model local ordinance to include considerations for nitrogen and phosphorus-loaded surface waters.
Work for the creation of a general Land Application System permit for OSDs
Roads and Bridges
Develop means of ensurrrtg runoff control srucrures on bridges, DOT and coutny
Measure VI-E: Review WEeS manual and E&S Manual to ascertain pollution prevention practices

N/i {Sf?
U -' t _
,
-

VII-30

o o o
o
o o
o o o
o
o o o
o
o o
r L

I

I VIII. MARINAS

I

In trod uction

The growth of recreational boating, along with the growth of coastal development in general, has

I

led to a growing awareness of the need to protect waterways from potential pollutants. The presence of a marina is not necessarily an indicator of poor water quality. In fact, many marinas have good water

quality. Despite this, pollutants from some marinas may concentrate in the bottom sediment, and tend to

I

bioaccumulate in marine organisms. When these facilities are poorly planned or managed, they may pose a threat to the health of aquatic systems. These pollutants may enter the water through discharges from

boats or other sources, spills, or storm water runoff. Although sources of pollutants outside the marina

I

are part of the problem, marina design, operation, and location appear to play crucial roles in determining whether local water quality is impacted.

Various studies (Marcus et al., 1988 and McMahon, 1989) support the supposition that sufficient

flushing within a marina basin (as is generally the case in coastal Georgia) prevents build-up of

I

a pollutants in marina sediments, however, there is a lack of long term studies that monitor the pattern of
contaminant buildup over time. The growth of boating popularity in coastal Georgia and consequent

increase in marina construction and use could eventually contribute, along with urban sources, more

I

contaminants to the coastal sediments than can be flushed by the tide. Pollutants and habitat problems associated with marinas are low dissolved oxygen, metals,

petroleum hydrocarbons, increased pollutant levels in aquatic organisms, increased pollutant levels in

I

sediments, increased levels of pathogen indicators, disruption of sediment and habitat, and shoaling/shoreline erosion.

I

Federal and State Marina and Boating Programs

Projects within the Coastal Marshlands

I

The jurisdictional boundary of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act is comprised of all coastal land whose elevation is 5.6 feet or less above the mean tidal level. Projects taking place within this

j urisd ictional area are required to file a joint application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE),

I

the EPD and the Coastal Resources Division (CRD) to build a marina. ACE, via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the EPD, issues water quality certification under section 40 I of the Federal

Clean Water Act, and issues permits under CW A section 404 for dredge and fill operations in wetlands.

I

CRD reviews permit applications and issues revocable licenses for encroachment upon state-owned tidal marshlands and water bottoms. EPD issues NPDES permits for onshore fueling areas and storm water

management plans for qualifying marinas (see below). Prior to permitting, a pre-construction site visit is

conducted by all three agencies to assess preexisting habitat and water quality conditions and potential

I

impacts. At this stage, recommendations are often made to modify the construction plan to minimize impact on the environment. The resulting area impacted is usually about 0.1 acre.

Marinas with more than 500 linear feet of docks are required to execute paid leases of state-

I

owned tidal marshlands and water bottoms to the state of Georgia. All of the money from these leases pays for programs involving safety and pollution control for marinas. Revocable licences are issued to

marinas with less than 500 Iinear feet of dock.

I

A revocable license (OCGA 50-16-61) grants permission for property owners to transgress on state-owned tidal lands and water bottoms for riparian access. Marina facilities require a permit from the

Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee. Any conditions specified by the CMPC permit that are not

I

met will result in an immediate stop-work order, making it illegal to continue operations. These

I

VIII-l

I

........_~-".'.~ .. --".

I I

be@f!Jc~, conditions are listed in Appendix 19. In this event, CRD, on

[d[,egal

I

remedies as provided by law, which include civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution. Projects Inland ofthe Coastal Marshlands Protection Act Jurisdictional Area

Projects in this portion of the coastal zone are not governed by the CRD and therefore would not

I

require a revocable license or lease of water bottoms. Construction of any marina, boat ramp or other waterfront boating facility would require a Land Disturbing Activity permit under the Erosion and

Sedimentation Act, and possibly a Clean Water Act section 404 permit/section 40 I Water Quality

I

Certification from the ACE and EPD, respectively, if any dredging was to be done. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires that an undisturbed riparian buffer zone be left for 25 feet wide on each

riverbank. Any marina/docking construction site would require a buffer variance under the law, which

I

would be reviewed by the NRCS and the EPD for erosion control and pollution prevention designs according to the specifications of the Erosion and Sedimentation Manual and the Field Office Technical

Guide of the NRCS.

I

Most of the population growth and urban development in coastal Georgia is occurring in the counties adjacent to the estuaries; it is expected that there will be very few new boating facilities in the

inland tier of coastal counties along the rivers during the next decade.

I

Enforcement of Water Ouality Violations from Marinas

There are no routine inspections of marinas. If a public complaint is received by the CRD or

I

EPD, a water sample will be taken (EPD) and/or shellfish tissue will be sampled (CRD) to identify the problem. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act is the enforcement authority for existing facilities. The

Water Quality Control Act and the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act are the primary enforcement

authorities for facilities under construction, and the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act is an important

I

enforcement authority within the coastal marshlands jurisdictional area. The Best Environmental Management Practices (manual) for Marinas is used as technical guidance to bring violators into

compl iance.

I

Marinas found to be in violation of Georgia water quality standards are brought into compliance in the same manner as any water pollution complaint: referrals by the public or by the Coast Guard.

EPD, upon such a referral, will invoke the GA Water Quality Control Act and either negotiate a time

I

frame for redress or issue a Notice of Violation. Marinas that meet the specifications described below must also obtain an NPDES stormwater

permit from the EPD, for which they must draft a storrnwater pollution prevention plan.

I

NPDES Storm Water Program

Under Phase I of the Federal Storrnwater rules, a marina that is classified as a Standard Industrial

I

Code (SIC) .+493 is required to obtain an NPDES storm water discharge permit ifvehicle maintenance activities such as vehicle (boat) rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication or

equipment cleaning operations are conducted at the marina.

I

Marinas that are not involved in equipment cleaning or vehicle maintenance activities (classified as SIC 554 I) are not covered under the storm water program, nor is a marina of any SIC classification

that can demonstrate that it has no point source discharges of storm water.

I

At the time of this writing, EPA has not yet promulgated regulations that would designate additional storm water discharges, beyond those regulated in Phase I, that will be required to be regulated

in Phase II. Therefore, marina discharges that are not covered under Phase I, including those discharges

I

that may be ultimately covered by Phase II of the storm water permits program, are covered by this management measures guidance and will be addressed by the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

I

VIII-2

I

- --------------------------
o

POWIi~ i~tnt't Program. Any storm water discharge at a marina that ultimatel
exem.pt. fr?m this guidance and from the Coastal Nonpoint

t 0 J410

1I become t t e time that the

permit IS Issued.

Other Regulatorv Programs The management measures for marinas do not address discharge of sanitary waste from vessels.
They do, however, specify a measure to require that new marinas be designed to include pumpout stations and other facilities to handle sanitary waste from marine toilets, also referred to as marine sanitation devices (MSDs). In 1996-97 under a federal grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the CRD provided funding for owners of existing marinas to build pumpout stations, however; not all did.
The U.S. Coast Guard conducts random inspections of commercial and recreational boats which include inspection of the MSD on board, which must have either a holding tank or be a portable unit. The Coast Guard also will respond to complaints about discharges from boats, working collaboratively with the EPD. An inspection will also include checking the boat's bilge for fuel oil. The county Departments of Health are responsible for the ultimate disposal from pumpout stations into a municipal wastewater facility. As yet, there is no enforcement procedure for inspection and operation of pumpouts.
Vessels are not required to be equipped with an MSD except in impounded waters (lakes and dams). [f a boat does have an MSD, however, the MSD has to meet certain standards set by EPA as required by CWA section 312. This is enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard.
There are no existing state programs with which to regulate marinas and boating outside of the coastal marshlands jurisdiction. The Coast Guard has authority to inspect vessels for MSDs and bilging operations holds in these areas, but such inspection is infrequent.

Nonregulatorv NPS Programs

I. Survey of Marinas on the Georgia Coast A survey of marina 8MP activity was conducted by the Marine Management Company of
Darien, GA for, Savannah State University, funded by a Coastal Incentive Grant from the CRD. Fifteen out of a total of 50 marinas on Georgia's coast were surveyed regarding types of services offered, size, spill response and prevention plans. waste disposal practices, sewage management facilities, runoff control structures. and other relevant aspects of marina operation that could contribute to NPS pollution. The marinas were chosen not so much as to provide a representative sample of the industry but to represent the diversity in size and services provided and to focus on the highest potential for pollution and associated 8MP activities. This survey (Appendix 23, Marina 8MP manual, chapter 5) provided a prioritization assessment of what aspects of operation should be addressed for 8MP implementation. To summarize, the survey indicated an overall high rate of BMP implementation over the various NPS categories.
As part of this effort, a 8MP manual for Georgia coastal marinas was compiled, containing descriptions of marina 8MPs, a listing of all Georgia laws impacting marinas (such as NPDES and the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act), a section on marina design for waste management, and self-audit procedure. The chapter discussing regulations lists each 6217 (g) guidance management measure, and the recommended 8MPs to address the measures. Step-by-step instructions are provided as a guide to establishing BMPs and BMP monitoring on site, aswell as technical descriptions ofBMP structures. This manual is the primary reference for marinas developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and provides comprehensive technical assistance to all marinas to bring them into compliance with the (g) measures. The manual also serves as the guidance document to bring violators of the Water Quality Control Act into compliance.

o o o o o
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o o

VIII-3

o

o

,-(

I

I

.

" . ",

2. Marina Owner/Opera/or Outreach Wo:ks/wps

.

~ [ ~(~ .,[S)~

.

II

I

Two BMP workshops were organized by the Marine Extension Service, EPD, and Georgia Marine Business Association in the winter of 1999, funded by the Coastal Management Program. One was in Savannah; the other in Brunswick, GA. These were formal presentations and demonstrations of

the BMPs and materials described in the Marinas BMP manual, which was in tum distributed to all

I

attendees. The audience consisted of representatives of towing services, coast guard members, marine and environmental consulting firms, boatyard managers, marina owners and operators, the GA Shrimpers

Association, and yacht club managers. Attendance was 12 at the Brunswick workshop and 15 at the

I

Savannah workshop. There are tentative plans to hold additional workshops in the future.

3. The Darien River Improvement Project

I

In January through March, 2000 the EPD implemented the Darien River Improvement Project, which was an educational and cleanup project aimed at commercial waterfront property owners in

Darien, GA. Eight commercial property owners plus the general public were invited to a public meeting

I

in which EPD staff made presentations on the local sources of water pollution to the Darien River, the environmental laws and regulations that had been violated by each source, and the effects of the

pollution on the local economy, in which commercial fishing plays an important part. The commercial

I

property owners were contacted separately and offered amnesty from water quality violation fines if they would make the necessary repairs and upgrades to their waste storage and handling systems by a certain

deadline. A general solid waste removal day was scheduled to collect the large quantities of industrial

I

solid waste and trash on the riverbanks. Removal of this waste and subsequent bank stabilization was done free of charge by the City of Darien Public Works. The waste removal day was scheduled to

coincide with another public trash pickup event and exotic plant removal, so public input and

participation was assured. The project was a tremendous success. One of the commercial operations

I

along the river was a boat service yard, who upgraded his site by paving his boat service area and installing a drain and sediment trap, as opposed to allowing the tide to flush out his work area.

I

Applicability of the EPA Management Measures

The management measures for marinas are applicable to the facilities and their associated

I

shore-based services that support recreational boats and boats for hire. The following operations/facilities are covered by the management measures of this chapter:



Marina discharges that are not covered under Phase I NPDES, including those discharges that

I

may be ultimately covered by Phase II of the storm water permit program.



Marinas whose SIC code is 5541.

Any facility that contains 10 or more slips, piers where 10 or more boats may tie up, or any

I

facility where a boat for hire is docked.



Boat maintenance or repair yards that are adjacent to the water.

Any Federal, State. or local facility that involves recreational boat maintenance or repair that is

I

on or adjacent to the water.



Public or commercial boat ramps.



Any residential or planned community marina with 10 or more slips.

I



Any mooring field where 10 or more boats are moored.

Activities that alter the design, capacity, purpose. or use of the marina are subject to the siting

I

and design management measures in the same manner as new marinas.

I

VIII-4

I

,

.r--

'

-- _- _.. - ... .. .. ~~--_

~........ .-.:. ,.,.,._..... ~

o

Enforceable Georgia Policies
Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, OCGA 12-5-280: enforces habitat protection, limits marina construction in marshlands, and requires contingency plan for spills and shutoff valves for spills. Criminal penalties for violation of this act include fines up to $1000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment. Civil penalties for violation are a maximum fine of $10,000 per day for each violation. plus liability for restoration costs. This law is enforced by CRD, which can also declare stop-work orders for sites in violation of the law. Shore Protection Act, OCGA 12-5-230: enforces habitat protection and prohibits marinas from being built on beach areas. Civil penalty tines range up to $10,000 per day per violation, plus restoration cost liability. Water Oualitv Control Act, OCGA 12-5-20: NPDES permitting for wastewater and stormwater discharge. Civil penalties are a maximum of $25,000 per day of violation. Criminal penalties (a felony) consist of a fine of $5000 to $50,000 per day of violation and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. Litter Control Law, OCGA 16-7-40: this law considers fish cleaning waste as "dead animals", inappropriate disposal of which is considered litter. Locally enforced. Hazardous Waste Management Act, OCGA 12-8-60: governs storage, transport and disposal of hazardous waste. Underground Storage Tank Act, OCGA 12-13-1: governs underground storage of liquid products and liquid waste materials. .' Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, OCGA 12-8-21: a permit to handle solid waste must be obtained, unless a business can demonstrate that waste handling procedures do not adversely affect human health. A private business that owns a solid waste facility on site is generally exempt from the management plan provisions of this act. Fines for first offence are up to $50,000 per day for violation or I to 3 years imprisonment. Erosion and Sedimentation Act, OCGA 12-7-1: land-disturbing activities must not occur within 25 feet of a state waterway unless a variance is granted. A permit must be obtained from a local issuing authority. or in the absence of such authority from the EPD. This permit may require that minimum water quality standards be met. Sites of l.1 acre or less are exempt from this law (as long as they are not within 200 feet of a state waterway). BMPs apply to exempt cases. Civil penalties for violation are $2500/day. Oil and Hazardous Material Spills or Releases Act: governs handling of same in a prescribed manner. Responsible persons are required to report spills and releases to the DNR State Operations Center. Civil penalty fines are up to $1000 per day. MARPOL treatv: Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. The MARPOL treaty is adm inistered by the US Coast Guard. It governs discharge at sea of oil (illegal within 12 miles of land, and/or at a concentration of 100 ppm or more), handling of noxious liquids, sewage discharge (prohibited within 4 miles of land, and must be treated before discharge if within 4 to 12 miles ofland). No dumping of plastic at any distance offshore is legal. At marinas the treaty is enforced by EPA; the compliance aboard the boats themselves is enforced by the Coast Guard.
I. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SITL~G AND DESIGN
Governing agencies: CRD and ACE
The management measures for siting and design are applicable primarily to new marinas. Application of the management measures to expanding marinas should hinge on the potential for the

o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o

VIII-5

o

o

I

I

. . . rrJl rDJ /"iH2 17 stormwaLillnW~~mebtre expansion to impact water quality and important habitat. The

is

I

the only siting and design measure that is always applicable to existing and expanding marinas, as well as new marinas.

The following table lists the management measures related to marina siting and the governing

policies. This table is followed by a description of applicability of each measure and an assessment of

I

Georgia's compliance.

I

US EPA Management

Nonregulatory Programs

Measure Satisfied in

Measure

Coastal Georgia?

I

Marina Flushing Measure

Not applicable in this section.

Yes: via Coastal Marshlands

Site and design marinas such that These measures are covered by

Protection Committee (Cl'vIPC)

tides and/or currents will aid in

regulatory programs.

I

flushing of the site or renew its water regularly

Permit
I

I

Water Quality Assessment Measure Assess water quality as part of

marina siting and design.:

Yes: via 40 I water quality certification
-

I

Habitat Assessment Measure Site and design marinas to protect

against adverse effects on shellfish

I

resources. wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other

important riparian and aquatic

habitat areas as designated by local,

I

State. or Federal governments.

Shoreline Stabilization Measure

I

Where shoreline erosion is a nonpoint source pollution problem, shorel ines should be stabilized.

Vegetative methods are strongly

I

preferred unless structural methods are more cost effective.

Yes: via Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee (CMPC) Permit and section 404 permit/Nationwide permit
Yes: via the Erosion and Sedimentation Law and CMPC Permit

I

Storm Water Runoff Measure Implement effective runoff control strategies which include the use of

pollution prevention activities and

I

the proper design of hull maintenance areas. Reduce the

average annual loadings of total

I

suspended solids (TSS) in runoff from hull maintenance areas by 80

percent (determined on an average

I

annual basis.)

Partially: via the Erosion and Sedimentation Law and Cv[PC Permit
There exists no stipulation in Georgia Law that requires 80% reduction in TSS in any construction project.

I

VIII-6

I

Fueling Station Design Measure Design fueling stations to allow for ease in cleanup of spills.
Sewage Facility Measure Install pumpout, dump station, and restroom facilities where needed at new and expanding marinas to reduce the release of sewage to surface waters. Design these facilities to allow ease of access and post signage to promote use by the boating public.

ia CMPC Permit
Partially: via the CMPC permit and Rules and Regulations for On-Site Sewage Management Systems
There exist no rules for signage nor ease of access.

A. Marina Flushing Management Measure
Applicability: This measure addresses new and expanding marinas.
Assessment: The Coastal Marshlands Protection Act prohibits the construction of marinas or any other structures unless there are no feasible alternatives, and includes a public interest test that includes criteria for water quality and flushing.
B. Water Quality Assessment Management Measure
Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding marmas.
Assessment: Water quality must be considered as a condition for an NPDES Stormwater permit. As part of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, potential impacts to the waterway are assessed prior to Cl'vlPC permit issuance. New marinas are required to get the 40 I water quality certification from the EPD.
C. Habitat Assessment Management Measure
Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding marinas where site changes may impact on wetlands, shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other important habitats.
Assessment: Coastal Georgia has very strong tidal currents and naturally turbid waters that prevent the growth of vegetated aqueous habitat. However, approved and restricted shellfish areas and known fish spawning grounds are considered existing resources, and therefore are afforded the protection of this section. The CRD reviews all Corps of Engineers permit applications for compliance with the antidegradation rules of CWA section 404(b). Other aquatic habitat is protected under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act.

VIII-7

o
o
o o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
r
L
rr:
L
[

I

I

D. Shoreline Stabilization Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding marinas where site changes may result in shoreline erosion.

I

Assessment: Permanent structures including marinas and piers are prohibited on Georgia's beach areas by the Shore Protection Act as a means of protecting the dunes and sand-sharing system. Groins, rip-rap,

and other stabilization structures may be approved by the Shore Committee. The Coastal Marshlands

I

Protection Act prohibits most construction activities within the marshes. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act prescribes appropriate erosion-limiting mechanisms.

I

E. Storm Water Runoff Management Measure

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding

I

marinas, and to existing marinas for at least the hull maintenance areas. If boat bottom scraping, sanding, and/or painting is done in areas other than those designated as hull maintenance areas, the management

measure applies to those areas as well. This measure is not applicable to runoff that enters the marina

I

property from upland sources.

Assessment: NPDES permits are required for stormwater discharges from onshore hull maintenance

areas, fueling areas, and areas where chemicals or hazardous materials are used. Wastewater discharge

I

requires a permit from EPD. The Water Quality Control Act may be effective for regulating certain water quality violations.

Each marina is making some visible effort to catch, contain or otherwise prevent marina-

I

generated pollutants from entering the water. There is great interest in procedures or devices to improve those existing efforts. The greatest concern involves controlling waste from boat washing and bottom

sanding.

I

F. Fueling Station Design Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding marinas where fueling stations are to be added or moved.

I

Assessment: NPDES permits are required for onshore fueling areas. Contingency plans for spills are required as a condition for these permits. The Coastal Marshlands Protection Act requires plans for

spills and shutoff valves for fuel pumps.

I

The physical management of fuel systems is good. There is some confusion about applicable regulations, which will be addressed in future seminars. Better information and training is needed for

both fueling safety and spill procedures for boaters and employees. It is uncertain whether spill response

I

equipment, which is present at all marinas surveyed, is adequate to contain a "worst case" spill.

G. Sewage Facility Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding

marinas in areas where adequate marine sewage collection facilities do not exist. Marinas that do not

I

provide services for vessels that have marine sanitation devices (MSDs) do not need to have pumpouts, although dump stations for portable toilets and restrooms should be available. This measure does not

I

VIII-8

I

Liquid Material Measure Provide and maintain appropriate storage. transfer, containment, and disposal facilities for liquid material. such as oil, harmful solvents, antifreeze, and paints, and encourage recycling of these materials.

Public Education (Marine Extension Service, CRD, EPD)

Petroleum Control Measure Reduce the amount of fuel and oil from boat bilges and fuel tank air vents entering marina and surface waters.

Coast Guard Auxiliary Boater Education Courses (US Coast Guard)

Boat Cleaning Measure For boats that are in the water, perform cleaning operations to minimize, to the extent practicable, the release to surface waters of (a) harmful cleaners and solvents and (b) paint from in-water h~ll
cleaning.

Public Education Measure Public education/outreach/training programs should be instituted for boaters. as well as marina owners and operators, to prevent improper disposal of polluting material.

Coast Guard Auxiliary Boater Education Courses, education
programs of the CRD, BMP Workshops (EPD and Marine Extension Service)

Maintenance of Sewage Facilities Measure Ensure that sewage pumpout facilities are maintained in operational condition and encourage their use.

Distribution of pumpout funds to marinas (CRD)

Boat Operation Measure Restrict boating activities where necessary to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow water habitat.

Not applicable in Georgia's estuarine waters (naturally high turbidity)

Partially (for commercial marinas) No No Yes No Partially (not for inland waters).

A. Solid \Vaste Management Measure
Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding marinas. Marina operators are responsible for the contents of their dumpsters and the management of solid waste on their property.

VIII-IO

o o o o o o o
o
o o o o
o
o o o
n
U
o

I

I

I

'LF Assessment: Solid waste is well-managed at the marinas surveyeWtRrwefi
availability of information for boaters and outside contractors on rr~ i s handling. Standard wording for 8MP signage is desired.

This measure is not met in the numerous unpermitted small boat servi

that st in

Camden and McIntosh counties. Trash collection and other waste disposal is very limited in these rural

I

areas.

B. Fish Waste Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas only where fish

waste is determined to be a source of water pollution.

I

Assessment: The Litter Control Law (OCGA 16-7-48) prohibits depositing any litter, including "dead

animals" and other waste on public or private property or in any waters of the state. Public education on

I

this matter is provided by the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) of the DNR. Fish cleaning waste is normally returned to the water. where it is scavenged upon by marine

organisms. Problems of over-enrichment and lowered water quality are generally not a problem in

I

coastal Georgia, due to the strong tidal flushing. However, there are a few cases where marinas lack the strong flushing and circulation. However, in the less well-flushed marinas any organic waste problems

are noticed immediatelyand acted upon. One such marina, the Landings Marina at Skidawaylsland, has

I

a designated fish cleaning area that is outside of the basin.

C. Liquid Material Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where liquid

materials used in the maintenance, repair, or operation of boats are stored.

I

Assessment: Permits issued under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act are contingent upon requirements of this management measure.

8MP deficiencies are related to a lack of information and the failure to transmit information to

I

em ployees, boaters and contractors. Of significance is the lack of a standard procedure for disposing of used oi I fi lters.

I

D, Petroleum Control Management Measure

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to boats that have inboard

I

fuel tanks.

Assessment: The US Coast Guard has primary responsibility and jurisdiction for all vessel-related

I

oil/fuel spills in Georgia. The EPD coordinates closely with the Coast Guard on all spills, and has cited vessels for violation of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, that requires that state waters remain free

of oil. Unfortunately. the only Coast Guard Spill Response office in coastal Georgia is located in

I

Savannah, and they often cannot respond promptly to a spill that occurs in the southern portion of the coast.

The Coast Guard Auxiliary conducts boating education courses that include discussion of safe

I

fueling practices. There is currently much emphasis amongst coastal Georgia marina personnel on pollution prevention train ing.

I

VIII-Ii

I

@:rJlil~W Better information is needed to employees and boaters on B s

e s~

ie

industry for the lack of procedures or suitable devices to prevent fue sc e;

~ t tan ir vents

from entering the water.

E. Boat Cleaning Management Measure

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where boat topsides are cleaned and marinas where hull scrubbing in the water has been shown to result in water or sediment quality problems.

Assessment: Containing and removing pollutants from washwater is an area of concern for Georgia. For the average 21.5 year old marina, installing catchment and filtration units will be a major expense. Among the participating marinas there exists catchment/filter devices ranging from sophisticated and effective to the opposite extreme. Of note is that an effort is being made willingly to collect pollutants in most cases. Utilization of better information on procedures and equipment can be expected.

F. Public Education Management Measure

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all environmental control authorities in areas where marinas are located.

Assessment: The Coast Guard Auxiliary conducts boating education courses that include discussion of pollution prevention practices. The Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) of the DNR also provides education on pollution prevention measures for commercial operations inland, including marinas. More training is needed regarding spill response and pollution prevention. Marinas should be encouraged to assess their spill response equipment.

G. Maintenance of Sewage Facilities Management Measure

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where marine sewage disposal facilities exist.

Assessment: Under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, the CRD has been encouraging installation of pumpout stations.
The marinas without sanitary pumpout equipment indicate a desire to have the service for their
customers, and ever more boat owners are demanding the service. The consensus IS that the service is
not a profit center, but it creates added value for the customer. However, the average pumpout charge is $8 - which probably does not pay for employee costs of the service. Thus, in all practicality, there is inadequate incentive to install and maintain pumpouts because of the operational cost and manpower requirements.
A need is indicated for more signage and information for users. According to the marina survey, many existing units are reported to be out of service. There is a need for equipment inspection and maintenance information.

H. Boat Operation Management Measure

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States in non-marina surface

VIII-12

o
o
o o o o
nu
o
o
o o
c
r
L
[
[
[
r
L
[

I

I

-. fn!tDl (;\ R 17
waters where evidence indicates that boating activities are impac~!Yt1\1t~tritalJ

I

Assessment: There is virtually no submerged aquatic vegetation in Georgia's estuaries. The shallow water habitat is mud-tlats or sandy bottom, inhabited by crabs, worm, snails. There is no evidence that

this habitat is impacted by boat use. However, the freshwater environments upriver may be jeopardized,

I

as well as bird rookeries and fish spawning grounds in both fresh and saltwater habitats.

Targets for Action

I

In general, compliance with the (g) guidance management measures is good in the commercial

marina sector, and public education by the appropriate agencies is good. However, a sector which to a

I

large degree does not meet the management measures is the small rural boat repair yards which do not rent dock space to private boat owners. These service yards are unpermitted (servicing only one or two

boats at a time), are very hard to locate (usually well off from main roads), and are located in areas where

I

there is limited or no trash pickup, recycling or other waste collection facilities. The EPD has located several such boat service yards, which were found to have an abundance of solid waste and poorly

contained liquid waste on site, with hull servicing being done in the intertidal portion of the property.

I

EPD has been enforcing cleanup and BMP compliance at these places on a case by case basis. These boatyards will be the focus of the marinas sector of Georgia's coastal nonpoint source program.

I

Schedule for Implementation The following is a 5-year plan of action that will address the shortcomings of present efforts,

according to the assessment for each management measure:
I

TASK

Lead

Potential 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I

Encourage modification of local Erosion

Agency EPD

Funding

X

X

X

and Sedimentation Control ordinances to

I

include siting and design considerations for marinas

Call together a task force consisting of

EPD

X

I

Coast Guard, EPD. CRD, ACE, and Marine Extension staff to address

improving monitoring of existing

I

facilities and implementing operational management measures.

Hold more educational/Violation amnesty EPD

X

I

programs modeled after the Darien River Improvement Project

I

Develop better information and training EPD for fueling safety and spill procedures for

Coastal Manage-

boaters and employees.

ment

Program

I

(CMP)

X

X

X

I

VIII-13

I

n ~"'\ rnJ rt=J

Develop procedures or suitable devices to prevent fuel discharges from boat tank air vents.

Marine Extension. EPD

Sea Grant

~t '1 ( Ll \! l

I<

X

!-'

Develop an easy procedure for disposing EPD of used oil filters and sorbent pads
-Compile a boater's brochure listing local coastal businesses that will receive waste

X

X

X

Work with the Marine Extension to

EPD

X

incorporate 6217 management measures

into their educational programs

Develop more signage and information for marina owners regarding pumpout stations, their use, and locations. Prevention of pumpout spills.

Investigate subsidies or other incentives

to defray cost of sanitary pumpout

equipment.

-

Marine

Sea Grant

Extension

EPD

Clean

Vessel

Act

(USFW)

X

:

X

X

-

Investigate feasibility of increasing

EPD

Georgia

X

availability of recycling facilities.

Environmental

Facilities

Authority

Bring underground storage tanks up to

EPD

standards for corrosion, spill, overtill.

X

X

X

X

X

X

Marina Owner/Employee Workshop:

1. Develop training for fueling safety and spill procedures for marina employees.

Marine Extension. EPD

CMP, tidal land lease fee

2. Develop procedures or suitable devices to prevent fuel discharges from boat tank air vents.

Marine Extension. EPD

Sea Grant

3. Pollution prevention training for both EPD employees and public.

4. Containment of residues from hull

EPD

blasting.

Installation of debris catchments.

5. Toxic substance (pesticides to cleaners) EPD control procedures.

VIII-14

o
o
n
LJ
o o o o o
o
o o
o
o o o
n
L
I
L...
r
I
L

I

;

I

,

,

6. Routine-spill containment on land.

Coast

Guard

I

7. Runoff control structures for boat

EPD

repair areas.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

VIII-IS

I

IF ~ L..

I

I

flu :) {D
IX HYDROMODIFIJJJ:)iiJ

I

Hydromodification is a term encompassing various physical modifications of a waterway,

including channel dredging, backfilling of wetlands, and control structures such as dams and levees. The

I

management measures are divided into the subcategories of channelization/channel modification, dams, and strearnbank/shoreline erosion.

Hydromodification presents few pollution problems per se except for an overabundance of

I

sediment. It is the alterations to aquatic habitat due to the modification and accelerated erosion, and the changes in water chemistry parameters such as salinity and oxygen that are problematic.

I

I. CHANNEL lVIODIFICATION

Channel modification, or channelization, describes the engineering of stream and river channels

I

for the purpose of flood control, navigation, drainage improvement, and reduction of channel migration potential. It includes activities such as straightening, widening, deepening, or relocating existing stream

channels and clearing or snagging operations. For our purposes, the terms channelization and channel

I

modification also refer to the excavation of borrow pits, canals, underwater mining, or other practices that change the depth, width, or location of waterways or embayments in coastal areas. It also includes

flow alterations such as diversions (levees, transportation embankments, undersized-culverts)',

withdrawals. and impoundments (tide gates, weirs, sluice gates). Not included is marina basin

I

excavation. State involvement in permitting and enforcement only exists in intertidal waters within the

jurisdiction of the coastal zone management area.

I

Channel Modification Activities in Coastal Georgia

A levee is defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) as an embankment or shaped

I

mound for flood control or hurricane protection, as opposed to a dyke, which is perpendicular to streamtlow. Levees are not built in Georgia's coastal zone, and so will not be addressed here.

Flow alterations are induced by tide gates and by road crossings in the coastal marsh area. Tide

I

gates are usually installed only in some residential waterfront areas on a small tributary of a tidal creek. This is done to impound a marsh area for recreational purposes, at cost to the homeowners. There are no

tide gates installed in navigable waters or those used for commercial fishing and shrimping. There are

I

some "relic" impoundments in the coastal salt marsh associated with rice plantations from a century ago. As the practical application of federal and state policy, channelization as a flood reduction

mechanism is no longer favored. Other less environmentally damaging alternatives are preferred, such as

I

clearing and snagging, and constructing channels in less environmentally sensitive areas to carry excessive flows.

Channel modification in Georgia's coastal zone is generally done for the following purposes:

I

drainage ditch maintenance and widening



docks and dock extensions

bulkhead installation

I



creation and maintenance of private canals



existing dredge spoil disposal area maintenance



excavation of wetlands for recreational ponds

I

private tide gate installation

I

IX-l

I

@W[Dt) Q~m~7p~ts .

According to CRD's dredging perm;' records, there is

In the coastal marshlands area. This average is based on the projects

per year 2000. Most

commonly, I to 3 projects per year are allowed.

According to a report to the National Wildlife Federation from the Army Corps of Engineers,

outside of the coastal marshlands area there were approximately 37 dredging projects from 1990 to 1999

(about 4 per year on the average), ranging from tide gate installation to dock expansion to drainage ditch

maintenance. Sixteen of these consisted of maintenance or improvement of drainage systems.

General Categories For Dredging Within the Coastal Marshlands Jurisdiction

Total projects = 51



unspecified dredging 32 or 62.7%



maintenance dredging 10 or 19.6%



other: new dredging for dock construction/extension (5 or 9.8%), new or replace tide gate (l or

2 %), relocate marine railway (l or 2%), create channel (lor 2%), create residential canals (lor

2%).

Public projects (such as those conducted by the GA Ports Authority, utilities companies, the City of Savannah, and a Superfund site) accounted for 33% of the dredging projects. Projects instigated by homeowners for recreational purposes accounted for 21%, commercial/industrial projects for 44% and military projects (Kings Bay submarine basin) for 2%.

General Categories For Dredging in Inland Waters in the Coastal Zone

Total projects = 37



unspecified dredging (listed as wetland fill or excavation, often implicitly for purpose of

recreational ponds) 9 or 24%



new bulkhead construction :2 or 5.4%



replace public dock and bulkhead, I or 2.7%



unspecified channel dredging I or 2.7%



storm drainage system maintenance (dredging drainage ditches) or extension 17 or 46%



other: new dredging for dock construction/extension (2 or 5.4%), new or replacement tide gate (4

or lO.8(~o, create residential canals (lor 2.7%).

Implementation of State Policy
Permitting processes for channelization projects differ in freshwater and saltwater waterways. For a project in estuarine areas, the first step in the permitting process is to file ajoint permit application to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the Coastal Resources Division (CRD) of the GA-DNR. The former will issue the appropriate of several Nationwide permits, or a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit. depending on the type and scale of project; the latter agency will issue a permit for activities that impact GA Coastal Marshlands Protection Act jurisdictional area. These permits evaluate the impact of the activity on the estuary and on other resource interests in the vicinity such as recreational boating and shellfish harvest sites, A plan must be made for the disposal of the dredge spoil and includes testing of the potential spoil for contaminants. An estimate of the volume of potential spoil must be given, as well as a detailed site plan showing the size of the facility, procedure for handling any wastewater generated by the project, where any petrochemical products will be used or stored, a spill contingency plan for said petrochemicals, a delineation of the area to be dredged, the area in which spoil
IX-2

o o
n
U
o o o
nu
o o o o
o o
o
o
o
I\ .
L
[

I

I

d~kes bm~ Qt!:Fr .[iIl will be placed if located on-site, locations ofany weirs and

to

be taken to minimize turbidity.

t~a s

I

The application is presented to the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee, who eva ates it for the following public interest concerns:



Will the project obstruct or harmfully alter the natural flow of navigable water in the area?

I



Will the project result in increased erosion, increased shoaling in channels, or creation of

stagnant areas in the water?



Will the project interfere with recreational and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting,

I

whether physically or due to alterations in water chemistry?

Exempt from the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA) permit are projects of the Georgia

I

Department of Transportation (drainage ditch/canal maintenance), local and Federal government navigation projects, public utilities, including their associated railroad activities, activities of companies

regulated by the Public Service Commission, and construction of private docks that do not cause an

I

obstruction of tidal flow.

The joint application includes an application for a Revocable License to transgress on state-

I

owned water bottoms, and a CWA section 40 I water quality certification, issued by the EPD. The revocable license is conditioned in the coastal zone to meet the standards of the coastal marshlands

protection act. The State Properties Commission has the authority (OCGA 50-16-34) to revoke the

license and remove any structures built on the site of the lease that do not conform to the CMPA

I

provisions. The 40 I water quality certification program provides a mechanism for ensuring that state water

quality standards are imposed on hydromodification projects, as well as any other activity requiring

I

federal permits. The certification ensures that the project will be conducted in a manner which will not violate state water quality standards. The following conditions are routinely placed on all 40 I water

quality certifications:

I

I. The applicant must implement best management practices during construction to minimize erosion

and migration of sediment off-site. These practices may include use of mulches, hay bales, silt fences, or

I

other devices capable of preventing erosion and migration of sediments. All disturbed land surfaces must be stabilized upon project completion.

I

2. The applicant must comply with the approved County Erosion and Sediment Control and/or Stormwater ordinances.

I

3. All excavated materials must be hauled off-site or placed on high land and properly contained and permanently stabilized to prevent erosion.

I

4. Upon completion of construction activities, all disturbed areas must be permanently stabilized with a vegetative cover. This may include sprigging, trees, shrubs, vines, or ground cover.

I

For those projects which require both 401 Water Quality Certification under the Federal Clean Water Act and riparian buffer variances under Georgia's Erosion and Sedimentation rules, EPD will hold the

401 Certification in abeyance until the applicant has received the requisite buffer variance. Projects

I

which apply for buffer variances must already have received approval of erosion and sedimentation control plans for the project construction site. In short, without an approved E&S plan, no buffer

I

IX-3

I

b~ a~d ofrIcDonm!i:I R 17 variance will issued no 40 1 Water Quality Certification will be issued. tamlnan~llW U For projects seeking 401 Certification where there are known levels
sediments of State waters, EPD may condition the 40 I Certification to require specific monitoring and containment of the project site and disposal of all contaminated material in approved sites.
Certain State waters have limited nutrient loading parameters. Projects seeking 40 I Certification within the drainages of these waters are reviewed to ensure that the project will not result in an exceeding of specified maximum loads. Likewise, as TMDLs are developed for those waters which have been identified as impaired (303(d) listed waters), projects seeking 40 I Certification will be reviewed to ensure that there will be no violation ofTMDL target constituents.
Federal channel modification projects are also subjected to a'Federal Consistency review by the CRD. Coastal Zone Consistency certification for hydromodification is triggered by the existence of a federal permit, a direct federal action, and/or federal funding. Basic coastal zone management policy requires that permanent wetland and wetland habitat impacts be avoided by development projects, including channelization and stream modification, "unless no feasible alternative exists or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated" in which case all environmental impacts must be minimized. Coastal zone policy also requires the review of the project by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts on habitat, and their input is enforced through permit conditions.
If the project disturbs the stream bank, it may require a Land Disturbing Activities permit under the Georgia Sedimentation and Erosion Act.
A general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, for storm water discharges from construction activities became final as of September, 2000. This permit enables EPD to effectively regulate silt, sediment and other pollutants which are carried by storm water runoff from construction and dredging sites. The permit requires those people conducting a construction activity on sites greater than 5 acres, or part of a common development greater than 5 acres, to prepare and implement an Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control Plan and a Comprehensive Monitoring Program. The Plan must describe those best management practices (BMPs) which will be used at the site to control the discharge of sediment and other pollutants. The Comprehensive Monitoring Plan must describe how the receiving waterts) will be monitored for turbidity. A summary report of monitoring and weekly inspections is required to be submitted to EPD each month.
For a project involving freshwater waterways and wetlands, the ACE is the sole permitting agency.
Federal Policy
Concurrent with the issuing of the Coastal Marshlands permit by the CRD, the ACE must issue a Clean Water Act section 404 permit or the appropriate of several Nationwide permits, which govern dredging and fill operations in U.S. waters and wetlands. If the waterway is designated as a federal navigable waterway, a permit must be issued under the Federal Harbors and Rivers Act, section 10. For projects that are believed to result in minimal impact on the surrounding waters, a Nationwide permit is issued. The Nationwide permits impose the same permit conditions as a section 404 permit and include a period of public notice, but as a programmatic general permit they simplify the permitting process and are in accordance with other programs. The 40 I certification may be waived in the event of certain nationwide permits.
For most projects, potential dredge spoil must be tested for contaminants as part of the application process. A suitable plan for the disposal of spoil must be presented. The most popular form of dredging in Georgia is hydraulic dredging, which involves direct deposition of the spoil and water to a land disposal site. The "return water" associated with the spoil is subject to the specifications of the 401
IX-4

o o
o
o o o
o
o
o o
o
o o o
n..
LnJ
o
o
o

........ ...,.,~

I

I I

~applicamt~bll k!.As~IbRl~~ l? ;~;;

tlf ':. ~'. 0

-1""

~ ->.

water quality certification. After a 404 or Nationwide application has been submitted, the

aU-day

public review period and a copy is forwarded to other government agencies which have jurisdiction over

the region in which the project is to occur, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the

National Marine Fisheries Service, etc, depending on the location of the proposed project. The ACE,

I

with project-specific recommendations by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies, assures minimal environmental impact occurs, using section Endangered Species Act and possibly the

Georgia Water Quality Control Act (through the EPD) as enforcement mechanisms. The

I

recommendations of USFWS and other agencies are implemented through conditions of the pennit. The permit application is also subject to a Public Interest Review, which evaluates the project's potential

impact on surrounding resources and existing land uses.

I

Enforceable Georgia Policies

I

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, OCGA 12-5-280: authorizes the Coastal Resources Division to require a penn it for any land disturbing activities adjacent to marshlands and at an elevation of 5.6 feet

above mean high tide level and lower. Permit conditions protect water quality and natural habitats.

I

Criminal penalties for violation of this act include fines up to $1000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment. Civil penalties for violation are a maximum fine of $10,000 per day for each violation

plus liability for restoration costs. This law is enforced by CRD, which can also declare stop-work

I

orders for sites in violation of the law. Shore Protection Act, OCGA 12-5-230: enforces habitat protection. Civil penalty fines range up to

$10,000 per day per violation, plus restoration cost liability.

I

Revocable License For Encroachment Upon State-Owned Lands, OCGA 50-16-42: provides licensees with the privilege to transgress upon State-owned lands and water bottoms in order to facilitate riparian

access. This privilege is subject to cancellation, revocation, or termination at the pleasure of the state. It

I

does not convey any rights, title, estate, interest, or easement with regard to the licensed premises. Because this license is a privilege and not a right, revocation cannot be appealed.

GA Water Oualitv Control Act, OCGA 12-5-20: this act authorizes the EPD to revise and enforce rules

I

and regulations governing water quality and quantity, set \iPDES permit conditions and effluent limits. This authority extends to streams, rivers, lakes, and subsurface waters for all uses, including agricultural. It

is unlawful for any person to dispose of any waste products into said waterways without a permit. Civil

penalties of a maximum of $25,000 per day of violation. Criminal penalties (a felony), fine of $5000 to

I

$50,000 per day of violation and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. GA Erosion and Sedimentation Act, OCGA 12-7-1: land disturbing activities must not occur within 25

feet of a state waterway unless a variance is granted. A permit must be obtained from a local issuing

I

authority. or in the absence of such authority from the EPD. This permit may require that minimum. water quality standards be met. Sites of 1.I acre or less are exempt from this law (as long as they are not

within 200 feet of a state waterway), as are projects involving utilities. the GA Dept. Of Transportation,

I

and single-family private docks. BMPs apply to exempt cases. Civil penalties for violation are $2500/day.

Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act, OCGA 12-5- I 70: declares that owners/operators of a public water

I

supply facility must obtain a permit, must monitor the water supply for contaminants of concern, must not allow concentrations of such contaminants to exceed Georgia's established Maximum Contaminant

Levels, and in the event of a violation must report the violation to the county Health Department and the

I

local news media. Civil penalties of up to $1000 plus $500 per day of violation apply. The GA Oil or Hazardous Material Spills or Releases Act (OCGA 12-14- I(8)): any responsible party that

I

IX-5

I

~ot iL!!J~Wmf}U d?es report a spill or release may be charged civil penalties
violation.

~

Management Measures for Channel Modification

There are 2 EPA-mandated management measures for channel modification, each consisting of3 submeasures. The management measures are presented here in a table format, which lists the enforceable and nonenforceable policies for their implementation.

US EPA Management Measure

Enforceable Policy

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

A. Management Measure for Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface Waters 1. Evaluate the potential effects of proposed channelization and channel modification on the physical and chemical .' characteristics of surface waters in coastal areas.
z. Plan and design channelization
and channel modification to reduce undesirable impacts.

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CRD), CWA section 404INationwide (ACE), CW A section 401 certification (EPD).
CW A section 404 permit/Nationwide permit requirements (ACE), Coastal Marshlands Protection Act Permit (CRD), 40 I certification (EPD).

Partially (within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act)
Yes

3. Develop an operation and

None

No

maintenance program for existing

modified channels that includes

identification of opportunities to

improve physical and chemical

characteristics of surface waters in

those channels.

B. Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration Management Measure I. Evaluate the potential effects of proposed channelization and channel modification on insrream and riparian habitat in coastal areas.

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act Yes permitting (CRD), 404INationwide permitting (ACE), Endangered Species Act (USFWS), GA Environmental Policy Act (for government projects).

2. Plan and design channelization Coastal Marshlands Protection Act Yes

and channel modification to reduce permitting,404lNationwide

undesirable impacts.

permitting, Endangered Species

Act.

IX-6

o o
o
n
LJ
o o
o o o
o
o o o
nu
r
L
[
r
l

I

I

3. Develop an operation and

None

I

maintenance program with specific timetables for existing modified

channels that includes

identification of opportunities to

I

restore instream and riparian habitat in those channels.

I

A. Management Measures for Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface Waters

I

Applicability: this management measure applies to any proposed public and private channelization or channel modification projects, as well as to existing modified channels that can be targeted for

opportunities to improve the surface water characteristics necessary to support desired fish and wildlife.

I

Leading Agency: CRD and ACE (For non-tidally influenced waters, ACE only)

I

Assessment: Any channelization projects in the coastal marshlands jurisdictional area would require a perm it issued under the authority of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act unless conducted by an

exempted agency. Projects done by Georgia Ports Authority and the GOOT, are exempt from the Coastal

I

Marshlands Protection Act. Bridge installation is exempt when done by GOOT. Some projects are subject to Federal Consistency review, and these agencies have a very high compliance rate for CRD's

subsequent recommendations. Exempt activities are also governed by the revocable license program of

I

the Coastal Management Program. Both the CMPA and the Nationwide/404 permits are contingent upon certain water quality

requirements being met by the project. Section 404 B (I) permit requirements include testing of the

I

sediment to be dredged. Monitoring and testing of the return water and the dredging site is required under 40 I certification.

Dredging projects within the coastal marshlands jurisdictional area are subject to such rigid

constraints that few are permitted. Another major deterrent to channel modification projects in this area

I

is the lack of (affordable) upland in which to dispose of the resulting dredge spoil; acquiring such a disposal site would be cost-prohibitive for the types of projects that would require it.

Regarding operation and maintenance programs. most Confined Disposal Facilities (COFs) have

I

internal O&M strategies to maximize the life of the site. Georgia currently has no foundation to develop any kind of operation and maintenance program for other categories of channel modification. There are

no state programs that govern channel modification activities inland of the coastal marsh.

I

B. Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration Management Measure

I

Applicability: This management measure is intended to apply to any proposed channelization or channel modification project to determine changes in instrearn and riparian habitat and to existing

modified channels to evaluate possible improvements to instream and riparian habitat.

I

Lead Agency: ACE

I

Assessment: The estuarine waters in Georgia's coastal zone are by nature very erosive due to the strong tidal currents. There is no submerged instream vegetation. and the waters are very turbid. Therefore, no

I

IX-7

I

II.DA.MS
For the purpose of this plan, dams are impoundments that are 25 feet or more in height and having greater than 15 acre-feet of holding capacity, or 6 feet or greater in height and greater than 50 acre-feet of holding capacity. According to EPD's Safe Dams Program database, there are 42 dams in the coastal zone that meet these requirements. These dams are mostly for recreation, sometimes with secondary uses for fire control. Two in Wayne County were built for flood control and one for irrigation. In addition, nine were built as waste retention/aeration ponds for industrial activities but are covered under NPDES.
Virtually all dams in Georgia are built of an earthen berm, and have a standpipe to conduct overflow stormwater into a spillway around the berm in the event of strong storms. If a dam is built for drinking water purposes, then it is usually owned by the local government, or some other government entity (i.e., a water authority). The Georgia Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Department owns some dams. Approximately 60% of the dams in the state are privately owned and used for recreational purposes. It is likely that if a dam is being built it is for recreation, and privately owned.
Major dam construction in the coastal zone has never been undertaken for various reasons: the flat terrain offers no potential for hydroelectric power: Coastal Georgia receives ample drinking water supply from two productive aquifers, and the extensive tidal creeks and rivers that comprise the coastal marsh have traditionally provided abundant fishing and boating opportunities. For these reasons, major dam construction is not considered a potential NPS threat in or near coastal waters.
Presently, a number of dams are being proposed in the coastal area to serve as irrigation ponds for agriculture. Construction of these dams will supervised by the NRCS and built according to the specifications of the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide. Being an agricultural project, these dams will be exempt from the Erosion and Sedimentation Law and also from the NPDES permit for Construction Activities. Twelve such dams are proposed for Brantley County, 2 in Bryan, 6 in Effingham,S in Long, and 81 in Wayne County.
IX-8

o
o
o o o o o o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
I
L
r
L
r
(
I
l

I

I

US EPA Management

Enforceable Policies and .......,I M~s~~Jtlsfiec ~ n

I

Measure

Mechanisms

Coastal Georgia?

Management Measure for

GA Erosion and Sedimentation Act Yes

Erosion and Sediment Control

(EPD or local authority), NPDES

I

I. Reduce erosion and. to the extent Stormwater Permit for practicable, retain sediment on-site Construction Activities (EPD), GA

during and after construction

Water Quality Control Act (EPD).

I

2. Prior to land disturbance,

prepare and implement an

I

approved erosion and sediment control plan or similar

administrative document that

contains erosion and sediment

I

control provisions.

Management Measure for

40 I certification, 404 permit

Partially

I

Chemical and Pollutant Control I. Limit application, generation, . and migration of toxic substances.

requirements, GA Water Quality Control Act, GA Hazardous Waste Management Act.

I

2. Ensure the proper storage and disposal of to.xic materials.

Oil or Hazardous Spills or Releases Act (EPD)

I

3. Apply nutrients at rates

GA Pesticide Use and Application

necessary to establish and maintain Act (GDOA), Commercial

vegetation without causing

Pesticide Applicator Certification

significant nutrient runoff to

Program (CES)

I

surface waters.

Management Measure for

Safe Drinking Water Act (if tile

Partially

I

Protection of Surface Water Quality and Instream Riparian

dam is built for water supply)

Habitat

Source Water Assessment and

Develop and implement a program Protection Program (if tile dam is

I

to manage the operation of dams in built for water supply, EPD) coastal areas that includes an

assessment of:

I

I. Surface water quality and instream riparian habitat and

potential for improvement;

2. Significant nonpoint source

I

pollution problems that result from excessive surface water

withdrawals.

I

I

I

IX-9

I

[f], /i1 F27? A. Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment conm
ne\~ ~'iJiJ:wiMdams. Ap.plicability: Construction of dams, as well as to construction activities
TIllS measure does not apply to projects that fall under NPDES jurisdiction.
Lead agency: EPD, Local governments
Assessment: This measure is satisfied through the State Erosion and Sedimentation Law and the NPDES Stonnwater Permit for Construction Activities.
B. Management Measure for Chemical and Pollutant Control
Applicability: This measure applies to the construction of new dams, as well as construction activities associated with the maintenance of dams. It addresses fuel and chemical spills associated with darn construction, as well as concrete washout and related construction activities.
Lead agency: EPD
Assessment: Measure # I is satisfied by the requirements of the 404 permit and the 40 I certification. In the event of a violation,"EPD would enforce the Water Quality Control Act or the Hazardous Waste Management Act.
Georgia's Pesticide Applicator Certification program, described in more detail in chapter V, trains professional contractors in proper use, handling, and storage of pesticides. Any fuel that is stored on site is stored on pallets and is supervised by the local fire Marshall.
The Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act defines hazardous waste management as "the systematic recognition and control of hazardous wastes from generation to final disposition or disposal, including, but not limited to, identification, containerization, labeling, storage, collection, source separation, transfer, transportation, processing, treatment.. ..and disposal" (OCGA 12-8-62 (13 )). Hazardous waste is defined in Georgia as any solid waste which has been defined as such in "regulations promulgated by the administrator of the US EPA pursuant to the federal act which are ...codified in 40 CFR section 261.3 and any designated hazardous waste (OCGA 12-8-62 (10)). The Act only applies to large quantity generators. and does not address hazardous products prior to their designated use. However. this act could be invoked for measure #2 in the disposal of unused or waste products.
Currently, no dams are built in the coastal zone for drinking water supply. However, if that were ever to change, the Safe Drinking Water Act would be the primary enforcement authority of this measure. This Act requires a penn it (OCGA 12-5-170, section 5(3)) to operate a public drinking water supply facility and stipulates that the operator collect data and water quality information (section 5(7), and that the water produced by facility does not exceed Georgia's Maximum Contaminant levels for the designated parameters (section 7(c and d)). Thus, this could be used to enforce measures I and 2.
The Oi I or Hazardous Spills or Releases Act requires that the responsible party report a spill or release to the EPD, who in turn will dispatch an emergency response staff member to supervise site cleanup and notify other agencies with jurisdiction (such as the Coast Guard). Spill or release is defined as the discharge, deposit. injection, dumping, spilling, emitting releasing, leaking or placing of any hazardous substance into the air or into any land or water of the state, except from an underground storage tank. It also means discharge of oil into waters of the state which will cause a significant film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of such waters beneath the surface of such waters or upon adjoining shorelines (OCGA 12-14-1 (8)). This act could be invoked for measure #2 in the event of a
IX-IO

o
1
LI J'
o
n
J
o
o o o o o
nu
rr:
I l-
\
I
l

I

I ;'

I I

spill or significant leak. There are no Georgia programs that address measure #3.

U1',\)IrIpUn)UL~[f7?

c. Management Measure for Protection of Surface Water Quality and

U

Instrearn Riparian Habitat

I

Applicability: This measure does not apply to projects that fall under NPDES jurisdiction. The measure

also does not apply to the extent that it's implementation under state law is precluded under the 1990

I

court case addressing the supercedance of State instream flow requirements by Federal flow requirements set forth in FERC licenses for hydroelectric power plants under the Federal Power Act.

I

Lead agency: ACE

Assessment: The CRD would enforce the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act if the project were in the

I

marshlands jurisdiction. There are no Georgia policies that require any sort of operations and maintenance plan, except in the event that the dam is to be used as a water supply, in which the rules of

the Safe Drinking Water Act apply. Most dams in Georgia are privately owned and used for recreational

I

purposes, and thus are occasionally dredged or maintained by a Homeowners Association (or other private entity), but only for accessibility or fish stocking and not for water quality.

Again, in the event that a dam were to be built for drinking water supply, the-Source Water

I

Assessment and Protection Program would apply to this measure. The SWAPP requires all water supply sources to inventory potential sources of contamination within the delineated supply area, determine

water source susceptibility to significant potential contaminants, and to develop a plan for it's protection.

I

Dam design is reviewed by \VRD to assure that dissolved oxygen and temperature are not significantly altered, as per the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, trout streams section

(391-3-6 ..03(6)). EPD will not address any dams smaller than 25 feet high or containing less than 100

acre feet of water.

I

Surface water quality is protected by the provisions of the 401 certification and the 404 permit. For inland locations, provisions are made for wetlands and riparian habitat protection through the

Nationwide/section 404 permit conditions. Many of the permits issued under the Nationwide permit

I

system by the ACE are considered to have minimal environmental impact and thus require no mitigation.

III. STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE EROSION

I

Streambank erosion is used in this guidance to refer to the loss of fastland along nontidal streams

and rivers. Shoreline erosion is used in this guidance to refer to the loss of beach or fastland in tidal

I

portions of coastal bays or estuaries. Erosion of ocean coastlines is not regarded as a substantial contributor of NPS pollution in coastal waterbodies and will not be considered in this plan.

I

A. Management Measure for Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines

I

US EPA Management

Enforceable Policy

Measure Satisfied in Coastal

Measure

Gecrzia?

I

I

IX-II

I

o

A. Management Measure for Eroding Stream banks and

Shorelines

U

J III

US EPA Management Measure

Enforceable Policy

Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

I. Where stream bank or shoreline GA Erosion and Sedimentation Act Yes

erosion is a nonpoint source

(EPD or county), GA Water

pollution problem, streambanks

Quality Control Act (EPD),

and shorelines should be stabilized. NPDES Stormwater permit for

construction, EPD), Nationwide

13 permit (ACE).

2. Protect streambank and shoreline None features with the potential to .... " reduce NPS pollution.

3. Protect stream banks and

shorelines from erosion due to uses

of either the shore lands or adjacent

surface waters.

-

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act permit, GA Erosion and Sedimentation Act, Water Quality Control Act.

No
, Partially (if the" use" involves land disturbance)
-

Leading Agency: CRD (for stabilization structures), EPD (for water quality), and ACE (erosion on US channels).

o
o
o
o o o o o

Assessment: A Streambank Stabilization BMP Manual for non-tidal areas has been developed using section 319 funds (see Appendix 35).

o

The strong tidal currents in coastal Georgia result in abundant natural stream bank erosion and

high water turbidity in all coastal streams, continuing inland as far as 30 kilometers.. Regardless, tidal creek banks, being adjacent to salt marsh, are protected from any excavation or disturbance by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. Inland rivers outside of the tidal area are subject to the permit

o

conditions of the Nationwide permits and to the stipulations of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and Georgia's NPDES Stormwater permit for construction activities. The NPDES stormwater permit for construction activities requires that construction activities taking place on stream banks and shorelines

o

I

must include a storm water pollution prevention plan. Measure #3 is met by the Erosion and Sedimentation Act and the NPDES storm water permit for
construction activities. Measure #1 may not apply to Georgia's estuarine waters for several miles inland;

nu

I
i.

it is virtually impossible to distinguish the natural stream bank erosion from that accelerated by land use

activities (except in the instance of site excavation near the banks). Measure #2 may be addressed

through TMDL strategies.

o

Conclusion Neither channel modification nor dam construction is considered a serious NPS pollution
problem in coastal Georgia. The current level of management has been effective in controlling NPS pollution from hydrologic modification activities and no significant problems have been identified. The prime shortfall of Georgia's programs governing hydromodification is that of operations and maintenance, especially over recreational dams, which account for the majority of dams in the coastal zone.

o o o

IX-12

o

o

I

I X WETLANDS, RIPARIA1VS AREAS. AND VEGETATED

I

TREA Tllt/ENT SYSTEj1-1S

I

According to the EPA Guidance, wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that

under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated

soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

I

Vegetated buffers are defined as strips of vegetation separating a water body from a land use that could act as a nonpoint pollution source. Vegetated buffers are variable in width and can range in

function from a vegetated filter strip to a wetland or riparian area.

I

Vegetated treatment systems are defined as created areas of vegetation designed to remove sediment and other pollutants from surface water runoff by filtration, deposition, infiltration, adsorption,

absorption, decomposition, and volatilization. A vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains soil

I

aeration as opposed to a wetland that, at times, exhibits anaerobic soil conditions. Vegetated treatment systems may include either vegetated filter strips or constructed wetlands, or both.

Constructed wetlands are defined as engineered systems designed to simulate natural wetlands to

I

exploit the water purification functional value for human use and benefits. Constructed wetlands consist of former upland environments that have been modified to create poorly drained soils and wetlands flora

and fauna for the primary purpose of contaminant or pollutant removal from wastewater or runoff.

I

The Georgia coast contains 384,000 acres of salt marsh wetlands, extending to an average of 4 to 6 miles inland and accounting for one fourth of the remaining salt marshes in the east coast of the United

States (CMP, 1997). Georgia's coastal zone also contains 1,116,000 acres of freshwater wetlands,

I

mostly in the original form of bottomland hardwood swamps in natural areas (derived from CNIP document, 1997).

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia has lost approximately 25% of it's

I

total wetlands acreage since 1780. During the period between 1950 and 1970, the estimated rate of loss of wetlands in Georgia averaged 7,300 acres per year statewide (CMP document, 1997). This is a

comparatively small rate of loss. Prior to the mid-1990s, the decline of freshwater marshes in coastal

Georgia was largely due to draining them for sylviculture operations. There are abundant pine

I

plantations in coastal Georgia, many of which were sited on former freshwater wetlands. In the late 1990s suburbanization has become a significant source of freshwater wetlands loss. Salt marshes,

however. are well protected by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act.

I

State Policy

I

Protection and Planning for Wetlands and River Corridors Georgia code section 12-2-8 charges the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to develop

minimum standards and procedures for the protection of river corridors, wetlands, public water supply

I

watersheds, groundwater protection, and mountains (OCGA 12-2-8, section (b)). These minimum standards would be incorporated into the Comprehensive land use plans developed and implemented by

local governments under The Comprehensive Georgia Planning Act of 1989 (OCGA 50-8-1). This act

I

requires that local governments develop comprehensive land use plans in order to maintain their status as a "Qualified Local Government" (and thereby remain eligible for certain state funding sources).

According to the Criteria for River Corridor Protection (Rules for Environmental Planning

I

Criteria, 391-3-16-.04) local governments must identify qualifying rivers within their jurisdiction and

I

X-I

I

Ti:" develop river corridor protection plans, which wouldconsist Ofth.l],[TILillE.
along any qualifying river within the local government's jurisdiction, that is, one whose average annual flow is at least 400 cubic feet per second. This buffer must be 100 feet wide on either side of the bank and limited land use is allowed within this buffer. These allowed land uses include, among other things: I. Construction of single family dwellings on no less than a two acre site within the riparian corridor 2. [fa septic system is associated with a dwelling, the drain field must be located outside of the corridor. 3. Preexisting commercial and industrial land uses are exempt from the criteria, provided that they do not impair the river water quality and conform with all other pollution control laws 4. Road crossings are allowed within the corridor 5. Forestry activities are allowed within, provided that they do not impair the river quality and conform to the Georgia Forestry Commissions BMPs. 6. Recreational use is allowed, provided that there are minimal associated impervious surfaces. 7. Any activities involving the storage, handling and receiving of hazardous waste or solid waste are prohibited within the corridor.
Under the Rules for Environmental Planning Criteria (391-3-16-.03), local governments whose jurisdiction contains freshwater wetlands must identify and document same and address them in their Comprehensive Plans. The Rules require the establishment of a "minimum (wetlands) area" which cannot exceed 5 acres, below which are exempt from the Rules. The Rules provide 8 issues required for consideration in the Plan, which generally assess what the impacts of alteration of a particular wetlands site will be on public and economic land uses, and the impact that alteration would have on the nearby flora and fauna. Recommended unacceptable uses include receiving of toxic or hazardous waste or other contaminants, hazardous or sanitary waste landfills, or other uses unapproved by local governments.
Development of the local Comprehensive Plans is being supervised by the Regional Development Centers (ROCs). In the coastal zone, the Coastal ROC has established a time table for coastal local governments to develop and adopt their Plans. As of October 1999 (the most recent update available), the only coastal counties/municipality that has an approved Plan is the City of Richmond Hill. Many local governments were expected to have such by 2000 but missed the deadline. Several have deadlines in 2002 and 2003.
State Policies Governing Construction and Dredging in Wetlands Saltwater wetlands (estuaries) are governed by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, which is
administered by the Coastal Resources Division (CRO) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Freshwater wetlands are governed solely by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE).
A construction project initiated within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone Management Program, that is, one located in the tidally-influenced lands near the salt marshes, would require a Coastal Marshlands Protection Act permit and a revocable license to trespass on state-owned tidal bottom lands. A separate permit may be required form from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The CMPA permit, 404INationwide permits, and section 10 permit are all covered under the joint permit application of the Coastal Management Program. Prior to issuing a section 10 or 404 permit, The CRD would conduct a coastal zone consistency review of all federal and state permits under the Coastal Management Program, and issue a certification. Basic coastal zone policy requires that permanent wetland and wetland habitat impacts be avoided by development projects, including channelization and stream modification, "unless no feasible alternative exists or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated" in which case all environmental impacts must be minimized. Coastal zone policy also requires the review of the project by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts on habitat, and by other agencies having jurisdiction over the area in which the project is located.
X-2

o
o
o o o o o o
o
o
o
o
o o o o o o o

. .r " k' J'R

.1;,-

I

I

. . ' "i.''WOOu]rPU

The granting of a section 404 or section 10 permit IS also contmgent upon obtaining section 401

water quality certification through the GA EPD. In Georgia, the 401 certification does not apply to

I

projects too small to require a 404 permit; that is, it does not apply to those projects covered under the ACE's Nationwide permits. The certification, issued by the EPD, ensures that the project will be

conducted in a manner which will not violate state water quality standards. In Georgia, the 40 I

I

certification procedure is not codified and therefore not enforceable as such; however, the denial of 40 I certification prohibits issuance of a 404 permit and violations are pursued under the Georgia Water

Quality Control Act. The following conditions are routinely placed on all 401 water quality

I

certifications:

1. The applicant must implement best management practices during construction to minimize erosion

I

and migration of sediment off-site. These practices may include use of mulches, hay bales, silt fences, or other devices capable of preventing erosion and migration of sediments. All disturbed land surfaces

must be stabilized upon project completion.

I

2. The applicant must comply with the approved County Erosion and Sediment Control and/or

Stormwater ordinances.

I

3. All excavated materials must be hauled off-site or placed on high land and properly contained and

permanently stabilized to prevent erosion.

.

I

4. Upon completion of construction activities, all disturbed areas must be permanently stabilized with a

vegetative cover. This may include sprigging, trees, shrubs, vines, or ground cover.

I

While Georgia has no water quality standards specific to sediments, Georgia EPD does recognize that

sedimentation may be the most significant water quality problem facing us today. For those projects

I

which require both 40 I Water Quality Certification under the Federal Clean water Act and buffer variances under Georgia's Erosion and Sedimentation rules, EPD will hold the 401 Certification in

abeyance until the applicant has received the requisite buffer variance. Projects which apply for buffer

variances must already have received approval of erosion and sedimentation control plans for the project

I

construction site. In short, without an approved E&S plan no buffer variance will be issued and no 401 Water Quality Certification will be issued.

Exempt from the CMPA permit are projects of the Georgia Department of Transportation

I

(drainage ditch/canal maintenance), local and Federal government navigation projects, public utilities, including their associated railroad activities, activities of companies regulated by the Public Service

Comm iss ion, and construction of private docks that do not cause an obstruction of tidal flow. However,

I

the revocable license applies to these exempt projects.

For a project involving freshwater wetlands, there is no state involvement regarding enforceable

I

policies, except for any Federal projects requiring 401 certification. The Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) of the GA-DNR and other agencies conduct voluntary programs in habitat management and

conservation for private landowners.

I

I

I

X-3

I

-------- -

-_.. -:-.-

_- _. -.. ~

o

Federal Policy
Individual Permits, Letters of Permission, Regional Permit and Nationwide Permits are the authorities under which the ACE administers the regulatory program. In freshwater wetlands the ACE is the sole enforcement authority. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) offers recommendations on permit conditions based on the presence of endangered species or ecological value of the site. If conditions at a site require, USFWS field personnel can levy criminal penalties against the permittee and stop the project under either the Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Act. Upon inspecting a site for any reason, if noncompliance with permit conditions is discovered by EPA or by USFWS, they could theoretically report the violation to ACE, who would investigate the violation and if necessary take corrective measures.
There are wetlands mitigation requirements written into the permit. Usually, the permittee must hire a consultant to put together an effective wetlands mitigation strategy. The strategy is encouraged to allocate 50% of the effort to preservation of wetlands, and 50% to either creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands. Another option for wetlands mitigation is for the permittee to pay an in-lieu fee to the ACE, who in tum will use the money to purchase wetlands off-site. Under this in-lieu fee banking system, the Georgia Land Trust maintains an agreement with the ACE under which permittee's can pay a fee to the GL T, to be used to purchase and preserve other wetlands.

o o
o
o
o
o

I

I

Local Ordinances

o

I

I

A recent mandate from the Department of Community Affairs requires all counties in Georgia

that have wetlands to address wetlands protection in their master plans. The DCA has provided a model

o

wetlands protection ordinance, however, adoption of a local ordinance is not required. Any county that

does not address wetlands protection in it's regional plan will lose it's qualified local government status, making it ineligible for certain 'types of infrastructural funding. At the time of writing, Chatham county

o

has begun to draft a local wetlands protection ordinance.

Enforceable State Policies

o

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, OCGA 12-5-280: authorizes the Coastal Resources Division to require a permit for any land disturbing activities adjacent to marshlands and at an elevation of 5.6 feet above mean high tide level and lower. It enforces habitat protection, limits marina construction in marshlands, and requires contingency plans for spills Criminal penalties for violation of this act include fines up to $1000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment. Civil penalties for violation are a maximum fine of $10,000 per day for each violation plus liability for restoration costs. This law is enforced by CRD, which can also declare stop-work orders for sites in violation of the law. and shutoff valves for spi lls. Water Ouality Control Act, OCGA 12-5-20: this act authorizes the EPD to revise and enforce rules and regulations governing water quality and quantity, set NPDES permit conditions and effluent limits. This authority extends to streams, rivers, lakes, and subsurface waters for all uses. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of any waste products into said waterways without a permit. Violators are subject to shut-down of operations. Civil penalties may be levied of a maximum of $25,000 per day of violation. Criminal penalties (a felony), fine of $5000 to $50,000 per day of violation and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. Revocable License For Encroachment Upon State-Owned Lands. OCGA 50-16-42: provides licensees with the privilege to transgress upon State-owned lands and water bottoms in order to facilitate riparian

o
o o
o
o
o

X-4

o

o

I I

. ',J~rn fi1 Rl? are~ot ~~riVUge access. The license is subject to revocation if the conditions for issuance

is

also subject to cancellation or termination at the pleasure of the state. It does not convey any rights, title,

I

estate, interest, or easement with regard to the licensed premises. Because this license is a privilege and not a right, revocation cannot be appealed.

Erosion and Sedimentation Act, OCGA 12-7-1: land disturbing activities must not occur within 25 feet

I

of a state waterway unless a variance is granted. A permit must be obtained from a local issuing authority, or in the absence of such authority from the EPD. This pennit may require that minimum

water quality standards be met. Sites of 1.1 acre or less are exempt from this law (as long as they are not

I

within 200 feet of a state waterway), as are agriculture, sylviculture, mining operations, and a host of other construction categories. BMPs apply to exempt cases. Civil penalties for violation are $2500/day.

Georgia Environmental Policv Act OCGA 12-16-1 et seq: requires that all state agencies and activities

I

prepare and Environmental Impact Report as part of the decision making process for any activity that may impact natural resources.

GA Surface Mining Act OCGA 12-4-70 et seq: includes provisions for protection of wildlife, restoration

I

of disturbed land, water, and other affected resources, and provisions for reducing and/or mitigating pollution resulting from mining operations.

I

Enforceable Federal Policies
.-

Endangered Species Act (enforced by USFWS)

I

Clean Water Act, 401 and 404 (enforced by EPD/ACE) Bald and Golden Eagle Act (enforced by USFWS)

Migratory Bird Act (enforced by USFWS)

I

Nonregulatory Programs

I

There are several voluntary programs that provide technical assistance and cost-share funds for wetlands preservation and restoration to private landowners.

Partners in Wildlife, a cost-share program administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

I

provides technical assistance and funding to restore degraded wetlands habitat. In the coastal zone, the emphasis is on planting hardwoods or longleaf pines (the latter in uplands). Cost-share funds provide up

to 100% of the restoration costs or a maximum of $10,000 per landowner. In Georgia, there was a total

I

of 1464 acres in this program as of 1998. This program is not widespread in coastal Georgia. Stewardship Incentives Program is a Farm Bill program administered by the Georgia Forestry

Commission along with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency,

and the Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) of the DNR, that encourages multiple use of lands,

I

primarily forestry-related. Cost-share funds for wetlands habitat restoration are available for sites of25 to 1000 contiguous acres, and range up to $10,000 per year.

Wetland Reserve Program, administered by the NRCS and WRD, is a land retirement program

I

that allows for easements of a variety of durations and covers about 75% of costs incurred. The land must either have been farmed or must be a riparian area that links protected wetlands.

Wi ldlife Habitat Incentives Program is a land management program administered by NRCS and

I

WRD. It provides cost-share funds of up to 75% for conservation practices, restoration efforts, and habitat improvements.

The Acres for Wildlife program identifies habitat on privately-owned land and provides

I

technical assistance to private landowners on managing their lands as a wildlife habitat. This program is

I

X-5

I

G@J~ljJI:v'1I(WRD)' jointly administered by US Department ofAgriculture and the
The Coastal Georgia Land Trust, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Planning Commission in Savannah/Chatham County, has begun a wetlands inventory project in which landowners owning 10 or more acres of wetlands will be identified and targeted for outreach programs. Programs will include a guided tour of a wetland, explanation of the importance and benefits of wetlands and why they need protection, and counseling on how to obtain conservation easements for their land through the Wetlands Reserve cost-share program of the USDA. This project is currently underway in western Chatham county and if resources and funding allow it will be expanded into other areas in the coastal zone.

MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Following is a summary of the EPA management measures related to wetlands and the state and federal policies that support them.

US EPA Management Measure

Enforceable and Nonregulatory Policies

I
Measure Satisfied in Coastal Georgia?

Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and

Section 404INationwide permit

Partially

conditions, Endangered Species Act

-

Riparian Areas

(USFWS), GA Surface Mining Act

Protect from adverse effects

(EPD - if applicable), GA Water

wetlands and riparian areas that are Quality Control Act (EPD), GA

serving a significant NPS

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act

abatement function and maintain (CRD).

this function while protecting the

other existing functions of these

wetlands and riparian areas as

measured by characteristics such as

vegetative composition and cover,

hydrology of surface water and

ground water, geochemistry of the

substrate. and species composition.

Management Measure for Restoration of Wetland and Riparian Areas Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged and destroyed wetlands and riparian systems in areas where the systems will serve a significant NPS pollution abatement function.

GA Surface Mining Act (where applicable), Revocable License, GA Environmental Policy Act (Dept. Of Community Affairs), Wetlands mitigation strategy (ACE).

Partially

X-6

o o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o
o o o o o
o
o
o

,. "

. , ..~

I

I

Management Measure for

Guidelines for Constructed

Yes

Vegetated Treatment Systems

Wetlands for Municipal

I

Promote the use of engineered

Wastewater Treatment Facilities

vegetated treatment systems such as

constructed wetlands or

I

vegetated filter strips where these systems will serve a significant NPS

pollution abatement

function.
I

I

A. Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to protect wetlands and

I

riparian areas from adverse NPS pollution impacts.

Lead agency: ACE, CRD

I

Assessment: The narrative criteria of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act describes the management

of state waters and provides the authority to implement this measure based on water-quality standards.

I

Section 401 certification provides the state with authority over permitted activities. The EPD has authority under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act to require permits for all point sources (OCGA

12-5-3(a)) and nonpoint sources (OCGA 12-5-30(b)) of pollution in state waters. EPD waived 401 water

quality certification for most projects that qualify for authorization by ACE under Nationwide and

I

Regional Permits. However, EPD has maintained the authority to comment on and require individual 401 certification for projects that would impact more than 1 acre, and up to 3 acres of wetland, that are

proposed for authorization under Nationwide Permit Number 26.

I

For projects seeking 401 Certification where there are known levels of contaminants in the sediments of State waters, EPD may condition the 401 Certification to require specific monitoring and

containment of the project site and disposal of all contaminated material in approved sites.

I

Certain State waters have limited nutrient loading parameters. Projects seeking 401 Certification within the drainages of these waters are reviewed to ensure that the project will not result in an

excedence of specified maximum loads. Likewise, as TMDLs are developed for those waters which

I

have been identified as impaired (303(d) listed waters), projects seeking 401 Certification will be reviewed to ensure that there will be no violation of TMDL target constituents.

A large percentage of freshwater wetland losses occur as a result of small, less than I acre

I

Nationwide Permit Number 26 projects, that normally do not require mitigation. However, the Nationwide Permit Program will be amended in January 2000, and projects impacting more than 1/4

acre of wetland will require mitigation.

I

The Coastal Marshlands Protection Act has been very successful at protecting salt marsh

wetlands. The majority of impacts to freshwater wetlands occur on small-scale projects (less than one

I

acre) and therefore require no mitigation. There are no existing records of the cumulative effect of these abundant no-mitigation sites.

I

I

X-7

I

i:fJmm[F'U B. Management Measure for Restoration of Wetland and Riparian
Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States to restore the full range of wetlands and riparian functions in areas where the systems have been degraded and destroyed and where they can serve a significant NPS abatement function. This management measure does not require an enforceable policy.
Lead agency: ACE, CRD
Assessment: Regarding freshwater wetlands, the GA DNR is a signatory to the State and Federal interagency agreement titled "Establishment and Operation of Wetland Mitigation Banks In Georgia." One strategy referenced by this document is the Section 404 B(l) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act, which require the following sequential mitigation steps: first, avoid unnecessary impacts to wetlands; second, minimize damage to wetlands resulting from impacts; and third, replace lost wetland functions resulting from unavoidable impacts. The ACE requires the use of a "Mitigation Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)" to assess functional losses resulting from wetland impacts and functional gains resulting from wetland mitigation. Use of the mitigation SOP allows "Mitigation Credits" to be determined for both the proposed wetland impact (functional loss) and for proposed compensatory wetland mitigation (functional gain). There are different types of mitigation, with each receiving a different level of credit. -Mitigation credit is assigned on a per-acre basis, in the following descending order: wetland restoration; wetland enhancement; wetland creation; wetland preservation; and upland buffers. In addition, wetland preservation and upland buffers can comprise only 50% of the credits generated by a mitigation plan, with wetland restoration, enhancement and/or creation making up the other 50%. In areas not serviced by an approved commercial wetland mitigation bank, another mitigation option is the use of in-lieu fee banking.
Salt marsh wetlands are well-protected by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. There are not many wetland fill projects permitted in salt marsh, but the Georgia Department Of Transportation, counties, and cities occasionally receive permits for public road construction. In addition, the GA Ports Authority has filled tidal mud flat and open water for construction of dock facilities. Small areas of marsh adjacent to uplands are sometimes permitted to be tilled. Any construction adjacent to the salt marsh is required to install a measure to control runoff from the upland into the marsh.
C. Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Applicability: This management measure is intended to be applied by States in cases where engineered systems of wetlands or vegetated treatment systems can treat NPS pollution. The term NPS pollution abatement function refers to the ability ofVTS to remove NPS pollutants. This management measure does not require an enforceable policy.
Lead agency: EPD
Assessment: As yet constructed wetlands have not been used in coastal Georgia to treat stormwater runoff, except as vegetated roadside ditches along smaller roads. However, There are currently 17 vegetated treatment systems in Georgia that were constructed to treat municipal wastewater, Two exist for this purpose in the coastal zone: one is in Richmond Hill, Bryan County, the other in Folkston,
X-8

o o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o
o
o
o o o

I I

". . ., Ii) !;jl re'i? Gu{lDJ1)Jn~7J~trtUd Charlton County. They are designed and built according to Georgia's

Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Vegetated treatment systems are a BMP

I

recommended by the EPD in the treatment and control of runoff, but whether a constructed wetland is the option of choice for wastewater treatments depends on a decision by the local community. Several

factors must be considered when making this decision: the availability and cost of nearby land (a large

I

amount of land is necessary to get an acceptable loading rate for BOD and ammonia), how stringent their effluent limits are, whether the receiving water is listed on the 303(d) list, and whether the

community can obtain the required NPDES wastewater discharge penn it.

I

With the cost of land skyrocketing in coastal Georgia, it may be difficult in the future to acquire the land necessary for such a treatment system.

Course of Action

I

Tidal wetlands are well-protected by existing policies and no further action is required.

I

Enforcement of penn it conditions is inadequate in freshwater wetland sites. Permittees in general are conscientious about following the volumetric restrictions on wetlands filling, however, there

is often noncompliance with erosion/sedimentation control and fill stabilization permit conditions, and

I

there are instances of unauthorized installation of drainage ditches on site. The problem is largely due to two factors. The first is that there is poor coordination between the governing county and ACE. In most

counties, it is the county's responsibility to enforce the Erosion and Sedimentation Law, which is often

I

not done. Nor is there a mechanism in place to enable counties to share the details of construction plans with the Corps, and therefore the associated details of on-site drainage. The second reason is that the

ACE and the county staff responsible for enforcement and compliance inspection is far too small to

I

handle the great volume of projects that are permitted. An additional shortfall is the great number of sites that, due to their small size, are exempt from

the permitting process. A great proportion of construction sites fall in this category and there is no data

I

about the cumulative effects on wetlands of this fraction of the construction. In order to address the shortfalls of Georgia's programs in addressing wetlands, the following

actions are tentatively proposed:

I

I. Create a Task Force in the coastal zone to develop a freshwater wetlands protection program based on

existing but underimplemented programs including the River Corridor and wetlands protection mandates

I

associated with county comprehensive plans, and to modify local building and design standards to include constructed wetlands as a preferred BMP for septage and storm water runoff.

2. Encourage the formation of wetland banks in the coastal zone. Properly placed; they would also serve

I

as wildlife habitat and sediment/nutrient buffers to rivers/tidal creeks. 3. Attempt to quantify the effect of the unpermitted construction sites in wetlands using aerial

photographs.

4. Assess impacts on wetlands by agriculture.

I

S. Obtain a more accurate inventory of wetlands on a county scale and assist with the passing oflocal ordinances that protect wetlands, such as is being done in Chatham County.

6. To encourage the identification of mitigation sites in the coastal zone.

I

7. Identify property owners who own 10 or more acres of wetlands and target them for outreach programs. explaining the value of wetlands and the need for preservation, and explaining the process by

which they could obtain conservation easements and USDA cost-share funds for the Wetlands Reserve

I

Program.

X-9
I

I

I

I

JIDJ~m[fIT XI. MONITORING AND

I

Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 calls for a

description of any necessary monitoring techniques to accompany the management measures to assess

I

over time the success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality (US EPA840-B-92-002, 1993). To evaluate the effectiveness of Georgia's NPS management program, the State's

monitoring and tracking scheme will be designed according to the following three categories:

I

I. Demonstration projects will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of selected management measures in

reducing pollutant loads and improving water quality

I

2. Water quality trends from various long term monitoring programs will be evaluated 3. A management measure tracking program will be developed and will include techniques for assessing

the implementation success and effectiveness.

I

Results of the tracking program will be correlated with the long term monitoring programs to

estimate pollutant load reduction and to assess water quality improvements.

'

I

I. BMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

I. The NRCS will continue to hold a week-long agricultural conservation practice workshop for high

I

school students at Alexander Baldwin Agricultural College in Tifton, GA. This workshop will give students hands-on experience in natural resource conservation and preservation, including soil erosion

prevention, wildlife law enforcement, wildlife management, forestry, urban conservation, and coastal

I

resources. To date, approximately 9,800 students have attended this workshop.

2. A CW A section 319 grant proposal has been submitted by the Coastal RC&D to establish BlYrP

I

monitoring sites at Ebenezer Creek. The demonstrations will include establishing several agricultural BMPs that will ameliorate the eutrophic conditions of the creek by reducing the amount of animal waste,

sediment and fertilizer entering the creek from agricultural operations. The project will implement a

I

permanent water monitoring program in the watershed by way of the Adopt-A-Stream program. Waterborne sediment (as turbidity), dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature. nitrogen and phosphorus will be

monitored on a permanent basis.

I

II. WATER QUALITY MONITORING

I

As stated under section 6217 (g) of CZARA, the overall monitoring objective is to assess over time the success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality. This can be

subdivided into 5 objectives for this water quality monitoring program:

I

I. To monitor the average water chemistry conditions and how the chemistry changes during a typical runoff event.

2. To mon itor the changes in base Iine water chem istry parameters over time, if any

I

3. If there are sustained changes in water chemistry at the sampling sites. to correlate them with a regional land use.

4. To monitor the effectiveness of the BMP demonstration projects and other management measures.

I

5. To assess changes in pollutant loads over time.

I

XI-l

I

W~to,r Long TOnTI

Monitoring, Program

[ETl . . 1]it]A ~ ;1 JI D
J, ;

All existing and ongomg water sampling programs will be documented, asstrm ted i a data

base and analyzed for trends. New sampling sites will be established as funding permits in any important

coastal areas that are currently not under study. Sampling sites will be located so as to account for regional

variability in water chemistry, and sites representative of regional conditions will be sampled at least

quarterly to account for natural temporal variability of water chemistry. Whenever possible, sampling will

include biological monitoring, such as deploying biofouling plates at water sampling sites and the

collection of sediment cores. "Piggy-backing", or the establishment of increased sampling density and/or

additional parameters to be measured at preexisting sampling sites will be done wherever possible; for

example, nutrient sampling will be added to the routine collection of additional water samples to be tested

at the National Shellfish Sanitation Program sampling sites, which currently only test for fecal coliform

and salinity. An attempt will be made to link the pollutants, if any, to a specific land use, such as

differentiating between pesticides from urban and agricultural sources.

To increase coverage of water sampling and to involve the community, the Adopt-A-Stream

program will be implemented and promoted in the coastal zone.

Short Term Water Monitoring Projects In contrast to the routine sample collection, short-term, high density sampling for runoff events
and BMP demonstration sites will be conducted. At selected sites sampling will be done during storm events on a rotating basis. Runoff sampling will be done in areas representative of the land uses addressed in this plan. Each sampling area will be sampled during 4 runoff events amounting to a 0.1 inch rainfall event occurring after 72 hours of a dry spell for four days after the event. BMP demonstration sites, once established, will be monitored by Adopt-A-Stream QA/AC programs monthly, for a period of one year. Basic sampling parameters will be dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrate, total phosphorus, salinity, temperature, turbidity. and if applicable, coliform. Additional parameters will be sampled on a site-specific basis, if funding allows.

Data Analvsis The data analysis strategy will be designed to eliminate the signature of natural random variability
in the water quality data, measurement bias, precision and accuracy shortfalls, statistical bias, random sampling errors, and gross errors.
[f sampl ing results indicate regions where water quality is impaired, point source pollution
sources will be identified for each region. This will be done by reviewing NPDES permits for stormwater,
hazardous waste, and municipal wastewater discharges. Wherever possible, a correlation between land use and significant nonpoint source contaminants in a region will be made. This correlation will be done for the Lower Altamaha River beginning in 2000 (described below).
Separate data bases will be established for Adopt-A-Stream data and the data collected by professional sources. The AAS data will be used for outreach purposes, and as a determiner of where to install short-term sampling projects.
In order to assess annual mass loadings, USGS stream discharge data will be incorporated into analysis, along with any available runoff rates for each location. Runoff rates may not be available in many areas for some time.
From the water chemistry data, the associated land use data, and the loadings calculations, water quality goals will be established.

Existing Monitoring Data for Coastal Georgia According to the USGS Water Resources Data Report, Water Year 1997, annual records for water
qual ity monitoring conducted by the USGS go back to 1941. The sampling site density of these records

XI-2

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o o o

I

I

Ther~ sho~ .. thaTtff~'!WfDJ~fii1 ~fJ?ri1y~~ tended to .be
term studies

low. of the

are. several

term monitor.ing records

University of Georgia. Much of this data was collected

for

a

relativel~short

short riod of

I

time and did not cover a large geographic area. One of the longest routine water quality monitoring projects was conducted by the EPD from 1973 to 1993 at 13 sampling stations in the estuarine region of

Georgia. The stations were located at river mouths and at the mouths of tidal inlets and so do not represent

I

inland tributaries to any degree. All available historical water quality data is summarized and analyzed in the South Carolina Sea

Grant Consortium's Land Use Coastal Ecosystem Study program report entitled Indicators of Trends

I

Toward Coastal Eutrophication. This report concluded that in the estuaries adjacent to areas of strong urban development, nutrient input to the waters is dominated by point sources of pollution, that the

eutrophication in the Ogeechee and Altamaha Rivers are affected more by nonpoint source pollution than

I

point sources, and that in general, there is inadequate information on nutrient cycling in the estuaries and water quality records at present to properly assess background water quality conditions.

Ongoing Water Sampling Programs: Local Scale

I

Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Program

The Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for the routine dredging of the ports of Savannah and

I

Brunswick, and the Intracoastal Waterway, routinely monitor water quality in the dredging area during the dredging process. During the dredging process, which in the Savannah River is July through September,

dissolved oxygen is measured 500 ft down-current from the dredge and all 8 spoil disposal sites are

I

monitored weekly at 3 depths for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature, conductivity, and salinity until all return water has run out of the site. The disposal sites for spoil from Savannah Harbor are sampled

for the same parameters once a month when there is no incoming spoil. Under an agreement with the

I

CRD, during the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway 3 sites monitored daily for suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.

I

The Vernon River Project In response to citizen's concerns over a stormwater pumping station in the town of Vernon berg,

the City of Savannah will conduct a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the vicinity of the

I

Vernon River and Hayner's Creek to assess the effect of the pumped stonnwater on its receiving waters. This project is being funded by the Coastal Incentive Grant (CIG) through the Georgia Coastal

Management Program (GCMP). The city plans to install 3 continuous data loggers in the river to measure

dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity/salinity, pH, turbidity. and depth. Two of the data loggers

I

will be placed in Casey's Canal, upstream and down stream of the pumping station, and one in Hayner's Creek. After data has been collected for at least one year and 4 wet-weather events are documented, two

of the data loggers wi II be moved to other nearby stations further downstream. In addition, the City of

I

Savannah will take coliform samples at 6 stations in the vicinity along the Vernon River, along with depth profiles of the water quality parameters.

I

Monitoring Land Use Changes and Impact on Estuaries Georgia's Coastal Zone Management Program has awarded a Coastal Incentive Grant to the

University of Georgia to study the impact of land use changes on the salt regimes of Georgia's estuaries,

I

beginning with the Satilla River. The ramifications of this study go beyond estuarine salinity regimes. This program will evaluate changes in land use over time. This involves devising a consistent

(standardized) classification ofland use from the existing, nonstandardized (and therefore incomparable)

I

Landsat imagery for several years. Runoff into the river of study will be simulated using an appropriate runoff model (or a composite model) coupled to the GIS system that is generated by the land use analysis,

I

XI-3

I

. . .- . - .. ~---------------------~~

~--"-----

[ffJfD) fil (2)? Ir~ate, d~ta prWkn~!aJ:larMuse . ddi

I' I . .

in a . "'?" to e evatlOn: c

an.d. soils

.. The model will be run for

conditions, as well as historic conditions to indicate the change in runoff over time, and compared to an

actual hydrograph for the watershed. Another byproduct of this project will be determination of accurate

flushing times for the river's estuaries that are more accurate than the present estimates, which are based

on sparse data.

.

Monitoring by the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve There are moored continuous data loggers at 2 sites along the Duplin River, that monitor the pH,
temperature, salinity, turbidity, depth, and dissolved oxygen in the river. There is a continuous data record at these sites for 10 years. There are also 2 Mussel Watch sites in the area which sample shellfish tissue and sediment for the following pollutants:

Trace Metals Arsenic Nickel Cadmium Mercury Copper Selenium Lead Zinc

Organic Compounds Total DDT Total Chlordane Total Dieldrin Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Total Butyltin

Satilla River Projects



Sal initv and currents: Scientists at the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography have been collecting

salinity data in the Lower Satilla River to model changes in salinity distribution. After the salinity

regime has been modeled, they will proceed to do the same with the other coastal rivers. Two

intensive sampling efforts were conducted in the Satilla early in 1999 via a moored array

measuring salinity and currents. Data loggers are located in mid-river, between St. Andrews Sound

and Woodbine, with one station in White Oak creek. The Satilla River modeling is funded by a

CIG.



Nutrients: Scientists at Skidaway studied nutrient cycling and distribution in the intertidal portion

of the Satilla River, beginning in 1998. This research focusses on nutrient exchange between the

water column and the sediments. The end result will be a nutrient model. This study also provided

benthic dissolved oxygen fluctuation data for about 70 miles of the Lower Satilla, in the summer

months of 1995,1997, and 1998, and also benthic dissolved oxygen along 50 miles of the

Ogeechee River, summer months of 1997 and 1998.

Projects of the University of Georgia Marine Extension Service



Beginning in October, 1999, an Adopt-A-River program will be implemented in the coastal zone

by the Marine Extension Service (MAREX). The program will install :3 continuous data loggers,

one each in the Satilla, Altamaha, and Ogeechee Rivers, and in subsequent years in the St. Mary's

and Savannah Rivers, if funding allows. The data loggers will be operated and maintained by

adopt a river volunteers. This project is also funded by the Coastal Management Program.



MAREX will measure primary productivity, coliform, Biological Oxygen Demand, dissolved

oxygen profiles, pH, and turbidity/light attenuation at 7 sampling stations in the Lower Satilla

River. Scientists at Skidaway Institute of Oceanography will measure salinity, temperature,

nutrients, and current vectors in the river at stationary sampling sites plus a " towed array". Other

XI-4

o o o o o o o
o
o o o o o o o o
o
o
o

I I

. . . .. fDI fil f2Jl fDJ p~rameters will be added to the analy~is, including metals,.if fund~IIWk~~g

will be used to develop a comprehensive model of the Satilla. The range of monitoring stati S

I

extends to 30 miles upstream.

The Golden Isles Gateway Tract Contaminant Marker Study

I

The Coastal Management Program is also providing funding to the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography to conduct a study of urban-derived contaminants along a developing stretch of the

Altamaha River, beginning in October, 1999. A 6,626 acre tract of land called the Golden Isles Gateway

I

Tract wi 11 be monitored before the onset of construction, during several phases of the construction, and after settlement for "contaminant markers" in runoff from the site, or chemical compounds associated with

urban activities that can be used as tracers of urban discharges. Water sampling will be conducted in

nearby and upstream creeks, lakes, canals, and storm drains (once the latter are established). Both wet

I

weather and dry weather sampling will occur. An analysis of grass shrimp embryos will be include comparing hatching success relative to that found at reference sites and a study of embryonic DNA strand

damage.

I

The Adopt-A-Stream Program Regional Training Center

Savannah State University has been awarded Coastal Incentive Grant funds to establish this center,

I

which trains both volunteers and supervisory staff for the Adopt-A-River/Stream program in the coastal zone. The Center promo.tes AAS program goals to raise public awareness about water quality and recruits

public support and action in monitoring and protecting water resources. The Training Institute also serves

I

as a clearing house for AAS data generated in the coastal zone.

Ongoing Water Sampling Programs: Coastal and Statewide Programs

I

River Basin Management Plan, Atlanta EPD

As described in the Implementation Strategy section of this plan, the Savannah/Ogeechee

Watersheds were sampled in 1997 and the S1. Mary's/Suwannee/Ochlockonee River watersheds were

I

sampled comprehensively in 1998. The sampling scheme is intended to represent average conditions, or to establish representative

physical conditions in the waterways, which by nature are temporally variable. These river basin sites were

I

sampled monthly during their year of study. The parameters are dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, temperature. fecal coliform bacteria, 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, nitrate/nitrite, and total

Phosphorus, metals, synthetic organic compounds, and stress indicators from flow and temperature

I

alterations. There are 4 USGS watershed trend monitoring stations (also known as "core" stations) in the coastal zone, which are sampled monthly on an ongoing basis, regardless of the basin under study.

I

USGS Water Resources Data The USGS has a chemical water quality network that monitors surface water and groundwater

quality in Georgia. The USGS collaborates with the EPD in Georgia's RBMP. Supplemental information

I

comes from the USGS Trend Monitoring Program, the National Stream Quality Accounting Network, the Hydrologic Benchmark Network. and the National Water Quality Assessment Program. The result from

this compilation is monthly parameters, sampled for a 9 - month to 12 month period for dissolved oxygen,

I

specific conductance, pH, temperature (air and water), suspended solids, turbidity, Biochemical Oxygen Demand. alkalinity. nitrate/nitrite, Total Ammonia Nitrogen, Total Organic Carbon, Phosphorus, and fecal coliform. Parameters sampled only periodically: Calcium, Magnesium. tin, Arsenic, Cadmium,

Chromium. Copper, Lead, Thallium, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, and Zinc. Data exists for the Savannah

I

River, Ogeechee River. Peacock Creek in Mcintosh County (no metals), Altamaha River, and Satilla River

I

XI-5

I

(no metals).
Monitoring by the Coastal Resources Division The Coastal Resources Division currently implements the National Shellfish Sanitation program,
sampling 53 sites along Georgia's coast monthly for salinity and coliform. As of2000, this sampling will be expanded to include nutrient analysis. The following additional new programs are to be implemented in 2000:

Ptiesteria sampling: sampling of Georgia's major coastal rivers for the alga Pfiesteria piscicida and associated parameters. Funding: EPA grant Number of sites: Ogeechee River: 6 sites, Altamaha River: 6 sites, S1. Marys River, 6 sites. Savannah and
Satilla Rivers are not sampled monthly because they are covered by existing programs of other institutions. Parameters sampled: tidal stage, weather, temperature, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, silica, river discharge data. Frequency of sampling: twice per month except for the months of December, January and February. The Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, S1. Marys, and Satilla rivers will be sampled twice a year during the warm weather months for Pfiesteria presence/absence. Duration of project: 2 years.
Coastal 2000 program Funding: Nationwide EPA program Number of sites: 50 randomly chosen sites throughout the coast, which change yearly. Parameters sampled:
water: dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, temperature, depth, chlorophyll sediment: Total Organic Carbon, sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, grain size tissue: fish and benthos tissue analysis, community structure, external pathology Frequency of sampling: once per year for five years The data will be analyzed by Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, who will produce a comprehensive report on the state of ecosystem health for coastal Georgia.

Shrimp trawl area sampling, in the major sounds of Georgia Funding: state Number of sites: 24 Parameters sampled: tidal stage, weather, temperature, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total
nitrogen, total phosphorous, silica, river discharge data. Frequency of sampling: monthly, indefinitely

Doboy and Altamaha sounds

Funding: state

Number of sites: 6 in each sound

Parameters sampled: tidal stage, weather, temperature, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total

nitrogen, total phosphorous, silica, river discharge data.

.

Frequency of sampling: monthly, indefinitely

Beach monitoring Funding: state Number of sites: 3 on Tybee beach, 2 on Sea Island, 3 on St. Simons Island, 3 on Jekyll Island. Total= II

XI-6

o o o o o o
n
U
o
o o o o o o o
Un
o

I

I

paramet:~::ampled: [D)ill!JJ [fU fecal coliform, enterococci, weather state, and salinity

I

Frequency of sampling: weekly, indefinitely

National Shellfish monitoring program

I

Funding: federal and state Number of sites: 53

Parameters sampled: fecal coliform, tidal stage, weather, temperature, salinity, conductivity, dissolved

I

oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, silica, river discharge data. Frequency of sampling: monthly, indefinitely

Continuous data loggers installed permanently at 4 sites:

I

2 at Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve

1 at Skidaway Institute of Oceanography on Skidaway Island

I

At least I in the mouth of the Altamaha River

Total monitoring sites: 171

I

III. MANAGEMENT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT AJ."'ffi TRACKING

I

Information from management measure tracking programs will be correlated with the management measure effectiveness studies and with the long term monitoring programs to estimate

pollutant load reduction and to assess water quality improvements. The first step will be to establish

I

several key areas for preliminary monitoring in each land-use category that can be statistically normalized to represent average conditions.

I

Agricultural Management Practice Tracking Agricultural 8MP implementation will be conducted in conjunction with the River Basin

Management Program. As mentioned in the Implementation Strategy section of this plan. this strategy

divides the coastal portion of Georgia into five watersheds: the Savannah-Ogeechee, The Altamaha, the

I

Satilla, and the Suwannee/St. Mary's. Each year monitoring, program development, or implementation activities will be concentrated in a designated watershed. Tracking efforts will focus on the watershed

group being monitored. While a watershed is evaluated for the program, detailed information concerning

I

the agricultural practices in that area will be collected and organized into a GIS.

Forestrv Management Practice Tracking

I

The Georgia Forestry Commission has an accurate BMP compliance tracking program.

Urban Management Practice Tracking

I

I. NEW DEVELOPMENT: Monitoring will be accomplished in part by reviewing the new local

ordinances that result from the NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit coverage for municipalities and also

I

for new Phase I industries. Technical assistance from EPD Coastal District and the Coastal ROC will emphasize that the (g) guidance management measures be included in new Stormwater Management

Plans that are required by this permit.

I

2. EXISTrNG DEVELOPMENT: When existing NPDES stormwater permit coverage must be

I

XI-7

I

.~

. -------------------~---~~_::::c___=

~me~~ rEe1l renewed, the EPDIRDC will work with the permitees to include the
version of their Stormwater Management Plans and checked for compliance. The number of attendees at regional workshops on Erosion and Sediment Control and BMP installation on unpaved road construction sites will be monitored annually. 3. WATERSHED PLANNING: This sector will rely heavily on the TMDL development process and schedule. This process is still early in it's developmental stage. 4. A monitoring program for On-Site Disposal Systems operation and maintenance must be developed. 5. A monitoring program for Roads, Highways and Bridges must be developed.
Marina and Recreational Boating Management Practice Tracking Records of Notices OfIntent submitted by marinas in response to the NPDES stormwater rules
will be assimilated into a database, along with a review of their stormwater management plans. All water quality monitoring information will be centralized and analyzed. A formal tracking system will be developed from this information.
Hydromodification Management Tracking Because hydromodification is such a rare occurrence in the coastal zone, 'it's environmental
impact is presumed to be minimal. However, the data from hydrornodification projects and dams in the coastal zone will be reviewed and the impact evaluated and reported in the 6217 program. This data will include environmental impact assessments conducted by the responsible agencies prior to coristruction, the specifications and scope of the projects, and proximity to environmentally sensitive areas or any are that provides water quality/aquatic habitat benefits or protection, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, and submerged springs (thought to be vital to Atlantic short-nosed sturgeon in the lower reaches of coastal Georgia rivers). If the impact proves to be significant, additional management measures will be incorporated into Georgia's program and a BMP tracking program will be developed.
Wetlands Management Practice Tracking Compile permit information and map the permit areas where no mitigation was required to
ascertain the cumulative effect. A wetlands certifications summary report for the coastal zone will be produced. This includes information on both contiguous and isolated wetlands such as number of applications received, applications approved, denied. permits appealed, and amount of fill requested. A computerized tracking system for the water quality certification program. Location, activities, wetlands types, area affected and mitigation requirements will be included in the database.

XI-8

o
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o

I I

. @mL/;~]Lrr2'7? XIL PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION

U

I

This chapter addresses the efforts undertaken by the Georgia Coastal Resources Division to

involve the public and State and federal agencies in the development of the Coastal Nonpoint Source

I

Program, and the public education strategy covering the topics of non-point source pollution, it's causes, and how private citizens can reduce it.

I

Public Involvement in the Plan There will be several opportunities for public input during the development of the plan. We hope

to have voluntary compliance with the nonpoint source program to the maximum degree possible, and

I

also to make the effort a flexible, practical one, applicable to local conditions that will be economically attainable.

Public Notification of the Plan

I

Early in the program development, contact was made with representatives of key agencies and members of industry that govern the NPS land use categories, and they were recruited to serve on the

plan's Technical Advisory Committee. The members of this committee provided invaluable input

regarding existing NPS programs and what additional areas must be addressed.

I

A notice of the plan was posted in the Georgia Sound newsletter in September, 1999. Press releases were made in each coastal county in September, 1999 that describe the plan.and solicit public

input

I

The plan was placed at the county libraries in each of the coastal counties to solicit comments before submission to NOAA. The sections of the plan for each land-use category were circulated amongst

the relevant audience, as well as a solicitation of comments, with the emphasis being placed on the

I

objectives and goals of the section. For example, the wetlands section of the plan was sent to representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nature

Conservancy, a construction engineering firm (Thomas and Hutton Engineering) and the

I

Savannah/Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission. In addition, the following presentations were made to introduce the public to the plan:

I

Erosion and Sedimentation Conference, March 29-31, 1999, to municipal officials and people employed in the water resources industry.



Coast/est, October 2, 1999.

The St. Mary's River Basin Advisory Committee. August 18, 1999.

I



The Coastal Georgia Center for Sustainable Development October 20, 1999

Public Education

I

The purpose of the State's NPS public education program is to encourage the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pollution prevention in NPS categories. In order to prevent

duplication of programs and to increase the coverage of the programs, the educational programs will be

I

coordinated with those of the University of Georgia Marine Extension Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve, and other agencies.

The CRD will develop and prioritize educational needs with the input of cooperating agencies.

I

We will also devise a means of measuring the success of the programs. Evaluation techniques may include broad-based questionnaire surveys, or compliance surveys of BMPs implemented.

This program will first target specific professional communities with workshops in NPS pollution

I

and best management practice options. Then, activities geared at the general public will be offered so as to encourage the use of BMPs by the professions.

I

XII-I

I

IF There will be a strong effort to promote the formation of citizen's w W i l l i l l f ?
Ongoing Educational Programs and Events Sedimentation and Erosion Control Workshops are offered by the SWCDs once every 2 years for
private engineers, building contractors, and county staff. These workshops demonstrate how to incorporate conservation practices during urban construction, focusing on designs and installation of best management practices. The workshops help county staff responsible for enforcing local erosion and sediment control regulations to evaluate practice effectiveness and improve compliance with erosion and sedimentation ordinances. The improved knowledge of practitioners and county staff will help construction activities comply with local regulations and help prevent environmentally damaging practice failures. The target areas are the rapidly urbanizing areas of Savannah, Richmond Hill, Effingham County, Brunswick/St. Simon's Island, and St. Mary's.
The Coastal RC&D will spearhead the establishment of Outdoor Classrooms. Preexisting "outdoor classrooms" at Mary Lee Clark Elementary School in Camden County and Martha Pickett Middle School in Wayne County will be improved and a new outdoor classroom will be installed at Long County Elementary School. These outdoor classrooms consist of preserved areas representing several ecosystems, with a nature trail, a boardwalk through wetlands areas, and a hands-on planting site. The outdoor classrooms can be adapted to a wide range of specific curriculum needs (biology, ecology, hydrology, and more).
Coastfest: This is an annual public event held at the DNR grounds in Brunswick. It includes a series of activities, presentations and educational booths on several conservation topics ranging from wildlife to water pollution.
The Coastal Ark: the Coastal Ark is a customized R/V vehicle that provides a "mobile classroom". The Ark is driven to schools. conferences, and other public events. There are presentations by CRD staff members, displays of tlooding contingency plans, displays and literature on the importance of wetlands and runoff pollution, and interactive computer activities for children and adults involving water conservation, runoff pollution, and other topics.
The Georgia Sound newsletter: This newsletter has a circulation numbering in the thousands. It contains feature articles on conservation, pollution, beach erosion, and other environmental topics, discussions of various aspects of the Coastal Zone Management Program, and program updates.
Production of brochures: Brochures and flyers produced by the CMP include: Erosion and Sedimentation Law information brochure for county staff, NPS urban BMP brochure for municipal staff, informational brochures on the Coastal Management Program and the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, fact sheets on wetlands, and other brochures describing CRD's regulatory process requirements.
NEMO training for CRD outreach staff In November, 1999 there will be a training program held in Brunswick for the CRD and Marine Extension outreach staff called Nonpoint source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). This program, based in the University of Connecticut, trains environmental outreach professionals and any other interested members of the public in effective and highly visual techniques for presenting the problems and causes ofNPS pollution to laymen who are decision makers (such as Municipal Officials).
Adopt-A-Stream training for CRD/Marine Extension outreach staff: The Coastal Adopt-A-Stream Coordinator held a training program in Brunswick for state environmental outreach staff in July, 1999.
XII-2

o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o o o
o
o o
o

I

~ r---

I

. .' ~](/~ ,f?l?
This was a ".train the tr~iners" ",:,orkshop,offering QA(QC certification to partici~~nt~ sl~tth1din turn

could effectively recruit and tram volunteers to establish the AAS program in the coastal zone.

I

The expansion of the Adopt-A-Stream program in coastal Goergia was made possible by a Coastal Incentive Grant awarded to Savannah State University. Adopt-A-Stream volunteers will be recruited

initially for The Lower Satilla River watershed. Recruitment and volunteer training will be a collaborative

I

effort between the Marine Extension Service and the DNR. Once this AAS program is underway, the program will be extended to other regions in the coastal zone.

I

Dock Building seminar, August, 1998 The CRD held a dock building seminar in August, 1998. This was an informational seminar open

to the public that explained common misconceptions and points of confusion related to dock building,

I

including permitting requirements, permit application procedures, the requirements of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (such as Revocable licenses), dock modification procedures, compliance

inspections, penalties for violation, and common problems between dock contractors and regulatory staff.

I

The Marinas Survey and Assessment: as described in the marinas chapter of this plan.

Two Marinas workshops on NPS and BMPs: as described in the Marinas chapter of this plan.

I

New Pro grams

I

Municipal Officials Outreach Specific topics presented to muncipal officials will include: NEMO presentations on nonpoint

source pollution to municipal officials (in collaboration with the Marine Extension Service), the problems

I

with septic tanks in coastal plain soils, and the importance of riparian buffers.

Fishing Community Outreach

I

Presentations will be made to commercial fishing groups and recreational fishing groups, including the Georgia Fishermans Association, the Georgia Shrimpers Association, and the Coastal Conservation

Association of Georgia, a citizen's group of recreational fishers that are concerned about managing the

marine environment.

I

The General Public

To reach the public on a regular basis, the CRD will investigate the establishment of a regular

I

spec ial feature newspaper article in the local newspapers. The presence of the coastal management program and the nonpoint course program will be increased at local events.

I

Grade School and Community College Outreach A short course in NPS pollution will be designed for presentation at local community colleges and

high schools. The course will cover basic hydrology, the hydrological cycle, basics of soils. causes ofNPS

I

pollution. household pollution, septic tanks, sewer system treatment and what the average citizen can do to reduce it. Working with the Marine Extension Service in Brunswick, the course will be broadcast on the

GSAMS network to schools in the coastal zone as a series. It will also be presented in person via a guest

I

speaker at the school, with hands-on activities for the students. The program will be initiated in Brunswick and expand to other coastal counties. An in-service course for NPS pollution and basic hydrology will be

designed and offered to local high school and community college instructors.

I

I

XII-3

I

1eC': 1~ ~t~ ~;~ Qrt @1&~JlJlyst betweenthe U-GA CESandtheDNR will

home

o
o

pollution audit material to abridge the information and emphasize NPSpoliution. A workshop on the Home-A-Syst program will be offered by CESIDNR for realtors to introduce them to the material. If

o

there is sufficient interest, the abridged H6me-A-Syst material will be given to participating realtors so

that they can hand out the information to new home buyers, thus increasing the circulation of the material.

o

Homeowners

,

Presentations will be made to homeowners associations in a variety of topics, including general

NPS pollution material, the fate of household pesticides/herbicides in the 'environment, xeriscape, septic

o

tank maintenance, and more.
o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

XII-4

o

o

I

DRAFT FINAL 09/4/01

I

RATIONALE: Georgia's program has proposed a 6217 management area coincident with the

state's coastal zone boundary. The area includes all coastal Georgia counties plus those counties

I

immediately inland (west) and adjacent to the coastal counties. Georgia has identified several existing sources of nonpoint pollution emanating from areas just outside the proposed 6217

management area. They include animal waste runoff from Bulloch, Appling, and Tattnall

I

Counties, and 23 impaired waterbodies from the 303(d) listed waters in adjacent inland counties,

most of which are due to nonpoint source pollution. Georgia has not provided a rationale for the

I

proposed 6217 management area in the program submittal, or justification for why the impaired waterbodies would not have a significant impact on coastal waters. Based on the information

provided, NOAA and EPA believe that the proposed 6217 management area excludes existing

I

land and water uses that have a significant impact on the coastal waters of the state.

II. AGRICULTURE

I

FINDING: Georgia's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)

guidance, except it does not include Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal

I

Facilities Management Measures (Large and Small Units), or Nutrient Management Measures. The State should provide a legal opinion that clearly states that the backup authorities can be

used to prevent nonpoint pollution and require management measure implementation. The State

I

should strengthen its description of the voluntary or incentive based programs to implement the management measures, the description of the mechanism or process linking the implementing

agency with the enforcement agency and its commitment to use the enforcement authority where

I

necessary.

I

CONDITION: Within two years, Georgia will include in its program management measures for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities Management Measures (Large

and Small Units) and Nutrient Management Measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

I

RATIONALE: The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC) is the lead

agency for prevention of agricultural nonpoint pollution in the state. The SWCC develops

I

nonpoint source water quality programs and conducts educational activities to promote conservation and protection ofland and water resources devoted to agricultural use. Georgia's

40 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) provide technical assistance to help local

I

producers plan and establish needed soil and water conservation practices. There are several other local, State and Federal programs which target agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution.

These include the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) which provides financial and

I

technical assistance to landowners for implementation of animal waste management systems, grazing activities, plant materials, and other Best Management Practices (BMPs), the University

of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service which collaborates with and trains farmers and staff

I

from the other agricultural agencies in several areas, including pesticides handling certification, fertilizer application, and crop management, and Resource Conservation and Development

Councils that encourage wise conservation of natural and human resources.
I An Agricultural/Irrigation Technical Task Force has developed a BMP guide for farmers entitled

I

"Agricultural Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Georgia." (BMP Guide). The BMP Guide is promoted by the SWCC and the NRCS through educational

I

I

DRAFT FINAL 09/4/01

I

programs and BMP demonstration workshops. BMPs are also implemented through federal cost

share programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, and disincentives such as revocation

I

of financial assistance through the Farm Bill Sodbusters Program and Conservation Compliance Program.

The BMP Guide contains practices in conformity with the 6217(g) management

I

measures, except for nutrient management and runoff from confined animal facilities management measures (Large and Small Units). (NOTE: update the BMP manual, tlten) For

I

the nutrient management measure, although the BMP Guide identifies the elements of nutrient management, it does not recommend developing a nutrient management plan, which is the

guiding principle behind the 6217(g) nutrient management measure. Similarly, the joint USDA

I

and EPA Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan is targeted only at animal feeding operations and not the entire range of agricultural activities that need to be addressed

under a nutrient management plan. Currently, only certified planners in the Natural Resources

I

Conservation Service (NRCS) and the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service (UGACES) are responsible for drafting Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs).

NOAA and EPA encourage Georgia in their efforts to expand the program to certify not

I

only NRCS and CES staff, but also private consultants in CNMP development. Regarding animal facilities, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)

regulates handling of large agricultural and animal waste facilities through a permitting process.

I

The permitting process does not apply to all confined animal facilities that need to be addressed under the 6217 program. For example, the Georgia standard is a minimum of700 dairy cows

and 100,000 laying hens or broilers, while the 6217(g) measures apply to a minimum of 20

I

dairy cows and 5,000 laying hens or broilers (the small unit measure), and 70 dairy cows and 15,000 laying hens or broilers (the large unit measure).

I

For the smaller facilities covered by the CZARA management measures but not addressed in Georgia's permit program, there does not appear to be a program to promote widespread

implementation of the measures. NOAA and EPA encourage Georgia to update the brochure

I

to include all of the (g) management measures and promote its wide-scale distribution and adoption as a means to address the measures, and to provide additional information on

linking mechanisms between voluntary programs described above and the enforcement

I

capabilities detailed in the legal opinion. The "Guidelines for Handling Commercial Forestry Complaints" (described under Forestry Management Measures below) is the type of

information describing the linkage between the implementing agency and the enforcement

I

agency that NOAA and EPA are looking for. For agriculture, the primary enforcement authority is the Georgia Water Quality Control

Act (OCGA 12-5-20), and the authority under which the Environmental Protection Division

I

(EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is authorized to develop river basin management plans (OCGA 12-5-520). Upon adoption ofa basin plan, all permitting and other

activities under the control of the DNR are to be consistent with the plan.

I

The Georgia Water Quality Control Act authorizes EPD to revise and enforce rules and

regulations governing water quality and quantity, and set NPDES permit conditions and effluent

I

limits. To the extent that farmers fail to effectively manage pollutants originating on their site and cause pollution of state waters, the EPD enforces the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. If

cooperation is not forthcoming or if the violation poses immediate threat to public safety and

I

health, EPD may issue fines and seek court-enforced actions.

I

4