WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2004-2005
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PAGE
Purpose....................................................................................... 1-1
Water Protection In Georgia..............................................................1-1
Water Protection Programs............................................................... 1-3
Background....................................... ................................ 1-3
Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning................ 1-3
Watershed Projects.................................................................1-3
Monitoring and Assessment..................................................... 1-3
Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocation/TMDL Development.. 1-4
TMDL Implementation Plan Development....................................1-4
State Revolving Loan Fun........................................................ 1-4
GEFA Implementation Unit...................................................... 1-4
NPDES Permitting and Enforcement..........................................1-5
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations...................................1-6
Zero Tolerance...................................................................... 1-6
Nonpoint Source Management Program.....................................1-6
Stormwater Management......................................................... 1-7
Erosion and Sediment Control.................................................. 1-8
Major Issues and Challenges............................................................ 1-9
CHAPTER 2 COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE WATER MANAGMENT PLANNING
Background ................................................................................. 2-1 Major Water Management Planning Objectives .....................................2-3
Minimize Withdrawals............................................................. 2-3 Maximize Returns.................................................................. 2-3 Meet Instream and Offstream Demands......................................2-4 Protect Water Quality............................................................. 2-5 Stakeholder Participation..................................................................2-6 The Water Council................................................................. 2-6 Statewide Advisory Committee................................................. 2-7 Technical Advisory Committees................................................ 2-8 Basin Advisory Committees..................................................... 2-8 Tasks and Milestones...................................................................... 2-8
CHAPTER 3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT Background................................................................................... 3-1 Water Resources Atlas............................................................ 3-1 Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ................3-1 Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. 3-4
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
Goals.................................................................................. 3-4 Trend/River Basin/TMDL Monitoring..........................................3-4 Intensive Surveys.................................................................. 3-16 Biological Monitoring ..............................................................3-16 Lake Monitoring.....................................................................3-16 Fish Tissue Monitoring ......................................................... 3-31 Toxic Substance Stream Monitoring.......................................... 3-31 Aquatic Toxicity Testing.......................................................... 3-32 Coastal Monitoring................................................................. 3-32 Facility Compliance Sampling...................................................3-32 Surface Water Quality Summary........................................................ 3-33 Data Assessment.................................................................. 3-33 Fecal Coliform Bacteria...........................................................3-33 Metals................................................................................. 3-35 Toxicity Testing/Toxic Substances.............................................3-35 Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Temperature......................................... 3-35 Fish/Shellfish Guidelines.........................................................3-36 Biotic Data........................................................................... 3-36 Evaluation of Use Support .................................................... 3-36 Assessment of Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses............ 3-37 Assessment of Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses............................................................... 3-37 Priorities for Action.................................................................3-37
CHAPTER 4 WETLAND PROGRAMS Introduction.................................................................................... 4-1 Extent of Wetland Resources............................................................4-2 Wetland Trends in Georgia...............................................................4-3 Integrity of Wetland Resources..........................................................4-4 Wetland Use Support............................................................. 4-4 Wetland Monitoring................................................................ 4-8 Additional Wetlands Protection Activities..............................................4-8 Land Acquisition.................................................................... 4-8 Education and Public Outreach................................................ 4-9 State Protected Species in Wetlands..........................................4-9 Managing Wetlands on State Owned Properties...........................4-10 Assessment of DNR Managed Wetlands.................................... 4-11
CHAPTER 5 ESTUARY AND COASTAL PROGRAMS Background................................................................................... 5-1 Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. 5-1 Shellfish Sanitation Program............................................................. 5-2 Beach Monitoring Program .............................................................. 5-3
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
Nutrient Monitoring Program............................................................. 5-5 National Coastal Assessment............................................................ 5-5 Comprehensive Monitoring/Assessment Study for Georgia Coastal Wetlands............................................................5-6 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Programs.................................5-6 Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve.............................. 5-10 Coastal Zone Management............................................................... 5-10
CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC HEALTH/AQUATIC LIFE ISSUES Fish Consumption Guidelines............................................................ 6-1 Background.......................................................................... 6-1 Fish Monitoring Program ...................................................... 6-1 Evaluation of Fish Consumption Guidance for Use Support............6-2 Risk-Based Assessment For Fish Consumption...........................6-3 General Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks................................ 6-3 Specific Waterbody Consumption Guidelines.............................. 6-4 Special Notice for Pregnant Women, Nursing Mothers, and Children.........................................................................6-4 Development of New Risk Communication Tools..........................6-4 Bathing Area Monitoring.................................................................. 6-9 Shellfish Area Closures................................................................... 6-9 Pollution Related Fish Kills............................................................... 6-10
CHAPTER 7 WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS Program Perspective....................................................................... 7-1 Comprehensive Statewide Water Planning...........................................7-2 Watershed Projects.........................................................................7-3 Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. 7-3 Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocations/TMDL Development..........7-3 TMDL Implementation Plan Development ......................................... 7-4 State Revolving Loan/Construction Grants ..........................................7-4 Georgia's Land Conservation Program................................................7-6 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program.............................................................................. 7-7 Concentrated Animal Feeding Program............................................... 7-8 Combined Sewer Overflows..............................................................7-9 Compliance and Enforcement........................................................... 7-10 Zero Tolerance.............................................................................. 7-11 Stormwater Management................................................................. 7-12 Erosion and Sedimentation Control.................................................... 7-15 Nonpoint Source Management Program............................................. 7-17 Agriculture........................................................................... 7-21
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
Silviculture ...........................................................................7-25 Urban Runoff........................................................................7-27 Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) Program............... 7-31 Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program..................................................... 7-34 Emergency Response Program.........................................................7-36 Environmental Radiation.................................................................. 7-37
CHAPTER 8 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES Groundwater................................................................................. 8-1 Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals............................................. 8-21 Ground and Surface Drinking Water Supplies....................................... 8-24
CHAPTER 9 MAJOR ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning........................9-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution................................................................ 9-1 Toxic Substances........................................................................... 9-2 Public Involvement..........................................................................9-2
APPENDIX A WATERS ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGNATED USES............................................................A-1
APPENDIX B WATERS ADDED TO THE GEORGIA 303(d) LIST BY THE USEPA......................................................................... ........B-1
APPENDIX C FISH CONSUMPTION GUIDELINES................................ C-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1 TABLE 3-2
TABLE 3-3
TABLE 3-4 TABLE 3-5 TABLE 3-6 TABLE 3-7 TABLE 3-8
PAGE Water Resources Atlas.................................................. 3-2 Georgia Water Use Classifications and Instream Water Quality Standards for Each Use...................................... 3-3 Georgia Instream Water Quality Standards For All Waters: Toxic Substances.............................................. 3-5 Water Quality Standards For Major Lakes..........................3-9 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network 2004........................... 3-19 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network 2005........................... 3-23 Major Lakes Ranked by Trophic State Index...................... 3-29 Contributors of Water Quality Data For Assessment of Georgia Waters............................................................ 3-34
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
TABLE 3-9 Evaluation of Use Support by Waterbody Type 2004-2005....3-38 TABLE 3-10 Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses By Waterbody
Type 2004-2005........................................................... 3-39 TABLE 3-11 Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses by
Waterbody Type 2004-2005............................................3-39 TABLE 4-1 Assessment of DNR Lands (1990)................................... 4-11 TABLE 5-1 Location and Size of Areas Approved for Shellfish Harvest... 5-2 TABLE 6-1 Parameters for Fish Tissue Testing.................................. 6-1 TABLE 6-2 No Consumption Restrictions 2005................................ 6-5 TABLE 6-3 Guidelines for Limiting The Fish You Eat Lakes 2005...... 6-6 TABLE 6-4 Guidelines for Limiting The Fish You Eat Rivers 2005...... 6-7 TABLE 6-5 Pollution-Caused Fish Kills 2004-2005..............................6-11
TABLE 7-1 TABLE 8-1 TABLE 8-2 TABLE 8-3 TABLE 8-3
Municipal Facility Sources of Investment 2004-2005............ 7-5 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination.................. 8-3 Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs.........8-4 Aquifer Monitoring Data for CY2004................................. 8-9 Aquifer Monitoring Data for CY2005................................. 8-10
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 Basin Advisory Committee.............................................2-9 FIGURE 2-2 Comprehensive Water Planning-Tasks and Milestones ........2-10 FIGURE 3-1 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations 1994...3-14 FIGURE 3-2 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations
2000-2004................................................................. 3-15 FIGURE 3-3 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations 2004...3-17 FIGURE 3-4 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations 2005...3-18 FIGURE 8-1 Hydrologic Provinces of Georgia.....................................8-6 FIGURE 8-2 Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Network........................8-8 FIGURE 8-3 Insecticide/Herbicide Use in Georgia............................... 8-11 FIGURE 8-4 Areas Susceptible to Natural High Dissolved Solids
and 24 County Area Covered by the Interim Coastal Management Strategy.................................................. 8-12
FIGURE 8-5 Areas Susceptible to Natural and Human Induced Radiation........................................................ 8-14
FIGURE 8-6 Generalized Map of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas of Georgia......................................................... 8-19
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary
Purpose
This report, Water Quality in Georgia, 2004-2005, was prepared by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR Coastal Resources (CRD) and Wildlife Resources Divisions (WRD), the Georgia Forestry Commission, and the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission also contributed portions of the report. In addition, water quality data was provided by a number of governmental agencies and universities.
The report is often referred to as the Georgia 305(b) Report as portions of the report are prepared to comply with this section of the Federal Clean Water Act. Section 305(b) requires that each State prepare and submit to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a report, biennially, which describes water quality conditions of navigable waters across the State. The USEPA provides guidance to the States to establish a framework for consistent reporting across the nation. The USEPA reviews the individual State reports and uses the information to develop a national water quality inventory report, which is transmitted to the Congress of the United States.
This report provides an assessment of the water quality conditions of surface and groundwater in Georgia and includes a description of the nature, extent and causes of documented water quality problems. This assessment of water quality problem areas serves as the basis for lists required by Sections 303(d), 314, and 319 of the Clean Water Act. The report also includes a review and summary of ongoing wetland, estuary, and coastal public health/aquatic life issues; and water protection, groundwater, and drinking water program summaries.
In addition to complying with the Federal Clean Water Act, the major objective of this report is to provide Georgians a broad summary of information on water quality and the programs being implemented by the GAEPD and its partners to protect water resources across the State.
Water Protection In Georgia
The GAEPD is and has been since its inception in 1972 a comprehensive environmental agency responsible for environmental protection, management, regulation, permitting, and enforcement in Georgia. The GAEPD has for many years aggressively sought most available program delegations from the USEPA in order to
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-1
achieve and maintain a coordinated, integrated approach to environmental management. Today the GAEPD administers regulatory programs for water pollution control, water supply and groundwater management, surface water allocation, hazardous waste management, air quality control, solid waste management, strip mining, soil erosion control, geologic survey activities, radiation control, underground storage tanks, and safe dams.
This integrated approach to water pollution control originated in 1964 with the predecessor of the GAEPD, the Georgia Water Quality Control Board. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act of 1964 established the Board and consolidated all water pollution control functions under the Board. Early efforts by the Board in the late 1960s and early 1970s included documentation and assessment of water quality conditions, followed by judicial actions to force cleanup of targeted, priority water pollution problem areas. Another major action by the Board during this period was the establishment of water quality standards.
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 established the national goal of the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the water wherever attainable. Most industries in Georgia had installed effective water pollution control facilities by the end of 1972. In the mid/late 1970s, the GAEPD placed emphasis on the construction of municipal treatment plants, issuance of NPDES permits to municipal and industrial discharges, and the initiation of programs to monitor permit compliance and take appropriate enforcement actions. Major monitoring, modeling, and basin planning work was coordinated in support of treatment plant design and permitting programs. Priority was placed on targeted waters and on discharges to water quality limited stream segments through the construction grant priority funding list.
Today the Watershed Protection Branch of the GAEPD, in cooperation with many local, state, and federal agencies, coordinates programs to address most aspects of water pollution control including, monitoring; water quality modeling to develop wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs); TMDL implementation plans; river basin management planning and the continuing planning process; water quality standards; local watershed assessment and watershed protection plans; nonpoint source management; erosion and sedimentation; stormwater management; the State revolving loan process for funding municipal water pollution control plant construction; the NPDES permit and enforcement program for municipal and industrial point sources; industrial pretreatment; land application of treated wastewater and regulation of concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs).
The GAEPD has designated the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission as the lead agency for dealing with water quality problems caused by agriculture. The Georgia Forestry Commission has been designated by the GAEPD as the lead agency to deal with water quality problems due to commercial forestry operations.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-2
Water Protection Programs
Background. Georgia is rich in water resources. According to USEPA estimates, the State has 44,056 miles of perennial streams, 23,906 miles of intermittent streams, and 603 miles of ditches and canals for a total of 70,150 stream miles. Also, the State has 4.8 million acres of wetlands (9% tidally affected), 425,582 acres of public lakes and reservoirs, 854 square miles of estuaries, and 100 miles of coastline. This rich water heritage is often taken for granted. However, unusual events such as the flood in the summer of 1994 and drought conditions experienced throughout Georgia in 1986, 1988 and 1999-2002 serve as reminders that water resources cannot be taken for granted and sound regulatory programs are necessary to protect the resources.
In 2004-2005, the GAEPD placed emphasis on comprehensive statewide water management planning, monitoring and assessment, water quality modeling and TMDLs, TMDL implementation plan development, State revolving loan programs, NPDES permitting and enforcement, nonpoint source pollution abatement, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and public participation projects.
Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning. In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed new water planning legislation to take the place of river basin planning. The 2004 Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act calls for the EPD to prepare a comprehensive water plan and provides fundamental goals and guiding principles for the development of the plan. This work is discussed in Chapter 2. Georgia will continue to use a rotating basin approach as a basis for watershed protection including monitoring, assessment, listing, TMDL development and NPDES permit reissuance.
Watershed Projects. The GAEPD is working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and South Carolina on several Savannah River projects; with the USEPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on water quality issues in the Coosa River and Lake Weiss; and with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Suwannee River Water Management District to coordinate water protection efforts in the Suwannee River Basin.
Monitoring and Assessment. Georgia's waters are currently classified for one of the following water use classifications: drinking water, recreation, fishing, coastal fishing, wild river, or scenic river. Specific water quality standards are assigned to support each water use classification. The use classifications and standards are discussed in some detail in Chapter 3. The quality of Georgia's waters is judged by the extent to which the waters support the uses (comply with standards set for the water use classification or designations) for which they have been designated. Water quality monitoring programs
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-3
and information on assessments of Georgia's waters are discussed in Chapter 3.
Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocation/TMDL Development. In 2004-2005, a significant amount of modeling work was conducted in support of the development of wasteload allocations and TMDLs. During this period TMDLs were established for 303(d) listed waters in the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Tennessee River Basins. These TMDLs were finalized by EPD and approved by the EPA in 2004. TMDLs were also developed by EPD for listed waters in the Savannah and Ogeechee River basins and approved by the EPA in 2005. In addition, TMDLs were developed by EPD for listed waters in the Ochlockonee, Suwanee, Satilla and St. Marys and publicly noticed in 2005. These TMDLs will be finalized and submitted to the EPA for approval in 2006. This work is discussed in Chapter 3. Over the two-year period, more than 135 TMDLs were developed. To date more than 1250 TMDLs have been developed for 303(d) listed waters in Georgia.
TMDL Implementation Plan Development. In 2004 a total of 213 TMDL implementation plans and revisions were developed for TMDLs in the Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins. Another 147 plans and revisions for TMDLs in the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Tennessee River Basins were initiated in 2005 and are scheduled for completion in 2006. To date a total of 864 TMDL plans and revisions have been prepared to implement TMDLs in Georgia. This work is discussed in Chapter 7.
State Revolving Loan Fund and Georgia Loan Fund. In March 1988, Georgia became the third State in the nation to receive a Capitalization Grant from the USEPA for implementation of the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). In 2004-2005 more than 132 million dollars were obligated to communities for wastewater system improvements through the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) in the form of lowinterest, SRF and Georgia Fund loans. The loan programs are discussed in Chapter 7.
GEFA Implementation Unit. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) was created on April 5, 2001 (2001 S.B. 130) as a planning entity dedicated to developing comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans to be implemented by local governments in the District.
The enabling legislation required the District to develop plans for stormwater management, wastewater treatment, and water supply and conservation in its 16-county area that includes Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale and Walton Counties. These plans are designed to protect water quality and public water supplies, protect recreational values of the waters, and to minimize potential adverse impacts of development on waters in and downstream of the region.
Limited water resources combined with the region's growth places the District in a
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-4
unique position relative to other areas in Georgia. With a finite water resource and a population of nearly 4 million and growing, the need to carefully and cooperatively manage and protect Metropolitan Atlanta's rivers and streams has become a priority.
The GAEPD was charged with the enforcement of these plans. The Watershed Protection Branch, GEFA Implementation Unit, was assigned the responsibility of ensuring the implementation of the plans developed by the District.
NPDES Permitting and Enforcement. A considerable amount of time was allocated to treated wastewater discharge permit reissuance activities in 2004-2005. NPDES permits were modified or reissued to 208 municipal/private dischargers and to 150 industrial dischargers. In addition, 55 private dischargers were covered under general permit No. GA550000. Since the initiation of the program in 1974, NPDES permit issuance and enforcement has been a high priority for the GAEPD.
Compliance and enforcement activities continued to receive significant attention in 2004-2005. By the end of 2005, of 125 major municipal discharges, 119 facilities were in general compliance with final limitations. The remaining six facilities are under compliance schedules to resolve the noncompliance or implementing infiltration/ inflow strategies. Enforcement action has been taken by the GAEPD to insure problems are alleviated. Of 42 major industrial discharges, 40 facilities were achieving permit compliance at the end of 2005. The one major industrial discharger not in compliance at the end of 2005 is under an order to attain compliance.
The GAEPD utilizes all reasonable means to attain compliance, including technical assistance, noncompliance notification letters, conferences, consent orders, and civil penalities. Emphasis is placed on achieving compliance through cooperative action. However, compliance cannot always be achieved in a cooperative manner. The Director of the GAEPD has the authority to negotiate consent orders or issue administrative orders. In 2004-2005 768 Orders were issued and a total of $3,200,000 in negotiated settlements was collected. This includes enforcement actions for all aspects of the water protection program including violations of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and NPDES permits, excluding stormwater. In 2004-2005 a total of 339 stormwater Orders were issued and a total of $1,073,312 in negotiated settlements was collected. Permitting, compliance and enforcement work is discussed in Chapter 7.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Georgia adopted rules for swine feeding operations in 1999. Rules were adopted for animal (non-swine) feeding operations in 2001. During 2002 and 2003 rules were developed and implemented for large chicken feeding operations. Work was continued in 2004-2005 to implement this program. This process is discussed in Chapter 7.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-5
Zero Tolerance. In response to a resolution adopted in 1998 by Georgia Department of Natural Resources that directed EPD to provide the "best quality of effort possible enforcing Georgia's environmental laws", a "zero tolerance" strategy was adopted for certain high growth areas of the state requiring enforcement action on any and all noncompliance issues. Significant work was conducted in 2004-2005 to implement this strategy. This process is discussed in Chapter 7.
Nonpoint Source Management Program. Nonpoint source management programs have allowed the GAEPD to place increasing emphasis on the prevention, control and abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution. The GAEPD is responsible for administering and enforcing laws to protect the waters of the State, defined to include surface and ground water. Consequently, the GAEPD has been designated as the administering or lead agency for implementing the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. This program combines regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, in cooperation with other State and Federal agencies, local and regional governments, State colleges and universities, businesses and industries, non-governmental organizations and individual citizens.
Georgia's initial Nonpoint Source Assessment Report was completed in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and approved by the USEPA in January 1990. This report, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500, serves as the current process to update the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report.
In January 1997, the GAEPD initiated efforts with the University of Georgia - Institute of Community Affairs and Development to revise and update the Nonpoint Source Management Program. This revision of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program is intended to meet the requirements for funding under Section 319(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act and to delineate short and long-term goals and implementation strategies. Just as important, it is also designed to be an information resource for the wide range of stakeholders across the State who are involved in the prevention, control and abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution. It has been developed as an inventory of the full breadth of nonpoint source management (regulatory and non-regulatory) in Georgia, including activities, which are currently underway or planned for the time period FFY 2000 through FFY 2004.
The State's Nonpoint Source Management Program focuses on the comprehensive categories of nonpoint sources of pollution identified by the USEPA: Agriculture, Silviculture, Construction, Urban Runoff, Hydrologic/Habitat Modification, Land Disposal, Resource Extraction and Other Nonpoint Sources. This revision of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program was developed through a consultatory process, incorporating input from a wide range of stakeholders involved in nonpoint source management activities throughout the State: local, regional, State and Federal agencies, as well as private, non-governmental organizations. This process encouraged
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-6
intergovernmental resource sharing and increased stakeholder involvement. This revision of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program established new partnerships and strengthened existing partnerships in the development and implementation of nonpoint source strategies.
Under Section 319(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act, the USEPA awards a Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant to the GAEPD to fund eligible projects, which support the implementation of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. Section 319(h) Grant funds for the prevention, control and/or abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution are made available annually to public agencies in Georgia. With funding from Section 319(h) FY96 FY05 Grants, the GAEPD has awarded over $25 million in grant funds to State agencies, local and regional governments, Resource Conservation and Development Councils, State colleges and universities to fund eligible projects supporting the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. The nonpoint source programs are described in Chapter 7.
Stormwater Management. The GAEPD developed its Storm Water Permitting Strategy in February 1991, and revised it in February 1997. Georgia's Phase II Storm Water Permitting Strategy was approved by USEPA in May 2000, and Phase II designation criteria was developed by GAEPD in July 2002. In 1994-1995 a total of 58 NPDES permits were issued to large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). The 45 NPDES permits covering the Atlanta metro area were reissued in 1999 and 2004. The 13 NPDES permits for medium MS4s were reissued in 2000 and 2005. In December 2002, GAEPD issued an NPDES General Permit for Phase II MS4s, and this permit currently regulates 84 cities and counties.
In 1993, a general NPDES permit for storm water associated with industrial activity was issued. This permit was reissued in 1998. The permit was administratively extended in 2003, with approximately 3500 facilities retaining coverage. Multiple stakeholder meetings were held in the following two years, leading to a new permit issuance in March 2005. This permit was appealed in April 2005 by one industry and several environmental groups. Many months of negotiation meetings are expected to result in a new draft permit in 2006.
The general permit for storm water from construction activities was issued in September 1996, appealed, and eventually overturned by a State Administrative Law Judge in April 1998. The permit was redrafted and issued in July 1999 and was subsequently appealed. Settlement negotiations began in October 1999. A revised general NPDES permit for construction activities was issued on June 12, 2000, and became effective on August 1, 2000. The permit was reissued by GAEPD on August 13, 2003. The permit was re-issued as three permits; Stand Alone, Infrastructure and Common Development, and required coverage for projects disturbing one acre or more. Storm water management is discussed in Chapter 7.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-7
Erosion and Sediment Control. The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act was signed into law in 1975 and has been amended several times since that date, most recently 2001.The legislative intent of the Act was to establish a comprehensive and statewide soil, erosion and sedimentation control program to protect and conserve air, land and water resources through the adoption and implementation of local ordinances and programs which regulate certain land disturbing activities generally associated with urban development. EPD implements the program where there is no local ordinance.
The Act requires an erosion and sedimentation control plan and a land disturbing activity permit for sites greater than 1 acre. Erosion and Sedimentation control plans must be reviewed and approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District or by the local issuing authority before the land disturbing activity permit can be issued. Buffers of 25 feet for warm water streams and 50 feet for trout streams are required by the Act for the protection of water quality. The Act provides for a variance from these buffers under certain circumstances. Variances can only be issued by EPD. Procedures and criteria for obtaining a stream buffer variance are outlined in DNR's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Rules and Regulations and become part of the Land Disturbing Activity Permit. The Act provides for monetary penalties of up to $2,500 per day, enforced by EPD or by the local issuing authority.
The Act was amended by House Bill 285 in 2003 to create an integrated permitting program for erosion and sedimentation control for land disturbing activities of one acre or greater, thereby standardizing the requirements for local Land Disturbing Activity Permits and the NPDES Construction Storm Water Permits. HB 285 also established a new, mandatory training and certification program for all individuals involved with erosion and sediment control. This new program, which is being administered by the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, requires those individuals to obtain the applicable certification by December 31, 2006. The third major component of HB 285 was to authorize the first NPDES permit fee program in Georgia. The bill authorized a fee of up to $80 per disturbed acre, with half of that amount to go to the local issuing authority. The amendments required the Georgia Board of Natural Resources to adopt amendments to the Erosion and Sedimentation Rules to implement these requirements. Local issuing authorities were required to amend their local ordinances to implement the changes in the Act by July 1, 2004. The Act was amended by Senate Bill 460 in 2004 to add three new criteria under which the EPD director can consider stream buffer variances. The legislation also required The Georgia Board of Natural Resources to adopt amendments to the Erosion and Control Rules to implement the new criteria.
Major Issues and Challenges
Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. The burgeoning population places considerable demands on Georgia's ground and surface water resources in
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-8
terms of water supply, water quality and assimilative capacity. The problems and issues are further complicated by the fact that surface water resources are limited in South Georgia and groundwater resources are limited in North Georgia. In some locations, the freshwater resources are approaching their sustainable limits. Thus, several key issues and challenges to be addressed now and in the future years include (1) minimizing withdrawals of water by increasing conservation, efficiency and ruse, (2) maximizing returns to the basin through reducing interbasin transfers and limiting use of septic tanks and land application of treated wastewater where water is limited, (3) meeting instream and offstream water demands through storage, aquifer management and reducing water demands, (4) protecting water quality by reducing wastewater discharges and runoff from land to below the assimilative capacity of the streams. The implementation of the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning process in Georgia provides a framework for addressing each of the key issues.
The pollution impact on Georgia streams has radically shifted over the last two decades. Streams are no longer dominated by untreated or partially treated sewage discharges which resulted in little or no oxygen and little or no aquatic life. The sewage is now treated, oxygen levels have returned and fish have followed. However, another source of pollution is now affecting Georgia streams. That source is referred to as nonpoint and consists of mud, litter, bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils, suds and a variety of other pollutants being washed into rivers and lakes by stormwater. This form of pollution, although somewhat less dramatic than raw sewage, must be reduced and controlled to fully protect Georgia's streams. Structural and nonstructural techniques such as pollution prevention and best management practices must be significantly expanded to minimize nonpoint source pollution. These include both watershed protection through planning, zoning, buffer zones, and appropriate building densities as well as increased use of stormwater retention ponds, street cleaning and perhaps eventual limitations on pesticide and fertilizer usage.
Another issue of importance is the reduction of toxic substances in rivers, lakes, sediment and fish tissue is extremely important in protecting both human health and aquatic life. The sources are widespread. The most effective method to reduce releases of toxic substances into rivers is pollution prevention, which consists primarily of eliminating or reducing the use of toxic materials or at least reducing the exposure of toxic materials to drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. It is very expensive and difficult to reduce low concentrations of toxic substances in wastewaters by treatment technologies. It is virtually impossible to treat large quantities of stormwater and reduce toxic substances. Therefore, toxic substances must be controlled at the source.
It is clear that local governments and industries, even with well-funded efforts, cannot fully address the challenges of toxic substances and nonpoint source pollution control. Citizens must individually and collectively be part of the solution to these challenges. The main focus is to achieve full public acceptance of the fact that some of everything
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-9
put on the ground or street ends up in a stream. Individuals are littering, driving cars
which drip oils and antifreeze, applying fertilizers and pesticides and participating in a
variety of other activities contributing to toxic and nonpoint source pollution. If streams
and lakes are to be pollutant free, then some of the everyday human practices must be
modified. The GAEPD will be emphasizing public involvement; not only in
decision-making but also in direct programs of stream improvement. The first steps are
education
and
adopt-a-stream
programs.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
1-10
CHAPTER 2
Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning
Background
Georgia's future relies on the protection and sustainable management of the state's limited water resources. The 2004 Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning Act mandates the development of a statewide water plan that supports a farreaching vision for water resource management:
"Georgia manages water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state's economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens". (O.C.G.A. 12-5-522(a))
The Act also identifies the following nine principles to guide the water planning process:
1. Effective water resources management protects public health, safety and welfare of Georgia's citizens.
2. Water resources are managed in a sustainable manner so that current and future generations have access to adequate supplies of quality water that supports both human needs and natural systems.
3. All citizens have a stewardship responsibility to conserve and protect the water resources of Georgia.
4. Water management efforts recognize that economic prosperity and environmental quality are interdependent.
5. Water quality and quantity and surface and ground water are interrelated and require integrated planning as well as reasonable and efficient use.
6. A comprehensive and accessible database is developed to provide sound scientific and economic information upon which effective water management decisions can be based.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-1
7. Water resource management encourages local/regional innovation, implementation, adaptability and responsibility for watershed and river basin management.
8. Sound water resources management involves meaningful participation, coordination and cooperation among interested and affected stakeholders and citizens as well as all levels of governmental and other entities managing and/or utilizing water.
9. Periodic revisions of the plan are required to incorporate new scientific and policy insights, as well as changing social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors.
The legislation in 2004 created a framework for developing Georgia's first comprehensive statewide water management plan by providing a vision/goal for water management and guiding principles for developing the plan. In addition, the planning process must:
1. Evaluate water trends and conditions to determine the types of challenges that we face now or will face in the future;
2. Evaluate our legal/management structure (i.e., statutes, rules, programs, policies) to address those challenges;
3. Identify gaps and other weaknesses in our water management approach; and
4. Identify options for addressing these gaps and weaknesses and the benefits and drawbacks of each option.
The Act charges the Georgia Environmental Protection Division with development of the statewide water plan and creates the Georgia Water Council, to oversee plan development. Currently, state and federal statutes form the foundation for Georgia's water management programs. Two goals that resonate throughout federal and state statutes can be summed up as:
Protect public health and environmental quality; and
Meet future needs while protecting aquifers, instream uses and downstream users.
The goals of the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning Act are aligned with these statutory goals. Achieving the goals with the increasing demands for water for all purposes will require a comprehensive approach to planning and managing
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-2
water resources.
The statewide water planning process presents Georgians the opportunity to comprehensively evaluate and adjust statutes, regulations, and management programs to achieve sustainable management of our water resources. An opportunity of this nature has not presented itself since water management programs first began to take shape, over thirty years ago.
Major Water Management Planning Objectives
The Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning Act does not define the mechanisms by which the state is to achieve its vision for water management. For this reason EPD, using products from the efforts of the 2001 Joint Water Study Committee and with oversight of the Water Council, has prioritized four major water management objectives to guide the research and planning strategies for the initial plan development:
1. Minimize withdrawals of water by increasing conservation, reuse, and efficiency. Because of increasing demands being placed on Georgia's water resources, the comprehensive statewide water plan must address increasing efforts related to 1) conservation, 2) efficiency, and 3) water reuse. These three sub-objectives are the focus of minimizing withdrawals.
Water conservation, the "beneficial reduction in water use, waste, and loss," is a broad and varied water policy area. Water efficiency, or using the least possible amount of water necessary to achieve a desired result, is generally considered an aspect of conservation. Water reuse, or the use of reclaimed or recycled water, although specifically a water supply mechanism, is often used as one of the tools for conserving water resources.
The University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government produced for EPD a research document titled, Water Conservation, Efficiency and Reuse. EPD used this report along with other reference material to develop policy options for review by a series of advisory committees.
2. Maximize returns of water to the basin through the management of interbasin
transfers, land application and on-site sewage disposal systems. Georgia's water
resources are becoming increasingly strained by greater demands as the State's
population and economy grow. As a result, specific policies that clearly define a strategy
for maximizing return flows to water bodies have become more critical. Land application
of wastewater, septic systems, and interbasin transfers are all consumptive uses of
water that do not return water to the point of withdrawal, at least in a timely and
quantifiable manner. Nevertheless, all three of these water uses also serve beneficial
purposes
that
are
valuable
to
society.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-3
The principle of reasonable use that underlies Georgia's water management program includes a responsibility to return water for reasonable use downstream. Returning water to its river basin is valuable and Georgian's have a responsibility to return as much water as practicable based on water quality and economic conditions. Because of this responsibility, it is important to develop water management policies that balance the water demands of our growing population against the equally important need to maximize water returns to our river basins. Careful development of policy options for these three consumptive water uses will be an important part of the water plan's role in meeting the requirements of the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Act.
The University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government prepared for EPD a research document titled, Maximizing Water Returns to River Basins. This document examines the water management objective of maximizing water returns to river basins in terms of current knowledge and water policies adopted in other states.
3. Meet instream and offstream demands for water through surface storage, aquifer management and reducing water demands. Long-term management of water resources is a growing concern in many parts of the State. As economic development and population growth increases, new policies and practices will be needed to meet the vision for sustainable management of Georgia's water resources.
The quantity of water resources in the State is influenced by precipitation, ground cover, water storage, aquifer/surface water interaction, water withdrawals, and wastewater returns. Although Georgia's climate provides generally for abundant precipitation, it does not necessarily occur where and when needed to meet the demands of society and natural systems.
Sustainable management of Georgia's waters means ensuring that water is available, now and in the future, for people's use away from the water source, also known as offstream uses. These uses include water supply for domestic use, for industrial purposes, and for agricultural uses, including irrigation, all of which are fundamental to the state's economy and to the quality of life of Georgia residents.
To fully accomplish this vision, however, Georgia's waters must, at the same time, be managed to meet instream needs. The term "instream uses" addresses fish and wildlife and ecosystem support, but goes beyond that to include water that provides other benefits while in the stream including hydropower production, navigation, and recreation. Finally, instream flows also transport water to meet the needs of downstream water users, water that provides for both offstream and instream use in lower segments of our river basins.
Meeting offstream and instream needs for water is, of course, complicated by the fact
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-4
that precipitation varies, with resultant variations in streamflow and groundwater levels. Storing water at higher flow times in order to meet demand at lower flow times can provide ways to adapt. As stated by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, the question inherent in this management objective can be stated as follows:
"How will it be possible to spread the water supplies over time and space such that human needs are met while natural systems are kept healthy and continue to provide crucial environmental services upon which we depend?"
Three sets of policy tools that can help us address this challenge will be the focus of policy options developed to address this management objective: surface storage or reservoir policies, instream flow policies, and aquifer management policies. The University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government produced for EPD a research document titled, Balancing Instream and Offstream Uses, that addresses these three sets of policy tools.
4. Protect water quality by reducing discharges of pollutants to streams and runoff from land, so as not to exceed the assimilative capacity of the streams is the fourth and last major objective to be addressed in the first iteration of the comprehensive statewide water plan.
Georgia's continued growth and development will be accompanied by significant increases in the volume and character of pollutants discharged to our waters from point and nonpoint sources. These increases, if not managed appropriately, will compromise the ability to use these waters in beneficial ways. To achieve this objective, Georgia will need to protect clean waters, restore impaired waters and maintain assimilative capacity for current and future users.
The University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government produced for EPD a
research document titled, Protecting Water Quality, that provides information on federal
and state water law, water quality standards and monitoring, stormwater management,
on-site wastewater management and infrastructure financing. This document, as well as
those
mentioned
above,
is
available
at
www.cviog.uga.edu/services/policy/environmental/policyreports.
Stakeholder Participation
The process used to develop the statewide plan provides for meaningful participation, coordination, and cooperation among interested and affected stakeholders and citizens as well as all levels of governmental and other entities managing or utilizing water. Opportunities to become involved in the statewide plan development are provided
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-5
through over-sight by the Water Council, the use of advisory committees, opportunities for stakeholders to provide comments and/or information on the development of water management objectives/sub-state planning and their related tools and options, and by participating in Water Council town hall meetings.
The Water Council is a coordinating committee created by the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning Act. According to the Act, the Water Council's purpose is to:
Ensure coordination, cooperation and communication among state agencies and their water-related efforts in the development of a comprehensive statewide water management plan
Provide input to the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources concerning development of the plan
Review, modify if necessary, and approve the final draft of the proposed plan
Recommend such proposed plan for consideration by the General Assembly
The Water Council consists of eight state agency officials who serve ex officio; the chairperson of the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee, ex officio, and an additional member of that committee selected by the committee chairperson; the chairperson of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, ex officio, and an additional member of that committee selected by the committee chairperson; one member who is not a member of the General Assembly who is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and one member who is not a member of the General Assembly who is appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division serves as the chairperson of the Water Council.
The members of the Water Council are:
Dr. Carol A. Couch -- Director, Environmental Protection Division (Chairperson)
Mike Beatty -- Commissioner, Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Gus Bell -- Savannah, Georgia
David Bennett -- Executive Director, Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-6
Senator John Bulloch, District 11
Paul Burks -- Executive Director, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
Noel Holcomb -- Commissioner, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Tommy Irvin -- Commissioner, Georgia Department of Agriculture
Jerry Lane -- Claxton, Georgia
Representative Tom McCall, District 30
Representative Lynn Smith, District 70
Kenneth Stewart Jr. -- Director, Georgia Forestry Commission
Senator Ross Tolleson, District 20
B.J. Walker -- Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources
The Statewide Advisory Committee (SAC) provides EPD with statewide perspectives on Georgia's overarching goals for water management, water management objectives, and the array of new policy tools identified for development in the first state water plan. Statewide perspectives are needed to bring the full range of Georgia's geographic, economic, cultural, jurisdictional, and water resource realities into discussions of the water management. The committee is primarily composed of representatives of organizations that have statewide constituencies and interest.
The primary purpose of the statewide advisory committee is to provide structured "Statewide" perspectives and input on water management policy tools and/or options. The state advisory committee is not asked to reach consensus on specific decisions, but to assess each set of policy option in some detail for the purpose of providing insight from diverse perspectives to help EPD refine and improve Georgia's water management policies and/or options. Each policy options package presented to the SAC, along with the meeting summaries, is posted at http://www.gadnr.org/gswp/.
Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) provide early input, when needed, by answering specific technical questions needed to inform water policy options. The technical advisors have extensive expertise and are actively working on and/or researching the topic being addressed. TAC members bring a broad range of scientific, technical, and practical experience to EPD during the planning process. These technical advisory committees work with EPD associates to build the scientific and technical foundation upon which policy options will be developed. Two TACs, one to address
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-7
water conservation and one to address water reuse, were convened to support work on the first water management objective, minimizing withdrawals.
The Basin Advisory Committees are shown in Figure 1. The committees represent the groups of basins shown on the map along with a separate committee focused on aquifers along the coast and a committee focused on the North Georgia Metro Water Planning District. Because water follows geographic boundaries defined by nature, these basin advisory committees are organized along river basin and aquifer boundaries. The primary purpose of the basin advisory committees is to provide structured "regional" perspectives and input on water management objectives and potential policy tools and/or options. Each policy options package presented to the BACs, along with the meeting summaries, is posted at http://www.gadnr.org/gswp/.
Tasks and Milestones
EPD is developing the first Statewide Comprehensive Water Plan to be provided to the Georgia Water Council in July 2007. This initial statewide plan will focus on the policy framework and an array of tools necessary for developing the region-specific management strategies to be developed for subsequent editions of the statewide plan. The first iteration of the plan will identify and fill the "gaps" that may exist in Georgia's current array of water laws, regulations, and policies that may impede progress toward the four water management objectives.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-8
Figure 1. Basin Advisory Committees
Figure 2 shows the tasks, milestones and advisory periods for the first four water management objectives and sub-state planning. The first iteration of the plan will not
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-9
include the actual development of region-specific water management strategies. The first iteration will evaluate water trends and
Figure 2. Tasks and Milestones
conditions to determine the types of challenges that the state may face in advancing the four water management objectives; evaluate legal/management structure (i.e., statutes, rules, programs, policies) to address those challenges; identify gaps and other weaknesses in Georgia's current management approach; identify options for addressing
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-10
these gaps and weaknesses; and outline guidance for region-specific water management strategies. The first iteration will, however, include the framework and an array of tools necessary for developing the region-specific management strategies to be developed for subsequent editions of the statewide plan.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
2-11
CHAPTER 3
Water Quality Monitoring And Assessment
Background
Water Resources Atlas. In an effort to move toward national consistency in estimating river miles and lake acreage, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed and provided to the States in 1992 estimates for use in this report. The estimates were based on the USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph (DLG) which provides a national database of hydrologic traces. The DLG in coordination with the USEPA River Reach File provided a consistent computerized methodology for summing river miles and lake acreage for each State. The estimates are based on hydrologic features on the USGS 1:100,000 scale map series. The 1:100,000 scale map series is the most detailed scale available nationally in digital form and includes 75 to 90 percent of the hydrologic features on the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map series. Included in river mile estimates are perennial streams (streams that flow all year), intermittent streams (streams that stop flowing during dry weather), and ditches and canals (waterways constructed by man). Since 1992, USEPA enhanced the database from which the original estimates were made. The miles of streams were reduced by nearly 1,000 miles while the total acreage estimate for lakes increased by nearly 4000 acres.
The estimates for Georgia used in this report are 44,056 miles of perennial streams, 23,906 miles of intermittent streams, and 603 miles of ditches and canals for a total of 70,150 geological stream miles. The information provided by the USEPA estimates the number of lakes in Georgia to be 11,813 with a total acreage of 425,382. This information is summarized in Table 1.
Georgia has 14 major river basins. These are the Altamaha, Chattahoochee, Coosa, Flint, Ochlockonee, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Ogeechee, St. Marys, Satilla, Savannah, Suwannee, Tallapoosa, and the Tennessee. The rivers in Georgia provide the water needed by aquatic life, animals and humans to sustain life. Water also provides significant recreational opportunities, is used for industrial purposes, drives turbines to provide electricity, and assimilates our wastes.
Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards. The Board of Natural Resources was authorized through the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control promulgated under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act of 1964, as amended, to establish water use classifications and water quality standards for the waters of the State. The water use classifications and standards were first established by the
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-1
TABLE 1. WATER RESOURCES ATLAS
State Population State Surface Area Number of Major River Basins Number of Perennial River Miles Number of Intermittent River Miles Number of Ditches and Canals Total River Miles Number of Lakes Over 500 Acres Acres of Lakes Over 500 Acres Number of Lakes Under 500 Acres Acres of Lakes Under 500 Acres Total Number of Lakes & Reservoirs, Ponds Total Acreage of Lakes, Reservoirs, Ponds Square Miles of Estuaries Miles of Coastline Acres of Freshwater Wetlands Acres of Tidal Wetlands
8,383,915 58,910 square miles 14 44,056 miles 23,906 miles 603 miles 70,150 miles 48 265,365 acres 11,765 160,017 acres 11,813 425,382 acres 854 square miles 100 4,500,000 acres 384,000 acres
Georgia Water Quality Control Board in 1966. Georgia was the second State in the nation to have its water use classifications and standards for intrastate waters approved by the federal government in 1967. For each water use classification, water quality standards or criteria were developed which established a framework to be used by the Water Quality Control Board and later the Environmental Protection Division in making water use regulatory decisions. The water use classification system was applied to interstate waters in 1972 by the GAEPD. Georgia was again one of the first states to receive federal approval of a statewide system of water use classifications and standards. Table 2 provides a summary of water use classifications and criteria for each use.
In the latter 1960s through the mid-1970s there were many water quality problems in Georgia. Many stream segments were classified for the uses of navigation, industrial, or urban stream. Major improvements in wastewater treatment over the years have allowed the stream segments to be raised to the uses of fishing or coastal fishing which include more stringent water quality standards. The final two segments in Georgia were upgraded as a part of the triennial review of standards completed in 1989. All of Georgia's waters are currently classified as either fishing, recreation, drinking water, wild river, scenic river, or coastal fishing. This action represented the culmination of 25 years of effort to improve and protect water quality in order that all waters in Georgia could be classified for uses in accordance with goals in the Federal Clean Water Act
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-2
TABLE 2. GEORGIA WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND INSTREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EACH USE
Use Classification
Drinking Water requiring treatment Recreation
Coastal Fishing3 Fishing
Wild River Scenic River Agriculture4 Industrial4 Navigation4 Urban Stream4
Bacteria (fecal coliform)
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
(other than trout streams)1
30-Day Geometric Mean2 (no./100 ml)
Maximum (no./100ml)
1,000 (Nov-April) 200 (May-Oct)
4,000 (Nov-April)
200 (Freshwater) -100 (Coastal)
Daily Average (mg/l)
Minimum (mg/l)
5.0
4.0
Std. Units
6.0-8.5
5.0
4.0
6.0-8.5
1,000 (Nov-April) 200 (May-Oct)
5,000 -5,000 2,000
4,000 (Nov-April) 5.0
4.0
No alteration of natural water quality
No alteration of natural water quality
--
--
3.0
--
--
3.0
--
--
3.0
5,000
--
3.0
6.0-8.5
6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5
Temperature
(other than trout streams)1
Maximum Rise (F)
Maximum (F)
5
90
5
90
5
90
5
90
5
90
5
90
--
--
1Standards for Trout Streams for dissolved oxygen are an average of 6.0 mg/l and a minimum of 5.0 mg/l. No temperature
alteration is allowed in Primary Trout Streams and a temperature change of 2F is allowed in Secondary Trout Streams. 2Geometric means should be "based on at least four samples collected from a given sampling site over a 30-day period at Intervals not less than 24 hours." The geometric mean of a series of N terms is the Nth root of their product. Example: the geometric mean of 2 and 18 is the square root of 36. 3Standards are same as fishing with the exception of dissolved oxygen which is site specific. 4Improvements in water quality since the water use classifications and standards were originally adopted in 1972 provided the opportunity for Georgia to upgrade all stream classifications and eliminate these use designations in 1993.
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water. This goal had been interpreted by the USEPA to be achieved if waters of the State achieved standards associated with the classifications of fishing (including secondary contact recreation) or recreation. Based on Georgia's progress to achieve this goal, the USEPA had reviewed and approved Georgia standards every three years since 1972.
However, in the 1989 triennial review, the USEPA changed its interpretation of the Clean Water Act goal to include the requirement that all waters be classified to protect the use of swimming or primary contact recreation. In order to comply with this change
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-3
in Federal requirements, the Board of Natural Resources adopted in December 1989, revised standards which established a fecal coliform bacteria standard of a geometric mean of 200 per 100 ml for all waters with the use designations of fishing or drinking water to apply during the months of May - October (the recreational season). This standard provides the regulatory framework to support the USEPA requirement that States protect all waters for the use of primary contact recreation.
In addition, Congress made changes in the Clean Water Act in 1987 which required each State to adopt numeric limits for toxic substances for the protection of aquatic life and human health. In order to comply with these requirements, the Board of Natural Resources adopted 31 numeric standards for protection of aquatic life and 90 numeric standards for the protection of human health. Table 3 provides a summary of toxic substance standards that apply to all waters in Georgia.
In 1995, the Board of Natural Resources adopted additional water quality standards for West Point Lake. Additional standards for Lakes Jackson and Walter F. George were adopted in 1996. Standards were adopted for chlorophyll a, pH, total nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. Also, standards for major tributary phosphorus loading were established. Water quality standards were adopted by the Board for Lakes Lanier and Allatoona in 2000 and Carters in 2002. The standards for the six lakes are summarized in Table 4.
Water Quality Monitoring
Goals. The goal of the water protection program in Georgia is to effectively manage, regulate, and allocate the water resources of Georgia. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to monitor the water resources of the State to establish baseline and trend data, document existing conditions, study impacts of specific discharges, determine improvements resulting from upgraded water pollution control plants, support enforcement actions, establish wasteload allocations for new and existing facilities, develop TMDLs, verify water pollution control plant compliance, and document water use impairment and reasons for problems causing less than full support of designated water uses. Trend monitoring, intensive surveys, lake, estuary, biological, toxic substance monitoring, aquatic toxicity testing, and facility compliance sampling are some of the monitoring tools used by the GAEPD.
Trend/River Basin/TMDL Monitoring. Long term monitoring of streams at strategic locations throughout Georgia, trend or ambient monitoring, was initiated by the GAEPD during the late 1960s. This work is conducted by EPD associates and through cooperative agreements with federal, state, and local agencies who collect samples from groups of stations at specific, fixed locations throughout the year.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-4
TABLE 3. Georgia Instream Water Quality Standards For All Waters: Toxic Substances
(Excerpt From Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control Chapter 391-3-6-.03 - Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards)
(i) Instream concentrations of the following chemical constituents which are considered to be other toxic pollutants of concern in
the State of Georgia shall not exceed the criteria indicated below under 7-day, 10-year minimum flow (7Q10) or higher stream
flow conditions except within established mixing zones:
1. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
70 g/l
2. Methoxychlor
0.03 g/l*
3. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy propionic acid (TP Silvex)
50 g/l
(ii) Instream concentrations of the following chemical constituents listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as toxic
priority pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (as amended) shall not exceed the acute
criteria indicated below under 1-day, 10-year minimum flow (1Q10) or higher stream flow conditions and shall not exceed the
chronic criteria indicated below under 7-day, 10-year minimum flow (7Q10) or higher stream flow conditions except within
established mixing zones or in accordance with site specific effluent limitations developed in accordance with procedures
presented in 391-3-6-.06. Unless otherwise specified, the criteria below are listed in their total recoverable form. Because
most of the numeric criteria for the metals below are listed as the dissolved form, total recoverable concentrations of metals
that are measured instream will need to be translated to the dissolved form in order to compare the instream data with the
numeric criteria. This translation will be performed using guidance found in "Guidance Document of Dynamic Modeling and
Translators August 1993" found in Appendix J of EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, EPA-823-B-94-
005a or by using other appropriate guidance from EPA.
Acute
Chronic
1. Arsenic (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
340 g/l 1 69 g/l 1
150 g/l 1 36 g/l 1
2. Cadmium (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
2.0 g/l 1, 3 42 g/l 1
1.3 g/l 1, 3 9.3 g/l 1
3. Chromium III
(a) Freshwater
320 g/l 1,3
42 g/l 1,3
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
--
--
4. Chromium VI (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
16 g/l 1 1,100 g/l 1
11 g/l 1 50 g/l 1
5. Copper (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
7.0 g/l 1,2*,3 4.8 g/l 1,2
5.0 g/l 1,2*,3 3.1 g/l 1,2
6. Lead (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
30 g/l 1,3 210 g/l 1
1.2 g/l 1,2*,3 8.1 g/l 1
7. Mercury (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
1.4 g/l 1.8 g/l
0.012 g/l 2 0.025 g/l 2
8. Nickel
(a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
260 g/l 1,3 74 g/l 1
29 g/l 1,3 8.2 g/l 1
9. Selenium
(a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 10. Silver
-290g/l 1 -- 4
5.0 g/l 71 g/l 1 -- 4
11. Zinc (a) Freshwate (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
65 g/l 1,3 90 g/l 1
65 g/l 1,3 81 g/l 1
12. Lindane [Hexachlorocyclohexane (g-BHC-Gamma)]
(a) Freshwater
0.95 g/l
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
0.16 g/l
1 The in-stream criterion is expressed in terms of the dissolved fraction in the water column . Conversion factors used to calculate
dissolved criteria are found in the EPA document National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Correction, EPA 822-Z-99-001,
April 1999. 2 The in-stream criterion is lower than the EPD laboratory detection limits (A "*" indicates that the criterion may be higher than or
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-5
lower than EPD laboratory detection limits depending upon the hardness of the water). 3 The aquatic life criteria for these metals are expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/l) in a water body. Values in the table above assume a hardness of 50 mg/l CaCO3. For other hardness values, the following equations from the EPA document National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Correction, EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999 should be used. The minimum hardness allowed for use in these equations shall not be less than 25 mg/l, as calcium carbonate and the maximum shall not be greater than 400 mg/l as calcium carbonate.
Cadmium acute criteria = (e (1.128[ln(hardness)] - 3.6867) )(1.136672-[(ln hardness)(0.041838)] g/l chronic criteria = (e (0.7852[ln(hardness)] - 2.715) )(1.101672-[(ln hardness)(0.041838)] g/l
Chromium III acute criteria = (e (0.8190[ln(hardness)] + 3.7256) (0.316) g/l chronic criteria = (e (0.8190[ln(hardness)] + 0.6848) )(0.860) g/l
Copper acute criteria = (e (0.9422[ln(hardness)] - 1.700) )(0.96) g/l chronic criteria = (e (0.8545[ln(hardness)] - 1.702) )(0.96) g/l
Lead acute criteria = (e (1.273[ln(hardness) - 1.460) )(1.46203 - [(ln hardness)(0.145712)]) g/l chronic criteria = (e (1.273[ln(hardness) - 4.705) )(1.46203 - [(ln hardness)(0.145712)]) g/l
Nickel acute criteria = (e (0.8460[ln(hardness)] + 2.255) )(.998) g/l chronic criteria = (e (0.8460[ln(hardness)] + 0.0584) )(.997) g/l
Zinc acute criteria = (e (0.8473[ln(hardness)] + 0.884) )(0.978) g/l chronic criteria = (e (0.8473[ln(hardness)] + 0.884) )(0.986) g/l
4 This pollutant is addressed in 391-3-6-.06.
(iii) Instream concentrations of the following chemical constituents listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as toxic priority pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (as amended) shall not exceed criteria indicated below under 7-day, 10-year minimum flow (7Q10) or higher stream flow conditions except within established mixing zones or in accordance with site specific effluent limitations developed in accordance with procedures presented in 391-3-6.06.
1. Chlordane (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
2. Cyanide (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
3. Dieldrin (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
4. 4,4'-DDT 5. a-Endosulfan
(a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 6. b-Endosulfan (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 7. Endrin (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 8. Heptachlor (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 9. Heptachlor Epoxide (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
0.0043 g/l* 0.004 g/l*
5.2 g/l* 1.0 g/l*
0.056 g/l* 0.0019 g/l* 0.001 g/l*
0.056 g/l* 0.0087 g/l*
0.056 g/l* 0.0087 g/l*
0.036 g/l* 0.0023 g/l*
0.0038 g/l* 0.0036g/l*
0.0038 g/l* 0.0036 g/l*
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-6
10 Pentachlorophenol (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
11. PCBs (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
12. Phenol 13. Toxaphene
2.1 g/l* 7.9 g/l*
0.014 g/l* 0.03 g/l* 300 g/l 0.0002 g/l*
*The in-stream criterion is lower than the EPD laboratory detection limits.
(iv) Instream concentrations of the following chemical constituents listed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as toxic priority pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (as amended) shall not exceed criteria indicated below under annual average or higher stream flow conditions:
1. Acenaphthene 2. Acenaphthylene 3. Acrolein 4. Acrylonitrile 5. Aldrin 6. Anthracene 7. Antimony 8. Arsenic 9. Benzidine 10. Benzo(a)Anthracene 11. Benzo(a)Pyrene 12. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene 13. Benzene 14. Benzo(ghi)Perylene 15. Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 16. Beryllium 17. a-BHC-Alpha 18. b-BHC-Beta 19. Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 20. Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether 21. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 22. Bromoform (Tribromomethane) 23. Butylbenzyl Phthalate 24. Carbon Tetrachloride 25. Chlorobenzene 26. Chlorodibromomethane 27. 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether 28. Chlordane 29. Chloroform (Trichloromethane) 30. 2-Chloronaphthalene 31. 2-Chlorophenol 32. Chrysene 33. Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 34. Dichlorobromomethane 35. 1,2-Dichloroethane 36. 1,1-Dichloroethylene 37 1,2 Dichloropropane 38. 1,3-Dichloropropylene 39. 2,4-Dichlorophenol 40. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 41. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 42. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 43. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 44. 4,4'-DDT 45. 4,4'-DDD 46. 4,4'-DDE 47. Dieldrin
2700 g/l ** 780 g/l 0.66 g/l 0.00014 g/l 110000 g/l 4300 g/l 50 g/l 0.00054 g/l 0.049g/l 0.049g/l 0.049g/l 71 g/l ** 0.049g/l ** 0.013 g/l 0.046 g/l 1.4 g/l 170000 g/l 5.9 g/l 360 g/l 5200 4.4 g/l 21000 g/l 34 g/l ** 0.0022 g/l 470 g/l 4300 g/l 400 g/l 0.049 g/l 0.049 g/l 46 g/l 99 g/l 3.2 g/l 39 g/l 1700 g/l 790 g/l 17000 g/l 2600 g/l 2600 g/l 0.077 g/l 0.00059 g/l 0.00084 g/l 0.00059 g/l 0.00014 g/l
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-7
48. Diethyl Phthalate 49. Dimethyl Phthalate 50. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 51. 2,4-Dinitrophenol 52. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 53. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 54. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 55. Endrin 56. Endrin Aldehyde 57. alpha Endosulfan 58. beta Endosulfan 59. Endosulfan Sulfate 60. Ethylbenzene 61. Fluoranthene 62. Fluorene 63. Heptachlor 64. Heptachlor Epoxide 65. Hexachlorobenzene 66. Hexachlorobutadiene 67. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 68. Hexachloroethane 69. Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 70. Isophorone 71. Lindane [Hexachlorocyclohexane (g-BHC-Gamma)] 72. Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane) 73. Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane) 74. Methylene Chloride 75. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 76. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol 77. Nitrobenzene 78. N-Nitrosodimethylamine 79. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 80. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 81. PCBs 82. Pentachlorophenol 83. Phenanthrene 84. Phenol 85. Pyrene 86. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 87. Tetrachloroethylene 88. Thallium 89. Toluene 90. Toxaphene 91. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 92. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 93. Trichloroethylene 94. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 95. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 96. Vinyl Chloride
120000 g/l 2900000 g/l 2300 g/l 14000 g/l 12000 g/l 9.1 g/l 0.54 g/l 0.81 g/l 0.81 g/l 240 g/l 240 g/l 240 g/l 29000 g/l 370 g/l 14000 g/l 0.00021 g/l 0.00011 g/l 0.00077 g/l 50 g/l 17000 g/l 8.9 g/l 0.049 g/l 2600 g/l 0.063 g/l 4000 g/l ** 1600 g/l 765 g/l ** 1900 g/l 8.1 g/l 1.4 g/l 16 g/l 0.00017 g/l 8.2 g/l ** 4,600,000 g/l 11,000 g/l 11 g/l 8.85 g/l 6.3 g/l 200000 g/l 0.00075 g/l 140000 42 g/l 81 g/l 6.5 g/l 940 g/l 525 g/l
**These pollutants are addressed in 391-3-6-.06.
(v) Site specific criteria for the following chemical constituents will be developed on an as-needed basis through toxic pollutant monitoring efforts at new or existing discharges that are suspected to be a source of the pollutant at levels sufficient to interfere with designated uses:
1. Asbestos
(vi) instream concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) must not exceed 0.0000012 g/l under long-term average stream flow conditions.
(f) Applicable State and Federal requirements and regulations for the discharge of radioactive substances shall be met at all times.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-8
TABLE 4. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR MAJOR LAKES
(16) Specific Criteria for Lakes and Major Lake Tributaries. In addition to the general criteria, the following lake specific criteria are deemed necessary and shall be required for the specific water usage as shown:
(a) West Point Lake: Those waters impounded by West Point Dam and downstream of U.S. 27 at Franklin.
(i)
Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly photic zone
composite samples shall not exceed 27 g/l at the LaGrange Water Intake.
(ii) pH: Within the range of 6.0 - 9.5.
(iii) Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 4.0 mg/l as Nitrogen in the photic zone.
(iv) Phosphorus: Total lake loading shall not exceed 2.4 pounds per acre foot of lake volume per year.
(v) Fecal Coliform Bacteria:
1.
U.S. 27 at Franklin to New River: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Fishing criterion as
presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(c).
2.
New River to West Point Dam: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Recreation criterion
as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b).
(vi) Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3-6-.03(5)(f).
(vii) Temperature: Not to exceed 90F. At no time is the temperature of the receiving waters to be increased more than 5F above intake temperature.
(viii) Major Lake Tributaries: For the following tributaries, the annual total phosphorus loading to West Point Lake shall not exceed the following:
1.
Yellow Jacket Creek at Hammet Road:
2.
New River at Hwy 100:
3.
Chattahoochee River at U.S. 27:
11,000 pounds. 14,000 pounds. 1,400,000 pounds.
(b) Lake Walter F. George: Those waters impounded by Walter F. George Dam and upstream to Georgia Highway 39 near Omaha.
(i)
Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly photic zone
composite samples shall not exceed 18 ug/l at mid-river at U.S. Highway 82 or 15 ug/l at mid-river
in the dam forebay.
(ii) pH: Within the range of 6.0-9.5 standard units.
(iii) Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 3.0 mg/l as nitrogen in the photic zone.
(iv) Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 2.4 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-9
year.
(v) Fecal Coliform:
1.
Georgia Highway 39 to Cowikee Creek: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Fishing
criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(c)(iii).
2.
Cowikee Creek to Walter F. George Dam: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Recreation
criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(I).
(vi) Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of no less than 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3-6-.03(5)(f).
(vii) Temperature: Water temperature shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 3913-6-.03(6)(b)(iv).
(viii) Major Lake Tributary: The annual total phosphorous loading to Lake Walter F. George, monitored at the Chattahoochee River at Georgia Highway 39, shall not exceed 2,000,000 pounds.
(c) Lake Jackson: Those waters impounded by Lloyd Shoals Dam and upstream to Georgia Highway 36 on the South and Yellow Rivers, upstream to Newton Factory Bridge Road on the Alcovy River and upstream to Georgia Highway 36 on Tussahaw Creek.
(i)
Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly mid-channel
photic zone composite samples shall not exceed 20 ug/l at a location approximately 2 miles
downstream of the confluence of the South and Yellow Rivers at the junction of Butts, Newton
and Jasper Counties.
(ii) pH: Within the range of 6.0-9.5 standard units.
(iii) Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 4.0 mg/l as nitrogen in the photic zone.
(iv) Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 5.5 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.
(v) Fecal Coliform: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(I).
(vi) Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3-6-.03(5)(f).
(vii) Temperature: Water temperature shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 3913-6-.03(6)(b)(iv).
(viii) Major Lake Tributaries: For the following major tributaries, the annual total phosphorous loading to Lake Jackson shall not exceed the following:
1.
South River at Island Shoals:
2.
Yellow River at Georgia Highway 212:
3.
Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge Road:
4.
Tussahaw Creek at Fincherville Road.:
179,000 pounds 116,000 pounds
55,000 pounds 7,000 pounds
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-10
(d) Lake Allatoona: Those waters impounded by Allatoona Dam and upstream to State Highway 5 on the Etowah River, State Highway 5 on Little River, the Lake Acworth dam, and the confluence of Little Allatoona Creek and Allatoona Creek. Other impounded tributaries to an elevation of 840 feet mean sea level corresponding to the normal pool elevation of Lake Allatoona.
(i)
Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average monthly mid-channel photic
zone composite samples shall not exceed the chlorophyll a concentrations at the locations listed
below:
1.
Upstream from the Dam
2.
Allatoona creek upstream form I-75
3.
Mid-Lake downstream from Kellogg Creek
4.
Little River upstream from Highway 205
1.
Etowah River upstream from Sweetwater Creek
10 ug/l 10 ug/l 10 ug/l 15 ug/l 12 ug/l
(ii) pH: within the range of 6.0-9.5 standard units
(iii) Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 4 mg/l as nitrogen in the photic zone.
(iv) Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 1.3 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.
(v) Fecal Coliform:
1.
Etowah River, State Highway 5 to State Highway 20: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the
Fishing Criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(c)(iii).
2.
Etowah River, State Highway 20 to Allatoona Dam; Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the
Recreation criteria as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(i).
(vi) Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3-6-.03(5)(g).
(vii) Temperature:
1.
Etowah River, State Highway 5 to State Highway 20: Water temperature shall not exceed the
Fishing criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(iv).
2.
Etowah River State Highway 20 to Allatoona Dam: Water temperature shall not exceed the
Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(iv).
(viii) Major Lake Tributaries: For the following major tributaries, the annual total phosphorous loading to Lake Allatoona shall not exceed the following:
1.
Etowah River at State Highway 5 spur and 140, at the USGS gage
2.
Little River at State Highway 5 (Highway 754)
3.
Noonday Creek at North Rope Mill Road
4.
Shoal Creek at State Highway 108 (Fincher Road)
340,000 lbs/yr 42,000 lbs/yr 38,000 lbs/yr 9,200 lbs/yr
(e) Lake Sidney Lanier. Those waters impounded by Buford Dam and upstream to Belton Bridge Road on the Chattahoochee River, 0.6 miles downstream from State Road 400 on the Chestatee River, as well as other impounded tributaries to an elevation of 1070 feet mean sea level
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-11
corresponding to the normal pool elevation of Lake Sidney Lanier.
(i)
Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly mid-channel photic zone composite
samples shall not exceed the chlorophyll a concentrations at the locations listed below:
1.
Upstream from the Buford Dam forebay
5 ug/l
2.
Upstream from the Flowery Branch confluence
5 ug/l
3.
At Browns Bridge Road (State Road 369)
5 ug/l
4.
At Bolling Bridge (State Road 53) on Chestatee River
10 ug/l
5.
At Lanier Bridge (State Road 53) on Chattahoochee River
10 ug/l
(ii)
pH: Within the range of 6.0-9.5 standard units.
(iii)
Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 4 mg/l as nitrogen in the photic zone.
(iv)
Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 0.25 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.
(v)
Fecal Coliform: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(l).
(vi)
Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3--6-
.03(5)(g).
(vii)
Temperature: Water temperature shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(iv).
(viii)
Major Lake Tributaries: For the following major tributaries, the annual total phosphorous loading to Lake Sidney Lanier
shall not exceed the following:
1. Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road 2. Chestatee River at Georgia Highway 400
3. Flat Creek at McEver Road
178,000 pounds 118,000 pounds
14,400 pounds
(f) Carters Lake: Those waters impounded by Carters Dam and upstream on the Coosawattee River as well as other impounded tributaries to an elevation of 1072 feet mean sea level corresponding to the normal pool elevation of Carters Lake.
(i)
Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly mid-channel photic zone composite
samples shall not exceed the chlorophyll a concentrations at the locations listed below:
1.
Carters Lake upstream from Woodring Branch
5 ug/l
2.
Carters Lake at Coosawattee River embayment mouth
10 ug/l
(ii)
pH: within the range of 6.0 9.5 standard units.
(iii)
Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 4.0 mg/l as nitrogen in the photic zone.
(iv)
Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 172,500 pounds or 0.46 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.
(v)
Fecal Coliform: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(i).
(vi)
Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3-6-
.03(5)(g).
(vii)
Temperature: Water temperature shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(iv).
(viii)
Major Lake Tributaries: For the following major tributaries, the annual total phosphorous loading at the compliance
monitoring location shall not exceed the following:
1.
Coosawattee River at Old Highway 5
151,500 pounds
2.
Mountaintown Creek at U.S. Highway 76
8,000 pounds
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-12
The cooperating agencies conduct certain tests in the field and ship stream samples to the GAEPD or USGS laboratories for additional laboratory analyses. Although there have been a number of changes over the years, much of the trend monitoring is still accomplished through similar cooperative agreements.
Today the GAEPD contracts with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the statewide trend sampling work, and with the Columbus Water Works for samples on the Chattahoochee River below Columbus. In addition to monthly stream sampling, a portion of the work with the USGS involves continuous monitoring at several locations across the State. Automatic monitors which continuously record dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and conductivity data are located on the Chattahoochee and South Rivers downstream of Atlanta, the Conasauga River below Dalton, the Coosa River at the State Line and the Ocmulgee River downstream of Macon.
In addition to work done through cooperative agreements, GAEPD associates collect monthly samples from a number of locations across the state as part of the trend monitoring program. In 2000-2001 the GAEPD added two trend monitoring sampling teams. One team works from the Brunswick District Office and the second team works from the EPD Atlanta Office. The Brunswick sampling team conducts monthly sampling at locations across south Georgia in the Ochlockonee, Suwannee, Satilla, Altamaha, Savannah and Ogeechee River basins. The Atlanta sampling team conducts monthly sampling at stations across the Coosa, Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, Flint, Oconee and Ocmulgee River basins. The work of the two sampling teams adds significantly to the number of locations sampled each year which compliments the rotating basin trend monitoring program.
The trend monitoring network in place in 1994 is shown in Figure 1. In 1995, the GAEPD adopted and implemented significant changes to the strategy for trend monitoring in Georgia. The changes were implemented to support River Basin Management Planning and TMDL programs. The number of fixed stations statewide was reduced in order to focus resources for sampling and analysis in a particular group of basins in any one year in accordance with the basin planning schedule. Statewide trend monitoring was continued at the core station locations, in the Chattahoochee in the Atlanta and Columbus areas, and at all continuous monitoring locations. The remainder of the trend monitoring resources were devoted to the basins of focus each year. As a result, more sampling was conducted along the mainstem and in the smaller tributaries of each river. In 1995 the Chattahoochee and Flint River basins were the basins of monitoring focus; in 1996 was the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Oconee; 1997 the Savannah and Ogeechee River basins; in 1998 the Ochlockonee, Suwannee, Satilla, and the St. Marys; and in 1999 the Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Altamaha. This completed the initial five year cycle of focused river basin monitoring. A second cycle was completed in 2000-2004 and a third cycle was be initiated in 2005.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-13
FIGURE 1 GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK
STATION LOCATIONS 1994
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-14
FIGURE 2 GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK
STATION LOCATIONS 2000-2004
Figure 2 shows the monitoring network stations for the period 2000-2004. Figures 3
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-15
and 4 show the trend monitoring station locations in 2004 and 2005, and Tables 5 and 6 provide a list of stations and parameters for the 2004 and 2005 monitoring networks.
Intensive Surveys. Intensive surveys complement long term fixed station monitoring as these studies focus intensive monitoring on a particular issue or problem over a shorter period of time. Several basic types of intensive surveys are conducted including model calibration surveys and impact studies. The purpose of a model calibration survey is to collect data to calibrate a mathematical water quality model. Models are used for wasteload allocations and/or TMDLs and as tools for use in making regulatory decisions. Impact studies are conducted where information on the cause and effect relationships between pollutant sources and receiving waters is needed. In many cases biological information is collected along with chemical data for use in assessing environmental impacts.
Biological Monitoring. Biological monitoring is performed in order to assess the biological integrity of the States waters. The Department of Natural Resources' Wildlife Resource Division has been conducting bioassessments using fish as the indicator species since the early 1990's. The primary technique for determining the quality of fish communities is called the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). This index utilizes the numbers and types of fish species present in a stream to produce a stream score or rating for comparison across streams within a particular ecoregion or to the same stream over time. Biological monitoring is useful in detecting intermittent sources of pollution that may not be caught in trend monitoring of water quality parameters. The Tennessee Valley Authority has also collected fish IBI data in Georgia.
Lake Monitoring. The GAEPD has maintained monitoring programs for Georgia's public access lakes for many years. In the late 1960's, lake water quality studies were conducted on Lake Lanier and Jackson Lake. Also at that time a comprehensive statewide study was conducted to assess fecal coliform levels at public beaches on major lakes in Georgia as the basis for water use classifications and establishment of water quality standards for recreational waters. In 1972, GAEPD staff participated in the USEPA National Eutrophication Survey which included fourteen lakes in Georgia. Additional lake monitoring continued through the 1970s. The focus of these studies was primarily problem/solution oriented and served as the basis for regulatory decisions. Georgia's water quality monitoring network has collected long term data from sites in four major lakes including Lake Lanier, West Point Lake, Lake Harding, and Jackson Lake.
In 1980-1981, the GAEPD conducted a statewide survey of public access freshwater lakes. The study was funded in part by USEPA Clean Lakes Program funds. The survey objectives were to identify freshwater lakes with public access, assess each lake's trophic condition, and develop a priority listing of lakes as to need for restoration and/or protection. In the course of the survey, data and information were collected on
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-16
FIGURE 3 GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK
STATION LOCATIONS 2004
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-17
FIGURE 4 GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK
STATION LOCATIONS 2005
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-18
STATION NUMBER
01001001 01011001 01014001 01015001 02023001 03035001 03051001 04140001 04220001 04250001 04310001 04450001 05010001 05015001 05025001 06016001 07005801 07021001 09001001 09044501 10017001 11011001 11013001 11013401 11015001 11018001 11019801 11020001 11024501 11025001 11027201 11028001 11031201 11031801 11032301 11035501 11036501 11039001 11040001 11041501 11045501 11050001 11051001 11054651 11056401 11056501 11058401
TABLE 5. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2004
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Chattooga River at U.S. Highway 76 near Clayton, Georgia Savannah River at 0.5 Mile Downstream from Spirit Creek near Augusta Savannah River at Seaboard Coast Line Railway near Clyo, Georgia Savannah River - U.S. Highway 17 Ogeechee River at State Road 24 near Oliver, Georgia Oconee River at FAS 1086 near Watkinsville, Georgia Oconee River at Interstate Highway 16 near Dublin, Georgia South River at Island Shoals Road near Snapping Shoals, Georgia Yellow River at State Road 212 near Stewart, Georgia Ocmulgee River - 1.1 Miles Downstream From Yellow and South Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge Road near Stewart, Georgia Tussahaw Creek at Fincherville Road near Jackson, Georgia Ocmulgee River at Macon Water Intake near Macon, Georgia Ocmulgee River - 6.0 Miles D/S from Tobesofkee Creek Ocmulgee River at U.S. Highway 341 at Lumber City, Georgia Altamaha River - 6.0 Miles Downstream From Doctortown near Gardi Brunswick River - U.S. Highway 17 Satilla River at State Roads 15/121 near Hoboken, Georgia Suwannee River at U.S. Highway 441 near Fargo, Georgia Withlacoochee River at Clyattville-Nankin Road near Clyattville, Georgia Ochlockonee River - Bridge 3.2 Miles North of State Line near Calvary Flint River at State Road 138 near Jonesboro, Georgia Flint River at State Road 54 near Fayetteville, Georgia Camp Creek at State Road 85 near Fayetteville, Georgia Flint River at Ackert Road near Inman, Georgia Flint River at State Road 92 near Griffin, Georgia Wildcat Creek at Moon Road near Griffin, Georgia Flint River at State Road 16 near Griffin, Georgia Whitewater Creek at Morgan Mill Road near Brooks, Georgia Line Creek at State Road 16 near Digbey, Georgia White Oak Creek at State Road 54 near Sharpsburg, Georgia White Oak Creek at State Road 85 near Alvaton, Georgia Red Oak Creek at Harman Hall Road near Imlac, Georgia Flint River at State Road 18 near Molena, Georgia Elkins Creek at State Road 109 near Molena, Georgia Flint River at State Road 36 near Thomaston, Georgia Lazer Creek at State Road 41 near Talbotton, Georgia Potato Creek at Alabama Road near Piedmont, Georgia Potato Creek at State Road 74 near Thomaston, Georgia Bell Creek at Gordon School Road near Lincoln Park, Georgia Swift Creek at State Road 3 near Thomaston, Georgia Flint River at U.S. Highway 19 near Culloden, Georgia Ulcohatchee Creek at Charlie Reeves Road near Roberta, Georgia Patsiliga Creek at Patsiliga Creek Bridge Road (CR 128) near Reynolds Horse Creek at Miona Springs Road near Marshallville, Georgia Flint River at State Road 127 near Marshallville, Georgia Whitewater Creek at State Road 3 near Butler, Georgia
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
A
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard + Chlorophyll
C
Standard
A
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
C
Standard
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
C
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-19
STATION NUMBER 11058501 11059801 11060001 11060191 11060201 11060501 11061101 11061201 11061301 11061421 11061901 11062771 11064001 11064201 11064451 11064501 11065001 11065501 11067501 11068001 11079501 11090401 11101001 11101801 11102001 11105501 11106001 11106201 11106301 11106501 11107501 11107801 11109001 11430001 11450001 11470001 11490001 11780501 12010001 12020001 12024001 12028001 12030001 12030021 12030085 12030141 12030201 12033201 12034681 12035001
TABLE 5. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2004
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Whitewater Creek at State Road 195 near Ideal, Georgia Buck Creek at State Road 240 near Ideal, Georgia Flint River at State Roads 26/49 near Montezuma, Georgia Camp Creek at State Road 49 near Oglethorpe, Georgia Beaver Creek at State Road 49 near Montezuma, Georgia Hogcrawl Creek at River Road near Montezuma, Georgia Pennahatchee Creek at Baggs Road near Vienna, Georgia Turkey Creek at State Road 230 at Drayton, Georgia Flint River at State Road 27 near Vienna, Georgia Lime Creek at Spring Hill Church Road near Cobb, Georgia Gum Creek at U.S. Highway 280 at Coney, Georgia Swift Creek at Jamestown Road near Warwick, Georgia Muckalee Creek at State Road 30 near Americus, Georgia Muckalee Creek at State Road 118 near Smithville, Georgia Muckaloochee Creek at Smithville Road near Starksville, Georgia Muckalee Creek at State Road 195 near Leesburg, Georgia Kinchafoonee Creek at State Road 41 near Preston, Georgia Lanahassee Creek at State Road 153 near Preston, Georgia Kinchafoonee Creek at State Road 118 near Smithville, Georgia Kinchafoonee Creek at Prison Farm Road near Dawson, Georgia Fowltown Creek at Palmyra Road near Albany, Georgia Flint River at State Road 234 near Albany, Georgia Raccoon Creek at State Road 3 near Baconton, Georgia Cooleewahee Creek at State Road 91 at Newton, Georgia Flint River at State Road 37 at Newton, Georgia Pachitla Creek at State Road 37 near Edison, Georgia Ichawaynochaway Creek at State Road 216 near Milford, Georgia Chickasawhatchee Creek at State Road 234 near Albany, Georgia Chickasawhatchee Creek at State Road 37 near Elmodel, Georgia Ichawaynochaway Creek at State Road 91 near Newton, Georgia Big Slough at State Road 65 near Camilla, Georgia Big Slough at State Road 97 near Bainbridge, Georgia Flint River at U.S. Highway 27-B near Bainbridge, Georgia Dry Creek at County Road 279 near Hentown, Georgia Spring Creek at State Road 91 near Colquitt, Georgia Aycocks Creek at Holmes Road near Boykin, Georgia Spring Creek near Iron City, Georgia Fishpond Drain at State Road 39 near Donalsonville, Georgia Chattahoochee River at State Roads 17/75 near Nacooche, Georgia Chattahoochee River at State Road 115 near Leaf, Georgia Soque River at State Road 197 near Clarkesville, Georgia Soque River at State Road 105 near Demorest, Georgia Chattahoochee River at Duncan Bridge Road near Cornelia, Georgia Mossy Creek at State Road 254 near Cleveland, Georgia Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road near Lula, Georgia West Fork Little River at Jess Helton Road near Clermont, Georgia Lake Sidney Lanier at Lanier Bridge (SR 53) on Chattahoochee River Dicks Creek at Forest Service Road 144-1 near Neels Gap, Georgia Tesnatee Creek at County Road 200 near Cleveland, Georgia Chestatee River at Georgia Highway 52 near Dahlonega, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
C
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
C
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-20
STATION NUMBER 12035071 12035101 12035401 12037001 12038001 12038501 12039401 12040001 12043001 12048001 12050001 12050301 12054401 12055001 12055361 12060001 12064001 12070001 12070011 12072101 12073201 12073901 12080001 12090001 12090901 12105001 12105701 12106001 12109001 12109451 12113051 12118001 12120001 12130001 12134501 12138501 12140001 12140201 12140501 12141511 12145001 12148001 12150001 12169801 12170001 12171201 12174301 12180001 12181601 12181801
TABLE 5. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2004
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Yahoola Creek at State Road 60 near Dahlonega, Georgia Yahoola Creek at Georgia Highway 52 near Dahlonega, Georgia Chestatee River at State Road 400 near Dahlonega, Georgia Lake Sidney Lanier at Boling Bridge (State Road 53) on Chestatee River Lake Sidney Lanier at Browns Bridge Road (State Road 369) Flat Creek at McEver Road near Gainesville, Georgia Lake Sidney Lanier upstream from Flowery Branch Confluence Lake Sidney Lanier upstream from the Buford Dam Forebay Chattahoochee River at State Road 20 near Buford, Georgia Chattahoochee River at McGinnis Ferry Road Chattahoochee River - Gwinnett County Water Intake Suwanee Creek at U.S. Highway 23 near Suwanee, Georgia Johns Creek at Old Alabama Road near Alpharetta, Georgia Chattahoochee River - DeKalb County Water Intake Crooked Creek at Spalding Drive near Norcross, Georgia Big Creek at Roswell Water Intake near Roswell, Georgia Willeo Creek at State Road 120 near Roswell, Georgia Chattahoochee River at Cobb County Water Intake near Roswell Chattahoochee River at Johnson Ferry Road near Atlanta, Georgia Sope Creek at Columns Drive near Marietta, Georgia Long Island Creek at Northside Drive near Atlanta, Georgia Rottenwood Creek at Interstate North Parkway near Smyrna, Georgia Chattahoochee River - Atlanta Water Intake Peachtree Creek at Northside Drive near Atlanta, Georgia Nancy Creek at West Wesley Road near Atlanta, Georgia Chattahoochee River - I-285 Upstream from Proctor Creek Proctor Creek at Northwest Drive near Atlanta, Georgia Chattahoochee River at Bankhead Highway Nickajack Creek at Bankhead Highway (U.S. 78) near Mableton, Georgia Sandy Creek at Bolton Road near Atlanta, Georgia Utoy Creek at Great Southwest Parkway near Atlanta, Georgia Sweetwater Creek at Powder Springs Road near Austell, Georgia Sweetwater Creek at Interstate Highway 20 Chattahoochee River at State Road 166 near Ben Hill, Georgia Camp Creek at Cochran Road near Fairburn, Georgia Deep Creek at Cochran Road near Fairburn, Georgia Chattahoochee River - Georgia Highway 92 Anneewakee Creek at State Road 166 near Douglasville, Georgia Chattahoochee River at Capps Ferry Road near Rico, Georgia Bear Creek at State Road 70 near Rico, Georgia Snake Creek at Banning Mill Road near Whitesburg, Georgia Cedar Creek at Brimer Road near Roscoe, Georgia Chattahoochee River at State Road 16 near Whitesburg, Georgia Centralhatchee Creek at U.S. Highway 27 near Franklin, Georgia Chattahoochee River at U.S. Highway 27 near Franklin, Georgia Hillabahatchee Creek at State Road 34 near Franklin, Georgia New River at State Road 100 near Corinth, Georgia Chattahoochee River at LaGrange Water Intake near LaGrange, Georgia Yellow Jacket Creek at Hammet Road near Hogansville, Georgia Beech Creek at Hammett Road near LaGrange, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
A
Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
RC Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
C
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Metals
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
A
Standard, Metals
BM Standard, Metals
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-21
STATION NUMBER 12190001 12200001 12201301 12201901 12210001 12211201 12212001 12214651 12216001 12216701 12218001 12218901 12219001 12219101 12219301 12219501 12219601 12219801 12220001 12230001 13030001 14010051 14030001 14250001 14300001 14300601 14302001 14304001 14304221 14304801 14305801 14307501 14309001 14330001 14450001 14560001 15090001
TABLE 5. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2004
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Long Cane Creek at Webb Road near West Point, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River - 1.0 Mile U/S from U.S. Hwy. 29 near West Point
BM Standard, Metals
Flat Shoals Creek at State Road 18 near West Point, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Mountain Oak Creek at State Road 103 near Hamilton, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River - Upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam
BM Standard, Metals
Mulberry Creek at Hamilton-Mulberry Grove Road near Mulberry Grove
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River at Columbus Water Intake near Columbus, Georgia BM Standard, Metals
Bull Creek at U.S. Highway 27 near Columbus, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River - Downstream from Columbus WTF
BM Standard, Metals
Upatoi Creek at Red Arrow Road (Fort Benning) near Columbus, Georgia BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River - Downstream Oswichee Creek
C
Standard, Chlorophyll
Hannahatchee Creek at Toby Road near Union, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River at Spur 39 near Omaha, Georgia
A
Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River/Walter F. George Lake at U.S. Highway 82
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
Pataula Creek at State Road 50 near Georgetown, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River/Walter F. George Lake at Dam Forebay
A
Standard, Chlorophyll
Chattahoochee River at State Road 37 near Fort Gaines, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River at State Road 62 near Hilton, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River at U.S. Highway 84 near Alaga, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Chattahoochee River at State Road 91 near Steam Mill, Georgia
C
Standard, Metals
Tallapoosa River at U.S. Highway 78 near Tallapoosa, Georgia
A
Standard
Coosa River at U.S. Highway 76 near Dalton, Georgia
C
Standard
Conasauga River at Tilton Bridge near Tilton, Georgia
C
Standard
Oostanaula River at Rome Water Intake near Rome, Georgia
C
Standard
Etowah River at State Road 5 spur near Canton, Georgia
C
Standard
Shoal Creek at State Road 108 near Waleska, Georgia
A
Standard
Lake Allatoona - Off Fields Landing - 44E-45E
A
Standard
Little River at State Road 5 near Woodstock, Georgia
A
Standard
Noonday Creek at North Rope Mill Road near Woodstock, Georgia
A
Standard
Lake Allatoona - Little River Emb - Upstream Highway 205
A
Standard
Lake Allltoona - North Of Galts Ferry Landing
A
Standard
Lake Allatoona At Highway 293
A
Standard
Lake Allatoona 300 Meters Upstream Dam
A
Standard
Etowah River at FAS 829 near Euharlee, Georgia
C
Standard
Coosa River at Georgia/Alabama State Line near Coosa, Georgia
C
Standard
Chattooga River at FAS 1363 near Chattoogaville, Georgia
C
Standard
West Chickamauga Creek at State Road 146 near Lakeview, Georgia
C
Standard
1There are three major types of stations: core(C), annual (A), and basin monitoring (BM).
2Standard parameters include gage height, air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, conductivity, BOD5, pH, alkalinity, hardness, ammonia, nitrite+nitrate, phosphorus, TOC, and fecal coliform bacteria.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-22
STATION NUMBER
01001001 01011001 01013001 01014001 01014501 02010001 02011701 02023001 02027001 02027201 02029501 02350001 03015001 03035001 03036701 03041701 03043401 03045001 03046001 03047501 03051001 04108001 04111001 04111701 04140001 04205001 04210001 04220001 04310001 04350051 05005001 05007001 05007501 05010001 05013601 05015001 05025001 06010001 06014001 06016001 06017001 07004001 07005201 07005801 07016601 07019001 07021001 07025001 07026001
TABLE 6. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2005
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Chattooga River at U.S. Highway 76 near Clayton, Georgia Savannah River 0.5 Mile d/s from Spirit Creek near Augusta, Georgia Brier Creek near Millhaven, Georgia Savannah River at Seaboard Coast Line Railway near Clyo, Georgia Ebenezer Creek at Half Moon Landing Ogeechee River at Georgia Highway 78 near Wadley, Georgia Williamson Swamp Creek at Georgia Highway 231 Ogeechee River at State Road 24 near Oliver, Georgia Canoochee River at U.S. Highway 301 Canoochee River near Daisy, Georgia Canoochee River at Georgia Highway 67 North Newport River at Halfmoon Landing North Oconee River - Athens Water Intake Oconee River at FAS 1086 near Watkinsville, Georgia Apalachee River - Near Bostwick Little River at State Road 16 near Eatonton, Georgia Murder Creek at New Glenwood Springs Road (FAS 777) nr Eatonton Oconee River - Milledgeville Water Intake Oconee River - 1 Mile Downstream Central State Hospital Oconee River at Georgia Highway 57 Oconee River at Interstate Highway 16 near Dublin, Georgia South River - Bouldercrest Road South River - Georgia Highway 155 South River - Klondike Road South River at Island Shoals Road near Snapping Shoals, Georgia Yellow River - Killian Hill Road Yellow River - Conyers Water Intake Yellow River at State Road 212 near Stewart, Georgia Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge Road near Stewart, Georgia Lake Jackson Confluence of South, Alcovy & Yellow Rivers Ocmulgee River - Georgia Highway 16 Towaliga River - Georgia Highway 83 Falling Creek - FAS 1640 Near East Juliet Ocmulgee River at Macon Water Intake near Macon, Georgia Tobesofkee Creek - U.S. Highways 41 and 129 Ocmulgee River - 6.0 Miles D/S from Tobesofkee Creek near Warner Robins Ocmulgee River at U.S. Highway 341 at Lumber City, Georgia Ohoopee River at Georgia Highway 56 Altamaha River at U.S. Highway 301 Altamaha River - 6.0 Miles Downstream From Doctortown near Gardi Altamaha River at Seaboard Railway at Everett Turtle River off Hermitage Island Turtle River at Georgia Highway 303 Brunswick River at U.S. Highway 17 Seventeen Mile Creek at Georgia Highway 64 Satilla River at FAS 598 North of Waycross Satilla River at State Roads 15/121 near Hoboken, Georgia Little Satilla River at Seaboard Railroad at Offerma Satilla River at U.S. Highway 84
C Standard C Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard C Standard A Standard, Chlorophyll A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard C Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-23
STATION NUMBER
08010001 09001001 09012001 09018301 09029501 09036001 09038401 09040001 09042001 09044501 10003001 10010001 10017001 11011001 11013001 11018001 11025001 11050001 11060001 11090401 11102001 11109001 12010001 12030001 12030085 12030141 12030151 12030161 12030171 12030201 12033201 12035401 12037001 12038001 12038501 12038610 12038651 12038681 12038781 12038801 12039401 12039601 12039621 12040001 12048001 12055001 12060001 12070001 12080001
TABLE 6. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2005
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Saint Marys River at U.S. Highway 301
A Standard
Suwannee River at U.S. Highway 441 near Fargo, Georgia
C Standard
Alapaha River at Georgia Highway 94 nr Statenville
A Standard
New River at U.S. Highway 82 near Tifton, Georgia
A Standard
Withlacoochee River at McMillian Road near Bemiss, Georgia
A Standard
Withlacoochee River at Georgia Highway 94
A Standard
Indian Creek at FAS 1753 near Berlin, Georgia
A Standard
Withlacoochee River at U.S. Highway 84
A Standard
Okapilco Creek at U.S. Highway 84
A Standard
Withlacoochee River at Clyattville-Nankin Road near Clyattville, Georgia
C Standard
Ochlockonee River at FAS 1205 near Moultrie, Georgia
A Standard
Ochlockonee River at U.S. Highway 84
A Standard
Ochlockonee River - Bridge 3.2 Miles North of State Line near Calvary
C Standard
Flint River at State Road 138 near Jonesboro, Georgia
A Standard
Flint River at State Road 54 near Fayetteville, Georgia
A Standard
Flint River - Georgia Highway 92
C Standard
Line Creek at State Road 16 near Digbey, Georgia
A Standard
Flint River at U.S. Highway 19 near Culloden, Georgia
A Standard
Flint River - Georgia Highways 26 and 49
C Standard
Flint River at State Road 234 near Albany, Georgia
A Standard
Flint River at State Road 37 at Newton, Georgia
C Standard
Flint River at U.S. Highway 27-B near Bainbridge, Georgia
C Standard
Chattahoochee River at State Roads 17/75 near Nacooche, Georgia
A Standard
Chattahoochee River at Duncan Bridge Rd. near Cornelia, Georgia (Hwy 384)
A Standard
Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road near Lula, Georgia
A Standard
West Fork Little River at Jess Helton Rd. near Clermont
A Standard
East Fork Little River at Honeysuckle Rd. near Clermont
A Standard
Lake Sidney Lanier Little River Embayment between M1WC & 3LR
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Wahoo Creek at Ben Parks Road near Murrayville, GA
A Standard
Lake Sidney Lanier at Lanier Bridge (SR 53) on Chattahoochee River
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Dicks Creek at Forest Service Road 144-1 near Neel Gap, Georgia
C Standard
Chestatee River at State Road 400 near Dahlonega, Georgia
A Standard
Lake Sidney Lanier at Boling Rd. (SR 53) on Chestatee River
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Lake Sidney Lanier at Browns Bridge Rd. (SR 369)
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Flat Creek at McEver Road near Gainesville, Georgia
A Standard
Balus Creek at McEver Road near Oakwood, Georgia
A Standard
Lake Sidney Lanier - Flat Creek Embayment, 100' U/S M7FC
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Lake Sidney Lanier Balus Creek Embayment, 0.34 mi. SE M6FC
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Mud Creek at McEver Road near Flowery Branch, GA
A Standard
Lake Sidney Lanier Mud Creek Embayment, between Marina and Ramp
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Lake Sidney Lanier upstream from Flowery Branch confluence
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Six Mile Creek at Burrus Mill Road near Coal Mountain, GA
A Standard
Lake Sidney Lanier Six Mile Creek Embayment, 300' E M9SM
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Lake Sidney Lanier upstream from the Buford Dam Forebay
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Chattahoochee River at McGinnis Ferry Road
A Standard
Chattahoochee River at DeKalb County Water Intake
A Standard
Big Creek at Roswell Water Intake near Roswell, Georgia
A Standard
Chattahoochee River at Cobb County Water Intake
C Standard
Chattahoochee River at Atlanta Water Intake
A Standard
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-24
STATION NUMBER
12090001 12106001 12120001 12140001 12140501 12150001 12170001 12174301 12180001 12181601 12190001 12200001 12210001 12212001 12216001 12218001 12219001 12219101 12219501 12230001 13010001 13012001 13013001 13014101 13015701 13017001 13020501 13020901 13021001 13028001 13030001 13030501 14005951 14006001 14007021 14010051 14015401 14018501 14020501 14030001 14040001 14056901 14079011 14109901 14115001 14116001 14119301 14119401 14119901
TABLE 6. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2005
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Peachtree Creek at Northside Drive near Atlanta, Georgia Chattahoochee River at Bankhead Highway Sweetwater Creek at Interstate Highway 20 Chattahoochee River at Georgia Highway 92 Chattahoochee River at Capps Ferry Road near Rico, Georgia Chattahoochee River at State Road 16 near Whitesburg, Georgia Chattahoochee River at U.S. Highway 27 near Franklin, Georgia New River at State Road 100 near Corinth, Georgia West Point Lake at LaGrange Water Intake near LaGrange, Georgia Yellow Jacket Creek at Hammet Road near Hogansville, Georgia Long Cane Creek at Webb Road near West Point, Georgia Chattahoochee River - 1.0 Mile U/S from U.S. Highway 29 near West Point Chattahoochee River upstream from Bartletts Ferry Dam Chattahoochee River at Columbus Water Intake Chattahoochee River d/s from Columbus Wastewater Treatment Plant Chattahoochee River downstream from Oswichee Creek near Columbus Chattahoochee River at Spur 39 near Omaha, Georgia Lake Walter F. George at U.S. Hwy. 82 near Georgetown, Georgia Lake Walter F. George 300 Meters Upstream Dam Chattahoochee River at Georgia Highway 91 Little Tallapoosa River at Georgia Highway 100 near Bowdon, Georgia Indian Creek at State Line Road near Bowdon, Georgia Buffalo Creek at Bethesda Church Road near Roopville, Georgia Buffalo Creek at Martin Cemetery Road near Carrollton, Georgia Little Tallapoosa River at U.S. Highway 27 near Carrollton, Georgia Buck Creek at State Road 16 near Carrollton, Georgia Tallapoosa River at Rockmart Road near Draketown, Georgia Little River at East Church Road near Buchanan, Georgia Tallapoosa River at U.S. Highway 27 near Felton, Georgia Tallapoosa River at Jacksonville Road near Tallapoosa, Georgia Tallapoosa River at Georgia Highway 8 near Tallapoosa, Georgia Walker Creek at Providence Church Road near Tallapoosa, Georgia Jacks River at County Road 187 near Higdon, Georgia Jacks River at Old Highway 2 near Alaculsy, Georgia Conasauga River at Carlton Petty Road near Gregory, Georgia Conasauga River at U.S. Highway 76 near Dalton, Georgia Coahulla Creek at U.S. Highway 76 near Dalton, Georgia Holly Creek at State Road 61 near Chatsworth, Georgia Holly Creek at Georgia Highway 225 near Chatsworth, Georgia Conasauga River at Tilton Bridge near Tilton, Georgia Conasauga River at State Road 136 near Resaca, Georgia Ellijay River at State Road 5 near Ellijay, Georgia Cartecay River at State Road 2 Connector near Ellijay, Georgia Coosawattee River at Georgia Highway 5 near Ellijay, Georgia Mountaintown Creek at State Road 282 near Ellijay, Georgia Tails Creek at State Road 282 near Ellijay, Georgia Carters Lake (CR1) - Upper Lake, Coosawattee Arm Carters Lake (CR3) - Midlake Talking Rock Creek at Georgia Highway 136 near Blaine, Georgia
A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard, Chlorophyll A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard A Standard C Standard A Standard A Standard, Chlorophyll A Standard, Chlorophyll C Standard BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals C Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals C Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals A Standard, Chlorophyll A Standard, Chlorophyll BM Standard, Metals
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-25
STATION NUMBER
14120001 14125001 14125501 14130001 14220001 14230031 14230101 14234001 14237001 14237501 14238001 14239001 14239501 14250001 14270001 14271001 14281001 14290501 14295001 14300001 14300601 14302001 14304001 14304101 14304801 14305801 14306471 14307001 14307501 14309001 14310011 14317501 14325001 14326001 14329501 14330001 14340201 14340991 14350011 14357551 14401011 14401501 14403901 14407901 14425001 14450001 14491001 14540001 14544001
TABLE 6. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2005
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Coosawattee River at U.S. Highway 411 near Carters, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Pine Log Creek at Georgia Highway 53 near Sonoraville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Salacoa Creek at Lovebridge Road NE near Redbud, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Coosawattee River at State Road 225 near Calhoun, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Oostanaula River at U.S. Highway 41 near Resaca, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Oothkalooga Creek at State Road 156 near Calhoun, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Oostanaula River at Georgia Highway 156 near Calhoun, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Johns Creek at State Road 156 near Curryville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Little Armuchee Creek at Big Texas Valley Road NW near Armuchee, Georgia BM Standard, Metals
Heath Creek at Texas Valley Road NW near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Lavendar Creek at Little Texas Valley Road NW near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Armuchee Creek at Old Dalton Road near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Woodward Creek at Bells Ferry Road NE near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Oostanaula River at Rome Water Intake near Rome, Georgia
C Standard, Metals
Etowah River at State Road 53 near Dawsonville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Amicalola Creek at State Road 53 near Dawsonville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Etowah River at Yellow Creek Road near Ball Ground, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Long Swamp Creek at Conn's Creek Road near Ball Ground, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Sharp Mountain Creek at State Road 5 near Ball Ground, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Etowah River at State Road 5 spur near Canton, Georgia
A Standard, Metals
Shoal Creek at State Road 108 near Waleska, Georgia
A Standard, Metals
Lake Allatoona at Etowah River upstream from Sweetwater Creek
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Little River at State Road 5 near Woodstock, Georgia
A Standard, Metals
Noonday Creek at Georgia Highway 92 near Woodstock, Georgia
A Standard, Metals
Lake Allatoona at Little River upstream from Highway 205
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Lake Allatoona downstream from Kellogg Creek
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Stamp Creek at State Road 20 near Cartersville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Allatoona Creek at Stilesboro Lane near Kennesaw, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Lake Allatoona at Allatoona Creek upstream from Interstate 75
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Lake Allatoona Upstream from Dam
A Standard, Chlorophyll
Etowah River at U.S. Highway 41 near Cartersville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Etowah River at State Road 61 near Cartersville, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Pumpkinvine Creek at County Road 636 near Emerson, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Raccoon Creek at State Road 113 near Stilesboro, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Euharlee Creek at County Road 32 near Stilesboro, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Etowah River at Hardin Bridge near Euharlee, Georgia
C Standard, Metals
Two Run Creek at Reynolds Bridge Road near Kingston, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Spring Creek at State Road 20 near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Etowah River at Turner Mccall Boulevard near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Silver Creek at Crescent Avenue near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Coosa River at Blacks Bluff Road near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Webb Creek at Blacks Bluff Road SW near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Beech Creek at Mays Bridge Road SW near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Cabin Creek at State Road 20 near Rome, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Cedar Creek at Cave Springs Road near Cedartown, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Coosa River - Georgia/Alabama State Line Monitor
C Standard, Metals
Duck Creek at State Road 337 near LaFayette, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Spring Creek at State Road 337 near Trion, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
Cane Creek at Club Drive near Trion, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-26
STATION NUMBER
14550001 14555001 14560001 14565001 15006001 15019901 15019991 15026001 15026501 15027001 15030000 15034001 15035001 15037001 15039801 15040000 15040051 15048701 15058001 15059901 15060401 15060501 15061001 15072001 15073001 15074001 15075001 15080001 15081001 15089001 15090001 15099001 15099501 15100001 15299951 15300001 15350001 15400001
TABLE 6. GEORGIA TREND MONITORING NETWORK 2005
LOCATION
TYPE1 PARAMETERS2
Chattooga River - 600 Feet Below U.S. Highway 27 near Summerville Raccoon Creek at State Road 114 near Summerville, Georgia Chattooga River at Holland-Chattoogaville Road near Summerville, Georgia East Fork Little River at State Road 48 near Cloudland, Georgia Little Tennessee River at Georgia Highway 246 near Dillard, Georgia Mill Creek at Mill Creek Road near Presley, Georgia Hiawassee River at Streak Hill Road near Presley, Georgia Lake Chatuge (LMP 12) - at State Line Brasstown Creek at U.S. Highway 76 near Blairsville, Georgia Brasstown Creek at State Road 66 near Young Harris, Georgia Lake Nottely (LMP 15A) - at Reece Creek Nottely River at State Road 180 near Blairsville, Georgia Nottely River at Morgan Bridge near Blairsville, Georgia Youngcane Creek at Byers Road near Youngcane, Georgia Lake Nottely (LMP 15) - at Dam Pool Lake Blue Ridge (LMP18A) - 4 Miles Upstream Dam Nottely River at John Smith Road near Ivylog, Georgia Cooper Creek at State Road 60 near Suches, Georgia Toccoa River at Shallowford Bridge near Dial, Georgia Lake Blue Ridge (LMP 18) - Dam Pool Hemptown Creek at State Road 245 near Mineral Bluff, Georgia Toccoa River at Curtis Switch Road near Mineral Bluff, Georgia Fighting Town Creek at West Tennessee Road near McCaysville, Georgia Little Chickamauga Creek at Hackett Mill Road near Ringgold, Georgia East Chickamauga Creek at Bandy Road near Ringgold, Georgia Dry Creek at Houston Valley Road near Ringgold, Georgia Tiger Creek at State Road 3 near Ringgold, Georgia South Chickamauga Creek at FAS 819 near Graysville, Georgia Peavine Creek at Old Dixie Highway near Graysville, Georgia West Chickamauga Creek at Glass Mill Road near Chickamauga, Georgia West Chickamauga Creek at Georgia Highway 146 near Lakeview, Georgia Chattanooga Creek at State Road 341 near Chattanooga, Tennessee Rock Creek at State Road 193 at Flintstone, Georgia Chattanooga Creek at Burnt Mill Road at St. Elmo, Tennessee Dry Creek at Maple Street near Chattanooga, Tennessee McFarland Branch at State Line Road near Chattanooga, Tennessee Lookout Creek at Old Cloverdale Road near Sulphur Springs, Georgia Lookout Creek at Creek Road near New England, Georgia
BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals C Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Chlorophyll BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Chlorophyll BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Chlorophyll BM Standard, Chlorophyll BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Chlorophyll BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals C Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals BM Standard, Metals
1There are three major types of stations: core(C), annual (A), and basin monitoring (BM).
2Standard parameters include gage height, air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, conductivity, BOD5, pH, alkalinity, hardness, ammonia, nitrite+nitrate, phosphorus, TOC, and fecal coliform bacteria.
175 identified lakes in 340 sampling trips. The data collected included depth profiles for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and specific conductance, Secchi disk transparency, and chemical analyses for chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, nitrogen
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-27
compounds, and turbidity. The three measures of Carlson'sTrophic State Index were combined into a single trophic state index (TTSI) and used with other field data and observations to assess the trophic condition of each lake and to establish categories of lakes relative to need for restoration and/or protection. Eight lakes were determined to have the a need for restoration and/or protection (Category A), twenty-eight lakes were found to have moderate need for protection (Category B), and one hundred twenty-seven lakes were found to have few water quality problems (Category C).
Monitoring efforts have continued since the 1980-1981 Lake Classification Survey with a focus on Category A lakes and major lakes (those with a surface area greater than 500 acres). Five lakes (Hillsboro Lake, Floyd State Park Upper and Lower Lakes, Rome City Park Pond, and Heath Park Lake) were removed from Category A and placed in Category B in 1984. Even though their trophic condition remained unchanged, the lake management authorities for these lakes indicated no conflict between the lake condition and intended uses. Three lakes remained as Category A lakes: Jackson Lake, High Falls Lake, and Williams Public Fishing Area Lake. Point source nutrient reduction has been implemented in the Jackson Lake and High Falls Lake watersheds and these lakes have been changed to Category B. Williams Public Fishing Area Lake was drained in the early 1990s due to problems with the dam and there are no plans to fill the lake.
The monitoring of major lakes (> 500 acres) since 1984 has continued to use the TTSI as a tool to mark trophic state trends. The major lakes are listed in Table 7 are ranked according to the TTSI for the period 1986-2003. Work on major lakes is now conducted as a part of the river basin planning process. Quarterly major lakes monitoring was conducted in 2002 and 2003 according to the river basin monitoring schedule. Basin major lakes monitored in 2002 were lakes Hartwell, Russell and Clarks Hill (Savannah). In 2003 the only major lake in the basins of focus was Banks Lake (Suwannee).
A Clean Lakes Phase I Diagnostic/ Feasibility study was conducted for Jackson Lake in 1989 and 1990. This study documented reductions in phosphorus loading. Despite this, the lake remains nutrient sensitive. Consequently, it was recommended that the total phosphorus loading from all sources be held constant or reduced. This study also documented an approximate 40% reservoir storage loss since inundation in 1910 due to sedimentation. Since sedimentation in the upper reaches of the lake interferes with recreation, sediment removal was offered as a management option.
A joint GAEPD-USEPA study of West Point Lake was conducted in 1987-1988. Sufficient data were available at the end of 1988 for the GAEPD to document nutrient problems and implement a control strategy. Because the nutrient loading was point source dominated, all major point sources were directed to reduce total phosphorus to 0.75 mg/l by 1992 with a 50% reduction by the middle of 1990. The phosphorus reduction process was aided in the 1990 when the Georgia General Assembly adopted legislation for a statewide ban on high phosphate detergents. This action along with the
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-28
TABLE 7. MAJOR LAKES RANKED BY SUM OF TROPHIC STATE INDEX VALUES
1986-2005
1985
Sinclair
188
Seminole
184
Blackshear
181
Worth
177
Jackson
172
Harding
171
Oconee
169
High Falls
168
WF George
161
Oliver
161
West Point
157
Goat Rock
155
Tobesofkee
152
Nottely
148
Chatuge
145
Tugalo
144
Allatoona
136
Banks
135
Carters
134
Blue Ridge
125
Juliette
125
Lanier
123
Clarks Hill
123
Rabun
122
Russell
122
Burton
121
Hartwell
116
1990
Sinclair Blackshear Oliver Harding Tobesofkee Jackson Goat Rock Oconee Worth Chatuge Tugalo High Falls Seminole Allatoona WF George Clarks Hill Rabun West Point Burton Hartwell Blue Ridge Nottely Juliette Russell Lanier Banks Carters
182 178 177 174 173 168 167 166 163 161 161 159 154 146 145 145 142 141 138 136 135 132 132 128 126 <122 118
1986
1987
1988
1989
Harding
177
Oliver
176
Seminole
175
Goat Rock
171
Jackson
170
Worth
164
High Falls
163
WF George
162
Blackshear
162
Oconee
161
West Point
160
Allatoona
157
Tobesofkee
155
Sinclair
152
Tugalo
148
Chatuge
147
Carters
144
Nottely
142
Banks
140
Juliette
135
Russell
131
Lanier
128
Clarks Hill
123
Hartwell
121
Blue Ridge
119
Rabun
117
Burton
114
1991
Blackshear
193
High Falls
190
Harding
185
Seminole
181
Worth
176
Goat Rock
174
WF George
172
West Point
171
Allatoona
167
Banks
164
Jackson
162
Oconee
161
Oliver
157
Sinclair
150
Tobesofkee
149
Clarks Hill
146
Russell
141
Nottely
141
Chatuge
138
Blue Ridge
136
Carters
135
Juliette
133
Tugalo
133
Hartwell
132
Burton
130
Rabun
122
Lanier
121
Harding Oliver Goat Rock Jackson Worth Blackshear Carters Tugalo Seminole High Falls Banks West Point Sinclair Clarks Hill Tobesofkee Oconee Allatoona WF George Nottely Russell Chatuge Rabun Hartwell Lanier Burton Blue Ridge Juliette
1992
High Falls Seminole WF George Tobesofkee Blackshear Goat Rock Sinclair Oliver Harding Jackson Oconee West Point Nottely Tugalo Worth Banks Allatoona Chatuge Burton Russell Carters Rabun Blue Ridge Hartwell Lanier Clarks Hill Juliette
184 177 174 170 167 <167 166 166 <160 157 <157 <156 <154 151 <146 <145 <143 <141 <137 <133 <132 <130 <126 <123 <119 <117 <108
Harding High Falls Blackshear Seminole Goat Rock Oliver Banks West Point WF George Oconee Worth Jackson Sinclair Tobesofkee Russell Allatoona Chatuge Tugalo Lanier Nottely Carters Juliette Burton Blue Ridge Clarks Hill Hartwell Rabun
1993
194 High Falls 183 Blackshear 181 Seminole 176 Goat Rock 176 Jackson 173 Sinclair 172 Worth 168 Oconee 166 Harding 166 Oliver 163 Tobesofkee 163 WF George 161 West Point 157 Allatoona 157 Russell 156 Carters 156 Banks 155 Clarks Hill 149 Hartwell 147 Nottely 143 Chatuge 143 Burton 141 Tugalo 138 Blue Ridge 138 Rabun 131 Juliette 131 Lanier
178
Blackshear
209
177
WF George
192
177
Harding
191
174
High Falls
191
173
Jackson
188
171
Oliver
184
169
Tobesofkee
180
169
Goat Rock
179
168
Carters
179
164
Seminole
174
164
Allatoona
171
<158 Worth
170
<152 Sinclair
169
<151 Banks
166
<145 Oconee
165
<141 West Point
164
139
Nottely
158
<133 Tugalo
156
<132 Russell
156
<132 Clarks Hill
153
<127 Chatuge
151
<123 Juliette
141
<120 Hartwell
138
<119 Blue Ridge
133
<118 Rabun
128
<114 Lanier
<128
111
Burton
123
1997-2001 Basin Cycle
Year
195 High Falls
169 1999
185 West Point 164 2000
175 Tobesofkee 164 1999
173 WF George 163 2000
173 Oconee
162 1999
172 Jackson
161 1999
172 Blackshear 160 2000
172 Sinclair
160 1999
170 Worth
157 2000
170 Carters
155 2001
169 Harding
155 2000
169 Tugalo
154 1997
163 Goat Rock
153 2000
158 Seminole
152 2000
156 Oliver
152 2000
154 Russell
141 1997
154 Allatoona
139 2001
153 Rabun
136 1997
146 Chatuge
135 2001
145 Juliette
131 1999
145 Burton
129 1997
145 Clarks Hill 129 1997
143 Nottely
127 2001
140 Lanier
127 2000
140 Hartwell
127 1997
136 Blue Ridge 119 2001
122
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-29
implementation of phosphorus reduction at the majority of the major metropolitan Atlanta water pollution control plants has resulted in a significant reduction in phosphorus reaching West Point Lake. In March 1990, the Georgia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 714 which mandated the State conduct comprehensive studies of publicly owned lakes (in excess of 1,000 acres) and develop water quality standards for pH, fecal coliform bacteria, chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, total phosphorus loading, and epilimnion dissolved oxygen. The Bill also requires that nutrient limits be established for major tributary streams to the lakes. The Bill mandated that comprehensive studies of Lake Lanier, Lake Walter F. George and West Point Lake be initiated in 1990, and three additional studies be performed each subsequent year on the remaining lakes of 1,500 acres or more, providing funds were available.
In March 1990, the GAEPD applied to and received from the USEPA Clean Lakes Phase I funds to be used to initiate studies of Lakes Lanier, Walter F. George, and West Point. Studies were begun in late 1990 and early 1991. Subsequently, EPD applied for funding for Lakes Allatoona and Blackshear. These were funded and sampling was initiated in April, 1992. Supplemental funding was awarded by Congress for the Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier Phase I studies. Reports on these studies were completed in 1999. The GAEPD applied for Clean Lakes funds to conduct a Phase I DiagnosticFeasibility study for Carters Lake in 1995. The application was approved and the field work for the Carters Lake project was completed in 1998. The Carters lake Phase I Diagnostic Feasibility Report was completed in 2000. Water quality standards were adopted for Carters Lake in 2002.
The Lake Walter F. George Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility study was conducted by the GAEPD in 1990 and 1991. In 1992 and 1993, the work was continued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and Auburn University. These studies found the lake in relatively good condition. No water use (i.e. recreation or fishing) impacts were documented. Therefore, the management of nutrient loading, particularly phosphorus, was noted as an important longterm objective in maintaining the water quality of Lake Walter F. George. The Lake Walter F. George Phase I Diagnostic Feasibility Study Report was submitted to and approved by the USEPA in 1997.
The West Point Lake Clean Lakes study was completed in 1994 and the GAEPD proposed water quality standards for the lake which, after public review, were adopted by the Board of Natural Resources in 1995. The lake water quality standards for Walter F. George and Jackson Lakes were proposed and adopted by the Board of Natural Resources in October, 1996. The Clean Lakes studies for Lakes Allatoona and Lanier, conducted by Kennesaw State College and the University of Georgia, respectively, were completed in 1999 and water quality standards adopted by the Board of Natural Resources in 2000.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-30
In 2004 and 2005, lake standards monitoring was conducted April through October, at the specified lake locations on Lakes West Point, Jackson, Walter F. George, Allatoona Lanier and Carters in accordance with the lakes standards law. In addition, tributary sampling was conducted monthly. In addition to monitoring for the required parameters of chlorophyll a, pH, total nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria, water quality profile data were collected at each lake monitoring station.
The Little River Embayment of Lake Allatoona was included on Georgia's 2002 303(d) list for chlorophyll a. A Total Maximum Daily Load was completed in 2004 for this portion of the lake. Portions of Lake Allatoona, Lanier, Carters and Walter F. George were included on Georgia's 2006 303(d) list of waters for chlorophyll a. GAEPD is in the process of collecting nutrient data on the lakes that were listed, as well as their tributaries, in order to develop models on which to base total maximum daily loads. Sampling is being conducted in the tributaries to Lake Lanier in 2007.
Fish Tissue Monitoring. This assessment project is focused on fish tissue sampling and analyses, risk-based data assessment, and annual publication of consumption guidance in Georgia's Freshwater & Saltwater Sport Fishing Regulations and in Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters. Fish tissue samples are collected in the fall from Georgia lakes and rivers, and analyzed in the winter and spring. Sitespecific sampling in Georgia estuaries occurs between the spring and fall on a case specific basis. The sampling is conducted by either the GADNR Wildlife Resources Division (WRD), or the Coastal Resources Division (CRD), depending on whether the site is freshwater (WRD), or estuarine/marine waters (CRD). Samples are catalogued and transported to GAEPD or University of Georgia laboratories and results are reported to the GAEPD the following late summer or early fall. The data are assessed in the fall and winter and consumption guidance is updated each spring. The first riskbased consumption guidance was published in 1995.
In the fall of 2004 sampling was focused in the Oconee, Ocmulgee and Altamaha River basins. In the fall of 2005 sampling was focused in the Chattahoochee and Flint River basins. The data from the annual collections are utilized in reassessments that are incorporated annually into the Guidelines for Eating Fish For Georgia Waters and Georgia's Freshwater and Saltwater Sport Fishing Regulations.
Toxic Substance Stream Monitoring. The GAEPD has focused resources on the management and control of toxic substances in the State's waters for many years. Toxic substance analyses have been conducted on samples from selected trend monitoring stations since 1973. Wherever discharges were found to have toxic impacts or to include toxic pollutants, the GAEPD has incorporated specific limitations on toxic pollutants in NPDES discharge permits. In 1983 the GAEPD intensified toxic substance stream monitoring efforts. This expanded toxic substance stream monitoring project included facility effluent, stream, sediment, and fish sampling at specific sites downstream of selected industrial and municipal discharges. From 1983 through 1991,
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-31
ten to twenty sites per year were sampled as part of this project. Future work will be conducted as a part of the rotating basin monitoring program.
Aquatic Toxicity Testing. In 1982 the GAEPD incorporated biomonitoring or aquatic toxicity testing in selected industrial NPDES permits. Biomonitoring requirements are currently addressed in all municipal and industrial NPDES permits. In January 1995, the GAEPD issued approved NPDES Reasonable Potential Procedures which further delineated required conditions for conducting whole effluent toxicity (WET) biomonitoring for municipal and industrial discharges. The Reasonable Potential Procedures were updated in 2001. In addition, GAEPD developed a Whole Effluent Toxicity Strategy in 2001 which provided more detail as to how the State would determine what facilities needed a whole effluent toxicity limit in their permit and which outlined minimum data requirements for different types of facilities. The GAEPD started conducting aquatic toxicity tests on municipal and industrial water pollution control plant effluents in 1985. In 1988, the GAEPD constructed laboratory facilities to support chronic and acute testing capabilities. All toxicity testing was conducted in accordance with appropriate USEPA methods. The aquatic biomonitoring project (ABP) was initially funded with Federal CWA Section 205(j) Grant money, and later under Section 604(b). Requests for State funding were proposed annually and were unsuccessful. Continued funding under Section 604(b) met with difficulties and absorption of costs into the State budget not possible with the State government redirection priorities and privatization initiatives that were implemented in 1995. When reorganization of the Water Protection Branch was finalized in June 1996, the resources of the ABP were redirected into monitoring and TMDL areas. It was decided that the ABP would be phased out over the FY1997 period with the aquatic toxicity testing laboratory to be closed down by July 1, 1997. In addition to funding and redirection issues, it was decided that toxicity testing work would be required of individual permittees in the future.
Coastal Monitoring. The majority of coastal monitoring is conducted by the Coastal Resources Division (CRD). This work includes the national coastal assessment program, beach water quality monitoring, estuarine nutrient monitoring, shellfish sanitation monitoring and monitoring for harmful algae including Pfiesteria. This work is discussed in Chapter 5.
Facility Compliance Sampling. In addition to surface water quality monitoring, the GAEPD conducts evaluations and compliance sampling inspections of municipal and industrial water pollution control plants and on industrial pretreatment systems. Compliance sampling inspections include the collection of 24-hour composite samples, and an evaluation of the permittee sampling and flow monitoring operations. In excess of 350 sampling inspections were conducted by the GAEPD staff in 2004-2005. The results were used, in part, to verify the validity of permittee self-monitoring data and as supporting evidence, as applicable, in enforcement actions. In 2004 this work was focused in the Oconee, Ocmulgee and Altamaha River basins and in 2005 in the
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-32
Ochlockonee, Suwannee, Satilla and St. Marys River basins in support of the River Basin Planning process.
Surface Water Quality Summary
Data Assessment. Water quality data are assessed to determine if standards are met and if the waterbody supports its designated or classified water use. If monitoring data show that standards are not achieved, depending on the frequency standards are not met, the waterbody is said to be partially or not supporting the designated use. The data reviewed included GAEPD monitoring data, and data from other State, Federal, local governments, contracted Clean Lakes projects, data from three electrical utility companies and data from groups with approved QA/QC programs. Table 8 provides a list of agencies that contributed data for use in assessing water quality in this report.
The majority of coastal monitoring is conducted by the Coastal Resources Division. This work includes the national coastal assessment program, beach water quality monitoring, estuarine nutrient monitoring, shellfish sanitation monitoring and monitoring for harmful algae including Pfiesteria.
Appendix A includes lists of streams and rivers, lakes, and estuaries for which data have been assessed and indications are that designated uses for those waters are not fully supported. The lists are organized by river basin and include information on the location, data source, designated water use classification, criterion violated, potential cause, actions planned to alleviate the problem, and estimates of stream miles, lake acres and square miles of estuaries affected. The list is further coded to indicate status of each waterbody under several sections of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Different sections of the CWA require states to assess water quality (Section 305(b)), to list waters with water quality standards violations for which no actions have been initiated and therefore a TMDL is needed (Section 303(d)), and to document waters with nonpoint source problems (Section 319).
The Appendix A waters are described in the following categories: waters supporting designated uses, waters partially supporting designated uses, and waters not supporting designated uses. Waters were placed on the partially or not supporting lists based on the following assessments.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria. Georgia water quality standards establish a fecal coliform bacteria criterion of a geometric mean (four samples collected over a 30-day period) of 200 MPN/100 ml for all waters in Georgia during the recreational season of May through October. This is the year-round standard for waters with the water use classification of recreation. For waters classified as drinking water, fishing, or coastal fishing, for the period of November through April, the fecal coliform bacteria criterion is a geometric mean (four samples collected over a 30-day period) of 1,000 per 100 ml and not to exceed 4,000 per 100 ml for any one sample.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-33
The goal of fecal coliform sampling in 2004-2005 was to collect four samples in a thirty day period in each of four calendar quarters. If one geometric mean was in excess of the standard then the stream segment was placed on the partial support list. If more than one geometric mean was in excess of the standard the stream was placed on the not support list.
TABLE 8
CONTRIBUTORS OF WATER QUALITY DATA
FOR ASSESSMENT OF GEORGIA WATERS
GAEPD Watershed Planning and Monitoring Program
City of Gainesville
GAEPD Permitting and Compliance Program
City of LaGrange
GAEPD Brunswick District Office
City of Savannah
GAEPD Hazardous Waste Branch
Chatham County
DNR, Georgia Parks Recreation & Historic Sites Division
City of Augusta
DNR Coastal Resources Division DNR Wildlife Resources Division State University of West Georgia
Georgia Mountains RDC City of Conyers Kennesaw State University
Gainesville College
Lake Allatoona (Kennesaw State University)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Lake Lanier (University of Georgia)
Chattahoochee/Flint RDC
West Point (LaGrange College/Auburn University)
Upper Etowah Adopt-A-Stream
Lake Blackshear Watershed Association
Middle Flint RDC
University of Georgia
Heart of Georgia RDC
Southwire Company
Central Savannah RDC
Ellijay High School
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
LaGrange College/Auburn University
U.S. Geological Survey
Georgia Power Company
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Oglethorpe Power Company
U.S. Forest Service
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Tennessee Valley Authority
South Carolina DHEC
Cobb County
Jones Ecological Research Center
DeKalb County
Alabama DEM
Douglas County WSA
City of College Park
Fulton County
Columbus Water Works
Gwinnett County
Columbus Unified Government
City of Clayton
St. Johns WMD
Cartersville
Town of Trion
Georgia Ports Authority
Clayton County Water Authority
Cherokee County
City of Atlanta
In some cases the number of samples was not adequate to calculate geometric means due to sampling or laboratory difficulties. In these cases, the USEPA recommends the use of a review criterion of 400 per 100 ml to evaluate sample results. This bacterial density (400 per 100 ml) was used to evaluate data from the months of May through October and the maximum criterion of 4,000 per 100 ml was used in assessing the data
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-34
from the results of November through April when geometric mean data was not available. Thus, where geometric mean data was not available, waters were deemed not supporting uses when 26 percent or more of the samples had fecal coliform bacterial densities greater than the applicable review criteria (400 or 4,000 MPN/100 ml) and partially supporting designated uses when 11 to 25 percent of the samples were in excess of the review criterion.
Metals. In general, data on metals from any one given site are not frequent. Clean sampling techniques are used when metals are collected. If one sample was in excess of a standard, the stream segment was placed on the partial support list. If two samples indicated exceedence of water quality standards, the stream segment was placed on the not support list. This is in accordance with USEPA guidance which suggests listing if more than one sample exceeds the criteria. In addition, an asterisk is placed beside metals data in those cases where there is a minimal database. In 2004-2005, the goal was to collect metals samples in the winter and summer in the river basins of monitoring focus for comparison to water quality standards. Due to budget constraints, EPD was only able to monitor metals at new stations in the basins of focus in 2004 and was unable to monitor any of the basin streams for metals in 2005.
Toxicity Testing/Toxic Substances. Data from GAEPD toxicity testing of water pollution control plant effluents were used to predict toxicity in the receiving stream at critical 7Q10 low flow conditions. Based on the effluent toxicity, receiving waters were evaluated as not supporting when one or more tests gave a clear indication of instream toxicity and as partially supporting when based on predicted instream toxicity. Effluent data for toxic substances were used to designate either partial support or non-support based on whether instream corroborating data were available. When instream data were available, the stream was determined to be not supporting. When instream data were not available, the stream was listed as partially supporting.
Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Temperature. When available data indicated that these parameters were out of compliance with state standards more than 25% of the time, the waters were evaluated as not supporting the designated use. Between 11% and 25% noncompliance resulted in a partially supporting evaluation. Chapter 391-3-6-.03(7) of the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control states that "It is recognized that certain natural waters of the State may have a quality that will not be within the general or specific requirements contained herein. These circumstances do not constitute violations of water quality standards. This is especially the case for the criteria for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and fecal coliform." South Georgia blackwater streams were not evaluated for compliance with the state pH standards because these streams have naturally low pH. In addition, a number of streams in the Ochlockonee, St. Marys, Satillia and Suwannee River Basin were removed from the partially supporting and not supporting lists for dissolved oxygen in 2006 based on the fact that these streams were determined to have naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations. The
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-35
fact that the low dissolved oxygen in these streams is naturally occurring is documented in the dissolved oxygen Total Maximum Daily Loads that were established for them.
Fish/Shellfish Guidelines. USEPA guidance for evaluating fish consumption guidelines formation for 305(b)/303(d) use support determinations has been to assess a water as fully supporting uses if fish can be consumed in unlimited amounts; as partially supporting if consumption needs to be limited; and, as not supporting if no consumption is recommended. Georgia followed this guidance in evaluating the fish consumption guidelines for the 2000 and earlier 305(b)/303(d) lists. This assessment methodology was followed again in developing the 2002 305(b)/303(d) List for all fish tissue contaminants except mercury. Mercury in fish tissue was assessed and a segment or waterbody was listed if the Trophic-Weighted Residue Value (as described in the October 19, 2001 GAEPD "Protocol"), was in excess of the new USEPA water quality criterion (Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury, EPA-823-R-01-001, January 2001). The USEPA criteria represents a national approach to address what mercury levels are protective for fishing waters. For mercury, waters were placed on the partial support list if the calculated Trophic-Weighted Residue Value was greater than 0.3 g/g wet weight total mercury, and less than 2 g/g wet weight, and on the not support list if the value was greater than 2 g/g wet weight. Waters were included on the supporting list (assuming all other criteria were met) if the calculated Trophic-Weighted Residue Value was less than or equal to 0.3 g/g. It is possible that some of these waters may have fish consumption guidelines in place for mercury. Georgia's fish consumption guidelines were developed using a risk-based approach to generate simple, understandable information for fish consumption that is species specific, and in many cases, size specific. It is published to help consumers of locally caught fish to make choices regarding consumption. However, for the purpose of assessing State waters, it is appropriate to use the State's criteria which accounts for different contaminant loads in different trophic levels of fish.
Biotic Data. The "Biota Impacted" designation in the "Criterion Violated" column indicates that studies showed a modification of the biotic community. Communities utilized were fish. Studies of fish populations by the DNR Wildlife Resources Division and the Tennessee Valley Authority used the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to identify affected fish populations. The IBI values were used to classify the population as Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Very Poor. Stream segments with fish populations rated as "Poor" or "Very Poor" were included in the partially supporting list.
Evaluation of Use Support. Table 9 provides summary information from Appendix A on the total number of stream miles, lake acres, or square miles of estuaries that fall in each use support category. Separate totals are given for waterbodies that were monitored, for which the assessment is based on current water quality data, and waters that were evaluated, for which assessment was made based on older data, location, and/or professional judgment. Many additional streams, particularly in urban areas may
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-36
not meet all standards, but monitoring resources are not adequate to sample all streams.
Assessment of Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses. There are many potential pollutants which may interfere with the designated use of a river, stream, lake, or estuary. These can be termed the causes of use nonsupport. Based on information presented in Appendix A, Table 10 summarizes the parameters of concern or the causes which contributed to nonsupport of water quality standards or designated uses of a particular waterbody.
Assessment of Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses. Pollutants which impact waterbodies in Georgia may come from point or nonpoint sources. Point sources are discharges into waterways through discrete conveyances, such as pipes or channels. Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities are the most common point sources. Point sources also include overflows of combined storm and sanitary sewers. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources of pollution primarily associated with run off from the land following a rainfall event. Table 11 summarizes detailed information presented in Appendix A concerning the sources of pollutants which prevent achievement of water quality standards and use support in various waterbodies in Georgia.
Priorities for Action. The list of waters in Appendix A and B includes all waters for which available data indicate that water quality standards are or are not being met and designated uses are supported or not fully supported. This list of waters has become a comprehensive list of waters for Georgia incorporating the information requested by Sections 305(b), 303(d), 314, and 319 of the Federal CWA. As noted, waters listed as partially or not supporting their designated uses are active 305(b) waters. The list of lakes or reservoirs listed as partial or not supporting designated uses provides the information requested in Section 314 of the CWA. Waters with nonpoint sources identified as a potential cause of a standards violation are considered to provide the information requested in the CWA Section 319 nonpoint assessment. The 303(d) designation is described in the following paragraph.
The 303(d) list is a subset of the 305(b) listed waters. To develop the 303(d) list, the 305(b) list was reviewed and coded based on the guidance provided by the USEPA. First, segments were identified where enforceable State, local or Federal requirements have led to or will lead to attainment of water quality standards. Segments with ongoing action which will lead to attainment of water quality standards were assigned a "2" code under 303(d) status. A "3" code was assigned to segments where TMDLs have been developed and approved. The remaining segments are marked with an "X" and represent 303(d) listed waters for Georgia. In addition to these waters, the USEPA added waters to the Georgia 303(d) list on December 31, 1996, June 25, 1997, and
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-37
TABLE 9 Evaluation of Use Support By Waterbody Type
2004-2005
Degree of Use Support
Streams/Rivers (miles)
Assessment Basis
Evaluated Monitored Total
Supported
Partially Supported
2,417 887
2,941 2,991
5,359 3,878
Not Supported TOTAL
288 3,592
2,817 8,750
3,105 12,342
Lakes/Reservoirs (acres)
Estuaries (sq. miles)
Assessment Basis
Assessment Basis
Evaluated Monitored Total Evaluated Monitored Total
978
232,710 233,688
741
20 761
20
107,194 107,214
0
4
4
0
55,950 55,950
68
998
395,854 396,852
809
21
89
45 854
June 18, 1999. Those waters are shown in Appendix B. All the USEPA added waters have had TMDLs completed for them at this time and are no longer part of the 303(d) list. To summarize, the Georgia 303(d) list of waters is made up of those waters with an "X" in the column marked 303(d) in Appendix A.
Georgia is implementing a watershed approach to water resource management through a rotating basin approach. This approach provides the framework and schedule for actions to address waters on the Georgia 303(d) list. The rotating basin approach provides an opportunity to focus monitoring, assessment, problem prioritization, TMDL development, water resource protection strategy development and implementation resources in specific basins on an orderly five year rotating basis. Of course, significant problems may arise in basins other than the basins of focus and the GAEPD will continue to respond in an appropriate manner. Thus, a discussion for prioritization of the 305(b)/303(d) list must be made in the context of the river basin planning program and in the context of current actions underway to address water quality problems documented in the Georgia 305(b) report. The majority of resources will be directed to insuring the ongoing pollution control actions are completed and water quality improvements are achieved. This work applies to those waters which are identified as 305(b) waters and coded with a "2" in the 303(d) status column of the table. These stream segments while listed on the 305(b) report list are not segments on the Georgia 303(d) list in accordance with USEPA guidance as actions are ongoing which will resolve the issues. However, these streams are the highest priority waters as these segments will continue to require sources to complete actions and insure standards are achieved.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-38
TABLE 10. Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses
By Waterbody Type
2004-2005
Cause Cateogry
Rivers/Streams (miles) Contribution to Impairment1
Fish Guidance Toxicity Pesticides Priority Organics Metals Ammonia PH Dissolved Oxygen ThermalModification Pathogens Biota Impacted Other Inorganics
Cause Category
Fish Guidance Toxicity Pesticides Priority Organics Metals PH Dissolved Oxygen ThermalModification Pathogens Chlorophyll
Cause Category
Priority Organics Metals Dissolved Oxygen Pathogens Fish Guidance
Major2
777 0 0 1 1 0 31 531 0
Moderate/Minor3
602 36 0 0 42 0 212 726 9
2,767
1,496
1,156
463
0
0
Lakes/Reservoirs (acres) Contribution to Impairment1
Major2
96,044 0 0 950 0 0 0 650
Moderate/Minor3
650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65,626
0
Estuaries (square miles) Contribution
to Impairment1
Major2
Moderate/Minor3
0
2
0
2
70
19
0
0
2
21
1 A water body may be affected by several different causes or sources and its size is counted in each relevant cause category. Thus totals will be significantly larger and will not sum to totals in Table 39 or Appendix A.
2 Major Contribution - A cause or source makes a major contribution to impairment if it is the only one responsible for less than full use support, or if it predominates over others.
3 Moderate/Minor - A cause or source makes a moderate/minor contribution to impairment if it is one of multiple causes responsible for less than full use support.
TABLE 11. Potential Sources of Nonsupport
of Designated Uses By Waterbody Type
2004-2005
Cause Cateogry
Rivers/Streams (miles) Contribution to Impairment1
Industrial Point Industrial Nonpoint Municipal Point Municipal Nonpoint Combined Sewer/ Overflows Urban Runoff/ Stormwater Hydropower/Habitat/ (Dam Release) Thermal Modification Nonpoint Source Agriculture Silviculture Resource Extraction Land Disposal Natural Sources
Cause Category
Industrial Point Industrial Nonpoint Municipal Point Municipal Nonpoint Urban Runoff/ Stormwater Nonpoint Sources
Cause Category
Industrial Point Industrial Nonpoint Municipal Point Urban Runoff/ Stormwater Nonpoint Sources Marina
Major2
0 40 53 0 0
Moderate/Minor3
42 159 147 0 93
1,651
321
11
2
0
0
4,666
318
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lakes/Reservoirs (acres)
Contribution to Impairment1
Major2
Moderate/Minor3
650
0
55,950
0
0
0
0
0
194
93,309
13,061
93,309
Estuaries (square miles)
Contribution to Impairment1
Major2
Moderate/Minor3
0
92
1
4
0
88
0
70
0
67
0
0
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-39
These stream segments have been assigned priority one. This is evidenced by the "1" noted in the far right column titled priority on the listing.
Second priority was allocated to segments with multiple data points which showed metals or other toxic substance concentrations in excess of water quality standards and to segments in which dissolved oxygen concentration was an issue.
Third priority was assigned to waters where air deposition, urban runoff or general nonpoint sources caused fish consumption guideline listings, or poor fish communities, or fecal coliform bacteria, pH or temperature standards violations. Waters added to the Georgia 303(d) list by EPA were also assigned to third priority.
Several issues helped forge the rationale for priorities. First, strategies are currently in place to address many of the significant water quality problems across the state and significant resources will be required to ensure that these actions are completed. Second, a large percentage of waters for which no control strategy is currently in place are listed due to fish consumption guidelines or as a result of exceedence of criteria of fecal coliform bacteria due to urban runoff or nonpoint sources or atmospheric deposition. At the present time, the efficacy of the fecal coliform bacteria standard is in question in the scientific community. The primary cause for mercury contamination of fish tissue is air deposition. Steps are being taken at the national level to reduce air deposition of mercury.
The rotating basin approach process provides the framework for the long-term schedule for developing TMDLs for 303(d) listed segments. TMDLs were proposed for 303(d) listed waters in the Savannah and Ogeechee River Basins in 2004 and for 303(d) listed waters in the Ochlockonee, Suwannee, Satilla and Savannah River Basins in 2005. The TMDLS for the Savannah and Ogeechee were approved by the USEPA in early 2005 and the TMDLS for the Ochlockonee, Suwannee, Satilla and Savannah were approved in early 2006.
The lists in Appendix A and B will continue to reflect the segments where water quality data indicate compliance with or problems with achieving compliance with water quality standards. These segments will be removed when the actions have been taken and compliance attained. The list will grow and shrink based on these considerations and any new standard or approaches implemented in the future. This will also affect the 303(d) list as these entries will undergo changes along with the 305(b) list.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
3-40
CHAPTER 4
Wetland Programs
Introduction
Various assessments of Georgia's wetlands have identified from 4.9 to 7.2 million acres, including more than 600,000 acres of open water habitat found in estuarine, riverine, palustrine, and lacustrine environments. Estimates of wetland losses since colonial settlement beginning in 1733 and expanding over the next two and one-half centuries are between 20-25% of the original wetland acreage.
Georgia has approximately 100 miles of shoreline along the south Atlantic, with extensive tidal marshes separating the barrier island sequences of Pleistocene and Holocene age from the mainland. Georgia's coastline and tidal marshes are well preserved compared to other South Atlantic states.
Georgia's interior ranges in elevation from sea level to 4,788 feet at Brasstown Bald in the Blue Ridge Mountain Province. At the higher elevations, significant, pristine cool water streams originate and flow down steep to moderate gradients until they encounter lower elevations of the Piedmont Province. Many of the major tributaries originating in the mountains and piedmont have been impounded for hydropower and water supply reservoirs. These man-made lakes constitute significant recreational resources and valuable fishery habitat. At the fall-line, streams flowing southeasterly to the Atlantic, or south-southwesterly to the Gulf, have formed large floodplains as each encounters the soft sediments of the upper Coastal Plain.
Other significant wetlands found in the state are associated with blackwater streams originating in the Coastal Plain, lime sink-holes, spring heads, Carolina bays, and the great Okefenokee Swamp, a bog-swamp measuring approximately one-half million acres in south Georgia and north Florida. The swamp drains to the east by the St. Marys River into the Atlantic, and to the west by the Suwannee River into the Gulf.
The lower Coastal Plain has frequently been referred to as Atlantic Coastal Flatwoods, where seven tidal rivers headwater in the ancient shoreline terraces and sediments of Pleistocene age. Scattered throughout the flatwoods are isolated depressional wetlands and drainageways dominated by needle-leaved and broad-leaved tree species adapted to long hydroperiods.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-1
Due to considerable variation in the landscape in topography, hydrology, geology, soils, and climatic regime, the state has one of the highest levels of biodiversity in the eastern United States. The state provides a diversity of habitats for nearly 4,000 vascular plant species and slightly less that 1,000 vertebrate species. Numerous plant and animal species are endemic to the state. Many of the rarer species are dependent upon wetlands for survival.
Extent of Wetland Resources
Assessments of wetland resources in Georgia have been carried out with varying degrees of success by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the USFWS National Wetland Inventory, and the state Department of Natural Resources. The extent and location of specific tidal marsh types have been reported in numerous scientific papers and reports. Estimates of other specific wetlands types, such as bottomland hardwood swamps, are also reported in studies on a regional scale.
Hydric soils as mapped in county soil surveys are useful indicators of the location and extent of wetlands for the majority of Georgia counties with complete surveys. The dates of photography from which the survey maps are derived vary widely across the state. There is an ongoing effort by NRCS to develop digital databases at the soil mapping unit level, but most of these data sets are not yet available. However, soil surveys have proven useful in wetland delineation in the field and in the development of wetland inventories. County acreage summaries provide useful information on the distribution of wetlands across the state.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service utilizes soil survey information during photo-interpretation in the development of the 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale products of this nationwide wetland inventory effort. Wetlands are classified according to the Cowardin system, providing some level of detail as to the characterization of individual wetlands. Draft products are available for the 1,017 7.5 minute quadrangles in the state of Georgia, and many final map products have been produced. All of these quadrangles are available in a digital format, and an effort is underway to combine them into a single, seamless database for Georgia. Although not intended for use in jurisdictional determinations of wetlands, these products are invaluable for site surveys, trends analysis, and landuse planning.
A complementary database was completed by Georgia DNR in 1991 and is based on classification of Landsat TM satellite imagery. Due to the limitations of remote sensing technology, the classification scheme is simplified in comparison to the Cowardin system used with NWI. Integration of this digital information with
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-2
Geographic Information System technology is straight-forward. The inclusion of other upland landcover classes adds to the utility of this database in environmental analysis and landuse planning.
A summary of wetland acreages derived from this database is as follows: open water = 647,501; emergent wetlands = 351,470; scrub/shrub wetlands = 387,793; forested wetlands = 3,194,593; salt marshes = 241,242; brackish marshes = 91,951; and tidal flats/beaches = 14,750. The total wetland acreage based on Landsat TM imagery is 4,929,300 acres or 13.1% of Georgia's land area. This data underestimates the acreage of forested wetlands in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, where considerable acreage may have been classified as hardwood or mixed forest. The data overestimates emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands in the pine flatwoods because of wet surface soils associated with clear-cuts or young pine plantations. The data under-estimates the tidal marshes and tidal flats because of a high tide stage that flooded considerable acreage. The targeted accuracy level for the overall landcover assessment using Landsat imagery was 85%. However, the classification error was not necessarily distributed equally throughout all classes.
Georgia reported landcover statistics by county in 1996 that included acreage occurrences for 15 landcover classes derived from early spring Landsat TM satellite imagery from 1988-1990. This document (Project Report 26) and accompanying landcover map of the state at a scale of 1:633,600 (1 inch = 10 miles) are available to the public from the Georgia Geologic Survey, Map Sales office.
Similar Landsat-based landcover databases have been produced with more recent imagery. The Federal government completed mapping in Georgia using imagery form the mid-1990s as part of the National Landcover Database. The Georgia Gap Analysis Program, supported in part by Georgia DNR, has completed an 18-class database using imagery from 1997-1999. Both these databases include wetland landcover classes.
Wetland Trends In Georgia
The loss of wetlands has become an issue of increasing concern to the general public because of associated adverse impacts to flood control, water quality, aquatic wildlife habitat, rare and endangered species habitat, aesthetics, and recreation. Historically, we have often treated wetlands as "wastelands" that needed "improvement". Today, "swamp reclamation" acts are no longer funded or approved by Congress and wetland losses are in part lessened. However, we still lack accurate assessments for current and historic wetland acreages. For
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-3
this reason, we have varying accounts of wetland losses, which provide some confusion in the public's mind as to trends.
The most recent (1991) and precise measure of Georgia's wetland acreage has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory efforts. This statistically sound study was based upon 206 sample plots of four (4) square miles each that were delineated and measured from 1975 and 1982 aerial photography. The total acreage of wetlands for Georgia was estimated at 7,714,285 acres in 1982 as compared to earlier estimates of 5.2 million acres. This estimate is considerably higher than the total shown in a 1984 trend study and is due in part to better quality photography.
Georgia's total wetland area covers an estimated 20 percent of the State's landscape. This total (7.7 mil. ac.) includes approximately 367,000 acres of estuarine wetlands and 7.3 million acres of palustrine wetlands (forested wetlands, scrub-shrub, and emergents). A net wetland loss due to conversion of approximately 78,000 acres was estimated for the seven (7) year period, while 455,000 acres were altered by timber harvesting. These latter estimates are less reliable than the total acreage and are slightly higher than the 1984 study. Regardless of the method used to measure total acreage or wetland losses, Georgia still retains the highest percentage of pre-colonial wetland acreage of any southeastern state. The state lacks the resources to conduct an independent monitoring program on the frequency of wetland alterations by class or type.
All dredge and fill activities in freshwater wetlands are regulated in Georgia by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Joint permit procedures between the COE and DNR, including public notices, are carried out in tidally influenced wetlands. Separate permits for alterations to salt marsh and the State's waterbottoms are issued by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee, a State permitting authority. Enforcement is carried out by the State, COE and EPA in tidal waters, and by the COE and EPA in freshwater systems. Normal agricultural and silvicultural operations are exempted under Section 404 regulations with certain conditions.
Integrity of Wetland Resources
Wetland Use Support. In Georgia, wetland uses are tied to both the state water quality standards through the definition of "water" or "waters of the state", and to established criteria for wetlands protection (Chap. 391-3-16-03) associated with the Comprehensive Planning Act of 1989 (O.C.G.A. 12-2-8).
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-4
The definition of "water" or "waters of the State" (Chap. 391-3-6) means "any and all rivers, streams, creeks, branches, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, drainage systems, springs, wells, wetlands, and all other bodies of surface or subsurface water, natural or artificial, lying within or forming a part of the boundaries of the state which are not entirely confined and retained completely upon the property of a single individual partnership, or corporation". The waters use classifications and general criteria for all waters are discussed elsewhere in this report.
The Comprehensive Planning Act requires all local governments and regional development centers to recognize or acknowledge the importance of wetlands for the public good in the landuse planning process. All local governments (municipalities and county governments) were required, beginning in 1990 and ending in 1995, to meet minimum criteria for wetland use and protection. Each government is required to map wetlands using DNR or NWI maps, and describe how wetlands will be protected from future development.
The wetlands protection criteria define freshwater "wetlands" as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface 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 (33 CFR 32.93)". This definition is not intended to include "coastal marshlands" or tidal salt marshes as defined by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. The minimum area of wetlands to be identified in landuse planning is not to exceed five acres.
The categories of freshwater wetlands and aquatic habitats to be identified, defined and mapped by the State and included in landuse planning are open water, non-forested emergent, scrub/shrub, forested and altered wetlands. Landuse plans must address at least the following considerations with regard to wetland classes identified in the database:
Whether impacts to an area would adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others.
Whether the area is unique or significant in the conservation of flora and fauna including threatened, rare or endangered species.
Whether alteration or impacts to wetlands will adversely affect the function, including the flow or quality of water, cause erosion or shoaling, or impact navigation.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-5
Whether impacts or modification by a project would adversely affect fishing or recreational use of wetlands.
Whether an alteration or impact would be temporary in nature.
Whether the project contains significant state historical and archaeological resources, defined as "Properties On or Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places".
Whether alteration of wetlands would have measurable adverse impacts on adjacent sensitive natural areas.
Where wetlands have been created for mitigation purposes under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, such wetlands shall be considered for protection.
The mapping of altered wetlands defined as "areas with hydric soils that have been denuded of natural vegetation and put to other uses, such as pasture, row crops, etc., but that otherwise retain certain wetland functions and values" has not been completed due to a lack of resources. It is unlikely that there will be any significant resources committed at the state or federal levels for monitoring wetland alterations and conversions in the near future.
The acceptable uses of wetlands without long term impairment of function were identified in wetland protection criteria as the following:
Timber production and harvesting. The socio-economic value of wetlands for consumptive uses such as timber and wood products production is extremely high. High quality hardwoods are produced along the major river corridors throughout the state. There are established "best management practices" for harvesting in wetlands; the level of compliance with these voluntary standards is monitored by the Georgia Forestry Commission in cooperation with the DNREPD.
Wildlife and fisheries management. Wetlands are an invaluable resource, both ecologically and economically. They are among the state's most biologically productive ecosystems and are crucial as habitats for wildlife. Wetlands function as essential breeding, spawning, nursery, nesting, migratory, and/or wintering habitat for much of the migratory and resident fauna. More than 40% of the state threatened and endangered plant and animal species depend heavily on wetlands. Coastal wetlands function as nursery and spawning grounds for 6090% of commercial fin and shellfish catches. In addition, high levels of plant productivity in coastal wetlands contribute to corresponding levels of invertebrate
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-6
organisms upon which fish and other animals feed. Plant decomposition in wetlands is also important for waterfowl production, which contributes to the economy through hunting-related expenditures.
Water Quality Protection. Wetlands help to maintain water quality and improve degraded water by removing, transforming, or retaining nutrients; processing chemical and organic wastes and pollutants; and reducing sediment loads. Wetlands function as sediment, toxic substance, and nutrient traps, performing functions similar to a waste treatment plant. Wetland vegetation filters and retains sediments which otherwise enter lakes, streams, and reservoirs, often necessitating costly maintenance dredging activities. Wetlands may also perform similar purification functions with respect to ground water. Those wetlands hydrologically connected to ground water could also be a source of recharge for underground water supplies, in which case the natural settling and filtering of pollutants would increase the purity of the water resource. As with any filter, wetlands can be damaged, overloaded, or made nonfunctional. Wetlands conservation and careful management of point and non-point pollutants can provide good wetland filtration of materials.
Recreation. The non-consumptive uses of wetlands may contribute most significantly and positively to quality of life, yet these uses are often undervalued or unrecognized altogether. Wetlands are areas of great diversity and beauty and provide open space for recreational and visual enjoyment. They support a myriad of recreational activities including boating, swimming, birdwatching, and photography. In addition, tidal, coastal, and inland wetlands provide educational opportunities for nature observation and scientific study.
Natural water quality treatment or purification. (See wastewater treatment above). Maintaining the biological and ecological integrity of wetlands is essential to the capitalization of these natural systems for the improvement of water quality and quantity. The polluting, filling, silting, channelizing, draining, dredging, and converting to other uses of wetlands are destructive to the ecological functions of wetlands.
Other uses permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Such uses must have an overwhelming public interest. Unacceptable uses of wetlands include:
Receiving areas for toxic or hazardous waste or other contaminants.
Hazardous or sanitary waste landfills.
Other uses unapproved by local governments.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-7
The criteria established by the State for freshwater wetlands are designed to assist in the identification and protection of wetlands, and do not constitute a state or local permit program. The protection of coastal marshlands, seashores, and tidal waterbottoms is described under the Estuary and Coastal Assessment section of this report.
Wetland Monitoring. The state maintains monitoring and enforcement procedures for estuarine marshes under authority of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970. Monthly or bimonthly over-flights are made of the Georgia coastline for potential violations. Restoration and penalties are provided for in the Act.
The State does not maintain a specific monitoring program for freshwater wetlands because of the size of the area (>37 million acres), lack of resources, and weak public support for a state-managed regulatory program. At this time no assessment of costs has been made for establishing any monitoring of wetland changes for the entire state.
Additional Wetlands Protection Activities
Georgia is protecting its wetlands through aggressive land acquisition, public education, land use planning, regulatory programs, and wetland restoration. Since 1987, the state has acquired roughly 200,000 acres through program expansion and the Preservation 2000 and RiverCare 2000 acquisition efforts. Additional protection to wetlands is provided either directly or indirectly by several statutes listed below, but described elsewhere in this report. These state laws are as follows:
Coastal Marshlands Protection Act Shore Protection Act 401 Water Quality Certification Water Quality Control Act Ground Water Use Act Safe Drinking Water Act Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Metropolitan Rivers Protection Act
Land Acquisition. Recent land acquisition activities that represent significant protection of wetland acreage include Chickasawhatchee Swamp WMA in southwest Georgia, where combined wetland and upland acreage totals 19,680 acres. In the Altamaha River basin, a total of 3,600 acres containing significant floodplain acreage is jointly managed by DNR and The Nature Conservancy at
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-8
Moody Forest Natural Area. Preservation by DNR of a Carolina bay at Big Dukes Pond NA added 1,220 acres, including a wood stork rookery site. Other wetland acres have recently been protected through the establishment of Conasauga River Natural Area in northwest Georgia.
Education And Public Outreach. WRD has one full-time person involved in aquatic education, providing training for educators in wetland values and acting as a resource person for developing and coordinating teaching materials. The Aquatic Education Program consists of three key components: Youth Education, Adult Education, and Kids Fishing. Youth Education involves training educators to use Aquatic Project Wild (APW), which consists of instructional workshops and supplementary conservation curriculum materials for teachers of K-12 grade age children. About 1,000 educators are trained annually to use APW in the classroom. Adult Education consists primarily of producing educational materials such as the annual Freshwater and Saltwater Sport Fishing Regulations, Reservoir and Southeast Rivers Fishing Predictions, Small Georgia Lakes Open to Public Fishing, Introduction to Trout Fishing, news releases, brochures, radio Public Service Announcements, videos, and staff presentations to sportsmen and civic organizations, as well as large events. The purpose of Kids Fishing Events (KFEs) is to introduce youth and their families to the joys of recreational fishing. The Aquatic Education Program touches tens of thousands of youths and adults each year, bringing these people closer to the environment, and teaching them conservation principles that are important to sustaining wetlands and healthy fish populations.
State Protected Species in Wetlands. With assistance from the USFWS, Section 6 Federal Aid Program, and USDA-FS Stewardship Program, WRD developed and published a descriptive handbook of Georgia's 103 protected plant species that include endangered, threatened, unusual, and rare plant species found in the state. Forty percent of the protected species are dependent on wetland or aquatic habitats in the vast majority known occurrences. The "Protected Plants of Georgia" book includes illustrations, descriptions, threats to species or their habitats, range in adjoining states, historical notes, and recommendations for management of protected species habitats. The protected plant book has been distributed to all DNR personnel and wildlife biologists involved in the management of state properties. It has been distributed to the Georgia Forestry Commission, USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, Forest Service, USFWS, Corps of Engineers, US EPA, major utility companies, forest products corporations, consulting biologists, educators, and private citizens. The book calls the public's attention to the need to protect wetlands on private property as well as public property in the state. In addition, the following species are subjects of continuing research funded through Section 6 USFWS grant-in-aid programs:
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-9
Loggerhead sea turtle - nest survey and protection, educational material Wood stork - aerial surveys of rookeries and educational material Bald eagle - nest surveys, monitoring, and management Manatee - comprehensive management plan implementation, investigate
and analyze habitat use and movements Wood stork - ecology of coastal colonies Listed aquatic species - Conasauga River corridor identification and
mapping of essential habitats Listed animal species - protected animal book for the State of Georgia
(111 species) Goldline darter - life history and status in Coosawattee River system Tennessee Yellow-eyed Grass - surveys for undocumented populations Whorled Sunflower - habitat management plan development Pitcherplant Bogs - habitat management plan development Swamp Buckthorn - status survey
Federal funds made available through USFWS were used to complete an assessment of Carolina bays in Georgia. A combination of aerial photography and field surveys were used to priories these wetlands for value in protecting wetland functions and in providing significant habitat to support wetlanddependant ecosystems. A final report on this effort will be available in 2004.
Managing Wetlands on State WMAs, PFAs, Parks, Heritage Preserves, and Natural Areas. M.A.R.S.H. Project. Georgia DNR-WRD has a cooperative agreement with Ducks Unlimited (DU) for the purpose of acquiring, developing, restoring, or enhancing waterfowl habitat. A major aspect of this agreement is the M.A.R.S.H. program (Matching Aid to Restore States Habitat). Under the MARSH program, 7.5% of the money raised by DU in Georgia is made available as matching funds for work to develop, improve, or restore waterfowl habitat.
Since 1985, 1.2 million dollars have been spent on habitat projects in the state of Georgia involving thousands of acres of wetlands. Completed projects include:
Altamaha WMA - 4,500 acres Ansley-Hodges Memorial Marsh - 42 acres B.F. Grant WMA - 45 acres Crockford-Pigeon Mtn WMA - 35 acres Fishing Creek WMA - 50 acres Horse Creek WMA - 110 acres
Arrowhead - 28 acres Blanton Creek WMA - 50 acres Clark Hill - 70 acres Dyar Pasture - 60 acres Grand Bay WMA - 8,730 acres Joe Kurz WMA - 50 acres
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-10
Mayhaw WMA - 45 acres Rum Creek WMA - 25 acres
Oconee WMA - 150 acres West Point WMA - 20 acres
Assessment of DNR-Managed Wetlands. In 1990, while developing a state wetland conservation plan and strategy for mitigation of impacts from water supply reservoirs and public fishing lakes, Georgia DNR/WRD made an assessment of wetlands on DNR-managed state-owned lands. As part of this assessment, an effort was made to identify degraded wetland acreage suitable for mitigation. Degraded wetlands were identified as having potentials for restoration or enhancement of wetland functions and values.
Table 4-1 summarizes DNR-managed lands (as of 1990) by various categories. This plan was developed by DNR and Law Environmental, Inc. to mitigate potential impacts from future development of regional water supply reservoirs and public fishing areas. DNR still has under study and evaluation a potential regional water supply reservoir in the Tallapoosa River basin. To date there has been implementation of mitigation on state lands at a mitigation site at Horse Creek WMA for wetlands losses associated with the construction of the Dodge County PFA. Mitigation is being pursued for wetland impacts associated with the development of a public fishing area at Ocmulgee WMA.
TABLE 4-1 ASSESSMENT OF DNR LANDS (1990).
Categories
WMA/PFA Sites Park Sites Other Sites*
Total Acreage
Total Wetland Acreage
128,106 43,850 58,712
230,668
38,754 6,158
12,126
57,038
Acreage Suitable for Mitigation
Restoration 1,782 509 83
2,374
Enhancement 9,749 86 2,322
12,157
*Includes natural areas, heritage preserves, and some barrier islands (Ossabaw, Sapelo)
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
4-11
CHAPTER 5
Estuary and Coastal Programs
Background
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Coastal Resources Division (CRD) primarily conducts monitoring and management of Georgia's coastal environments. The CRD operates the Coastal Management program and the Shellfish Sanitation program; manages recreational and commercial fisheries; and reviews applications for permits under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act and Shore Protection Act. CRD also oversees several EPA wetland protection development grants. The DNR Wildlife Resources (WRD) and Environmental Protection Divisions (GAEPD) each play additional roles in this effort and interact with various agencies on management of Georgia's coastal areas. The Georgia University System conducts research on estuarine and coastal habitats from Skidaway Oceanographic Institute in Savannah and the University of Georgia Marine Institute on Sapelo Island.
Water Quality Monitoring
The GAEPD monitors estuarine water quality as part of its long-term trendmonitoring network. Additional intensive surveys have been conducted with major studies for the North River, Satilla River, Brunswick/ Turtle Rivers, North Newport River, and Savannah River and several estuarine sites have been included in the GAEPD toxics monitoring projects. Monitoring of estuaries and coastal waters is also being conducted, as these areas are the focus of monitoring efforts associated with the River Basin Management Planning Program.
The GAEPD monitoring programs have included sampling for the presence of potentially toxic materials in water, sediment, fish, oysters, shrimp, and blue crabs. To date, only one site sampled as part of the toxics monitoring has revealed metals or organic compounds at problem concentrations. Based on the sampling at this site near Brunswick, a seafood consumption advisory was issued. This advisory is noted in Chapter 6.
The CRD provides enhanced water quality monitoring through implementation of the Comprehensive Coastal Monitoring Project. CRD staff monitor water, sediment, and biological tissue quality for both non-point and point source contaminants in estuarine and near shore coastal waters. Four distinct
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-1
monitoring programs are administered by CRD staff to accomplish the goals of the comprehensive Coastal Monitoring Program. Two programs, Shellfish Sanitation and Beach Monitoring, are concerned with public health. The other two programs, Nutrient Monitoring and the National Coastal Assessment are designed to generate baseline monitoring data for trends.
Shellfish Sanitation Program
CRD's Shellfish Sanitation Program monitors the quality of Georgia's shellfish waters for harmful bacteria that might affect the safety of shellfish for human consumers. Nine (9) harvest areas are designated for the recreational picking of oysters and clams by the general public. An additional seventeen (17) harvest areas are designated for the commercial harvest of oysters and clams.
TABLE 5-1 LOCATION AND SIZE OF AREAS APPROVED FOR SHELLFISH HARVEST
County Chatham
Approved 2,903 acres
Leased 25
Public 1,403 acres
Bryan/Liberty McIntosh
Classification in progress
20,277 acres
Classification in progress
15,157 acres
Classification in progress
5,120 acres
Glynn/Camden
17,511 acres 9902 acres
7,609 acres
The Shellfish Sanitation Program is funded by the state of Georgia and consists of water quality monitoring, permitting shellfish harvesters, sanitary surveys, and reports to the Food and Drug Administration. The Program is administered under the authority of OCGA 27-4-190, which specifically details the law as it pertains to shellfish harvest.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program requires that states show that shellfish harvest areas are "not subject to contamination from human and/or animal fecal matter in amounts that in the judgment of the State Shellfish Control Authority may present an actual or potential hazard to public health." National standards further require the state to regularly collect water samples from each approved
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-2
harvest area and to perform certain analytical procedures to ensure that the area is below the established fecal coliform threshold. Waters approved for shellfish harvest must have a geometric mean that does not exceed the threshold set forth by the FDA.
Water Quality sampling occurs monthly at eighty-two (82) stations in five (5) counties on the coast including Chatham, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden counties. These stations are located to give good coverage of all the approved harvest areas along the coast.
Permitting is required for all leaseholders and pickers engaging in the commercial harvest of shellfish in the state of Georgia. Additionally, certification of shellfish seed suppliers is done by CRD to ensure that all products entering the State for mariculture purposes has been tested by a pathology laboratory for a variety of common shellfish diseases.
Beach Monitoring Program
The Beach Monitoring Program was developed to protect swimmer health. CRD monitors Georgia's popular swimming beaches on Tybee, St. Simons, Jekyll, and Sea Island for fecal coliform bacteria. In April 2004, CRD began monitoring the beaches for enterococcus bacteria, in response to the federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000.
The BEACH Act is an amendment to the Federal Clean Water Act. The Act requires states to: 1) identify and prioritize their coastal recreational beaches; 2) monitor the beaches for the presence the bacterial indicator enterococcus; 3) notify the public when the EPA threshold for the enterococcus bacteria has been exceeded; and 4) report the location, monitoring, and notification data to EPA.
The coastal recreational beaches were identified and reported to EPA. See the table below. The beaches were prioritized into 3 tiers, based on use and proximity to potential pollution sources. Tier 1 beaches are high use beaches. Tier 2 beaches are lower use beaches. Tier 3 beaches are lowest use or low in potential pollution.
In April 2004, CRD began beach monitoring and public notification based on EPA's recommended levels of Enterococcus bacteria for marine recreational waters. CRD monitors for the indicator bacteria enterococcus. The notification procedures are activated when the laboratory reports that a beach sample has exceeded the EPA mandated enterococcus thresholds of 104 per 100 ml for a single sample, or a geometric mean of 35 per 100ml. The Tier 1 beaches are monitored weekly year-round. Tier 2 beaches are monitored monthly from April
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-3
through November. Tier 3 beaches are not monitored. Beaches under permanent swimming advisory are monitored quarterly.
EPA ID
GA154978 GA431870 GA613921 GA375764 GA776618 GA688687 GA521101 GA129645 GA339359 GA202139 GA895834 GA216208 GA136053 GA378874 GA736216 GA319508 GA881548 GA958433 GA997306 GA954033 GA910170 GA109786 GA551809 GA649062 GA405484 Ga994539 GA583441 GA543512 GA781891 GA740854 GA922112 GA381139 GA364044 GA221111 GA642495 GA541863 GA713371 GA182760 GA365682 GA708259
Beach Name
St. Simons 12th St. Goulds Inlet St. Simons East Beach Old Coast Guard Station Massengale on St. Simons 5th St Crossover on St. Simons Lighthouse on St. Simons Jekyll Clam Creek Jekyll North at Dexter Lane Jekyll Captain Wylly Jekyll Convention Center Jekyll South Dunes Jekyll 4H Camp Jekyll St. Andrews Tybee Polk St Tybee North at Gulick Tybee Middle Tybee Strand Tybee South Blythe Island Sandbar Reimolds Pasture in Buttermilk Sound Sea Island North Sea Island South Contentment Bluff Sandbar Dallas Bluff Sandbar Ossabaw Bradley Ossabaw South Skidaway Narrows Kings Ferry Cumberland Little Cumberland Pelican Spit off Sea Island Rainbow Bar Wolf Island Sapelo Cabretta Sapelo Nanny Goat Blackbeard Island St. Catherines Island Ossabaw Middle Wassaw Island Williamson Island Little Tybee Island
Tier County
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Glynn
1
Chatham
1
Chatham
1
Chatham
1
Chatham
1
Chatham
2
Glynn
2
Glynn
2
Glynn
2
Glynn
2
McIntosh
2
McIntosh
2
Chatham
2
Chatham
2
Chatham
2
Chatham
3
Camden
3
Camden
3
Glynn
3
Glynn
3
McIntosh
3
Mcintosh
3
McIntosh
3
McIntosh
3
Liberty
3
Chatham
3
Chatham
3
Chatham
3
Chatham
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-4
For the notification component, CRD has worked in partnership with local governments, the Jekyll Island Authority, and the Coastal Health District to develop procedures to notify the public about elevated bacteria levels. The Coastal Health District issues a press release for a swimming advisory for the affected beach. The local governments activate advisory signage at access points to the affected beach. CRD places beach information on their web site, http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us and has partnered with the nonprofit organization Earth911 to show current beach conditions on their web site, http://www.earth911.org/waterquality/default.asp?cluster=2. Earth911 has a free automatic e-mail service to which users can subscribe. The subscribers then receive an e-mail anytime a beach advisory is issued.
CRD reports Georgia's beach data annually to EPA through the EPA Central Data Exchange (CDX). Monitoring data is loaded into the modernized STORET. Notification data is loaded into the BEACON database and can be viewed at http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_national_page.main
Nutrient Monitoring Program
The Nutrient Monitoring Program is an effort funded by the state of Georgia to assess the nutrient loads in our sounds and estuaries. High nutrient loads have been linked to outbreaks of harmful algal blooms in other states and can result in large kills of fish and other marine life as well as human sickness. Nutrient monitoring began on March 1, 2000 and is a continuous program designed to establish trends for nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus, ortho phosphate, and silicate. Nutrient samples are collected in three major coastal rivers (Ogeechee, Altamaha, and St. Marys) at six sites in each river. This sampling occurs monthly and provides data for the upper estuary, lower salinity environments. Moving seaward, nutrient samples are collected at 30 of the 82 shellfish sample sites. This provides nutrient and fecal coliform bacteria data from 30 sites in our tidal rivers and sounds. To capture nutrient data for our lower sounds, samples are collected at 24 sites in conjunction with the monthly shrimp and crab assessment. The Altamaha and Doboy Sounds, which are not routinely sampled on the shrimp and crab assessment, are sampled at twelve (12) stations in conjunction with the Altamaha River. Sample collection for nutrients occurs monthly at 84 stations on the coast and is creating a baseline dataset for nutrients in the coastal waters of Georgia.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-5
National Coastal Assessment
The final coastal monitoring program administered by CRD is the most comprehensive. The National Coastal Assessment Program (NCA), formerly known as the National Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), was created in 1988 by the U.S. EPA in cooperation with other federal agencies to provide basic answers relating to environmental problems impacting the Nation's ecological resources. Coastal Resources Division acquired funding from the EPA in 2000 to begin a five year pilot study in which 50 selected sites are sampled each year on the Georgia coast for a core suite of indicators including water quality parameters, sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, benthic community composition, fish community composition, fish pathology, and contaminants in fish. EPA randomly selects these sample sites and the sampling occurs during the months of July and August each year. This specific time frame, sample site design, and sampling protocol allows each state to view a comparable "snapshot" of environmental conditions. The purpose of this monitoring initiative is to establish a baseline of environmental conditions in estuaries of the coastal states as part of a national survey of estuarine environmental health. The first two-year federal report on this program was completed during the spring of 2004. Currently, CRD is continuing work with the EPA NCA program through another phase II grant. The following proposal will extend NCA activities on the Georgia coast for an additional two years. The project will be conducted in FY 2005-2006 and will build upon and expand the processes and data developed during the preceding five-years.
A Comprehensive Monitoring and Assessment Study for Georgia Coastal Wetlands
The effective management of Georgia's coastal resources is becoming more dependent on a thorough understanding of the functions of the resources being managed. Tidal wetland habitats are being altered as development pressures increase. There is an overwhelming need to better understand the diversity and productivity of estuarine wetland species and their interactions with various habitat conditions.
Coastal Resources Division will evaluate wetland health by sampling nekton, juvenile fish and crustaceans in various habitat conditions in three river basins in coastal Georgia. Habitat conditions sampled will be categorized as pristine, moderately impaired and impaired, based on vegetative edge plant density. Nekton samples will be taken using a drop ring sampler at the vegetated edge. A trawl in the adjacent waterbody will collect juvenile fish and crustaceans. Water quality parameters will be collected at the trawl locations.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-6
Vegetative edge density and biotic composition correlated with water quality parameters will give coastal resource managers a more holistic approach to wetland function. These data will provide a tool in which resource management decisions can be based.
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
The CRD has several projects whose purposes are to determine the status of exploited stocks of commercially and recreationally important fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. The Ecological Monitoring Surveys Project conducts monthly assessment trawls (blue crabs, shrimp, and beginning in 2003, finfish) in the Wassaw, Ossabaw, Sapelo, St. Simons, St. Andrew and Cumberland Sound systems. This sampling is used to evaluate the abundance, size composition, reproductive status of penaeid shrimp and blue crab for the opening and closing of fishing seasons and areas. In addition, information collected on finfish and other invertebrate species since 2003, provides a broad ecologically based evaluation of species' abundance, distribution, and diversity in these sound systems. Information is also obtained on the commercial landings by species of fish and shellfish harvested each month in Georgia's coastal waters. The Marine Sportfish Population Health Study conducts stock assessments on selected marine sport fish (i.e. spotted sea trout and red drum) and conducts fisheryindependent monitoring of estuarine species. The Fisheries Dependent Work Unit conducts the intercept portion of the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Total annual commercial landings in Georgia have ranged from 7.40 to 18 .11 million pounds of product during the period from 1994 to 2005, with an annual average of 10.87 million pounds. Penaeid shrimps are the most valuable catch in Georgia commercial landings, typically totaling over 17 million dollars (4.23 million pounds of tails) in unadjusted, ex-vessel value during recent years. Catches are composed primarily of white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) during the fall, winter and spring, and brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) during the summer. These shrimp spawn in oceanic waters, but depend on the salt marsh wetlands to foster their juvenile and sub-adult stages. White shrimp landings have varied over the last 40 years with no overall trend. Research has shown that densities of spawning stock, and to a lesser extent fall harvest, respond strongly to cold air outbreaks during the early winter which produce wide scale kills of white shrimp, and to a suite of environmental variables impacting the salt marsh ecosystem which produce a range of growing conditions. Winter kills have been associated with freezes 1984, 1989, and 2000. With favorable environmental conditions and short maturation period, the stocks rebounded each time within 18 months.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-7
A disease called black gill, caused by a ciliated protozoan, has impacted shrimp in several recent years. It was first observed in 1996 in the southern portion of the state and was speculated to be caused by freshets associated with Hurricane Fran and Tropical Storm Josephine. The disease has occurred each year since with the exception of 1997, 1998, and 2001. The disease appears to progress from north to south, first appearing in Wassaw Sound in August and being most prevalent in September. The disease seems to dissipate by December. Annual infection rates in 2002 were the highest ever recorded, with the coastwide annual rate at 18.1%. The life cycle of this protozoan is not completely understood, and its impact on shrimp survival is uncertain. However, in 2002, spring white shrimp catches were above normal through August and after the disease outbreak dropped 50% below the long-term average. Although catch rates from fisheries independent monitoring surveys appear to have a negative relationship with infection rates, this relationship is not statistically significant. Research is needed to understand this organism's life cycle and the environmental factors that cause it to proliferate in some years but not others.
Trends in the brown shrimp fishery present a different picture. While recent landings and experimental catches have varied with no apparent pattern, the long term (40 year) trend in brown shrimp landings has been downward. Several alternative hypotheses bear examination. Reported declines in brown shrimp production may reflect the effects of a shrinking range due to land use practices, and climatological changes. Conditions for juvenile growth and survival may have been altered by a changing climate or direct and indirect alteration to nursery grounds (losses or changes in the quality of fresh and salt water wetlands). Additionally, possible misclassification of brown shrimp by Port Agents may be a factor in the earlier time series of the reported landings. Although highly unlikely with current fishing technology and economic conditions, over fishing of the spawning stock may be resulting in poorer recruitment to Georgia's nursery grounds. Some combination of factors may be influencing stock abundance. Economic conditions in all domestic shrimp fisheries are declining, primarily due to low unit prices kept down by high volumes of imported product, and by increasing costs of operation.
Reported annual blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) 2005 landings have recovered to near the 10-year average 4.9 million pounds (2005 = 3.7 million pounds). This, after a severe drought from 1998 to 2002 reduced annual harvest 80% of the long-term average of 7.99 million pounds. Blue crabs live longer than penaeid shrimps (3-4 years versus 1-2 years), and also exhibit less extreme fluctuations in annual abundance from one year to the next. The drought caused major shifts in the estuarine salinity regime - increasing salinity. This shift resulted in (1) higher predation by coastal predators, (2) increased prevalence of
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-8
the fatal disease hematodinium, (3) loss of habitat, (4) recruitment failure. Although, the drought ended with several tropical storms in the fall of 2002, a recover was not noticeable until the late 2004.
Total finfish landings have increased over time. This has been affected by the re-establishment of an offshore fleet in Georgia during the late 1970's. Snapper, grouper, porgy, king mackerel, sharks, wreckfish, and associated species have contributed to the trend. Some of these species are currently in an over-fished state and are under intensive management. Others, such as king mackerel, have responded positively to state and federal management. American shad populations in the Altamaha River have fluctuated over the past 30 years. Research conducted in 1967 and 1968 generated population size estimates, and the shad run of 1.9 million fish in 1968 was the largest of the time series examined. Additional research conducted since 1982 has been able to provide updated population estimates and has shown Altamaha shad runs quadrupling from 70,396 fish in 1991 to 272,556 in 1997. This rebound may be attributable to a statistically significant decrease in commercial fishing effort that occurred from 1982 to 1991. Apparently, as older fishermen have left, there have been few new entrants into the fishery. No effort estimates are available since 1991. Regulations have remained fairly constant over the past 15 years. The only two modifications were a 15-day season extension in 1983, and commercial fishing regulations in 1984 to clarify open and closed areas on the Altamaha River. No changes were made to shad sportfishing regulations. While the increases in landings and stock size during the early 1990's was significant, they still represent only a fraction of the 1968 run.
Total landings of bivalve mollusks have fluctuated greatly over the last 30 years. During the 1970's landings were totally dominated by oysters (Crassostrea sp.), generally over 50,000 pounds of raw meats per annum. During the early 1980's fishermen were increasingly focused on hard clams (Mercenaria sp.) due to stock declines in other areas along the east coast and their market value. This combined with increasing acreages available for harvest activities due to water quality certifications, allowed the replacement of oysters by clams as the premier species from 1986-1988. From 1988-1992 clam landings again declined and oyster landings grew. Since 1990, the clam landings have shown a general increase in contrast to the oyster fishery that, after large catches from 1989-92, have shown a steady decline since. In 2005, clam harvest was 106,032 pounds. Oyster harvest in 2005 was only 1,588 pounds 20% above the ten-year average. Labor costs have effected this change in combination with temporary inaccessibility to some grounds because of conflicts over harvest rights. No acreage has been lost to deteriorating water quality. Current research is focusing on improvements in stock genetics (growth and appearance enhancements), cultch substrate comparisons, and establishing new populations.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-9
The Research and Surveys Program (RSP) is responsible for collecting fisheries dependent and independent information necessary for managing Georgia's sportfish populations and enhancing saltwater sport fishing opportunities. Utilizing fish trawls, gillnets, trammel nets and hook and line gear, program personnel conduct monthly sampling activities to monitor Georgia's most popular marine sport fish. Fishery biologists conduct creel surveys of over 2000 anglers annually to estimate recreational angler effort and catch by species. Ongoing population monitoring efforts, life history investigations, and periodic stock assessments of these species allow managers to determine if fish populations are healthy and not being over-fished. Since the mid-1980's, regulations establishing seasons, creel limits, and size limits have been implemented or revised for 17 species to preserve sport fish stocks and reduce fishing mortality.
The Constituent Services Program is responsible for developing and improving public access to fishing areas through construction of fishing piers, boat ramps and boating service docks.
Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve
The Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve (SINERR) is one of 22 estuarine sites nationwide in the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program. Georgia began efforts to designate the Duplin Estuary as an estuarine sanctuary in 1975 and received designation from the Department of Commerce in 1976.
The SINERR has two primary functions: to protect natural and cultural resources and to allow scientists to investigate how such estuarine systems function. Of the 16,000 acres that make up Sapelo Island, SINERR occupies nearly one third. The DNR, which manages SINERR, also manages more than one half the island as the Richard J. Reynolds Wildlife Management Area and another 2,732-acre tract designated as the Natural Area. Hog Hammock, a 434-acre tract, is privately owned.
The DNR has instituted protective management practices while promoting visitor activities including guided interpretive tours, hunting, fishing, and nature study. DNR activities include managing wildlife and forest resources, enforcing conservation laws, operating the ferry and visitor use facilities, presenting educational programs for visitors, and assisting in scientific monitoring.
The University of Georgia Marine Institute largely carries on the research function of SINERR. The Maine Institute employs full-time scientists, technical, and support staff. Its research is centered on how salt-marsh estuaries function. Fully 80% of the Marine Institute research is conducted within the SINERR.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-10
Coastal Zone Management
Recognizing the economic importance of environmentally sensitive coastal areas, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 encourages states to balance sustainable development with resource protection in their coastal zone. As an incentive, the federal government awards states financial assistance to develop and implement coastal zone management (CZM) programs that fulfill the guidelines established by the Act. As further incentive, states with federally approved CZM programs are granted "federal consistency" authority whereby any federal activity that may impact resources within a state's coastal zone must be consistent with the enforceable policies of that state's federally approved CZM program. Thus, states with approved programs have a voice in federal activities such as harbor projects; federal permits, federal fisheries management plans, and federally financed construction projects.
To achieve approval, state CZM programs must address the protection of natural resources and fish and wildlife, coastal development, public access to the coast for recreational purposes, and other aspects of coastal management. State programs must also include public and local government participation in coastal management decision making. States must submit CZM programs to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval in order to receive federal implementation funds. The annual amount of implementation funding available to each state with an approved program is based upon a formula factoring in the linear miles of coastline with coastal population. Georgia's approved Coastal Management Program is eligible for more than $2 million annually.
The Georgia Coastal Management Program is a networked program implemented by the CRD and other state agencies with management authority in the coastal area. As lead agency for the program, the CRD conducts numerous functions including managing saltwater fisheries, monitoring water quality, administering Coastal Marshlands Permits and Shore Permits, providing technical assistance, reviewing federal activities for consistency with the state laws that comprise the Coastal Management Program, and other activities. Other state, local, and federal agencies continue to administer their respective authorities, and cooperate with the CRD on coastal issues. Acting as a strategic plan for the coastal area, the Program relies on existing state laws and authorities to fulfill federal resource protection guidelines. The jurisdiction of the Program extends over the first and second tier of coastal counties to encompass all tidally influenced waters. This eleven-county area includes: Brantley, Bryan, Camden, Charlton, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, and Wayne.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-11
The Georgia Coastal Management Program seeks to balance economic development in Georgia's coastal zone with preservation of natural, environmental, historic, archaeological, and recreational resources for the benefit of Georgia's present and future generations. The Program offers Coastal Incentive Grants to local communities to promote grassroots solutions to coastal issues. The Program promotes interagency cooperation through regular meetings and technical assistance. A CRD satellite field office was opened at Richmond Hill in 2004 to better serve the public in the northern portions of the coast. Finally, the Program conducts a comprehensive environmental education program, operates the Coastal Ark mobile classroom and hosts the Coast Fest, an annual coastal environmental education festival.
The GAEPD has been an active participant in Coastal Management Programs throughout the development and implementation of the initiative. The agency has provided guidance and technical assistance in efforts to improve coastal water quality in general, and in the development of a Coastal NonPoint Source Control Program in particular. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Congress added a section entitled "Protecting Coastal Waters." That section directs states with federally approved CZM programs to develop a Coastal NonPoint Source Program. To that end, the GAEPD is assisting the CRD in l) identifying land uses which may cause or contribute to the degradation of coastal waters, 2) identifying critical coastal areas adjacent to affected coastal waters, 3) identification of appropriate measures related to land use impacts to achieve and maintain water quality standards and designated uses, and 4) identifying management boundaries to more effectively manage land use impacts and water uses to protect coastal waters.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
5-12
CHAPTER 6
Public Health/Aquatic Life Issues
Fish Consumption Guidelines
Background. Fishing is a valuable activity to Georgia's citizens. The ways in which people participate in fishing varies widely. To some people, fishing is an activity associated with family. Teaching children to catch bream off a dock or taking a group of campers at a scout camp for an afternoon of bank fishing are both memorable experiences. Some people participate in fishing purely for the challenge of competition, either competing in an organized club tournament or just competing with the fish to bring to creel and release a limit. Catching fish for the dinner table is also a valuable activity. No matter how a person participates in fishing it should be a fun and safe activity. This also includes eating the fish.
Unfortunately, some fish from a few waterbodies contain substances, which prohibit the safe consumption in unlimited quantities. The Wildlife Resources Division (WRD), the Coastal Resources Division (CRD), and the GAEPD of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) work cooperatively to collect and analyze fish samples to provide information for Georgia fishermen.
Fish Monitoring Program. Georgia has more than 44,000 miles of perennial streams and more than 421,000 acres of lakes. It is not possible for the DNR to sample every stream and lake in the state. However, high priority has been placed on the 26 major reservoirs, which make up more than 90% of the total lake acreage. These lakes will continue to be sampled as part of a five year rotating schedule to track any trends in fish contaminant levels. The DNR has also made sampling fish in rivers and streams downstream of urban and/or industrial areas a high priority. In addition, DNR focuses attention on public areas which are frequented by a large number of anglers.
The program includes testing of edible fish and shellfish tissue samples for the substances listed in Table 6-1. Of the 43 constituents tested, only PCBs, dieldrin, DDT and its metabolites, and mercury have been found in fish at concentrations above what may be safely consumed at an unlimited amount or frequency.
Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium, Total Copper Lead
TABLE 6-1
PARAMETERS FOR FISH TISSUE TESTING
Mercury a-BHC
4,4-DDT
Heptachlor
Nickel
b-BHC
Dieldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Selenium d-BHC
Endosulfan I
Toxaphene
Silver
g-BHC (Lindane) Endosulfan II
PCB-1016
Thallium Chlordane
Endosulfan Sulfate PCB-1221
Zinc
4,4-DDD
Endrin
PCB-1232
Aldrin
4,4-DDE
Endrin Aldehyde
PCB-1242
PCB-1248 PCB-1254 PCB-1260 Methoxychlor HCB Mirex Pentachloroanisole Chlorpyrifos
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-1
The use of PCBs, chlordane, DDT and dieldrin have been banned in the United States, and, over time, the levels are expected to continue to decline. Currently there are no restricted consumption recommendations due to chlordane. One water segment has a restriction in consumption recommended for one species due to dieldrin residues, and one pond has restrictions recommended due to DDT/DDD/DDE residues.
Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that cycles between the land, water, and the air. As mercury cycles through the environment it is absorbed and ingested by plants and animals. It is not known where the mercury in Georgia's fish originates. Mercury may be present due to mercury content in natural environments such as in South Georgia swamps, from municipal or industrial sources, or from fossil fuel uses. It has been shown that mercury contamination is related to global atmospheric transport. The EPA has evaluated the sources of mercury loading to several river basins in Georgia as part of TMDL development, and has determined that 99% or greater of the total mercury loading to these waters occurs via atmospheric deposition. States across the southeast and the nation have detected mercury in fish at levels that have resulted in limits on fish consumption. In 1995, the USEPA updated guidance on mercury, which documented increased risks of consuming fish with mercury. The DNR reassessed all mercury data and added reduced consumption guidelines in 1996 for a number of lakes and streams, which had no restrictions in 1995. The Georgia guidance for 2005 reflects the continued use of the more stringent USEPA risk level for mercury.
Evaluation Of Fish Consumption Guidance for Assessment Of Use Support. USEPA guidance for evaluating fish consumption advisory information for 305(b)/303(d) use support determinations has been to assess a water as fully supporting uses if fish can be consumed in unlimited amounts; as partially supporting if consumption needs to be limited; and, as not supporting if no consumption is recommended. Georgia followed this guidance in evaluating the fish consumption guidelines for the 2000 and earlier 305(b)/303(d) lists. This assessment methodology was followed again in developing the 2002 305(b)/303(d) List for all fish tissue contaminants except mercury. Mercury in fish tissue was assessed and a segment or waterbody was listed if the trophic-weighted fish community tissue mercury was in excess of the new USEPA water quality criterion (Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury, EPA-823-R-01-001, January 2001). For mercury, waters were placed on the partial support list if the calculated trophicweighted residue value was greater than 0.3 g/g wet weight total mercury, and less than 2 g/g wet weight, and on the not support list if the value was greater than or equal to 2 g/g wet weight. For contaminants other than mercury (PCBs, dieldrin, DDT/DDD/DDE) waters were placed on the not support list if the assessment indicated any no consumption of fish, or placed on the partial support list if the assessment indicated any need for reduced consumption rates. The USEPA criterion represents a national approach to address what mercury levels are protective for fishing waters. The existence of risk-based recommendations to reduce consumption were used with respect to other contaminants detected in fish tissue. EPD formally adopted the 2001 EPA national human health
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-2
criterion for methylmercury as a human health standard for total mercury in fish tissue in the Georgia water quality rules in December 2002.
Risk-Based Assessment For Fish Consumption. In 1995, Georgia began issuing tiered recommendations for fish consumption. Georgia's fish consumption guidelines are "riskbased" and are conservatively developed using currently available scientific information regarding likely intake rates of fish and toxicity values for contaminants detected. One of four, simple, species-specific recommendations is possible under the guidelines: No Restriction, Limit Consumption to One Meal Per Week, Limit Consumption to One Meal Per Month, or Do Not Eat. In 2005, 58.5% of recommendations for fish tested in Georgia waters were for No Restriction, 26.8% were to Limit Consumption to One Meal Per Week, 13% were to Limit Consumption to One Meal Per Month, and 1.7% were Do Not Eat Advisories. Eighty-five percent of the recommendations available in 2005 were for no, or only minor restrictions (allowing more than 50 meals to be consumed per year). It should be noted that the dramatic increase of waters not fully meeting designated uses as related to fish consumption was a result of converting to a conservative risk-based approach for evaluating contaminants data in 1995, and not a result of increased contaminant concentrations in Georgia's fish.
General Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks. The following suggestions may help to reduce the risks of fish consumption:
Keep smaller fish for eating. Generally, larger older fish may be more contaminated than younger, smaller fish. You can minimize your health risk by eating smaller fish (within legal size limits) and releasing the larger fish.
Vary the kinds of fish you eat. Contaminants build up in large predators and bottom-feeding fish, like bass and catfish, more rapidly than in other species. By substituting a few meals of panfish, such as perch, sunfish and crappie, you can reduce your risk. Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and eat them less often. If you catch a big fish, freeze part of the catch (mark container or wrapping with species and location), and space the meals from this fish over a period of time. Clean and cook your fish properly. How you clean and cook your fish can reduce the level of contaminants by as much as half in some fish. Some chemicals have a tendency to concentrate in the fatty tissues of fish. By removing the fish's skin and trimming fillets according to the diagram, you can reduce the level of chemicals substantially. Mercury is bound to the meat of the fish, so these precautions will not help reduce this contaminant. Remove the skin from fillets or steaks. The internal organs (intestines, liver, roe, and so forth), and skin are often high in fat and contaminants.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-3
Trim off the fatty areas shown in black on the drawing. These include the belly fat, side or body fat, and the flesh along the top of the back. Careful trimming can reduce some contaminants by 25 to 50%. Cook fish so fat drips away. Broil, bake or grill fish and do not use the drippings. Deep-fat frying removes some contaminants, but you should discard and not reuse the oil for cooking. Pan frying removes few, if any, contaminants.
Specific Waterbody Consumption Guidelines. These guidelines are designed to protect you from experiencing health problems associated with eating contaminated fish. It should be noted that these guidelines are based on the best scientific information and procedures available. As more advanced procedures are developed these guidelines may change.
PCBs, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT and methylmercury build up in your body over time. It may take months or years of regularly eating contaminated fish to accumulate levels which would affect your health. It is important to keep in mind that these guidelines are based on eating fish with similar contamination over a period of 30 years or more. These guidelines are not intended to discourage people from eating fish. They are intended to help fishermen choose safe fish for the table.
Table 6-2 lists the lakes and streams where the fish have been tested and found to contain little or no contamination. There are no problems with eating fish from these water bodies.
Tables 6-3 and 6-4 list the lakes and streams where consumption guidance has been issued by the DNR. This information is provided annually in Georgia's Freshwater and Saltwater Fishing Regulations, which is available from DNR and also supplied with each fishing license purchased. This information is also updated annually in the DNR publication Guidelines for Eating Fish From Georgia Waters.
Special Notice For Pregnant Women, Nursing Mothers, and Children. If you plan to become pregnant in the next year or two, are pregnant now, or are a nursing mother, you and your children under 6 years of age are especially sensitive to the effects of some contaminants. For added protection, women in these categories and children may wish to limit consumption to a greater extent than recommended in Tables 6-3 and 6-4.
Fish tissue consumption guidelines are discussed in detail in the DNR publication Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters-2005 Update that is reproduced in Appendix C.
Development Of New Risk Communication Tools For Women of Child-bearing Age and Children. In 2003, new approaches to spatial analyses were used to assess fish tissue contaminants by species and trophic level, and across distinct geographic areas including hydrologic unit codes, river basins, and hydrogeologic provinces of Georgia. The analyses were used to generate simple brochures with specific information targeting
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-4
TABLE 6-2. NO CONSUMPTION RESTRICTIONS - 2005
LAKES
Allen Creek WMA Ponds A & B Bowles C. Ford Lake Brasstown Valley Kid's Fish Pond Carters City of Adairsville Pond Clayton Co. Water Auth. Lakes Blalock, Smith and Shamrock Dodge County PFA Fort Yargo State Park Lake Hard Labor Creek (Rutledge) High Falls Hugh M. Gillis PFA Juliette Ken Garden Mayer McDuffie PFA East Watershed Ponds Nancy Town Lake Oconee Olmstead Paradise PFA (Patrick & Horseshoe 4) Payton Park Pond Seed Sinclair Shepherd CEWC Varner Walter F. George
RIVERS
Alcovy River Boen Creek (Rabun Co.) Brasstown Creek (Towns Co.) Broad River Buffalo Creek (Carroll Co.) Butternut Creek (Union Co.) Cane Creek (Lumpkin Co.) Chattahoochee River (Chattahoochee, Early, & Stewart Cos.) Chattanooga Creek Chattanooga River (NW Ga.) Chickasawhatchee Creek Coleman River Conasauga River in Cohutta Forest Daniels Creek (Cloudland Canyon State Park) Dukes Creek East and South Chickamauga Creek Flint River (Dougherty, Baker & Mitchell Cos.) Goldmine Branch Jacks River Jones Creek Little Dry Creek (Floyd Co.) Little Tallapoosa River Little Tennessee River Middle Oconee River Mill Creek (Whitfield Co.)
Moccasin Creek (Lake Burton Trout Hatchery) Mud Creek (Cobb County) Nickajack Creek North Oconee River Noonday Creek (Cobb Co.) Ocmulgee River (Butts, Monroe, Houston & Pulaski Cos.) Oconee River (Below Barnett Shoals to Lake Oconee, & Laurens Co. & Milledgeville to Dublin) Ogeechee River (Ft. McAllister) Olley Creek Ponder Branch (Walker Co.) Proctor Creek Sewell Mill Creek Slab Camp Creek (Oconee Co.) South River (Butts Co., Hwy. 36) Spirit Creek Stamp Creek (Pine Log WMA) Stekoa Creek Tallulah River Upatoi Creek Yahoola Creek Yellow River
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-5
TABLE 6-3 GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING THE FISH YOU EAT
LAKES 2005
Albany By-Pass Pond Acworth
Allatoona
Andrews
Redear
Bluegill, LMB < 16" Carp, Crappie, Spotted bass< 16", LMB 12-16", CCF, White bass < 12", G. redhorse
CCF
LMB, Catfish
LMB > 16" Spotted bass > 16", LMB > 16",
HB >16" LMB > 12"
Carp
Banks
Bluegill
LMB > 12"
HB & Striped bass & LMB > 16",
Bartlett's Ferry
Blk crappie <12", LMB <16", Spotted bass <12" CCF, Blk crappie & Spotted bass
>12"
Bear Cr. Reservoir
Sunfish
LMB < 12", CCF >12"
Bennett CEWC PFA
LMB > 12"
Black Shoals (Randy Poynter)
CCF < 12", Redear
LMB 12-16", CCF >12", Blk crappie
Blackshear
CCF < 12"
CCF > 12", LMB > 12"
Big Lazer PFA
LMB 12-16", CCF
LMB > 16"
Blue Ridge
CCF < 16", LMB < 12"
White bass & LMB 12-16", CCF > 16"
Burton
LMB <16", CCF, Bluegill, White catfish
LMB > 16", Spotted bass 12-16"
Pond N. Bush Field, Augusta
Bluegill, LMB < 12"
LMB 12-16"
Chatuge
LMB >12", CCF >12"
Spotted bass 12-16"
Clarks Hill
CCF, Black crappie, Redear, White perch, Striped bass, Spotted sucker, HB, LMB <16"
LMB > 16"
Evans County PFA
CCF, LMB 12-16"
LMB > 16"
Goat Rock
Blk crappie, LMB 12-16", Spotted sucker, Bluegill
HB < 12", CCF 12-16"
CCF & LMB > 16", HB >12", White bass
Hartwell (Tugaloo Arm)
Black crappie, Hybrid/Striped bass < 12", CCF < 16"
LMB < 16", Carp > 16"
DO NOT EAT Hybrid and Striped bass > 16 inches in length
HB/Striped bass 1216"
CCF & LMB > 16"
Hartwell - main body of lake
DO NOT EAT Hybrid and Striped bass (S C Dept. Health and Environmental Control 1-888-849-7241)
LMB, CCF
Jackson
Black crappie, Redear sunfish, Catfish < 16"
Catfish > 16", LMB
Lanier
CCF & Striped bass < 16", Bluegill, Black crappie Striped bass, Carp & CCF > 16",
White catfish
LMB, Spotted bass
L. Ocmulgee St. Pk.
Brown bullhead 12-16"
LMB > 16"
McDuffie PFA, West
CCF
LMB
Nottely
CCF, Black crappie
LMB > 12", Striped bass > 16"
Oliver
Hybrid bass < 12", CCF < 16", Redear, Bluegill
LMB > 12"
CCF > 16"
Rabun
LMB 12-16", Bluegill, White catfish < 16"
White catfish & LMB > 16"
Reed Bingham S.P.
LMB > 12"Catfish > 16"
Richard B. Russell
Crappie, Bluegill, White perch, Catfish
LMB > 12"
Seminole
CCF, Spotted sucker, Blk crappie, Redear
LMB > 12"
Stone Mountain
Catfish
LMB > 16"
Tobesofkee
CCF, LMB 12-16"
LMB > 16"
Tugalo
White catfish 12-16", Bluegill
LMB > 12"
Tribble Mill Park Pond Gwinnett Co.
Black Crappie, Bluegill, LMB < 12"
LMB 12-16"
West Point
LMB, Carp, Spotted bass, Crappie, CCF & HB < 16"
CCF & Hybrid bass (HB) > 16"
Worth
CCF > 12"
LMB > 12"
Yonah
Bluegill
LMB 12-16", catfish 12-16"
Abbreviations: < means less than, > means more than, LMB = largemouth bass, HB = Hybrid bass, CCF = Channel catfish, Blk
= Black
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-6
TABLE 6-4 GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING THE FISH YOU EAT
RIVERS 2005
RIVERS/CREEKS
Alapaha River Alapahoochee River
NO RESTRICTIONS Redbreast sunfish
Allatoona Creek, Cobb Co.
Altamaha River
Apalachee River Beaver Creek (Taylor Co.) Brier Creek (Burke Co.) Canoochee River Casey Canal
Bluegill (US 1), CCF (below US 25) CCF
LMB, Bluegill
Chatooga River (NE Ga., Rabun County)
Chattahoochee River (Helen to Lanier)
Chattahoochee River (Buford Dam to Morgan Falls Dam) Chattahoochee River (Morgan Falls Dam to Peachtree Creek)
CCF Brown trout, Carp,
Rainbow trout Brown trout, LMB, Bluegill
1 MEAL PER WEEK Spotted sucker Bullhead
Spotted bass, Alabama Hog Sucker
Flathead catfish, LMB, CCF LMB
Spotted sucker Redbreast
Striped mullet Northern Hog Sucker, Silver
Redhorse Redeye bass, Bullhead,
Redhorse LMB
Jumprock sucker
1 MEAL PER MONTH LMB, Bullhead
Yellow bullhead LMB
LMB, CCF
LMB Carp, Striped bass
Chattahoochee River (Peachtree Creek to Pea Creek)
Chattahoochee River (Pea Creek to West Point Lake, below Franklin) Chattahoochee River (Oliver Dam to Upatoi Creek) Chattahoochee River (West Point dam to I-85) Chickamauga Creek (West) Conasauga River (below Stateline)
Coosa River (Rome to Hwy 100, Floyd Co.)
CCF, White sucker
Bluegill
Striped bass, Carp
CCF
LMB, Spotted bass
Striped bass
Bullhead catfish
LMB
LMB, Bullheads
Spotted bass
Redbreast sunfish
Spotted bass
Spotted bass
White bass, Buffalo
Spotted bass
LMB, Striped bass, Blue catfish
DO NOT EAT SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO
Coosa River (Hwy 100 to State line, Floyd Co.)
Etowah River (Dawson County) Etowah River (above Lake Allatoona) Etowah River (below Lake Allatoona) Flint River (Spalding/Fayette cos.) Flint River (Meriwether/Upson/Pike cos.) Flint River (Taylor co.) Flint River (Macon/Dooly/Worth/Lee cos.) Gum Creek (Crisp Co.) Ichawaynochaway Creek Kinchafoonee Creek (above Albany) Little River (above Clarks Hill Lake)
Spotted bass
Golden redhorse CCF, Striped bass, Bluegill
Spotted sucker CCF, Flathead catfish
CCF, Shoal bass CCF Carp
Spotted Sucker
Spotted sucker, Silver Redhorse
LMB
Blacktail Redhorse Spotted bass
Spotted bass, LMB LMB
Shoal bass LMB LMB LMB LMB
LMB, Spotted sucker LMB
Striped bass, CCF, Buffalo Smallmouth buffalo
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-7
Little River, (above Ga. Hwy 133, Valdosta) Muckalee Creek (above Albany)
Ochlockonee River (near Thomasville)
Ocmulgee River (below Macon, Bibb co.)
Ocmulgee River (Telfair/Wheeler cos.)
Oconee River (above Barnett Shoals)
Ogeechee River (all to Ft. McAllister)
Ohoopee River (Emanuel/Toombs cos.) Okefenokee Swamp (Billy's Lake) Oostanaula River, Hwy. 156, Calhoun Oostanaula River, Hwy 140, to Coosa River Patsiliga Creek (Taylor Co.) Pipemaker Canal Satilla River (Waycross, Ware/Pierce cos.) Satilla River (near Folkston, Camden Co.) Savannah River (above & below New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam) Savannah River (Chatham/Screven cos.) Savannah River (Effingham Co.) Savannah River (Tidal Gate) Short Creek (Warren Co.) South River (Henry Co., Snapping Shoals) Spring Creek (Seminole/Decatur/Miller Cos) St. Marys River (Camden Co.) St. Marys River (Charlton Co.) Suwannee River Swamp Creek (Redwine Cove Road) Talking Rock Creek Tallapoosa River Trib. To Hudson River, Alto, Banks Co. Withlacoochee River (Berrien/Lowndes cos.)
Spotted sucker Redbreast sunfish
CCF CCF
Bluegill Bluegill
Redear, Redbreast CCF, Redear sunfish CCF, Redbreast sunfish
Red drum Silver redhorse, CCF
Spotted sucker Redbreast, Striped mullet
Redbreast sunfish
Bluegill Brown bullhead
LMB LMB, Spotted sucker Spotted sucker, White catfish
LMB Flathead catfish, LMB Silver redhorse, LMB Redbreast sunfish, CCF, Spotted sucker, Snail bullhead Spotted sucker, Redbreast
Flier Smallmouth buffalo LMB, CCF, Spotted bass,
Buffalo Suckers, Chain Pickerel
LMB Redbreast sunfish, CCF
Spotted sucker, LMB LMB
White catfish White catfish
Sunfish LMB
LMB
Bullhead, Chain pickerel Redeye bass Redeye bass
Blacktail Redhorse Redeye bass
Redbreast sunfish
LMB Flathead catfish
LMB LMB Bowfin
Bass LMB LMB, Redbreast
LMB, Bowfin
LMB LMB LMB
LMB
COASTAL RIVERS & CREEKS
Turtle River System (Purvis, Gibson Crs.) Turtle & Buffalo Rivers (upriver Hwy 303)
NO RESTRICTIONS White Shrimp
1 MEAL PER WEEK 1 MEAL PER MONTH DO NOT EAT
Black & Red drum, Flounder
Red drum, Blue crab, Flounder, SST
Shrimp, Blue crab, SST, STM, ACR, SKF, Sheepshead, Spot Bivalves*
SKF, BDR, ACR, Spot, Striped Mullet,
Sheepshead
Bivalves *
Turtle River (Hwy 303 - Channel Marker 9)
Turtle River (C. Marker 9 & So. Brunswick River to Dubignons & Parsons creeks) Terry Creek South of Torras Causeway to Lanier Basin Terry and Dupree Creeks North of Torras Causeway to Confluence w/ Back River Back River One mile above Terry Creek to Confluence with Torras Causeway Back River South of Torras Causeway to St. Simons Sound Floyd Creek
White Shrimp
White Shrimp, Flounder Spot, STM, Shrimp, ACR,
SST, SKF, Blue crab
Red drum, Flounder Blue crab, BDR, RDR, SST, Sheepshead Yellowtail (Silver
perch)
Blue crab, Shrimp
STM, Shrimp, ACR, SST, SKF, Blue crab
Spot, STM, Shrimp, ACR, SST, SKF, Blue crab Blue crab, Southern
Blue crab, ACR, BDR, Spot, STM, SST, SKF, Sheepshead Bivalves *
ACR, STM,SKF, Spot
Bivalves *
STM, ACR, SST, SKF
Bivalves * Spot, Bivalves
*
Spot
Bivalves *
Bivalves *
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-8
kingfish
Academy Creek
Blue crab
* Bivalves are all clams, mussels and oysters; Shellfish ban under National Shellfish Sanitation Program; Species codes used above are: SST = Spotted Seatrout; ACR = Atlantic Croaker; SKF = Southern Kingfish (whiting); STM = Striped Mullet; BDR = Black Drum; RDR = Red Drum; SHH = Sheepshead
King Mackerel Special Joint State Guidance Issued by Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida For South Atlantic Ocean
Size Range (Fork Length, Inches) 24 To Less Than 33 Inches
33 To 39 Inches
Recommendations for Meal Consumption of King Mackerel Caught Offshore Georgia Coast No Restrictions
1 meal per month for pregnant women, nursing mothers and children age 12 and younger meal per week for other adults
Over 39 Inches
Do Not Eat
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-9
women of child-bearing age and children for distribution through health and nutrition related outlets. Brochures were generated for four distinct areas of Georgia, and English versions were released in November 2003, followed by publication of Spanish brochures in March of 2004. The College of Family and Consumer Sciences, Cooperative Extension Services, University of Georgia and the Chemical Hazards Program, Georgia Division of Public Health collaborated in the development of the brochures. The information will be updated as needed, and all brochures are currently available on the DNR website.
Bathing Area Monitoring
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted fecal coliform monitoring at its bathing beaches in Georgia. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Georgia Power, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, Georgia State Parks, and counties and cities throughout the state have also conducted some sampling. The City of Acworth closed a swimming beach on Lake Acworth in the early 1990s. In 1994-1995, a water quality investigation of Lake Acworth and its watershed was conducted by Kennesaw State College under a contract with Cobb County. Based on the results of the study, Cobb County developed and implemented portions of an action plan for water quality improvements. In 1997 the City of Acworth and Cobb County conducted monitoring on Lake Acworth. The City of Acworth reopened the beach in June 1998.
Shellfish Area Closures
The potential shellfish growing areas on the Georgia coast are classified as "Approved", "Restricted", or "Prohibited" in accordance with the criteria of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Shellfish growing areas are closed as a precaution to shell fishing because of the proximity to a marina or a municipal or industrial discharge. Georgia's one hundred linear mile coastline contains approximately 700,000 acres of potential shellfish habitat. Only about 10% of that area, however, actually produces viable shellfish stocks. Lack of suitable clutch, tidal amplitudes, littoral slope, and other geomorphological features contribute to the limited occurrence of natural shellfish resources along the Georgia coast. Most shellfish in Georgia grow in the narrow intertidal zone and are exposed between high water and low water tide periods. Georgia maintains approximately 32,000 acres approved for the harvest of shellfish for commercial and/or personal consumption. Georgia currently has three harvest areas comprised of commercial leases and public recreational plots. Only those areas designated as Public Recreational Harvest or those areas under commercial lease are classified as "Approved". "Approved" areas are monitored regularly. All other waters of the state are classified as "Prohibited", are not monitored and are closed to the taking of shellfish due to the presence of human activities that may potentially create a problem. Even though some of these areas meet the
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-10
criteria to allow harvesting, they were classified as "Prohibited" so that a safe zone can be maintained in the event of an accidental spill. Additionally, another 179,000 acres of the potential shellfish growing area is classified as "Prohibited" due to the lack of available water quality data.
Pollution-Related Fish Kills
During the 2004-2005 period, a total of 28 fish kill events were reported, with 17 attributable to some pollutant entering a stream, lake, or reservoir. These events, including the suspected pollutant, its source, and estimated number of fish killed are presented in Table 6-5. Depending on the location, the first responders to a fish kill event are the DNR Wildlife Resources Division or Coastal Resources Division. GAEPD personnel typically augment the investigation. Depending on the circumstances causing the fish kill, GAEPD may issue a consent or administrative order and assess a civil penalty.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-11
TABLE 6-5 Pollution-Caused Fish Kills - 2004-2005
Name of Waterbody
Tributary to Snapfinger Creek Unnamed tributary to Nancy Creek Bull Creek Stacy and Drowning Bear Creeks Tanyard Branch and Almand Creek Unnamed tributary to Nancy Creek Pigeon Creek
County
DeKalb DeKalb Muscogee Whitfield Rockdale Fulton Meriwether
Unnamed tributary to Nash Creek
Fayette
Unnamed tributary to Sweetwater Creek Cabin Creek
Mill Creek Willacoochee Creek
Impounded Unnamed tributary to Seventeen-Mile River; stormwater retention pond, City of Douglas Unnamed tributary to Oothcalooga Creek Swift Creek Spirit Creek Chalker Bridge Creek
Unnamed tributary to Jester Creek Beaver Dam Ditch Hiawassee River headwaters
Tributary to Mud Creek Unnamed tributary to Chattahoochee River Unnamed tributary to Rubes Creek
Ison Branch
St. Augustine Creek Goldens Creek
Douglas
Spalding
Paulding Ben Hill
Coffee
Gordon
Bibb Richmond Cobb
Clayton Richmond Towns
Lowndes DeKalb
Cobb
Spalding
Chatham Warren
Tributary to Roach Branch
Dodge
Unnamed drainage canal
Pierce
Date
01/9 & 21/2004 03/03-04/2004 03/19-22/2004 04/12-15/2004 05/26-28/2004 07/07-08/2004 07/8-15/2004
08/03-04/2004
08/23/2004 08/30-31/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/3010/01/2004 10/04/2004 10/27/2004 12/14-27/2004 01/22-23/2005 02/07-08/2005 03/24-25/2005 04/28/2005 5/20/2005 06/03/2005 06/25/2005 07/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/27-28/2005
10/30-31/2005
12/16/2005
Pollutant of Concern
Untreated Sewage
F-500 Multi-Purpose Encapsulator Agent Epoxy 6 (2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether), spill Allyl alcohol spill
Chlorine (from stored pool chemicals) Unknown Dissolved Oxygen depletion; LAS pond discharge Dissolved Oxygen depletion from raw sewage spill Unknown
Unknown
Unknown Dissolved Oxygen deficiency Dissolved Oxygen depletion/deficiency
Unknown; suspected fire fighting chemicals Surfactant Fuel oil spill Normal propyl acetate
Petroleum Unknown Diesel/gasoline spill
Unknown Unknown
Fire fighting runoff/ incl. foam Dissolved Oxygen deficiency pH Dissolved Oxygen deficiency from wastewater discharge Dissolved Oxygen depletion from broken sewer line Unleaded gasoline spill
Source(s) of Pollutants
Blocked sewer pipe causing overflow DeKalb Co. Fire & Rescue Services Kemira, Columbus
MFG Chemicals, Inc.
Bio-Lab; runoff from fire fighting at site Unknown City of Manchester LAS collection pond draining
City of Fayetteville sewer overflow/lift station failure
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown Construction of pipeline
Unknown
Unknown; suspected tire freight fire prior to kill Spill;tractor-trailer accident Fort Gordon energy plant Railroad car spill @ Brenntag Inc. Unknown Unknown Fuel tanker truck overturn
Fire @ pecan processor Unknown
Runoff from response to CVS bldg. fire fighting Unknown
Construction/pumping City of Warrenton wastewater treatment ponds
City of Eastman sewer line
Fuel truck accident at Dixon Service Ctr., Blackshear
Comments
150 dead fish in private pond 274 dead fish
22,535 dead fish, plus other 3,143 dead fish, plus other 7,360 dead fish (public only) 546 dead fish 68 dead fish, plus other
653 dead fish
18 dead fish
932 dead fish, plus other 345 dead fish 490 dead fish
4,868 dead fish in pond
346 dead fish
42 dead fish 1,506 dead fish 446 dead fish
371 dead fish 2,506 dead fish 66 dead fish, plus other 361 dead fish 397 dead fish
565 dead fish
197 dead fish
106 dead fish 8266 dead fish
92 dead fish
137 dead fish, plus other
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
6-12
CHAPTER 7
Watershed Protection Programs
Program Perspective
The first major legislation to deal with water pollution control in Georgia was passed in 1957. The Act was ineffective and was replaced by the Water Quality Control Act of 1964. This Act established the Georgia Water Quality Control Board, the predecessor of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources which was established in 1972. Early efforts by the Board in the late 1960's and early 1970's included documenting water quality conditions, cleanup of targeted pollution problems and the establishment of water use classifications and water quality standards. Trend monitoring efforts were initiated and a modest State construction grants program was implemented.
In 1972 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 was enacted by Congress. Today, this law is known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA set the national agenda for water protection and launched the national objective to provide "for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water". The CWA established the NPDES permit system for regulation of municipal and industrial water pollution control plants, a water use classifications and standards process, and a construction grants process to fund the construction of municipal water pollution control facilities.
Most industries in Georgia had installed modern, effective water pollution control facilities by the end of 1972. In the mid/late 1970's emphasis was placed on the design and construction of municipal facilities through the federal Construction Grants Program. First and second round NPDES permits were negotiated and operation and maintenance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement programs initiated. Basin planning, trend monitoring, intensive surveys, modeling and wasteload allocation work was well underway.
In 1987 Congress made significant changes to the Clean Water Act. The Water Quality Act of 1987 placed increased emphasis on toxic substances, control of nonpoint source pollution, clean lakes, wetlands and estuaries. The Act required that all States evaluate water quality standards and adopt numeric criteria for toxic substances to protect aquatic life and public health. This work was initiated and completed by the GAEPD in the late 1980s. The Act also required each
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-1
State to evaluate nonpoint source pollution impacts and develop a management plan to deal with documented problems. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Georgia General Assembly passed a number of laws that set much of the agenda for the GAEPD in the early 1990s. Laws such as the Growth Strategies Act which helps protect sensitive watersheds, wetlands, and groundwater recharge areas and the ban on high phosphate detergents to reduce nutrient loading to rivers and lakes were enacted. Legislation was passed in 1990 that required the GAEPD to conduct comprehensive studies of major publicly owned lakes and establish specific water quality standards for each lake. In addition in 1991 the General Assembly passed a law requiring a phosphorus limit of 0.75 mg/l for all major point sources discharging to the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and West Point Lake. Major river corridors were accorded additional protections with laws passed in 1991. Also in 1991, the General Assembly passed the Georgia Environmental Policy Act that requires an environmental effects report be developed for major State funded projects. In 1992, the General Assembly passed the River Basin Management Planning Act that required the GAEPD develop and implement plans for water protection for each major river basin in Georgia. In 2004, the General Assembly passed the Statewide Comprehensive Water Management Planning Act. This legislation replaced the river basin management planning legislation and charged the EPD with the responsibility of developing a comprehensive statewide water management plan for Georgia in accordance with the following policy statement: "Georgia manages water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state's economy, protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens," The work ongoing to implement this significant legislation was discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and at appropriate locations through this report.
In 2004-2005 high priority was placed on Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning, monitoring and assessment, water quality modeling and TMDL development, TMDL implementation plan development, State revolving loan programs, NPDES permitting and enforcement, nonpoint source pollution abatement, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, and public participation projects.
Comprehensive Statewide Water Planning
Comprehensive statewide water planning efforts were expanded significantly in 2004 with the passage of O.C.G.A. 12-5-520 by the Georgia General Assembly. The Act provides for the development of river basin management plans for the major rivers in the State. The Act provides guidance regarding the content of the plans and for local input to plan development. The Act also provides that upon adoption of a plan by the Board of Natural Resources all permitting and other
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-2
activities conducted by or under the control of the Department of Natural Resources are consistent with the plan. This work is discussed in Chapter 2. Watershed Projects
The GAEPD is working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and South Carolina on several Savannah River projects; with the USEPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on water quality issues in the Coosa River and Lake Weiss; and with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Suwannee River Water Management District to coordinate water protection efforts in the Suwannee River Basin. Significant work was also done by Alabama, Florida and Georgia in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers to conduct studies of the Apalachicola/ Chattahoochee/Flint and Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa river basins to facilitate efforts to develop agreements regarding water allocations. The GAEPD supports these projects to avoid duplication of effort and to effectively leverage resources to accomplish watershed protection in interstate river basins.
Water Quality Monitoring
The goal of the water protection program in Georgia is to effectively manage, regulate, and allocate the water resources of Georgia. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to monitor the water resources of the State to establish baseline and trend data, document existing conditions, study impacts of specific discharges, determine improvements resulting from upgraded water pollution control plants, support enforcement actions, establish wasteload allocations and/or total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for new and existing facilities, verify water pollution control plant compliance, and document water use impairment and reasons for problems causing less than full support of designated water uses. Trend monitoring, intensive surveys, toxic substances monitoring, aquatic toxicity testing and facility compliance sampling are some of the monitoring tools used by the GAEPD. Monitoring programs are discussed in Chapter 3.
Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocations/TMDL Development
The GAEPD conducted a significant amount of modeling in 2004-2005 in support of the development of wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). In 2003, TMDLs were developed and publicly noticed for segments on the Georgia 2002 303(d) list in the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Tennessee River Basins. These TMDLs were finalized, submitted to and approved by the EPA in 2004. In 2004, TMDLs were developed and publicly noticed for segments on the Georgia 2004 303(d) list for the Savannah and Ogeechee River Basins. These TMDLS were finalized, submitted to and approved by EPA in 2005. Also in 2005, TMDLs were developed and public noticed for segments on the 2004 303(d) list
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-3
for waters in the Ochlockonee, Suwanee, Satilla, and St Marys River Basins. These TMDLs will be finalized and submitted to EPA for approval in early 2006. Over the 2004-2005 period, more than 135 TMDLs were developed. To date more than 1250 TMDLs have been developed for 303(d) listed waters in Georgia.
TMDL Implementation
As TMDLs are developed, plans are needed to guide implementation of pollution reduction strategies. TMDLs are implemented through changes in NPDES permits to address needed point source improvements and/or implementation of best management practices to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Changes in NPDES permits to address point issues are made by the GAEPD in coordination with local governments and industries. Planning for implementation of management practices and activities to address the nonpoint sources of pollution is being conducted through the development of Tier 3 level TMDL implementation plans prepared by GAEPD and Tier 2 plans prepared through contracts with Regional Development Centers (RDCs) and other public contractors. Tier 3 plans are developed in-house by GAEPD staff for segments "partially impaired due to fecal coliform; segments "impaired" due to natural conditions, fish consumption advisories, legacy sediment; or segments where TMDL models estimate a zero percent load reduction would be necessary to achieve standards. The Tier 2 plans are intended as platforms for instituting and continuing a local water quality protection and restoration process. They initiate public outreach, bring together local stakeholder groups who work together to assess the sources and causes of the impairment, identify appropriate management practices and activities, and set forth a plans of action to monitor progress and achieve the TMDL for each segment impairment.
In 2004 a total of 213 TMDL implementation plans and revisions were developed for TMDLs in the Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins. Another 147 plans and revisions for TMDLs in the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Tennessee River Basin were initiated in 2005 and scheduled for completion in 2006. To date a total of 864 plans and revisions have been prepared to implement TMDLs in Georgia.
State Revolving Loan and Georgia Fund Loan Programs
Georgia presently administers loans through the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) and the GAEPD a State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) and a Georgia Fund program that provide low interest loans for the construction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities and nonpoint source pollution control projects. The SRF program was initiated in 1988 to the full extent allowed by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act. With the initiation of SRF, the federal
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-4
Construction Grants program has been phased out and all federal monies received through the Environmental Protection Agency are being used to capitalize the SRF program.
Considerable amounts of money have been required for water pollution abatement in Georgia and additional expenditures will be needed in the future. Local governments have the responsibility of securing funding for water pollution control projects including CSO controls. In addition to the SRF program and the Georgia Fund program, other funding sources are available, grants and loans from the Rural Economic and Community Development Administration (RECD), the Appalachian Regional Commission, and various programs administered by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Table 7-1 lists the major funding sources utilized by Georgia communities in 2004-2005 for wastewater treatment system and CSO control construction and improvements.
TABLE 7-1 Municipal Facility Sources of Investment
2004-2005
SRF & GEFA Loans Local or Federal
TOTAL
$132,706,000 $609,493,293 $742,200,000
Of the twenty-two wastewater treatment projects funded by SRF/GEFA loans during 2004-2005, nine were for upgrades of existing systems. The twenty-two projects represented 123.7 million gallons per day of treatment capacity.
Upgrading the level of wastewater treatment produces direct benefits by reducing pollutant discharges to Georgia streams, rivers, and lakes/reservoirs. The most widely used measure of municipal pollution is the extent to which the organic content of treated wastewater depletes oxygen in the receiving water and reduces the oxygen available to fish and aquatic life. In 2005, of the nearly 1.7 million pounds per day of oxygen demanding pollutants produced by municipalities, approximately 95% was removed by municipal water pollution control plants.
GEFA Implementation Unit. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) was created on April 5, 2001 (2001 S.B. 130) as a planning entity dedicated to developing comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans to be implemented by local governments in the District.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-5
The enabling legislation required the District to develop plans for stormwater management, wastewater treatment, and water supply and conservation in its 16-county area that includes Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale and Walton Counties. These plans are designed to protect water quality and public water supplies, protect recreational values of the waters, and to minimize potential adverse impacts of development on waters in and downstream of the region.
Limited water resources combined with the region's growth places the District in a unique position relative to other areas in Georgia. With a finite water resource and a population of nearly 4 million and growing, the need to carefully and cooperatively manage and protect Metropolitan Atlanta's rivers and streams has become a priority.
The EPD was charged with the enforcement of these plans. SB 130 states that the EPD Director shall not approve any application by a local government in the District to issue, modify, or renew a permit, if such permit would allow an increase in the permitted water withdrawal, public water system capacity, or waste-water treatment system capacity of such local government, or any NPDES Phase I or Phase II General Stormwater permit; unless such local government is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the plan, or the Director certifies that such local government is making good faith efforts to come into compliance.
EPD, upon application for a permit for an increase in the water withdrawal, public water system capacity, or wastewater treatment system capacity, or renewal of any NPDES Phase I or Phase II General Stormwater permit, will conduct an audit to determine whether the local government is in compliance with the District Plans. This audit process was initiated in the fall of 2005 and at present there are 2 EPD associates to perform audits of the 109 local governments affected.
Georgia's Land Conservation Program
On April 14, 2005, Governor Sonny Perdue signed House Bill 98, creating the Land Conservation Program. The act created a flexible framework within which cities and counties, the Department of Natural Resources, other state and federal agencies, and private partners can protect the state's valuable natural resources. The Land Conservation Program will protect Georgia's valued resources by developing a process that will strategically align the state's conservation needs with the ability to steward the land through public/private partnerships.
The land conservation goals set forth in the Act include: water quality protection for rivers, streams, and lakes; flood protection; wetlands protection; reduction of
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-6
erosion through protection of steep slopes, erodible soils, and stream banks; protection of riparian buffers, natural habitats and corridors for native plant and animal species; protection of prime agricultural and forestry lands; protection of cultural sites, heritage corridors, and archaeological and historic resources; scenic protection; provision of recreation and outdoor activities; and connection of existing or planned areas.
Funding available for 2005-2006 is $100 million: $55 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund; $13,000 from the Land Conservation Grant Program; $25 million pledged from a private foundation for grants; and $20 million in bond funds for state purchases.
In 2005, the Land Conservation Program acquired through purchase, easement, lease or donation more than 13,728 acres. Of that acreage, 3,649 acres adjoined existing tracts in Jeff Davis and Coffee Counties, and will protect 3.5 miles of Ocmulgee River frontage. With the addition of these tracts into the program, the State of Georgia protects more than 13,000 contiguous acres. Funds came from a variety of sources including U.S. Forest Service Forest Legacy Grant, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and state bond funds.
An additional 10,079 acres were protected on the Altamaha River in Wayne and Glynn Counties. These tracts contain tidal swamp forests, bottomland forests and steep river bluff habitats as well as pine uplands. Acquisition of these tracts will protect 5.8 miles of river frontage at Clayhole Swamp and 8.5 miles of river frontage at Penholoway Swamp along the scenic Altamaha River. Funds came from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Grants, private donations from TNC, Ducks Unlimited, and National Wild Turkey Federation, matching DNR non-game, timber revenue, and state bond funds for a total purchase price of $13.2 million.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program
The NPDES permit program provides a basis for municipal and industrial discharge permits, monitoring compliance with limitations, and appropriate enforcement action for violations.
In 2004-2005, a significant amount of personnel time was allocated to the reissuance of NPDES permits. Permits were issued, modified or reissued for 208 municipal and private discharges and for 150 industrial discharges. In addition, 55 private dischargers were covered under general permit No. GA0550000. In contrast to many other areas in the nation, Georgia had a very small backlog of permits to be issued.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-7
In addition to permits for point source discharges, the GAEPD has developed and implemented a permit system for land application systems. Land application systems for final disposal of treated wastewaters have been encouraged in Georgia. Land application systems are used as alternatives to advanced levels of treatment or as the only alternative in some environmentally sensitive areas. A total of 203 (municipal and private) and 55 (industrial and Federal) permits for land application systems were in effect in 2005.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Georgia has over 4000 livestock and poultry farms. On June 10, 1999, Georgia adopted Rule 391-3-6-.20 "Swine Feeding Operation Permit Requirements". On January 24, 2001, Georgia adopted rule 391-3-6-.21, "Animal (Non-Swine) Feeding Operation Permit Requirements." These actions followed three years of stakeholder input, public meetings, hearings and Georgia Board of Natural Resources deliberations and resulted in State rules that equaled or exceeded Federal regulations at that time. The Georgia rules required that medium size feeding operations with more than 300 animal units (AU) but less than 1000 AU (1000 AU equals 1000 beef cows, or 700 dairy cows, or 2500 swine, etc.) must apply for a wastewater permit under Georgia's Land Application System (LAS) permitting program. Large animal feeding operations with more than 1000 AU must apply for a wastewater permit under the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. EPD has been delegated authority to administer the NPDES program in Georgia by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Consequently, 173 medium size farms received State LAS permits and 57 large farms received Federal NPDES concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permits.
On December 15, 2002, EPA promulgated a greatly expanded NPDES permit regulation and effluent limitation guideline for CAFOs, 40 CFR 122 and 40 CFR 412. Dry manure poultry operations larger than 125,000 broilers or 82,000 layers were added, as well as other changes. In order to implement the new Federal rule, the Georgia EPD completed necessary State rule amendments on September 15, 2003. Dry litter poultry and swine nursery permit applications were due by October 31, 2005. Permits are to be issued and nutrient management plans implemented for dry litter poultry and swine nurseries by October 31, 2006. It is estimated that there are a minimum of 600 dry manure poultry farms which had to submit NPDES CAFO permit applications by October 31, 2005. The Georgia EPD has contracted with the Georgia Department of Agriculture Livestock/Poultry Section (GDA) for inspections, complaint investigations, nutrient management plan reviews and permit administrative support.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-8
The GDA has already processed over 500 NPDES applications from dry manure poultry operations. However, the EPA CAFO regulation was successfully appealed on February 28, 2005 [decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued in Waterkeeper v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005)]. That CAFO regulation contains the requirement that by February 13, 2006, all newly defined CAFOs must apply for an NPDES permit. The CAFO rule also requires that all CAFOs develop and implement a nutrient management plan by December 31, 2006. The EPA is in the process of developing options for revising their CAFO regulation to comply with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and has extended both the permit application date and the nutrient management plan due date to July 31, 2007. In response to many inquiries from Georgia growers, the Georgia Attorney General reviewed the State animal feeding rules and found that our deadlines for permit application submittal and nutrient management plan implementation are enforceable irrespective of changes in the EPA CAFO regulation. However, EPD will defer issuing permits where possible in order to allow the Georgia Board of Natural Resources time to reconsider its rules in light of revisions that the EPA may make.
Combined Sewer Overflows
The GAEPD has issued NPDES Permits to the three cities in Georgia that have Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) in their wastewater collection systems (Albany, Atlanta and Columbus). The permits require that the CSO must not cause violations of Georgia Water Quality Control Standards. In addition, the CSOs must be controlled to prevent the following conditions for waters downstream of the CSO:
materials which settle to form sludge deposits that become putrescent, unsightly or to interfere with legitimate water uses;
oil, scum and floating debris in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or to interfere with legitimate water uses;
materials which produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions which interfere with legitimate water uses;
toxic, corrosive, acidic and caustic substances in amounts, concentrations or combinations which are harmful to humans, animals or aquatic life.
In 1998 the City of Atlanta signed a Consent Decree that requires a long-term control plan be implemented to remediate the overflow from combined sewers in 2007. The Consent Decree stipulated, among other things, the development and
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-9
implementation of short-term remedial measures to improve operations, maintenance and treatment performance of the existing CSO facilities. Some of the other tasks required by the Consent Decree include: installation of warning signs along the streams receiving CSO discharges, a one-time stream cleanup, greenway acquisition plan, and creating Maintenance, Operations, and Management Systems (MOMS) Plans to provide guidance to City personnel regarding the operations and maintenance requirements of each of the City's CSO facilities as well as management strategies to control CSOs.
The City of Atlanta submitted their long-term control plan in April 2001. The selected option calls for 27% sewer separation including the elimination of two CSO facilities, additional storage for the eastside CSOs to an upgraded CSO treatment facility at the current Intrenchment Creek facility and a tunnel connecting the westside CSOs to a new CSO treatment facility on the Chattahoochee River near the R. M. Clayton Water Reclamation Center. November 7, 2007 is the date in the Consent Decree for compliance with water quality standards.
Compliance and Enforcement
The Georgia Water Quality Control Act requires that every point source discharge obtain a NPDES permit, and that zero discharge systems obtain a Land Application System Permit from the GAEPD which specifies allowable discharge limits for the receiving streams or land application sites. Insuring compliance with permit limitations is an important part of the Georgia water pollution control program. Staff review discharge and groundwater monitoring reports, inspect water pollution control plants, sample effluents, investigate citizen complaints, provide on-site technical assistance and, if necessary, initiate enforcement action.
As of December 2005, of the 125 major municipal water pollution control plants (facilities with design flow >1.0 mgd), six were in significant noncompliance with the final limitations. Theses six facilities are under compliance schedules and/or enforcement actions to resolve the noncompliance, or implementing infiltration/ inflow strategies which will allow compliance at the plant to be achieved. Enforcement action has been taken by the GAEPD to insure problems are alleviated.
Data evaluations (using annual reports, GAEPD sampling and biomonitoring results) were performed on NPDES permitted municipal facilities to determine the need to reopen specific permits for inclusion of numerical limits and monitoring for appropriate toxic pollutants.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-10
Increased emphasis was placed on the industrial pretreatment programs for municipalities to ensure that the cities comply with the new requirements for pretreatment established in the November 1988 Amendments to the Federal General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403).
Industries in Georgia achieved a high degree of compliance in 2004-2005. The forty major industrial facilities were in compliance about 98% of the time during 2004-2005.
The GAEPD utilizes all reasonable means to obtain compliance, including technical assistance, noncompliance notification letters, conferences, consent orders, administrative orders, and civil penalties. Emphasis is placed on achieving compliance through cooperative action. However, compliance cannot always be achieved in a cooperative manner. The Director of the GAEPD has the authority to negotiate consent orders or issue administrative orders. In 20042005, 768 Orders were issued and approximately of $3,200,000 in negotiated settlements was collected.
Storm water compliance for municipalities and industries is most often reached through education and inspections. The vast majority of storm water enforcement Orders are used in connection with construction activities. In 20042005 a total of 339 stormwater Orders were issued and a total of $1,073,312 in negotiated settlements was collected.
Zero Tolerance
In January 1998, the Georgia Board of Natural Resources adopted a resolution requiring that regulatory initiatives be developed to ensure polluters are identified, and that appropriate enforcement action is taken to correct problems. The resolution also directed EPD to provide the "best quality of effort possible in enforcing Georgia's environmental laws". High growth areas that have been identified as in need of enhanced protection include the Chattahoochee River Basin (from the headwaters through Troup County), Coosa River Basin, Tallapoosa River Basin, and the greater metropolitan Atlanta area. EPD developed a "zero tolerance" strategy for these identified geographic areas. This strategy requires enforcement action on any and all noncompliance issues. The strategy includes simple orders (Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement) with a directive to correct the cause of noncompliance with a monetary penalty for isolated, minor violations, and more complex orders (consent orders, administrative orders, emergency orders) with conditions and higher monetary penalties for chronic and/or major violations. In addition to the enforcement strategy, inspections and surveillance activities were also increased.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-11
Storm Water Management
The Water Quality Act of 1987 requires permits to be issued for certain types of storm water discharges, with primary focus on storm water runoff from industrial operations and large urban areas. The USEPA promulgated Storm Water Regulations on November 16, 1990. The GAEPD subsequently received delegation from the USEPA in January 1991 to issue NPDES Permits for regulating storm water in Georgia. GAEPD has developed and implemented a storm water strategy which assures compliance with the Federal Regulations.
Phase I of the Federal Regulations set specific application submittal requirements for large (population 250,000 or more) and medium (population 100,000 to 250,000) municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). The GAEPD has determined that the metropolitan Atlanta area is a large municipal system as defined in the regulations. Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett Counties and all the incorporated cities within these counties were required to comply with the application submittal target dates for a large municipal area. Forty-five individual storm water permits were issued to the Atlanta area municipalities on June 15, 1994 and reissued in 1999 and 2004.
Augusta, Macon, Savannah, Columbus, the counties surrounding these cities and any other incorporated cities within these counties were identified as medium municipal systems as defined in the storm water regulations. Thirteen individual storm water permits were issued to the medium municipal systems in April and May , 1995. These permits were reissued in April 2000 and 2005.
The storm water permits for large and medium municipal systems require the submittal of Annual Reports to GAEPD. Each year, the Georgia storm water permitting program reviews the Annual Reports from the large and medium municipalities. Among other things, the Annual Report includes a detailed description of the municipality's implementation of its Storm Water Management Program. The GAEPD provides comments on the Annual Reports to the MS4 permittees, noting areas of noncompliance and recommending improvements to the local Storm Water Management Programs.
On December 8, 1999 USEPA promulgated the Phase II Rules for Storm Water. Phase II requires NPDES permitting and the development of Storm Water Management Programs for a large number of smaller cities and counties.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-12
Construction sites from 1 to 5 acres and municipally-owned industrial facilities will also be regulated.
Phase II regulations for MS4s required permit coverage for all municipalities with a population less than 100,000 and located within an urbanized area, as defined by the latest Decennial census. In addition, EPD was required to develop criteria to designate any additional MS4s which had the potential to contribute to adverse water quality impacts. In December 2002, EPD issued an NPDES General Permit which covered 84 Phase II MS4s, including 55 cities and 29 counties. The NPDES General Permit does not require any monitoring or contain specific effluent limitations. Instead, each Phase II MS4 permittee is required to institute best management practices that will control stormwater pollution. The Phase II permittees were required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the NPDES Permit by March 10, 2003. As part of the NOI, the MS4 was required to develop a SWMP that included best management practices in six different areas or minimum control measures. These six minimum control measures are Public Education, Public Involvement, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control, Post-Construction Storm Water Management, and Pollution Prevention.
The GAEPD has issued general permits for the eleven industrial subcategories defined in the Phase I Federal Storm Water Regulations. During 1993, the GAEPD issued a general NPDES permit (GAR000000) that regulates the discharge of storm water from 10 categories of industrial activity. This permit was reissued in 1998. The permit was administratively extended in 2003, with approximately 3500 facilities retaining coverage. Multiple stakeholder meetings were held in the following two years, leading to a new permit issuance in March 2005. This permit was appealed in April 2005 by one industry and several environmental groups. Many months of negotiation meetings are expected to result in a new draft permit in Spring 2006.
A second general NPDES permit that would regulate storm water discharges from construction activities was issued by GAEPD and subsequently appealed in 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. Settlement negotiations involving the regulated community who filed the three petitions, several environmental organizations, GAEPD, and a professional facilitator began in October 1999. After months of negotiation, GAEPD issued a revised general NPDES permit GAR100000 for construction activities on June 12, 2000. The permit became effective on August 1, 2000. That permit regulated storm water discharges associated with land disturbances of five acres or greater. A three-tiered permitting structure allowed a differentiation of responsibility between permittees.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-13
The NPDES permit that regulates storm water discharges from construction activities was reissued by GAEPD on August 13, 2003. The permit was reissued as three permits: Stand Alone, Infrastructure and Common Development, and required coverage for projects disturbing one acre or more. Changes to the permit included a reduction in monitoring requirements, and the addition of a plan submittal requirement for projects located in areas that do not have a local issuing authority or are exempt from local issuing authority ordinances. The reissuance of the permit was facilitated by the Storm Water General Permit Advisory Committee (GPAC) who had been holding regular meetings since November 2000 to discuss permit issues. GPAC was comprised of those parties who were involved in the 1999 settlement negotiations, as well as additional stakeholders such as Georgia DOT. GPAC was tasked with recommending appropriate changes to the current permit, and examining how Phase II NPDES permitting for sites disturbing between one acre and five acres would be incorporated into the permits. The construction permits require permittees to implement best management practices, conduct inspections, and sample storm water leaving their site after certain rainfall events. Approximately 6,600 primary NOIs and 15,000 NOIs have been received by GAEPD as of September 30, 2005.
The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Technical Study Committee (Dirt II) was formed in 1996. Dirt II developed a two-phase mission statement. The first phase involved developing practical guidance for project site management and erosion and sediment control techniques with an emphasis on protecting water quality. The second phase focused on determining how best to meet turbidity levels recommended in previous "Dirt I" report. This involved an evaluation of new and emerging engineering tools, "state of the practice" erosion and sediment control devices and techniques, and resultant performance levels for both under various site and rainfall scenarios. The Dirt II Committee, whose efforts were partially funded by a $400,000 state grant, presented their findings and recommendations in a final report published by the Chattahoochee-Flint Regional Development Center in July 2001.
An important component of storm water management in Georgia is information exchange/technology transfer. GAEPD staff participated in many meetings and seminars throughout Georgia in an effort to disseminate information concerning Georgia's storm water requirements to the regulated community. In addition, staff from the central Atlanta office conducted inspections at approximately 85 industrial facilities to assess compliance with the industrial general storm water permit during 2004-2005. Approximately 12 of these inspections involved coordination with GAEPD Regional Office personnel.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-14
The GAEPD will continue to regulate storm water runoff from industrial facilities, construction sites and urban areas as a part of the point-source permitting process to protect water quality.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The Erosion and Sedimentation Act (Act) was signed into law in April 1975. This legislation was the result of over five years of work, debate, and legislative compromise. Agencies and groups that coordinated their efforts to this end included the Georgia Association of Conservation Districts, the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the GAEPD.
The intent of the Act is to establish a statewide and comprehensive program for erosion and sedimentation control to conserve and protect air, water and land resources of the State. The Act provides a mechanism for controlling erosion and sedimentation as related to certain land disturbing activities. Land disturbing activities are any activities which may result in soil erosion and the movement of sediments into State waters and onto lands within the State. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, clearing, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting, and filling of land. Activities not regulated under the Act include surface mining, construction of single family homes being constructed by the owner or under contract to an owner, and minor activities such as home landscaping and gardening.
Implementation of the Act involves local units of governments and State agencies. The Act provides for municipalities and Counties to adopt local ordinances and to become delegated "Issuing Authorities". The GAEPD delegates local "Issuing Authority" and administers the GAEPD rules where there is no local authority, and oversees local program implementation. Currently 212 municipalities and 119 counties have adopted ordinances, which have been reviewed by the GAEPD for compliance with the Act.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Overview Council (Council) was created in accordance with Senate Bill 524, which amended the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act in May 2000. The Council was tasked with developing recommendations governing the preparation of plans and the installation and maintenance of best management practices for erosion and sediment control for Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) projects. The Erosion and Sediment Control Overview Council did not meet during 2004 or 2005.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-15
House Bill 1426 was the second of the two amendments to the Act passed during the 2000 session. This amendment made changes to the stream buffer minimum requirements and required that the Georgia Board of Natural Resources establish new rules for the implementation of these changes. Other changes were the establishment of stop work procedures and minimum mandatory penalties for violations.
House Bill 285 was passed during the 2003 legislative session. The legislation amended the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act to create an integrated permitting program for erosion and sedimentation control for land disturbing activities of one acre or greater, thereby standardizing the requirements for local Land Disturbing Activity Permits and the NPDES Construction Storm Water Permits. The legislation incorporated feedback from the Erosion and Sediment Control Overview Council, recommendations from an Erosion and Sedimentation Program Performance Audit of September 2001, and information from various erosion and sedimentation committees. The amendment to the Act required that the Georgia Board of Natural Resources establish new rules to implement the changes to the Act, created Georgia's first NPDES permit fee system, and established training and education requirements for individuals involved in land development design, review, permitting, construction, monitoring or inspection of any land disturbing activity. The changes to the Act included elimination of Land Disturbing Activity Permits for jurisdictions that do not have a local issuing authority, requirement of a site visit by the plan preparer before creation of a erosion and sedimentation plan, replaced mandatory penalties with mandatory stop work orders for three specific types of violations, changes to permit exemptions, and reduction of the minimum permitting acreage limit from 1.1 project acres to 1.0 disturbed acres.
Senate Bill 460 was passed during the 2004 legislative session. The legislation amended the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act to add three new criteria under which the EPD director can consider stream buffer variances. The legislation also required The Georgia Board of Natural Resources to adopt amendments to the Erosion and Control Rules to implement the new criteria. In December 2004, the Georgia Board of Natural Resources adopted amendments to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Rules. These amendments, which went into effect on January 10, 2005, established three new criteria, deleted one existing criteria, and amended another criteria for the consideration of stream bank buffer variances. Also amended were the procedures for the review of stream buffer variances to implement the changes to the criteria.
During the 2004-2005 period, the GAEPD decertified as issuing authorities 8 counties and 14 cities. Nine of the cities and 8 of the counties requested decertification. Four of the cities were decertified because they did not update
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-16
their local ordinances in response to the 2003 changes to the Act. One city had its certification revoked for poor implementation of its erosion and sedimentation program. During this same period, 6 cities and 1 county were certified as local issuing authorities.
The GAEPD issued 52 stream buffer variances under the new rules established by Senate Bill 460 which went into effect on January 10, 2005.
GAEPD's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program was audited by the State Department of Audits in 2001. Their September 2001 report made several recommendations to improve the program. The primary recommendation is for better implementation of the program at the state and local level, particularly in the area of enforcement. The statutory, regulatory and permit changes that have occurred since that time have addressed the recommendations in the audit report.
Nonpoint Source Management Program
Nonpoint sources of water pollution are both diffuse in nature and difficult to define. Nonpoint source pollution can generally be defined as the pollution caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As water moves over or through the soil, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human activities, finally depositing them in lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and ground waters. Habitat alteration (e.g., removal of riparian vegetation) and hydrological modification (e.g., channelization, bridge construction) can cause adverse effects on the biological and physical integrity of surface waters and are also treated as nonpoint sources of pollution.
The diffuse nature of nonpoint sources (e.g., agriculture, construction, mining, silviculture, urban runoff) and the variety of pollutants generated by them create a challenge for their effective control. Although progress has been made in the protection and enhancement of water quality, much work is still needed to identify nonpoint source management strategies that are both effective and economically achievable under a wide range of conditions.
The control of dominant point source problems has allowed the GAEPD to place increasing emphasis on the prevention, control and abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution. The GAEPD is responsible for administering and enforcing laws to protect the waters of the State, defined to include surface and ground water. Consequently, the GAEPD has been designated as the administering or lead agency for implementing the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. This program combines regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, in
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-17
cooperation with other State and Federal agencies, local and regional governments, State colleges and universities, businesses and industries, nongovernmental organizations and individual citizens.
The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC) have been designated by the GAEPD as the lead agency for implementing the agricultural component of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. Similarly, the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) has been designated as the lead agency for implementing the silvicultural component of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has been designated the lead agency and point of contact for urban/rural nonpoint source pollution.
Georgia's initial Nonpoint Source Assessment Report was completed in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and approved by the USEPA in January 1990. This report, Water Quality in Georgia 2000-2001, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500, serves as the current process to update the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report.
The revision of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program in FFY 2000 met the requirements for funding under Section 319(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act and delineated short and long-term goals and implementation strategies. Just as important, it is also an information resource for the wide range of stakeholders across the State involved in the prevention, control and abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution. It was developed as an inventory of the full breadth of nonpoint source management (regulatory and non-regulatory) in Georgia, including activities for the time period FFY 2000 through FFY 2004.
Currently, the State is in the process of revising the Nonpoint Source Management Program to update the goals, activities and implementation strategies of the Program. The plan update will focus on the comprehensive categories of nonpoint sources of pollution identified by the USEPA: Agriculture, Silviculture, Construction, Urban Runoff, Hydrologic/Habitat Modification, Land Disposal, Resource Extraction and Other Nonpoint Sources, and will be developed through a consultation process, incorporating input from a wide range of stakeholders involved in nonpoint source management activities throughout the State: local, regional, State and Federal agencies, as well as private, nongovernmental organizations. This process will encourage intergovernmental resource sharing and increased stakeholder involvement. This revision of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program will establish new partnerships and strengthened existing partnerships in the development and implementation of nonpoint source strategies.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-18
Local governments, regional development centers, private non-governmental organizations and the general public have a critical role in developing and implementing nonpoint source management strategies. The State continues to expand its role in facilitating and supporting local and regional nonpoint source management activities. The GAEPD is currently in the process of forming a Statewide Nonpoint Source Task Force to assist in the direction and focus of the State's nonpoint source activities. The Task Force is assembled from a variety of stakeholder groups. The initial meeting of the Urban/Rural NPS Task Force Technical Advisory Committee has begun to meet to address specific nonpoint source issues or concerns. Additional Technical Advisory committees will be formed to address additional issues or concerns (agriculture, silvilculture, habitat/hydrologic modification, etc.)
Under Section 319(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act, the USEPA awards a Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant to the GAEPD to fund eligible projects that support the implementation of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. Section 319(h) Grant funds for the prevention, control and/or abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution are made available annually to public agencies in Georgia. Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act provides grants to the States to implement nonpoint source projects. The funds are distributed via competitive process to public agencies and governmental agencies. Receiving agencies are required to show substantial local commitment by providing at least 40% of the total project cost in local match or in-kind efforts. Priorities for projects include projects implementing the nonpoint source components of TMDL implementation plans, or projects addressing the violated criteria of listed streams. Education, demonstration, and technical assistance projects are also eligible for funding, subject to restrictions. In FY 04, Georgia's Section 319(h) grant project funded 17 projects for over $3.8 million, and 9 projects for over $4 million. For FY06, Georgia is poised to award over $3 million to local governments and agencies to support streambank restoration, watershed planning, TMDL implementation, and support of Georgia's Coastal Nonpoint Source Management Program.
Currently, Georgia's Nonpoint Source Program administers more than 130 Section 319(h) projects, totaling more than $35 million dollars in funds awarded to cooperating agencies. Projects activities include implementing TMDL implementation plans and Watershed Management Plans, watershed planning, monitoring and assessment, enforcement, technical assistance, and information and education.
Priorities for projects include projects implementing the nonpoint source components of TMDL implementation plans, or projects addressing the violated
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-19
criteria of listed streams. Education, demonstration, and technical assistance projects are also eligible for funding, subject to restrictions.
The GAEPD uses a competitive process to ensure that the most appropriate projects are selected for funding. In accordance with the Fair and Open Grant Act, the GAEPD publishes a description of the Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant Program with the Secretary of State prior to disbursement of any grant funds. In accordance with the provisions of O.C.G.A. 28-5-122, the grant description filed with the Secretary of State includes information regarding the general scope and purpose of the grant program, general terms and conditions of the grant, eligible recipients of the grant, criteria for the award, and directions and deadlines for applications.
Section 319(h) Grant projects must specifically identify the nonpoint sources of pollution being addressed and the activities proposed to prevent, control and/or abate these nonpoint sources of pollution. Types of activities which are eligible include: regulatory or non-regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, watershed projects, demonstration projects, update and refinement of nonpoint source programs and assessments, monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects, urban stormwater control activities not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit, and certain ground water activities. Lake protection and restoration activities are eligible provided that they are not used for in-lake work such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging unless the nonpoint sources of pollution will be remediated.
Eligible recipients of Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant funds include local, regional and State units of government, local authorities which operate local government service delivery programs, regional development centers, local school systems, State colleges and universities, and State agencies. Local governments must have Qualified Local Government status, in compliance with the requirements of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 and Service Delivery Strategy Law of 1997.
Priority is given to project proposals which implement the nonpoint source components of Total Maximum Daily Loads that have been approved under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act; develop and/or implement the nonpoint source components of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies; and implement action 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 uses due to nonpoint sources of pollution.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-20
In addition, priority is given to projects that encompass or support a watershed management approach and result in measurable improvements in water quality. A watershed approach is a strategy for effectively protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health. Major features of a watershed management approach are: targeting priority problems, promoting a high level of stakeholder involvement, integrated solutions that make use of the expertise and authority of multiple agencies, and measuring success through monitoring and other data gathering. The application of increased Section 319(h) Grant funds to focus on solving nonpoint source pollution problems will enable the State to make great strides in achieving water quality goals.
Agriculture
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 delineated in the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. Implementation of the Agriculture Nonpoint Source Management Program supports Georgia's River Basin Management Planning process as a critical State initiative to identify priority waters and to target nonpoint source management activities.
Agriculture nonpoint source pollution prevention opportunities can be broken down into handling of animal waste runoff, soil erosion, nutrients, pesticides, and agrichemicals. Water quality degradation and soil erosion can often be limited or prevented through the implementation of proven techniques. Georgia's Agriculture Nonpoint Source Management Program supports BMP demonstration projects, technical assistance, and research activities to explore and promote these techniques. Nutrient management plans and land application of effluent can improve soil and maintain water quality. This is an expanding area of research and demonstration in the specialized aquaculture segment and the traditional poultry, swine, and beef production sectors of the agriculture industry. Precision farming, integrated pest management (IPM), and other best management practices can often be used to decrease the need for agrichemical inputs and to increase their effectiveness on cropping systems. Many improved methods of storing and handling agrichemicals are based firmly in the principles of reducing risk of environmental contamination. Georgia has growing programs in pesticide container recycling, outdated pesticide collection, and selfadministered risk assessment consistent with the goals of pollution prevention in agricultural production and management. Agriculture nonpoint source management efforts that maintain or improve environmental quality, focus on
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-21
pollution prevention, and demonstrate techniques for economic viability will continue to guide Georgia toward sustainable agricultural systems.
The statewide non-regulatory approach uses cooperative partnerships with various agencies and a variety of activities and programs. Agencies that form the basis of the partnerships include the GSWCC (designated lead agency administrating the Agriculture Nonpoint Source Management Program), SWCD, NRCS, UGACAES, CES, FSA, GFC and the GDA. These agencies work closely with Georgia agricultural commodity commissions and organizations such as the GFBF, GAC, RC&D Councils, Cattleman's Association, Milk Producers, Pork Producers Association, Poultry Federation, Goldkist, The Georgia Conservancy, and GWF as well as other producer groups and agriculture support industries to prevent and solve water quality problems. In addition to the agriculture agencies and interest groups, a working partnership with individual land users is the cornerstone of soil and water conservation in Georgia.
The cooperating agencies have specific functions and directions. All have an information, education, and public participation component to support their objective to improve and maintain water quality. Of the agriculture agencies, only the GDA has enforcement authority. The GSWCC works with GAEPD, the enforcement agency for the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, to resolve agricultural water quality complaints, where appropriate. The UGACAES and NRCS produce and distribute numerous brochures and fact sheets dealing with agriculture best management practices and water quality.
A cooperative effort between UGACAES and P2AD is providing pollution prevention information, education and technical assistance to the farmer and green industry professionals to reduce nonpoint source pollution as a result of fertilizer and pesticide use. The GSWCC, UGACAES, GAEPD and the P2AD have established the Georgia Farm-A-Syst Program to address the problems of nonpoint source contamination of surface and groundwater from agricultural sources. The overall objective of this program is to develop and test voluntary agricultural self assessment materials to fit the needs and conditions throughout the State. The self assessments, fact sheets, and action plans encourage farmers to become environmentally proactive and to ultimately take steps to prevent nonpoint source pollution. Additional information is available at the national Farm-A-Syst website, www.uwex.edu/farmasyst, with links to the Georgia Farm-A-Syst Program.
The GSWCC has continued to sponsor local demonstration projects, provide farmers with visual demonstrations and information on the use and installation of best management practices, and collect data and generate computer databases on land use, animal units and agricultural BMP implementation. The GSWCC
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-22
has published and continues to distribute the following guidebooks for implementing agricultural best management practices to protect the State's waters: Agricultural Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Georgia, Planning Considerations for Animal Waste Systems, A Georgia Guide to Controlling EROSION with Vegetation, and Guidelines for Streambank Restoration.
Since 1990, approximately $11,650,000 in Section 319(h) Grant monies have been used to fund agricultural water quality demonstration projects in Georgia. In addition to the minimum 40% required non-federal in-kind match, the NRCS has contributed hundreds of hours of time worth many millions of dollars in technical assistance to support these projects. The UGACAES, GSWCC, FSA, GFC and other agencies have also contributed significant technical assistance to support these projects. These projects offer solutions, as well as financial and technical implementation assistance, in identified priority watersheds.
The 2002 Farm Bill contains conservation provisions that will have far reaching impacts on the protection of water quality from nonpoint source pollution in Georgia. The conservation provisions seek to improve the flexibility and efficiency of existing programs by diversifying agency participation in the delivery of conservation programs that protect water quality and related natural resources.
2002 Farm Bill Programs under NRCS supervision include the Forestry Incentive Program (FIP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP),the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),the Wildlife Habitats Incentives Program (WHIP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),the Farmland Protection Program and the new conservation Security Program (CSP). Collectively these programs, described more fully in the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program, 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 focuses first and foremost on resource concerns and considers conservation programs 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. Programs in the Bill seek to 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 environmental protection goals. Applying common goals to address resource
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-23
concerns in many of Georgia's geographic settings, which vary greatly, will encourage multiple agencies to find common solutions to resource impairment.
The Federal cost-share programs in the Bill will bring millions of dollars to Georgia. By requiring priority areas to be identified and ranked, conservation assistance will maximize the environmental benefit per dollar expended. Therefore, capital funding and technical expertise can be leveraged to enhance ongoing State and local efforts to more efficiently manage our natural resources.
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 programs 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 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.
The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) is a voluntary conservation program that promotes environmental quality to producers and helps farmers and ranchers reduce soil erosion, improve water use efficiency and protect grazing land by installing conservation practices that protect natural resources. EQIP provides technical, financial and educational assistance.
NRCS is the lead agency for EQIP and works with many State and local partners to identify local priorities and recommend priority areas and program policy. In 2003, the EQIP program provided over $10 million in incentive payments and cost-sharing for conservation practices through 720 contracts. Requests for funds were more than four times the available funds. In 2004, more than $12 million dollars in cost-share funds were available for implementation in Georgia.
In 2005, the EQIP program provided over $10 million in incentive payments and cost-sharing for conservation practices covering more than 200,000 acres, including 400,000 linear feet of fencing, 140,000 acres of heavy use protection, and 4,500 stream crossings. In 2006, $14.3 million in EQIP cost-share funds will be available for implementation in Georgia, and more than $21 million dollars in overall Farm Bill programs.
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program that supports ongoing stewardship of working agricultural lands by providing payments for maintaining and enhancing natural resources. CSP identifies and rewards those farmers who are meeting the highest standards of conservation
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-24
and environmental management on their operations. In addition, CSP creates powerful incentives for other producers to meet those same standards of conservation performance. Through these rewards and incentives, CSP builds a foundation of conservation that provides current and future benefits to the public.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) uses watersheds to determine CSP participation as a best science-based way to group together producers working on similar environmental issues. As CSP grows, more watersheds will be added to the areas eligible for sign up each year.
For 2004, Georgia's Little River Watershed, part of the Suwannee River Basin was targeted. 37 contracts were approved for the Little River Watershed, covering more than 32,000 acres. A total of $915,928 in payments were approved, averaging $25,000 per contract.
Five contiguous watersheds were selected to participate in 2005: the Middle Flint, Ichaway-nochaway, Kinchafoonee-Muckalee, Little, and Upper Ochlockonee Watersheds. 111 contracts were approved in the five watershed area, including management practices to address water quality, nutrients, soil quality, and wildlife habitat. More than $2.8 million in payments were approved, averaging $25,000 per contract. Georgia's CSP watersheds for 2006 will be the Withlacoochee and Little Ocmulgee.
Watersheds that are selected to participate contain a variety of land uses and input intensities, have high-priority resource issues to be addressed, including issues that meet State priorities, have a history of good land stewardship on the part of landowners, and have the technical tools necessary to streamline program implementation. Watersheds also were evaluated from a national perspective regarding regional resource issues. Additional information may be found at: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/
Silviculture
The Georgia Forestry Commission has been an integral partner with the GAEPD since 1977, committed to protect and maintain the integrity and quality of the State's waters. The GAEPD designated the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) as the lead agency for the silviculture portion of the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. The Silviculture Nonpoint Source Management Program is managed and implemented by the GFC, with the support of the forestry industry, for the voluntary implementation of best management practices.
This program is managed by a Statewide Water Quality Coordinator and 12 foresters serving as District Water Quality Coordinators. The GFC Statewide and
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-25
District Water Quality Coordinators have received specialized training in erosion and sediment control, forest road layout and construction, stream habitat assessment and wetland delineation. The Statewide and District Water Quality Coordinators provide local and statewide training to forest community through workshops, field demonstrations, presentations, management advice to landowners and distribution of Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry manual and brochures.
The GFC also investigates and mediates complaints involving forestry operations. After notifying the landowner, the GFC District Coordinators conduct field inspections to determine if best management practices were followed, if the potential for water quality problems exists, if a contract was used and who purchased the timber. If a written contract was executed, the GFC District Coordinators will verify if the contractual agreement contains a clause specifying the implementation of BMP. If problems do exist, the GFC District Coordinator will work with the timber buyer and/or logger on behalf of the landowner to correct the problems. Complaints usually involve logging debris left in streams and are resolved without involving the GAEPD. However, the GFC is not a regulatory authority. Therefore, in situations when the GFC cannot get satisfactory compliance, the case is turned over to the GAEPD for enforcement action as provided under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.
The State Board of Registration for Foresters has adopted procedures to sanction or revoke the licenses of registered foresters involved in unresolved complaints where actions or lack of supervision to implement best management practices have resulted in violations of the Board's land ethic criterion, Georgia Water Quality Control Act, or Federal wetlands regulations.
A long-term goal of Georgia's Nonpoint Source Management Program is to achieve 100% compliance in implementation of recommended Best Management Practices for silviculture. Since 1981, partner agencies in Georgia have been promoting silviculture BMPs to protect water quality in their educational programs. To determine the success of educational programs, and the effectiveness of recommended BMPs, the GFC (with financial support from Section 319(h) funds) conducts a biennial Statewide BMP Compliance Survey. The survey assesses the application of best management practices by logging operations.
In 2002, the GFC completed a biennual standardized survey of BMP compliance, including the rates of BMP implementation, units (areas, miles, crossings) in BMP compliance, effectiveness of BMPs, and areas to target for future BMP training. Overall BMP compliance was 99.1% (out of 49,452 acres evaluated.) This is a one percent increase from the 1998 survey, and more than seven
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-26
percent increase from the 1992 survey. Out of the 12,195 applicable, individual BMPs evaluated, 86% were implemented, a seven percent increase from the 1998 survey, and a nearly 20% increase from 1992. Out of the 226 miles of streams evaluated, more than 94% were found to have no impacts or impairments from forestry practices. The results from the biennial Statewide BMP Compliance Surveys will be used to update and revise the Silviculture Nonpoint Source Management Program.
The survey results for 2004 increased overall BMP compliance to 99.4% (out of 43,947 acres evaluated.) This is a point three (0.3) percent increase from the 2002 survey. Out of the 12,093 applicable, individual BMPs evaluated, 89.8% were implemented, a three point nine (3.9) percent increase from the 2002 survey. Out of the 234.68 miles of streams evaluated, more than 95.9% were found to have no impacts or impairments from forestry practices. This is an improvement of 1.7% from the 2002 survey. The results from the biennial Statewide BMP Compliance Surveys will be used to update and revise the Silviculture Nonpoint Source Management Program.
Currently, silviculture BMP compliance is estimated to be at more than 99%. As of this report, the Georgia Forestry Commission has instructed over 3,000 individuals in proper BMP uses. In addition, the Georgia Forestry Commission has addressed and resolved over 75 different logging complaints, and has conducted more than 150 one-to-one conferences with silviculture workers and professionals on-site or in the field.
The Georgia Forestry Association (GFA) and the forestry industry have played a significant role in encouraging the voluntary implementation of BMPs in Georgia. The forest industry has initiated numerous education workshops and training programs. The American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA) has adopted the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program. The objective of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program is to induce and promote a proactive approach to forest management, including the protection of water resources. Two pertinent aspects of this program are: 1) A continuing series of 2 day Master Timber Harvester Workshops with a component devoted to the protection of water resources and the implementation of best management practices, and 2) A Land Owner Outreach Program which endeavors to deliver information about forestry management and the protection of water resources to forest land owners.
Urban Runoff
The 1990 report of the Community Stream Management Task Force, We All Live Downstream, established a road map for urban runoff nonpoint source management in Georgia. The task force was convened in 1988 to assist the
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-27
Georgia Department of Natural Resources with impacts on urban streams. The task force's report emphasized the importance of cooperative partnerships and building working relationships between the units of government responsible for land and water quality management. Educational, management, and support strategies were recommended to help move toward an integrated structure which would allow continued evolution of intergovernmental and private sector structures and promote development of urban stream management activities over time.
The task force recognized two major impediments to effective management of urban water bodies. The first is the division between statutory responsibilities for management of water quality, granted to GAEPD, and local governments' constitutional responsibility for management of the land activities that affect urban waterbodies. The second impediment is the diffuse nature of nonpoint source pollution and the variety of activities that may contribute to impacts from urban runoff. They concluded that urban runoff nonpoint source management would require a cooperative partnership between layers of government, the private sector, and the general public. The development of such a partnership will require a strong impetus to accept new institutional roles and make the structural changes necessary to support and sustain the stream management process.
Since publication of We All Live Downstream, urban runoff nonpoint source management in Georgia has continued to evolve. Consistent with the multiple sources of urban runoff, the management systems have multiple focuses. Some programs focus on specific sources of urban runoff, targeting implementation of structural and/or management BMPs on individual sites or systemwide. Other programs treat corridors along waterbodies as a management unit to prevent or control the impacts of urban runoff on urban streams. Additional programs focus on comprehensive watershed management. This approach, which considers the impacts of all the land draining into a waterbody and incorporates integrated management techniques, is particularly critical to protecting and enhancing the quality of urban streams. Urban waterbodies cannot be effectively managed without controlling the adverse impacts of activities in their watersheds.
While the State continues to have an important regulatory role, aspects of the cooperative intergovernmental partnerships envisioned by the task force have emerged and are being strengthened. GAEPD is implementing programs which go beyond traditional regulation, providing the regulated community with greater flexibility and responsibility for determining management practices. The GAEPD is also expanding its role in facilitation and support of local watershed management efforts.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-28
In this next decade, water resource management and the regulatory issues pertaining to water will be the most critical environmental issues faced by many local governments. Unlike many of the environmental issues local governments have faced in the past, water issues must be addressed on a regional or watershed basis to be truly effective. The major urban/industrial region of the State is highly dependent upon limited surface water resources found in the northern portion of the State. With limited storage capacity and limited ground water resources in this region, it is imperative that these limited water resources be used wisely and their quality be maintained. In South Georgia, groundwater resources must be managed carefully to prevent contamination and salt water intrusion from excess water withdrawals. A stable, reliable framework and clearinghouse for regional cooperation, information sharing, and technical assistance is needed to prepare local governments and citizens to meet these challenges. The Georgia Department of Community Affairs' Urban Nonpoint Source Management Program will fulfill this need.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the lead partner and point of contact for urban nonpoint source pollution. As a lead partner with GAEPD, and utilizing Section 319(h) Grant funds, Georgia DCA is developing an Urban Nonpoint Source Management Program to foster regional watershed approaches to protect and enhance water quality. The Program will establish a single point of contact for local governments to use when they are seeking state or federal support to address issues related to water quality in their community. As an information and networking center, the Program will provide water resources tools, one-on-one technical assistance, and workshops to address regional water quality issues to more than 2,500 local elected officials currently serving 159 counties and 532 cities. The Urban Nonpoint Source Management Program will also provide tools to link land-use and water quality in land-use planning, promote smart growth principles, and provide public education materials and programs on protecting water resources. DCA has recently completed an intensive and creative technical assistance period (charrette) with Tybee Island. This charrette helped Tybee island to create a plan for managing stormwater, and urban runoff. DCA completed the charrette March 14, 2005.
Additionally, an array of programs to manage urban runoff are under development or being implemented in a variety of locales. Catalysts which contribute to more comprehensive management of urban waterbodies include public interest groups, local governments, regional development centers, State agencies, and State laws and regulations (e.g., Metropolitan Rivers Protection Act, Georgia Planning Act Part V Standards). The development and implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for waterbodies not meeting water quality standards will continue to spur local and regional watershed management initiatives.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-29
Other initiatives have been implemented to further statewide coordination and implementation of urban runoff best management practices. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and the GAEPD published the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual Volume 1, Stormwater Policy Guide and Volume 2, Technical Handbook in August 2001. This guidance manual for developers and local governments illustrates proper design of best management practices for controlling stormwater and nonpoint source pollution in urban areas in Georgia.
The University of Georgia's Marine Extension Service (MAREX) has partnered with local government officials to improve water quality through the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program, part of the national Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) network. The project is funded with a Coastal Incentive grant funds, and is also working closely with the Department of Community Affairs on their overall Statewide nonpoint source education efforts. MAREX provides educational programming, applied research, and technical assistance to communities along Georgia's coast
Other initiatives have been implemented to further statewide coordination and implementation of urban runoff best management practices. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and the GAEPD published the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual Volume 1, Stormwater Policy Guide and Volume 2, Technical Handbook in August 2001. This guidance manual for developers and local governments illustrates proper design of best management practices for controlling stormwater and nonpoint source pollution in urban areas in Georgia.
The GAEPD and the University of Georgia School of Environmental Design developed land development code recommendations for incorporation into existing and/or new local government ordinances. The document, Land Development Provisions to Protect Georgia Water Quality, describes provisions that could be modified in or added to local development regulations to better protect water quality. This report also includes two sections introducing the problem of runoff water quality and its relationship to urban development. This document is intended to serve as a partial "menu" from which each municipality can select appropriate provisions and adapt them to the local conditions. Municipal ordinances where these provisions could be used include zoning and subdivision ordinances, erosion and sedimentation control codes, stormwater management ordinances and design standards documents.
In cooperation with the ARC, the GAEPD has also produced and distributed the reports, Protecting Community Streams: A Guidebook for Local Governments in Georgia and Urban Streams Assessment and Evaluation Guidelines. The guidebooks outline actions that a local community can undertake to protect its
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-30
healthy streams and restore its degraded streams. The guidebooks provide details of where and how to collect information on stream water quality, how to evaluate the quality of a community's streams, what protection measures should be considered and how all of this can be put together in an integrated planning and management program. The guidebooks are intended for use by government officials, public works departments, planning departments and drainage departments, but are also useful resources to any individual or community group interested in stream protection. The focus of the guidebooks is not only the stream and the stream's edge but the entire land area of watershed that drains into the stream. Streams are best protected through careful development of the land that they drain.
To a large extent, however, the conclusions of the Community Stream Management Task Force (CSMTF) still hold. The division between the State's responsibilities for water quality management and local responsibility for land management, as well as the variety of activities and sources which contribute to urban runoff problems, continue to pose challenges for management of nonpoint sources.
The water quality in an urban and/or developing watershed is the result of both point source discharges and the impact of diverse land activities in the drainage basin (i.e., nonpoint sources). Activities which can alter the integrity of urban waterbodies include habitat alteration, hydrological modification, erosion and sedimentation associated with land disturbing activities, stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, illicit discharges, improper storage and/or disposal of deleterious materials, and intermittent failure of sewerage systems. In a more recent assessment, studies reviewed by the CSMTF indicated that waterbodies throughout the State are threatened by the effects of urban development. During urbanization, pervious, vegetated ground is converted to impervious, unvegetated land. Land imperviousness in urban areas - as rooftops, roads, parking lots, and sidewalks - can range from 35% in lightly urbanized areas to nearly 100% in heavily urbanized areas. Increases in pollutant loading generated from human activities are associated with urbanization, and imperviousness results in increased stormwater volumes and altered hydrology in urban areas.
While the State has statutory responsibilities for water resources, local governments have the constitutional authority for the management of land activities. Therefore, it is necessary to forge cooperative partnerships between the State, local and regional governments, business and industry, and the general public. Watershed planning and management initiatives are necessary to identify local problems, implement corrective actions and coordinate the efforts of cooperating agencies.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-31
Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) Program
Nonpoint sources of pollution are diffuse and varied; therefore, prevention, control and abatement of nonpoint source impacts will require action by a wide range of audiences. Effective nonpoint source management must address numerous activities of individuals, businesses, industries and governments that can adversely affect urban and rural waters. In many cases, these groups are unaware of the potential impacts of their activities or the corrective actions which may be taken.
A report outlining a plan for nonpoint source education in Georgia was completed in 1994. The Georgia Urban Waterbody Education Plan and Program delineated nonpoint source education strategies for seven target audiences: general public, environmental interest organizations, civic associations, educators, business associations, local government officials and State government officials. Given the limited resources and the scope of effort required to target each of these audiences concurrently, statewide nonpoint source education and outreach programs have been limited to the Georgia Project WET Program and the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program.
In October 1996, the Georgia EPD selected Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) curriculum as the most appropriate water science and nonpoint source education curriculum for the State. The Project WET curriculum is an interdisciplinary water science and education curriculum that can be easily integrated into the existing curriculum of a school, museum, university preservice class, or a community organization. The goals of the Georgia Project WET Program are to facilitate and to promote awareness, appreciation, knowledge and stewardship of water resources through the development and dissemination of classroom (K-12) ready teaching aids.
The success of the Georgia Project WET Program has been phenomenal. Since 1997, several Project WET facilitator training workshops have been successfully completed across the State with over 400 Project WET facilitators trained statewide. In addition, more than 250 Project WET educator workshops have been completed in Georgia with more than 5,200 formal and non-formal educators implementing the Project WET curriculum in Georgia with a substantial number of students over 600,000 students annually!
The Georgia Project WET Program provides educators with additional resources such as the Enviroscape Nonpoint Source, Wetlands and Groundwater Flow Models demonstration tools used to emphasize the impacts of nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground waters, scripted theatrical performances and
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-32
costumes for Mama Bass and the Mudsliders, and promotional and instructional training videos. In addition, the Dragonfly Gazette, a bi-annual newsletter, is published and distributed to over 4000 educators statewide and nationally. Information is also available on the Georgia Project WET website, www.gaprojectwet.org
Each year, the Georgia Project WET Program partners with the Environmental Education Alliance of Georgia to conduct an Statewide conference and awards ceremony. The 2005 conference, Keys for Successful Partnerships, was held at the Unicoi State Park and Lodge near Helen, Georgia with over 250 participants.
During the conference each year, Georgia Project WET announces the Project WET School of the Year. Schools are selected based on their efforts to increase awareness about water issues and their commitment to water education. The chosen school receives funding and organizational assistance to host a Water Education Festival at their school. This annual event, Make a Splash with Project WET, is a national effort sponsored by Project WET USA and Nestle Waters, Inc. The Make a Splash with Project WET water festivals around the country consist of structured learning stations and exhibits where students actively engage in hands-on activities and investigations. More than 50,000 children around the country join together raising awareness about the importance of protecting our water resources. Additional information is available on the International Project WET website, www.projectwetusa.org.
In 2004, Georgia Project WET partnered with the City of Atlanta's Department of Watershed Management to produce The Urban Watershed: A Supplement to the Project WET Curriculum and Activity Guide. This supplement includes twelve real-world, engaging activities that have been designed for 4-8th grade students. The activities address topics such as water quality, non-point source pollution, drinking water systems, wastewater systems and impervious surfaces. It is the first curriculum of its kind, focusing on the Chattahoochee River watershed and the unique issues that face an urban watershed. To date, over 65 educators have been trained to implement the curriculum in their classrooms and in the field. In addition, the City of Atlanta was honored with the Public Education Award from the Association of Water Professionals as a result of its part in developing this Urban Supplement to Project WET.
The Georgia Project WET Program has been nationally recognized as a model program for its training strengths and techniques specifically, the use of arts in environmental education. The Georgia Project WET Program offers educators in Georgia the opportunity to participate in the River of Words, an international poetry and art contest for students (K-12). This contest provides students with the opportunity to explore their own watersheds and to learn their "ecological"
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-33
addresses through poetry and art. The Georgia Project WET Program offers a free River of Words Teacher's Guide for educators with specific information about Georgia's watersheds. In addition, several nature centers throughout Georgia offer River of Words field trips for students and teachers.
National winners are selected by the former U.S. Poet Laureate, Robert Hass, and the International Children's Art Museum. Annually, only eight students are selected as National Grand Prize Winners to be honored at the Library of Congress in Washington DC or in San Francisco, California.
Over 20,000 entries are submitted to the River of Words contest each year and in 2001 three out of the eight National Grand Prize Winners were from Georgia! Since 1997, eleven students from Georgia have been recognized as National Grand Prize Winners and over 75 students have been selected as National Finalists and Merit Winners. In addition to the students that are recognized Nationally, Georgia Project WET conducts a State judging each year in which approximately 30 students are honored as State winners.
The State and National winners' work display in the Georgia River of Words Exhibition. Each year, Georgia Project WET partners with the Atlanta Botanical Garden to conduct the Georgia River of Words Awards Ceremony recognizing State and National winners from across the State. The event is a huge success with over 250 guests from all regions of the State attending each year.
Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program
The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program is a citizen monitoring and stream protection program with two staff positions in the Georgia EPD and over 50 local community and watershed Adopt-A-Stream coordinators. The community and watershed coordinators are a network of college, watershed, or local government -based training centers located throughout Georgia. This network of local coordinators provides training workshops and educational presentations that allow the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program to be accessible to all areas of the State. The Regional Training Centers ensure that volunteers are trained consistently and that the monitoring data is professionally assessed for quality assurance and quality control.
Stakeholder involvement and stewardship are essential to implementing Georgia's River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) approach to water resource management. The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program objectives support the RBMP strategies for stakeholder involvement and stewardship: (1) increase individual's awareness of how they contribute to nonpoint source pollution problems, (2) generate local support for nonpoint source management
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-34
through public involvement and monitoring of waterbodies, and (3) provide educational resources and technical assistance for addressing nonpoint source pollution problems statewide.
Currently, more than 13,000 volunteers participate in 240 individual and over 50 community sponsored Adopt-A-Stream Programs. Volunteers conduct clean ups, stabilize streambanks, monitor waterbodies using biological and chemical methods, and evaluate habitats and watersheds at over 265 sites throughout the State. These activities lead to a greater awareness of water quality and nonpoint source pollution, active cooperation between the public and local governments in protecting water resources, and the collection of basic water quality data. The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program focuses on what individuals and communities can do to protect from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Volunteers are offered different levels of involvement. Each level involves an education and action component on a local waterbody. The introductory level consist of setting up a project (i.e., identifying a stream segment, lake, estuary or wetland, identifying partners, registering with the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program), evaluating land use and stream conditions during a watershed walk, conducting quarterly visual operations and clean-ups, and public outreach activities. Volunteers create a "Who to Call for Questions or Problems" list so that if something unusual is noted, immediate professional attention can be obtained. Advanced levels of involvement include biological monitoring, chemical monitoring, habitat improvement or riparian restoration projects.
The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program provides volunteers with additional resources such as the Getting to Know Your Watershed and Visual Stream Survey, Biological and Chemical Stream Monitoring, Adopt-A-Wetland, Adopt-ALake, and Adopt-A-Stream Teacher's Guide manuals, PowerPoint presentations, and promotional and instructional training videos. Every two months a newsletter is published and distributed to over 4,500 volunteers statewide with program updates, workshop schedules, and information about available resources. Additional information about the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program, watershed investigation and water quality monitoring is available on the Rivers Alive website, at www.GaAAS.org. All Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program activities have been correlated to the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) for grades K 12 and certified teachers in Georgia participating in Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program training workshops will receive Professional Learning Unit (PLU) credits. Additional information about the GPS correlations and PLU credits can be found online. A recent update to the website includes links for viewing volunteer monitoring data and landuse and professional water quality data in a single format via the Internet. Data sharing developments like this website will
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-35
improve volunteer monitor's capacity to learn about and protect local water bodies.
In February 2005, Georgia Adopt-A-Stream partnered with the Georgia River Network to present the Watershed Track at their annual conference. This event helped connect citizens with activities that help protect and improve Georgia waters. In March 2005, the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program partnered with the Environmental Education Alliance of Georgia to conduct an annual conference and awards ceremony. The 2005 conference, Georgia Environment - Keys for Successful Partnership, was held at Unicoi State Park and Lodge, near Helen, Georgia with over 250 participants.
In addition, the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program organizes Georgia's annual volunteer river clean up event, Rivers Alive, held throughout the month of October. Rivers Alive is a statewide event that targets clean-ups across all waterways in the State including streams, rivers, lakes wetlands and coastal waters. The mission of Rivers Alive is to create awareness of and involvement in the preservation of Georgia's water resources.
During the 2005 river cleanup, more than 24,500 volunteers cleaned over 2,450 miles of waterways and removed over 680,000 pounds of trash and garbage including refrigerators, couches, a shower stall, televisions, microwaves, tires, shingles and general trash. Rivers Alive is an annual event that receives key support in the form of corporate sponsorship for the purchase of t-shirts, watershed posters, bookmarks and educational materials. The cleanup event also provides signs, press releases through public service announcements and advertises on local television stations. In addition to protecting and preserving the State's waterways, Rivers Alive cleanup events include diverse activities such as stormdrain stenciling, water quality monitoring and riparian restoration workshops, riverboat tours, wastewater treatment facility tours and environmental education workshops.
The goals for Rivers Alive are to have at least 25,000 volunteers with at local events in every county across Georgia. These goals represent increased efforts that will result in cleaner waters in the State. Additional information about Rivers Alive is available on the website, www.riversalive.org.
Emergency Response Program
The GAEPD maintains a team of Environmental Emergency Specialists capable of responding to oil or hazardous materials spills 24-hours a day. Each team member is cross-trained to address and enforce all environmental laws administered by the GAEPD. The team members interact at the command level
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-36
with local, state and federal agency personnel to ensure the protection of human health and the environment during emergency and post emergency situations. The majority of the team members are located in Atlanta in order to facilitate rapid access to the major interstates. Two additional team members operate out of the Environmental Protection Division office in Savannah to provide rapid response to water quality concerns along the coast of Georgia and to assist the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Office when needed.
A significant number of reported releases involve discharges to storm sewers. Many citizens and some industries do not understand the distinction between storm and sanitary sewers and intentional discharge to storm sewers occurs all too frequently. A problem which arises several times a year involves the intentional discharge of gasoline to storm sewers, with a resulting buildup of vapors to explosive limits. A relatively small amount of gasoline can result in explosive limits being reached in a storm sewer. The resulting evacuations and industry closures cost the citizens of Georgia hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
The GAEPD is designated in the Georgia Emergency Operations Plan as the lead state agency in responding to hazardous materials spills. Emergency Response Team members serve in both a technical support and regulatory mode during an incident. The first goal of the Emergency Response Team is to minimize and mitigate harm to human health and the environment. In addition, appropriate enforcement actions including civil penalties are taken with respect to spill incidents. Emergency Response Team members work directly with responsible parties to coordinate all necessary clean-up actions. Team members can provide technical assistance with clean-up techniques, as well as guidance to ensure regulatory compliance.
Environmental Radiation
In 1976, the Georgia Radiation Control Act was amended to provide the GAEPD with responsibility for monitoring of radiation and radioactive materials in the environment. The Environmental Radiation Program was created to implement these responsibilities for environmental monitoring. Since that time, the Program has also been assigned responsibility for implementing the GAEPD lead agency role in radiological emergency planning, preparedness and response, and for analyzing drinking water samples collected pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the presence of naturally-occurring radioactive materials such as uranium, 226Ra, 228Ra and gross alpha activity.
The Environmental Radiation Program monitors environmental media in the vicinity of nuclear facilities in or bordering Georgia to determine if radioactive
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-37
materials are being released into the environment in quantities sufficient to adversely affect the health and safety of the citizens of Georgia or the quality of Georgia's environment. Among the more important of the facilities monitored by the Program are:
Georgia Power Company Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, located in Appling County, Georgia;
Alabama Power Company Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, located in Houston County, Alabama;
Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, located in Burke County, Georgia;
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site, located in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina;
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, located in Camden County, Georgia;
Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, located in Hamilton County, Tennessee; and
Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Plant, located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
On a routine basis, associates in the Environmental Radiation Program collect samples of groundwater, surface water, stream sediment and/or aquatic species (i.e. fish, shellfish) from each of these facilities. The Program contracts with the Environmental Radiation Laboratory (ERL) at Georgia Tech for laboratory analysis of these samples for natural and man-made radionuclides such as 90Sr, 131I, 137Cs and 3H (tritium).
The results of the GAEPD monitoring around Plant Hatch indicate very little evidence of releases of radioactive materials, with the exception of monitoring related to a 1986 spill of spent fuel pool water, as discussed in the GAEPD Environmental Monitoring Reports. Slightly elevated levels of 60Co, 65Zn, 134Cs, and 137Cs have been detected in fish and river sediment from the Altamaha River downstream to the coastal area near Darien. Slightly elevated levels of 137Cs are observed in vegetation samples from a background station plant cannot be attributed to plant operations, as similar levels are not found at indicator stations closer to the plant. Overall, it appears that Plant Hatch operations have not added significant quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-38
The results of the GAEPD monitoring around Plant Farley indicate little evidence of releases of radioactive materials, with the exception of slightly elevated levels of tritium (3H) in surface water and slight traces of 58Co and 60Co in river sediment.
Results of the GAEPD monitoring around SRS and Plant Vogtle show evidence of current and previous releases of radioactive materials from SRS. Elevated levels of tritium (3H) due to airborne and liquid releases are routinely detected in fish, milk, precipitation, surface water and vegetation. Elevated levels of 137Cs and 60Co, attributed to releases from previous SRS operations, are found in sediments from the Savannah River. Elevated 137Cs, gross beta, and 90Sr levels are also found in fish from the Savannah River. Staff of the Environmental Radiation Program are working with SRS personnel on a study of the effects on human health from consumption of contaminated fish. The GAEPD monitoring results also show evidence of current and previous releases of radioactive materials from Plant Vogtle. Slightly elevated concentrations of 54Mn, 58Co, and 60Co have been detected in aquatic vegetation and sediment downstream of Plant Vogtle, and 134Cs has been detected in fish downstream of the plant.
The results of the GAEPD monitoring around Kings Bay indicate little evidence of releases of radioactive materials. Elevated gross beta concentrations in surface water are due to naturally-occurring 40K in sea-water. Overall, it appears that operations at Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay have not added significant quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.
The results of the GAEPD monitoring around the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant indicate no evidence of releases of radioactive materials.
Results of the GAEPD monitoring around the Oconee Nuclear Plant indicate no evidence of releases of radioactive materials. Elevated gross alpha and gross beta concentrations observed in ground water at one location are due to the presence of 226Ra (naturally-occurring radioactive isotope).
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
7-39
CHAPTER 8
Groundwater, Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals/Availability, and Ground and Surface Water Drinking Water Supplies
Groundwater
Georgia began the development of its Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Program (CSGWPP) in the 1970s with enactment of the Ground Water Use Act in 1972. By the mid-1980s, groundwater protection and management had been established by incorporation in a variety of environmental laws and the rules. In 1984, the GAEPD published its first Groundwater Management Plan, in which the various regulatory programs dealing with groundwater were integrated.
Most laws providing for protection and management of groundwater are administered by the GAEPD. Laws regulating pesticides are administered by the Department of Agriculture, environmental planning by the Department of Community Affairs, and on-site sewage disposal by the Department of Human Resources. The GAEPD has established formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with these agencies. The Georgia Groundwater Protection Coordinating Committee was established in 1992 to coordinate groundwater management activities between the various departments of state government and the several branches of the GAEPD.
The first version of Georgia's Groundwater Management Plan (1984) has been revised several times to incorporate new laws, rules and technological advances. The current version, Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 11, was published in February, 1998. This document was GAEPD's submission to the USEPA as a "core" CSGWPP. The USEPA approved the submittal in September of 1997. Georgia is now one of approximately 20 percent of the states with an EPA approved CSGWPP.
Groundwater is extremely important to the life, health, and economy of Georgia. For example, in 2002, groundwater made up approximately 20 percent of the public water supply, 100 percent of rural drinking water sources, 58 percent of the irrigation use and 47 percent of the industrial and mining use. Total
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-1
groundwater withdrawals in 2002 were approximately 1.26 billion gallons per day. For practical purposes, outside the larger cities of the Piedmont, groundwater is the dominant source of drinking water. The economy of Georgia and the health of millions of persons could be compromised if Georgia's groundwater were to be significantly polluted.
Relatively few cases of ground water contamination adversely affecting public drinking water systems or privately owned drinking water wells have been documented in Georgia, and currently, the vast majority of Georgia's population is not at risk from ground water pollution of drinking water. However, there are various old petroleum underground storage tanks, old landfills and other sites with known ground water contamination which (1) pose a threat to public drinking water systems or individual drinking water wells, or (2) render the existing ground water on or near those sites unusable for drinking water should that use be considered now or in the future. These sites are being addressed primarily through State laws and programs dealing with underground storage tanks, hazardous waste management or hazardous site remediation. Data on the major sources of groundwater contamination are provided in Table 8-1.
The GAEPD's groundwater regulatory programs follow an anti-degradation policy under which regulated activities will not develop into significant threats to the State's groundwater resources. This anti-degradation policy is implemented through three principal elements:
Pollution prevention, Management of groundwater quantity, and Monitoring of groundwater quality and quantity.
The prevention of pollution includes (1) the proper siting, construction and operation of environmental facilities and activities through a permitting system, (2) implementation of environmental planning criteria by incorporation in land-use planning by local government, (3) implementation of a Wellhead Protection Program for municipal drinking water wells, (4) detection and mitigation of existing problems, (5) development of other protective standards, as appropriate, where permits are not required, and (6) education of the public to the consequences of groundwater contamination and the need for groundwater protection. Management of groundwater quantity involves allocating the State's groundwater, through a permitting system, so that the resource will be available to present and future generations. Monitoring of groundwater quality and quantity involves continually assessing the resource so that changes, either good or bad, can be identified and corrective action implemented when and where needed. Table 8-2 is a summary of Georgia groundwater protection programs.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-2
TABLE 8-1 MAJOR SOURCES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Contaminant Source Agricultural Activities Agricultural chemical facilities Animal feedlots Drainage wells
Contaminant Source Selection Factors
Contaminants
Fertilizer applications
Irrigation practices
Pesticide applications
Storage and Treatment Activities
Land application
Material stockpiles
Storage tanks (above ground)
Storage tanks (underground)*
C, D, F
D
Surface impoundments Waste piles Waste tailings Disposal Activities Deep injection wells Landfills* Septic systems* Shallow injection wells
C, D, F C
D, G, H E, K, L
Contaminant Source Other Hazardous waste generators Hazardous waste sites* Industrial facilities* Material transfer operations Mining and mine drainage Pipelines and sewer lines* Salt storage and road salting Salt water intrusion* Spills* Transportation of materials
Contaminant Source Selection Factors
F C, F
F B, C, E, F F
Contaminants
C, H C, D, H
D G D
Urban runoff*
D, E
Natural iron and
manganese*
Natural radioactivity
F
Variable H, I
*10 highest-priority sources
Factors used to select each of the contaminant sources.
A. Human health and/or environmental risk (toxicity) B. Size of the population at risk C. Location of the sources relative to drinking water
sources D. Number and/or size of contaminant sources E. Hydrogeologic sensitivity F. State findings, other findings
Contaminants/classes of contaminants considered to be associated with each of the sources that were checked.
A. Inorganic pesticides B. Organic pesticides C. Halogenated solvents D. Petroleum compounds E. Nitrate F. Fluoride
G. Salinity/brine H. Metals I. Radio nuclides J. Bacteria K. Protozoa L. Viruses
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-3
TABLE 8-2
SUMMARY OF STATE GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS
Programs or Activities
Check Implementation
(X)
Status
Responsible State Agency
Active SARA Title III Program
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Ambient ground water monitoring system
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Aquifer vulnerability assessment
X
Ongoing
GAEPD
Aquifer mapping
X
Ongoing
GAEPD
Aquifer characterization
X
Ongoing
GAEPD
Comprehensive data management system
X
Ongoing
GAEPD
EPA-endorsed Core Comprehensive State Ground Water X
Fully Established GAEPD
Protection Program (CSGWPP)
Ground water discharge
Prohibited
Ground water Best Management Practices
X
Pending
GAEPD
Ground water legislation
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Ground water classification
Not applicable
Ground water quality standards
X
Ongoing
GAEPD
Interagency coordination for ground water protection initiatives
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Nonpoint source controls
X
Pending
GAEPD
Pesticide State Management Plan
X
Fully Established DOA
Pollution Prevention Program
X
Fully Established DNR
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Primacy
State Superfund
X
Fully Established GAEPD
State RCRA Program incorporating more stringent requirements than RCRA Primacy
X
Fully Established GAEPD
State septic system regulations
X
Fully Established DHR
Underground storage tank installation requirements
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Underground Storage Tank Remediation Fund
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Underground Storage Tank Permit Program
Not applicable
Underground Injection Control Program
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Vulnerability assessment for drinking water/wellhead
X
Ongoing
GAEPD
protection
Well abandonment regulations
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Wellhead Protection Program (EPA-approved)
X
Fully Established GAEPD
Well installation regulations
X
Fully Established GAEPD
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-4
The State of Georgia possesses a groundwater supply that is both abundant and of high quality. Except where aquifers in the Coastal Plain become salty at great depth, all of the State's aquifers are considered as potential sources of drinking water. For the most part, these aquifers are remarkably free of pollution. The aquifers are continuously recharged by precipitation falling within the borders of the State and can, in most places, continue to provide additional water to help meet future water needs. While water from wells is safe to drink without treatment in most areas of Georgia, water to be used for public supply is required to be chlorinated (except for very small systems). Water for domestic use can also be treated if required.
Ambient groundwater quality, as well as the quantity available for development, is related to the geologic character of the aquifers through which it has moved. Georgia's aquifers can, in general, be characterized by the five main hydrologic provinces in the State (Figure 8-1).
In addition to sampling of public drinking water wells as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act and sampling of monitoring wells at permitted facilities, the GAEPD monitors ambient groundwater quality through the Georgia Groundwater Monitoring Network. The Network consists of approximately 100-130 wells, which are sampled periodically (Figure 8-2). Reports of water quality are issued periodically. These wells are located in all of the main aquifers and throughout the State in key areas. This network allows the GAEPD to identify groundwater quality trends before they become a problem. The only adverse trend noted to date is that nitrate, while still a fraction of the USEPA established MCL for drinking water, has slightly increased in concentration in the recharge areas of some Coastal Plain aquifers since 1984. General results of aquifer monitoring data for calendar years 2004 and 2005 are provided in Table 8-3.
To evaluate nitrate/nitrite from non-point sources in the State's groundwater, between 1991 and 1995 the GAEPD sampled over 5000 shallow domestic drinking water wells for nitrate/nitrite. Results indicated that water from 97 percent of the wells had less than 5 ppm nitrate as N, well below the MCL of 10 ppm. Water from less than one percent of the wells exceeded the MCL value. From 1996 through 2005, 968 water samples from Groundwater Monitoring Network wells were analyzed for nitrate/nitrite. Water from 1.2 percent of the samples exceeded the MCL value. In 2003 and 2004, 546 domestic well samples were tested for nitrate as part of the Domestic Well Pesticide Sampling Project. Water from 95 percent of the wells had less than 5 ppm nitrate as N. Water from 1.5 percent of the samples exceeded the MCL value. Nitrate can come from non-point sources such as natural and artificial fertilizer, natural sources, feedlots and animal enclosures. Septic tanks and land application of treated wastewater and sludge are other potential sources of nitrate. The
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-5
FIGURE 8-1 HYDROLOGIC PROVINCES OF GEORGIA
Ground-water Reservoirs and Well Yields
Valley and Ridge
Massive dolomite, limestone
50 - 500 gpm
Sandstone, mudstone, chert
1 - 100 gpm
Granite, gneiss, metasediments
1 - 250 gpm
Sand, gravel
50 - 1200 gpm
Limestone, sand
250 - 1000 gpm
Limestone, dolostone
1000 - 5000 gpm
Blue Ridge and Piedmont
Coastal Plain
0
35
70
140 Miles
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-6
GAEPD's extensive sampling program demonstrates that nitrates, from non-point sources, are not a significant contributor to groundwater pollution in Georgia.
Agricultural chemicals are commonly used in the agricultural regions of the State (Figure 8-3). In addition to the Groundwater Monitoring Network and nitrate/ nitrite sampling, the GAEPD has sampled:
A network of monitoring wells located downgradient from fields where pesticides are routinely applied,
Domestic drinking water wells for pesticides and nitrates, and Agricultural Drainage wells and sinkholes in the agricultural regions of
Georgia's Coastal Plain for pesticides.
Only a few pesticides and herbicides have been detected in groundwater in these studies. There is no particular pattern to their occurrence, and most detections have been transient; that is, the chemical is most often no longer present when the well is resampled.
From 1993 through 2000, the GAEPD cooperated with the Georgia Department of Agriculture to sample a network of special monitoring wells located downgradient from fields where pesticides were routinely applied. Pesticides were not detected in any of these monitoring wells, and this project was terminated in 2000. Beginning in 2000, the GAEPD began a five-year statewide screening of water samples from domestic wells for four target pesticides (alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor and simazine). Testing for nitrates was added in August 2003. The GAEPD sampled 3,095 domestic wells in Georgia by the end of the project in 2004. Laboratory analysis confirmed that only eighteen wells (0.58%) contained detectable concentrations of pesticides. Four of these wells (0.13%) contained alachlor at concentrations of 3.5 to 6.2 ppb, which were greater than the public drinking water MCL of 2.0 ppb. All homeowners whose wells tested positive for pesticides were advised of the results and referred to the University of Georgia's Cooperative Extension Service for assistance. Prudent agricultural use of pesticides does not appear to represent a significant threat to drinking water aquifers in Georgia at this time.
The most extensive contamination of Georgia's aquifers is from naturally occurring mineral salts (i.e., high total dissolved solids, or TDS levels). Areas generally susceptible to high TDS levels are shown in Figure 8-4. Intensive use of groundwater in the 24 counties of the Georgia coast has caused some groundwater containing high levels of dissolved solids to enter freshwater aquifers either vertically or laterally. Salt-water intrusion into the Upper Floridan Aquifer threatens groundwater supplies in the Hilton Head-Savannah and Brunswick areas. Intrusion rates, however, are quite slow, being more than a hundred years to reach Savannah. The GAEPD has placed limitations on additional withdrawals of groundwater in the affected areas. This has effectively slowed the rate of additional contamination. On April 23, 1997, the GAEPD
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-7
FIGURE 8-2 AMBIENT GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK, 2004-2005
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-8
TABLE 8-3 AQUIFER MONITORING DATA FOR CY 2004
Aquifer
No. of
System County Wells
MIOCENE
(upper and lower Brunswick aquifers)
Brantley
1
0 Bryan
Bulloch
6
Camden
2
Charlton
0
Chatham
0
Effingham
4
Glynn
3
Liberty
2
Long
0
McIntosh
3
Screven
5
Wayne
1
Brantley
4
Bryan
5
Bulloch
0
Camden
6
Charlton
5
Chatham
0
Effingham
5
Glynn
4
Liberty
4
Long
0
McIntosh
1
Screven
1
Wayne
7
SURFICIAL
Nitrate Detections,
0 --
1 0 --0 0 0 -0 1 0 0 0 -0 0 -2 0 0 -0 0 3
Pesticide Detections*
0 --
Salinity range
%
0.00
--
0
0.00
0
0.01
--
--
--
--
0
0.00
0
0.01
0
0.00
--
--
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00-0.01
0
0.00
--
--
0
0.00-0.01
0
0.00-0.03
--
--
0
0.00
0
0.00-0.01
0
0.00
--
--
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
Pesticide Exceedance
0
--
Nitrate Exceed-
ance
0 --
Oceanfront
County
No Yes
0
1
No
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
--
--
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
Yes
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
0
0
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
No
0
0
No
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
0
0
Yes
0
0
No
--
--
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
Yes
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
0
0
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
No
* Pesticides analyzed following EPA Method 525.2 -- No data
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-9
TABLE 8-4 AQUIFER MONITORING DATA FOR CY 2005
Aquifer
No. of
System County Wells
MIOCENE
(upper and lower Bruswick aquifers)
Brantley
1
0 Bryan
Bulloch
1
Camden
0
Charlton
2
Chatham
1
Effingham
0
Glynn
0
Liberty
0
Long
2
McIntosh
1
Screven
0
Wayne
2
Brantley
3
Bryan
0
Bulloch
0
Camden
2
Charlton
5
Chatham
6
Effingham
0
Glynn
2
Liberty
0
Long
5
McIntosh
0
Screven
0
Wayne
0
SURFICIAL
Nitrate Detections,
0 --
0 -0 0 ---0 0 -1 0 --0 0 0 -0 -2 ----
Pesticide Detections*
0 --
Salinity range
%
0.00
--
0
0.00
--
--
0
0.01-0.02
0
0.00
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
0.00
0
0.01
--
--
0
0.00
0
0.00-0.01
--
--
--
--
0
0.01
0
0.00-0.03
0
0.00-0.02
--
--
0
0.01
--
--
0
0.00
--
--
--
--
--
--
Pesticide Exceedance
0
--
Nitrate Exceed-
ance
0 --
Oceanfront
County
No Yes
0
0
No
--
--
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
--
--
Yes
--
--
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
0
0
No
0
0
No
--
--
Yes
--
--
Yes
0
0
Yes
0
0
No
0
0
Yes
--
--
No
0
0
Yes
--
--
Yes
0
0
No
--
--
Yes
--
--
No
--
--
No
* Pesticides analyzed following EPA Method 525.2. -- No data
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-10
FIGURE 8-3 INSECTICIDE/HERBICIDE USE IN GEORGIA, 1980
Insecticide/Herbicide Use in Application-Acres Less than 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 Greater than 100,000
Note: An application-acre represents one application of insecticide-herbicide to one acre of land. Some crops may require multiple applications.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-11
FIGURE 8-4 AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO NATURAL HIGH DISSOLVED SOLIDS AND 24 COUNTY AREA COVERED BY THE INTERIM COASTAL MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
DADE
CATOOSA
WHITFIELDMURRAY WALKER
FANNIN
TOWNS UNION
RABUN
GILMER
WHITEHABERSHAM
CHATTOOGA
GORDON
LUMPKIN PICKENS
DAWSON
STEPHENS
FLOYD
BARTOW
CHEROKEE FORSYTH
HALL
BANKS FRANKLIN
HART
JACKSON
MADISON
ELBERT
Dissolved solids concentration
0 - 250 mg/L 251 - 500 mg/L 501 - 850 mg/L Coastal Management Area
POLK
PAULDING
HARALSON
COBB
BARROW GWINNETT
CLARKE
DE KALB
WALTON
OGLETHORPE OCONEE
WILKES
LINCOLN
DOUGLAS FULTON
ROCKDALE
CARROLL HEARD
COWETA
CLAYTON
NEWTON
MORGAN
GREENE TALIAFERRO
COLUMBIA
FAYETTE
HENRY
MCDUFFIE WARREN
RICHMOND
SPALDING
BUTTS JASPER
PUTNAM
HANCOCK
GLASCOCK
PIKE TROUP MERIWETHER
LAMAR MONROE
BALDWIN JONES
JEFFERSON WASHINGTON
BURKE
HARRIS
UPSON TALBOT
CRAWFORD
BIBB
WILKINSON TWIGGS
JOHNSON
JENKINS
SCREVEN
MUSCOGEE CHATTAHOOCHEEMARION
TAYLOR
PEACH
MACON
HOUSTON BLECKLEY
EMANUEL
LAURENS
TREUTLEN
CANDLER BULLOCH
EFFINGHAM
SCHLEY
STEWART WEBSTER SUMTER
QUITMAN
RANDOLPH TERRELL
LEE
DOOLY CRISP
PULASKI WILCOX
DODGE
MONTGOMERY
WHEELER
TOOMBS
EVANS
TATTNALL
TELFAIR
BRYAN
TURNER
BEN HILL
JEFF DAVIS
APPLING
LIBERTY LONG
CHATHAM
CLAY
CALHOUN DOUGHERTY
WORTH
IRWIN TIFT
COFFEE
BACON
WAYNE
MCINTOSH
EARLY MILLER
BAKER MITCHELL
COLQUITT
BERRIEN ATKINSON COOK
PIERCE BRANTLEY
GLYNN
LANIER
WARE
SEMINOLE DECATUR
GRADY
THOMAS
BROOKS
LOWNDES
CLINCH ECHOLS
CHARLTON
CAMDEN
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-12
implemented an Interim Strategy to protect the Upper Floridan Aquifer from saltwater intrusion in the 24 coastal counties. The strategy, developed in consultation with South Carolina and Florida, will continue until December 31, 2005 at which time the GAEPD plans to implement a Final Strategy that will (a) stop salt-water intrusion before municipal water supply wells on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina and in Savannah, Georgia are contaminated and (b) prevent an existing salt-water problem at Brunswick, Georgia from worsening. To accomplish this objective, the GAEPD will do the following:
(1) Continue to conduct scientific and feasibility studies to determine with certainty how to permanently stop the salt-water intrusion moving towards Hilton Head Island, South Carolina and Savannah, Georgia and how to prevent the existing salt-water intrusion at Brunswick, Georgia from worsening.
(2) Complete the collation and synthesis of the 24 county water supply plans into one comprehensive coastal area water supply planning document. As required by the Interim Strategy, each of the 24 coastal counties has submitted a planning document detailing current water usage in the county and projecting the quantities of future water use. The counties were to document any potential alternate water supply sources as well. Since each of the counties has already submitted a plan, there is no restriction on this account for any future proposed public water, agriculture or industrial water withdrawal permit.
(3) Maintain caps on groundwater use in Glynn County, Chatham County, and portions of Bryan and Effingham counties, to avoid worsening the rate of salt-water intrusion at Hilton Head, Savannah and at Brunswick.
(4) Reduce groundwater use in Chatham County by at least 10 million gallons per day by December 31, 2005 through conservation and substitution of surface water for groundwater. This will be affirmed through reductions in groundwater use permits.
(5) Allow, on an interim basis, increases in groundwater withdrawals in the areas of southeast Georgia that have little impact on salt-water intrusion problems.
(6) Encourage and promote water conservation and reduced groundwater usage wherever feasible, throughout southeast Georgia.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-13
FIGURE 8-5 AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO NATURAL AND HUMAN INDUCED RADIATION
DADE
CATOOSA
WHITFIELDMURRAY WALKER
FANNIN
TOWNS UNION
RABUN
GILMER
WHITEHABERSHAM
CHATTOOGA
GORDON
LUMPKIN PICKENS
DAWSON
STEPHENS
FLOYD
BARTOW
CHEROKEE FORSYTH
HALL
BANKS FRANKLIN
HART
JACKSON
MADISON
ELBERT
Areas of known natural radioactivity contamination Granite outcrops Tritium pollution
POLK
PAULDING
HARALSON
COBB
BARROW GWINNETT
CLARKE
DE KALB
WALTON
OGLETHORPE OCONEE
WILKES
LINCOLN
DOUGLAS FULTON
ROCKDALE
CARROLL HEARD
COWETA
CLAYTON
NEWTON
MORGAN
GREENE TALIAFERRO
COLUMBIA
FAYETTE
HENRY
MCDUFFIE WARREN
RICHMOND
SPALDING
BUTTS JASPER
PUTNAM
HANCOCK
GLASCOCK
PIKE TROUP MERIWETHER
LAMAR MONROE
JONES
BALDWIN
JEFFERSON WASHINGTON
UPSON
HARRIS
TALBOT
BIBB CRAWFORD
WILKINSON TWIGGS
JOHNSON
BURKE
JENKINS
SCREVEN
MUSCOGEE CHATTAHOOCHEEMARION
TAYLOR
PEACH
MACON
HOUSTON BLECKLEY
EMANUEL
LAURENS
TREUTLEN
CANDLER BULLOCH
EFFINGHAM
SCHLEY
STEWART WEBSTER SUMTER
QUITMAN
RANDOLPH TERRELL
LEE
DOOLY CRISP
PULASKI WILCOX
DODGE
MONTGOMERY
WHEELER
TOOMBS
EVANS
TATTNALL
TELFAIR
BRYAN
TURNER
BEN HILL
JEFF DAVIS APPLING
LIBERTY LONG
CHATHAM
CLAY
CALHOUN DOUGHERTY
WORTH
IRWIN TIFT
COFFEE
BACON
WAYNE
MCINTOSH
EARLY MILLER
BAKER MITCHELL
COLQUITT
BERRIEN ATKINSON COOK
PIERCE BRANTLEY
GLYNN
LANIER
WARE
SEMINOLE DECATUR
GRADY
THOMAS
BROOKS
LOWNDES
CLINCH ECHOLS
CHARLTON
CAMDEN
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-14
Some wells in Georgia produce water containing relatively high levels of naturally occurring iron and manganese. Another natural source of contamination is from radioactive minerals that are a minor rock constituent in some Georgia aquifers. While natural radioactivity may occur anywhere in Georgia (Figure 8-5), the most significant problems have occurred at some locations near the Gulf Trough, a geologic feature of the Floridan Aquifer in the Coastal Plain. Wells can generally be constructed to seal off the rocks producing the radioactive elements to provide safe drinking water. Radon, a radioactive gas produced by the radioactive minerals mentioned above, also has been noted in highly variable amounts in groundwater from some Georgia wells, especially in the Piedmont region. Treatment systems may be used to remove radon from groundwater.
Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, was found in 1991 in excess of expected background levels by GAEPD sampling in Burke County aquifers. While the greatest amount of tritium thus far measured is only 15 percent of the USEPA MCL for tritium, the wells in which it has been found lie across the Savannah River from the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina, where tritium was produced for nuclear weapons (Figure 8-5). The tritium does not exceed MCLs for drinking water; therefore it does not represent a health threat to Georgia citizens at the present time. Results of the GAEPD's studies to date indicate the most likely pathway for tritium to be transported from the Savannah River Plant is through the air due to evapo-transpiration of triturated water. The water vapor is condensed to form triturated precipitation over Georgia and reaches the shallow aquifers through normal infiltration and recharge.
Man-made pollution of groundwater can come from a number of sources, such as business and industry, agriculture, and homes (e.g., septic systems). Widespread annual testing of more than 2000 public water supply wells for volatile organic chemicals (VOCs, e.g. solvents and hydrocarbons) is performed by the GAEPD. In 2000-2001, one water system had a VOC level high enough to exceed the MCL and become a violation. The sources of the VOCs most commonly are ill-defined spills and leaks, improper disposal of solvents by nearby businesses, and leaking underground fuel-storage tanks located close to the well. Where such pollution has been identified, alternate sites for wells are generally available or the water can be treated. In 2001, 5 water systems had MTBE, a gasoline additive, in the water at levels higher than 10 ppb. There is currently no MCL for MTBE.
The GAEPD evaluates public groundwater sources (wells and springs) to determine if they have direct surface water influence. Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDI) is defined as "Water beneath the surface of the ground with: (1) Significant occurrence of insects or other macro organisms, algae, or large diameter protozoa and pathogens such as Giardia
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-15
lamblia or Cryptosporidium; and significant and relatively rapid shifts in water characteristics such as turbidity, temperature, conductivity or pH which closely correlate to climatological or surface conditions." Microscopic Particulate Analysis (MPA) is a method of sampling and testing for significant indicators. Hundreds of MPA's have been performed each year since the program began in 1988. All of the known existing sources have been evaluated either on site or from information gathered from our files. Some are being re-evaluated as better information becomes available. Recently the primary focus of the program has been to monitor the nearly 100 public spring sources scattered around the state and to evaluate new wells and spring sources as they enter the source approval process.
On the basis of the information collected during investigations and microscopic analysis of raw water samples since 2002, twenty (20) sources were found to have direct surface water influence. Of these sources, eight (8) successfully removed the influence by taking corrective action, three (3) added treatment in the form of filtration, two (2) were taken out of service, and four (4) were proposed sources and never completed as a drinking water source
Groundwater protection from leaking underground storage tanks was enhanced with the enactment of the Georgia Underground Storage Tank Act in 1988. The program established a financial assurance trust fund and instituted corrective action requirements to clean up leaking underground storage tanks. Through December 31, 2003, confirmed releases have been identified at 10,313 sites and site investigation and corrective action procedures have been completed at 7,079 sites and initiated at the remaining 3,324 sites.
In 1992, the Georgia Legislature enacted the Hazardous Site Response Act to require the notification and control of releases of hazardous materials to soil and groundwater. Currently, there are 537 sites listed on the Georgia Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI). Since the initial publication of the HSI, cleanups and investigations have been completed on 188 sites. 334 Sites have cleanups in progress and 162 sites are under investigation. As with underground storage tanks, Georgia has established a trust fund raised from fees paid by hazardous waste generators for the purpose of cleaning abandoned hazardous waste sites. Using a combination of site assessment, and removal and transportation/disposal contractors, the Hazardous Site Response Program has issued over 100 contracts to investigate and cleanup abandoned sites, of which approximately 60 have been completed.
Leachate leaking from solid waste landfills is also a potential groundwater pollutant. Georgia has a program, utilizing written protocols, to properly site, construct, operate, and monitor such landfills so that pollution of groundwater will
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-16
not become a threat to drinking water supplies. In this regard, the GAEPD has completed a set of maps generated by a Geographic Information System that shows areas geotechnically unsuitable for a municipal solid waste landfill. Maps at the scale of 1:100,000 have been distributed to all of the State's Regional Development Centers. In addition, all permitted solid waste landfills are required to have an approved groundwater monitoring plan and monitoring wells installed in accordance with the GAEPD standards for groundwater monitoring. As of March 2004, there were 112 permitted active (operational) municipal solid waste landfills in Georgia. In addition, 26 landfills have ceased accepting waste and are currently closing the facility. There are 186 landfills in post-closure care (required to conduct groundwater monitoring for 30 years). Of these 324 landfills, 309 are monitoring groundwater with approved systems. The remaining landfills are in the process of installing monitoring systems, and/or are awaiting GAEPD approval.
The GAEPD also actively monitors sites where treated wastewaters are further treated by land application methods. Agricultural drainage wells and other forms of illegal underground injection of wastes are closed under another GAEPD program. The GAEPD identifies non-domestic septic systems in use in the State, collects information on their use, and has implemented the permitting of systems serving more than 20 persons. Very few of the systems are used for the disposal of non-sanitary waste, and the owners of those systems are required to obtain a site specific permit or stop disposing of non-sanitary waste, carry out groundwater pollution studies, and clean up any pollution that was detected. None of these sources represents a significant threat to the quality of Georgia's groundwater at the present time.
The GAEPD has an active Underground Injection Control Program. As of December 31, 2005, the program has issued 267 UIC permits covering 6,649 Class V wells. Most of the permits are for remediation wells for UST sites, petroleum product spills, and hazardous waste sites, or for non-domestic septic systems.
Georgia law requires that water well drillers constructing domestic, irrigation and public water supply wells be licensed and bonded. As of December 31, 2005, Georgia had 247 active licensed water well drillers that are required to follow strict well construction standards. The GAEPD actively pursues and works closely with the Courts to prosecute unlicensed water well contractors. The GAEPD continues to work with various drilling associations and licensed drillers to uphold and enforce the construction standards of the Water Well Standards Act. The GAEPD has taken an active role in informing all licensed drillers of the requirement that all irrigation wells must be permitted, and that such permits must be issued prior to the actual drilling of any irrigation well. All drillers
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-17
constructing monitoring wells, engineering and geologic boreholes must be bonded, and the well construction must be performed under the direction of a Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist registered in Georgia. The GAEPD maintains an active file of all bonded drilling companies and makes every attempt to stop the operations of all drillers who fail to maintain a proper bond. The GAEPD issues permits and regulates all oil and gas exploration in the state under the Oil & Gas and Deep Drilling Act.
Activities affecting groundwater quality that take place in areas where precipitation is actively recharging groundwater aquifers are more prone to cause pollution of drinking water supplies than those taking place in other areas. In this regard, Georgia was one of the first states to implement a state-wide recharge area protection program. The GAEPD has identified the most significant recharge areas for the main aquifer systems in the State (Figure 8-6). The GAEPD has completed detailed maps showing the relative susceptibility of shallow groundwater to pollution by man's activities at the land surface. These maps at the scale of 1:100,000 have been distributed to the State's Regional Development Centers, and a state-wide map at the scale of 1:500,000 has been published as Hydrologic Atlas 20. In addition, the GAEPD is geologically mapping the recharge zones of important Georgia aquifers at a large scale of 1:24,000.
Recharge areas and areas with higher than average pollution susceptibility are given special consideration in all relevant permit programs. The GAEPD has developed environmental criteria to protect groundwater in significant recharge areas as required by the Georgia Comprehensive Planning Act of 1989. These criteria also reflect the relative pollution susceptibility of the land surface in recharge areas. Local governments are currently incorporating the pollution prevention measures contained in the criteria in developing local land use plans.
Some areas, where recharge to individual wells using the surficial or unconfined aquifers is taking place, are also significant recharge areas. To protect such wells, the GAEPD implemented a Wellhead Protection Program for municipal drinking water wells in 1993. Wells in confined aquifers have a small Wellhead Protection Area, generally 100 feet from the well. Wells using unconfined aquifers have Wellhead Protection Areas extending several hundred to several thousand feet from the well. Wells in karstic areas require even larger protection areas, which are defined using hydrogeologic mapping techniques.
Wellhead Protection Plans have been completed for all 1,642 permitted municipal wells in Georgia. Due to the closure of some municipal wells there are currently 1,619 active municipal ground water wells with Wellhead Protection
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-18
FIGURE 8-6 GENERALIZED MAP OF SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
AREAS OF GEORGIA
Aquifers
Ridge and Valley (Unconfined) Blue Ridge and Piedmont (Unconfined) Cretaceous System Clayton System Claiborne System Floridan-Jacksonian System Miocene/Pliocene (Recent Unconfined)
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-19
Plans. A ten-year review of plans completed in 1995 will be completed in 2006. The review includes the addition of pertinent well information and an update of potential pollution sources. In addition, the GAEPD is carrying out vulnerability studies for non-municipal public water systems.
Table 8-1 summarizes the sources and nature of groundwater contamination and pollution in Georgia. In Table 8-1, an asterisk indicates that the listed source is one of the 10 highest sources in the state. Of these, the most significant source is salt-water intrusion in the 24 coastal counties. The second most significant source is naturally occurring iron, manganese, and radioactivity. On the otherhand, agricultural applications of pesticides and fertilizers are not significant sources. In 1996, USEPA requested that states report information on the type and number of contaminant sources within a specific reporting area or aquifer. The GAEPD does not collect such information; moreover, such data would be of little practical use in Georgia because of the State's complex hydrogeology and inter-aquifer leakage.
Table 8-2 is a summary of Georgia groundwater protection programs. Georgia, primarily the GAEPD, has delegated authority for all federal environmental programs involving groundwater. In addition, Georgia has several unique groundwater protection statutes that are more stringent than federal statutes. Of the 28 programs, identified by USEPA, only three are not applicable to Georgia: discharges to groundwater are prohibited; the State's hydrogeology is not compatible to classification; and, while managed through construction standards, actual permits for underground storage tanks are not issued.
Table 8-3 summarizes ambient groundwater quality monitoring results for calendar years 2004 and 2005. The data presented were developed from the annual Georgia Groundwater Monitoring Network reports.
The USEPA also has requested that States provide information on groundwater-surface water interactions. Contamination of groundwater by surface water occurred in 1994 when coliform bacteria entered the Upper Floridan Aquifer via sinkholes during flooding on the Flint River in southwest Georgia as a result of Hurricane Alberto. This is the only documented case of a groundwater aquifer in Georgia being contaminated by surface water, and monitoring in 1995 demonstrated that the aquifer was clean. As previously mentioned there are some wells and springs that GAEPD has determined to be under the influence of surface water. There are no documented cases in Georgia of groundwater polluting surface water sources.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-20
Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals (including water availability analysis and conservation planning)
The Water Resources Management Program (WRMP) of the Water Resources Branch currently has three (3) major water withdrawal permitting responsibilities: (a) permitting of municipal and industrial ground water withdrawal facilities; (b) permitting of municipal and industrial surface water withdrawal facilities; and (c) permitting of both surface and groundwater agricultural irrigation water use facilities.
Any person who withdraws more than 100,000 gallons of surface water per day on a monthly average or more than 100,000 gallons of groundwater on any day or uses a 70 gpm pump or larger for agricultural irrigation, must obtain a permit from the GAEPD prior to any such withdrawal. Through the end of December 2003, GAEPD had 285 active municipal and industrial surface water withdrawal permits (180 municipal, 105 industrial), 481 active municipal and industrial groundwater withdrawal permits (281 municipal, 182 industrial, 18 golf course irrigation) and approximately 21,300 agricultural water use permits (encompassing both groundwater and surface water sources). Future efforts will focus on improving long-term permitting, water conservation planning, drought contingency planning and monitoring and enforcement of existing permits.
The Georgia Ground Water Use Act of 1972 requires all non-agricultural groundwater users of more than 100,000 gpd for any purpose to obtain a Ground Water Use Permit from GAEPD. Applicants are required to submit details relating to withdrawal location, historic water use, water demand projections, water conservation, projected water demands, the source aquifer system, and well construction data. A GAEPD issued Ground Water Use Permit identifies both the allowable monthly average and annual average withdrawal rate, permit expiration date, withdrawal purpose, number of wells, and standard and special conditions for resource use. Standard conditions define legislative provisions, permit transfer restrictions and reporting requirements (i.e., semi-annual groundwater use reports); special conditions identify such things as the source aquifer and conditions of well replacement. The objective of groundwater permitting is the same as that defined for surface water permitting.
The 1977 Surface Water Amendments to the Georgia Water Quality Control Act of 1964 require all non-agricultural surface water users of more than 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) on a monthly average (from any Georgia surface water body) to obtain a Surface Water Withdrawal Permit from the GAEPD. These users include persons, municipalities, governmental agencies, industries, military installations, and all other non-agricultural users. The 1977 statute
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-21
"grandfathered" all pre-1977 users who could establish the quantity of their use prior to 1977. Under this provision these pre-1977 users were permitted at antecedent withdrawal levels with no minimum flow conditions. Applicants for surface water withdrawal permits are required to submit details relating to withdrawal source, historic water use, water demand projections, water conservation, low flow protection (for non-grandfathered withdrawals), drought contingency, raw water storage, watershed protection, and reservoir management. A GAEPD issued Surface Water Withdrawal Permit identifies withdrawal source and purpose, monthly average and maximum 24-hour withdrawal limits, standard and special conditions for water withdrawal, and Permit expiration date. Standard conditions define legislative provisions, permit transfer restrictions and reporting requirements (i.e., usually annual water use reports); special conditions identify withdrawal specifics such as the requirement for protecting non-depletable flow (NDF). The NDF is that minimum flow required to protect instream uses, (e.g., waste assimilation, fish habitat, and downstream demand). The objective of surface water permitting is to provide a balance between resource protection and resource need.
The 1988 Amendments to both the Ground Water Use Act and the Water Quality Control Act require all agricultural groundwater and surface water users of more than 100,000 gpd on a monthly average to obtain an Agricultural Water Use Permit. "Agricultural Use" is specifically defined as the processing of perishable agricultural products and the irrigation of recreational turf (i.e., golf courses) except in certain areas of the state where recreational turf is considered as an industrial use. These areas are defined for surface water withdrawals as the Chattahoochee River watershed upstream from Peachtree Creek (North Georgia), and for groundwater withdrawals in the coastal counties of Chatham, Effingham, Bryan and Glynn. Applicants for Agricultural Water Use Permits who were able to establish that their use existed prior to July 1, 1988 and whose applications were received prior to July 1, 1991, are "grandfathered" for the operating capacity in place prior to July 1, 1988. Other applications are reviewed and granted with consideration for protecting the integrity of the resource and the water rights of permitted, grandfathered users. Currently, agricultural users are not required to submit any water use reports. A GAEPD issued Agricultural Water Use Permit identifies among other things the source, the purpose of withdrawal, total design pumping capacity, installation date, acres irrigated, inches of water applied per year, and the location of the withdrawal. Special conditions may identify minimum surface water flow to be protected or the aquifer and depth to which a well is limited. Agricultural Water Use Permits may be transferred and have no expiration date.
Since January, 1992, the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers - Mobile District have been cooperating partners
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-22
in an interstate water resources management study. The study area encompasses the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River system (shared by Alabama and Georgia), and the Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system (shared by the three states). These river basins make up 38 percent of Georgia's total land area, provide drinking water to over 60 percent of Georgia's people, and supply water for more than 35 percent of Georgia's irrigated agriculture. Significant portions of Georgia's industrial production and recreation-based economy are dependent on the water in these basins. The fish and wildlife resources that depend on these waters are also vital to Georgia. The goals of the study include, (a) forecasts of water demands for a myriad of uses in the two river systems through the year 2050; (b) estimates of ability of already developed water sources to meet the projected water demands; and (c) development of a conceptual framework for the basin wide management of the water resources of the two basins in a manner that would maximize the potential of the systems to meet expected water demands. At the end of December, 1997, the study was essentially completed. Work on most of the detailed scopes of work were completed, and the states along with the federal government, had executed river basin compacts for the two basins. The compacts are providing the framework under which the states and the federal government continue to negotiate water allocation formulas that will equitably apportion the waters of these basins. Once these allocation formulas are developed and agreed upon, the state and federal partners will manage the two river systems to comply with the formulas.
Under Georgia's comprehensive water management strategy, permit applicants for more than 100,000 gallons per day of surface water or groundwater for public drinking water have been required for a number of years to develop comprehensive water conservation plans in accordance with GAEPD guidelines. These plans primarily address categories such as system unaccounted-for water (leakage, un-metered use, flushing, etc.), metering, plumbing codes, water shortage planning, water reuse, public education, and so forth. Such plans must be submitted in conjunction with applications for new or increased nonagricultural ground and surface water withdrawals. Key provisions of the plans include the required submittal of water conservation progress reports 5 years after plan approval, the submittal of yearly "unaccounted-for" water reports, and greater emphasis on incorporating water conservation into long-term water demand projections.
Georgia law also requires the use of ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures (1.6 gpm toilets, 2.5 gpm shower heads and 2.0 gpm faucets) for all new construction. Local governments must adopt and enforce these requirements in order to remain eligible for State and Federal grants or loans for water supply and wastewater projects.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-23
During times of emergency, the GAEPD Director is authorized to issue orders to protect the quantity and safety of water supplies. In general, municipal water shortage plans follow a phased reduction of water use based on the implementation of restrictions on non-essential water uses such as lawn watering, and so forth. These demand reduction measures typically include odd/even and/or time of day restrictions and progress from voluntary to mandatory with appropriate enforcement procedures. Severe shortages may result in total restriction on all nonessential water use, cut-backs to manufacturing and commercial facilities, and eventual rationing if the shortage becomes critical enough to threaten basic service for human health and sanitation. Water conservation efforts are extremely important to Georgia's future particularly in the north and central regions of the State.
Ground and Surface Drinking Water Supplies
Similar to groundwater, Georgia's surface water sources provide raw water of excellent quality for drinking water supplies. During 2002-2003, no surface water supply system reported an outbreak of waterborne disease. Since the Federal and State Surface Water Treatment Regulations (SWTR) went into effect on June 29, 1993, 227 surface water plants around the state have taken steps to optimize their treatment processes not only to meet the current SWTRs tougher disinfection and turbidity treatment technique requirements, but also to meet more stringent future drinking water regulations. The most recent regulations mandated by the U.S.E.P.A. include the control of disinfection byproducts and the microbial contaminants in drinking water.
The purpose of the new Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule is to improve public health protection through the control of microbial contaminants, particularly Cryptosporidium (including Giardia and viruses) for those public water systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water. The purpose of the new Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) is to improve public health protection by reducing exposure to disinfection by products in drinking water (total trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids). Stage 1 DBPR applies to all sizes of community and nontransient and noncommunity water systems that add a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the treatment process and transient noncommunity water systems that use chlorine dioxide. During 20022003, no surface water production systems were required to issue "boil water" advisories to their customers due to significant SWTR treatment technique violations, other than events due to water main breaks. However, several surface and ground water systems that have been monitoring for TTHMs and HAA5s during this period experienced exceedences of the established MCLs.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-24
The Public Water System Supervision Program is designed to ensure that Georgia residents, served by public water systems, are provided high quality and safe drinking water. Its legal basis is the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act and Rules. As of March 31, 2004, the GAEPD regulates 1,683 community, 249 nontransient, non-community and 553 transient non-community public ground and surface water systems (serving populations greater than 25), each of which must obtain a Permit to Operate from the GAEPD. These permits set forth operational requirements for wells, surface water treatment plants and distribution systems for communities, industries, trailer parks, hotels, restaurants and other public water system owners. Georgia's community and non-transient, non-community public water systems are currently monitored for 92 contaminants. Georgia closely follows the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and implements the National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards, involving about 92 contaminants (turbidity, 8 microbial or indicator organisms, 20 inorganic, 60 organic, 4 radiological contaminants). Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are set for 83 contaminants, treatment technique requirements are established for 9 contaminants to protect public health, and secondary standards for 15 contaminants are issued to ensure aesthetic quality.
The program is funded from State and Federal appropriations and grants respectively on a year-to-year basis and a Drinking Water Service Fee (DWSF), which has been in effect since July 1992. The DWSF was necessary to provide the resources to implement testing for (a) lead and copper and (b) Phase II and V Synthetic Organic and Inorganic Chemicals in public water systems. Water system owners who contract with the GAEPD for this testing are billed annually based on the system population. Fees range from $30 per year for a transient non-community system to a maximum of $24,000 per year for a large water system with three or more entry points. Participation in the DWSF is voluntary to the extent that a system may elect to use a public or certified commercial laboratory to analyze their required samples.
Testing for lead and copper in accordance with the Federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) began on January 1, 1992. Georgia's 17 largest water systems (population of greater than 50,000) performed two, six-month consecutive rounds of lead and copper monitoring starting January of 1992 and ending December of 1992. During this monitoring period, 6 systems exceeded the action levels for lead, copper, or both. In accordance with the requirements of the LCR, all large systems submitted a corrosion control plan to the GAEPD for approval. The plans were approved by the GAEPD and implemented by the systems. Beginning January of 1997, the large systems started a follow-up monitoring period of two, six-month consecutive rounds. After 1997, several medium systems, due to population increases, moved up to large system status. Of these, one of those
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-25
systems had previously exceeded the lead and/or copper action level, but had come back into compliance before achieving large system status. All of the 7 large systems that previously exceeded the lead and/or copper action levels have achieved compliance with the lead and copper action levels. All of the existing 21 large systems, as of September 26, 2002 have either completed all three rounds of reduced monitoring or started triennial monitoring.
The medium size systems, populations of 3,300-50,000, started their two initial, six month consecutive rounds of lead and copper monitoring in July of 1992 and completed them in June of 1993. The systems that did not exceed an action level went into a reduced monitoring phase of the LCR in May of 1995. During this phase the systems are required to collect a reduced number of samples once per year for a period of three years. Beginning June 30, 1999, medium size systems that were eligible started the three-year compliance cycle. As of September 26, 2002, 7 medium systems are exceeding lead and 2 medium systems are exceeding copper. Nine systems that had previously exceeded the lead and/ or copper action level are now on reduced monitoring and five additional systems are on triennial.
Between July of 1993 and June of 1994, the small water systems, populations of 25-3,000 in size, conducted their consecutive rounds of lead and copper monitoring. There are 154 small systems currently exceeding the action levels for lead, copper, or both. These systems will remain in full monitoring until they have completed two consecutive rounds of monitoring without an exceedance, installed corrosion control, and for those exceeding lead, continue to provide public education on an annual basis. There are a total of 300 small systems that had previously exceeded lead and/or copper action levels. Of those 179 are now on reduced monitoring, 119 are on triennial monitoring, and 2 have gone to inactive status.
Monitoring for the 16 inorganic chemicals, 55 volatile organic chemicals and 43 synthetic organic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides and polychlorinated biphenyls continued as the fourth three-year compliance cycle commenced on January 1, 2002. New systems were required to initiate baseline monitoring (quarterly for all organic monitoring and surface water nitrate monitoring, annual for surface water inorganic monitoring and once every three years for groundwater inorganic monitoring).
The fourth three-year compliance period afforded most community and noncommunity non-transient water systems to reduce their monitoring frequency for the volatile organic and synthetic organic compounds. Public water systems that demonstrated three consecutive years of Volatile Organic Chemical monitoring with none of the 21 regulated VOCs above the Method Detection Level of 0.0005
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-26
mg/l were placed on a reduced monitoring frequency of once every three years (2002-2004).
A majority of the community and non-community non-transient water systems completed their quarterly baseline synthetic organic chemical monitoring during the initial 1993-1995 compliance period. For systems with populations less than 3300, SOC monitoring was reduced to one event during the 1996-1998 compliance period. Systems with populations greater than 3300 are required to sample for two quarters during the 1996-1998 compliance period.
In order to reduce the Federal chemical monitoring requirements, the GAEPD conducts vulnerability studies for all public water sources. The studies are conducted to assist the GAEPD with the issuance of chemical monitoring waivers to public water systems. Water sources at low risk to contamination are issued waivers from the chemical monitoring requirements as specified by the Federal Phase II/Phase V regulations. To date, the GAEPD has issued statewide monitoring waivers for asbestos, cyanide, dioxin and most synthetic organic compounds. The GAEPD, however, does continue to monitor a representative number of water systems deemed to be of high vulnerability to contamination for asbestos, cyanide, dioxin and all waived synthetic organic compounds to obtain the chemical data needed to issue and maintain these state-wide waivers. The issuance of waivers from monitoring for the above chemical parameters has saved Georgia's public water systems millions of dollars in monitoring costs over the duration of the waiver terms.
In addition, the GAEPD is also preparing vulnerability studies for individual water sources. These studies include the preparation of countywide and site specific maps of the area immediately surrounding the water source, and a report about the water source. The maps include water wells, potential pollution sources around the wells, cultural information such as roads, and bodies of water. As of December 31, 2003, the GAEPD has prepared site specific maps for approximately 723 privately owned ground water public water systems.
Georgia's Source Water Assessment and Protection Implementation Plan (SWAP) was approved by EPA on April 24, 2000. Based on the 24-month deadline, a granted 18-month regulatory extension and another 12-month extension from the USEPA, Georgia's has until November 2004 to complete all assessments for surface and ground water sources of drinking water. Under SWAP, States must identify the areas that are sources of public drinking water, assess water systems' susceptibility to contamination, and inform the public of the results. The implementation plan was developed with coordinated participation of the Georgia SWAP team, citizens and technical advisory committees and lots of input from interested stakeholders. The plan is tailored
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-27
uniquely to Georgia while still satisfying all requirements of the 1996 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Due to the overlapping nature of a number of states water supply watersheds, the Division is encouraging regional watershed initiatives. Several watershed related initiatives are underway which will also fulfill SWAP requirements for the surface water system participants. An Alcovy River Basin Watershed Protection Study involving some 15 jurisdictions was completed for three water systems in early 2001. Columbus Water Works hosted a middle-Chattahoochee River Watershed Study involving the drinking water intakes for the cities of LaGrange, West Point, Opelika and Columbus. Source water assessments for these surface water intakes were completed in March 2001. With funding assistance from GAEPD, in December 2001, the Atlanta Regional Commission submitted source water assessments for 27 surface water intakes associated with 17 water systems within the 13 county metro Atlanta area. Other surface water intake initiatives have been completed in the Lake Lanier drainage basin of the upper Chattahoochee River basin, in the upper Oconee River basin, in the Lake Allatoona drainage area, and in the Augusta, Savannah and Macon areas.
GAEPD is preparing all the source water assessments for the privately owned community, non-community, non-transient, and non-community transient ground water systems. Through December 31, 2003, SWAPs have been prepared for approximately 800 privately owned ground water systems.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
8-28
CHAPTER 9
Major Issues and Challenges
Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning
Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. The burgeoning population places considerable demands on Georgia's ground and surface water resources in terms of water supply, water quality and assimilative capacity. The problems and issues are further complicated by the fact that surface water resources are limited in South Georgia and groundwater resources are limited in North Georgia. In some locations, the freshwater resources are approaching their sustainable limits. Thus, several key issues and challenges to be addressed now and in the future years include (1) minimizing withdrawals of water by increasing conservation, efficiency and ruse, (2) maximizing returns to the basin through reducing interbasin transfers and limiting use of septic tanks and land application of treated wastewater where water is limited, (3) meeting instream and offstream water demands through storage, aquifer management and reducing water demands, (4) protecting water quality by reducing wastewater discharges and runoff from land to below the assimilative capacity of the streams. The implementation of the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning process in Georgia provides a framework for addressing each of the key issues.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
The pollution impact on Georgia streams has radically shifted over the last two decades. Streams are no longer dominated by untreated or partially treated sewage discharges which resulted in little or no oxygen and little or no aquatic life. The sewage is now treated, oxygen levels have returned and fish have followed.
However, another source of pollution is now affecting Georgia streams. That source is referred to as nonpoint and consists of mud, litter, bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils, suds and a variety of other pollutants being washed into rivers and lakes by stormwater. This form of pollution, although somewhat less dramatic than raw sewage, must be reduced and controlled to fully protect Georgia's streams. In addition to structural pollution controls, nonstructural techniques such as pollution prevention and best management practices must be significantly expanded to minimize nonpoint source pollution. These include both watershed protection through planning, zoning, buffer zones, and appropriate
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
9-1
building densities as well as increased use of stormwater retention ponds, street cleaning and perhaps eventual limitations on pesticide and fertilizer usage.
Toxic Substances
The reduction of toxic substances in rivers, lakes, sediment and fish tissue is extremely important in protecting both human health and aquatic life.
The sources of toxic substances are widespread. Stormwater runoff may contain metals or toxic organic chemicals, such as pesticides (chlordane, DDE) or PCBs. Even though the production and use of PCB and chlordane is outlawed, the chemicals still persist in the environment as a result of previous use. One of the primary sources of mercury detected in fish tissue in Georgia and other states may be from atmospheric deposition. Some municipal and industrial treated wastewaters may contain concentrations of metals coming from plumbing (lead, copper, zinc) or industrial processes.
The concern over toxic substances is twofold. First, aquatic life is very sensitive to metals and even small concentrations of metals can cause impairment. Fortunately, metals at low concentrations are not harmful to humans. Second, the contrary is true for carcinogenic organic chemicals. Concentrations of these can accumulate in fish flesh without damage to the fish but may increase a person's cancer risk if the fish are eaten regularly.
The most effective method to reduce the release of toxic substances into rivers is pollution prevention which consists primarily of eliminating or reducing the use of toxic substances or at least reducing the exposure of toxic materials to drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. It is very expensive and difficult to reduce low concentrations of toxic substances in wastewaters by treatment technologies. It is virtually impossible to treat large quantities of stormwater for toxic substance reductions. Therefore, toxic substances must be controlled at the source.
Public Involvement
It is clear that local governments and industries, even with well funded efforts, cannot fully address the challenges of nonpoint source pollution control and toxic substances. Citizens must individually and collectively be part of the solution to these challenges.
The main focus is to achieve full public acceptance of the fact that some of everything put on the ground or street ends up in a stream. Individuals are littering, driving cars which drip oils and antifreeze, applying fertilizers and
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
9-2
pesticides and participating in a variety of other activities contributing to toxic and nonpoint source pollution. If streams and lakes are to be pollutant free, then some of the everyday human practices must be modified.
The GAEPD will be emphasizing public involvement; not only in decision-making, but also in direct programs of stream improvement. The first steps are education through Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) and Adopt-A-Stream programs.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
9-3
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2004-2005
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PAGE
Purpose....................................................................................... 1-1
Water Protection In Georgia..............................................................1-1
Water Protection Programs............................................................... 1-3
Background....................................... ................................ 1-3
Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning................ 1-3
Watershed Projects.................................................................1-3
Monitoring and Assessment..................................................... 1-3
Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocation/TMDL Development.. 1-4
TMDL Implementation Plan Development....................................1-4
State Revolving Loan Fun........................................................ 1-4
GEFA Implementation Unit...................................................... 1-4
NPDES Permitting and Enforcement..........................................1-5
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations...................................1-6
Zero Tolerance...................................................................... 1-6
Nonpoint Source Management Program.....................................1-6
Stormwater Management......................................................... 1-7
Erosion and Sediment Control.................................................. 1-8
Major Issues and Challenges............................................................ 1-9
CHAPTER 2 COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE WATER MANAGMENT PLANNING
Background ................................................................................. 2-1 Major Water Management Planning Objectives .....................................2-3
Minimize Withdrawals............................................................. 2-3 Maximize Returns.................................................................. 2-3 Meet Instream and Offstream Demands......................................2-4 Protect Water Quality............................................................. 2-5 Stakeholder Participation..................................................................2-6 The Water Council................................................................. 2-6 Statewide Advisory Committee................................................. 2-7 Technical Advisory Committees................................................ 2-8 Basin Advisory Committees..................................................... 2-8 Tasks and Milestones...................................................................... 2-8
CHAPTER 3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT Background................................................................................... 3-1 Water Resources Atlas............................................................ 3-1 Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ................3-1 Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. 3-4
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
Goals.................................................................................. 3-4 Trend/River Basin/TMDL Monitoring..........................................3-4 Intensive Surveys.................................................................. 3-16 Biological Monitoring ..............................................................3-16 Lake Monitoring.....................................................................3-16 Fish Tissue Monitoring ......................................................... 3-31 Toxic Substance Stream Monitoring.......................................... 3-31 Aquatic Toxicity Testing.......................................................... 3-32 Coastal Monitoring................................................................. 3-32 Facility Compliance Sampling...................................................3-32 Surface Water Quality Summary........................................................ 3-33 Data Assessment.................................................................. 3-33 Fecal Coliform Bacteria...........................................................3-33 Metals................................................................................. 3-35 Toxicity Testing/Toxic Substances.............................................3-35 Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Temperature......................................... 3-35 Fish/Shellfish Guidelines.........................................................3-36 Biotic Data........................................................................... 3-36 Evaluation of Use Support .................................................... 3-36 Assessment of Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses............ 3-37 Assessment of Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses............................................................... 3-37 Priorities for Action.................................................................3-37
CHAPTER 4 WETLAND PROGRAMS Introduction.................................................................................... 4-1 Extent of Wetland Resources............................................................4-2 Wetland Trends in Georgia...............................................................4-3 Integrity of Wetland Resources..........................................................4-4 Wetland Use Support............................................................. 4-4 Wetland Monitoring................................................................ 4-8 Additional Wetlands Protection Activities..............................................4-8 Land Acquisition.................................................................... 4-8 Education and Public Outreach................................................ 4-9 State Protected Species in Wetlands..........................................4-9 Managing Wetlands on State Owned Properties...........................4-10 Assessment of DNR Managed Wetlands.................................... 4-11
CHAPTER 5 ESTUARY AND COASTAL PROGRAMS Background................................................................................... 5-1 Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. 5-1 Shellfish Sanitation Program............................................................. 5-2 Beach Monitoring Program .............................................................. 5-3
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
Nutrient Monitoring Program............................................................. 5-5 National Coastal Assessment............................................................ 5-5 Comprehensive Monitoring/Assessment Study for Georgia Coastal Wetlands............................................................5-6 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Programs.................................5-6 Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve.............................. 5-10 Coastal Zone Management............................................................... 5-10
CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC HEALTH/AQUATIC LIFE ISSUES Fish Consumption Guidelines............................................................ 6-1 Background.......................................................................... 6-1 Fish Monitoring Program ...................................................... 6-1 Evaluation of Fish Consumption Guidance for Use Support............6-2 Risk-Based Assessment For Fish Consumption...........................6-3 General Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks................................ 6-3 Specific Waterbody Consumption Guidelines.............................. 6-4 Special Notice for Pregnant Women, Nursing Mothers, and Children.........................................................................6-4 Development of New Risk Communication Tools..........................6-4 Bathing Area Monitoring.................................................................. 6-9 Shellfish Area Closures................................................................... 6-9 Pollution Related Fish Kills............................................................... 6-10
CHAPTER 7 WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS Program Perspective....................................................................... 7-1 Comprehensive Statewide Water Planning...........................................7-2 Watershed Projects.........................................................................7-3 Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. 7-3 Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocations/TMDL Development..........7-3 TMDL Implementation Plan Development ......................................... 7-4 State Revolving Loan/Construction Grants ..........................................7-4 Georgia's Land Conservation Program................................................7-6 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program.............................................................................. 7-7 Concentrated Animal Feeding Program............................................... 7-8 Combined Sewer Overflows..............................................................7-9 Compliance and Enforcement........................................................... 7-10 Zero Tolerance.............................................................................. 7-11 Stormwater Management................................................................. 7-12 Erosion and Sedimentation Control.................................................... 7-15 Nonpoint Source Management Program............................................. 7-17 Agriculture........................................................................... 7-21
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
Silviculture ...........................................................................7-25 Urban Runoff........................................................................7-27 Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) Program............... 7-31 Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program..................................................... 7-34 Emergency Response Program.........................................................7-36 Environmental Radiation.................................................................. 7-37
CHAPTER 8 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES Groundwater................................................................................. 8-1 Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals............................................. 8-21 Ground and Surface Drinking Water Supplies....................................... 8-24
CHAPTER 9 MAJOR ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning........................9-1 Nonpoint Source Pollution................................................................ 9-1 Toxic Substances........................................................................... 9-2 Public Involvement..........................................................................9-2
APPENDIX A WATERS ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGNATED USES............................................................A-1
APPENDIX B WATERS ADDED TO THE GEORGIA 303(d) LIST BY THE USEPA......................................................................... ........B-1
APPENDIX C FISH CONSUMPTION GUIDELINES................................ C-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1 TABLE 3-2
TABLE 3-3
TABLE 3-4 TABLE 3-5 TABLE 3-6 TABLE 3-7 TABLE 3-8
PAGE Water Resources Atlas.................................................. 3-2 Georgia Water Use Classifications and Instream Water Quality Standards for Each Use...................................... 3-3 Georgia Instream Water Quality Standards For All Waters: Toxic Substances.............................................. 3-5 Water Quality Standards For Major Lakes..........................3-9 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network 2004........................... 3-19 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network 2005........................... 3-23 Major Lakes Ranked by Trophic State Index...................... 3-29 Contributors of Water Quality Data For Assessment of Georgia Waters............................................................ 3-34
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA
TABLE 3-9 Evaluation of Use Support by Waterbody Type 2004-2005....3-38 TABLE 3-10 Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses By Waterbody
Type 2004-2005........................................................... 3-39 TABLE 3-11 Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses by
Waterbody Type 2004-2005............................................3-39 TABLE 4-1 Assessment of DNR Lands (1990)................................... 4-11 TABLE 5-1 Location and Size of Areas Approved for Shellfish Harvest... 5-2 TABLE 6-1 Parameters for Fish Tissue Testing.................................. 6-1 TABLE 6-2 No Consumption Restrictions 2005................................ 6-5 TABLE 6-3 Guidelines for Limiting The Fish You Eat Lakes 2005...... 6-6 TABLE 6-4 Guidelines for Limiting The Fish You Eat Rivers 2005...... 6-7 TABLE 6-5 Pollution-Caused Fish Kills 2004-2005..............................6-11
TABLE 7-1 TABLE 8-1 TABLE 8-2 TABLE 8-3 TABLE 8-3
Municipal Facility Sources of Investment 2004-2005............ 7-5 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination.................. 8-3 Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs.........8-4 Aquifer Monitoring Data for CY2004................................. 8-9 Aquifer Monitoring Data for CY2005................................. 8-10
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 Basin Advisory Committee.............................................2-9 FIGURE 2-2 Comprehensive Water Planning-Tasks and Milestones ........2-10 FIGURE 3-1 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations 1994...3-14 FIGURE 3-2 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations
2000-2004................................................................. 3-15 FIGURE 3-3 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations 2004...3-17 FIGURE 3-4 Georgia Trend Monitoring Network Station Locations 2005...3-18 FIGURE 8-1 Hydrologic Provinces of Georgia.....................................8-6 FIGURE 8-2 Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Network........................8-8 FIGURE 8-3 Insecticide/Herbicide Use in Georgia............................... 8-11 FIGURE 8-4 Areas Susceptible to Natural High Dissolved Solids
and 24 County Area Covered by the Interim Coastal Management Strategy.................................................. 8-12
FIGURE 8-5 Areas Susceptible to Natural and Human Induced Radiation........................................................ 8-14
FIGURE 8-6 Generalized Map of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas of Georgia......................................................... 8-19
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA