Water quality in Georgia, 2014/2015

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2014-2015
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2014-2015
Preface
This report was prepared by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Department of Natural Resources, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500 (the Clean Water Act) and as a public information document. It represents a synoptic extraction of the EPD files and, in certain cases, information has been presented in summary form from those files. The reader is therefore advised to use this condensed information with the knowledge that it is a summary document and more detailed information may be available in EPD files. This report covers a two-year period, January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015. Comments or questions related to the content of this report are invited and should be addressed to:
Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE Suite 1162 East Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

This page is intentionally blank.
WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAGE

Purpose.......................................................................................

1-1

Watershed Protection In Georgia.............................................................. 1-1

Watershed Protection Programs............................................................... 1-2

Background....................................... ................................

1-2

Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning ................ 1-2

Watershed Projects................................................................. 1-2

Monitoring and Assessment..................................................... 1-2

Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocation/TMDL Development .. 1-2

TMDL Implementation...........................................................

1-2

Clean Water Revolving and Georgia Fund Loan Programs.................. 1-2

Metro District Planning ..........................................................

1-3

NPDES Permitting and Enforcement.......................................... 1-3

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations................................... 1-3

Zero Tolerance...................................................................... 1-3

Nonpoint Source Management Program..................................... 1-3

Stormwater Management......................................................... 1-4

Erosion and Sediment Control.................................................. 1-4

Major Issues and Challenges............................................................

1-4

CHAPTER 2 COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE WATER

MANAGMENT PLANNING

Legislation ...................................................................................

2-1

State Water Plan Development ........................................................

2-1

Statewide Water Plan Implementation.................................................

2-1

Introduction.........................................................................

2-1

Regional Water Planning Councils ................................................. 2-2

Forecasts of Water and Wastewater Demands ............................... 2-2

Water Resource Assessments ....... ........................................... 2-2

Regional Water Plan Development ..................................................

2-3

Regional Water Plan Implementation ..................................................

2-3

CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Background................................................................................... Water Resources Atlas ............................................................ Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ................
Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. Goals.................................................................................. Long-Term Trend Monitoring ................................................ Targeted Monitoring .................................................................. Intensive Surveys.................................................................. Biological Monitoring .............................................................. Lake Monitoring..................................................................... Fish Tissue Monitoring ......................................................... Toxic Substance Stream Monitoring.......................................... Aquatic Toxicity Testing.......................................................... Coastal Monitoring.................................................................

3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-9 3-13 3-46 3-46 3-46 3-47 3-48 3-48 3-48

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

Facility Compliance Sampling................................................... Probabilistic Monitoring......................................................... Surface Water Quality Summary........................................................ Data Assessment.................................................................. Evaluation of Use Support .................................................... Assessment of Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses............ Assessment of Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses.. Priorities for Action.................................................................

3-48 3-48 3-52 3-52 3-53 3-53 3-55 3-56

CHAPTER 4 WETLAND PROGRAMS

Extent of Wetland Resources............................................................

4-1

Wetland Trends in Georgia ........ ......................................................

4-2

Integrity of Wetland Resources..........................................................

4-3

Wetland Functions and Uses......................................................... 4-3

Wetland Monitoring................................................................ 4-6

Additional Wetlands Protection Activities .................................................. 4-6

Land Conservation.................................................................... 4-6

Education and Public Outreach................................................

4-7

State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................... 4-7

Protection and Maintenance of Healthy Vegetated Stream Buffers...... 4-8

Protection of Isolated Wetlands..............................................

4-8

Protection of Headwater Streams............................................

4-8

Control of Invasive Species...................................................

4.8

Protection of Caves and Other Karst Environments........................... 4-9

Reducing Impacts from Development and Other Activities.................. 4-9

M.A.R.S.H. Projects........................................................................

4-9

CHAPTER 5 ESTUARY AND COASTAL PROGRAMS

Background...................................................................................

5-1

Georgia Coastal Management Program ..............................................

5-1

Public Health Water Quality Monitoring Program....................................

5-1

Shellfish Sanitation Program.............................................................

5-1

Beach Monitoring Program...............................................................

5-2

Nutrient Monitoring Program.............................................................

5-2

Coastal Streams, Harbors, and Sounds...............................................

5-3

Coastal Beaches............................................................................

5-3

Data Not Included in Assessment......................................................

5-3

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Programs.................................

5-3

CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC HEALTH & AQUATIC LIFE ISSUES

Risk-Based Assessment for Fish Consumption............................................. 6-1

Fish Consumption Guidelines......................................................... 6-1

Mercury in Fish Trend Project .................................................

6-1

Evaluation of Fish Consumption Guidance for Use Support............ 6-2

General Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks................................

6-2

Specific Waterbody Consumption Guidelines..............................

6-3

Special Notice for Pregnant Women, Nursing Mothers,

and Children......................................................................... 6-3

Development of New Risk Communication Tools For Women of

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

Child-bearing Age and Children................................................. 6-3 Recreational Public Beach Monitoring................................................... 6-3 Shellfish Area Closures....................................................................... 6-4 Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Blooms............................................. 6-4

CHAPTER 7 WATESHED PROTECTION PROGRAMS
Program Perspective....................................................................... Comprehensive Statewide Water Planning........................................... Watershed Projects......................................................................... Water Quality Monitoring.................................................................. Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocations/TMDL Development.......... TMDL Implementation................ ......................................... Clean Water State Revolving Loan and Georgia Fund Loan Programs ............ Metro District Planning...... ............................................................. Georgia's Land Conservation Program................................................ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program.. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations............................................... Combined Sewer Overflows.............................................................. Compliance and Enforcement........................................................... Zero Tolerance.............................................................................. Storm Water Management................................................................. Erosion and Sedimentation Control.................................................... Nonpoint Source Management Program.............................................
Agriculture........................................................................... Silviculture ........................................................................... Urban Runoff........................................................................ Outreach Unit................................................................................ Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) Program............... Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program..................................................... Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program..................................................... Rivers Alive Program ..................................................................... Emergency Response Network......................................................... Environmental Radiation..................................................................

7-1 7-2 7-2 7-4 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-6 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-8 7-8 7-9 7-9 7-11 7-12 7-14 7-15 7-17 7-18 7-19 7-20 7-20 7-21 7-22 7-22

CHAPTER 8 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

SUPPLIES

Groundwater.................................................................................

8-1

Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals.............................................

8-17

Ground and Surface Drinking Water Supplies.......................................

8-20

LT2 and Stage 2 Issues .................................................................

8-20

Public Water Supervision Program ...................................................

8-21

CHAPTER 9 MAJOR ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Comprehensive State and Regional Water Planning...............................

9-1

Nonpoint Source Pollution................................................................

9-1

Toxic Substances ...........................................................................

9-1

Nutrients........................................................................................

9-2

Public Involvement..........................................................................

9-2

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

TABLE 3-1 TABLE 3-2
TABLE 3-3
TABLE 3-4 TABLE 3-5 TABLE 3-6
TABLE 3-7 TABLE 3-8 TABLE 3-9 TABLE 3-10 TABLE 3-11 TABLE 3-12
TABLE 3-13
TABLE 3-14
TABLE 3-15
TABLE 3-16
TABLE 5-1 TABLE 6-1 TABLE 6-2 TABLE 6-3 TABLE 6-4
TABLE 8-1 TABLE 8-2 TABLE 8-3A TABLE 8-3B TABLE 8-4 TABLE 8-5

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Water Resources Atlas.................................................. 3-1

Water Use Classifications and Instream Water

Quality Standards for Each Use...................................... 3-2

Georgia Instream Water Quality Standards For All

Waters: Toxic Substances.............................................. 3-3

Water Quality Standards For Major Lakes.......................... 3-7

USGS Stream Gages Funded by GAEPD.......................... 3-10

Statewide Trend Monitoring Network (Core): Rivers/Streams 3-13

Lakes/Reservoirs Standard Tributary Stations

Georgia Trend Monitoring Network 2014 ........................... 3-16

Georgia Trend Monitoring Network 2015 ........................... 3-26

Major Lakes Ranked by Sum of Trophic State Index Values...... 3-47

Mercury in Fish Trend Monitoring Stations.....................

3-47

Beaches Monitored by CRD in 2014 & 2015.....................

3-49

Stations Monitored by CRD Under the Shellfish Sanitation

and Nutrient Monitoring Programs in 2014 & 2015.................. 3-50

Contributors of Water Quality Data For Assessment of

Georgia Waters............................................................ 3-53

Evaluation of Use Support by Waterbody Type and

Assessment Category 2014-2015.................................

3-54

Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses By Waterbody Type

2014-2015...........................................................

3-54

Potential Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses by

Waterbody Type 2014-2015............................................ 3-56

Location and Size of Areas Approved for Shellfish Harvest... 5-2

Parameters for Fish Tissue Testing.................................. 6-1

No Consumption Restrictions 2014................................ 6-5

Fish Consumption Guidance for Lakes 2014.................... 6-6

Fish Consumption Guidance for Rivers, Freshwater Creeks

and Estuarine Systems2014 .....................................

6-8

Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination.................. 8-2

Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs......... 8-4

Summary of Ground-Water Monitoring Results CY 2014......... 8-7

Summary of Ground-Water Monitoring Results CY 2015...... 8-7

Ground-Water Monitoring Data For CY 2014..................... 8-8

Ground-Water Monitoring Data for CY 2015...................... 8-8

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3-1 Georgia Trend and Lake Tributary Monitoring

Network (USGS & CWW) Station Locations 2014-2015............. 3-12

FIGURE 8-1 Hydrologic Provinces of Georgia....................................... 8-5

FIGURE 8-2 Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Network, 2014-2015........... 8-6

FIGURE 8-3 Insecticide/Herbicide Use in Georgia, 1980........................... 8-10

FIGURE 8-4 Areas Susceptible to Natural High Dissolved Solids

and 24 County Area Covered by the Interim Coastal

Management Strategy..................................................

8-11

FIGURE 8-5 Areas Susceptible to Natural and Human Induced Radiation .... 8-15

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

FIGURE 8-6 Generalized Map of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas of Georgia.........................................................

8-19

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A WATERS ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGNATED USES

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary
Purpose
This report, Water Quality in Georgia, 20142015, was prepared by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR Coastal Resources Division (CRD) and Wildlife Resources Division (WRD), the Georgia Forestry Commission, the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, 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, environmental groups and universities.
This 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. The report describes water quality conditions of navigable waters across the State. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the individual State reports 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 statewide water planning efforts; 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.
Watershed Protection In Georgia
The GAEPD is 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 achieve and maintain a coordinated, integrated approach to environmental management. Today the GAEPD administers programs for planning, 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.
The Watershed Protection Branch of the GAEPD, in cooperation with many local, state, and federal agencies, coordinates programs to address most aspects of drinking water supply and water pollution control including: comprehensive statewide water planning; monitoring; water quality modeling to develop wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs); TMDL implementation; the continuing planning process; water quality standards; local watershed assessment and watershed protection plans; nonpoint source management; erosion and sedimentation control; stormwater management; Clean Water State Revolving and Georgia Fund Loan programs; the NPDES permit and enforcement program for municipal and industrial point sources; water withdrawal and drinking water permits; water conservation; source water protection; industrial pretreatment; land application of treated wastewater; regulation of concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs); and public outreach including Georgia Project Wet and Adopt-A-Stream programs.
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 IN GEORGIA

1-1

water quality problems due to commercial forestry operations.
Watershed Protection Programs
Background. Georgia is rich in water resources. The State has approximately 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. The State also 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, 1999-2002, 2007-2008, and 2012 serve as reminders that water resources cannot be taken for granted and sound regulatory programs are necessary to protect these resources.
In 2014-2015, the GAEPD placed emphasis on comprehensive statewide water management planning, monitoring and assessment, water quality modeling and TMDLs, TMDL implementation, State revolving and Georgia Fund loan programs, NPDES permitting and enforcement, nonpoint source pollution abatement, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and public participation projects.
Comprehensive State-wide 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 called for the preparation of a comprehensive statewide water plan and provided fundamental goals and guiding principles for the development of the plan. The Statewide Water Plan was completed in 2008 and the Regional Water Councils completed plans in 2011. This work is discussed in Chapter 2.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on nutrient issues in Lake Talquin; and with the FDEP and the Suwannee River Water Management District to coordinate water protection efforts in the Suwannee River Basin. This work is discussed in Chapter 7.
Monitoring and Assessment. Georgia's waters are currently designated as 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 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 standards, monitoring programs, and information on assessments of Georgia's waters are discussed in Chapter 3. GAEPD's wetland monitoring program is discussed in Chapter 4 and estuary and coastal programs are discussed in Chapter 5.
Water Quality Modeling/Wasteload Allocation/TMDL Development. The GAEPD conducted a significant amount of modeling in 2014-2015 in support of the development of wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Over the 2014-2015 period, 6 TMDLs were finalized and approved by EPA and 131 TMDLs were developed and public noticed. To date more than 1774 TMDLs have been developed for 303(d) listed waters in Georgia. This work is discussed in Chapter 7.
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. TMDL implementation is discussed in Chapter 7.

Watershed Projects. The GAEPD is working with 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; with the

Clean Water Revolving and Georgia Fund Loan Programs. In 2014-2015 funds were obligated to communities for a variety of wastewater infrastructure and pollution prevention projects through the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) in the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

1-2

form of low-interest, SRF and Georgia Fund loans. The loan programs are discussed in Chapter 7.
Metro District Planning. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) updated the comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans to be implemented by local governments in the District in 2009. The EPD is charged with the enforcement of the District plans. State law prohibits the Director from approving 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. This work is discussed in Chapter 7.
NPDES Permitting and Enforcement. Significant resources were allocated to wastewater discharge permit reissuance activities in 2014-2015. NPDES permits were modified or reissued to 47 municipal/private dischargers and to 26 industrial dischargers.
Compliance and enforcement activities continued to receive significant attention in 2014-2015. 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.

and implemented for large chicken feeding operations. Revisions of those rules, designed to reflect changes in the federal regulations and recent court decisions, are planned. Work was continued in 2014-2015 to implement this program. This process is discussed in Chapter 7.
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 2014-2015 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 and has been designated as the 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 nonpoint source goals and implementation strategies are delineated in the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program. The Program is an inventory of the full breadth of current nonpoint source management activities (regulatory and nonregulatory) in Georgia.

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

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.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

1-3

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 of are made available annually to public agencies in Georgia. In FY12 FY14, Georgia's Section 319(h) grant project funded 23 new projects for over $4 million. The nonpoint source programs are described in Chapter 7.
Stormwater Management. The GAEPD developed its Phase 1 Storm Water Permitting Strategy in February 1991. 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, 2004, and 2009, and 2014. The 12 NPDES permits for medium MS4s were reissued in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2014.
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 and 2013, corresponding to the 2000 and 2010 US Census population figures and urban area mapping. In December 2012, GAEPD reissued the NPDES General Permit for Phase II MS4s. This permit currently regulates 109 municipalities. In 2009, a Phase II MS4 General NPDES Permit was issued to seven Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. Two of the bases closed in 2011, reducing the number of permitted DOD facilities to five. The NPDES Permit for these facilities was reissued in 2014. In 2012, GAEPD issued a Phase II MS4 General Stormwater Permit to the Georgia Department of Transportation, which is applicable to post-construction runoff in jurisdictions with MS4 permits. It is expected to be reissued in 2017.
In 1993, a general NPDES permit for storm water associated with industrial activity was issued. This permit was most recently reissued in 2012, with approximately 2,444 facilities retaining coverage. In addition, approximately 608 facilities have submitted an Industrial No Exposure Exclusion Certification Form. The

industrial stormwater general permit is expected to be reissued in 2017. Stormwater management is discussed in Chapter 7.
Erosion and Sediment Control. The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act was signed into law in 1975, and has been amended several times. The intent of the Act was to establish a comprehensive and statewide soil, erosion and sedimentation control 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. EPD implements the program where there is no local ordinance. Erosion and sediment control work is discussed in Chapter 7.
Major Issues and Challenges
Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. Between 2000 and 2010, Georgia gained 1.5 million new residents, ranking 4th nationally. The increasing population places considerable demands on Georgia's ground and surface water resources in terms of water supply, water quality, and assimilative capacity.
In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed the "Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act", O.C.G.A. 12-5522, which called for the development of a statewide water management plan. Work was completed on the Statewide Water Plan and the plan was approved by the General Assembly and Governor Perdue in February 2008. Regional Water Councils and the Metro District were charged with the responsibility of developing water plans to provide a roadmap for sustainable use of Georgia's water resources. The Councils submitted initial recommended plans to the GAEPD in May 2011. The plans were publicly noticed and comments received were thoroughly reviewed. Appropriate revisions were made to the initial plans and final recommended regional water plans were submitted to the GAEPD in September 2011. On November 15, 2011, by action of Director Barnes, the GAEPD officially adopted all ten Regional Water Plans.
The regional water plans are not themselves an end. The plans present solutions identified by a cross-section of regional leaders, drawing

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

1-4

on regional knowledge and priorities. The plans are based on consistent, statewide forecasts of needs and reflect the best available information on the capacities of Georgia's waters. The tools used to assess the capacities have been tested and refined, and will be further refined as the information for planning and management is improved. The process and results of regional planning, taken together, provide solid footing for plan implementation and the five-year review and revision required by the State Water Plan. Water users, water providers, local governments, state agencies, and elected leaders all have an important role in actions to ensure that Georgia's waters are sustainably managed to support the state's economy, protect public health and natural systems, and enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
Nonpoint Source Pollution. The pollution impact on Georgia streams has radically shifted over the last several 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, detergents and a variety of other pollutants being washed into rivers and lakes by stormwater. Even stormwater runoff itself, if rate and volume is unmitigated, can be extremely detrimental to aquatic habitat and hydrologic systems. Nonpoint source 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 green infrastructure, 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 structural practices, low impact development, street cleaning and perhaps eventual limitations on pesticide and fertilizer usage.
Toxic Substances. Another issue of importance, the reduction of toxic substances

in rivers, lakes, sediment and fish tissue. This 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.
Nutrients. Nutrients serve a very important role in our environment. They provide the essential building blocks necessary for growth and development of healthy aquatic ecosystems. However, if not properly managed, nutrients in excessive amounts can have detrimental effects on human health and the environment, creating such water quality problems as excessive growth of macrophytes and phytoplankton, harmful algal blooms, dissolved oxygen depletion, and an imbalance of flora and fauna. In Georgia, site specific nutrient criteria have been adopted for several major lakes and their tributaries. Some of these lakes are currently listed for chlorophyll a, which is the primary biological indicator in lakes for nutrient overenrichment. TMDLs, based on watershed modeling, have been completed or are in development to address the nutrient issues for these lakes. Currently, the GAEPD is in the process of collecting the necessary data and information for use in developing nutrient standards for rivers, streams and other waterbodies in Georgia. Determining the relationship of nutrient levels and biological response is necessary in order to develop appropriate nutrient criteria.
Public Involvement. It is clear that local governments and industries, even with wellfunded 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 what we do on the land has a direct impact on water quality. Adding more

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

1-5

pavement and other impervious surfaces, littering, driving cars which drip oils and antifreeze, applying fertilizers and other activities and behaviors all contribute 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

1-6

CHAPTER 2
Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning
Legislation
Georgia's future relies on the protection and sustainable management of the state's water resources. In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed the "Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act", O.C.G.A. 125-522, which called for the development of a statewide water management plan. The legislation assigned the responsibility for developing the draft plan to the Georgia Environmental Protection (GAEPD) and established a planning oversight committee, the Georgia Water Council, composed of legislators, legislative appointees, and state agency heads with water related responsibilities. The legislation called for the GAEPD to submit a final draft plan no later than the first day of the regular session of the 2008 General Assembly.
State Water Plan Development
The process used to develop the draft statewide water plan included meaningful stakeholder participation. A Statewide Advisory Committee (SAC) was convened to provide perspectives on water policy options. Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) provided early input when needed by answering specific technical questions needed to inform water policy options. Seven Basin Advisory Committees (BACs) were appointed to provide a regional perspective on proposed policy options and management practices.
The initial draft of the statewide water plan, "Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for The Future" was submitted to the Water Council by the GAEPD on June 28, 2007. The Water Council approved the release of the initial draft and established a portal for

public input at its website. The Water Council discussed and approved a number of revisions to the initial draft plan and a second draft of the plan was prepared and noticed for public input on September 13, 2007.
The Water Council hosted thirteen public meetings across Georgia in November 2007 and received significant public comment on the second draft plan. The input was thoroughly reviewed and each change approved by the Water Council was made in the draft plan. A third draft of the plan was completed and noticed for public comment on December 5, 2007. The Water Council hosted six public meetings to discuss the revised water plan. Public input was reviewed and changes approved by the Water Council were made and a final draft of the plan was approved by the Water Council. This proposed plan, "Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan", was transmitted to the Georgia General Assembly for consideration on January 14, 2008, the first day of the 2008 regular session.
The Georgia General Assembly debated the provisions of the proposed water plan and both chambers approved the plan. Governor Perdue signed HR 1022, the Statewide Water Management Plan, on February 6, 2008. A copy of the plan is available at www.georgiawaterplanning.org.
State Water Plan Implementation
Introduction. The State Water Plan included several innovative concepts. One concept was the idea of appointing regional water planning councils whose responsibility would be to develop regional water plans. A second concept was the development of regional forecasts of water supply and wastewater demands based on forecasts of population and employment for a region. A third concept was the development of water resource assessments to provide information to each Council on available water supply and assimilative capacity. Each of these concepts is discussed below.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

2-1

Regional Water Planning Councils. The regional water planning councils (Councils) represent regions in Georgia as designated in the State Water Plan and adjusted by approved petition. Each Council includes individuals appointed by the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (Metro District), a separate water planning entity created by the legislature in 2001, participated fully in the statewide planning process. A map of the water planning regions is shown below.
The role of each Water Council was to prepare a plan to manage available water resources within its region. Each plan was based on resource assessments and estimates of current and future water needs. More detailed information on each regional water planning council can be found at www.georgiawaterplanning.org. Forecasts of Water and Wastewater Demands. Understanding the capacities of water resources to meet the demands placed on them is critical to managing water for the future. In order for the Councils to produce regional water plans, forecasts of water and wastewater needs were needed. Long-range population and employment projections were prepared in order to forecast demand for municipal and industrial

water and wastewater. Population and employment projections were provided to each water council by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (OPB). Local governments and Councils were provided an opportunity to comment on the forecasts and the methodologies, assumptions, and data sources used to produce the projections. This input was considered prior to the use of the projections in the water demand planning process. Using the vetted population and employment forecasts, projections of water and wastewater demand were prepared to support regional water planning, providing this information on a consistent, statewide basis for the first time. Water and wastewater demand forecasts were developed for the following water use sectors: Municipal, Industrial, Agricultural, and Energy. Each Council received draft forecasts developed in10 year increments through 2050 for consideration and use in the planning process. More detailed information on the population and employment projections and the water and wastewater demand forecasts can be found at www.georgiawaterplanning.org.
Water Resource Assessments. Water resource assessments were also one of the building blocks for regional water planning. The assessments included the compilation and analysis of data and modeling to evaluate the capacity of water resources to meet current and future demands for water supply and wastewater discharge within thresholds selected to indicate the potential for local or regional impacts.
The GAEPD, with the assistance of other state agencies, the University System of Georgia and other research institutions, the U.S. Geological Survey and contractors conducted water resource assessments to determine Surface Water Availability, Groundwater Availability, and Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity). The resource assessment results for current and future conditions were provided to each regional water planning council for their consideration and use in the planning process.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

2-2

More detailed information on the water resource assessments can be found at www.georgiawaterplanning.org.
Regional Water Plan Development
The Councils and the Metro District developed regional water plans that provide a roadmap for sustainable use of Georgia's water resources. The Councils submitted initial recommended plans to the EPD in May 2011. The plans were publicly noticed and comments received were thoroughly reviewed. Appropriate revisions were made to the initial plans and final recommended regional water plans were submitted to the GAEPD in September 2011. On November 15, 2011, by action of Director Barnes, the GAEPD officially adopted each Regional Water Plan.
The regional water plans represent solutions identified by a cross-section of regional leaders, drawing on regional knowledge and priorities. The plans were based on consistent, statewide forecasts of needs and reflected the best available information on the capacities of Georgia's water resources. The tools used to assess the capacities were tested and refined, and will be further refined as the information for planning and management continues to improve. The process and results of regional planning, taken together, provide a solid footing for plan implementation and future updates. The full plans can be reviewed at www.georgiawaterplanning.org.
Regional Water Plan Implementation
The focus in years 2014-2015 turned to the implementation of the regional water plans. Local governments, utilities, industries, and other water users in each region help implement the plans, and the plans are used to guide state agency decisions on water permits and loans for water-related projects. Contractors supported the regional water planning councils in assessing implementation conducted in their regions and in completing reports regarding that assessment in June 2014.

In 2014-2015, the State also continued to make investments in water quality data collection and the development of modeling tools to extend and improve the information and tools used in water planning and management.
This work will continue to pay off over time, advancing the ability to manage Georgia's 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)).
.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

2-3

CHAPTER 3
Water Quality Monitoring And Assessment
Background
Water Resources Atlas The river miles and lake acreage estimates are based on the U.S. Geological Survey (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 provides a consistent computerized methodology for summing river miles and lake acreage. 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).
The estimates for Georgia 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 estimates for the number of lakes in Georgia are 11,813 with a total acreage of 425,382. This information is summarized in Table 3-1.
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 is authorized through the Georgia Water Quality Control Act to

establish water use classifications and water quality standards for the waters of the State.

For each water use classification, water quality standards or criteria have been developed, which establish the framework used by the Environmental Protection Division to make water use regulatory decisions. All of Georgia's waters are currently classified as fishing, recreation, drinking water, wild river, scenic river, or coastal fishing. Table 3-2 provides a summary of water use classifications and criteria for each use. Georgia's rules and regulations protect all waters for the use of primary contact recreation by having 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).

TABLE 3-1. WATER RESOURCES ATLAS

State Population (2014 Estimate)

10,097,340

State Surface Area

57,906 sq.mi.

Number of Major River Basins

14

Number of Perennial River Miles

44,056 miles

Number of Intermittent River Miles

23,906 miles

Number of Ditches and Canals

603 miles

Total River Miles

70,150 miles

Number of Lakes Over 500 Acres

48

Acres of Lakes Over 500 Acres

265,365 acres

Number of Lakes Under 500 Acres

11,765

Acres of Lakes Under 500 Acres

160,017 acres

Total Number of Lakes & Reservoirs, Ponds

11,813

Total Acreage of Lakes, Reservoirs, Ponds 425,382 acres

Square Miles of Estuaries

854 sq.mi.

Miles of Coastline

100

Acres of Freshwater Wetlands

4,500,000 acres

Acres of Tidal Wetlands

384,000 acres

Georgia has also adopted 31 numeric standards for protection of aquatic life and 92 numeric standards for the protection of human health. Table 3-3 provides a summary of toxic substance standards that apply to all waters in Georgia.
Georgia has six large publicly owned lakes that have specific water quality standards. These lakes are West Point, Jackson, Walter F. George, Lanier, Allatoona, and Carter's. Standards were adopted for chlorophyll-a,

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-1

TABLE 3-2. WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND INSTREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EACH USE

Bacteria

Dissolved Oxygen1

pH

(other than trout

streams),2

Temperature (other than trout
streams)2

Use Classification Drinking Water requiring treatment Recreation
Coastal Fishing4
Fishing Wild River

30-Day Geometric Mean3 (no./100 mL) 1,000 fecal coliform (Nov-April) 200 fecal coliform (May-Oct) 126 E coli (Freshwater) 35 Enterococci (Coastal)
1,000 fecal coliform (Nov-Apr) 200 fecal coliform (May-Oct)
1,000 fecal coliform (Nov-April) 200 fecal coliform (May-Oct)

Maximum (no./100mL)
4,000 fecal coliform
(Nov-April) 410 E coli STV (Freshwater) 130 Entercocci STV (Coastal)
4,000 fecal coliform (Nov-Apr)
4,000 fecal coliform
(Nov-April)

Daily Average (mg/L)
5.0

Minimum (mg/L)
4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

If it is determined that the "natural condition" in the waterbody is less than the values stated above, then the criteria will revert to the "natural condition" and the water quality standard will allow for a 0.1 mg/L deficit from the "natural" dissolved oxygen value. Up to a 10% deficit will be allowed if it is demonstrated that resident aquatic species shall not be adversely affected.

5.0

4.0

No alteration of natural water quality

Std. Units 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5
6.0-8.5
6.0-8.5

Maximum Maximum Rise (F) (F)

5

90

5

90

5

90

5

90

Scenic River

No alteration of natural water quality

1The dissolved oxygen criteria as specified in individual water use classifications shall be applicable at a depth of one meter below the water surface; in those instances where depth is less than two meters, the dissolved oxygen criterion shall be applied at a mid-depth. On a case specific basis, alternative depths may be specified. 2Standards for Trout Streams for dissolved oxygen are a daily 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. 3Geometric 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. 4Standards are same as fishing with the exception of dissolved oxygen, which is site specific.

pH, total nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. Standards for major tributary phosphorus loading were also established. The standards for the six lakes are summarized in Table 3-4.
Water Quality Monitoring Goals The goal of the watershed 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 and other restoration activities, support enforcement actions, establish wasteload allocations for new and

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-2

TABLE 3-3. GEORGIA INSTREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR ALL WATERS: TOXIC SUBSTANCES
(Excerpt from Georgia's 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) 2. Methoxychlor 3. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy propionic acid (TP Silvex)

70 g/L 0.03 g/L* 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

1.0 g/L 1, 3 40 g/L 1

0.15 g/L 1, 3 8.8 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

-290 g/L 1 -- 4

5.0 g/L 71 g/L 1 -- 4

11. Zinc (a) Freshwater (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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-3

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 EPA 2006. 2 The in-stream criterion is lower than the EPD laboratory detection limits (A "*" indicates that the criterion may be higher than or 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 EPA 2006 should be used.
Cadmium acute criteria = (e ( 1.0166[ln(hardness)] -3.924) )(1.136672-[(ln hardness)(0.041838)] g/L chronic criteria = (e ( 0.7409[ln(hardness)] -4.719) )(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
Site-specific Copper criteria developed using the biotic ligand model (BLM):
Buffalo Creek (Richards Lake Dam to confluence with Little Tallapoosa River):

Acute criteria

Chronic criteria

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 (CAS RN1 57749) (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
2. Cyanide (CAS RN1 57125) (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
3. Dieldrin (CAS RN1 60571) (a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters
4. 4,4'-DDT (CAS RN1 50293) 5. a-Endosulfan (CAS RN1 959988)
(a) Freshwater (b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 6. b-Endosulfan (CAS RN1 33213659) (a) Freshwater

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*

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-4

(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 7. Endrin (CAS RN1 72208)
(a) Freshwater
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 8. Heptachlor (CAS RN1 76448)
(a) Freshwater
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 9. Heptachlor Epoxide (CAS RN1 1024573)
(a) Freshwater
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 10 Pentachlorophenol (CAS RN1 87865)
(a) Freshwater2
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 11. PCBs
(a) Freshwater
(b) Coastal and Marine Estuarine Waters 12. Phenol (CAS RN1 108952) 13. Toxaphene (CAS RN1 8001352)

0.0087 g/L*
0.036 g/L* 0.0023 g/L*
0.0038 g/L* 0.0036 g/L*
0.0038 g/L* 0.0036 g/L*
15 g/L*2 7.9 g/L*
0.014 g/L* 0.03 g/L* 300 g/L 0.0002 g/L*

1"CAS RN" or the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number is a unique numerical identifier assigned to each chemical and some chemical mixtures. 2The instream freshwater criterion for pentachlorophenol is a function of pH, determined by the formula (e ). (1.005(pH)-5.134) At
a pH equal to 7.8 standard units the criterion is 15 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 (CAS RN1 83329) 2. Acenaphthylene (CAS RN1 208968) 3. Acrolein (CAS RN1 107028) 4. Acrylonitrile (CAS RN1 107131) 5. Aldrin (CAS RN1 309002) 6. Anthracene (CAS RN1 120127)
7. Antimony
8. Arsenic (Total)
(a) Drinking Water Supplies
(b) All Other Classifications 9. Benzidine (CAS RN1 92875) 10. Benzo(a)Anthracene (CAS RN1 56553) 11. Benzo(a)Pyrene (CAS RN1 ) 12. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene (CAS RN1 205992) 13. Benzene (CAS RN1 71432) 14. Benzo(ghi)Perylene (CAS RN1 191242) 15. Benzo(k)Fluoranthene (CAS RN1 207089)
16. Beryllium 17. a-BHC-Alpha (CAS RN1 319846) 18. b-BHC-Beta (CAS RN1 319857) 19. Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether (CAS RN1 111444) 20. Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether (CAS RN1 108601) 21. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate (CAS RN1 117817) 22. Bromoform (Tribromomethane) (CAS RN1 75252) 23. Butylbenzyl Phthalate (CAS RN1 85687) 24. Carbon Tetrachloride (CAS RN1 56235) 25. Chlorobenzene (CAS RN1 108907) 26. Chlorodibromomethane (CAS RN1 124481) 27. 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether (CAS RN1 110758) 28. Chlordane (CAS RN1 57749) 29. Chloroform (Trichloromethane) (CAS RN1 67663) 30. 2-Chloronaphthalene (CAS RN1 91587) 31. 2-Chlorophenol (CAS RN1 95578) 32. Chrysene (CAS RN1 218019) 33. Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (CAS RN1 53703) 34. Dichlorobromomethane (CAS RN1 75274)

990 g/L ** 9.3 g/L 0.25 g/L 0.000050 g/L 40000 g/L 640 g/L
10 g/L 50 g/L 0.0002 g/L 0.018 g/L 0.018 g/L 0.018 g/L 51 g/L ** 0.018 g/L ** 0.0049 g/L 0.017 g/L 0.53 g/L 65000 g/L 2.2 g/L 140 g/L 1900 g/L 1.6 g/L 1600 g/L 13 g/L ** 0.00081 g/L 470 g/L 1600 g/L 150 g/L 0.018 g/L 0.018 g/L 17 g/L

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-5

35. 1,2-Dichloroethane (CAS RN1 107062)

36. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (CAS RN1 75354)

37 1,2 Dichloropropane (CAS RN1 78875)

38. 1,3-Dichloropropylene (CAS RN1 542756)

39. 2,4-Dichlorophenol (CAS RN1 120832)

40. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (CAS RN1 95501)

41. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (CAS RN1 541731)

42. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (CAS RN1 106467)

43. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (CAS RN1 )

44. 4,4'-DDT (CAS RN1 50293)

45. 4,4'-DDD (CAS RN1 72548)

46. 4,4'-DDE (CAS RN1 72559)

47. Dieldrin (CAS RN1 60571)

48. Diethyl Phthalate (CAS RN1 84662)

49. Dimethyl Phthalate(CAS RN1 131113)

50. 2,4-Dimethylphenol (CAS RN1 105679)

51. 2,4-Dinitrophenol (CAS RN1 51285)

52. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate (CAS RN1 84742)

53. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (CAS RN1 121142)

54. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (CAS RN1 122667)

55. Endrin (CAS RN1 72208)

56. Endrin Aldehyde (CAS RN1 7421934)

57. alpha Endosulfan (CAS RN1 959988)

58. beta Endosulfan (CAS RN1 33213659)

59. Endosulfan Sulfate (CAS RN1 1031078)

60. Ethylbenzene (CAS RN1 100414)

61. Fluoranthene (CAS RN1 206440)

62. Fluorene (CAS RN1 86737)

63. Heptachlor (CAS RN1 76448)

64. Heptachlor Epoxide (CAS RN1 1024573)

65. Hexachlorobenzene (CAS RN1 118741)

66. Hexachlorobutadiene (CAS RN1 87683)

67. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (CAS RN1 77474)

68. Hexachloroethane (CAS RN1 67721)

69. Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene (CAS RN1 193395)

70. Isophorone (CAS RN1 78591)

71.

Lindane [Hexachlorocyclohexane (g-BHC-Gamma)](CAS RN1 58899)

72. Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane) (CAS RN1 74839)

73. Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane) (CAS RN1 74873)

74. Methylene Chloride (CAS RN1 75092)

75. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol (CAS RN1 534521)

76. 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol (CAS RN1 59507)

77. Nitrobenzene (CAS RN1 98953)

78. N-Nitrosodimethylamine (CAS RN1 62759)

79. N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine (CAS RN1 621647)

80. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (CAS RN1 86306)

81. PCBs 82. Pentachlorophenol (CAS RN1 87865) 83. Phenanthrene (CAS RN1 85018) 84. Phenol (CAS RN1 108952) 85. Pyrene (CAS RN1 129000) 86. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CAS RN1 79345) 87. Tetrachloroethylene (CAS RN1 127184)

88. Thallium 89. Toluene (CAS RN1 108883) 90. Toxaphene (CAS RN1 8001352) 91. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene (CAS RN1 156605) 92. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (CAS RN1 79005) 93. Trichloroethylene (CAS RN1 79016) 94. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (CAS RN1 88062) 95. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (CAS RN1 120821) 96. Vinyl Chloride (CAS RN1 75014)

37 g/L 7100 g/L 15 g/L 21 g/L 290 g/L 1300 g/L 960 g/L 190 g/L 0.028 g/L 0.00022 g/L 0.00031 g/L 0.00022 g/L 0.000054 g/L 44000 g/L 1100000 g/L 850 g/L 5300 g/L 4500 g/L 3.4 g/L 0.20 g/L 0.060 g/L 0.30 g/L 89 g/L 89 g/L 89 g/L 2100 g/L 140 g/L 5300 g/L 0.000079 g/L 0.000039 g/L 0.00029 g/L 18 g/L 1100 g/L 3.3 g/L 0.018 g/L 960 g/L 1.8 g/L 1500 g/L ** 590 g/L 280 g/L ** 690 g/L 3.0 g/L 0.51 g/L 6.0 g/L 0.000064 g/L 3.0 g/L ** 857000 g/L 4000 g/L 4.0 g/L 3.3 g/L 0.47 g/L 5980 g/L 0.00028 g/L 10000 g/L 16 g/L 30 g/L 2.4 g/L 70 g/L 2.4 g/L

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-6

1"CAS RN" or the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number is a unique numerical identifier assigned to each chemical and some chemical mixtures. **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 0.0000000051 g/L

under long-term average stream flow conditions.

(vii)

Mercury: For the protection of human health, total mercury concentrations bioaccumulating in a waterbody, in a

representative population of fish, shellfish and/or other seafood representing different trophic levels, shall not

exceed a total mercury concentration in edible tissues of 0.3 mg/kg wet weight. This standard is in accord with

the USEPA Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury, (January 2001, EPA-

823-R-01-001), and because nearly 100% of the mercury in fish tissue is methylmercury, adoption of the

standard as total mercury is an additional conservative measure. The representative fish tissue total mercury

concentration for a waterbody is determined by calculating a Trophic-Weighted Residue Value, as described by

the Georgia EPD Protocol (October 19, 2001).

(f) Applicable State and Federal requirements and regulations for the discharge of radioactive substances shall be met at all times.

TABLE 3-4. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR MAJOR LAKES

(17) 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 the chlorophyll a concentrations at the locations listed below more than once in a five-year period.

1. Upstream from the Dam in the Forebay

22 g/L

2. LaGrange Water Intake

24 g/L

(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) Total Phosphorus: Total lake loading shall not exceed 2.4 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.

(v) 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)(iii).

2. New River to West Point Dam: E. coli 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: 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:

11,000 pounds.

2. New River at Hwy 100:

14,000 pounds.

3. Chattahoochee River at U.S. 27:

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 g/L at mid-river at U.S. Highway 82 or 15 g/L at mid-river in the dam forebay more than once in a fiveyear period. (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) Total Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 2.4 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year. (v) Bacteria: 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: E. coli shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-36-.03(6)(b)(i).

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-7

(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 391-3-6-.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 g/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 more than once in a five-year period.

(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) Total Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 5.5 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.

(v) Bacteria: E. coli 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 391-3-6-.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:

179,000 pounds

2. Yellow River at Georgia Highway 212:

116,000 pounds

3. Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge Road:

55,000 pounds

4. Tussahaw Creek at Fincherville Road:

7,000 pounds

(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 of monthly mid-channel photic zone composite samples

shall not exceed the chlorophyll a concentrations at the locations listed below more than once in a five-year period:

1. Upstream from the Dam

10 g/L

2. Allatoona creek upstream from I-75

12 g/L

3. Mid-Lake downstream from Kellogg Creek

10 g/L

4. Little River upstream from Highway 205

15 g/L

5. Etowah River upstream from Sweetwater Creek

14 g/L

(ii) pH: within the range of 6.0-9.5 standard units

(iii) Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed a growing season average of 4 mg/L as nitrogen in the photic zone.

(iv) Total Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 1.3 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.

(v) Bacteria :

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; E. coli 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

340,000 lbs/yr

2. Little River at State Highway 5 (Highway 754)

42,000 lbs/yr

3. Noonday Creek at North Rope Mill Road

38,000 lbs/yr

4. Shoal Creek at State Highway 108 (Fincher Road)

12,500 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 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 more than once in a five-year period:

1. Upstream from the Buford Dam forebay

5 g/L

2. Upstream from the Flowery Branch confluence

6 g/L

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-8

3. At Browns Bridge Road (State Road 369)

7 g/L

4. At Bolling Bridge (State Road 53) on Chestatee River

10 g/L

5. At Lanier Bridge (State Road 53) on Chattahoochee River

10 g/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) Total Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 0.25 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.

(v) Bacteria: E. coli 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 to Lake Sidney Lanier

shall not exceed the following:

1. Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road

178,000 pounds

2. Chestatee River at Georgia Highway 400

118,000 pounds

3. Flat Creek at McEver Road

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 more than once in a five-year period:

1. Carters Lake upstream from Woodring Branch

10 g/L

2. Carters Lake at Coosawattee River embayment mouth

10 g/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) Total Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 172,500 pounds or 0.46 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per

year.

(v) Bacteria : E. coli 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

16,000 pounds

existing facilities, develop TMDLs, verify water pollution control plant compliance, collect data for criteria development, and document water use impairment and reasons for problems causing less than full support of designated water uses. Trend monitoring, targeted monitoring, probabilistic 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.
Long-Term Trend 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 has been conducted by EPD associates and through cooperative agreements with federal, state, and local agencies that collect samples from groups of stations at specific, fixed locations throughout the year.

The cooperating agencies conduct certain tests in the field and ship stream samples to the GAEPD or UGA 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 sample collection on the Chattahoochee River below Columbus. In 2010, GAEPD added 41 flow gages to its monitoring network as part of the State Water Plan. Table 3-5 provides a list of the USGS stream gages funded by GAEPD. GAEPD also funds three continuous water quality monitors operated by the USGS on the Coosa River at the Georgia/Alabama Stateline, Chattahoochee River at HWY 92, and the Savannah Harbor at the Corps Dock. In addition, GAEPD continues to operate the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-9

TABLE 3-5. USGS STREAM GAGES FUNDED BY GAEPD

USGS Number
02177000 02191300 02192000 02193340 02193500 02197598 021964832 02197830 02198375 021989792 02198950 21989792 02198980 02197000
02201000 02202190 02203518
02215000 02215100 02215500 02216180 02214075 02214590 02215900 02208000
02212735 02211800 02204520 02223360 02223190 02223110 02225270
02314500 02318000 02315920 02317797
02226362 02227270 02228070
02231254
02327500 02327355
23432415 02343805 02338840

Station Name and Location Savannah River Basin
Chattooga River near Clayton, GA Broad River above Carlton, GA Broad River near Bell, GA Kettle Creek near Washington, GA Little River near Washington, GA Brushy Creek at Campground Road near Wrens, GA Savannah River above Augusta Canal, near Bonair, GA Brier Creek near Waynesboro, GA Savannah River near Estill, GA Savannah River at Port Wentworth, GA Middle River at GA 25, at Port Wentworth, GA Little Back River at GA 25, at Port Wentworth, GA Savannah River at Fort Pulaski Savannah River at Augusta, GA
Ogeechee River Basin Williamson Swamp Creek at Davisboro, GA Ogeechee River At GA 24, near Oliver, GA Canoochee River at Bridge 38, at Fort Stewart
Altamaha River Basin Ocmulgee River at US 341, near Hawkinsville, GA Tucsawhatchee Creek near Hawkinsville, GA Ocmulgee River at Lumber City, GA Turnpike Creek near McRae, GA Echecommee Creek at Houston Road, near Byron, GA Big Indian Creek at US 341, near Clinchfield, GA Little Ocmulgee River at GA 149, at Scotland, GA Yellow River at Rocky Plains Road, near Rocky Plains, GA
Ocmulgee River at GA 18, at Dames Ferry, GA Towaliga River at GA 83, near Juliette, GA South River at GA 81, at Snapping Shoal, GA Big Sandy Creek at US 441, near Irwinton, GA Commissioner Creek at US 441, at McIntyre, GA Buffalo Creek at GA 272, near Oconee, GA Ohoopee River at GA 297, near Swainsboro, GA
Suwannee River Basin Suwannee River at US 441, at Fargo, GA Little River near Adel, GA* Alapaha River at GA 125/32, near Irwinville, GA Little River Near Ty Ty Road near Tifton, GA
Satilla River Basin Satilla River at GA 158, near Waycross, GA Alabaha River at GA 203, nea Blackshear, GA Satilla River at US 17, at Woodbine, GA
St Mary's River Basin St. Mary's River at I-95, near Kingsland, GA
Ochlockonee River Basin Ochlockonee River near Thomasville, GA Ochlockonee River at GA 188 near Coolidge, GA
Chattahoochee River Basin Chattahoochee River 0.36 miles Downstream of WFG Dam, near Gaines, GA Chattahoochee River at Mile 46, near Columbia, AL Yellow Jacket Creek at Hammett Road, below Hogansville, GA

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-10

02342881 02331000 23312495
02344700 02349900 02351500 02353265 02353400 02353500 02355350 02355665 02357000 02350600 02354410 02354475 02354800 02354800 02356638
02381090 02381600 02384540 02385800 02395000
03568933 03550500 03567340
02413000 02413210

Chattahoochee River at Spur 39, near Omaha, GA Chattahoochee River near Leaf, GA Soque River at GA 197 near Clarkesville, GA
Flint River Basin Line Creek near Senoia, GA Turkey Creek at Byromville,GA Muckalee Creek near Americus, GA Ichawaynochaway Creek at GA 37, near Morgan, GA Pachitla Creek near Edison, GA Ichawaynochaway Creek at Milford, GA Ichawaynochaway Creek below Newton, GA Flint River at Riverview Plantation, near Hopeful, GA Spring Creek near Iron City, GA* Kinchafoonee Creek at Preston. GA Chickasawhatchee Creek near Leary, GA Spring Creek near Leary, GA Chickasawhatchee Creek at Elmodel, GA Ichawaynochaway Creek near Elmodel, GA Spring Creek Upstream of US27 near Colquitt, GA
Coosa River Basin Mountaintown Creek At Ga 76, Near Ellijay, Ga Fausett Creek near Talking Rock, GA Mill Creek near Crandall, GA Holly Creek near Chatsworth, GA Etowah River near Kingston, GA
Tennessee River Basin Lookout Creek near New England, GA Nottely River near Blairsville, GA West Chickamauga Creek at GA 146, near Lakeview, GA
Tallapoosa River Basin Little Tallapoosa at GA 27, at Carrolton, GA Little Tallapoosa at GA 100 near Bowdon, GA

* Partially funded by another cooperator

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-11

FIGURE 1 GEORGIA MONITORING NETWORK STATION LOCATIONS 2014-2015

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-12

continuous water quality monitor at Capps

a year. A different set of targeted sites are

Ferry on the Chattahoochee River south of

then selected for monitoring the next year.

Metro Atlanta, which records dissolved

oxygen, pH, temperature and specific

Figure 1 shows the monitoring network

conductance data every 15 minutes. The

stations for the sample collection period

data are collected in real-time and updated

2014-2015. This figure includes the State-

daily on the GAEPD's website.

wide trend monitoring network stations (that

are sampled every year), the targeted

Targeted Monitoring

monitoring stations, probabilistic stations, as

well as stations sampled by Georgia's

In addition to trend monitoring done through

Coastal Resources Division for 2014 and

cooperative agreements, GAEPD associates

2015. A list of all of these stations and a list

collect monthly samples from a number of

of the parameters sampled is presented in

locations across the state in a targeted

Table 3-6, Tables 3-7, Table 3-8, Table 3-11

monitoring effort. In targeted monitoring,

and Table 3-12

sites are monitored at least once a month for

.

TABLE 3-6. STATEWIDE TREND MONITORING NETWORK (CORE):

RIVERS/STREAMS; LAKE/RESERVOIR STANDARD TRIBUTARY STATIONS

Rivers and streams stations are sampled monthly for field and chemical parameters every year. Four fecal coliform bacterial samples are collected each calendar quarter to calculate four geometric means. Lakes and reservoir stations are sampled monthly during the "growing season" from April through October.

Georgia Station Number RV_01_66 RV_01_87 RV_01_109 RV_01_120 RV_02_298 RV_03_502 RV_03_640 RV_04_853
RV_04_876
RV_04_888
RV_04_892

Sampling Site Chattooga River at US Hwy. 76 near Clayton, GA Savannah River at 0.5 mile downstream from Spirit Creek Savannah River at Seaboard Coast Line Railway, north of Clyo, GA Savannah River at US Hwy. 17 (Houlihan Bridge) Ogeechee River at Georgia Hwy. 24 near Oliver, GA Oconee River at Barnett Shoals Road near Athens, GA Oconee River at Interstate Hwy. 16 near Dublin, GA
South River at Island Shoals Road near Snapping Shoals, Ga.
Yellow River at Georgia Hwy. 212 near Stewart, Ga.
Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge Road near Stewart, Ga.
Tussahaw Creek at Fincherville Road near Jackson, Ga.

River Basin
Savannah
Savannah
Savannah
Savannah
Ogeechee
Oconee
Oconee Upper Ocmulgee
Upper Ocmulgee
Upper Ocmulgee
Upper Ocmulgee

Waterbody

Sampling

Type/

Organization Project

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

Trend

USGS Monitoring

(Lake Trib)

USGS

Trend Monitoring

(Lake Trib)

Trend

USGS

Monitoring (Lake Trib)

Trend

USGS Monitoring

(Lake Trib)

Latitude 34.8140 33.3306 32.5250 32.1658 32.4948 33.8562 32.4804 33.4527
33.4543
33.4494
33.3789

Longitude -83.3064 -81.9153 -81.2640 -81.1539 -81.5558 -83.3265 -82.8582 -83.9271
-83.8813
-83.8283
-83.9634

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-13

Georgia Station Number RV_05_2165 RV_05_2203 RV_05_2223 RV_06_2846 RV_07_2986 RV_09_3181 RV_09_3236 RV_10_3386 RV_11_3485 RV_11_3511 RV_11_3553 RV_11_3558 RV_11_3563 RV_12_3902
RV_12_4292
RV_12_3925
RV_12_4003
RV_12_4049 RV_12_4039 RV_12_4041 LK_12_4074 LK_12_4079

Sampling Site

Waterbody

Sampling

Type/

River Basin Organization Project

Ocmulgee River at New Macon Water Intake

Ocmulgee

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Ocmulgee River at Hawkinsville, GA Ocmulgee

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Ocmulgee River at US Hwy. 341 at Lumber City, GA

Ocmulgee

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Altamaha River 6.0 miles downstream from Doctortown, GA

Altamaha

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Satilla River at Georgia Hwy.15 and Hwy.121

Satilla

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Suwannee River at US Hwy. 441

Trend

near Fargo, GA

St. Marys

USGS Monitoring

Withlacoochee River at ClyattsvilleNankin Road near Clyattsville, GA

Suwannee

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Ochlockonee River at Hadley Ferry Road near Calvary, Ga.

Ochlockonee

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Flint River at SR 92 near Griffin, GA

Flint

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Flint River at SR 26 near Montezuma

Flint

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Flint River at SR 234 near Albany,

GA

Flint

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Flint River at SR 37 at Newton, GA

Flint

USGS

Trend Monitoring

Flint River at US Hwy. 27-B near Bainbridge, GA

Trend

Flint

USGS Monitoring

Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road near Lula, Ga.

Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

Dicks Creek at Forest Service Road

144-1 near Neels Gap, GA

Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

Chestatee River at SR 400 near Dahlonega, Ga.

Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

Flat Creek at McEver Road near Gainesville, Ga.

Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

Yellow Jacket Creek at Hammet Road near Hogansville, GA

Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

New River at SR 100 near Corinth,

Ga.

Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring

Chattahoochee River at US Hwy. 27 near Franklin, Ga.

Chattahoochee

USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

Lake Harding - Dam Forebay (aka Chatt. River US Bartletts Ferry Dam) Chattahoochee

CWW

Trend Monitoring

Lake Oliver - Chattahochee River at

Columbus Water Intake near

Columbus, GA

Chattahoochee

CWW

Trend Monitoring

Latitude 32.8992 32.2818 31.9199 31.6233 31.2167 30.6806 30.6747 30.7317 33.3089 32.2929 31.5524 31.3094 30.9109 34.4451
34.6797 34.4667
34.2658
33.1392 33.2353 33.2792
32.6633
32.5214

Longitude -83.6641 -83.4628 -82.6743 -81.7653 -82.1625 -82.5606 -83.3947 -84.2355 -84.3931 -84.0440 -84.1463 -84.3350 -84.5805 -83.6842
-83.9372 -83.9689
-83.8850
-84.9753 -84.9878 -85.1000
-85.09028
-84.9983

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

Waterbody

Sampling

Type/

River Basin Organization Project Latitude Longitude

Chattahoochee River downstream RV_12_4084 from Columbus Water Treatment
Facility

Chattahoochee

CWW

Trend Monitoring 32.4089 -84.9803

RV_12_4091

Chattahoochee River downstream Oswichee Creek

Chattahoochee

CWW

Trend Monitoring 32.3000 -84.9369

RV_12_4093

Chattahoochee River at Hichitee Creek (River Mile 127.6)

Chattahoochee CWW

Trend Monitoring 32.2308 -84.9232

RV_12_4094 Chattahoochee River at Spur 39 near Omaha, GA (Seaboard Railroad) Chattahoochee USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

32.1436

-85.0453

RV_12_4110

Chattahoochee River at SR 91 near Steam Mill, GA

Chattahoochee

USGS

Trend Monitoring 30.9775 -85.0053

RV_13_4353

Tallapoosa River at Georgia Hwy. 8 near Tallapoosa, Ga.

Tallapoosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

33.7408

-85.3364

RV_13_4349

Little Tallapoosa River at Georgia Hwy. 100 near Bowden, GA

Tallapoosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring 33.4928 -85.2792

RV_14_4438

Conasauga River at US Hwy. 76 near Dalton, GA

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring 34.7830 -84.8730

RV_14_4460

Conasauga River at Tilton Bridge near Tilton, GA

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring 34.6667 -84.9283

RV_14_4518

Mountaintown Creek at SR 282 (US Hwy. 76) near Ellijay, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

34.7034

-84.5398

RV_14_4520

Coosawattee River at Georgia Hwy. 5 near Ellijay, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

34.6717

-84.5002

RV_14_4534

Oostanaula River at Rome Water Intake near Rome, GA

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring 34.2703 -85.1733

RV_14_4549

Etowah River at SR 5 spur near Canton, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

34.2397

-84.4944

RV_14_4550

Shoal Creek at SR 108 (Fincher Road) near Waleska, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

34.2608

-84.5956

RV_14_4851

Noonday Creek at Georgia Hwy. 92 near Woodstock, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

34.0861

-84.5306

RV_14_4555

Little River at Georgia Hwy. 5 near Woodstock, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring (Lake Trib)

34.1222

-84.5043

RV_14_4586

Etowah River at Hardin Bridge (FAS 829) near Euharlee, GA

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

34.18886

-84.9251

RV_14_4622

Coosa River - GA/Alabama State Line Monitor near Cave Springs

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

34.1983

-85.4439

Chattooga River at HollandRV_14_4640 Chattoogaville Road (FAS1363) near
Lyerly, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

34.3356

-85.4453

RV_15_4918

West Chickamauga Creek - Georgia Highway 146 near Ringgold, Ga.

Coosa

USGS

Trend Monitoring

34.9572

-85.2056

Routine field parameters include: gage height, air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,

conductivity, turbidity. Routine chemical parameters include: BOD5, alkalinity, hardness, ammonia, nitrite+nitrate nitrogen,

phosphorus, TOC and fecal coliform bacteria.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-15

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

TABLE 3-7. GEORGIA TARGETED MONITORING NETWORK 2014
Rivers and stream stations are sampled monthly for field and chemical parameters for one calendar year. For stations where fecal coliform bacteria is collected, four fecal coliform bacterial samples are collected each calendar quarter during the year. Basin lakes and reservoirs are sampled monthly during the growing season during the calendar year.

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

LK_01_67

Lake Tugalo - u/s Tugalo Lake Rd (aka Bull Sluice Rd.)

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.737805 -83.340555 X

X

X

LK_01_68

Lake Tugalo - Upstream From Tugaloo Dam

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.715 -83.351694 X

X

X

RV_01_268

Stekoa Creek at Rickman Airfield Rd nr Clayton, GA

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.8386987

-83.4170415

X

X

RV_01_248 Coleman River

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, SEMN

34.95203

-83.5166 X

X

RV_01_244 Charlies Creek

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, SEMN

34.95895

-83.57158 X

X

LK_01_7

Lake Burton - 1/4 mile South of Burton Island (aka
Tallulah River)

Savannah

Cartersville WP

Lake Monitoring

34.835233 -83.553817 X

X

X

LK_01_8

Lake Burton - Dampool (aka Tallulah River u/s Lake Burton Dam)

Savannah

Cartersville WP

Lake Monitoring

34.795317

-83.5401 X

X

X

LK_01_9

Lake Rabun - Approx. 4.5 mi u/s Dam (Mid Lake)

Savannah

Cartersville WP

Lake Monitoring

34.763533 -83.455817 X

X

X

Lake Rabun - Dampool

LK_01_10

(aka Tallulah River Upstream From Mathis

Savannah

Cartersville WP

Lake Monitoring

34.764722 -83.417778 X

X

X

Dam)

LK_01_11

Lake Hartwell @ Interstate 85

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.484167 -83.029833 X

X

X

LK_01_22

Lake Hartwell - Dam Forebay

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.358733 -82.824417 X

X

X

LK_01_27

Lake Russell Between Markers 42 and 44 (Mid Lake)

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.127778 -82.673611 X

X

X

LK_01_29

Lake Richard B. Russell Dam Forebay

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.026333 -82.594167 X

X

X

LK_01_38

Clarks Hill Lake- Savannah River At U.S. Highway 378

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.857861 -82.399583 X

X

X

LK_01_39

Clarks Hill Lake- Savannah River At Dordon Crk.

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.765861 -82.271778 X

X

X

LK_01_40

Clarks Hill Lake - Dam Forebay

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.662694 -82.198528 X

X

X

SH_01_56

Mouth of Wilmington River - Marker #19 Wassaw Sound

Savannah

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.932416 -80.977111 X

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-16

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_01_144

Kettle Creek at Stone Ridge Rd

Little River @ Wilkes Co

RV_01_59 Rd 192 near Washington,

GA

LK_01_71

Clarks Hill Lake - Little River At Highway 47

RV_01_146

Brier Creek at Hwy 1 near Keysville, GA

RV_01_147

Reedy Creek at Campground Rd.

RV_01_102

Brushy Creek at State Road 80 near Wrens, GA

RV_01_145

Brier Creek at Hwy 88 near Keysville, GA

North Fork Ogeechee River

RV_02_275 at State Road 22 near

Crawfordville, GA

RV_02_280

Little Ogeechee River at Rd S1098 near Culverton, GA

RV_02_285

Big Creek at State Road 17 near Louisville, GA

RV_02_379

Ogeechee River at McCroans Bridge Rd

RV_02_380

Rocky Creek at Smith Harvey Rd.

Buckhead Creek at Wyatt RV_02_15172 Place Rd near Vidette, GA

RV_02_342

Wolfe Creek at Harley Gleason Rd.

St Catherine's Sound at

SH_02_364 Medway River near

Midway, GA

SH_02_317

Little Ogeechee River @ Green Island

Sapelo Sound at South

SH_02_372 Newport River near

Barbour Island, GA

RV_02_383 Cattle Pen Creek

Sapelo River - Mouth of SH_02_374 Broro River - 1.4 miles
South of Shellman's Bluff

RV_02_381 Duplin River

RV_03_799 RV_03_794

Mulberry River at Old Covered Bridge Road near Hoschton, GA
Indian Creek at Tapp Wood Rd

Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee Ogeechee
Oconee Oconee

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.683 -82.857 X X X X X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.651694 -82.83325 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.692722 -82.338805 X

X

X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Kaolin

33.278

-82.297 X X X X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Kaolin

33.238

-82.297 X X X X X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Kaolin

33.176222

-82.305583 X

X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Kaolin

33.231

-82.233 X X X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.521648 -82.911565 X

X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.257064 -82.857773 X

XXX

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Stream Target 32.981807 -82.357069 X

X

Stream Probabilistic

32.936

-82.358 X X X X

Stream Target 33.086 -82.185 X X X X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.037 -82.181 X X X X X

Brunswick WP

Stream Probabilistic

32.31

-82.069 X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.715469 -81.156798 X X

XX

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.88823 -81.08798 X X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.554108 -81.200361 X X X

Brunswick WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.658756 -81.181121 X X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.544861 -81.316027 X X X X

Brunswick WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.4296

-81.2935 X X X X X X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, 2009 repeat

34.07832

-83.7766 X X X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.060407

-83.709103 X X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-17

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_03_667 RV_03_582 RV_03_668 LK_03_520 RV_03_806
LK_03_538
RV_03_542 LK_03_545 RV_03_669 RV_03_795 RV_03_560
RV_03_561
LK_03_525
LK_03_526 LK_03_530

Trib to Mulberry River at Jackson Trail Rd
Middle Oconee River at SR 82
Rose Creek at Antioch Church Rd.
Lake Oconee At Highway 44, Oconee River Arm
Sugar Creek at Seven Island Road near Madison, GA
Lake Oconee 300 Meters Upstream Wallace Dam (Dam Forebay)
Richland Creek at Shelby Dreyer Rd near Greensboro, GA
Lake Oconee - Richland Creek Arm
Shoulderbone Creek at Hwy 16 near Sparta, GA
Little Sandy Creek at Hardeman Mill Rd
Little River at Glenwood Springs Rd near Eatonton, GA
Murder Creek at New Glenwood Springs Rd near Eatonton, GA
Lake Sinclair - Little River & Murder Creek Arm, U/S U.S. Hwy 441
Lake Sinclair - 300 Meters Upstream Dam (Dam Forebay)
Lake Sinclair - Midlake, Oconee River Arm

RV_03_653 Oconee River @ SR 46

Big Cotton Indian Creek at

RV_04_847 Hwy 20 near McDonough,

GA

Snapping Shoals Creek at

RV_04_852 Bethany Rd. near Oak Hill,

GA

Pughs Creek (Trib to

RV_04_2070 Yellow River) at Five Forks

Trickem Rd

RV_04_905

Yellow River at Rocky Plains Rd

Oconee Oconee Oconee Oconee Oconee
Oconee
Oconee Oconee Oconee Oconee Oconee
Oconee
Oconee
Oconee Oconee Oconee Oconee
Oconee
Oconee Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP
Atlanta WP

Stream Target 34.066 -83.686 X

Stream Probabilistic
Stream Probabilistic
Lake Monitoring

34.032 -83.563 X 33.768 -83.324 X 33.431394 -83.265734 X

Stream Target, 2009 repeat

33.542093

-83.360708 X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.351667 -83.160833 X

XXX XXX XXX
X X
X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.546667 -83.221111 X

XXX

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.3947

-83.1767 X

X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, New

33.339

-83.079 X X X X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

33.726455

-83.559256 X

X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, 2009 repeat

33.289007

-83.432502 X

X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, 2009 repeat

33.252222

-83.481389 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.189

-83.2953 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.142817 -83.202617 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.1968

-83.2742 X

X

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

32.296

-82.696 X

X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, 2009 repeat

33.519842

-84.063377 X

X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.526088 -83.972014 X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

33.910048

-84.034275 X

Atlanta WP

Stream Probabilistic

33.5

-83.884 X X X X X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-18

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_04_877

Hopkins Creek at Stanley Rd.

RV_04_2058

Bear Creek at McDonald Road near Mansfield ,GA

RV_04_889

Rocky Creek at Henderson Mill Rd near Monticello, GA

RV_05_2098

Yellow Water Creek at SR 16 near Jackson, GA

LK_05_2076 High Falls Lake - Midlake

LK_05_2078

High Falls Lake - Dam Forebay

LK_05_2131 Lake Juliette - Midlake

LK_05_2132

Lake Juliette - Dam Forebay

LK_05_2144 Lake Tobesofkee - Midlake

LK_05_2146

Lake Tobesofkee - Dam Forebay

RV_05_2185 Ocmulgee River @ SR 96

RV_05_2222

Ocmulgee River @ US Hwy 441

RV_06_2942 Little Creek

SH_06_2857

Altamaha River - channel marker #201 off Wolf Island

RV_06_2899

Ohoopee River at US Hwy 280

RV_06_2906

Brazell Cr. @ Brazzell St/US 280 nr Reidsville

RV_07_3060 Big Cr @ High Bluff Rock

RV_07_3061

S. Prong Big Creek @ David Page Rd.

RV_07_3099 Mill Creek

RV_07_3059

White Oak Creek @ US HWY 17

Satilla River - at marker SH_07_3006 A15 - 13 miles south of
Brunswick

SH_07_3008

St. Andrews Sound at Satilla Riv near

RV_07_3017 Colemans Creek @ 85

RV_07_3019

Little Satilla Creek @ Tillman Rd.

Ocmulgee Oconee Oconee
Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Altamaha Altamaha Altamaha Altamaha
Satilla Satilla Satilla Satilla
Satilla
Satilla Satilla Satilla

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Stream Probabilistic

33.985

Stream Target, 2009 repeat

33.44592

-83.909 X -83.8128 X

Stream Target 33.431389 -83.779722 X

XXX

Atlanta WP Stream Target 33.302802 -83.851338 X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.1973

-84.031 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.1799

-84.0209 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.0464

-83.8106 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.0338

-83.7572 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.8346

-83.8161 X

X

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.8215

-83.7706 X

X

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

32.542

-83.538 X

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.793

-82.98 X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, Reference

31.491437

-81.846891 X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.319166

-81.325 X X

X

Brunswick WP

Stream Probabilistic

32.117

-82.189 X X

X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

32.091036

-82.148605 X X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.16331

-82.18947 X X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.14833

-82.1555 X X

Brunswick WP Stream Target 31.189994 -82.202803 X X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, Reference

31.036321

81.730156 X X X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

30.964444 -81.485833 X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

30.983162 -81.453238 X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.523521

-82.126371 X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.63032

-82.0194 X X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-19

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

SH_07_3029

Turtle River off Hermitage Island

RV_07_3031 Trib to Purvis Creek

Satilla Satilla

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, Tidal Creek

31.220278

-81.564167 X

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.1875

-81.515833 X

SH_07_3032

Turtle River - Georgia Highway 303

Satilla

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, Tidal Creek

31.186944

-81.531389 X

SH_07_3035 Brunswick Harbor

Satilla

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.143611

-81.4975 X

SH_07_3036

Brunswick River - U.S. Highway 17

Satilla

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, Tidal Creek

31.1164

-81.4858 X X

RV_07_3058 Gibson Creek

SH_07_3044

St. Andrew Sound At Mouth Of Jointer Creek

Satilla Satilla

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

31.20018

-81.531881 X X

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

31.034722 -81.455556 X X X X

SH_07_3049

Cumberland Sound at St. Marys Riv nr St Marys, GA

Satilla

Brunswick WP

Estuary Monitoring

30.728073 -81.489794 X

RV_09_3275 Little Suwanee Creek

Suwanee

Brunswick WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.06024 -82.573533 X X X X

RV_09_3182 Tatum Creek RV_09_3341 Red Oak Creek

Suwanee Suwannee

Brunswick WP

Stream Target, 303d Concern

30.99342

Tifton WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

31.956081

-82.71747 X X X -83.67088 X X X

RV_09_3347

Snapfinger Branch @ Scott Rd

Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

31.746969

-83.510293 X X

XX

RV_09_3271 Deep Creek @ SR 107

Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

31.721413

-83.503518 X X

X

RV_09_3273 Wolf Creek @ Legg Rd

Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

31.745725

-83.550388

X

RV_09_3274 Big Creek @ Cleveland Rd

RV_09_3272

Alapaha River @ Crystal Lake Rd

Suwannee Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.696

-83.386 X

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

31.677275

-83.460294 X X

X

RV_09_3163 Sand Creek @ SR 125

Suwannee

Tifton WP Stream Target 31.609444 -83.444722 X

LK_09_3199

Banks Lake - Near Lakeland, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.026667 -83.105555 X

X

RV_09_3268

Okapilco Creek @ Perry Rd

Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.059

-83.661 X

RV_09_3228 Mule Creek @ CR 274

Suwannee

Tifton WP Stream Target 30.916882 -83.637096

X

RV_09_3230

Piscola Creek @ US Hwy 84

Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

30.793047

-83.706376 X

RV_09_3233 Piscola Creek @ SR 333 Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

30.740132

83.536466 X

RV_09_3269

Piscola Creek @ Grooverville Hwy

RV_09_3270

Pride Branch @ Grooverville Hwy

Suwannee Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

30.761214

-83.636951 X X

X

Tifton WP

Stream Target, GA NWQI

30.779046

-83.594794 X X

X

RV_09_3333 Lime Sink Creek

Suwannee

Tifton WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

31.616525

-83.6789403 X

XX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-20

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_09_3329 Daniels Creek

Suwannee

RV_09_3245

Little River @ Kinard Bridge Rd

RV_09_3253

Warrior Creek @ Sumner Road

Suwannee Suwannee

RV_10_3392 Big Creek Trib @ Enon Rd Ochlockonee

RV_10_3386

Ochlockonee River @ Hadley Ferry Rd

Ochlockonee

RV_10_3389

Attapulgus Creek @ US Hwy 27

Ochlockonee

RV_10_3419

Callahan Branch @ Attapulgus-Climax Rd

Ochlockonee

RV_10_3423

Little Attapulgus Creek @ SR 241

Ochlockonee

RV_10_3422

Little Attapulgus Creek @ Faceville-Attapulgus Rd

Ochlockonee

RV_10_3390

Swamp Creek @ US Hwy 27

Ochlockonee

RV_11_3495

Flint River at Flat Shoals Rd.

Flint

RV_11_3498

Red Oak Creek at Harman Hall Rd. near Imlac, GA

Flint

RV_11_3789

Flint River @ Sprewell Bluff State Park- Trend

Flint

RV_11_3800

Lazar Creek at Hwy 116 near Woodland, GA

Flint

Bell Creek at Gordon

RV_11_3503 School Rd. near Lincoln

Flint

Park, GA

RV_11_3443

Swift Creek at SR 3 near Thomaston, GA

Flint

RV_11_3451 Buck Creek @ SR 240

Flint

RV_11_3804

Lime Creek @ Springhill Church Rd

Flint

LK_11_3467 Lake Blackshear - Midlake

Flint

LK_11_3520

Lake Blackshear - Dam Forebay

Flint

RV_11_3531 Flint River @ SR 32

Flint

Tifton WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

31.63283

-83.705215 X

XX

Tifton WP Stream Target 31.254116 -83.508098

X

Tifton WP Stream Target 31.311427 -83.6851

X

Tifton WP

Stream Target, Groundwater

30.964896

-83.880416 X

X

Stream Target,

Tifton WP

Florida 30.731717 -84.235533 X X

Stateline

Stream Target,

Tifton WP

Florida 30.732778 -84.453611 X Stateline

Stream Target,

Tifton WP

Florida 30.802639 -84.47161 X

Stateline

Stream Target,

Tifton WP

Florida 30.718056 -84.49 X X

Stateline

Stream Target,

Tifton WP

Florida 30.750046 -84.501333 X X X X X X X

Stateline

Stream Target,

Tifton WP

Florida 30.719444 -84.411389 X X X

X

Stateline

Atlanta WP

Stream Probabilistic

33.067

-84.525 X X X X

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, 2010 repeat

33.038333

-84.55222 X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 32.85599 -84.47681 X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 32.790847 -84.606005 X X X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 32.838056 -84.358889 X X

Atlanta WP Stream Target 32.794149 -84.266155 X X

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

32.309167 -84.161944 X X

Tifton WP Stream Trend 32.035 -83.9925 X X

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.9665

-83.9342 X

X

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.8479

-83.9394 X

X

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.725254 -84.018237 X

X

X

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-21

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_11_3594 Mill Creek @ Story Rd

Flint

Tifton WP Stream Target 31.662681 -83.959716 X X X

LK_11_3534

Flint River Reservoir Midlake, Flint River Arm

Flint

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.6085

-84.119 X

X

LK_11_3535

Flint River Reservoir (Lake Worth) - Dam Forebay

Flint

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.6033

-84.1365 X

X

RV_11_3541

Fowltown Creek @ Palmyra Rd

Flint

Tifton WP Stream Target 31.649648 -84.197214 X X

RV_11_3550 Muckalee Creek @ SR 195

Flint

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.779

-84.139 X

X

Lake Worth (original) -

LK_11_3551

Above Hwy 91 Bridge / Diversion Dam (aka Lake

Flint

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.6109

-84.15 X

X

Chehaw)

LK_11_3569

Lake Seminole - Flint River Arm @ Spring Creek

Flint

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

30.7627

-84.8171 X

X

RV_11_3807

Little Ichawaynochaway Creek @ CR 3

Flint

Tifton WP Stream Trend 31.803532 -84.640013 X X

RV_11_3593

Little Pachitla Creek @ CR 92

Flint

Tifton WP

Stream Probabilistic

31.602

-84.793 X

RV_12_3962

Chattahoochee River at SR 16 near Whitesburg, GA

Chattahoochee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target 33.4769

-84.901111 X X

RV_12_3969

Panther Creek Mill Road near

at Sewall Roscoe, GA

Chattahoochee

RV_12_3970

Cedar Creek at Sewall Mill Road near Roscoe, GA

Chattahoochee

RV_12_3971

Wahoo Creek at Wagers Mill Rd. near

Chattahoochee

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Stream Target 33.47051 -84.852837 X Stream Target 33.479771 -84.837713 X X Stream Target 33.436667 -84.911667 X X

Hillabahatchee Creek at RV_12_4123 CR 210 near Frolona, GA- Chattahoochee Atlanta WP
Trend

Stream Trend 33.31122 -85.18768 X X

RV_12_4050

Beech Creek at Hammett Road near LaGrange, GA

Chattahoochee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target 33.09541 -84.994157 X X

LK_12_4072

Lake Harding - Midlake, Main Body

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.7379

-85.1125 X

X

Lake Harding - Dam LK_12_4074 Forebay (aka Chatt. River Chattahoochee Atlanta WP
US Bartletts Ferry Dam)

Lake Monitoring

32.6633 -85.090278 X

X

LK_12_4078

Goat Rock Lake - Dam Forebay

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.6112

-85.0794 X

X

LK_12_4080 Lake Oliver - Dam Forebay Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.516

-85.0009 X

X

LK_12_4107

Lake Andrews - Dam Forebay

Chattahoochee Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.2632

-85.113 X

X

LK_12_4113

Lake Seminole Chattahoochee Arm,

Lower

Chattahoochee

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

30.7662

-84.9201 X

X

LK_12_4115

Lake Seminole - Dam Forebay

Chattahoochee Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

30.7115

-84.8647 X

X

RV_13_4406

Swinney Branch at Manner Rd, nr Rockmart, GA

Tallapoosa

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

33.919736

-85.076222 X

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-22

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

Greene Creek at Bethany RV_13_4400 Church Rd nr Tallapoosa,
GA

RV_14_4861 Rock Creek

Swamp Creek nr Redwine

RV_14_4876 Cove Rd SW, nr Dalton,

GA

Polecat Creek nr Spring

RV_14_4858 Place Resaca Rd,

Chatsworth, GA

RV_14_4881

Tickanetly Creek at Macedonia Road

RV_14_4642

Clear Creek at Old Clear Creek Rd

RV_14_4820

Clear Creek at Blackberry Mountain Road

RV_14_4838

Kells Creek at Kells Ridge Drive

RV_14_4821

Conasauga Creek at Mountaintown Road

RV_14_4848

Mountaintown Creek at Craigtown Road

RV_14_4831 Flat Creek at SR 382

Little Scarecorn Creek at

RV_14_4844 Scarecorn Creek Rd nr

Talking Rock, GA

RV_14_4648

Pine Log Creek at State Mine Rd

RV_14_4871

Snake Creek at SR 136, LaFayette, GA

RV_14_4885 Tributary to Ruff Creek

RV_14_4890

West Fork Montgomery at nr Hightower Church Rd

RV_14_4837

Jones Creek at Jones Creek Rd

RV_14_4856

Polecat Branch at SR 143 (108), nr Jasper, GA

Sharp Mountain Creek at

RV_14_4867 SR 143 (108), nr Jasper,

GA

RV_14_4579

Euharlee Creek at Government Farm Rd

Jones Branch nr

RV_14_4836 Taylorsville Macedonia Rd

SW nr Taylorsville, GA

RV_14_4650 Dry Creek at Pine Bow Rd

Tallapoosa Coosa Coosa

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

33.771760

-85.287904 X

XXXXX

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.74241

-84.67341 X

XXXXX

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Reference

34.647057

-85.008308 X X X X X X X

Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.625876

-84.872484 X

XXXXX

X

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.66946

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.6325

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.61959

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.73064

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.73055

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.73225

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.63985

-84.33365 X -84.4032 X -84.43696 X -84.47409 X -84.56439 X -84.56183 X -84.57445 X

XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.483890

-84.547513 X

XXXXX

Cartersville WP

Stream Probabilistic

34.404

-84.755 X

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Reference

34.6465556

-85.0614722 X

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, High Nutrients

34.577104

-85.202943 X

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Reference

34.624449

-84.12517 X

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, SEMN

34.60201

-84.15124 X

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.410489

-84.401162 X

X XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.402438

-84.429762 X

X

Cartersville WP

Stream Probabilistic

33.985

-85.082 X X X X X

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.122871

-84.978851 X

X

Cartersville WP

Stream Probabilistic

34.083

-84.939 X X X X X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-23

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_14_4829

Dykes Creek at Dykes Creek Crossing

Coosa Cartersville WP Stream Trend 34.25392 -85.0798 X

X

RV_14_4839

Kings Creek nr Halls Valley Rd NW, nr Rome, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Reference

34.28075

-85.4387853 X

X

X

RV_14_4812

Alpine Creek nr Peach Orchard Rd, nr Menlo, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.469884

-85.466857 X

X

Alpine Creek at Oak Hill RV_14_4641 Alpine Road near Menlo,
GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, High Nutrients

34.453

-85.489 X X X

East Fork Little River at

Stream Target,

RV_14_4830 State Road 48 near

Coosa Cartersville WP Bio M TMDL & 34.522679 -85.504866 X X X

Cloudland, GA

High Nutrients

East Chickamauga Crk at RV_15_4961 Lower Gordon Springs Rd Tennessee Cartersville WP Stream Trend 34.74692 -85.1236 X X X

nr Dalton, GA

RV_15_4979

Sugar Creek nr Keith Rd nr Ringgold, GA

Tennessee

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.971232

-85.026101 X X

X

Trib. Tiger Creek nr

RV_15_4981

Catoosa Pkwy SR 2 nr Ringgold, GA (Sample at

Tennessee

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.904708

-85.066778 X X

X

lat/long)

Rock Creek nr Lula Lake RV_15_4974 Rd nr Lookout Mountain,
GA

Tennessee

Cartersville WP

Stream Target. Reference

34.9219081

-85.3829472 X

XXX

Daniels Creek nr Cloudland RV_15_4959 Canyon Park Rd nr Rising
Fawn, GA

Tennessee

Cartersville WP

Stream Target, Reference

34.8241972

-85.4915317 X

XXX

Stream,

RV_15_4965

Higdon Creek at SR 136, nr Trenton, GA

Tennessee

Cartersville WP

Target, Bio M TMDL & High

34.865508

-85.575449 X

XXX

Nutrients

West Fork Wolf Creek at RV_15_4982 Meadow Dr nr Blairsville,
GA

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.791781

-83.912165 X

X

South Fork Rapier Mill RV_15_4977 Creek nr Hardscrabble Rd
nr Mineral Bluff, GA

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Ref/Nutrients

34.98426

-84.19965 X

X

RV_15_4978

Sugar Creek; at Galloway Rd nr Blue Ridge, GA

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.921311

-84.347528 X

X

Bryan Creek nr Maple RV_15_4954 Grove Rd CR52 nr
Morganton, GA

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Ref/Nutrients

34.89885

-84.17575 X

X

X

Hemptown Creek nr RV_15_4964 Whispering Pines Rd nr
Morganton, GA

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Bio M TMDL

34.888092

-84.171956 X

X

X

Hemptown Creek at State RV_15_4963 Road 245 near Mineral
Bluff, GA

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Nutrients

34.91571

-84.27938 X

XXX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-24

Routine2 Fecal coliform Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 TDS/Sulfates Gage Chlorophyll Tier 14

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

Hothouse Creek at RV_15_4967 Humphrey Mill Rd nr
Mineral Bluff, GA

River Basin

Sampling Organization1

Waterbody Type/ Project

Latitude Longitude

Tennessee

Atlanta WP

Stream Target, Reference

34.95578

-84.29436 X

XXX

1 Sampling Organization: Atlanta WP = GAEPD Atlanta office; Brunswick WP = GAEPD Brunswick Regional office, Cartersville WP = GAEPD Cartersville Regional Office Tifton WP = GAEPD Tifton Regional office. 2 Routine field parameters include:, air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance. 2 Routine chemical parameters include: turbidity, 5-day BOD, alkalinity, hardness, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total organic carbon, and fecal coliform. Basin lakes field, chemical and biological parameters include: water depth, secchi disk transparency, photic zone depth, air temperature, depth profiles for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and specific conductance, and chemical analyses for turbidity, specific conductance, 5-day BOD, pH, alkalinity, hardness, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total organic carbon, and chlorophyll a. 3 Biomonitoring: conducted for invertebrates and periphyton using Georgia EPD protocols. 4 Tier 1 monitoring: air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductivity.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-25

TABLE 3-8. GEORGIA TARGETED MONITORING NETWORK 20105
Rivers and streams stations are sampled monthly for field and chemical parameters for one calendar year. For stations where fecal coliform bacteria is collected,four fecal coliform bacterial samples are collected each calendar quarter during the year. Basin lakes and reservoirs are sampled monthly during the growing season for the calendar year.

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_03_572 RV_03_517 RV_14_5132 RV_03_782 RV_02_5123 RV_12_4280 RV_04_884 RV_03_554 RV_12_4282 RV_01_241 RV_05_2117 RV_03_499 RV_12_3974 RV_01_244

Allen Creek at Wayne Poultry Road near Pendergrass, GA Apalachee River at State Road 24 near Apalachee, Ga. Bannister Creek at Nichols Rd. near Cumming, GA Barber Creek at Daniels Bridge Road near Athens, GA Big Creek at Big Creek Rd. near Edgehill, GA Big Creek at Roswell Water Intake near Roswell, GA Big Flat Creek at U.S. Highway 78 near Loganville, Ga. Big Indian Creek at Georgia Highway 83 near Madison, GA Blue Creek at County Line Rd (AKA Sims Rd) near Hoganville, GA Bull Creek at CR123 Indian Hill Rd, nr Norwood, GA Cabin Creek at Jordan Hill Road (County Road 508) near Griffin, GA Carr Creek at Bailey Street near Athens, GA Centralhatchee Creek at U.S. Highway 27 near Franklin, GA Charlies Creek at Charlies Creek Rd East of Hiawassee, GA

Oconee
Oconee
Coosa
Oconee
Ogeechee
Chattahoochee Upper Ocmulgee Oconee
Chattahoochee
Savannah Lower Ocmulgee Oconee
Chattahoochee
Savannah

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Nutrients; HIGHOconee Nutrients; MEDOconee EPA BIO M
2010 Revisit (metals)
Probabilistic
AWW NH3-1; City of Logansville-WPCP FC (Category 3-pH)
FC (Category 3-pH)
Reference NH3-2; Griffin-Cabin Creek WPCP Nutrients; HIGHOconee FC (Category 3-pH)
SEMN

34.17358 33.71889 34.309 33.89935 33.165 34.01785 33.82972 33.52556 33.18320 33.58468 33.272 33.945 33.31111 34.95895

-83.674

X

-83.434444 X X

-84.221

X

-83.443383 X X

-82.668

X

-84.352492 X X

-83.859167 X X

-83.524444 X

-84.8626

XX

-82.652351 X

-84.237

XX

-83.354444 X X

-85.104444 X X

-83.57158 X

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXXX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XXX

X

X

X

XXXXX

X

XXXXXX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-26

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_12_3891 RV_12_3859 RV_12_3945 RV_12_3934 RV_12_3960 RV_12_3870 RV_12_3841 LK_01_40 LK_01_71 LK_01_39 LK_01_38 RV_01_5119 RV_01_248 RV_03_790 RV_01_19 RV_03_791 RV_01_250 RV_04_5127

Chattahoochee River - Atlanta Water Intake Chattahoochee River - DeKalb County Water Intake Chattahoochee River - Georgia Highway 92 Chattahoochee River at Bankhead Highway Chattahoochee River at Capps Ferry Road near Rico, GA Chattahoochee River at Cobb County Water Intake near Roswell, GA Chattahoochee River at McGinnis Ferry Road
Clarks Hill Lake - Dam Forebay
Clarks Hill Lake - Little River At Highway 47 Clarks Hill Lake- Savannah River At Dordon Crk. Clarks Hill Lake- Savannah River At U.S. Highway 378 Coldwater Creek at Shiloh Church Rd. near Hartwell, GA Coleman River at Coleman River Rd nr Clayton, GA Copeland Creek nr Edwards Rd nr White Plains, GA Crawford Creek at County Road 118 near Lavonia, GA Crooked Creek at Oconee Springs Road near Eatonton ,GA Davidson Creek nr North Panther Crk Rd South of Tallulah Falls, GA Dry Bone Creek at Chapman Rd. near Macon, GA

Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Oconee Savannah Oconee Savannah Upper Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

AWW

33.8278 -84.455

XXX

X

AWW

33.9731 -84.2631

XXX

X

AWW

33.6567 -84.673611 X X

X

AWW

33.79528 -84.507778 X X

X

AWW

33.5778 -84.808611 X X

AWW

33.9443 -84.405

XXX

AWW

34.05056 -84.097701 X X X

Lake Monitoring

33.66269 -82.198528 X X X

X

Lake Monitoring

33.69272 -82.338805 X X X

X

Lake Monitoring

33.76586 -82.271778 X X X

X

Lake Monitoring

33.85786 -82.399583 X X X

X

Probabilistic

34.247

-82.937

X

SEMN

34.95203 -83.516599 X

X

XXXXXX

Reference
Nutrients; LOWSavannah; EPA BIO M Nutrients; HIGHOconee
Reference

33.43474 34.48032 33.32248 34.66491

-83.041953 X -83.122422 X -83.274951 X -83.36978 X

X

XXXXXX

XXX

X

XXXXX

X

XXX

X

Probabilistic

32.904

-83.545

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-27

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_01_253 RV_12_5131 RV_01_17 RV_01_14 RV_05_5126 RV_11_3789 RV_11_3444 RV_01_255 RV_12_5130 LK_12_4078 RV_03_792 LK_05_2078 LK_05_2076 RV_12_4123 RV_03_5125 RV_03_794 RV_03_515 RV_01_257

Dry Fork Creek at Centerville Rd, nr Lexington, GA East Trammel Branch at Bradbury Rd. near Luthersville, GA Eastanolle Creek at Tower Road nr Avalon, GA Eastanollee Creek At Rose Lane In Toccoa, GA Falling Creek at John Tillman Rd near Hillsboro, GA Flint River @ Sprewell Bluff Sprewell Bluff State Park Flint River at U.S. Highway 19 near Culloden, Ga. Florence Creek near Ce Norman Rd, SW of Lincolnton, GA Fort Creek at GA Hwy 116 near Pine Mountain Valley, GA
Goat Rock Lake - Dam Forebay
Greenbriar Creek at Johnny Carson Road near Bostwick ,GA
High Falls Lake - Dam Forebay
High Falls Lake - Midlake
Hillabahatchee Creek at CR 210 near Frolona, GA Horse Branch at US 129 near Madison, GA Indian Creek at Tapp Wood Rd near Hoschton, GA Jacks Creek at Bearden Road near Monroe, GA Kemp Creek at Holliday Park Rd nr Washington, GA

Savannah Chattahoochee Savannah Savannah Lower Ocmulgee Flint Flint Savannah Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Oconee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Chattahoochee Oconee Oconee Oconee Savannah

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Reference
Probabilistic Nutrients; HIGHSavannah Nutrients; HIGHSavannah Probabilistic
Trend
Probabilistic
Reference
WRP; JCG Foods
Lake Monitoring Nutrients; LOWOconee Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Trend NH3-1; Madison Southside Facility Nutrients; HIGHOconee Nutrients; HIGHOconee Reference

33.84107 33.224 34.52598 34.54361 33.196 32.85599 32.7214 33.75356 32.794 32.6112 33.69996 33.1799 33.1973 33.31122 33.586 34.06047 33.79966 33.66435

-82.950281 X

-84.763

XX

-83.18545 X

-83.302778 X

-83.691

X

-84.476812 X X

-84.2325

XX

-82.548276 X

-84.802 -85.0794 -83.357729 -84.0209 -84.031 -85.187675

XX XXX X XXX XXX XX

-83.447

X

-83.709561 X

-83.61913 X X

-82.553398 X

X

XXX

XXX XXX

XXXXX

X

XXX

X

X

XX

X

X

XXXXX

X X

XXXXX

X

X

XX

X

XXXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

XXX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-28

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

LK_12_4074

Lake Harding - Dam Forebay (aka Chatt. River US Bartletts Ferry Dam)

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.6633 -85.090278 X X X

X

LK_12_4072 Lake Harding - Midlake, Main Body

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.7379 -85.1125

XXX

X

LK_01_22

Lake Hartwell - Dam Forebay

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.35873 -82.824417 X X X

X

LK_01_11

Lake Hartwell @ Interstate 85

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.48417 -83.029833 X X X

X

LK_04_897

Lake Jackson - Dam Forebay

Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.322

-83.8409

XXX

X

LK_04_893

Lake Jackson at confluence of Alcovy River and Yellow/South River Branch

Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.36823 -83.863339 X X X

X

LK_05_2132 Lake Juliette - Dam Forebay

Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.0338 -83.7572

XXX

X

LK_05_2131 Lake Juliette - Midlake

Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.0464 -83.8106

XXX

X

LK_03_545

Lake Oconee - Richland Creek Arm

Oconee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.3947 -83.1767

XXX

X

LK_03_538

Lake Oconee 300 Meters Upstream Wallace Dam (Dam Forebay)

Oconee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.35167 -83.160833 X X X

X

LK_03_520

Lake Oconee At Highway 44, Oconee River Arm

Oconee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

33.43139 -83.265734 X X X

X

LK_12_4080 Lake Oliver - Dam Forebay

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

32.516

-85.0009

XXX

X

LK_01_29

Lake Richard B. Russell - Dam Forebay

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.02633 -82.594167 X X X

X

LK_01_27

Lake Russell Between Markers 42 and 44 (Mid Lake)

Savannah

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.12778 -82.673611 X X X

X

LK_12_4007

Lake Sidney Lanier - Balus Creek Embayment, 0.34m SE M6FC

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.2504 -83.9244

XXX

LK_12_4005

Lake Sidney Lanier - Flat Creek Embayment, 100' U/S M7FC

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.2587 -83.9198

XXX

X

LK_12_4012

Lake Syndey Lanier upstream from Flowery Branch Confluence (Midlake)

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.20028 -83.982869 X X X

X

LK_12_3913

Lake Sidney Lanier - Little River Embayment, b/w M1WC & 3LR

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.355

-83.8427

XXX

X

LK_12_4010

Lake Sidney Lanier - Mud Crk Embayment, b/w Marina & Ramp

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring

34.2333 -83.9373

XXX

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-29

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

LK_12_4019 LK_12_3995 LK_12_4001 LK_12_3998 LK_12_4028 LK_03_526 LK_03_525 LK_03_530 LK_05_2146 LK_05_2144 RV_11_3489 RV_01_5120 RV_01_59 RV_03_553 RV_03_557 RV_03_551
RV_03_559

Lake Sidney Lanier - Six Mile Creek Embayment, 300' E M9SM Lake Sidney Lanier at Boling Bridge (State Road 53) on Chestatee River Lake Sidney Lanier at Browns Bridge Road (State Road 369) Lake Sidney Lanier at Lanier Bridge (State Road 53) on Chattahoochee River Lake Sidney Lanier upstream of Buford Dam Forebay Lake Sinclair - 300 Meters Upstream Dam (Dam Forebay) Lake Sinclair - Little River & Murder Creek Arm, U/S U.S. Hwy 441
Lake Sinclair - Midlake, Oconee River Arm
Lake Tobesofkee - Dam Forebay
Lake Tobesofkee - Midlake
Line Creek At Georgia Highway 85 Near Senoia Little Crawford Creek at New Town Rd. near Lavonia, GA Little River @ Wilkes Co Rd 192 near Washington, GA Little River at Little River Rd (GA 213) near Godfrey, GA Little River at State Road 16 near Eatonton, Ga. Little River at U.S. Highway 278 near Covington, GA

Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Oconee Oconee Oconee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Flint Savannah Savannah Oconee Oconee Oconee

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Little River Tributary 2 CR 212 (Glenwood Springs Rd) near Eatonton, Ga.

Oconee

Atlanta WP

Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring
FC (Category 3-pH)
EPA BIO M Nutrients; LOWSavannah EPA BIO M
EPA BIO M Nutrients; HIGHOconee NH3-1; EatontonPutnam WSA Westside/Nutrients; HIGH-Oconee

34.2335 -83.0287

XXX

X

34.31235 -83.950103 X X X

X

34.26167 -83.950662 X X X

X

34.32195 -83.880171 X X X

X

34.16278 -84.067108 X X X

X

33.14282 -83.202617 X X X

X

33.189

-83.2953

XXX

X

33.1968 -83.2742

XXX

X

32.8215 -83.7706

XXX

X

32.8346 -83.8161

XXX

X

33.31944 -84.523611 X X

34.474

-83.109

X

X

X

X

33.65169 -82.83325 X

XXX

33.45117 -83.536633 X

X

X

XXX

33.31398 -83.436817 X

X

X

XXX

33.60667 -83.709444 X X

X

XXXXX

33.29528 -83.41675 X

X

XXXX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-30

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_03_795 RV_03_511 RV_12_4305
RV_03_584
RV_01_63 RV_01_260 RV_03_589 RV_12_3894 RV_02_286 RV_12_5129 RV_12_4316 RV_01_12 RV_01_76 RV_12_3976 RV_02_283 RV_02_284 RV_03_804

Little Sandy Creek at Hardeman Mill Rd nr Good Hope, GA Marburg Creek at Manning Gin Road near Bethlehem, GA March Creek at Brandon Mill Rd NW nr Sandy Springs, GA
McNutt Creek at Mal Bay Road at Athens, GA
Middle Creek @ Wrightsboro Rd. near Wrightsboro, GA Middle Fork Broad River North of West Red Root Rd Est of Cornelia, GA Middle Oconee River at U.S. Highway 441 near Athens, Ga. Nancy Creek - Chamblee-Dunwoody Road Ogeechee River - Georgia Highway 78 Near Wadley Palmetto Creek at Barnes Mill Rd near Hamilton, GA Peachtree Creek at Northside Dr in Atlanta, GA Reed Creek at County Road 301 near Hartwell, GA Reed Creek at State Road 28 near Martinez, GA Richland Creek at Hillcrest Drive East of Buford, GA Rocky Comfort Creek at Fred Williams Road near Edgehill, GA Rocky Comfort Creek at Jefferson County Road 255 at Louisville, GA
Rooty Creek at County Road 89 near Eatonton, GA

Oconee Oconee Chattahoochee
Oconee
Savannah Savannah Oconee Chattahoochee Ogeechee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Savannah Savannah Chattahoochee Ogeechee Ogeechee Oconee

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP
Atlanta WP
Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP

Nutrients; HIGHOconee Nutrients; HIGHOconee
FC (Category 3-pH)
Nutrients; LOWOconee/FC (Category 3-pH) Nutrients; LOWSavannah
Reference
Probabilistic
Probabilistic
Probabilistic
NH3-1, City of Hamilton
AWW
Nutrients; LOWSavannah Nutrients; LOWSavannah NH3-1; Buford Westside
Target
Target
Nutrients; HIGHOconee

33.72665 33.91235 33.9475
33.9264
33.54975 34.50409 33.91833 33.89778 32.86972 32.757 33.8194 34.45334 33.53869 34.12528 33.15917 33.00364 33.28806

-83.559861 X -83.647333 X X -84.387222 X

-83.426733 X X

-82.564333 X

-83.436878 X

-83.390278 X X

-84.345556 X

-82.319722 X

-84.865

XX

-84.407778 X X

-82.940396 X

-82.080222 X

-84.031111 X

-82.582856 X

-82.421914 X

-83.345556 X

X

XXXXX

X

XXXXX

X

XXXXXX

XXX

X

XXX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

XXX

XXX

X

X

X

X

XXXXX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-31

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_03_599
RV_12_4017
RV_04_911 RV_04_836 RV_01_139 RV_03_533 RV_03_806 RV_12_4182 RV_12_4329 RV_03_541 RV_01_5118 RV_06_5122 RV_03_5121 RV_01_272 RV_04_5128 RV_03_594

Rooty Creek at Martin Luther King Jr. Drive (County Road 90) near Eatonton, Ga. Sixmile Creek at Burrus Mill Road near Coal Mountain, GA
Snapping Shoals Creek at Honey Creek Rd near Conyers, GA

Oconee

Atlanta WP

Chattahoochee Atlanta WP

Upper Ocmulgee

Atlanta WP

South River - Flakes Mill Road
Stephans Creek at Hubbard Rd nr Carnesville, GA Sugar Creek at Mount Zion Road (County Road 134) near Buckhead, GA Sugar Creek at Seven Island Road near Madison ,GA Suwanee Creek at Woodward Mill Rd. near Buford, GA Sweetwater Creek at Interstate Highway 20 Town Creek at Old Covington Road County Road 39 near Greensboro, Trib to Broad River at Roach Rd. near Franklin Springs, GA Trib to Little Cedar Creek at Donovan Rd. near Harrison, GA Trib to Pittman Branch at Brook Hollow Way near Mansfield, GA trib to Rocky Creek at SR80 Wrightsboro Rd, Washington, GA
Trib to Thompson Creek at Dillon Dr. near Hampton, GA
Tributary to Middle Oconee River near Athens, GA

Oconee Savannah Oconee Oconee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Oconee Savannah Altamaha Oconee Savannah Upper Ocmulgee Oconee

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP
Atlanta WP
Atlanta WP

NH3-1; EatontonPutnam WSA Eastside
WRP; American Proteins
NH3-2; Rockdale CoSnapping Shoals WPCP
Probabilistic
Nutrients; HIGHSavannah Nutrients; HIGHOconee Nutrients; HIGHOconee WRP; BufordSouthside
AWW
Nutrients; HIGHOconee
Probabilistic

33.31528
34.25911
33.59072 33.66611 34.49 33.51928 33.54209 34.072 33.7728 33.54944 34.287

NH-2; City of Harrison
NH3-1; City of Mansfield
Reference
NH3-1, Southhampton Mobile Home Community Nutrients; LOWOconee

32.816 33.506 33.67312 33.357 33.908

-83.365556 X -84.057805 X

-83.99268 X

-84.224722 -83.23

XX X

-83.323

XX

-83.360708 X

-84.024

X

-84.614722 X X

-83.208841 X X

-83.204

X

-82.723

X

-83.718

XX

-82.685086 X

-84.282

XX

-83.386

XX

X

XX

XXX

X

XXXXX

X

XXXXXX

XX

X

XXXXX

X

XX

X

XXX

X

XXXXX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-32

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_01_74 RV_03_5116 LK_12_4060 LK_12_4048
RV_01_137 RV_02_5124 SH_06_2857
RV_06_15207 SH_07_3035 SH_07_3036

Uchee Creek @ State Road 104 near Evans, GA Walnut Creek at Poplar Springs Rd. near Talmo, GA
West Point Lake - Dam Forebay
West Point Lake at LaGrange Water Intake near LaGrange, GA (aka Chatt. River at Lagrange Intake) Whites Creek at Wire Rd near Thompson, GA Williamson Swamp Creek at GA 102 near Warthen, GA
Altamaha River - channel marker #201 off Wolf Island
Altamaha River at Jaycee Landing Boat Ramp near Jesup, GA Brunswick Harbor
Brunswick River - U.S. Highway 17

Savannah Oconee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee
Savannah Ogeechee Altamaha
Altamaha Satilla Satilla

Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Atlanta WP
Atlanta WP Atlanta WP Brunswick WP
Brunswick WP Brunswick WP Brunswick WP

Nutrients; HIGHSavannah Nutrients; LOWOconee/EPA BIO M Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring
Nutrients; LOWSavannah Probabilistic
Estuary Monitoring
Probabilistic
Estuary Monitoring Estuary Monitoring

33.56694 -82.183388 X

XXX

34.197

-83.806

X

X

XXXXX

32.9208 -85.1834

XXX

X

33.078

-85.110833 X X X

X

33.436

-82.509

X

33.112

-82.801

X

XXX X

31.319166 -81.325

XX

X

X

31.676361 -81.855624 X

X

31.143611 -81.4975

X

X

31.1164 -81.4858

X

X

X

RV_02_5059

Canoochee at State Road 30 near Daisy, GA

Ogeechee

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Nonpoint Request

32.148237 -81.781463 X

X

RV_02_360

Casey Canal South at Montgomery Cross Road at Savannah, GA

Ogeechee

Brunswick WP

Targeted- 319 Request for FC

31.992378 -81.101868

XX

SH_07_3049

Cumberland Sound at St. Marys River near St Marys, GA

Satilla

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring

30.728073 -81.489794 X X

X

X

RV_07_2996

Hurricane Creek at County Road 331 near Alma, GA

Satilla

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.460193 -82.376943 X

RV_02_5060

Jim's Creek at Salem Church Road near Pulaski, GA

Ogeechee

Brunswick WP Probabilistic

32.426

-81.979

XX

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-33

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_03_658 RV_03_5062 SH_02_317 RV_07_3099 RV_02_462
RV_02_463 SH_01_56 RV_07_5090 RV_06_2904
RV_05_2826 RV_08_3128 SH_02_374 RV_07_5092 RV_07_3027

Limestone Creek - N. Old River Road near Vidalia, GA
Limestone Creek at State Road 56 near Mt. Vernon, GA
Little Ogeechee River @ Green Island

Oconee Oconee Ogeechee

Mill Creek
Mill Creek at Bulloch County Road 386 Old River Road near Brooklet, Ga Mill Creek near C C Road and Garrard Road near Ellabell, GA Mouth of Wilmington River - Marker #19 Wassaw Sound
Mumford Creek near Cumberland Island, GA
Ohoopee River at State Road 178 near Glennville, GA

Satilla Ogeechee Ogeechee Savannah Satilla Altamaha

Opposum Creek

Lower Ocmulgee

Saint Marys River at State Road 94 at Saint George, GA
Sapelo River - Mouth of Broro River 1.4 miles South of Shellman's Bluff
Sixty Foot Branch at US84 near Patterson, GA
Sixty-foot Branch at State Road 32 near Petterson, GA

St. Marys Ogeechee Satilla Satilla

Brunswick WP Brunswick WP Brunswick WP Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Estuary Monitoring
Targeted- Trend

32.151562 -82.601815 X X 32.169722 -82.588909 X X 31.88823 -81.08798 X X 31.189994 -82.202803 X X

Brunswick WP Targeted- Trend

32.438364 -81.57856 X

X

X

X XXXXX XXXXX

Brunswick WP Probabilistic

32.15473 -81.56213 X X

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring Brunswick WP Probabilistic

31.932416 -80.977111 X X

X

30.8784 -81.47345 X

Brunswick WP Probabilistic

31.920278 -82.112778 X

Targeted- 303(d)

Brunswick WP Impaired/Reference

31.877

-82.779645 X

X

Survey

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Nonpoint Request

30.524647 -82.018488 X

X

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring

31.544861 -81.316027 X X

X

Brunswick WP Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.397075 -82.128501 X 31.361212 -82.071346 X X

X

X

X X X
X
X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-34

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_02_5056

South Fork Unnamed Tributary to Taylor's Creek at Hero Road near Hinesville, GA

Ogeechee

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.886622 -81.608976 X

X

SH_02_364

St Catherines Sound at Medway River near Midway, GA

Ogeechee

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring

31.715469 -81.156798 X X

X

X

SH_07_3008 St. Andrews Sound at Satilla River

Satilla

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring

30.983162 -81.453238 X X

X

X

SH_07_3032 Turtle River - Georgia Highway 303

Satilla

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring

31.186944 -81.531389 X

X

SH_07_3029 Turtle River off Hermitage Island

Satilla

Brunswick WP Estuary Monitoring

31.220278 -81.564167 X

X

RV_03_5061

Unnamed Secondary Tributary to Limestone Creek at State Road 56 near Mt. Vernon, GA

Oconee

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

32.171549 -82.591193 X X

RV_03_5063

Unnamed Tributary to Limestone Creek at State Road 56 near Mt. Vernon, GA

Oconee

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

32.162291 -82.583264 X X

RV_02_5057

Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek at Mason Road near Pembroke, GA

Ogeechee

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

32.169147 -81.636002 X

RV_02_5058 RV_07_5094 RV_07_5093

Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek at Sims Road near Pembroke, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Seventeenmile River at Wendell Sears Road near Douglas, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Sixty Foot Branch at US 84 near Patterson, GA

Ogeechee Satilla Satilla

Brunswick WP Brunswick WP Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

32.168119 -81.621383 X X 31.498861 -82.807956 X X 31.403509 -82.119446 X

X

X

RV_07_5091

Unnamed Tributary to Sixty-foot Branch at Main St near Patterson, GA

Satilla

Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.382786 -82.134499 X

RV_01_5054 RV_05_2820 RV_09_5068

Unnamed Tributary to St Augustine Creek at Augusta Road near Port Wentworth, GA
Fishing Creek at SR 117 nr Walker Camp Rd, nr Hazlehurst, GA Unnamed Tributary to Tatum Creek at Martin Luther King Hwy near Homerville, GA

Savannah
Lower Ocmulgee
Suwanee

Brunswick WP Brunswick WP Brunswick WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey

32.159389 -81.182932 X 31.895106 -82.744993 X X 31.026064 -82.766933 X X

X

X

X

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-35

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_14_5143 Beamer Creek @ SR 225 nr. Resaca, GA Coosa

Cartersville WP Dalton LAS study.

34.63407 -84.861379 X

X

RV_14_5147

Bluffy Creek at Hulseytown Road nr Dallas, GA

Coosa

LK_14_4524 LK_14_4523

Carters Lake - Midlake (upstream from Woodring Branch) Carters Lake (CR1) - Upper Lake, Coosawattee Arm

Coosa Coosa

Cartersville WP Cartersville WP

Near the commercial airport of Silver Comet Field. Have no base line water chemistry for environmental study which is presently being done because of request to expand the airport runways.
Lake Monitoring

33.89277 34.6076

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.62087

-84.924130 X X

-84.638 -84.6212

XXX XXX

RV_12_5152 Chattahoochee River at SR 75 in Helen

Chattahoochee Cartersville WP

34.70081 -83.728810 X

X

RV_12_5154 RV_12_5151
RV_14_4492
RV_12_5138 RV_14_5135 RV_14_4822 RV_12_5157

Chattahoochee River at Upper Chattahoochee Camp Ground Chickamauga Creek at GA 255 near Helen, GA

Chattahoochee Chattahoochee

Clark Creek At Highway 92 nr Acworth GA Coosa

Clay Creek at Clay Creek Falls Road nr Dahlonega GA

Chattahoochee

Cochran Creek at SR 52

Coosa

Connesena Creek at Old Rome Road near Kingston, GA

Coosa

Cox Creek at 129 S. in Cleveland, GA

Chattahoochee

Cartersville WP Cartersville WP
Cartersville WP
Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP

34.78465

Probabilistic
Stream near new commercial business with heavy traffic impact. Area is in a rapid development. Possible reference site near water falls. Downstream from the Rome Kraft Company lake. BAC-T requested.
EPA BIO M
Urban stream inside city limits of Cleveland. Heavy commercial presence around the

34.71200 34.09050 34.53789 34.53537 34.23583 34.59280

-83.782200 X -83.657000 X
-84.652260 X X
-84.022030 X -84.198880 X -84.972500 X X -83.762500 X

X

X

X

X

X X
X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-36

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_14_5142 RV_12_4294 RV_14_4829 RV_15_4961
RV_14_4539
RV_14_5145 RV_14_4450 RV_14_4837 LK_14_4497 LK_14_4502 LK_14_4553 LK_14_4556 LK_14_4494 LK_14_4907 LK_14_4908 LK_01_7

Dead Mans Branch @ Corinth Rd. nr Resaca, GA Dukes Creek nr Richard B Russell Scenic Hwy (SR348) nr Helen, GA Dykes Creek at Dykes Creek Xing nr Rome, GA East Chickamauga Creek at Lower Gordon Springs Rd nr Dalton, GA
Etowah River - Jay Bridge On County Road 75 NW of Dahlonega
Holly Creek at Fox Bridge Road nr Resaca, GA
Holly Creek at SR 225 nr Resaca, GA
Jones Creek nr Jones Creek Rd, Dahlonega, GA Lake Allatoona at Allatoona Creek Upstream from Interstate 75 Lake Allatoona at Etowah River upstream from Sweetwater Creek (Marker 44E/45E) Lake Allatoona at Little River upstream from Highway 205 Lake Allatoona downstream from Kellogg Creek ( Markers 18/19E)
Lake Allatoona Upstream from Dam
Lake Blue Ridge (LMP18) - 300 Meter U/S Of Dam Lake Blue Ridge (LMP18A) - 4 miles upstream Dam Lake Burton - 1/4 mile South of Burton Island (aka Tallulah River)

Coosa Chattahoochee Coosa Tennessee
Coosa
Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Tennessee Tennessee Savannah

Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP
Cartersville WP
Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Cartersville WP

stream.
Dalton LAS study.
Trend Trend Upper region of the Etowah above Dahlonega. Need base line water chemistry. Dalton LAS study. Dalton LAS study. SEMN Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring

34.58707 34.69374 34.26357 34.74692
34.56023
34.68143 34.67205 34.60240 34.08583 34.19 34.15861 34.13861 34.16083 34.8817 34.8402 34.83523

-84.889544 X -83.777643 X -85.085530 X X -85.123550 X X

-84.074110 X

-84.839700 -84.824770 -84.150559

XX XX X

-84.711389 X X X

-84.577778 X X X

-84.577222 X X X

-84.639167 -84.725845 -84.28

XXX XXX XXX

-84.2731

XXX

-83.553817 X X X

X X XXXXX XXXXX

X

X

X

X

XXX

X X
XX X X X X X X X X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-37

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

LK_01_8

Lake Burton - Dampool (aka Tallulah River u/s Lake Burton Dam)

Savannah

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.79532 -83.5401

XXX

X

LK_14_4895 Lake Chatuge - State Line (LMP 12)

Tennessee

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.9833 -83.7886

XXX

X

LK_14_4900

Lake Nottely - Dam Forebay (upstream From Nottely Dam)

Tennessee

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.9578 -84.0922

XXX

X

LK_14_4899 Lake Nottely - Reece Creek (LMP15A)

Tennessee

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.9115 -84.0506

XXX

X

LK_01_9

Lake Rabun - Approx. 4.5 mi u/s Dam (Mid Lake)

Savannah

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.76353 -83.455817 X X X

X

LK_01_10

Lake Rabun - Dampool (aka Tallulah River - Upstream From Mathis Dam)

Savannah

Cartersville WP Lake Monitoring

34.76472 -83.417778 X X X

X

Large fields with

agricultural use as well

RV_14_5136 Lick Log Creek at SR 52

Coosa

Cartersville WP as chicken houses

34.64180 -84.387270 X

nearby. Bac-T

requested.

An established

subdivision with

RV_14_5137

Mud Creek at Via Montaluce near Dahlonega

Coosa

Cartersville WP

residential and commercial

34.56676 -84.063870 X

development. No water

chemistry data.

RV_14_4433

Oothkalooga Creek at Salem Rd nr Calhoun GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP EPA BIO M

34.45136 -84.943750 X

X

X

X

RV_14_5150

Pettit Creek at Jones Mill Road in Cartersville GA

Coosa

RV_14_4487

Pine Log Creek at Georgia Highway 53 near Sonoraville, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP Cartersville WP

Urban stream off Hwy 41 in Cartersville. Heavy commercialization and residential building structures within close proximity of stream.
EPA BIO M

34.19866 34.44822

-84.811780 X X -84.793180 X

X

X

X

RV_14_5144 Polecat Creek at SR 255 nr Resaca, GA Coosa

Cartersville WP Dalton LAS study.

34.64465 -84.844730 X X

X

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-38

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_14_4858

Polecat Creek nr Spring Place Resaca Rd nr Resaca, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP Dalton LAS study.

34.62693 -84.8718

XX

X

X

X

Stream near proposed

RV_14_5149

Pumpkinvine Creek at Dobbs Bridge Road nr Acworth GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

Richland Creek Reservoir. No water

34.07887 -84.753970 X

chemistry data in area.

Near the commercial

airport of Silver Comet

Field. Have no base

line water chemistry for

RV_14_5146 Pumpkinvine Creek at SR 6 nr Dallas, GA Coosa

Cartersville WP environmental study

33.91642 -84.578040 X X

which is presently

being done because of

request to expand the

airport runways.

Stream near proposed

RV_14_5148

Raccoon Creek at Raccoon Creek Road nr Braswell GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

Richland Creek Reservoir. No water

33.99738 -84.895400 X

chemistry data in area.

RV_14_5140

Salacoa Creek at King Bottom Road near Calhoun, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP EPA BIO M

34.50500 -84.789000 X

X

X

X

RV_12_5153

Smith Creek 1/2 mile DS Anna Ruby Falls near Helen, GA

Chattahoochee

Cartersville WP

34.75771 -83.708740 X

Large Creek that flows

into the Chattahoochee

RV_12_5155

Spoilcane Creek at 17/75 N of Helen, GA

Chattahoochee

Cartersville WP

River from the Northeast side before

34.72631 -83.750120 X

X

reaching Helen. Never

has been sampled.

RV_14_5139

Stone Branch at GA Hwy 71 near Dalton, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

NH3; Dalton UtilitiesWhitfield Mountain View Acres

34.88400 -84.946000 X

Stream runs beside

RV_14_5134

Talona Creek at Carnes Mill Road nr Whitestone GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP

residential camping area. BAC-T

34.52663 -84.509570 X

X

requested.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-39

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_14_5133 RV_14_5141 RV_12_5156
RV_09_3192

Trib to Becky Branch at Wilson Rd. near Ranger, GA Trib to Woodward Branch nr Adairsville GA
Turner Creek at US 129 in Cleveland GA
Alapaha River at State Road 129 near Lakeland, GA

Coosa

Cartersville WP Probabilistic

Coosa Chattahoochee Suwanee

Cartersville WP Cartersville WP Tifton WP

Probabilistic
Medium stream that appears to be the water intake for the City of Cleveland.
Probabilistic

34.48900 34.36979

-84.671000 X -85.086250 X

34.61417 -83.790250 X

31.046226 -83.043409 X

RV_09_3166

Alapaha River at State Road 50 near Alapaha, Ga.

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Probabilistic

31.384167 -83.1925

X

RV_11_3583

Aycocks Creek at Holmes Road near Boykin, Ga.

Flint

Tifton WP

Targeted- 319 Request for FC

31.086407 -84.736169

XX

LK_09_3199 Banks Lake - Near Lakeland, Ga.

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.026667 -83.105555 X X

X

RV_05_5088

Bay Gall Creek at Richard B Russell Parkway near Warner Robins, GA

Lower Ocmulgee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

32.59367 -83.620267 X

RV_09_3216

Bear Creek at Community Church Road near Adel, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.121521 -83.250839 X

RV_11_5106

Bear Creek at Sundown Road near Richland, GA

Flint

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

32.069729 -84.642161 X

RV_09_3324

Beatty Branch at Beatty Road near Barretts, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

30.986219 -83.220417 X

X

RV_09_5071

Beatty Branch at State Road 125 near Barretts, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

30.981132 -83.207993 X

X

RV_09_5076

Big Creek at State Road 11 near Lakeland, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.043035 -83.062651 X

RV_09_5075

Big Creek at State Road 135 near Lakeland, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.049374 -83.069618 X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-40

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_11_3577

Brantley Creek at CR 133 near Herod, GA

Flint

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.71835 -84.40112

X

RV_11_5104 RV_11_5111 RV_05_2282

Brantley Creek at State Road 55 near Dawson, GA
Bryants Swamp at Bryant Hill Road near Marshallville, GA
Cainey Branch at Sandy Run Rd

RV_12_4289 Coheelee Creek

Flint

Tifton WP

Flint

Tifton WP

Lower Ocmulgee

Tifton WP

Chattahoochee Tifton WP

RV_05_2817 RV_11_3581 RV_11_3589 RV_11_3587

Crooked Creek
Dry Creek at County Road 279 near Hentown, Ga.
Fish Pond Drain at Town and Country Rd (SR 91 / Marianna Hwy) near Donaldsonville, GA
Fishpond Drain at State Road 39 near Donalsonville, Ga.

Lower Ocmulgee Flint
Flint
Flint

Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey
Targeted- 319 Request for DO
Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey, 319 Request for FC-listed for algae
Targeted- 319 Request for FC

31.76377 -84.447706 32.472617 -83.979535 32.572326 -83.609354 31.308978 -85.076666 32.501896 -83.487386 31.28596 -84.81907 31.02469 -84.893255 30.99578 -84.88116

X XX X XX XX X XX XX

X

XXX

X

XXX

X

X

XXX X

RV_11_3456

Flint River at State Road 27 near Vienna, Ga.

Flint

Tifton WP

Probabilistic

32.0586 -83.9775

X

LK_11_3535

Flint River Reservoir (Lake Worth) @ Dam Forebay

Flint

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.6033 -84.1365

XX

X

LK_11_3534

Flint River Reservoir @ Midlake, Flint River Arm

Flint

Tifton WP

Lake Monitoring

31.6085 -84.119

XX

X

RV_09_5079

Hat Creek at Airport Road near Ashburn, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.691447 -83.632938 X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-41

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_09_5081
RV_11_3580
RV_09_5115
RV_11_5103 LK_12_4107 LK_11_3520 LK_11_3467 LK_11_3569 LK_12_4113 LK_12_4115 LK_12_4103 LK_12_4097 LK_11_3551 RV_11_3804
RV_09_5073
RV_11_3807
RV_11_5108

Hat Creek at Bussey Road near Sycamore, GA
Ichawaynochaway Creek at State Road 91 near Newton, Ga.
Indian Trail Branch at State Route 37 near Adel, Ga

Suwanee Flint Suwanee

Kiokee Creek at Old Dawson Road near Albany, GA
Lake Andrews @ Dam Forebay
Lake Blackshear @ Dam Forebay
Lake Blackshear @ Midlake Lake Seminole - Flint River Arm @ Spring Creek Lake Seminole @ Chattahoochee Arm, Lower Lake Seminole @ Dam Forebay
Lake Walter F. George @ Dam Forebay Lake Walter F. George @ U.S. Highway 82 Lake Worth (original) - Above Hwy 91 Bridge
Lime Creek at Springhill Church Road east of Americus, Ga
Little Creek at Perry Road near Berlin, GA
Little Ichawaynochaway Creek at CR 3 near Shellman, Ga
Little Muckalee Creek at Marvin Murphy Road near Ellaville, GA

Flint Chattahoochee Flint Flint Flint Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Flint
Flint
Suwanee
Flint
Flint

Tifton WP
Tifton WP
Tifton WP
Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP
Tifton WP
Tifton WP
Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- 319 Request for FC
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring
Lake Monitoring

31.680026 -83.625171 31.213333 -84.473333 31.131764 -83.366852

31.61222
31.2632 31.8479 31.9665 30.7627

-84.326491
-85.113 -83.9394 -83.9342 -84.8171

X
XX
X
XX XX XX XX XX

Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring Lake Monitoring

30.7662 30.7115 31.629167 31.891944

-84.9201 -84.8647 -85.0725 -85.120833

XX XX XX XX

Lake Monitoring

31.6109 -84.15

XX

Targeted- Trend

32.035

-83.9925

XX

Targeted- Monitoring 31.067985 -83.657325 X X

Targeted- Trend
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring

31.803532 -84.640013 X X 32.204993 -84.336877 X

X

XXX

XXXXX XXXXX

X X X X X X X X X X
X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-42

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_11_5109 RV_11_5107 RV_09_5074 RV_09_3209 RV_10_3365 RV_10_3415 RV_10_3424 RV_10_3425 RV_10_5097 RV_09_5070 RV_05_5087 RV_05_2178 RV_11_3819

Little Muckalee Creek at State Road 153 near Ellaville, GA
Mill Creek at GA Hwy 49 near Oglethorpe, GA
Mill Creek at State Road 135 near Lakeland, GA
New River - U.S. Highway 82 Near Tifton
Ochlockonee River - FAS 1205 near Moultrie, Ga
Oquina Creek at Cassidy Rd
Oquina Creek at County Road 138 (Old Cassidy Rd.) near Thomasville, GA Parkers Mill Creek at County Road 324 near Cairo, Ga
Parkers Mill Creek at State Road111 near Cairo, GA
Reedy Creek at East Broad Street near Norman Park, GA
Sandy Run Creek at Moody Rd near Warner Robins, GA
Sandy Run Creek at U.S. 129 near Warner Robins, GA
Spring Creek at State Road 90 near Montezuma, Ga

Flint
Flint
Suwanee
Suwanee
Ochlockonee Ochlockonee Ochlockonee
Ochlockonee
Ochlockonee
Suwanee Lower Ocmulgee Lower Ocmulgee Flint

Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP

Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Probabilistic
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Probabilistic
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey

32.192905 -84.329715 X

32.296

-84.052

XX

31.046747 -83.070246 X

31.4425 -83.475833 X

31.142333 -83.803611 X 30.884714 -83.98171 X

30.86916 -83.98361 X

30.838056 -84.22611 X 30.872733 -84.215622 X 31.268065 -83.680011 X 32.583747 -83.623244 X 32.5768 -83.589503 X

32.285

-84.01

X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-43

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

X X X
XXX

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_09_5085 RV_09_3168 RV_09_5084 RV_09_3316 RV_09_5080 RV_09_5086 RV_10_5098 RV_10_5099 RV_09_5072 RV_10_5096 RV_09_5082 RV_09_5078

Turkey Branch at Cemetery Rd near Fitzgerald, GA

Suwanee

Turkey Branch at Ed Ward Road (CR 124) near Fitzgerald, Ga

Suwanee

Turkey Branch at Frank Rd near Fitzgerald, GA

Suwanee

Turkey Creek at GA Hwy 129
Unnamed Tributary to Hat Creek at CR 241 near Sycamore, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Little River at Luke Road near Sycamore, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Oaky Woods at Davis Street near Meigs, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Oaky Woods Creek at State Road 3 near Meigs, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Okapilco Creek at Old Berlin Rd near Moultrie, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Parkers Mill Creek at State Road111 near Cairo, GA
Unnamed Tributary to Turkey Branch at Ben Hill Drive near Fitzgerald, GA Willacoochee Creek at Jeff Davis Memorial Highway near Fitzgerald, GA

Suwanee Suwanee Suwanee Ochlockonee Ochlockonee Suwanee Ochlockonee Suwanee Suwanee

Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP Tifton WP

Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Probabilistic
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring
Targeted- Monitoring
Targeted- Ammonia Standards Monitoring Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey Targeted- 303(d) Impaired/Reference Survey

31.70685 -83.238552 X

31.679484 -83.250839 X

31.690929 -83.244056 X

31.691011 -83.243907 X

31.684423 -83.626199 X

31.635

-83.652

X

31.076647 -84.086856 X 31.07699 -84.080289 X

31.075812 -83.687737 X X

30.868427 -84.228458 X X

31.692365 -83.246333 X

31.649639 -83.244979 X

X

X

XXX

X

X

X

X X

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-44

Routine2 Fecal coliform E. coli Enterococci Metal s Pesticides OrthoPhosphorus Diatoms3 Macroinvertebrates3 Anions Total Dissolved Solids Gage Chlorophyll

Georgia Station Number

Sampling Site

River Basin

Sampling

Waterbody

Organization1 Type/Project

Latitude Longitude

RV_09_5069

Withlacoochee River at GA Hwy 122 near Hahira, GA

Suwanee

Tifton WP

Probabilistic

31.014

-83.302

X

1 Sampling Organization: Atlanta WP = GAEPD Atlanta office; Brunswick WP = GAEPD Brunswick Regional office, Cartersville WP = GAEPD Cartersville Regional Office Tifton WP = GAEPD Tifton Regional office. 2 Routine field parameters include: gage height / tape down or discharge measurement, air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance. 2 Routine chemical parameters include: turbidity, 5-day BOD, alkalinity, hardness, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total organic carbon, and fecal coliform. Basin lakes field, chemical and biological parameters include: water depth, secchi disk transparency, photic zone depth, air temperature, depth profiles for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and specific conductance, and chemical analyses for turbidity, specific conductance, 5-day BOD, pH, alkalinity, hardness, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total organic carbon, and chlorophyll a. 3 Biomonitoring: conducted for invertebrates and periphyton using Georgia EPD protocols.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-45

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 or targeted monitoring of water quality parameters. The Tennessee Valley Authority has also collected fish IBI data in Georgia. In 2007, the GAEPD began utilizing macroinvertebrate biological data in addition to fish data for assessing the biotic integrity of wadeable streams in Georgia.
Lake Monitoring The GAEPD has maintained monitoring programs for Georgia's public lakes since the late 1960's. Currently, Georgia has six major lakes that have standard criteria approved by legislature, which include: Sydney Lanier, Allatoona, West Point, Walter F. George, Jackson and Carters. These lakes are sampled every year from April to October when primary productivity is highest. In addition to the six lakes with criteria, Georgia has 21 other major lakes (lakes over 500

acres). Prior to 2008, these lakes were monitored quarterly on a basin rotation cycle, so each lake was sampled once every 5 years. Beginning in 2008, EPD began to monitor these lakes monthly from April to October instead of quarterly. In addition, in 2008, EPD began to transition from monitoring these lakes on a basin rotation cycle to monitoring them each year. This transition was done over a period of time by adding a set of lakes (by basin) to the annual monitoring program each year. By 2012, EPD was monitoring all major lakes annually (except for those in the Savannah River Basin). Major lakes in the Savannah River Basin were added to the annual monitoring program in 2014. The data collected in the annual monitoring of lakes includes depth profiles for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and specific conductance; secchi disk transparency and photic zone depth; and chemical analyses for turbidity, specific conductance, 5-day BOD, pH, alkalinity, hardness, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total organic carbon, bacteria (fecal coliform, E. coli, or enterococci depending on designated use), and chlorophyll a.
The monitoring of major lakes (> 500 acres) since 1984 has continued to use Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI) as a tool to mark trophic state trends. Currently, all major lakes are monitored monthly April through October. Three measurements (secchi depth, chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus) are used to calculate TSIs each month using the equations below and are combined into a total trophic state index (TTSI). A growing-season average TTSI for the dampool location for each lake is then used to assess the trophic status. Other field data and observations are also used to assess the trophic condition of each lake and to establish categories of lakes relative to need for restoration and/or protection. The major lakes listed in Table 3-9 are ranked according to the average seasonal TSI.
TSIsecchi = 60 (14.41) (ln Secchi disk (meters))
TSIP = (14.42) (ln Total phosphorus (ug/L)) + 4.15
TSIchl = (9.81) (ln Chlorophyll a (ug/L)) + 30.6

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-46

TABLE 3-9. MAJOR LAKES RANKED BY SUM OF TOTAL TROPHIC STATE INDEX VALUES 2015

Major Lake

TTSI Ranking Major Lake TTSI Ranking Major Lake TTSI Ranking

High Falls

161

Jackson

134

Goat Rock

118

Seminole

153

Sinclair

132

Juliette

117

Blackshear

151

Allatoona

128

Tugalo

117

Chehaw

147

Oliver

128

Clarks Hill

117

Walter F. George

147

Carters*

128

Blue Ridge

116

Worth

145

West Point

123

Chatuge

116

Banks

143

Russell

122

Burton

114

Tobesofkee

142

Harding

122

Rabun

112

Andrews

142

Nottely

120

Hartwell

107

Oconee

135

Lanier

120

*Carters Lake does not have a dam pool site due to the pump-back activity from the re-regulation reservoir. Data listed

is from the mid-lake station. Sample for Lake Chatuge taken at State line.

Fish Tissue Monitoring This general contaminants assessment project is focused on fish tissue sampling and analyses, riskbased 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 typically collected in the fall from Georgia lakes and rivers, and analyzed in the winter and spring. Site-specific 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 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. The first risk-based consumption guidance was published in 1995. As part of the implementation of the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), it was recognized that a more rigorous monitoring program of mercury in fish tissue would be required to support trend analysis and the efficacy of future reductions in air mercury emissions. A subproject was designed and implemented in 2006 consisting of 22 fish mercury trend stations, which will be monitored annually. Nineteen stations are fresh water and 3 are estuarine. The mercury in fish trend monitoring sites are provided in Table 3-10.

TABLE 3-10. MERCURY IN FISH TREND MONITORING STATIONS

Antioch Lake at Rocky Mtn. PFA Oostanaula River at Georgia Hwy. 140 Lake Acworth Lake Tugalo Bear Creek Reservoir Randy Pointer Lake (Black Shoals Reservoir) Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Chattahoochee River Below Franklin Lake Tobesofkee Ocmulgee River below Macon at Ga. Hwy. 96 Lake Andrews

Flint River below Ichawaynochaway Creek Lake Kolomoki at Kolomoki State Park Satilla River below U.S. Hwy. 82 Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge Savannah River at U.S. Hwy. 301 Savannah River at I-95 Ogeechee River at Ga. Hwy. 204 Wassaw Sound Altamaha Delta and Sound St. Andrews Sound

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-47

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, ten to twenty sites per year were sampled as part of this project. Continued work is performed on a site-specific basis and as part of the targeted monitoring program.
Aquatic Toxicity Testing Biomonitoring requirements are currently addressed in all municipal and industrial NPDES permits. In January 1995, the GAEPD issued approved NPDES Reasonable Potential Procedures that further delineate required conditions for conducting whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing for municipal and industrial discharges. The Reasonable Potential Procedures were updated in 2003 and the GAEPD additionally developed a WET Strategy that provided more detail as to how the State would determine which facilities needed a WET limit in their permit. This strategy outlined minimum data requirements for different types of facilities.
The GAEPD conducted aquatic toxicity tests on municipal and industrial water pollution control plant effluents from 1985 through 1997. Funding for GAEPD's aquatic toxicity testing laboratory was redirected to TMDL monitoring and the toxicity testing requirements were turned over to the individual permittees.
Coastal Monitoring The Coastal Resources Division (CRD) conducts the majority of coastal monitoring in the State. CRD conducts water quality monitoring in estuarine and near-shore coastal waters

through its Public Health Water Quality Monitoring Program. This Program has three distinct parts. The Shellfish Sanitation and Beach Water Quality Monitoring Programs are concerned with public health, while the Nutrient Sampling Program is designed to generate baseline-monitoring data for trends. A list of the beaches monitored in 2014 and 2015 can be found in Table 3-11. A list of the stations monitored under the Shellfish Sanitation program can be found in Table 3-12 (these stations are also included in Figure 1). The nutrient sampling that was performed was conducted at a subset of the Shellfish Sanitation monitoring stations. Table 3-12 indicates which stations were monitored for nutrients. More detail regarding the work conducted by CRD can be found in Chapter 5. GAEPD has, over the past few years, intensified its own coastal monitoring program. Currently, GAEPD monitors eight locations throughout Georgia's sounds. 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 compounds, and turbidity.
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 State-permitted industrial pretreatment facilities. Compliance sampling inspections include collection of 24-hour composite samples, evaluation of the permittee's sampling and flow monitoring provisions and sampling documentation. In excess of 170 sampling inspections were conducted by the GAEPD in Fiscal Years 2014-2015. The results were used to confirm validity of permittee self-monitoring data and as supporting evidence in enforcement actions.
Probabilistic Monitoring In order to determine the quality of all the waters in the State, the GAEPD would either have to sample and assess each individual waterbody (which is not possible due to the resources that would be needed) or would have to develop a scientific survey that

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-48

Table 3-11 Beaches Monitored by CRD in 2014 & 2015

Station ID

Beach Name

BIRP BOSS CNBF DALL JICC JIM JIN JIS JISA JISD JIWY KING REIM SEN SES SIF

Blythe Island Sandbar Beach Ossabaw Island Bradley Beach Contentment Bluff Sandbar Beach Dallas Bluff Sandar Beach Jekyll Island - Clam Creek Beach Jekyll Island - Middle Beach at Convention Center Jekyll Island - North Beach at Dexter Lane Jekyll Island - South Beach at 4-H Camp Jekyll Island - St. Andrews Beach Jekyll Island - South Dunes Picnic Area Beach Jekyll Island - Captain Wylly Road Crossover Beach Kings Ferry County Park Beach Reimolds Pasture Beach Sea Island - North Beach Sea Island - South Beach Saint Simons Island - 5th Street Crossover Beach

SIM

Saint Simons Island - Middle Beach (aka East Beach Old Coast Guard Station)

SIMA SIN SIS

Saint Simons Island - Massengale Park Beach Saint Simons Island - North Beach at Goulds Inlet Saint Simons Island - South Beach at Lighthouse

SKID

Skidaway Narrows County Park Beach (aka Butterbean Beach)

SOSS

Ossabaw Island South Beach

TYM

Tybee Island - Middle Beach at Center Terrace

TYN

Tybee Island - North Beach at Gulick Street

TYP

Tybee Island - Polk Street Beach

TYS

Tybee Island - South Beach at Chatham Street

TYST

Tybee Island - Strand Beach at Pier

*Stations sampled monthly are monitored April October.

County Glynn Chatham McIntosh McIntosh Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn Chatham Glynn Glynn Glynn Glynn
Glynn
Glynn Glynn Glynn
Chatham
Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham

Frequency* Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Weekly
Weekly
Weekly Weekly Weekly
Monthly
Monthly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-49

Table 3-12 Stations Monitored by CRD under the Shellfish Sanitation and Nutrient Monitoring Programs in 2014 & 2015

Station ID

Latitude

Longitude Description

Nutrients Nutrients

2014

2015

1049 31.92866 -81.01839 southernmost tributary off Romerly Marsh Creek

1050 31.92503 -81.00860 northern mouth of Habersham Creek

1052 31.94317 -81.00914 northernmost tributary off Romerly Marsh Creek

1152 31.92557 -80.98520 Old Romerly Marsh Creek

1153 31.92993 -80.98919 Romerly Marsh Creek Chatham

1154 31.97741 -80.96789 Halfmoon River at Beard Creek

X

X

1155 31.95172 -80.98532 Tybee Cut South

X

X

1159 31.96792 -80.93600 Pa Cooper Creek

1200 31.94600 -80.93000 Mouth of House Creek Chatham

X

X

1201 31.95500 -80.93300 North of House Creek/Wassaw Sound Chatham

1222 32.01500 -80.92400 Cut Oyster Creek to Bull River Chatham

1223 32.01400 -80.91600 North Fork Oyster Creek Chatham

X

X

1224

31.99800

-80.91200

North Junction Lazaretto & Oyster Creeks Chatham

1225

31.99500

-80.91000

South Junction Lazaretto & Oyster Creeks Chatham

X

X

1337 32.02829 -80.94725 Bull River upstream of Betz Creek

X

X

1338 32.02005 -80.94529 Betz Creek

1352 31.96058 -81.01186 Priest Landing Chatham

3242 31.68500 -81.29600 Medway River Near Sunbury

X

X

3249 31.68600 -81.27700 Halfmoon East

3255 31.73400 -81.19400 Mouth of Jones Hammock Creek

3273 31.74100 -81.16100 Bear River across from Newell Creek

3275 31.77100 -81.16998 Bear River across from Kilkenny

X

X

3285 31.75680 -81.27240 Dickinson Creek Mouth

X

X

3286 31.74765 -81.25410 Jones Creek Mouth

3288 31.72800 -81.22028 Medway River East of Sunbury Creek

3291 31.68940 -81.19400 Van Dyke Creek Mouth

X

X

3319 31.68713 -81.15633 Walburg Northwest

X

X

4092 31.51000 -81.27800 Eagle Creek, McIntosh

4100 31.53000 -81.33000 Back River at July Cut

X

X

4120 31.52777 -81.25732 Mud River at Dog Hammock

4122 31.59343 -81.26117 Little Mud River at Barbour Island River

X

X

4123 31.53432 -81.22433 Sapelo Sound at Highpoint

X

X

4175 31.44200 -81.30600 Old Teakettle Creek, McIntosh

X

X

4177 31.47600 -81.33200 Shellbluff Creek, McIntosh

X

X

4178 31.48800 -81.32300 Creighton Narrows, McIntosh

4179 31.48500 -81.29500 New Teakettle Creek, McIntosh

4180 31.52300 -81.29100 Front River, McIntosh

4184 31.55400 -81.31400 Juliention River, McIntosh

X

X

4185 31.56360 -81.25778 Little Mud River, McIntosh

4186 31.55775 -81.23293 South Mouth Barbour Island River, McIntosh

X

X

4187 31.59300 -81.23600 Middle Barbour Island River, McIntosh

4188 31.61500 -81.21400 Middle Wahoo River, McIntosh

4190 31.63200 -81.22400 South Swain River, McIntosh

4191 31.63400 -81.23700 North Swain River, McIntosh

X

X

4195 31.56232 -81.21815 Todd River, McIntosh

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-50

Station ID

Latitude

Longitude Description

Nutrients Nutrients

2014

2015

4196 31.50300 -81.33500 Crescent River, McIntosh

X

X

4197 31.49100 -81.33200 Crescent River, South-end of Creighton, McIntosh

4304 31.55900 -81.27400 Julienton River mouth, McIntosh

4305 31.54800 -81.30800 Julienton River middle, McIntosh

4306 31.53900 -81.30200 Four Mile Island southwest, McIntosh

X

X

4330 31.55500 -81.29000 Jolly Creek

4333 31.38741 -81.28912 South end of Sapelo Island

X

X

4400 31.55700 -81.29400 Julienton River, middle, McIntosh

5069 31.05500 -81.46900 Jointer River Mouth, Glynn

X

X

5105 31.100

-81.516

Jointer River - Mac's Basin

5198 31.08900 -81.47900 Mouth Cedar Creek, Glynn

X

X

5199 31.08000 -81.50600 Jointer River, Glynn

5200 31.07100 -81.48300 Cobb Creek, Glynn

5322 31.09100 -81.51500 Jointer Island West, Glynn

5357 31.10200 -81.52700 Jointer Creek at Sage Dock, Glynn

5358 31.10600 -81.53300 Jointer Creek upstream of Sage Dock, Glynn

X

X

5359 31.06400 -81.52600 Little Satilla River at Honey Creek, Glynn

6201 31.03900 -81.49100 Little Satilla River, Camden

X

X

6210 30.89200 -81.51200 Cabin Bluff, Camden

X

X

6212 30.90400 -81.46100 North Brickhill River, Camden

6213 30.86300 -81.49700 Delaroche Creek Mouth, Camden

6214 30.85000 -81.47700 South Brickhill River, Camden

6215 30.85800 -81.54100 Mouth Black Point Creek, Camden

6216 30.84900 -81.54200 Crooked River, Camden

X

X

6217 30.84100 -81.52100 Crooked River South, Camden

X

X

6218 30.82300 -81.49800 South Crooked River Mouth, Camden

X

X

6300 30.92700 -81.45200 Cumberland River-Marker #39, Camden

X

X

6317 30.91100 -81.48500 Cumberland River East Shellbine, Camden

6318 30.86100 -81.50800 Delaroche Creek Headwaters, Camden

X

X

6323 30.85500 -81.46700 Brickhill River Upstream 6214, Camden

X

X

6343 30.86800 -81.48500 Brickhill River West Bend, Camden

6344 30.88300 -81.47900 Mumford Creek at Brickhill River, Camden

6360 31.06930 -81.54500 Maiden Creek

X

X

6361 31.05470 -81.53900 Honey Creek

X

X

6411

30.88100

-81.51100

Downstream from Cabin Bluff @ marker 51A, Camden

6412

30.87000

-81.49900

Upstream from DeLaroache ck @ marker 55, Camden

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-51

would be representative of all the State's waters. Probabilistic monitoring provides a scientifically defensible way to sample a subset of all waters and then to use the results of this sampling to provide an estimate of the quality of all waters of the State. GAEPD has participated in various National probabilistic monitoring in the past including USEPA's 2007 National Lakes Assessment Survey; USEPA's 2009, National Rivers and Streams Assessment (wadeable portion); USEPA's 2011 National Wetlands Condition Assessment; USEPA's 2012 National Lake Assessment; and USEPA's 2013 National Rivers and Streams Assessment (wadeable portion). In cooperation with CRD, Georgia sampled 51 wetland sites using EPA's national protocol. GAEPD sampled 13 lakes, and 17 wadeable streams.
In addition to participating in the National projects, beginning in 2010, GAEPD began to conduct probabilistic monitoring of the State's streams. Between 2011 and 2015 approximately 88 streams were sampled as part of the probabilistic monitoring project. The results of these five years of data predict that approximately 64% of Georgia's streams are supporting their designated uses; that 13% of the streams are impaired due to low dissolved oxygen; that approximately 6% are impaired for pH, 4% are impaired for metals, and 82% are impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. None of the streams monitored as part of the probability survey were impaired for high temperature, so temperature is not predicted to be source of impairment for many waters in the State. It is important to note that accuracy of predictions is highly dependent upon the sample size. The more sites that are sampled under the probabilistic study, the more likely it is that the results seen in the sampled sites will reflect the stream population as a whole. Typically, one would want a sample size of at least 30 to 50 sites. While 75 sites were sampled as part of the probabilistic study, all the parameters reported above were not measured at each site. Dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature data were collected at each of the 88 sites, but metals were only collected at 23 of the 88 sites and only 22 of the sites had fecal

coliform bacteria data available. The low sample size for fecal coliform bacteria causes there to be a very wide confidence interval in predicting the number of streams that may be impaired for bacteria in the State (the predicted percentage of impairment ranges from 66% to 98%).
Georgia EPD is currently in the process of reevaluating the State's instream criteria for dissolved oxygen. There are places in the State (particularly in South Georgia) where dissolved oxygen concentrations are often naturally lower than the State's current criteria. The percentage of streams assessed as impaired for dissolved oxygen may change once the new criteria are adopted.
Surface Water Quality Summary
Data Assessment Water quality data are assessed to determine if standards are met and if the water body supports its designated or classified water use. If monitoring data show that standards are not achieved, the water body is said to be "not supporting" the designated use. The data reviewed included GAEPD monitoring data, and data from other State, Federal, local governments, and data from groups with GAEPD approved QA/QC programs. Table 3-13 provides a list of agencies that contributed data used to develop the 2016 report. The data may have been submitted specifically for the 2016 list or for previous listing cycles.
Appendix A includes an integrated list of waters for which data have been assessed. This list includes waters that have been assessed as "supporting" their designated uses and those assessed as "not supporting" their designated uses. In addition, some waters were placed in a third category called "assessment pending". Waters were placed in the "assessment pending" group when the data available for a water were insufficient to make an assessment as to whether the water was supporting its designated uses or not. Appendix A also includes Georgia's 2016 Listing Assessment Methodology which provides a description of how Georgia

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-52

TABLE 3-13. CONTRIBUTORS OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR ASSESSMENT OF GEORGIA WATERS

DNR-EPD, Watershed Planning & Monitoring Program DNR-EPD, Wastewater Reg. Program (Municipal) DNR-EPD, Wastewater Reg. Program (Industrial) DNR, Wildlife Resources Division DNR, Coastal Resources Division State University of West Georgia Gainesville College Georgia Institute of Technology U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Forest Service Tennessee Valley Authority Cobb County Dekalb County Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority Fulton County Gwinnett Couty City of Gainesville City of LaGrange Georgia Mountains R.D.C. City of Conyers Lake Allatoona (Kennesaw State University) Lake Blackshear (Lake Blackshear Watershed Association)
Lake Lanier (University of Georgia) West Point (LaGrange College/Auburn University) Georgia Power Company Oglethorpe Power Company Alabama DEM City of College Park Kennesaw State University University of Georgia Town of Trion Cherokee County Water & Sewerage Authority Clayton County Water Authority City of Atlanta Columbus Water Works Columbus Unified Government Jones Ecological Research Center City of Suwanee

City of Cartersville Georgia Ports Authority Chattahoochee/Flint RDC Upper Etowah Adopt-A-Stream Middle Flint RDC Central Savannah RDC Chatham County City of Savannah Heart of Georgia RDC City of Augusta Southwire Company DNR-EPD, Brunswick Coastal District DNR-EPD, Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Branch Ellijay High School DNR, Georgia Parks Recreation & Historic Sites Division DNR-EPD, Ambient Monitoring Unit (Macroinvertebrate Team) Forsyth County Tyson Foods, Inc. South Georgia RDC Northeast GA RDC Ogeechee Canoochee Riverkeeper Screven County Coastal GA RDC City of Roswell
City of Alpharetta Columbia County Southwest GA RDC Southeast GA RDC Coweta County Middle GA RDC Bartow County Atlanta Regional Commission Soquee River Watershed Partnership Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Henry County City of Clayton South Carolina Electric and Gas Company South Carolina DHEC St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District

compares different types of water quality data with Georgia's water quality criteria in making assessment decisions.
Evaluation of Use Support Table 3-14 provides summary information from Appendix A on the total number of stream miles, lake acres, or square miles of sounds/harbors that fall in each assessment category.

Assessment of Causes of Nonsupport of Designated Uses There are many potential pollutants that may interfere with the designated use of rivers, streams, lakes, estuarine, and coastal waters. These can be termed the causes of use nonsupport. Based on information presented in Appendix A, Table 3-15 summarizes the parameters of concern or the causes which contributed to nonsupport of water quality standards or designated uses of a particular water body type.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-53

TABLE 3-14 EVALUATION OF USE SUPPORT BY WATER BODY TYPE AND ASSESSMENT CATEGORY
2014-2015

Degree of Use Support
Support Not Support Assessment Pending Total

Streams/Rivers (miles)
5,587 8,461 573
14,621

Lakes/Reservoirs (acres)
255,485 96,754 39,542
391,781

Sounds/Harbors (sq. miles)
35 10 43
88

Coastal Streams/Rivers
(miles)
297 70 95
462

Coastal Beaches
(miles)
31.51 2.74
0
34.25

TABLE 3-15 CAUSES OF NONSUPPORT OF DESIGNATED USES BY WATER BODY TYPE
2014-2015

Cause Category
Pathogens Fecal Coliform Biologic Integrity (Bioassessments) Maroinvertebrates (Bio M) Fish (Bio F) Bioassays Whole Effluent Toxicity Oxygen Depletion Dissolved Oxygen Thermal Impacts Temperature Toxic Inorganics Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Zinc Toxic Organics 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethylene PCB in Fish Tissue Metals Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Zinc Mercury in Fish Tissue (TWR) pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions pH Nutrients (Macronutrients/Growth Factors) Objectionable Algae Pesticides Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Other Commercial Fishing Ban (CFB) Cause Category
Pathogens Fecal Coliform Thermal Impacts Temperature

Rivers/Streams (miles) Contributions to Impairment1
4,738 4,738 3,015 627 2,542
6 6 1,149 1,149 17 17 148 3 9 40 72 6 36 384 1 8 375 1,103 9 40 72 6 36 994 266 266 30 30 1 1 1 225 225 Lakes/Reservoirs (acres) Contributions to Impairment1 194 194 650 650

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-54

Oxygen Depletion Oxygen Dissolved Toxic Organics PCB in Fish Tissue DDE/DDD in Fish Tissue Metals Mercury in Fish Tissue (TWR)
Pesticides DDD/ DDE in Fish Tissue Observed Effects Chlorophyll a pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions pH Cause Category
Pathogens Fecal Coliform Oxygen Depletion Dissolved Oxygen Toxic Organics Dieldrin in Fish Tissue PCB in Fish Tissue Toxaphene like Chlorinated Camphenes in Fish Tissue Metals/Toxic Inorganics Selenium Pesticides Dieldrin in Fish Tissue Toxaphene in Fish Tissue Other Commercial Fishing Ban (CFB) Shellfish Ban (SB) Cause Category
Pathogens Enterococcus Cause Category
Oxygen Depletion Dissolved Oxygen Toxic Inorganics Selenium

1,449 1,449 91,633 91,613
20 1,356 1,356
20 20 1,472 1,472 598 598 Coastal Streams (miles) Contributions to Impairment1 30 30 33 33 32 3 24 5
9 9 8 3 5 28 2 28 Coastal Beaches (miles) Contributions to Impairment1 2.74 2.74 Sounds/Harbors (sq. miles) Contributions to Impairment1 4 4 6 6

1The total mileage/acreage provided for each impairment category (e.g. Pathogens, Toxic Organics, Metals, etc.) is a summation of the mileage/acreage of all the waters impaired by one or more of the pollutants in the category. Since a water may be negatively affected by more than one pollutant in a given impairment category, the total mileage/acreage for the impairment category may be less than the sum of the miles of each of the individual pollutants in that category.

Assessment of Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Uses Pollutants that impact water bodies 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 3-16 summarizes information presented in Appendix A concerning the sources of pollutants that prevent achievement of water quality standards and use support in various water bodies in Georgia.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-55

TABLE 3-16 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF NONSUPPORT OF DESIGNATED USES BY WATER BODY TYPE
2014-2015

Source Category
Hydromodification Dams of Impoundments (Dam) Industrial Sources Industrial Point Source Discharge (I1) Industrial Stormwater Discharge (I2) Municipal Permitted Discharges Combined Sewer Overflows Municipal Point Source Discharges Nonpoint Sources Non-Point Source (NP) Urban Runoff (UR)
Source Category
Industrial Sources Industrial Point Source Discharge (I1) Industrial Stormwater Discharge (I2) Nonpoint Sources Non-Point Source (NP) Urban Runoff (UR) Hydromodification Dams of Impoundments (Dam)

Rivers/Streams (miles)
Contributions to Impairment1 4 4 298 45 296 277 93 184 8,381 6,681 2,181
Lakes/Reservoirs (acres)
Contributions to Impairment1 56,600 650 55,950 39,404 39,210 29,106 750 750

Source Category
Industrial Sources Industrial Point Source Discharge (I1) Industrial Stormwater Discharge (I2) Municipal Permitted Discharges Municipal Point Source Discharges Nonpoint Sources Non-Point Source (NP) Urban Runoff (UR)
Source Category
Nonpoint Sources Urban Runoff (UR) Non-Point Source (NP) Municipal Municipal Point Sources (M) Industrial Sources Industrial Point Source Discharge (I1)

Coastal Streams (Miles)
Contributions to Impairment1 29 27 10 19 19 48 16 38
Sounds/Harbors (Sq. Miles)
Contributions to Impairment1 10 4 6 4 4 4 4

Source Category
Nonpoint Sources Non-Point Source (NP)

Coastal Beaches (Miles)
Contributions to Impairment1 2.74 2.74

1The total mileage/acreage provided for each source category (e.g. Industrial, Municipal, Nonpoint, etc.) is a summation of the mileage/acreage of all the waters impaired by one or more of the sources in the category. Since a water may be negatively affected by more than one source in a given source category, the total mileage/acreage for the source category may be less than the sum of the miles of each of the individual sources in that category.

Priorities for Action The list of waters in Appendix A includes all waters for which available data was assessed against applicable water quality standards and designated uses were determined to be supporting, not fully supporting, or it was determined that more data was needed before an assessment was made "assessment pending". 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. Waters listed in Appendix A are active 305(b) waters. Lakes or reservoirs within these categories provide 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) list is made up of all waters within category 5 in Appendix A. The proposed date for development of a TMDL for 303(d) waters is indicated within the priority column on the list of waters.
Georgia's Priority Waters Under U.S. EPA's Long-Term Vision In December 2013, U.S. EPA released a new Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection of

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-56

waters under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. This Vision focuses on six elements including 1) Prioritization, 2) Assessment, 3) Protection, 4) Alternatives, 5) Engagement and 6) Integration. The LongTerm Vision is a 10-year plan that goes through the year 2022. According to U.S. EPA, as part of the element (Prioritization), States are to review, systematically prioritize, and report priority watershed or waters for restoration and protection in their biennial integrated reports to facilitate State strategic planning for achieving water quality goals. The thought behind this element is that there are many water quality issues facing States and the States need to prioritize what they plan to address by 2022 as States generally do not have the resources to focus on everything at once. Each State was to develop a Priority Framework that they would use to develop their list of priority waters. The list of priority waters are those waters that the States plan to have a TMDL, TMDL alternative, or protection plan written for by 2022. GAEPD developed our Priority Framework in February 2015 at which time it was placed on our website on both the TMDL and 305(b)/303(d) listing webpages. GAEPD has historically done a good job in writing TMDLs for impaired waters in a timely manner. We have been writing TMDLs on a rotating river basin schedule. Since we cycle though all river basins in a 5-year period, a water is typically on the impaired list for 5 years or less before a TMDL is written for it. Since Georgia did not need to prioritize waters based on what TMDLs could be developed by 2022, we instead chose priority waters based on where we would be focusing a lot of our resources in the coming years. In selecting our priority waters, we used our 2012 305(b)/3039d) list as a baseline along with the Priority Framework we had developed. Factors we looked at in choosing priority waters included things such as impacts to public health, whether the impairment was on a water with a recreational use, whether the impairment was impacted by interstate issues, whether the impairments matched with national or regional EPA priorities (like reduction of nutrients) and whether there was stakeholder involvement present in the area. Based on these factors, Georgia chose the waters in Table 3-17 as our priority waters.

The waters on the priority list can be organized into six groups.
1) Lake Lanier Lake Lanier is composed of 5 segments. Only one of these segments (Lanier Lake Browns Bridge Road (SR 369)) is on the 2012 303(d) list for chloropyhyll a. However, the TMDL for chlorophyll a will be written for the entire lake, so the other four segments of the lake were also added to the priority list. The TMDL for chlorophyll a will address nutrients which are a National priority.
2) Carters Lake Carters Lake is composed of two segments. Both are on the 2012 303(d) list for chlorophyll a and total phosphorus. Georgia is putting both segment of the lake on the priority list for each parameter and plans to develop a TMDL to address them. This TMDL will be addressing nutrients, which are a National priority.
3) Savannah Harbor This segment is impaired for DO. Georgia EPD has been working with South Carolina DHEC and the Savannah River/Harbor Discharger Group to restore this water and has completed a TMDL alternative plan (5R).
4) Georgia has 4 coastal beaches on the 2012 303d list for enterococci. Georgia chose to put these beaches on the priority list to address human health concerns. TMDLs will be written to address these impairments.
5) Coosa River A segment of the Coosa River is on the 2012 303(d) list for Temperature. The cause of the temperature violation is known and will be addressed through direct implementation. A wasteload allocation for heat loads is being developed and will be implemented through an NPDES permit.
6) Ochlockonee River Basin - Georgia is placing the Upper and Lower Ochlockonee Watersheds on our priority list due to chlorophyll and DO impairments in a downstream lake located in Florida. A TMDL is being developed for this Lake. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, waters in Georgia may not cause and contribute to water quality violations in Florida. Georgia will develop a protection plan to help ensure that

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-57

Georgia's waters meet the necessary nutrient reductions at the State line. The protection plan will address nutrients which are a National priority.
While the waters on the list are considered our priorities under the new Vision, EPD plans to continue to develop TMDLs using the rotating basin approach as we have been doing in the past. Therefore, Georgia will be developing more TMDLs by 2022 than what is accounted for in our "priority" list.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-58

Group Lake Lanier
Carters Lake Savannah Harbor
Coosa River
Beaches
Ochlockonee Watershed

Table 3-17 List of Priority Waters

Water ID

Name/Location

Parameter of Concern

GAR031300010819 GAR031300010705 GAR031300010818 GAR031300010820 GAR031300010821 GAR031501020406 GAR031501020408 GAR030601090318
GAR031501050209 GAR030602040306
GAR030701060506 GAR030702030230 GAR030702030415
HUC 03120002 HUC 03120002

Lanier Lake (Browns Bridge Road (SR 369)) Lanier Lake (Bolling Bridge)
Lanier Lake (Lanier Bridge Road (SR53))
Lanier Lake (Flowery Branch)
Lanier Lake (Dam Pool)
Carters Lake (US Woodring Branch/Midlake)
Carters Lake (Coosawattee River Embayment)
Savannah Harbor (SR 25 (old US Hwy 17) to Elba Island Cut) Coosa River (Beach Creek to Stateline) Kings Ferry County Park Beach (US Hwy 17
Kingsferry Bridge on Ogeechee River Entire Beach)
Reimolds Pasture Beach (Eastern Shore
of Buttermilk Sound)
Jekyll Island Clam Creek Beach (Clam
Creek to Old North Picnic Area)
Jekyll Island St. Andrews Beach (Macy Lane to St. Andrews Picnic Area) Upper Ochlockonee Watershed Lower Ochlockonee Watershed

Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a & Phosphorus Chlorophyll a & Phosphorus Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Enterococci
Enterococci
Enterococci
Enterococci
Phosphorus, Nitrogen Phosphorus, Nitrogen

Approach to Address Parameter of Concern TMDL
Protection via TMDL Protection via TMDL Protection via TMDL Protection via TMDL TMDL
TMDL
TMDL Alternative (5R) Direct to Implementation TMDL
TMDL
TMDL
TMDL
Protection Plan
Protection Plan

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3-59

CHAPTER 4
Wetland Programs

swamp drains to the east by the St. Marys River into the Atlantic, and to the west by the Suwannee River into the Gulf.

Estimates of the total extent of Georgia's wetlands have varied from 4.9 to 7.7 million acres, including more than 600,000 acres of open water habitat found in estuarine, riverine, palustrine, and lacustrine environments. Estimates of wetland losses in the state from colonial times to the present range between 20-25% of the original wetland acreage.
Georgia has approximately 100 miles of shoreline along the south Atlantic coast, with extensive tidal marshes separating barrier islands composed of Pleistocene and Holocene sediments from the mainland. Georgia's barrier islands and tidal marshes are well preserved compared to other South Atlantic states. Georgia's coastline and tidal marshes are managed under the Coastal Marshlands Protection and Shore Protection Acts of 1970 and 1979 respectively, and are considered to be well preserved compared to other South Atlantic states.
Elevations within Georgia's boundaries range 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 southsouthwesterly 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 sinkholes, spring heads, Carolina bays, and the Okefenokee Swamp, a vast bog-swamp measuring approximately one-half million acres in south Georgia and north Florida. The

The lower Coastal Plain has frequently been referred to as the Atlantic Coastal Flatwoods region, 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 needleleaved and broad-leaved tree species adapted to long hydroperiods.
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 conducted by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Georgia 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. Published soil surveys have proven useful in wetland delineation in the field and in the development of wetland inventories. County

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-1

acreage summaries provide useful information on the distribution of wetlands across the state.
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) utilizes soil survey information during photointerpretation in the development of the 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale products of this nationwide wetland inventory effort. Wetlands are classified according to a system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979), 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 as a seamless dataset for Georgia through either a geodatabase or shapefile format (see www.fws.gov). 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 was based on classification of Landsat TM satellite imagery. Due to the limitations of remote sensing technology, the classification scheme was simplified in comparison to the Cowardin system used with NWI. 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.
Similar Landsat-based landcover databases have been produced with more recent satellite imagery. The Federal government completed mapping in Georgia using imagery from the mid-1990s as part of the National Landcover Database. The Georgia Gap Analysis Program, supported in part by funding from Georgia DNR, completed an 18-class database using imagery from 1997-1999. Both these databases include wetland landcover classes. More recently, the Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Georgia completed an updated landcover dataset using 2008 imagery. This dataset is available from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse.

Additional habitats have been mapped through the Georgia Coastal Land Conservation Initiative that may be helpful in identifying wetlands. Mapping was done by botanists with the Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) for the 11 coastal county area in 2010 to show the NatureServe classification of habitats within this area.
NWI for Georgia's six coastal counties was updated by the Coastal Resources Division (CRD) using 2006 base imagery. This dataset represents an approximately 25-year update considering the inventory was originally mapped in the early 1980s. A summary of wetland acreages derived from this database is as follows: Estuarine: Emergent=351,236, Unconsolidated Shore=10,700, ScrubShrub=4,495, and Forested=2,053; Lacustrine: Aquatic Bed=108, Unconsolidated Shore=32, Emergent=10; Marine: Unconsolidated Shore=3,084; Palustrine: Forested=339,743, Emergent=52,511, Scrub-Shrub=30,899, Unconsolidated Bottom=8,242, Aquatic Bed=832, Unconsolidated Shore=193; Riverine: Unconsolidated Shore=90. A full report can be found on CRD's website and the data from NWI can be found at www.fws.gov.
CRD also produced a NWI Plus database, which adds additional descriptors to the updated NWI dataset and provides a functional component to wetlands in the six-county area. Wetlands are rated as having either a High Potential, Moderate Potential, or Low to No Potential to function in a given capacity. Eleven functions are identified for the six coastal counties.
In addition, CRD completed an Impacted Wetland Inventory that was initiated to identify, assess, and inventory impacted wetlands in Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden counties along the coast. The project area included all estuarine, marine and tidal fresh wetlands, as defined by Cowardin et. al (1979) and delineated by the NWI updates for the six coastal counties (completed in 2009, based on 2006 base imagery). For more information about the dataset, contact CRD.

Wetland Trends In Georgia

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-2

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, wetlands were often treated 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 this reason, we have varying accounts of wetland losses, which provide some confusion in the public's mind as to trends.
The most precise measure of Georgia's wetland acreage has been developed by the USFWS's National Wetland Inventory Status and Trends projects. The Status And Trends in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970 's to Mid-1980' s report (1991), provides details of a statistically sound study 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 higher quality photography and an increase in the number of man-made ponds.
Georgia's total wetland area covers an estimated 20 percent of the State's landscape. This total 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 7-year period (1975 1982), 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 rate of freshwater wetland loss or degradation. The most recent NWI report, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 2004 to 2009, provides information on a national scale.
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 Functions and Uses. 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).
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 commissions to recognize or acknowledge the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-3

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" 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:
1) Whether impacts to an area would adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others.
2) Whether the area is unique or significant in the conservation of flora and fauna including threatened, rare or endangered species.
3) 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.
4) Whether impacts or modification by a project would adversely affect fishing or recreational use of wetlands.

5) Whether an alteration or impact would be temporary in nature.
6) Whether the project contains significant state historical and archaeological resources, defined as "Properties On or Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places".
7) Whether alteration of wetlands would have measurable adverse impacts on adjacent sensitive natural areas.
8) 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 (with the exception of impacted tidal wetlands that were identified, mapped, and evaluated by CRD). 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.
Acceptable uses of wetlands were identified in wetland protection criteria as the following:
Timber production and harvesting. The socioeconomic 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 DNR-EPD.
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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-4

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 60-90% of commercial fin and shellfish catches. In addition, high levels of plant productivity in coastal wetlands contribute to corresponding levels of invertebrate organisms upon which fish and other animals feed. Plant decomposition in wetlands is also an important process in providing suitable habitat for waterfowl, which contributes to the economy through hunting-related expenditures.
Wastewater treatment. 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. Wetlands that are hydrologically connected to ground water can also be a source of aquifer recharge, in which case the natural settling and filtering of pollutants can help protect groundwater quality. As with any filter, wetlands can be damaged, overloaded, or made nonfunctional. Wetlands conservation and careful management of point and nonpoint 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. Wetlands are habitats 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; and Other uses unapproved by local
governments.
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.
Wetlands within the 6 coastal counties (all tidal and non-tidal) were evaluated for function based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' addition of hydrogeomorphic descriptors. These "LLWW" descriptors were added to the updated wetland inventory data (2006 base imagery) to create CRD's NWI Plus database for the six coastal counties. The NWI Plus data is used to better characterize wetlands in this region and to be able to predict wetland functions at the landscape level. The functions for coastal Georgia used are:
Surface Water Detention Coastal Storm Surge Detention Streamflow Maintenance Nutrient Transformation Carbon Sequestration

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-5

Retention of Sediment and Other Particulates
Bank and Shoreline Stabilization Provision of Fish and Aquatic
Invertebrate Habitat Provision of Waterfowl and Waterbird
Habitat Provision of Other Wildlife Habitat
Provision of Habitat for Unique,
Uncommon, or Highly Diverse Plant Communities
Wetland Monitoring. The state maintains monitoring and enforcement procedures for estuarine marshes under authority of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970. Over-flights are made of the Georgia coastline to locate potential violations. Restoration and penalties are provided for in the Act. CRD continues to monitor marsh dieback sites annually along the coast along with other project partners. This protocol was initiated in 2003 with the first reports of marsh dieback. In addition, CRD monitors shorelines along Georgia tidal creeks to quantify habitat use and restoration of shorelines. In 2011, CRD and EPD conducted field monitoring for the National Wetlands Condition Assessment (NWCA) effort initiated by EPA. The overall goal of the NWCA was to monitor freshwater and estuarine wetlands nationally during 2011 to determine their current condition. Pre-existing point locations were used to randomly select wetlands to be evaluated during this project. CRD sampled 32 estuarine wetland sites, and EPD sampled 18 palustrine forested wetland sites. Multiple indicators were used to assess wetland health including vegetation characterization, soil profiles, hydrology and algal community. In addition, a Rapid Assessment Method (RAM) was evaluated across regions and wetland classes to determine the effectiveness of RAMs in wetland management disciplines. Specifically, the RAM identifies stressors to the wetland. Collectively, these parameters provide an indication of overall wetland condition. CRD will participate in the 2016 National Wetlands Condition Assessment.

Also in 2011, EPD initiated a wetland monitoring and assessment program using an ecoregion-level approach. The goal of the program is to develop appropriate wetland assessment protocols. To date, seventy-five wetland sites within five ecoregions have been selected and monitored using various protocols, including NWCA protocols. This approach will again be applied in the Piedmont (Ecoregion 45) during 2016. Thereafter, an evolution of wetland monitoring approach will apply a more closely focused assessment of wetland soil and hydrology, particularly targeted at reference quality wetland habitats selected from statewide candidate sites. Wetland monitoring in Georgia, and to the extent possible, is being coordinated with work being conducted by other Region 4 states within the same ecoregions.
Additional Wetland Protection Activities
Georgia is protecting its wetlands through land acquisition, public education, land use planning, regulatory programs, and wetland restoration. 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 Water Quality Control Act Ground Water Use Act Safe Drinking Water Act Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Metropolitan Rivers Protection Act
In 2011, a Wetlands Unit was formed within EPD to enhance the capabilities of EPD's regulatory functions (401 water quality certification review/issuance for Section 404 permits, and compensatory mitigation program oversight) and to coordinate and advance EPD's wetlands program.
Land Conservation. To date, the Department of Natural Resources has protected in fee over 460,000 acres of conservation land and another 11,259 acres through permanent conservation easements. Between 2014 and February

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-6

2016, the Department of Natural Resources acquired 19,858 acres of conservation land. Notable acquisitions protecting stream and wetland habitat included additions to the Paulding Forest WMA, Chattahoochee Fall Line WMA, and Sheffield WMA.
Since 2008 the Department has acquired 25,547 acres of conservation lands along the lower Altamaha River in partnership with the US Marine Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, Georgia Forestry Commission, Nature Conservancy, and numerous other private foundations and donors. These acquisitions, along with others by various partners, bring the protection of properties in the lower Altamaha Delta to over 130,000 acres.
Through its Private Lands Program, Georgia DNR provides technical assistance to private landowners to encourage protection and restoration of natural habitats. Working with other state and federal agencies as well as non-governmental organizations, DNR biologists assist private landowners in the development of management plans that will protect important wildlife habitats, including wetlands and streams. An online publication entitled "Landowner's Guide- Conservation Easements for Natural Resource Protection" can be found at the following web address: http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2275

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.
The Coastal Resources Division has one position within the Division that assumes the role of coastal educator. The largest coastal education gathering, Coastfest, is hosted by CRD each October. In addition, CRD relies on partners such as the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve to carry out messages important to CRD.
The Adopt-a-Wetland (AAW) program facilitates volunteer-based monitoring of wetlands in Georgia, and fosters a sense of personal and community responsibility. The program provides training for volunteers to perform monitoring in freshwater and coastal wetlands. To date, over 150 volunteers have conducted chemical and biological monitoring at over 130 coastal sites.

Education And Public Outreach. The Wildlife Resources Division is involved in aquatic education, providing training for educators in wetland values and developing and coordinating teaching materials. The Aquatic Education Program consists of three key components: Youth Education, Adult Education, and Kids Fishing Events. 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 children. 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,

State Wildlife Action Plan
In 2005, the Wildlife Resources Division of Georgia DNR completed "A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia". This document, also known as the State Wildlife Action Plan, identified high priority species and habitats in Georgia, described problems affecting these species and habitats, and outlined specific research, conservation and monitoring needs to maintain the state's wildlife diversity. Protection of wetland and aquatic habitats was identified as a critical wildlife conservation need. The State Wildlife Action Plan was updated in 2015. The following goals represent important conservation themes in this document:

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-7

- Maintain viable populations of all high-priority species and functional examplesof all high priority habitats through voluntary land protection and incentive-basedhabitat management programs on private lands and habitat protection andmanagement on public lands. -Increase public awareness of high priority species and habitats by developingeducational messages and lesson plans for use in environmental educationfacilities, local schools, and other facilities. -Facilitate restoration of important wildlife habitats through reintroduction of prescribed fire, hydrologic enhancements, and vegetation restoration. -Conduct statewide assessments of rare natural communities and habitats that support species of conservation concern and complete a statewide habitat mapping effort to inform future land conservation efforts. -Improve efforts to protect vulnerable and ecologically important habitats such as isolated wetlands, headwater streams, and caves. -Combat the spread of invasive/noxious species in high priority natural habitats by identifying problem areas, providing technical and financial assistance, and working cooperatively on early detection and rapid response protocols. -Minimize impacts from development and other activities on high-priority species and habitats by improving environmental review procedures and facilitating training for and compliance with best management practices. -Update the state protected species list and work with conservation partners to improve management of these species and their habitats. -Conduct targeted field inventories of neglected taxonomic groups, including invertebrates and nonvascular plants. -Continue efforts to recover federally listed species through implementation of recovery

plans, and restore populations of other high priority species. -Work with other states and with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to assess species proposed for federal listing and engage in proactive programs to conserve these species so as to preclude the need for federal listing. -Establish additional funding mechanisms for land protection in order to support wildlife conservation, and increase availability and use of federal funds for land acquisition and management. -Continue efforts to monitor land use changes statewide and in each ecoregion, and use predictive models to assess impacts to high priority species and habitats. -Monitor high priority species and habitats as well as the results of conservation actions and share monitoring results to inform adaptive management programs. -Enhance conservation efforts for high priority aquatic species and watersheds through protection of aquatic connectivity and streamflows, technical assistance to farmers and local governments, riparian forest restoration, targeted land protection strategies, outreach, and monitoring. The complete plan can be found at http://georgiawildlife.com/SWAP
M.A.R.S.H. Projects
The Wildlife Resources Division 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 M.A.R.S.H. 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.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

4-8

CHAPTER 5
Estuary and Coastal
Programs
Background The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Coastal Resources Division (CRD) manages Georgia's coastal resources. The CRD's Ecological Services Section administers Georgia's Coastal Management Program and its enforceable authorities, manages Georgia's shellfish harvest program, and conducts water quality monitoring based on specific grants and programmatic requirements. The CRD's Marine Fisheries Section manages Georgia's marine fisheries, balancing the long-term health of fish populations with the needs of those who fish for commercial and recreational purposes. The Section conducts scientific surveys of marine organisms and their habitats; collects harvest and fishing effort information; and assesses, restores and enhances fish habitats; along with other responsibilities. The DNR Wildlife Resources (WRD) and Environmental Protection Divisions (GAEPD) each play additional roles to manage resources in the Georgia coastal environment.
Georgia Coastal Management Program 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 programs that fulfill the guidelines established by the Act. Georgia entered this national framework in 1998 upon the approval of the Georgia Coastal Management Program (GCMP) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Financial assistance under the federal grant to the GCMP has been used, in part, to support the Public Health Water Quality Monitoring Program described below.

The Coastal Management Program has provided guidance and technical assistance to improve coastal water quality in general, and in the development of a Coastal Non-Point Source Control Program in particular. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Congress added a section entitled "Protecting Coastal Waters." That section directs states with federally approved coastal management programs to develop a Coastal Non-Point Source Program. To that end, the GAEPD is assisting the GCMP 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.
Public Health Water Quality Monitoring Program The CRD conducts water quality monitoring in estuarine and near-shore coastal waters through its Public Health Water Quality Monitoring Program. This Program has three distinct parts. The Shellfish Sanitation and Beach Water Quality Monitoring Programs are concerned with public health. The Nutrient Sampling Program is designed to generate baseline-monitoring data for trends.
Shellfish Sanitation Program CRD's Shellfish Sanitation Program monitors the quality of Georgia's shellfish harvest waters for harmful bacteria that might affect the safety of shellfish for human consumption. Seven (7) harvest areas are designated for 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.
The US Food and Drug Administration's National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) establishes national standards to show that shellfish harvest areas are "not subject to contamination from human and/or animal fecal

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

5-1

matter in amounts that in the judgment of the State Shellfish Control Authority may present an actual or potential hazard to public health." Water samples from each approved harvest area are collected by CRD and analyzed regularly to ensure 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 NSSP.

County Chatham

Approved
15,351 acres

Leased
4,887 acres

Public
1,267 acres

Bryan/Liberty McIntosh

55,747 acres
50,170 acres

1,706 acres
13,756 acres

936 acres
1,974 acres

Glynn/Camden

37,018 acres

4,855 acres

4,355 acres

TABLE 5-1. LOCATION AND SIZE OF AREAS APPROVED FOR SHELLFISH HARVEST
Water quality sampling occurs every other month at eighty- eight (88) stations in five (5) counties on the coast including Chatham, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden counties. These stations are located to provide representative coverage of all the approved harvest areas along the coast.
Beach Monitoring Program The Beach Monitoring Program was developed 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 of the bacterial indicator Enterococcus; 3) notify the public when the EPA threshold for Enterococcus has been exceeded; and 4) report the location, monitoring, and notification data to EPA.
Georgia's recreational beaches have been identified and prioritized into three (3) tiers

based on their 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 at low probability for potential pollution. Water quality sampling occurs regularly depending upon the tier: Tier 1 beaches are monitored weekly year-round; Tier 2 beaches are monitored monthly from April through October and Tier 3 beaches are not monitored. Beaches that exceed the threshold for Enterococcus are put under a swimming advisory that is not lifted until the levels of bacteria are sufficiently reduced, based on resampling. Beaches under a permanent swimming advisory are monitored quarterly.
Nutrient Sampling Program The Nutrient Sampling Program collects nutrient baseline data in coastal 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. CRD has been collecting nutrients at eighty-four (84) stations along the coast since 2000 to establish baseline trends in nitrite nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus, ortho- phosphate, and silicate.
Due to budget reductions in 2010, changes were made to both the coastal river and estuarine sampling regimes. In response to drought conditions between 2011 and 2013, temperature, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and pH were collected monthly in the Ogeechee, Altamaha, Satilla, and St. Mary's Rivers at seven (7) sites in each river to provide data for the upper estuary/lower salinity environments. Due to continued budget reductions and higher rainfall totals in 2013, river sampling was terminated in 2014. Samples are also collected at thirty-five (35) of the eighty-eight (88) shellfish sample sites to provide nutrient, chlorophyll a and fecal coliform bacteria data from tidal rivers and sounds. Currently, through a memorandum of understanding, Coastal Resources Division has agreed to collect the samples and ship them to the contract laboratory in Athens, GA and the Georgia Environmental Protection

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

5-2

Division has agreed to pay for the analysis of the nutrient samples.
Coastal Streams, Harbors, and Sounds This report contains information on many coastal streams, harbors, and sounds. Several water bodies have been shown to have low dissolved oxygen (DO) readings over discrete periods of time during an annual cycle. EPD has categorized these streams as needing further assessment. A large percentage of the low dissolved oxygen readings occurred in the late summer and early fall of 2003, a period of prolonged, extreme drought. In addition to the dry conditions, water temperatures and salinities during this period were noted to be well above average for all of the water quality monitoring stations in coastal Georgia. To more accurately represent and report on natural dissolved oxygen levels in coastal water bodies, additional directed effort will be required at each location to increase the general state of knowledge for these estuarine systems.
Coastal Beaches This report contains information on twentyseven (27) coastal beaches. Of these, twentyfour (24) are considered to be supporting their designated use of coastal recreation. Three (3) beaches are considered as not supporting their designated use. The three (3) beaches are all under a permanent swimming advisory and are sampled quarterly. Two (2) of the beaches are located on Jekyll Island, at the St. Andrews picnic area and at Clam Creek. The other one (1) beach is the Kings Ferry beach located at a small municipal park on the Ogeechee River in Chatham County.
Data Not Included in Assessment Much of the data used to generate the 305(b)/303(d) list for coastal streams, harbors, and sounds were collected by CRD for the programs as described earlier in this chapter. Other data are used by CRD to address fisheries management or recreational use in specific areas along the coast, but much of these data do not meet the minimum spatial or temporal (frequency) criteria of the GAEPD 2010 listing methodology guidance document

and cannot be used to assess the ability of a water body to support its designated use(s). Data from the Georgia National Coastal Assessment (NCA) Program (2000-2006) were not included for this listing period. NCA data are based on a probabilistic, random sampling design with only one sample per year at each location. For the purposes of 305(b)/303(d), these data may be used in the future to help select sites for further monitoring and to augment existing data sets.
The state's list of assessed waters for beaches does not contain all the coastal beaches that have been identified and prioritized by CRD. Tier 3 beaches are not monitored, so no data are available for assessment. Tier 3 beaches have few potential pollution sources.
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries CRD has several projects that produce information used to determine the status of commercially and recreationally important fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. The Ecological Monitoring Survey (EMS) conducts monthly assessment trawls (blue crabs, shrimp, and beginning in 2003, finfish) in the Wassaw, Ossabaw, Sapelo, St. Simons, St. Andrew and Cumberland estuaries. Data from this survey are used to describe the abundance, size composition, reproductive status of penaeid shrimp and blue crab. 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 estuaries. The EMS also conducts a small trawl survey targeting juvenile specimens in the upper creeks monthly in three sound systems, Ossabaw, Altamaha, St. Andrews using similar techniques and protocols (albeit on a smaller scale) as the EMTS. The Marine Sportfish Population Health Survey uses gill and trammel nets to capture recreational finfish in the Wassaw and Altamaha River Delta estuaries from June to November. These data have been used in regional stock assessments for red drum, southern flounder, and black drum.
The Fisheries Statistics Work Unit collects catch and effort information from the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

5-3

recreational and commercial fisheries in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Total annual commercial landings in Georgia ranged from 6.74 to 11.46 million pounds of product during the period from 2005 to 2014, with an annual average of 8.70 million pounds. Penaeid shrimps are the most valuable catch in Georgia commercial landings, averaging nearly 8.32 million dollars (2.20 million pounds of tails) in unadjusted, exvessel 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 50 years with a recent downward trend due to declining fishing effort. Research has shown that densities of spawning stock respond strongly to cold air outbreaks during the early winter that can produce wide scale kills of white shrimp, and to a suite of environmental variables impacting the salt marsh ecosystem that produce a range of growing conditions. Cold weather kills have been associated with abnormally cold winters in 1984, 1989, and 2000.
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. Reported annual blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) landings in 2014 were below the most recent 10-year average(2005-2014) of 3.56 million pounds (2014 = 3.68million pounds). A severe drought from 1998 to 2002 reduced annual harvest to 80% of the long-term average. That drought resulted in a reduction in the quantity of oligohaline and mesohaline areas within Georgia's estuaries. This effect was more pronounced in estuaries that did not receive direct freshwater inflow from rivers. It is believed this altered salinity profile resulted in: (1) higher blue crab predation; (2) increased prevalence of the fatal disease caused by the organism, Hematodinium sp; (3) reduction in the quantity of oligohaline nursery habitat and (4) recruitment failure. Blue crab harvest and

fishery independent estimates of abundance continue to be low most likely being driven by environmental variables.
Commercial finfish landings fluctuate annually depending on market conditions and the impacts of management. American shad populations in the Altamaha River have fluctuated over the past 30 years. Anecdotal evidence indicates that participation in the American shad fishery continues to decline. Apparently, as older fishermen leave, there are few new entrants into the fishery. Since 2001, effort estimates have been collected using a trip ticket system with effort being recorded as the number of trips for both the set and drift gill net fisheries. Effort generally declined from a high of 538 reported trips in 2006 to a low of 247 reported trips in 2011. Regulations enacted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Fishery Management Plan on American Shad (Amendment 3), mandated additional monitoring efforts. Additionally, sustainability plans were required of any water system where commercial fishing is conducted. In Georgia, only the Altamaha, Ogeechee, and Savannah Rivers have commercial fisheries. The commercial fishery on the Ogeechee is very small, with effort averaging < 10 reported trips, landings averaging < 500 lbs, and participation averaging < 3 fishers. No effort has been reported since 2011 and as such, the fishery has remained closed in recent years. By contrast, the Altamaha accounts for the majority of the harvest and reported trips. 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 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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

5-4

oyster fishery that, after large catches from 1989-92, have shown a steady decline since. In 2009, clam harvest was approximately 73,254 lbs of meat, while oyster harvest was only 9,676 lbs of meat. Shellfish harvest landings have continued to increase since 2009. In 2014, clam harvest increased to approximately 266,067 lbs of meat and oyster harvest increased to a total of 30,548 lbs of meat. No acreage has been lost due to deteriorating water quality. Current research is focusing on improvements in stock genetics (growth and appearance enhancements), cultch substrate comparisons, pilot studies to develop oyster seed using Georgia brood stocks and establishing new populations.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

5-5

CHAPTER 6
Public Health & Aquatic
Life Issues
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 2014, 58.3% of recommendations for fish tested in Georgia waters were for No Restriction, 29.3% were to Limit Consumption to One Meal Per Week, 10.3% were to Limit Consumption to One Meal Per Month, and 2.0% was Do Not Eat Advisories. 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.
Fish Consumption Guidelines 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 monitored 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 that are frequented by a large number of anglers.
The general contaminants 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.
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.
TABLE 6-1. PARAMETERS FOR FISH TISSUE TESTING

Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium,
Total Copper
Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc Aldrin a-BHC

b-BHC d-BHC g-BHC (Lindane) Chlordane
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE 4,4-DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Endrin Endrin Aldehyde Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide

Toxaphene PCB-1016 PCB-1221 PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248 PCB-1254 PCB-1260 Methoxychlor
HCB Mirex Pentachloroanisole Chlorpyrifos

Mercury in Fish Trend Project In response to regulatory actions requiring reductions in air emissions of mercury, DNR recognized the need to establish a mercury in fish trend network that would provide a database for evaluating potential changes that may result in fish body burdens. Twenty-two stations were established in 2006 having spatial relevance to major air-emission sources in Georgia (coal-fired electric generating units and a chlor-alkali plant), waters with TMDLs for mercury in fish, and near State boundaries for out-of-state sources. Each station has a designated predator species that will be monitored annually. Mercury trend samples of

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-1

individual fish muscle tissue are analyzed for mercury and other metals.
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 consumption guidelines in 1996 for a number of lakes and streams, which had no restrictions in 1995. The Georgia guidance for 2014 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. If consumption needs to be limited, or no consumption is recommended, the water is not supporting this use. 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 2014-2015 305(b)/303(d) List for all fish tissue contaminants except mercury. Mercury in fish tissue was assessed and a segment or water body was listed if the trophicweighted fish community tissue mercury was in excess of the USEPA water quality criterion (Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury, EPA-823-R-01001, January 2001). For mercury, waters were

placed on the not support list if the calculated trophic-weighted residue value was greater than 0.3 g/g wet weight total mercury. For contaminants other than mercury (PCBs, dieldrin, DDT/DDD/DDE) waters were placed on the not support list if the assessment indicated any limited consumption of fish. The USEPA criterion represents a national approach to address what mercury concentration is protective for fishing waters. The existence of risk-based recommendations to reduce consumption was used with respect to other contaminants detected in fish tissue. EPD formally adopted the 2001 EPA national human health criterion for methylmercury as a human health standard for total mercury in fish tissue in the Georgia water quality rules in December 2002.
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.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-2

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. Trim off the fatty areas shown in black on the drawing below. 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 Water body 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 that 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 64, and 6-5 list the lakes, freshwater rivers and creeks, and estuaries, respectively, 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-2007 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 women of childbearing 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.
Recreational Public Beach Monitoring The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducts fecal coliform monitoring at its reservoir 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 conduct some sampling at the public beaches they operate. The Coastal Resources Division of

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-3

DNR conducts enterococcus monitoring at public coastal beaches and other recreationally used estuarine locations such as boat ramps and sandbars, and works with the local County Health Department in issuance of swimming advisories.
Shellfish Area Closures Georgia's one hundred linear mile coastline contains approximately 500,000 acres of potential shellfish habitat. Most shellfish in Georgia grows in the narrow intertidal zone and are exposed between high water and low water tide periods. Only a limited amount of that area, however actually produces viable shellfish populations. Lack of suitable cultch, tidal amplitudes, disease, littoral slope, and other unique geomorphologic features contribute to the limited occurrence of natural shellfish resources along the Georgia Coast.
The Coastal Resources Division currently monitors and maintains five shellfish growing areas comprised of commercial leases and public recreational harvest areas. Shellfish waters on the Georgia coast are classified as "Approved" or "Prohibited" in accordance with the criteria of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Specific zones within shellfish growing areas may be closed to shell fishing because of the proximity to a marina or a municipal or industrial discharge. Georgia maintains approximately 33,000 acres approved for the harvest of shellfish for commercial and/or personal consumption. Only those areas designated as Public Recreational Harvest or those areas under commercial lease are classified as "Approved for shellfish harvest". Shellfish growing area waters are monitored regularly to ensure that these areas remain in compliance with the FDA fecal coliform thresholds. All other waters of the state are classified as "Prohibited", and are closed to the taking of shellfish. It is important to note that, even though some of these areas could potentially meet the criteria to allow for harvesting, they have been classified as "Prohibited" due to the lack of available water quality data.
Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Blooms Cyanobacteria blooms are an increasing concern for Georgia's citizens. Cyanobacteria occur naturally in low abundance in Georgia's lakes and

reservoirs. However, eutrophication results in conditions that are favorable for cyanobacteria growth. Cyanobacteria blooms can cause a variety of water quality issues including, the potential to produce toxins and taste-and-odor compounds. These compounds are produced naturally by cyanobacteria, but their function or what causes their production is still currently unknown. EPD is in the process of developing a means to better detect blooms, assess whether toxins are present, and better inform the public on this issue.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-4

TABLE 6-2 NO CONSUMPTION RESTRICTIONS - 2014

LAKES
Allen Creek WMA (Ponds A & B) Bowles C. Ford Lake Brasstown Valley (Kid's Fish Pond) City of Adairsville Pond Clarks Hill Clayton Co. Water Auth. (Lakes Blalock, Smith and Shamrock) Dodge County PFA Fort Yargo State Park Lake Hard Labor Creek (Rutledge) High Falls Marben PFA (Bennett, Margery, and Shepherd) Mayer (Savannah) McDuffie PFA (East & West Watershed Ponds) Nancy Town Lake Oconee Olmstead Paradise PFA (Bobben, Patrick & Horseshoe 4) Payton Park Pond Rocky Mountain PFA (Lakes Antioch & Heath) Seed Silver Lake WMA 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 Chattooga River (Northwest Ga.) Chestatee River (Headwaters to Tesnatee River) Chickamauga Creek (East & South) Chickasawhatchee Creek Coleman River Conasauga River (in Cohutta Forest) Daniels Creek (Cloudland Canyon State Park) Dukes Creek Goldmine Branch Hart Co. WMA (Tributary to Cedar Creek) Hayner's Creek 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 Noonday Creek (Cobb Co.) North Oconee River Ocmulgee River (Butts & Monroe Cos.) Ocmulgee River (Pulaski Co.) Oconee River (Below Barnett Shoals to Lake Oconee) Oconee River (Milledgeville to Dublin; Laurens Co.) 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 (Cherokee Co.) Stekoa Creek Tallulah River Upatoi Creek Yahoola Creek Yellow River (Porterdale Dam)

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-5

TABLE 6-3. FISH CONSUMPTION GUIDANCE FOR LAKES 2014

LAKES

NO RESTRICTIONS

1 MEAL/ WEEK

1 MEAL/ MONTH

Acworth
Allatoona
Andrews Banks
Bartlett's Ferry (Harding)
Bear Cr. Reservoir Bennett CEWC PFA Black Shoals (Randy Poynter) Blackshear Big Lazer PFA Blue Ridge
Burton Paradise PFA (Patrick, Horseshoe 4, & Bobben) Pond N. Bush Field Carters Chatuge
Clarks Hill
Evans County PFA Goat Rock

Bluegill, Largemouth Bass < 16" Carp, Crappie, Spotted Bass< 16", Largemouth Bass 12-16", Channel Catfish, White Bass < 12", G. Redhorse Channel Catfish, Spotted Sucker
Bluegill
Black Crappie <12", Largemouth Bass <16", Spotted Bass <12"
Sunfish
Channel Catfish < 12", Redear
Channel Catfish < 12"
Largemouth Bass 12-16", Channel Catfish Channel Catfish < 16", Largemouth Bass < 12", Bluegill Largemouth Bass <16", Channel Catfish, Bluegill, White Catfish Channel Catfish, LM, Bullhead, Bluegill Bluegill, Largemouth Bass < 12" Largemouth Bass <16", Channel Catfish, Walleye Largemouth Bass (12"-16", >16"); Channel Catfish Channel Catfish, Black Crappie, Redear, White perch, Striped Bass, Spotted sucker, Hybrid Bass, Largemouth Bass >16" Channel Catfish, Largemouth Bass 12-16" Black Crappie, Largemouth Bass 12-16",

Largemouth Bass > 16"

Spotted Bass > 16", Largemouth Bass > 16", Hybrid Bass >16"

Largemouth Bass > 12"
Hybrid Bass & Striped Bass & Largemouth Bass > 16", Channel Catfish, Black Crappie & Spotted Bass >12" Largemouth Bass < 16", Channel Catfish >12" Largemouth Bass > 12" Largemouth Bass 12-16", Channel Catfish >12", Black Crappie Channel Catfish > 12", Largemouth Bass > 12"
Largemouth Bass > 16"
White Bass & Largemouth Bass 12-16", Channel Catfish > 16"
Largemouth Bass > 16", Spotted Bass 12-16", Walleye >16"

Largemouth Bass > 12"

Largemouth Bass 12-16"
Spotted Bass, Largemouth Bass >16"
Spotted Bass 12-16"

Largemouth Bass > 16"
Hybrid Bass < 12", Channel Catfish 12-16"

Channel Catfish & Largemouth Bass >

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-6

LAKES
Hartwell (Tugaloo Arm)
Hartwell main body of lake Hugh M. Gillis PFA Jackson
Juliette Ken Gardens Kolomoki (DNR S.P.) Lanier L. Ocmulgee St. Pk. McDuffie PFA, West Nottely Oliver Rabun Reed Bingham S.P. Richard B. Russell
Seminole So. Slappy Blvd. Offramp (Albany) Stone Mountain Tobesofkee Tugalo Tribble Mill Park West Point

NO RESTRICTIONS
Spotted sucker, Bluegill
Black Crappie, Hybrid Bass/Striped Bass < 12", Channel Catfish < 16"

1 MEAL/ WEEK
Largemouth Bass < 16", Carp > 16"

1 MEAL/ MONTH
16", Hybrid Bass >12",
White Bass
Hybrid Bass/Striped Bass 12-16"

DO NOT EAT Hybrid and Striped Bass > 16 inches in length

Channel Catfish & Largemouth Bass > 16"

DO NOT EAT Hybrid and Striped Bass

(S C Dept. Health and Environmental Control 1-888-849-7241)

Channel Catfish, Bluegill

Largemouth Bass 12-16"

Black Crappie, Redear sunfish, Catfish < 16"

Catfish > 16", Largemouth Bass

Largemouth Bass (<12"; 12"-16"),

Redear Sunfish, Bullhead,

Largemouth Bass >16"

Striped Bass

<16" Channel Catfish, Brown bullhead, Bluegill

Largemouth Bass >12"

Largemouth Bass, Channel Catfish

Redear Sunfish

Largemouth Bass > 12"

Channel Catfish & Striped Bass < 16", Bluegill, Black Crappie White Catfish

Striped Bass, Carp & Channel Catfish > 16", Largemouth Bass, Spotted Bass
Brown bullhead 12-16"

Largemouth Bass > 16"

Channel Catfish

Largemouth Bass

Channel Catfish, Black Crappie Hybrid Bass < 12", Channel Catfish < 16", Redear, Bluegill Largemouth Bass 12-16", Bluegill, White Catfish < 16"
Crappie, Bluegill, White perch, Catfish Channel Catfish, Spotted sucker, Black Crappie, Redear
Bluegill

Largemouth Bass > 12", Striped Bass > 16"
Largemouth Bass > 12"

Channel Catfish > 16"

White Catfish & Largemouth Bass > 16"
Largemouth Bass > 12"Catfish > 16"

Largemouth Bass > 12"

Largemouth Bass > 12" Largemouth Bass 12-16"

Largemouth Bass > 16"

Catfish

Largemouth Bass > 16"

Channel Catfish
White Catfish 12-16", Bluegill Black Crappie, Bluegill, Largemouth Bass < 12"
Largemouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass > 16" Largemouth Bass 12-16"

Largemouth Bass > 12"

Channel Catfish & Hybrid Bass >

Striped Bass

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-7

LAKES
Worth (Chehaw) Worth (Flint Res.) Yohola (DNR S.P.)

NO RESTRICTIONS
Carp, Spotted Bass, Crappie, Channel Catfish & Hybrid Bass < 16" Spotted sucker, Redear
Channel Catfish > 12"
Bluegill

Yonah

Bluegill

Abbreviations used in table: < means "less than", > means "more than"

1 MEAL/ WEEK 16"
Largemouth Bass 12-16", Channel Catfish > 16" Largemouth Bass > 12" Largemouth Bass > 12" Largemouth Bass 12-16", Catfish 12-16"

1 MEAL/ MONTH

TABLE 6-4. FISH CONSUMPTION GUIDANCE FOR FRESHWATER RIVERS AND CREEKS 2014

RIVERS/CREEKS

NO RESTRICTIONS

1 MEAL PER WEEK

1 MEAL PER MONTH

Alapaha River

Redbreast sunfish

Spotted sucker

Largemouth Bass, Bullhead

Alapahoochee River Allatoona Creek, Cobb Co. Altamaha River Apalachee River

Bullhead

Bluegill (US 1), Channel Catfish (below US 25), Striped mullet

Spotted Bass, Alabama Hog Sucker
Flathead Catfish, Largemouth Bass, Channel Catfish

Channel Catfish

Largemouth Bass

Beaver Creek (Taylor Co.)

Yellow bullhead

Brier Creek (Burke Co.) Canoochee River Casey Canal Chattooga River (NE Ga., Rabun County)

Largemouth Bass, Bluegill

Chattahoochee River (Helen to Lanier)

Channel Catfish

Chattahoochee River (Buford Dam to Morgan Falls Dam)
Chattahoochee River (Morgan Falls Dam to Peachtree Creek)
Chattahoochee River (Peachtree Creek to Pea Creek) Chattahoochee River (Pea Creek to West Point Lake, below Franklin)

Brown trout, Carp, Rainbow trout, Yellow perch Spotted bass Shoal bass Brown trout, Rainbow trout, Largemouth Bass, Bluegill Channel Catfish, White sucker
Channel Catfish

Spotted sucker
Striped mullet Northern Hog Sucker, Silver Redhorse Redeye Bass, Snail Bullhead Golden Redhorse Spotted bass Shoal bass
Largemouth Bass
Jumprock sucker
Bluegill, Black Bass Largemouth Bass, Spotted Bass

Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass, Catfish, Redbreast
Largemouth Bass
Carp Carp

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-8

RIVERS/CREEKS

NO RESTRICTIONS

1 MEAL PER WEEK

1 MEAL PER MONTH

Chattahoochee River Special Striped Bass (Morgan This striped Bass population migrates annually between West Point Lake and Morgan Falls Dam.

Falls Dam to West Point Lake)

DNR recommends the general public restrict consumption to one meal per month.

Chattahoochee River (Oliver Dam to Upatoi Creek) Chattahoochee River (West Point dam to I-85)
Chestatee River (below Tesnatee River)

Largemouth Bass, Bullheads
Channel Catfish, Redbreast

Bullhead Catfish Spotted Bass Spotted Bass

Largemouth Bass

Chickamauga Creek (West)

Redbreast sunfish

Spotted Bass

Cohulla Creek (Whitfield County)

Blacktail Redhorse

Conasauga River (below Stateline) Coosa River (Rome to Hwy 100, Floyd Co.) Coosa River (Hwy 100 to State line, Floyd Co.) Coosa River Zero River Mile to Stateline

Spotted Bass

White Bass, Buffalo

Spotted Bass

DO NOT EAT SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO

Spotted Bass

Largemouth Bass

Largemouth Bass, Striped Bass
Striped Bass, Channel Catfish, Buffalo

Blue Catfish: < 18" one meal per week; 18-32" one meal per month; and >32" do not eat.

Coosa River System Special (Coosa, Etowah below Thompson-Weinman dam, Oostanaula)

Special Striped Bass: this population migrates annually between Weiss Lake and the Coosa River system. DNR recommends the general public restrict consumption of fish less than 20 inches to one meal per month, and to not eat any striped Bass 20 inches or greater in length.

Coosawattee River below Carters

Bluegill

Smallmouth buffalo

Etowah River (Dawson County)

Blacktail Redhorse

Etowah River (above Lake Allatoona)
Etowah River (below Lake Allatoona dam)
Flint River (Spalding/Fayette cos.) Flint River (Meriwether/Upson/Pike cos.) Flint River (Taylor co.) Flint River (Macon/Dooly/Worth/Lee) Flint River (Dougherty/Mitchell/Baker Co.) Gum Creek (Crisp Co.)

Golden Redhorse
Channel Catfish, Bluegill, Striped Bass (above Thompson Weinman dam)
Spotted sucker
Channel Catfish, Flathead Catfish Channel Catfish, Shoal Bass
Channel Catfish
Sucker, Flathead Catfish <16"
Carp

Spotted Bass
Spotted Bass, Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass Shoal Bass Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass, Flathead Catfish 16-30" Largemouth Bass

Smallmouth buffalo Flathead Catfish >30"

Holly Creek (Murray County)

Blacktail Redhorse

Ichawaynochaway Creek Kinchafoonee Creek (above Albany) Little River (above Clarks Hill Lake)

Spotted Sucker

Largemouth Bass

Largemouth Bass, Spotted sucker

Spotted sucker, Silver Redhorse Largemouth Bass

Little River, (above Ga. Hwy 133, Valdosta)

Spotted sucker

Largemouth Bass

Mill Creek (Murray County) Muckalee Creek (above Albany)

Golden Redhorse
Largemouth Bass, Spotted sucker

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-9

RIVERS/CREEKS Ochlockonee River (near Thomasville) Ocmulgee River (below Macon, Bibb Co.) Ocmulgee River (Telfair/Wheeler Cos.) Oconee River (above Barnett Shoals) Gum Creek (Crisp Co.) Ogeechee River (Hwy 119)
Ogeechee River (all to Ft. McAllister)
Ohoopee River (Emanuel/Toombs Cos.) Okefenokee Swamp (Billy's Lake)

NO RESTRICTIONS Redbreast sunfish Channel Catfish Channel Catfish
Carp Sucker

1 MEAL PER WEEK
Spotted sucker, White Catfish
Largemouth Bass
Flathead Catfish, Largemouth Bass
Silver Redhorse, Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass, Redbreast Sunfish Redbreast sunfish, Channel Catfish, Spotted sucker, Snail bullhead Spotted sucker, Redbreast
Flier

1 MEAL PER MONTH Largemouth Bass Flathead Catfish
Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass Bowfin

Oostanaula River, Hwy. 156, Calhoun

Bluegill

Smallmouth buffalo

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) Savannah River Special (New Savannah Lock and Dam to Savannah Estuary)

Bluegill
Redear, Redbreast, Striped mullet

Largemouth Bass, Channel Catfish, Spotted Bass, Buffalo Suckers, Chain Pickerel Largemouth Bass Redbreast sunfish, Channel Catfish, Bullhead
Spotted sucker, Largemouth Bass

Bass
Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass, Redbreast, Flathead Catfish < 36"

Channel Catfish, Redear sunfish

Largemouth Bass, Bluegill

Channel Catfish, Redbreast Sunfish

White Catfish, Largemouth Bass

Bowfin

Red drum, Striped mullet

White Catfish

DNR recommends the general public restrict consumption of legal size striped Bass 27 inches and larger to one meal per month. Women who are pregnant or nursing and young children may wish to further restrict their consumption due to the variable mercury levels in these striped Bass.

Short Creek (Warren Co.)

Sunfish

South River (Panola Shoals, Rockdale Co.) South River (Henry Co., Snapping Shoals)
Spring Creek (Seminole/Decatur/Miller Cos.) St. Marys River (Camden Co.) St. Marys River (Charlton Co.)

Silver Redhorse, Channel Catfish
Redbreast, Striped mullet Redbreast sunfish

Snail bullhead, Bluegill
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass, Spotted sucker, Redear

Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-10

RIVERS/CREEKS Sugar Creek (Murray Co.) Sumac Creek (Murray Co.) Suwannee River Swamp Creek (Redwine Cove Road) Talking Rock Creek Tallapoosa River Trib. To Hudson River, Alto, Banks Co. Withlacoochee River (Hwy 122) Withlacoochee River (Cyattville/Hwy 84)

NO RESTRICTIONS
Bluegill Brown bullhead Redbreast sunfish

1 MEAL PER WEEK
Golden Redhorse Golden Redhorse Bullhead, Chain pickerel Redeye Bass Redeye Bass Blacktail Redhorse Redeye Bass Redbreast sunfish Spotted Sucker

1 MEAL PER MONTH Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass

TABLE 6-4. FISH CONSUMPTION GUIDANCE ESTUARINE SYSTEMS 2014

ESTUARINE SYSTEMS

NO RESTRICTIONS

1 MEAL PER WEEK

Turtle River System (Purvis Cr., Gibson Cr.)

Black & Red drum, Flounder

Turtle & Buffalo Rivers (upriver Hwy 303)

White Shrimp

Red drum, Blue crab, Flounder, Spotted Seatrout

Turtle River (Hwy 303 Channel Marker 9)

White Shrimp

Red drum, Flounder

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

White Shrimp, Flounder
Spot, Stripped Mullet, Shrimp, Atlantic Croaker, Spotted Seatrout, Southern Kingfish (whiting), Blue crab
Blue crab, Shrimp
Stripped Mullet, Shrimp, Atlantic Croaker, Spotted Seatrout, Southern Kingfish

Blue crab, Black Drum, Red Drum, Spotted Seatrout, Sheepshead
Yellowtail (Silver perch)
Red drum

1 MEAL PER MONTH Shrimp, Blue crab, Spotted Seatrout, Southern Kingfish (whiting), Sheepshead, Spot Southern Kingfish (whiting), Black Drum, Atlantic Croaker, Spot, Sheepshead Blue crab, Atlantic Croaker, Black Drum, Spotted Seatrout, Southern Kingfish (whiting), Sheepshead
Atlantic Croaker, Stripped Mullet, Southern Kingfish (whiting), Spot

DO NOT EAT Stripped Mullet, Atlantic Croaker, Bivalves*
Striped Mullet, Bivalves *
Spot, Stripped Mullet, Bivalves *
Bivalves *

Bivalves *

Stripped Mullet, Atlantic Croaker, Spotted Seatrout, Southern Kingfish (whiting)

Spot, Bivalves *

Spot

Bivalves *

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

6-11

(whiting),

Blue crab,

Red drum

Spot,

Stripped Mullet,

Back River South of

Shrimp,

Torras Causeway to St. Spotted Seatrout,

Atlantic croaker

Bivalves *

Simons Sound

Southern Kingfish

(whiting),

Blue crab, Red drum

Floyd Creek

Blue crab, Southern Kingfish

Academy Creek

Blue crab

Altamaha Estuary

Striped mullet, Spotted Seatrout

Hayner's Creek (Savannah)

Blue crab

North Newport River

Striped Mullet

Blue Crab

Savannah Estuary

Striped mullet

Striped Bass >=27"

St. Simon's Sound

Tripletail

* Bivalves are all clams, mussels and oysters; Shellfish ban under National Shellfish Sanitation Program

King Mackerel Special Joint State Guidance Issued by Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida For South Atlantic Ocean

Size Range (Fork Length, Inches)

Recommendations for Meal Consumption of King Mackerel Caught Offshore Georgia Coast

24 To Less Than 33 Inches

No Restrictions

1 meal per month for pregnant women, nursing mothers and children age 12 and

33 To 39 Inches

younger.

1 meal per week for other adults

Over 39 Inches

Do Not Eat

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 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.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-1

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."
In 2014-2015 high priority was placed on Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning, monitoring and assessment, water quality modeling and TMDL development, TMDL implementation, 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 Georgia's future relies on the protection and sustainable management of the state's limited water resources. In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed the "Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act" which called for the development of a statewide water management plan. The legislation created a framework for developing Georgia's first comprehensive statewide water management plan by providing a vision for water management in Georgia, guiding principles for plan development and the assignment of responsibility for developing the plan. A copy of the planning act can be found at www.georgiawatercouncil.org.
The Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, with the help of numerous stakeholders, produced and submitted to the Georgia Water Council an initial draft of the statewide water plan on June 28, 2007. Following several rounds of public input and changes

in response to the input, the Georgia Water Council approved the "Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan" on January 8, 2008. The water plan was debated and approved in the 2008 session of the General Assembly and signed by Governor Perdue on February 6, 2008. The Regional Water Councils completed plans in 2011. This work is discussed in Chapter 2.
Watershed Projects The Savannah Harbor was first listed as impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO) on the 2002 303(d) list. The USEPA issued a DO TMDL in 2006. GAEPD subsequently revised its DO criteria for the Harbor and the revised criteria were approved by USEPA in 2010. Since 2012, GAEPD, SCDHEC, and USEPA Region IV, along with Savannah River/Harbor Discharge Group, have been working together to develop an alternative restoration plan to meet the new DO criteria. On October 9, 2015, GAEPD public noticed its revised 305(b)/303(d) 2014 Sounds/Harbors list changing the assessment category for Savannah Harbor from 4a to 5R along with the "Subcategory 5R Documentation For Point Source Dissolved Oxygen Impaired Water in the Savannah River Basin, Georgia and South Carolina." Changes were made to the Savannah Harbor 5R Restoration Plan document based on comments received and the revised 2014 Sounds/Harbors list and associated documents were submitted to EPA for approval on November 13, 2015. It is our understanding that the November 2006 EPA Savannah Harbor TMDL, which was based on the previous Georgia DO criteria, will be withdrawn upon EPA's approval of GAEPD's 303(d) list. GAEPD intends to remove the Savannah Harbor from subcategory 5R once the alternative restoration plan has been implemented to meet applicable water quality standards.
U.S. EPA has requested each State develop a strategy for adopting nutrient water quality criteria to protect waters from the adverse effects of nutrient over-enrichment. The development of nutrient criteria is a very

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-2

complex matter since some level of nutrients are necessary for the health of the aquatic ecosystem, while too high of a concentration can cause an imbalance in the natural aquatic flora and fauna. Therefore, in order to protect our natural resources, it is important that the criteria not be set too low or too high. Georgia first developed a plan for adopting nutrient criteria in 2005. This plan was subsequently revised in October 2008 and August 2013. In 2015, EPA, Georgia EPD, and South Carolina DHEC collaborated on a report intended to provide technical support in developing and establishing numeric water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act to support the applicable designated uses in Georgia and South Carolina estuaries from the effects of excess nitrogen and phosphorus. Georgia and South Carolina's estuaries are characterized by their high turbidity, widely varying residence times associated with high tidal amplitudes, lack of seagrasses, high ratios of tidal wetland to estuary surface area, and relatively low coastal anthropogenic land use. The estuaries generally can be classified into Piedmont riverine systems (headwaters above the fall line, with large inflow), blackwater systems (headwaters in the coastal plain with significant terrestrial contributions of organic matter), and coastal embayments (oceandominated systems with only freshwater contributions from land stormwater runoff and subterranean (e.g., shallow water aquifer) sources). Conceptual estuarine eutrophication models established for other U.S. estuaries are often based upon hypoxia below the pycnocline, production dominated by phytoplankton, and seagrass endpoints none of which apply well to Georgia and South Carolina's estuaries, which tend to be well-mixed, mediated by heterotrophs, and have light-limited phytoplankton production. An alternative conceptual model was presented to derive nutrient targets (total nitrogen and total phosphorus), via measures (ecosystem primary production, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and indices of biological integrity) that are surrogates for designated use endpoints (aquatic community structure and function). The suite

of indicators provides a flexible framework where a lack of data, or insensitivity of an indicator in a given location, can be overcome by using the remaining indicators to develop defensible criteria for that estuary. Criteria can be derived based on reference conditions, stressor-response relationships, and water quality simulation modeling.
GAEPD listed a 17-mile segment of the Coosa River as impaired for DO and in 2004 developed a DO TMDL for this segment. Comments received suggested that this section of the Coosa River is a riverreservoir transition zone, representing an upstream backwater of Weiss Reservoir, where vertical DO gradients may be present during the algal growing season. The EPD RIV-1 model used for the Coosa River modeling was thought to be suitable for freeflowing and well-mixed riverine systems and was successfully used to model the approximately 200 miles of the Coosa River from the headwaters at Allatoona Lake, Carter's Lake, and Conasauga River near Eton to State Road 100. However, other modeling approaches are expected to provide additional, useful information on the section of the river from State Road 100 to the Georgia/Alabama State Line due to potential hydrodynamic impacts of Lake Weiss. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), GAEPD and USEPA worked together to develop and calibrate the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) and the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) models for Lake Weiss, from Mayos Bar to the Dam. These models were used to develop the 2008 Nutrient TMDL for Lake Weiss. GAEPD continues to work on revising the Coosa River DO TMDL modeling and implement Total Phosphorus reductions in the Coosa River Basin to meet downstream water quality standards in Alabama. In addition, this segment of the Coosa River was also listed for temperature on the 2012 303(d) list. The cause of the temperature violation is known and GAEPD plans to address this through direct implementation.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-3

Lake Talquin, which covers nearly 9,000 acres and is known as a bass-fishing hot spot, was deemed impaired by Florida DEP in 2009. About 75 percent of the lake's watershed is in Georgia. Agriculture is the largest non-point source of the pollution, and chemical company BASF Catalysts in Attapulgus, Georgia, is the single largest point-source contributor. GAEPD has been working with USEPA, Florida DEP, as well as industry, county, and area municipal officials to develop a nutrient TMDL for Lake Talquin for over two years. In order to address the nutrient problems, USEPA has developed a series of complex models that cover the entire watershed using Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) to estimate the nutrient loads within and discharged from each watershed subbasin, and EFDC to simulate threedimensional movement of water mass in the rivers and lake. EFDC is calibrated to water surface elevation and temperature. The results of the LSPC models are passed WASP models and used to simulate the movement of pollutant mass in the rivers and lake. These models will provide a basis for the setting nutrient limits that will impact those that discharge in the lake's watershed. Several modeling stakeholders' meetings have been conducted to review the model calibration, discuss ways of streamlining the connection between models to facilitate scenario analyses, and to better understand the post-processing of modeling results. GAEPD has reviewed the models and provided comments to FL DEP to allow refinement of the models and to conduct scenario runs to establish TMDL targets. GAEPD will continue to work with FL DEP through the development of the Lake Talquin TMDL.
The GAEPD is also working with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Suwannee River Water Management District to coordinate water protection efforts in the Suwannee River Basin.

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, support the development of protective and scientifically defensible water quality standards, 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 total maximum daily loads (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. Long-term trend monitoring, targeted and probabilistic monitoring, biological 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 In December 2013, USEPA released "A Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program" for managing the Clean Water Act 303(d) program responsibilities. The Vision was designed to help coordinate and focus EPA and State TMDL efforts to advance the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program direction in the coming decade. To accomplish this, the Vision focuses on six elements including 1) Prioritization, 2) Assessment, 3) Protection, 4) Alternatives, 5) Engagement and 6) Integration. To address the prioritization element, GAEPD developed a list of priority waters for protection, "direct to implementation", TMDL development, and/or TMDL alternative development. Georgia's priorities reflect where GAEPD plans to spend a great deal of its resources in the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-4

upcoming years. The waters were selected using the USEPA-approved 2012 305(b)/303(d) list of waters as the baseline and our priority framework. Waters on the priority list will be addressed using a variety of approaches and can basically be organized into the following six groups:
1) Lake Lanier Lake Lanier is composed of 5 segments, but only one of these segments, (Lanier Lake -Browns Bridge Road (SR 369)) is on the 2012 303d list for chlorophyll a. The TMDL will be written for the entire lake, so the other four segments of the lake are being added to the priority list. The TMDL will address nutrients, which are a National priority.
2) Carters Lake Carters Lake is composed of two segments. Both segments are on the 2012 303d list for chlorophyll a and total phosphorus. The TMDL will address nutrients.
3) Savannah Harbor This segment is impaired for DO. GA EPD has been working with SC DHEC and the Savannah River/Harbor Discharger Group to restore this water and will pursue a TMDL alternative plan (5R).
4) Coosa River A segment of the Coosa River is on the 2012 303d list for Temperature. The cause of the temperature violation is known and GAEPD will address this impairment through direct implementation. A wasteload allocation for heat loads will be developed and will be implemented through an NPDES permit.
5) Georgia has 4 coastal beaches on the 2012 303d list for enterococci. GAEPD has prioritized these beaches to address human health concerns. GAEPD will develop TMDLs to address these impairments and work with partners conducting bacteria source tracking identification to help address causes.

6) Ochlockonee River Basin GAEPD placed the Upper and Lower Ochlockonee Watersheds on our priority list due to chlorophyll and DO impairments in Lake Taqlquin, a downstream lake located in Florida. FL DEP is developing a TMDL for this Lake. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, waters in Georgia may not cause and contribute to water quality violations in Florida; therefore, GAEPD will develop a protection plan to help ensure that Georgia's waters meet the necessary nutrient reductions at the State line. The protection plan will address nutrients.
While the waters on the list are considered our priorities under the new Vision, EPD plans to continue to develop TMDLs using the rotating basin approach as we have been doing in the past.
In 2014-2015, the GAEPD conducted a significant amount of modeling in support of the development of wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). In 2013, TMDLs were developed for 6 segments on the Georgia 2012 303(d) list for the Coosa, Tennessee, and Ogeechee River Basins and these TMDLs were public noticed on May 21, 2014, and submitted to EPA for approved on June 27, 2014. In 2014, no TMDLs were developed. In 2015, TMDLs were developed for 123 segments on the 2012 303(d) list for the Coosa, Tallapoosa, Tennessee, Savannah, and Ogeechee River Basins. These were public noticed on August 31, 2015. On November 20, 2015, an additional 8 segments in the Satilla and Suwannee River Basins were public noticed. Over the 2014-2015 period, 6 TMDLs were finalized and approved by EPA and 131 TMDLs were developed and public noticed. To date more than 1774 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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-5

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 source issues are made by the GAEPD in coordination with local governments and industries. Implementation of management practices and activities to address the nonpoint sources of pollution is being conducted through the development of various types of TMDL implementation plans.
Plans include Watershed Improvement Plans (WIPs) and updates to existing plans prepared through contracts with Regional Commissions (RCs) and other public contractors.
Clean Water State Revolving and Georgia Fund Loan Programs The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a federal loan program administered by the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) that provides funding for a variety of wastewater infrastructure and pollution prevention projects. Eligible projects include water quality, water conservation and wastewater treatment projects, such as constructing new wastewater treatment plants, repairing and replacing sewers, stormwater control projects and implementing water conservation projects and programs. The Georgia Fund is a state-funded loan program administered by GEFA for wastewater, water, and solid waste infrastructure improvements. The Georgia Fund program is available to local governments for projects such as sewer and water lines, treatment plants, pumping stations, wells, water storage tanks and water meters. GEFA contracts with GAEPD to provide environmental/engineering review for these projects.
Founded in 1985, GEFA offers low-interest loans and grants for projects that improve Georgia's environment, protect its natural resources, and promote economic

development. The CWSRF program was initiated in 1988 to the full extent allowed by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Since 1985, GEFA has approved more than $3.5 billion for infrastructure improvements and more than 1,500 projects have been funded to date. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund awarded approximately $168 million to 36 projects and the Georgia Fund awarded $76 million to 32 water quality projects in FY2014-2015.
Metro District Planning The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) was created on April 5, 2001 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 watershed management, wastewater treatment, and water supply and conservation in its 15-county area that includes Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale Counties and all the municipalities within the District. 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. These plans were updated in May, 2009.
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, the need to carefully and cooperatively manage and protect Metropolitan Atlanta's rivers and streams has become a priority.
GAEPD is charged with the enforcement of the District plans. State law prohibits the Director from approving 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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-6

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.
GAEPD conducts audits to determine whether local governments are in compliance with the District Plans.
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 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.
The Georgia Land Conservation Program (GLCP) and Georgia Conservation Tax Credit Program continue to facilitate permanent protection for important natural, agricultural, historic and recreationsl areas throughout the state. Since its inception in

2005 and as of 2015, the GLCP assisted with the permanent protection of 346,950 acres. GLCP provides assistance to local governments, state agencies, and conservation groups in the form of competitive grants, due diligence grants, low-interest loans, and conservation tax credits to incentivize the permanent protection of the state's natural resources. Together with other state and federal agencies, private sector conservation groups, and generous lnadowners, the GLCP has leveraged $258.9 million in state funds to conserve approximately $1.32 billion worth of conservation land (20052015). More information on the program can be found at https://glcp.georgia.gov.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program The Federal Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits for point source wastewater dischargers, compliance monitoring for those permits and appropriate enforcement action for violations of the permits.
In 2014-2015, NPDES permits were issued, modified or reissued for 47 municipal and private discharges and for 26 industrial discharges.
In addition to permits for point source wastewater discharges, the GAEPD has developed and implemented a permit system for land application systems. Land application systems are used as alternatives to surface water discharges when appropriate.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations The Georgia rules require medium size animal feeding operations with more than 300 animal units (AU) to 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. GAEPD has been delegated authority to administer the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-7

NPDES program in Georgia by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
There are currently 158 farms which require a LAS or NPDES permit. That includes approximately 32 large farms (greater than 1000 AU) with liquid manure handling systems. Of these 7 have federal NPDES concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permits and 25 have state LAS permits. These farms, with their liquid waste lagoons and spray fields, are important managers of water resources. It has been deemed more efficient to redirect these regulatory activities to the Georgia Department of Agriculture Livestock/Poultry Section (GDA) where appropriate. Therefore, the GAEPD has contracted with the GDA for inspections, complaint investigations, nutrient management plan reviews, permit administrative support, and enforcement assistance.
An important goal of Georgia's Nonpoint Source Management Program is to encourage and support all animal feeding operations to develop and implement Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs). Cooperating organizations working toward this goal include the GSWCC, GSWCD, GA Milk Producers Association, Georgia Farm Bureau Federation, GA Pork Producers Association, CES, and NRCS.
Activities include statewide and watershedbased demonstrations and BMP implementation of Comprehensive Nutrient Planning, lagoon maintenance or decommissioning, irrigation systems, and waste and effluent management systems. Projects using Section 319(h) funds that install agricultural BMPS are required to complete a CNMP. By the end of 2015 more than fifty CNMPS has been completed across Georgia.
Combined Sewer Systems (CSS) A CSS is a sewer system that is designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. GAEPD has issued NPDES permits to two

of the cities in Georgia that have Combined Sewer Systems (CSS). These are Albany and Atlanta. The permit for the third CSS in Columbus will be issued in 2016. The permits require that the CSS must not cause violations of Georgia Water Quality Control 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. The permits specify 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 June 2017, of 205 major municipal discharges, 200 facilities were in general compliance with limitations. The remaining 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. 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.
Increased emphasis was placed on the industrial pretreatment programs for municipalities to ensure that the cities comply with applicable requirements for pretreatment.
Industries in Georgia achieved a high degree of compliance in 2014-2015. The thirty-nine major industrial facilities were in compliance at the end of 2015.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-8

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 fiscal year 2014 and 2015, 335 Orders addressing wastewater issues were issued and approximately $846,803 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 2014-2015 a total of 168 stormwater Orders were issued and a total of $954,616 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 all violations of permitted effluent limitations, with the exception of flow, and all sanitary sewer system overflows into the waters of the State. 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.
Storm Water Management The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 require NPDES permits to be issued for certain types of storm water discharges, with primary focus on storm water runoff from industrial operations and large and/or urban areas. The USEPA promulgated the Phase I Storm Water Regulations on November 16, 1990. GAEPD has developed and implemented a storm water strategy which assures compliance with the Federal Regulations.
The Phase I 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, 2004, 2009, and 2014.
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 Phase I 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, 2005, 2010, and 2012. In 2014 the number of medium MS4s was reduced to twelve when the City of Macon and Bibb County became consolidated as Macon-Bibb County

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-9

Consolidated Government. EPD anticipates reissuing the remaining 12 Phase I medium permits in 2017.
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. Construction sites from 1 to 5 acres and municipally-owned industrial facilities also became regulated.
The 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 NPDES General Permit No. GAG610000 which covered 86 Phase II MS4s, including 57 cities and 29 counties. This Permit was most recently reissued in December 2012. It currently covers 109 municipalities. The number of Phase II municipalities varies over time as cities like Payne City are abolished and others such as Peachtree Corners and Johns Creek are created. The current number also includes 20 newly designated Phase II MS4s from the 2010 Census. In 2009, EPD issued a General NPDES Permit to seven Department of Defense facilities, which were designated as Phase II MS4s. Two of those bases closed in 2011, reducing the number of permitted DOD facilities to five. The NPDES Permit for the remaining five facilities was reissued in 2014. In 2011, GAEPD issued a Phase II MS4 General Storm Water Permit to the Department of Transportation (DOT), which is applicable to post-construction runoff in jurisdictions with MS4 permits. EPD anticipates reissuing this permit in 2017. The NPDES General Permits do not contain specific effluent limitations. Instead, each Phase II MS4 permittee is required to institute best management practices that will control stormwater pollution. 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, PostConstruction Storm Water Management, and Pollution Prevention. In addition, all DOD facilities, DOT, and MS4 communities with populations over 10,000 that discharge to an impaired waterbody, are required to monitor their stormwater discharge for the pollutant of concern (POC) and evaluate their BMPs' effectiveness in reducing the POC in stormwater discharges from the MS4.
The storm water permits for MS4s require the submittal of Annual Reports to GAEPD. Each year, the Georgia storm water permitting program reviews the Annual Reports from all of these 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.
The GAEPD has issued general permits for the eleven industrial subcategories defined in the Phase I Federal Storm Water Regulations. During 1993, GAEPD issued NPDES General Permit No. GAR000000 that regulates the discharge of storm water from 10 categories of industrial activity. This permit was reissued in 1998 and 2006 as GAR000000, and was then reissued as GAR050000 in 2012. This permit covers the stormwater discharge from 2,444 industrial facilities. An additional 608 facilities have submitted an Industrial No Exposure Exclusion Certification Form.
An important component of storm water management in Georgia is EPD's support of permit GAR050000's requirements through technical assistance to permittees. EPD staff

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-10

handle on the average of ten calls per day from permittees seeking to discuss the requirements for compliance or compliance strategies. EPD staff, and inspectors under contract to EPD, conducted inspections at approximately 131 industrial facilities to assess compliance with the industrial general storm water permit during 20142015.
The GAEPD will continue to regulate storm water runoff from industrial facilities and urban areas as a part of the point-source permitting process to protect water quality.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control The Georgia 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, minor activities such as home landscaping and gardening, and water supply reservoirs.
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 325 cities and counties have adopted erosion and sediment control ordinances which have been reviewed by the GAEPD for compliance with the Act.
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 also 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. During the 2014-2015 period, the GAEPD decertified as issuing authorities 3 Local Issuing Authorities. During this same period, there were 3 new Local Issuing Authority certifications.
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 its Rules to implement the new criteria. In December 2004, the Georgia Board of Natural Resources adopted amendments to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Rules which went into effect January 10, 2005.
The Act was amended by House Bill 463 in 2007 to give subcontrators an additional year to meet the training and education requirements established in HB 285. The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission continues to administer the

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-11

training and certification program. As of September 2015, 83,946 people have been certified and 51,422 re-certified. Senate Bill 155 amended the Act in 2009 to exempt 25foot buffers along ephemeral streams. This legislation clarified the definition of ephemeral in the Erosion and Sedimentation Rules. The E&S Rules were amended in 2011 to add a new stream buffer variance criteria for projects that pipe or re-route waterways that are not jurisdictional waters of the U. S., and for new infrastructure projects that impact only the buffer and not the stream.
A NPDES general permit that would regulate storm water discharges from construction activities was issued by GAEPD and subsequently appealed in 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. The permit was eventually issued on June 12, 2000 and became effective on August 1, 2000, and regulated storm water discharges associated with land disturbances of five acres or greater The NPDES general permit for construction activities was reissued by GAEPD on August 13, 2003. The permit was re-issued as three distinct general permits: Stand Alone, Infrastructure and Common Development, and required coverage for projects disturbing one acre or more in accordance with the USEPA Phase II storm water regulations. 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 permits were most recently reissued by GAEPD on September 24, 2013. The 2013 permits added additional stream buffer variance exemptions and amended tertiary permittee requirements.
In 2015, the Act was amended to provide for buffers on Coastal Marshes with SB 101. New Rules to implement the changes are expected in 2016.

During FY2014-FY2015, 17,816 primary, secondary and tertiary permittees submitted Notices of Intent for coverage under the NPDES General Permits. As of September 30,2015 there were 14,281active construction sites in Georgia (i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary permittees with coverage under the NPDES General Permits that have not submitted Notices of Termination).
The GAEPD will continue to regulate storm water runoff from construction sites as a part of the point-source permitting process to protect water quality.
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.
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.
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, nongovernmental organizations and individual citizens.
The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC) has been designated by the GAEPD as the lead agency for implementing the agricultural

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-12

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 2014-2015, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500, serves as the current process to update the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report.
GAEPD completed the process of revising the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program to update the goals, activities and implementation strategies of the Program. The revised plan 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. The revised plan was 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, non-governmental organizations.
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. In FY12 FY14, Georgia's Section 319(h) grant project funded 23 new projects for over $4 million. For FY15, Georgia is poised to award $3.54 million to local governments and agencies to support streambank restoration, watershed planning, TMDL implementation, and support of Georgia's Coastal Nonpoint Source Management Program.
In 2015, Georgia's Nonpoint Source Program administered 51 Section 319(h) projects, totaling more than $11 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 criteria of listed streams. Education, demonstration, and technical assistance projects are also eligible for funding, subject to restrictions. 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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-13

State to make great strides in achieving water quality goals.
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.
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.
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 is a critical State initiative to identify priority waters and to target nonpoint source management activities.

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.
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 has published and continues to distribute the following guidebooks for implementing agricultural best management practices to protect the State's waters:

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-14

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.
In 2014-2015, approximately $1.5 million in new Section 319(h) Grant projects were implemented to target agricultural sources of nonpoint source pollution. 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.
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 Conservation Security Program (CSP). Collectively these programs, will continue to have a significant and positive impact on Georgia's natural resources.
These Federal cost-share programs 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.
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 20142015, the EQIP program provided over $22 million in incentive payments and costsharing for conservation practices.
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 and environmental management on their operations.
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. 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.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-15

This program is managed by a Statewide Water Quality Coordinator and 12 foresters serving as District Water Quality Coordinators. The GFC Statewide and 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. 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. 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 2015, the GFC completed a 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, there were 213 sites evaluated totaling 34,932 acres. The number of acres in BMP compliance was 94.2%. This is a modest drop compared to 2013. Out of the 6,223 applicable, individual BMPs evaluated, 91.13% were implemented correctly. This is a 1.2 percent improvement from 2013. Out of the 86.86 miles of streams evaluated, more than 96.7% were found to have no impacts or impairments from forestry practices. This is 1.4 percent improvement from the 2013 survey.
During the State FY15, the Georgia Forestry Commission provided 97 BMP talks to approximately 2,836 individuals. In addition, the GFC has addressed and resolved over 37 different logging complaints, requiring 104 separate site visits, and has conducted more than 40 one-to-one conferences with silviculture workers and professionals onsite or in the field. The Georgia Forestry Commission is currently working off of a FY14 319(h) grant and will not conduct another Statewide BMP Compliance Surveys until 2016.
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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-16

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 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. During urbanization, pervious, vegetated ground is converted to impervious, unvegetated surfaces such as rooftops, roads, parking lots and sidewalks. 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.
Consistent with the multiple sources of urban runoff, strategies to manage urban runoff 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, cooperative intergovernmental partnerships 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.
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' Water Resources Technical Assistance Program will fulfill this need.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-17

Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is a key partner and point of contact for urban nonpoint source pollution. Georgia DCA provides technical assistance on many different aspects of water quality management. As an information and networking center, the Program provides water resources tools, one-on-one technical assistance, and workshops to address regional water quality issues to local elected officials currently serving 159 counties and 532 cities. The 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.
Additionally, an array of programs to manage urban runoff are under development or being implemented in a variety of locales. 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.
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 ARC published Volume 3: Pollution Prevention in 2012. An update to the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual is expected in 2016. Also, in partnership with GAEPD, ARC, numerous local governments and other stakeholders, the Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Center for Watershed Protection developed a Coastal Stormwater Supplement to the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, to

specifically address coastal stormwater in 2009.
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.
In 2011, the GAEPD updated its Green Growth Guidelines. These are intended to provide information to local governments on how to grow in a more environmentally sustainable manner. Much of the information is focused on water quality and management measures to address potential impairments.
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.
Outreach Unit The Outreach Unit consists of four primary programs that support the education and involvement of Georgia citizens in activities to protect our waterways from nonpoint source pollution. The four programs, highlighted below, include Georgia Project WET, River of Words, Georgia Adopt-AStream and Rivers Alive. A program manager, four state coordinators and part

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-18

time staff provide the leadership necessary to implement the Outreach Unit programs.
Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) Program In October 1996, 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 pre-service class, or a community organization. The mission of Project WET is to reach children, parents, educators, and communities of the world with water education.
The success of the Georgia Project WET Program has been phenomenal. Since 1997, over 13,000 Georgia teachers have been certified as Project WET educators, and over 727 have volunteered to be facilitators and train other adults in their communities.
Certified Project WET instructors receive The Dragonfly Gazette twice a year, an electronic newsletter for educators brimming with water education resources and news. Georgia Project WET Program provides educators with resources such as the Enviroscape Nonpoint Source, Wetlands, Stormwater and Groundwater Flow Models demonstration tools used to emphasize the impacts of nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground waters, scripted theatrical performances and costumes for Mama Bass and the Mudsliders, and promotional and instructional training videos. 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 a statewide conference and awards ceremony. During the conference, Georgia Project WET recognizes a Facilitator,

Educator and Organization of the Year. Awardees are selected based on their efforts to increase awareness about water issues and their commitment to water education. The Project WET Organization of the Year can choose to receive either a WET educator workshop for 25 individuals or $400 worth of water education materials to use for workshops or with students.
Georgia Project WET has also 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, nonpoint 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. Since its first printing in August of 2005, over 1,674 educators have been trained to implement the curriculum in their classrooms and in the field.
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" 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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-19

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 every year since 1997 Georgia students have been selected as National Grand Prize Winners and/or Finalists. In addition to the students that are recognized nationally, Georgia Project WET conducts a State judging each year in which approximately 50 students are honored as State winners.
The State and National winners' work is on display in the Georgia River of Words Exhibition. Each year, Georgia Project WET partners with the Chattahoochee Nature Center to conduct the Georgia River of Words Awards Ceremony recognizing State and National winners from across the State. All River of Words state and national winners' poetry and art can be found on the project website, www.GaProjectWet.org.
In partnership with the Georgia Center for the Book, Georgia Project WET coordinates an additional River of Words traveling exhibit through the library system, which visits 2535 sites per year. In addition, over 70,000 students and teachers each year will view the River of Words exhibit when they visit the Education floor of the Georgia Aquarium.
Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program is a citizen monitoring and stream protection program that focuses on what individuals and communities can do to mitigate nonpoint sources of pollution. The Program consists of two staff positions in the Georgia EPD and over 60 local community and watershed Adopt-A-Stream coordinators. The community and watershed coordinators are a network of college, watershed, or local based training centers located throughout Georgia. The network of local programs provides training workshops and educational presentations that allow the Georgia AdoptA-Stream Program to be accessible to all areas of the State. In cooperation with the Georgia State Coordinators, the programs ensure that volunteers are trained

consistently and that the monitoring data is professionally assessed for quality assurance and quality control.
The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program's objectives are: (1) increase individual's awareness of how they contribute to nonpoint source pollution problems, (2) generate local support for nonpoint source management through public involvement and monitoring of waterbodies, (3) provide educational resources and technical assistance for addressing nonpoint source pollution problems statewide, and (4) collect and share baseline water quality data.
Currently, thousands of volunteers participate in the over 200 community sponsored Adopt-A-Stream Programs. Volunteers conduct clean ups, stabilize streambanks, monitor waterbodies using physical, chemical and biological methods, and evaluate habitats and watersheds at over 600 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.
Volunteers are offered different options of involvement. Each option involves an education and action component on a local waterbody. In addition to water quality monitoring, volunteers are encouraged to engage in habitat improvement, riparian restoration and rain garden construction projects.
The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program provides volunteers with additional resources such as the Getting to Know Your Watershed, Visual Stream Survey, Macroinvertebrate and Chemical Stream Monitoring, Bacterial Monitoring, Adopt-AWetland, Adopt-A-Lake, Amphibian Monitoring and Adopt-A-Stream Educator's Guide manuals, PowerPoint presentations, and promotional and instructional training videos. Every two months a newsletter is published and distributed to over 8,000

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-20

volunteers statewide with program updates and information about available resources. Additional information about the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program, watershed investigation and water quality monitoring information is available on the website, www.GeorgiaAdoptAStream.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-AStream Program training workshops receive Professional Learning Unit (PLU) credits. Additional information about the GPS correlations and PLU credits can be found online.
Starting in 2010, Georgia Adopt-A-Stream brought back their annual conference, called Confluence. The Conference, held each year in the spring, has grown from an initial registration of 150 participants to average over 250 participants annually. The conference provides volunteers with an opportunity to further their knowledge of water related issues, choosing from 8 concurrent tracks including topics such as: visual monitoring, invasive species, program development and social media; advance macroinvertebrate monitoring; and green infrastructure and stream stabilization workshops. In addition to the education opportunities, the conference provides a venue for recognizing the outstanding achievements of our volunteers and local trainers through our awards ceremony.
The Adopt-A-Stream website supports a database to house all volunteer monitoring water quality data and programmatic information. It is a database drive website, with real time stats and graphs automatically generated by the information volunteers submit. Several formats are used to display monitoring data, including charts, graphs and basic GIS using a maps page that displays terrain, topographical and photographic layers. Data sharing developments like this website improve volunteer monitors' capacity to learn about

and protect local water bodies. Presently, there are over 200 groups actively monitoring 600 sites.
Georgia Adopt-A-Stream partners with the Georgia River Network to present the Watershed Track at their annual conference. In another partnership activity with Georgia River Network, Adopt-A-Stream trained citizen monitors and led the scientific monitoring team for Paddle Georgia (a weeklong paddle down a major Georgia waterway). Over 75 sites were tested in 2011 on the Oconee River. These events helped connect citizens with activities that help protect and improve Georgia waters.
Rivers Alive Program The Outreach Unit coordinates Georgia's annual volunteer waterway cleanup event, Rivers Alive, held in late summer through fall. Rivers Alive is a statewide event that includes 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 2015 waterway cleanup, 26,000 volunteers cleaned over 2,000 miles of waterways and removed over 590,000 pounds of trash and garbage including vehicles, boats, refrigerators, tires, plastic bottles and thousands of lost balls. Rivers Alive receives key support in the form of corporate sponsorship for the purchase of tshirts and other materials to support local organizers. The cleanup events also share educational watershed posters and bookmarks, and public service announcements to advertise in local newspapers and on the radio.
Rivers Alive also produces a how to organize a cleanup guide and a quarterly enewsletter to provide updated information and helpful cleanup tips for organizers. In addition to protecting and preserving the State's waterways, Rivers Alive cleanup events involve participants in diverse activities such as storm drain stenciling, water quality monitoring and riparian

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-21

restoration workshops, riverboat tours, wastewater treatment facility tours and general environmental education workshops.
Rivers Alive maintains an online database for registering cleanups and submitting cleanup data. All cleanups are listed on an interactive maps page that shares individual organizer information. The cleanup results are displayed on maps and in graphs for each group to view and share. Additional information about Rivers Alive is available on the website, www.RiversAlive.org.
Emergency Response Network The GAEPD maintains a team of Environmental Emergency Specialists capable of responding to oil or hazardous materials spills. 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 with local, state and federal agency personnel to ensure the protection of human health and the environment during emergency and post emergency situations. These core team members are supplemented with additional trained Specialists who serve as part-time Emergency Responders.
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 GAEPD monitors environmental media in the vicinity of nuclear facilities in or bordering Georgia to determine if radioactive 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.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

7-22

CHAPTER 8
Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals, Availability and 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 rules. In 1984, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) 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 EPD. 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 EPD 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 EPD.
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, after USEPA approval in September of 1997.This document was EPD's submission to the USEPA as a "core" CSGWPP.

Groundwater is extremely important to the life, health, and economy of Georgia. For example, in 2015, groundwater supplied some 2,200 of Georgia's over 2,400 public water systems (which is about 60% of the municipal withdrawal permits totaling 420 million gallons per day annual average day (MGD-AAD). About two-thirds of industrial and commercial permits are for groundwater use, comprising some 415 MGD-AAD. About 12,000 of the over 22,000 agricultural water withdrawal permits in Georgia are groundwater permits. In the rural parts of the state, virtually all individual homes not served by public water systems use wells as their source of drinking water. Total estimated groundwater demands in 2010 were approximately 1,900 MGD-AAD. 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. Currently, the vast majority of Georgia's population is not at risk from ground water pollution of drinking water. Data on the sources of groundwater contamination are provided in Table 8-1.
The EPD'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, 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 of land-use planning by local governments, (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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-1

TABLE 8-1 MAJOR SOURCES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION

Contaminant Source

Contaminant Source
Selection Factors

Agricultural Activities

Agricultural chemical facilities

Animal feedlots

Drainage wells

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, 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*
Natural iron and manganese* Natural radioactivity

D, E

Variable

F

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

8-2

of groundwater contamination and the need for groundwater protection. Management of groundwater quantity involves allocating the State's groundwater, through a permitting system, to ensure that the resource is sustainably used and continues to be productively 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 82 is a summary of Georgia groundwater protection programs.
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 ultimately recharged by precipitation, and use of groundwater may 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.
Groundwater Monitoring Network
Ambient groundwater quality, as well as the quantity available for development, is related to the geologic character of the aquifers. 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 EPD monitors ambient groundwater quality through the Georgia Groundwater Monitoring Network. From 1984 through January 2004, this network regularly sampled wells and springs, tapping important aquifers throughout the State. From February 2004 through 2010, the network focused on various specialized situations: the Coastal area (102 wells), the Piedmont/Blue Ridge area (120 wells and springs), small public water systems (180 wells and springs, statewide), uranium in ground water (310 wells and springs), and arsenic in ground water in South Georgia (67

wells). In 2011, the network returned to the regular sampling of wells and springs drawing from important aquifers. Figure 8-2 shows locations of stations for the groundwater monitoring network during calendar years 2014 through 2015.
One of the purposes of the network is to allow the EPD to identify groundwater quality trends before they become problems. To date, most potential water quality issues that have been illuminated through monitoring efforts are either natural in origin (e.g. arsenic and uranium), or limited to one well, such as the VOC contamination issues found within a well located in Atlanta. The 2014 ambient monitoring program found 23 wells with iron, manganese, or aluminum exceedances. In addition, the program uncovered one well with VOC contamination, potentially due to a neighboring underground petroleum storage tank. Another well, with nitrogen in excess of the primary MCL, is located in the surficial layer, and is used only for non-potable activities such as gardening. The 2015 ambient monitoring program continued to monitor the VOC contaminated well on a quarterly basis. Lead was found in excess of the Primary MCL at two locations; it is suspected that rarely utilized plumbing fixtures at the sample point are the source. 43 wells were found to contain iron, manganese, or aluminum in excess of secondary MCLs. Well owners with exceedances were notified, and, if the well was a public supply well or a private drinking water source, follow-up sampling was performed upon request. Results of aquifer monitoring data for calendar years 2014 and 2015 are provided in Tables 8-3 through 8-5.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-3

TABLE 8-2

SUMMARY OF STATE GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS

Programs or Activities

Check Implementation (X) Status

Responsible Georgia Agency

Active SARA Title III Program

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Ambient ground water monitoring system

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Aquifer vulnerability assessment

X

Ongoing

Environ. Protection

Aquifer mapping

X

Ongoing

Environ. Protection

Aquifer characterization

X

Ongoing

Environ. Protection

Comprehensive data management system

X

Ongoing

Environ. Protection

EPA-endorsed Core Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Ground water discharge

Prohibited

Ground water Best Management Practices

X

Pending

Environ. Protection

Ground water legislation

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Ground water classification

Not applicable

Ground water quality standards

X

Ongoing

Environ. Protection

Interagency coordination for ground water protection initiatives

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Nonpoint source controls

X

Ongoing

Environ. Protection

Pesticide State Management Plan

X

Fully Established Agriculture

Pollution Prevention Program

Discontinued

Natural Resources

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Primacy

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

State Superfund

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

State RCRA Program incorporating more stringent requirements than RCRA Primacy

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

State septic system regulations

X

Fully Established Public Health

Underground storage tank installation requirements

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Underground Storage Tank Remediation Fund

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Underground Storage Tank Permit Program

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Underground Injection Control Program

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Vulnerability assessment for drinking water/wellhead protection

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Well abandonment regulations

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Wellhead Protection Program (EPA-approved)

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

Well installation regulations

X

Fully Established Environ. Protection

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-4

FIGURE 8-1
HYDROLOGIC PROVINCES OF GEORGIA

Valley and Ridge

Ground-water Reservoirs and Well Yields
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

8-5

FIGURE 8-2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK, 2014-2015

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-6

TABLE 8-3A SUMMARY OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING RESULTS FOR CY 2014

83 Aquifer Monitoring Stations

Nitrate/ Nitrite

VOCs

Arsenic

Uranium

Copper or Fe, Mn,

Lead

or Al

Detections

86

18

4

44

54

126

Exceedances

1

2

0

0

0

42

TABLE 8-3B SUMMARY OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING RESULTS FOR CY 2015

131 Aquifer Monitoring Stations

Nitrate/ Nitrite

VOCs

Arsenic

Uranium

Copper or Fe, Mn,

Lead

or Al

Detections

110

29

4

6

50

193

Exceedances

0

4

0

0

2

76

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-7

TABLE 8-4 GROUND-WATER MONITORING DATA FOR CY 2014

Aquifer
Cretaceous/ Providence Clayton Claiborne Jacksonian Floridan Miocene Piedmont/ Blue Ridge Valley and Ridge

Number of
Stations
13 1 3 5 27 6 22
6

Nitrate/Nitrite Detection// Exceedance
9 // 0
1 // 0 1 // 0 3 // 0 19 // 0 2 // 1
42 // 0

Number of Samples Showing:

VOCs Detection// Exceedanc
e

Arsenic Detection// Exceedance

Uranium Detection// Exceedance

Copper or Lead
Detection// Exceedance

0 // 0

0 // 0

1 // 0

14 // 0

0 // 0 0 // 0 1 // 0 6 // 0 0 // 0

0 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0 4 // 0 0 // 0

0 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0 11 // 0 0 // 0

2 // 0 2 // 0 0 // 0 10 // 0 2 // 0

6 // 2

0 // 0

32 // 0

22 // 0

Fe, Mn, or Al Detection// Exceedance
10 // 5
2 // 1 4 // 4 6 // 1 37 // 9 7 // 5
58 // 17

9 // 0

5 // 0

0 // 0

0 // 0

2 // 0

2 // 0

TABLE 8-5 GROUND-WATER MONITORING DATA FOR CY 2015

Aquifer
Cretaceous/ Providence Clayton Claiborne Jacksonian Floridan Miocene Piedmont/ Blue Ridge Valley and Ridge

Number of
Stations
25 3 3 8 33 7 46
6

Nitrate/Nitrite Detection// Exceedance
16 // 0
3 // 0 1 // 0 5 // 0 17 // 0 2 // 0
57 // 0
9 // 0

Number of Samples Showing:

VOCs Detection// Exceedance

Arsenic Detection// Exceedance

Uranium Detection// Exceedance

Copper or Lead
Detection// Exceedance

1 // 0

0 // 0

0 // 0

15 // 1

1 // 0 0 // 0 1 // 0 5 // 0 0 // 0

0 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0 4 // 0 0 // 0

0 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0

5 // 0 0 // 0 0 // 0 5 // 0 2 // 0

19 // 4

0 // 0

6 // 0

22 // 1

2 // 0

0 // 0

0 // 0

1 // 0

Fe, Mn, or Al Detection// Exceedance
31 // 15
7 // 4 4 // 4 5 // 1 48 // 12 7 // 4
87 // 36
4 // 0

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-8

Agricultural chemicals are commonly used in the agricultural regions of the State (Figure 8-3). In order to evaluate the occurrence of agricultural chemicals in groundwater, the EPD 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. Prudent agricultural use of pesticides does not appear to represent a significant threat to drinking water aquifers in Georgia at this time.
Salt Water Intrusion
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. Use of groundwater in the 24 counties of the Georgia coast has enabled some groundwater containing high levels of dissolved solids to enter freshwater aquifers either vertically or laterally. Saltwater intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer threatens groundwater supplies in Hilton Head, South Carolina and Savannah, Georgia and Brunswick, Georgia. Salt-water intrusion rates, however, are quite slow, with salt-contaminated water at the north end of Hilton Head, South Carolina projected to take more than a hundred years to reach Savannah. On April 23, 1997, the EPD implemented an Interim Strategy to protect

the Upper Floridan Aquifer from salt-water intrusion in the 24 coastal counties. The strategy, developed in consultation with South Carolina and Florida, continued until June 2006, when the final coastal Plan was adopted for implementation.
The 2006 "Coastal Georgia Water & Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion" describes the goals, policies, and actions the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) will undertake to manage the water resources of the 24county area of coastal Georgia. The Plan is designed to support the continued growth and development of coastal Georgia while implementing sustainable water resource management.
The 2006 Plan replaces the "Interim Strategy for Managing Salt Water Intrusion in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of Southeast Georgia", and sets forth how EPD will conduct ground and surface water withdrawal permitting, and management and permitting of wastewater discharges. It advances requirements for water conservation, water reclamation and reuse, and wastewater management. Based on the findings of the Coastal Sound Science Initiative (CSSI), the Plan will guide EPD water resource management decisions and actions.
The primary focus of the final Plan recognizes the intrusion of saltwater into the Upper Floridan aquifer at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. The plan recognizes that actions taken to slow down the intrusion of additional salt water into the aquifer will not result in the halting of the migration of the salt water that has already entered the aquifer. As of 2015 work continues to be conducted to characterize the extent of salt water intrusion in the Florida aquifer, as well as study potential mechanisms for slowing its movement inland. Modeling work has indicated that the EPD requested reduction in withdrawals from the aquifer will

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-9

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

8-10

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

CARROLL HEARD

DOUGLAS FULTON

ROCKDALE

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

BIBB

TALBOT

CRAWFORD

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

8-11

effectively reduce the hydraulic gradient and rate of movement of the salt water plume.
This plan for managing coastal Georgia salt water intrusion, withdrawal permitting, and wastewater management reflects the State's goal of sustainable use of both groundwater and surface waters, it supports regional economic growth and development, and contributes to protecting the short-term and long-term health of both the public and natural systems. It is based on the best available scientific data and information on the stresses on the water resources within the region.
Management strategies that abate the intrusion of salt water are primarily concerned with quantity and supply, but water supply strategies are incomplete without a corresponding array of actions that will address related wastewater issues. The additional water supply available through the water withdrawal permitting conducted under this Plan will increase the amount of wastewater to be discharged into the sensitive ecosystems of coastal Georgia. Therefore, the final Plan also incorporates policies and actions needed to begin solving the wastewater discharge limitations that have become evident as coastal Georgia continues to grow. In May 2013 EPD's Director issued a prohibition of new or increased permitted withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer in four coastal Georgia counties (shown on the map above as red and yellow zones). EPD determined the interconnectivity between the upper and lower Floridan permeable zones influence the saltwater intrusion into the upper Floridan permeable zone. Applicants for new water withdrawals may use alternate aquifers such as the Miocene or Cretaceous aquifers or may use surface water. In 2015 EPD continued to refine its Floridan aquifer water management strategy within the coastal region with yet another round of reductions in permitted withdrawal limits.

The Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act (the Water Planning Act), passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Perdue in 2004, defines general policy and guiding principles for water resource management that guide this Coastal Georgia Water & Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion. The incorporation of these policies and guiding principles into this Plan will facilitate its alignment with the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan that was adopted by the General Assembly in January 2008.
The initial round of regional water planning under the State water plan has completed assessments of the quantity and quality of surface waters in major streams and rivers in Georgia, and the ranges of sustainable yields of prioritized aquifers in Georgia. Most of the aquifers prioritized for determination of ranges of sustainable yield were aquifers within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of Georgia where most groundwater use within the State occurs.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-12

Ranges of sustainable yields of Coastal Plain aquifers were determined using finite difference and finite element numerical modeling methods. The range of sustainable yield was determined for the Paleozoic carbonate aquifer in a study basin of the Valley and Ridge physiographic province of northwestern Georgia using finite difference modeling, and ranges of sustainable yield were determined for the crystalline rock aquifer in selected basins in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces of northern Georgia using basin water budgets.

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. If

the radioactive zones in a well cannot be

sealed off, the public may have to connect

to a neighboring permitted public water

system(s).

Treatment to remove

radionuclides and uranium from water is a

problem due to concerns for the disposal of

the concentrated residue.

However, certain treatment firms (e.g. Water Remediation Technology, LLC) have arrangements to remove certain radionuclides from ground water and dispose of residues properly. In particular, uranium-rich residues are turned over to processors, which extract the metal. 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 EPD sampling in Burke County aquifers. While the greatest amount of tritium thus far measured is only 15 percent of the US EPA MCL for tritium, the wells in which it has been found lie across the Savannah River from the Savannah River 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 EPD'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 evapotranspiration 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 public water supply wells for volatile organic chemicals (VOCs, e.g. solvents and hydrocarbons) is performed by the EPD. Only a very few water systems have 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.
Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDI) is defined as water beneath the surface of the ground with: significant occurrence of insects or other macro organisms, algae, or large diameter protozoa and pathogens such as Giardia

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-13

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. The EPD evaluates public groundwater sources (wells and springs) to determine if they are likely to have direct surface water influence.
Several factors are considered for risk of GWUDI, including location, historical sampling data, microbiological quality, chemical quality, physical parameters, well/spring construction, hydrogeology, geology, and aquifer type. Sources with the greatest risk are those in karst areas (where water-soluble limestone is perforated by channels, caves, sinkholes, and underground caverns); springs without filtration; old wells with broken sanitary seals, cracked concrete pads, or faulty well casings; and wells not grouted into the

unweathered rock formation. In Georgia, the northwest and portions of the southwest and south central parts of the state contain areas of karst topography.
The EPD requires water systems considered to be at risk of GWUDI to make arrangements with a private contractor to complete Microscopic Particulate Analysis (MPA). MPA is a method of sampling and testing for significant indicators of GWUDI. In cases where the water system has a contract with the EPD Laboratory for water analysis, the EPD performs the analysis of the MPA sample. If sample analysis indicates GWUDI, Division district office personnel work with the affected water systems and provide technical assistance in identifying and correcting the deficiencies contributing to the contamination.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-14

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

Areas of known natural radioactivity contamination Granite outcrops Tritium pollution

JACKSON

MADISON

ELBERT

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

8-15

Protecting Groundwater
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 cleanup leaking underground storage tanks. As of December 22, 2016, there are a total of 29,116 underground storage tanks (USTs) at a total of 9,705 UST facilities. Additional information on the UST management program can be found at the following site https://epd.gov/publications.
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. As of July 1, 2017, there are 528 sites listed on the Georgia Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI). 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. Additional information on the HSI is available at the following GAEPD website https://epd.georgia.gov/hazardoussiteinventory
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 not become a threat to drinking water supplies. In this regard, the EPD has completed a set of maps generated by a Geographic Information System that show 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 EPD

standards for groundwater monitoring. Information on permitted solid waste facilities can be found at the following site https://epd.georgia.gov/permitted-solidwaste-facilities.
The EPD 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 EPD program. The EPD 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. Relatively 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 EPD has an active Underground Injection Control Program. As of December 31, 2015, the program has issued 668 UIC permits covering 14,810 Class V wells. Most of the permits are for remediation wells for UST sites, petroleum product spills, hazardous waste sites, or for non-domestic septic systems.
Georgia law requires that water well drillers constructing domestic, irrigation and public water supply wells and all pump installers be licensed and bonded. As of December 31, 2015 Georgia had 388 active licensed water well drillers and 57 certified pump installers and that are required to follow strict well construction and repair standards. The EPD continues to work with various drilling associations, licensed drillers, and certified pump installers to uphold and enforce the construction standards of the Water Well Standards Act. The EPD has taken an active role in informing all licensed drillers of the requirement that all irrigation wells must

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-16

be permitted, and that such permits must be issued prior to the actual drilling of any irrigation well. All drillers constructing monitoring wells or engineering and geologic boreholes must be bonded, and such well construction or borings must be performed under the direction of a Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist registered in Georgia. The EPD maintains an active file of all bonded drilling and pump installing companies and makes every attempt to stop the operations of all drillers and pump installers who fail to maintain a proper bond. The EPD 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 EPD has identified the most significant recharge areas for the main aquifer systems in the State (Figure 8-6). The EPD 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 EPD 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 EPD 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 EPD 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 permitted municipal wells in Georgia. There are currently 1664 active municipal ground water wells with Wellhead Protection Plans. The ten-year update schedule for Wellhead Protection Plants continues to date. The WHP Plan update includes the addition of pertinent well information and an update of potential pollution sources. In addition, the EPD has carried out vulnerability studies for nonmunicipal 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 saltwater intrusion in the 24 coastal counties. The second most significant source is naturally occurring iron, manganese, and radioactivity. Agricultural applications of pesticides and fertilizers are not significant sources.
Table 8-2 is a summary of Georgia groundwater protection programs. Georgia, primarily the EPD, has delegated authority for all federal environmental groundwater protection statutes that are more stringent

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-17

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.
Tables 8-3, 8-4, and 8-5 summarize ambient groundwater quality monitoring results for calendar years 2014 and 2015. The data presented were developed from the Georgia Groundwater Monitoring Network reports.
As previously mentioned there are some wells and springs that EPD has determined to be under the influence of surface water. There are no documented cases in Georgia of groundwater polluting surface water sources.
Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals (including water availability analysis and conservation planning)
The Water Supply Program of the Watershed Protection 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 EPD prior to any such withdrawal. Through the beginning of 2016 EPD had 300 active municipal and industrial surface water withdrawal permits (197 municipal, 103 industrial), 516 active groundwater withdrawal permits (326 municipal/public supply, 190 industrial and golf course irrigation permits) and approximately 24,000 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 EPD. 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. An EPD-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 EPD. These users include persons, municipalities, governmental agencies, industries, military installations, and all other non-agricultural users. The 1977 statute "grandfathered" all pre-1977 users who could establish the quantity of their use prior to 1977. Under this provision these pre1977 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

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

non-grandfathered withdrawals), drought contingency, raw water storage, watershed protection, and reservoir management. An EPD-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. An EPD-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.
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 EPD guidelines. These plans primarily address categories such as system unaccounted-for water (leakage, unmetered 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.
During times of emergency, the EPD 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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-20

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

chlorine dioxide. During 2014-2015, the majority of all drinking water violations involved failure to submit a sample, failure to report test results, or failure to provide an annual Consumer Confidence Report. These administrative violations do not mean there were any problems with the quality of the drinking water being served. Most violations were brief in duration and quickly resolved. Drinking water facilities' information can be reviewed on drinkingwater watch at:
http://gadrinkingwater.net.

Similar to groundwater, Georgia's surface water sources provide raw water of excellent quality for drinking water supplies. During 2014-2015, 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, approximately 140 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. Environmental Protection Agency include the control of disinfection byproducts and the microbial contaminants in drinking water.

LT2 and Stage 2 Surface Water Treatment
Amendments to the SDWA in 1996 require EPA to develop rules to balance the risks between microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, promulgated in December 1998, were the first phase in a rulemaking strategy required by Congress as part of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule builds upon earlier rules to address higher risk public water systems for protection measures beyond those required for existing regulations.

The purpose of the 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 non-transient and noncommunity water systems that add a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the treatment process and transient non-community water systems that use

The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule are the second phase of rules required by Congress. These rules strengthen protection against microbial contaminants, especially Cryptosporidium, and at the same time, reduce potential health risks of DBPs. These two new regulations went into effect in December 2005. EPD is prepared to fully implement these regulations in Georgia, including the "early Implementation" provisions of the regulations.
The purpose of Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) is to reduce illness linked with the contaminant Cryptosporidium and other pathogenic microorganisms in drinking water. The LT2ESWTR will supplement existing regulations by targeting additional

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-21

Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems. This rule also contains provisions to reduce risks from uncovered finished water reservoirs and provisions to ensure that systems maintain microbial protection when they take steps to decrease the formation of disinfection byproducts that result from chemical water treatment.
Current regulations require filtered water systems to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels by 2-log (99 percent). Recent data on Cryptosporidium infectivity and occurrence indicate that this treatment requirement is sufficient for most systems, but additional treatment is necessary for certain higher risk systems. These higher risk systems include filtered water systems with high levels of Cryptosporidium in their water sources and all unfiltered water systems, which do not treat for Cryptosporidium. Based on the initial bin classifications for Cryptosporidium, there are no surface water sources in Georgia that require additional treatment to comply with the LT2ESWTR.
The LT2ESWTR is being promulgated simultaneously with the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule to address concerns about risk tradeoffs between pathogens and DBPs.
The Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule will reduce potential cancer and reproductive and developmental health risks from disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in drinking water, which form when disinfectants are used to control microbial pathogens. Over 260 million individuals are exposed to DBPs.
This Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule strengthens public health protection for customers by tightening compliance monitoring requirements for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). The rule targets systems with the greatest risk and builds incrementally on existing rules. This regulation will reduce DBP exposure and related potential health risks and provide more equitable public health protection.
Public Water System Supervision Program

This 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. For the reporting period ending June 30, 2015, the State of Georgia had approximately 2,420 active public water systems serving a population over 8.4 million people. Based on the latest census figures, this means 87% of the citizens get their drinking water from one of the regulated public water systems in the State. The rest obtain water from their privately owned water sources.
Approximately 75% provide water to residential customers. These systems are referred to as community water systems and serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serve at least 25 yearround residents daily. Approximately oneeighth of the community water systems are from surface water supplies (221 out of the total 1,791 community water systems); the remaining 87% (1,570 CWSs) are served by groundwater sources.
In addition, there are 203 non-transient noncommunity water systems that regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. Examples of these systems are hospitals, day care centers, major shopping centers, children's homes, institutions, factories, office and industrial parks, schools, and so forth.
Furthermore, there are 464 transient noncommunity water systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year, such as restaurants, highway rest areas, campgrounds, roadside stops, and hotels. With a few exceptions, practically all of the non-transient non-community water systems and the transient non-community water systems use groundwater sources for their drinking water needs. All public water systems are issued a Permit to Operate a Public Water System, in accordance with the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act and Rules.
These permits set forth operational requirements for wells, surface water treatment

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-22

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 Laboratory and Related Services Fee (DWLRSF), which has been in effect since July 1992. The DWLRSF 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 EPD for this testing are billed annually based on the system population. Participation in the DWLRSF is voluntary to the extent that a system may elect to use a public or certified commercial laboratory to analyze their required samples. The DWLRSF was expanded in July 2009 to incorporate bacteriological testing, for an additional fee, and updated in 2016 to a Terms and Conditions Agreement.

and copper are initially required to perform two, six-month consecutive rounds of lead and copper monitoring starting from January December of the required year, all 19 large systems are still required to maintain a corrosion control plan and have continued to do so.
In 2015, two public water systems had a treatment technique violation exceeding the action level for lead (i.e., over 10% of samples exceeded 15 ppb lead) and/or copper (i.e., over 10% of samples exceed 1,300 ppb copper).
Monitoring for the 16 inorganic chemicals, 55 volatile organic chemicals and 43 synthetic organic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides and polychlorinated biphenyls is still required for systems that are considered a public water system. New systems are still 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). In 2015 there were no systems that had results over the MCL for individual volatile organic contaminants.
A majority of Georgia's water systems, which are currently contracted with the State (participating in DWLRSF) have been issued monitoring waivers for SOCs and therefore are not required to monitor for those contaminants. New sources however, for existing systems are still required to establish base line monitoring for SOCs. After establishing the four quarters baseline monitoring they will be eligible for a waiver.

Testing for lead and copper in accordance with

the Federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)

began on January 1, 1992. On January 12,

2000 EPA published minor revisions to the

existing 1991 Lead and Copper Rule. It was

called Lead and Copper Minor Rule Revision

(LCRMR). The purpose of this revision was to

eliminate

unnecessary

requirements,

streamline and reduce burden and also to

promote consistent implementation. All

systems that are required to monitor for lead

In order to reduce the Federal chemical monitoring requirements, EPD conducts vulnerability studies for all public water sources. The studies are conducted to assist EPD 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 EPD has issued statewide monitoring waivers

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-23

for asbestos, cyanide, dioxin and most synthetic organic compounds. EPD, 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 statewide 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, EPD also prepared vulnerability studies for individual water sources. These studies included 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 included water wells, potential pollution sources around the wells, cultural information such as roads, and bodies of water. As of December 31, 2015, the EPD had prepared site specific

maps for approximately 723 privately owned ground water public water systems. Additional maps have not been completed since the information is included in the SWAP documents.
USEPA approved Georgia's Source Water Assessment and Protection Implementation Plan on May 1, 2000. The EPD completed initial surface water source water assessments (SWAPs) in 2003. Initial groundwater SWAPs were completed for community and nontransient non-community systems in 2005 and for transient non-community systems in 2006. SWAPs for privately-owned groundwater systems are updated every 10 years. During the current reporting period, for the calendar years of 2014 and 2015, the following numbers of SWAPs were completed for each type of privately-owned groundwater system: 164 community, 14 non-transient non-community, and 94 transient non-community.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

8-24

CHAPTER 9
Major Issues and
Challenges
Comprehensive State and Regional Water Planning Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. Between 2000 and 2010, Georgia gained 1.5 million new residents, ranking 4th nationally. The increasing population places considerable demands on Georgia's ground and surface water resources in terms of water supply, water quality, and assimilative capacity.
In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed the "Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act", O.C.G.A. 12-5522, which called for the development of a statewide water management plan. Work was completed on the Statewide Water Plan and the plan was approved by the General Assembly and Governor Perdue in February 2008. Regional Water Councils and the Metro District were charged with the responsibility of developing water plans to provide a roadmap for sustainable use of Georgia's water resources. The Councils submitted initial recommended plans to the GAEPD in May 2011. The plans were publicly noticed and comments received were thoroughly reviewed. Appropriate revisions were made to the initial plans and final recommended regional water plans were submitted to the GAEPD in September 2011. On November 15, 2011, by action of Director Barnes, the GAEPD officially adopted all ten Regional Water Plans.
The regional water plans are not themselves an end. The plans present solutions identified by a cross-section of regional leaders, drawing on regional knowledge and priorities. The plans are based on consistent, statewide forecasts of needs and reflect the best available information on the capacities of Georgia's waters. The tools used to assess the capacities have been tested and refined, and will be further refined as the information for planning and management is improved. The process and results of regional planning, taken together, provide solid footing for plan

implementation and the five-year review and revision required by the State Water Plan. Water users, water providers, local governments, state agencies, and elected leaders all have an important role in actions to ensure that Georgia's waters are sustainably managed to support the state's economy, protect public health and natural systems, and enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
Nonpoint Source Pollution The pollution impact on Georgia streams has radically shifted over the last several decades. Streams are no longer dominated by untreated or partially treated sewage discharges that 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 affecting Georgia streams is nonpoint sources that include mud, litter, bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils, detergents and a variety of other pollutants being washed into rivers and lakes by stormwater. Even stormwater runoff itself, if rate and volume is uncontrolled, can be extremely detrimental to aquatic habitat and hydrological systems.
Nonpoint source pollution must be reduced and controlled to fully protect Georgia's streams. In addition to structural pollution controls, the use of nonstructural techniques should be significantly expanded to minimize nonpoint source pollution. Some controls that should be considered include: green infrastructure, appropriate building densities, low impact development, buffer zones, erosion and sedimentation controls, street cleaning and limitations on pesticide and fertilizer usage. Some of these best management practices can be implemented through local government planning and zoning.
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

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

9-1

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 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 chemicals may 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. Although, 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.
Nutrients Nutrients serve a very important role in our environment. They provide the essential building blocks necessary for growth and development of healthy aquatic ecosystems. However, if not properly managed, nutrients in excessive amounts can have detrimental effects on human health and the environment, creating such water quality problems as excessive growth of macrophytes and phytoplankton, harmful algal blooms, dissolved oxygen depletion, and an imbalance of flora and fauna. In Georgia, site specific nutrient

criteria have been adopted for several major lakes and their tributaries. Some of these lakes are currently listed for chlorophyll a, which is the primary biological indicator in lakes for nutrient overenrichment. TMDLs, based on watershed modeling, have been completed or are in development to address the nutrient issues for these lakes. Currently, the GAEPD is in the process of collecting the necessary data and information for use in developing nutrient standards for rivers, streams and other waterbodies in Georgia. Determining the relationship of nutrient levels and biological response is necessary in order to develop appropriate nutrient criteria.
Additionally, GAEPD, US EPA, and SC DHEC collaborated on a report intended to provide technical support in developing and establishing numeric water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act to support the applicable designated uses in Georgia and South Carolina estuaries from the effects of excess nitrogen and phosphorus. The report entitled "An Approach to Develop Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Georgia and South Carolina Estuaries" was finalized in 2015. Estuaries along Georgia and South Carolina's coasts exhibit unique combinations of characteristics and a great deal of diversity among systems so the development of a specifically-designed approach was necessary for these important areas.
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, nutrients, 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 what we do on the land has a direct impact on water quality. Human activities that contribute to nonpoint source pollution, nutrients, and toxics, include adding more pavement and other impervious surfaces, littering, driving cars that drip oil and antifreeze, applying fertilizers and pesticides. If streams and lakes are to be pollutant free, then some of the everyday human activities must be modified.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

9-2

The GAEPD will be emphasizing public involvement; not only in decision-making, but also in direct programs of stream improvement. This work includes education through Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) and Adopt-A-Stream programs.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

9-3

APPENDIX A
WATERS ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGNATED USES

The attached tables present Georgia's 2016 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List of Waters. EPD issued a public notice on February 4, 2015 soliciting data from any outside sources to be included in the assessment of water quality data for the 2016 305(b)/303(d) List. All available data, including that which was collected by the Department of Natural Resources, were considered and determinations were made for compliance with designated uses. Information as to the specific data sources and an explanation for the various codes used with the 2016 listing assessment are included in the "Data Source Code/Key for Abbreviations" Table that follows this narrative.
Collected data and information were compared against applicable water quality standards to make listing assessment decisions. Assessed waters were placed into one or more of the five categories as described below:
Category 1 Data indicate that waters are meeting their designated use(s).
Category 2 A water body has more than one designated use and data indicate that at least one designated use is being met, but there is insufficient evidence to determine that all uses are being met.
Category 3 There were insufficient data or other information to make a determination as to whether or not the designated use(s) is being met.
Category 4a Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met, but TMDL(s) have been completed for the parameter(s) that are causing a water not to meet its use(s).
Category 4b - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met, but there are actions in place (other than a TMDL) that are predicted to lead to compliance with water quality standards.
Category 4c - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met, but a pollutant does not cause the impairment.
Category 5 - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met and TMDL(s) need to be completed for one or more pollutants.
Category 5R Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met; however, TMDL development is deferred while an alternative restoration plan is pursued. If the alternative restoration plan is not successful, then the water will be placed back in Category 5 and a TMDL will be developed.
In the 5-part categorization method, waters that are assessed as "not supporting" their uses were either placed in Category 4a, 4b, 4c, 5 or 5R. The federally mandated 303(d) list is made up of those waters in Category 5 (including Category 5R). Waters that are assessed as "supporting" their uses were placed in Category 1. Waters for which there were insufficient data to make a use assessment were placed in Category 2 or 3.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-1

Georgia's Integrated List of Waters is organized by water type (streams, lakes, coastal streams, sounds/harbors, and coastal beaches). Each water type is organized by river basin. Water bodies within a river basin are alphabetized. Information provided in the List of Waters includes a description of the water's location, data source, designated water use classification, use assessment, criterion violated, potential cause, estimates of extent affected and the assessment category (1-5). For waters within category 5, an entry in the priority column indicates the year by which a TMDL will be drafted for the pollutant of concern. A "Notes" column has been included to provide additional information for some water bodies such listing any TMDLs have been completed. Finally, each listed water has a unique Reach ID assigned to it. The Reach ID is a thirteen digit code made up of the letters "GAR" followed by the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 10) in which the waterbody falls followed by two sequential digits (i.e. 01, 02, 03).

In providing the information for the evaluated causes as listed in the tables on the following pages, many potential sources which may have caused the violation of the indicated criterion were considered. These sources are identified as the most likely candidates for affecting a particular stream segment. One potential source may be largely responsible for the criterion violated or the impact may be the result of a combination of sources.

Georgia contains a vast number of waterbodies. While EPD has assessed a large number of these waters, there are many waters (especially smaller creeks and lakes) that have not been assessed due to a lack of data. Waters that do not appear in the 305(b)/303(d) list of waters are to be considered to be in Category 3 (no data).

EPD developed a listing assessment methodology to use in the assessment of State waters. This methodology describes the different types of data that EPD evaluates and explains how the evaluation of the data results in water being placed in one or more of the 5 categories described above.

Georgia's 2016 305(b)/303(d) Listing Assessment Methodology

The outline below provides the listing assessment methodology used for the solicitation, review, consideration, and assessment of data for Georgia's 2016 305(b)/303(d) List of Waters. Each biennial listing cycle, the listing assessment methodology is updated to include needed changes and to reflect the most current Listing Guidance provided by the USEPA. Each listing cycle brings new challenges in the review and assessment of data. The information that follows is intended as a guide. The methodology does not cover all possible scenarios, so best professional judgment is used along with the listing assessment methodology, as needed. A best professional judgment approach is also used where insufficient information or data were available to making listing decisions.

I.

Data Solicitation

On February 4, 2015, a letter was sent by postal mail or electronic mail to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and individuals and/or organizations on the

mailing list that is maintained by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) for

notifying interested parties regarding proposed changes to EPD's Rules. This letter stated

that the EPD was gathering water quality data and information to be used in the development

of Georgia's draft 2016 305(b)/303(d) List of Waters. Any comments, data, or other

information were requested to be submitted to EPD by July 1, 2015. The letter included a link

to a document on EPD's website that provides information as to the requirements for the

submission and acceptance of water quality data for EPD's use in 305(b)/303(d) listing

assessments. A copy of the notification letter was also included on EPD's 305(b)/303(d)

webpage and EPD's "What's New" webpage.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-2

II.

Data Acceptability Requirements

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(4), EPD is to evaluate all existing and readily

available water quality data when assessing waters for the 305(b)/303(d) list of waters.

However, water quality data can vary in both quality and quantity. Data used for assessing

waters can be placed into 3 Tiers based upon its quantity and quality.

Tier 1 data is high in both quality and quantity and is used for assessing whether a waterbody is meeting its designated uses or not. In regards to data quality, this data will have been collected and analyzed in accordance with the Quality Control/Quality Assurance requirements in the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's Quality Assurance Manual and Quality Assurance Project Plan. In the case of data collected by our sister agencies (Wildlife Resources Division, Coastal Resources Division, and USGS), the data will have been collected in accordance with their quality assurance/quality control guidelines. In the case of data collected by third parties, the data would have been collected in accordance with an EPD approved Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP) as described in Chapter 391-3-6-.03(13) of Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control. As for data quantity, Tier 1 data will meet or exceed the "preferred minimum data set" provided in Section VII below.

Tier 2 data is still of high quality (it meets the same quality standards as Tier 1 data), but does not meet the "preferred minimum data set." Tier 2 data are evaluated closely to determine whether the data quantity is sufficient to be used to assess the condition of the waterbody (i.e. determine if the designated use is being met or not) or if the waterbody needs to be placed in Category 3 (assessment pending) until additional data are collected. EPD needs to consider a number of factors when making this determination. These includes evaluating: how close the data set is to the preferred minimum set; the reason the data set did not meet the preferred minimum (i.e. did the stream dry up part of the year making sampling impossible some months); the seasonality of the data with regards to the parameter being assessed; the data values in relation to the water quality criteria for that parameter; and results of other data including historical data at the site.

Tier 3 data is data that does not meet data quality requirements described under Tier 1. This data is not used for 305(b)/303(d) listing purposes, but may be used for screening purposes to help EPD select sites for future sampling. Data that is collected by third parties that was not collected under an approved SQAP and who do not show that their data was collected and analyzed in such a manner that it would have received SQAP approval fall into Tier 3. In addition, when EPD, USGS or other agencies collect data and these data do not meet their respective quality guidelines, then these data are not used for listing purposes.

III. Data Assessment Period All readily available data and information for the calendar years 2013-2015 were considered in development of Georgia's 2016 305(b)/303(d) List of Waters. For data collected in 2015, typically only data from January thru June are available for assessment. Currently, Georgia has over 2,000 waterbodies on its 305(b)/303(d) list of waters. It is not possible to obtain new data on all of these waters every two years. In cases where no new data has been collected between 2013 and 2015, EPD continues to use the older available data for the waterbodies to make their assessments. In addition, data from 2010 through 2012 are considered along with the 2013 through 2015 data, when assessing a waterbody, if the data set is continuous. For instance, if data were collected every year from 2010-2015, then the data from all these years are used in the assessment. On the other hand, if data was collected in 2010, but not again until 2014, then only the 2014 data are used in the assessment, since conditions may have changed in the intervening years. There are instances where EPD may choose not to

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-3

use all years of consecutive data in the assessment of a waterbody. For example, where a local government or group has conducted specific water quality improvement efforts in the watershed of a waterbody and the data collected before and after the improvement projects provide a clear indication that the project has succeeded in improving water quality, EPD may choose only to use data collected after implementation of the water quality improvements. It is the responsibility of the local government or group to submit specific documentation to EPD including a description of the improvement project, its location, the date of implementation, along with the water quality data supporting the assertion that the project has been successful.

IV. Data Collection and Areas of Focus

Section 305b of the Clean Water Act requires States to assess the quality of their waters. To meet this goal, Georgia collects water quality data for a number of physical/chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, fecal coliform bacteria, metals, pesticides, etc. Biological data is also collected at some sites (fish or macroinvertebrates) to assess the health of the aquatic community. Fish tissue data is collected at some sites to enable the State to detect concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish that may be harmful to consumers and guide appropriate future actions to protect public health and the environment. The goal of the State's monitoring program is to collect data that accurately represents the condition of the waterbody that can vary throughout the year. The State's monitoring program is designed to collect data in different seasons to capture the impact of seasonality on the data. In addition, water quality samples are collected in both wet and dry weather, with the exception that samples are not taken if conditions are dangerous to personnel or if there is no visible water flow in a stream to be sampled.

EPD used data collected from across the State to develop its 2016 305(b)/303(d) list of waters. EPD currently has monitoring staff located in four offices across the State (Atlanta, Cartersville, Brunswick and Tifton). By spreading its monitoring staff out in different regions of the State, EPD is better able to monitor waters throughout the State each year. In addition, EPD receives data from other GA DNR Divisions such as Georgia's Wildlife Resources Division and Georgia's Coastal Resources Division. EPD also accepts data from outside groups. This data may have been taken from anywhere in the State. Finally, EPD may conduct special projects and the data from these special projects can also be used for assessment purposes.

V.

Data Rounding

When assessing State waters, EPD compares water quality data with their respective water

quality criteria. Water quality data for a given parameter will be rounded to the same number

of significant digits as the criterion for that parameter before the two are compared for the

purpose of making listing determinations. Should it be necessary to perform mathematical

operations with the data before comparison with the appropriate criterion (such as the

calculation of an average of a number of data points), EPD will keep extra decimal places

throughout the calculations and then round to the appropriate number of decimal places at

the end. This practice prevents the propagation of rounding errors throughout the calculation.

VI. Assessment of Waters Using the 5-Part Categorization System The USEPA has strongly encouraged States to move to a five-part categorization of their waters. EPD first adopted the five-part categorization system with the 2008 305(b)/303(d) report. Assessed waters are placed into one or more of five categories as described below:

Category 1 Data indicate that waters are meeting their designated use(s).

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-4

Category 2 A waterbody has more than one designated use and data indicate that at least one designated use is being met, but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether all uses are being met. Category 3 There is insufficient data/information to make a determination as to whether or not the designated use(s) is being met. Category 4a Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met, but a TMDL(s) has been completed for the parameter(s) that is causing a waterbody not to meet its use(s). Category 4b - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met, but there are actions in place (other than a TMDL) that are predicted to lead to compliance with water quality standards. Category 4c - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met, but the impairment is not caused by a pollutant. Category 5 - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met and TMDL(s) need to be completed for one or more pollutants. Category 5R - Data indicate that at least one designated use is not being met; however, TMDL development is deferred while an alternative restoration plan is pursued. If the alternative restoration plan is not successful, then the water will be placed back in Category 5 and a TMDL will be developed.
A waterbody will be assessed as supporting its designated use (Category 1); not supporting its use (Category 4 or 5); or use assessment pending (Category 2 or 3). It is possible for a waterbody to be in category 4 and 5 at the same time if it is impaired by more than one pollutant. For instance, if a waterbody were impaired for fecal coliform bacteria and dissolved oxygen and a TMDL had been completed only for dissolved oxygen, then the waterbody will be placed in category 4a for dissolved oxygen and category 5 for fecal coliform bacteria.
VII. Assessment Methodology for Making Use Support Decisions (Listing/Delisting Strategies)
The following provides an outline of the assessment methodology employed during the 2016 Listing Cycle. The conditions under the header "listing" describe what data are needed to place a waterbody on the "not supporting" list for a specific parameter. The conditions under the header "delisting" describe what data are needed to remove a specific parameter from the "not supporting" list. Generally, the data required to "delist" a parameter are the same as would be required to assess a waterbody as "supporting" its use for the parameter in question. The methodology below also describes a number of situations that would result in a waterbody being placed in Category 3 "assessment pending."
A "preferred minimum data set" is provided for a number of the parameters below. If the quantity of data available is less than the "preferred minimum set," EPD uses best professional judgment to determine if there are sufficient data available to make an assessment of use support or if the waterbody should be placed in Category 3 until more data are collected. Best professional judgment is also used in cases where data are determined to be suspect.
A. Fecal Coliform Bacteria: Preferred minimum data set 4 geometric means (2 collected in winter months and 2 in summer months). Each geometric mean consisted of at least 3 samples collected in a 30-day period. 1. Listing a. One year of available data (Geometric Mean): 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting their use designation if more than 10% of the geometric means exceed the water quality criteria. b. Multiple consecutive years of available data (Geometric Mean):

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-5

1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if (a) more than 10% of the geometric means exceed the water quality criteria or (b) if 10% of the geometric means exceed the water quality criteria and one or more winter maximum violations occurred in the 30 day data set(s) where the geometric mean meet the water quality criteria.
c. Single Sample Data: In the absence of sufficient data in a data set to calculate a geometric mean, the USEPA's Listing Guidance is used to assess bacterial data as described below. EPD uses its best professional judgment when determining whether to use the single sample data to make a use assessment or to place the waterbody in Category 3 until sufficient data can be collected for use determination. Some factors in making this determination include the size of the data set, the time of year samples were collected, the consistency of the data (i.e. were most of the samples well over the single sample criteria), etc. If it is determined that the single sample data are sufficient for making a use determination: 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if more than 10% of the single samples exceed the USEPA's recommended review criteria for bacteria of 400/100 mL during the months of May-October, and 4,000/100 mL during the months of November-April with the exception of waters classified as "Recreation" where the review criteria are 400/100 mL JanuaryDecember.
d. Waters within "shellfish growing areas": Georgia's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) designates certain waters of the State as being shellfish growing areas. CRD designates shellfish harvesting areas within the growing areas. CRD monitors these waters for fecal coliform contamination in accordance with FDA requirements. A geometric mean using the most recent 30 data points is calculated and this mean is compared against FDA's criterion of 14 MPN/100 mL. In addition, the 90th percentile of the 30 samples is calculated and compared with FDA's criteria of 43 MPN/100 ml for a five tube decimal dilution test; 49 MPN/100 ml for a three tube decimal dilution test or 31 CFU/100 ml for a MF (mTEC) test. 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting their designated use if the geometric mean of the most recent 30 samples is greater than 14 MPN/100 mL or if the 90th percentile exceeds the values provided above based upon the testing method used.
2. Delisting a. One year of available data: 1. Waters are eligible for delisting for fecal coliform if 10% or less of the geometric means exceed the water quality criteria. If fewer than 4 geometric means are available for assessment, EPD may consider a waterbody eligible for delisting if there are at least two summer geometric means available for assessment and they comply with the water quality criteria. b. Multiple consecutive years of available data: 1. Waters are eligible for delisting for fecal coliform bacteria if 10% or fewer of the geometric means exceed the water quality criteria. c. Single Sample Data: Single sample data are typically not be used for delisting purposes as the preferred data set would include the ability to calculate geometric means. However, EPD may consider using single

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-6

sample data for delisting using best professional judgment. Some factors to be taken into consideration are the size of the data set, the time of year samples were taken and/or whether the original "not supporting" designation was based on single sample data or geometric means. If it is determined that the single sample data are sufficient for making a use determination: 1. Waterbodies are eligible for delisting for fecal coliform if 10% or
fewer of the single samples exceed the USEPA's recommended review criteria for bacteria of 400/100 mL during the months of MayOctober, and 4,000/100 mL during the months of November-April with the exception of waters classified as "Recreation" where the review criteria are 400/100 mL January-December. d. Waters within "shellfish growing areas" 1. Waters are eligible for delisting for fecal coliform bacteria if the geometric mean of the last 30 data points is less than or equal to 14 MPN/100 mL and the 90th percentile of the last 30 data points does not exceed the values provided above based upon the testing method used.
B. Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH, Water Temperature: preferred minimum data set 12 samples in a 12 month period with 1 or 2 samples collected per month. In the case of continuous data (where a probe is left in the water for a long period of time and data is recorded multiple times per day), EPD may choose not to monitor the water for an entire year. Data need to be available for the critical period to be used for listing decisions (e.g. summer data needed for DO and temperature assessment). 1. Listing* a. Dissolved Oxygen - One year of available data or multiple consecutive years of available data: 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if more than 10% of the data do not meet the water quality criteria. In the case of continuous data a waterbody would be determined not to be supporting its use if more than 10% of the data in the critical period exceeds the criteria. 2. In the case where the DO criteria is not met more than 10% of the time, but where a "natural" dissolved oxygen concentration has been established, then the dissolved oxygen data are compared against the established "natural" dissolved oxygen concentration. If any of the data points are less than the "natural" dissolved oxygen concentration, then the waterbody is determined not to be supporting its designated use. If none of the DO data are less than the "natural" DO, then the waterbody is determined to be "supporting" its use (as far as DO is concerned). b. Water Temperature, pH - One year or multiple consecutive years of available data: 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if more than 10% of the data do not meet water quality criteria. In the case of continuous data a waterbody would be determined not to be supporting its use if more than 10% of the data in the critical period exceeds the criteria. * Chapter 391-3-6-.03(7) of the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control recognizes that some waters of the State "naturally" will not meet the instream criteria in the Rules and that this situation does not constitute a

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-7

violation of water quality standards. Many waters in Georgia, specifically areas in South Georgia and near the Coast, have "natural" dissolved oxygen concentrations below the State's standard dissolved oxygen criteria (daily average of 5.0 mg/l and an instantaneous minimum of 4.0 mg/l). If a waterbody does not meet the DO criteria more than 10% of the time and the waterbody is located in an area of the State where it is anticipated that the low dissolved oxygen condition is natural, then EPD will place the waterbody in Category 3 until work is completed that establishes the "natural" dissolved oxygen concentration for the waterbody. The measured dissolved oxygen data is then compared with the "natural" dissolved oxygen concentration and an assessment is made as to whether the waterbody is meeting its designated use.
Georgia has many blackwater streams. The pH of blackwater streams is naturally low. If a waterbody has been identified as a blackwater stream, then it is not listed as impaired if greater than 10% of the pH measurements are less than minimum pH criterion of 6.0, as long as there is no point source or land use issues that may be contributing to the low pH status of the stream.
2. Delisting a. Dissolved Oxygen - One year or multiple consecutive years of available data: 1. Waters are eligible for delisting for DO if 10% or less of the data are lower than the water quality criteria. In the case of continuous data a waterbody would be eligible for delisting if 10% or less of the data in the critical period exceeds the criteria. 2. In the case where the DO criteria is not met more than 10% of the time, but where a "natural" dissolved oxygen concentration has been established, the instream DO data is compared against the "natural" DO. If no violations of the natural dissolved oxygen concentration occur, the segment is eligible for delisting. b. Water Temperature, pH - One year or multiple consecutive years of available data: 1. Waters are eligible for delisting for temperature or pH if 10% or less of the data does not meet the water quality criteria. In the case of continuous data a waterbody would be eligible for delisting if 10% or less of the data in the critical period exceeds the criteria
C. Metals: preferred minimum data set 2 samples in a 12 month period (1 winter, 1 summer) 1. Listing a. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting their use designation if one sample exceeds the acute criteria in a three-year period or if more than one sample exceeds the chronic criteria in three years. 2. Delisting a. Waters are eligible for delisting of metals if no exceedences of the acute criteria occur and no more than one exceedence of the chronic criteria occurs in three years.
D. Priority Pollutant/Organic Chemicals: preferred minimum data set 2 samples in a 12 month period (1 winter, 1 summer) 1. Listing

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-8

a. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting their use designation if more than one sample exceeds the criteria in a three-year period.
2. Delisting a. Waters are eligible for delisting for priority pollutants/organic chemicals if no more than one exceedence of the criteria occurs in a three-year period.
E. Toxicity: 1. Listing a. Acute or Chronic toxicity tests conducted on municipal or industrial effluent samples and receiving waters Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if: 1. Effluent toxicity test(s) consistently predict in-stream toxicity at critical 7Q10 low stream flow and/or if toxicity tests performed on receiving waters consistently indicate that the waterbody is toxic. 2. Delisting a. New data with a facility consistently passing WET test(s) (if listing originated based on effluent toxicity test results) are eligible for delisting. b. New data with receiving waters consistently passing toxicity test(s) (if listing originated based on stream toxicity test results) are eligible for delisting.
F. Fish/Shellfish Consumption Guidelines: 1. Listing a. All Fish/Shellfish Tissue Contaminants Except Mercury: 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if the State's fish consumption guidelines document recommends that consumption needs to be limited or if no consumption is recommended. b. Fish/Shellfish Tissue - Mercury: 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting their use designation if the Trophic-Weighted Residue Value (as described in the October 19, 2001 EPD "Protocol"), is in excess of Georgia's water quality criterion of 0.3 mg/kg wet weight mercury. Waters where the calculated Trophic-Weighted Residue Value for mercury is equal to 0.3 mg/kg wet weight total are put in Category 3. 2. Delisting a. All Fish/Shellfish Tissue Contaminants Except Mercury: 1. Waters are eligible for delisting if there is no consumption restrictions and fish/shellfish can be consumed in unlimited amounts. b. Fish/Shellfish Tissue - Mercury: 1. Waters are eligible for delisting if the calculated Trophic-Weighted Residue Values for mercury in fish tissue is less than or equal to 0.3 mg/kg wet weight total. Waters where the calculated TrophicWeighted Residue Value for mercury is equal to 0.3 mg/kg wet weight total are put in Category 3.
G. Biotic Data (Fish Bioassessments): 1. Listing Fish Bioassessments are based on Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) data. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if: a. The IBI ranking is "Poor" or "Very Poor"; 2. Delisting

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-9

a. Waters are eligible for delisting if the waterbody has a Fish IBI rank f "Excellent", "Good", or "Fair"
H. Biotic Data (Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments): 1. Listing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments based on a multi-metric index. a. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if the narrative rankings are "Poor" or "Very Poor". b. If the narrative ranking is "Fair", then the waterbody is placed in Category 3. 2. Delisting a. Waterbodies are eligible for delisting if the waterbody scores a narrative ranking of "Very Good" or "Good". If a waterbody scores "Fair", it is placed in Category 3.
I. Data from Lakes with Site-Specific Criteria: Site-specific numeric criteria have been established for 6 major lakes in Georgia including 1) West Point Lake, 2) Lake Walter F. George, 3) Lake Jackson, 4) Lake Allatoona, 5) Lake Sidney Lanier and 6) Carters Lake. These lakes are monitored annually and assessed for these parameters as described below: 1. Listing a. Chlorophyll a (lake stations): The last five calendar years of chlorophyll a data collected at each site-specific lake criteria station are assessed. 1. If during the five-year assessment period, the growing season average exceeds the site-specific growing season criteria 2 (or more) out of the last 5 years, the lake area representative for that station is assessed as not supporting its designated uses. If the average exceeds the site-specific growing season criteria for 1 out of last 5 years, the waterbody is placed in Category 3. b. Total Nitrogen (lake stations): The last five calendar years of total nitrogen concentrations collected at each site-specific lake criteria station are assessed. 1. For Lakes other than Lake Allatoona: If greater than 10% of the total nitrogen values exceed the site-specific criteria, the lake area representative for that station is assessed as not supporting its designated uses. 2. For Lake Allatoona: A growing season average for each of the last five years is calculated for each site-specific lake criteria station. If any of the five growing season averages exceed the criterion, then the lake area is represented by that station is assessed as not supporting designated uses. c. Fecal Coliform: Typically only single sample data are available for evaluation. The data from the last 5 years are evaluated. If there are sufficient data to calculate a geometric mean, the procedures in Part VII.A.1. of this document are followed. 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting their use designation if more than 10% of the single samples exceeded the USEPA's recommended review criteria for bacteria of 400/100 mL during the months of May-October, and 4,000/100 mL during the months of November-April with the exception of waters classified as "Recreation" where the review criteria are 400/100 mL JanuaryDecember.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-10

d. Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Water Temperature: The last five calendar years of available data are assessed. 1. Waterbodies are determined not to be supporting use designation if more than 10% of the data do not meet water quality criteria
e. Major Lake Tributary Annual Total Phosphorous Loading Criteria: Annual total phosphorous loadings for each major lake tributary standard station are calculated for each of the last five calendar years. 1. If the average of the annual total phosphorous loadings exceeds the site-specific criteria, the site is assessed as not supporting designated uses.
f. Major Lake Annual Total Phosphorous Loading Criteria: The annual total phosphorus loading for each lake is calculated for each of the last five calendar years. 1. If the average of the annual total phosphorous loadings exceeds the site-specific criteria, the site is assessed as not supporting its designated uses.
2. Delisting a. Chlorophyll a (lake stations): The last five calendar years of chlorophyll a data collected at each site-specific lake standard station are assessed. 1. If during the five-year assessment period, there are no chlorophyll a growing season averages exceeding the site-specific growing season criteria, the lake area representative for that station is eligible for delisting. If the average exceeds the site-specific growing season criteria for 1 out of 5 years, the waterbody is placed in Category 3. b. Total Nitrogen (lake stations): The last five calendar years of total nitrogen concentrations collected at each site-specific lake standard station are assessed. 1. For Lakes other than Lake Allatoona: If 10% or less of the total nitrogen values exceed the site-specific criteria, the lake area representative for that station is eligible for delisting. 2. For Lake Allatoona: A growing season average for each of the last five years is calculated for each site-specific lake criteria station. If none of the five growing season averages exceed the criterion, then the lake area that is represented by that station is eligible for delisting. c. Fecal Coliform: Typically only single sample data are available for evaluation. The data from the last 5 years are assessed. (If there are sufficient data to calculate a geometric mean, the procedures in Part VII.A.2. of this document are followed). 1. The waterbody is eligible for delisting if 10% or less of the single samples exceed the USEPA's recommended review criteria for bacteria of 400/100 mL during the months of May-October, and 4,000/100 mL during the months of November-April with the exception of waters classified as "Recreation" where the review criteria are 400/100 mL January-December. d. Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Water Temperature: The last five calendar years of available data are assessed. 1. If 10% or less of the data do not meet water quality criteria, the water is eligible for delisting. e. Major Lake Tributary Annual Total Phosphorous Loading Criteria: Annual total phosphorous loadings for each major lake tributary standard station were calculated for each of the last five calendar years.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-11

1. If the average of the annual total phosphorous loadings does not exceed the site-specific criteria then the site was eligible for delisting.
f. Major Lake Annual Total Phosphorous Loading Criteria: The annual total phosphorus loading for each lake is calculated for each of the last five calendar years. 1. If the average of the annual total phosphorous loadings does not exceed the site-specific criteria then the site is eligible for delisting.
J. Enterococci Data Collected under the BEACH Act: Preferred minimum data set 10 geometric means. Each geometric mean is to consist of at least 3 samples collected in a 30 day period. If there is insufficient data (such as when data is collected monthly), then a longer averaging period (recreational season instead of 30 days) is used to calculate a single geometric mean per year. Beaches are sampled at different frequencies depending upon how many people use them for recreation and their proximity to potential pollution sources. Beaches are sampled either weekly year round; or monthly from April to October; or quarterly (see 1.d. under "Listing" below, and 2. D. under "Delisting' below for more details on quarterly beach sampling) 1. Listing a. Monthly Samples: An annual geometric mean is calculated for each year using Enterococci data from the Recreational Season (May October). 1. If there are five consecutive years of annual geometric means available for assessment, a beach is assessed as not supporting its use designation if more than one annual geometric mean exceeds the criterion (35/100 mL). If there are fewer than five consecutive years of data available for assessment, a beach is assessed as not supporting its use designation if at least one annual geometric mean exceeds the criterion. b. Weekly Samples: Rolling geometric means are calculated using data from all months (not just the Recreational Season) from the last 5 years. Each geometric mean consists of at least 3 samples taken in a 30-day period. 1. Beaches are determined not to be supporting their designated use if more than 10% of the geometric means exceed the criterion. c. Mixture of Monthly and Weekly Samples 1. If during the last five years, data are collected monthly some years and weekly other years, then EPD assesses each data type separately as described above. If both the monthly and weekly data types indicate that a beach is not in compliance with the Enterococci criterion as described above, then the beach is assessed as not supporting its use. If the monthly and weekly data types support different listing decisions, then EPD uses its best professional judgment in making the listing determination. Generally, more weight is placed on the weekly data and on the most recent data set. d. Quarterly Samples: Beaches under a permanent beach advisory are only sampled quarterly. Geometric means are calculated using data from all four quarters, regardless of whether they are taken in the recreational season. 1. If there are five consecutive years of annual geometric means available for assessment, a beach is assessed as not supporting its use designation if more than one annual geometric mean exceeds the criterion (35/100 mL). If there are fewer than five consecutive years of data available for assessment, a beach is assessed as not supporting its

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-12

use designation if at least one annual geometric mean exceeds the criterion. 2. Delisting a. Monthly Samples: An annual geometric mean is calculated for each year using Enterococci data from the Recreational Season (May October). 1. If there are five consecutive years of annual geometric means
available for assessment and one or fewer annual geometric means exceeds the criterion, the beach is eligible for delisting. If there are fewer than five consecutive years of data available for assessment, a beach is be eligible for delisting if none of the annual geometric means exceed the criterion. b. Weekly Samples: Rolling geometric means are calculated using data from all months (not just the Recreational Season) from the last five years. Each geometric mean consists of at least 3 samples taken in a 30-day period. 1. If 10% or less of the geometric means exceed the criterion, the beach is eligible for delisting. c. Mixture of Monthly and Weekly Samples 1. If during the last five years, data are collected monthly some years and weekly other years, then EPD assesses each data type separately as described above. If both the monthly and weekly data types indicate that a beach is in compliance with the Enterococci criterion as described above, then the beach is eligible for delisting. d. Quarterly Samples: Beaches under a permanent beach advisory are only sampled quarterly. Geometric means are calculated using data from all four quarters, regardless of whether they were taken in the recreational season. 1. If there are five consecutive years of annual geometric means available for assessment and one or fewer annual geometric means exceeds the criterion, the beach is eligible for delisting. If there were fewer than five consecutive years of data available for assessment, a beach is be eligible for delisting if none of the annual geometric means exceed the criterion. 3. Swimming Advisories a. Beach swimming advisories are issued when either the most recent Enterococci geometric mean exceeds 35/100 mL or the most recent single sample exceeds 104/100 mL. b. The swimming advisory is lifted when new data shows both the geometric mean and single sample data meet the criteria.
K. Objectionable Algae (Nutrients) 1. Listing a. A waterbody is listed for objectionable algae based upon visual observation of excessive algae, duckweed, or other aquatic plant life by field staff along with other factors including high concentrations of nutrients in the waterbody compared with other waters in the same river basin, and diurnal DO and pH swings indicative of high algae or plant activity (higher DO and pH later in the day and lower DO in the early morning). 2. Delisting a. A waterbody is considered for delisting for objectionable algae if visual observation by field staff reveal that algae, duckweed, or other aquatic plant life is no longer excessive compared to other streams in the area,

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-13

and the DO, pH, and nutrient data are at levels that no longer indicated a problem with excessive algae/plant life.
VIII. Priorities for Action Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires each State to "establish a priority ranking" for the segments it identifies on the 303(d) list (i.e. those waters in Category 5). This ranking is to take into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such segments. The State is to establish TMDLs in accordance with the priority ranking. States are given considerable flexibility in establishing their ranking system. Georgia typically uses a basin rotation approach when it comes to drafting TMDLs. There are some cases where EPD may choose to draft a TMDL outside of the basin rotation schedule. Factors influencing this decision could include the severity of the pollution and whether development of the TMDL may require additional data collection and complex analysis. TMDLs are typically finalized sometime during the year after they are proposed. EPD has chosen to implement the priority ranking by indicating the year by which the TMDL for each segment on the 303(d) list will be drafted. TMDLs may be drafted before the year indicated in the report.
All dates provided are within the 13-year timeframe that is allowed for TMDL development as provided in the US EPA 1997 Interpretative Guidance for the TMDL Program. This guidance states that States should develop schedules for establishing TMDLs expeditiously, generally within 8-13 years of being listed.
In addition, US EPA has developed a new Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection of waters. This Vision focuses on six elements including 1) Prioritization, 2) Assessment, 3) Protection, 4) Alternatives, 5) Engagement, and 6) Integration. In accordance with this Vision, EPD has developed a Draft Priority Framework that describes how GA EPD will prioritize waters on the 303(d) list for development of TMDLs or TMDL alternatives. The framework, along with the State's list of Priority Waters can be found on the EPD website at: http://epd.georgia.gov/georgia-305b303d-list-documents

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-14

Data Source Code/ Key for Abbreviations

Data Source 1 = DNR-EPD, Watershed Planning & Monitoring
Program 2 = DNR-EPD, Watershed Compliance Program
(Municipal) 3 = DNR-EPD, Watershed Compliance Program
(Industrial) 4 = DNR, Wildlife Resources Division 5 = DNR, Coastal Resources Division 6 = State University of West Georgia 7 = Gainesville College 8 = Georgia Institute of Technology 9 = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 10 = U.S. Geological Survey 11 = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 12 = U.S. Forest Service 13 = Tennessee Valley Authority 14 = Cobb County 15 = Dekalb County 16 = Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority 17 = Fulton County
18 = Gwinnett County
19 = City of Clayton 20 = City of Gainesville 21 = City of LaGrange 22 = Georgia Mountains R.D.C. 23 = City of Conyers 24 = Lake Allatoona (Kennesaw State University) 25 = Lake Blackshear (Lake Blackshear Watershed
Association) 26 = Lake Lanier (University of Georgia) 27 = West Point (LaGrange College/
Auburn University) 28 = Georgia Power Company 29 = Oglethorpe Power Company 30 = South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 31 = South Carolina DHEC 32 = Jones Ecological Research Center 33 = Alabama DEM 34 = City of College Park 35 = Kennesaw State University 36 = University of Georgia 37 = Columbus Water Works 38 = Columbus Unified Government 39 = St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District 40 = Town of Trion 41 = Cherokee County Water & Sewerage Authority

42 = Clayton County Water Authority
43 = City of Atlanta
44 = City of Cartersville
45 = Georgia Ports Authority 46 = Chattahoochee/Flint RDC 47 = Upper Etowah Adopt-A-Stream 48 = Middle Flint RDC 49 = Central Savannah RDC 50 = Chatham County 51 = City of Savannah 52 = Heart of Georgia RDC 53 = City of Augusta 54 = Southwire Company 55 = DNR-EPD, Brunswick Coastal District 56 = DNR-EPD, Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Branch 57 = Ellijay High School 58 = DNR, Georgia Parks Recreation & Historic
Sites Division 59 = DNR-EPD, Ambient Monitoring Unit
(Macroinvertebrate Team) 60 = Forsyth County 61 = Tyson Foods, Inc. 62 = South Georgia RDC 63 = Northeast GA RDC 64 = Ogeechee Canoochee Riverkeeper 65 = Screven County 66 = Coastal GA RDC
67 = City of Roswell 68 = City of Alpharetta
69 = Columbia County 70 = Southwest GA RDC 71 = Southeast GA RDC 72 = Coweta County 73 = Middle GA RDC 74 = Bartow County 75 = Atlanta Regional Commission 76 = Soquee River Watershed Partnership 77 = Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper 78 = Henry County 79 = City of Suwanee

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-15

Criterion Violated Codes

As

= Arsenic

Algae = Objectionable Algae

Bio F = Biota Impacted (Fish Community)

Bio M = Biota Impacted (Macroinvertebrate

Community)

Cd

= Cadmium

Cu

= Copper

1,1-DCE = 1,1- Dichloroethylene

DO = Dissolved Oxygen

CFB = Commercial Fishing Ban

FC

= Fecal Coliform Bacteria

FCG = Fish Consumption Guidance

Hg

= Mercury

P

= Phosphorus

Pb

= Lead

PCE = Tetrachloroethylene

SB

= Shellfishing Ban*

Se

= Selenium

Temp = Temperature

TCA = 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane

TCE = Trichloroethylene

Tox = Toxicity Indicated

TWR Zn

= Trophic-Weighted Residue Value of mercury in fish tissue exceeding the EPD human health standard of 0.3 mg/kg
= Zinc

Potential Cause Codes

CSO = Combined Sewer Overflow

I1

= Industrial Facility

I2

= Residual from Industrial Source

M

= Municipal Facility

NP

= Nonpoint Sources/Unknown Sources

UR

= Urban Runoff/Urban Effects

* Shellfishing Ban (SB) is listed as an impairment for waters where shellfish should not be harvested/eaten due to concerns about pollutant contamination. It is important to note that public and commercial shellfishing in coastal waters is only permissible in designated "Approved Harvest Areas" throughout the coastal region. Shellfish growing area waters are monitored regularly to ensure that these areas remain in compliance with the FDA fecal coliform thresholds. All other waters of the state are classified as "Prohibited", and are closed to the taking of shellfish. Georgia's Coastal Resources Division maintains a map of approved public shellfishing areas which can be found at the following website: http://coastalgadnr.org/maps.

WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

A-16