{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2019","title":"Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2019.","collection_id":"dlg_ggpd","collection_title":"Georgia Government Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, issuing body.","Georgia Coastal Management Program, issuing body.","University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Integration and Application Network.","Georgia. Department of Natural Resources (1972- )"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2019"],"dcterms_description":["Began with: 2015.","\"This report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2016.\"--2015, final page.","Georgia Coastal Management Program appears as a co-publisher on some pieces although it is part of of: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division.","Continues the monograph: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division. Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card 2014.","2015, published in April 2016 (Harvested on July 14, 2016 from www.coastalgadnr.org); title from PDF cover (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023).","2020 (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023)."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["[Brunswick, Georgia] : Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 2016-"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Coastal ecosystem health--Georgia--Periodicals.","Coastal zone management--Georgia--Periodicals.","Georgia Government Documents--Serial"],"dcterms_title":["Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2019."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2019"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2019"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["state government records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"iiif_manifest_url_ss":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Coastal Georgia \n2019 Ecosystem \nReport Card \n \nCoDaesptaratlmeRnetsoof Nuartucreasl RDesiovuirscieos n \n \nB. Galland \n \n CRD/DNR \n \nhealth \nGood health in 2019 \n \nIndex \n \nFis \n \nT. Keyes/DNR \nHuman Health \n \nheries Index \n \nCoastal Georgia monitoring programs assess oyster reefs (top), wood stork productivity (middle), and sea turtle hatching (bottom). \n \nA. Raybould/DNR \n \nWildlife Index \n \nScoring Legend 80100% good 60\u003c80% moderately good 40\u003c60% moderate 20\u003c40% poor 0\u003c20% very poor \n \nCoastal Georgia received an A-, 80%, a good score. Three indices covering 11 indicators including human health, fisheries, and wildlife data make up the grade for coastal Georgia. \n \nB \n \nThe human health index scored a 88%, or B, in 2019. Overall, human health indicators are \nB good, meaning that it is generally \nsafe to swim and to eat local shellfish. Data on fish consumption advisories were insufficient for use in the report this year. \n \nThe fisheries index scored a 92%, or A, in 2019. Overall, fisheries indicators are good, which \nB means that sustainable fishing \npractices are used and the coastal environment is able to support most commercial and recreational species. \n \nThe wildlife index scored a 60%, or B-, in 2019. Overall, wildlife indicators are moderate. Wood stork and sea turtle populations are being maintained, and American oystercatcher populations had a near-record season. \n \nINDICATORS \n \nfecal coliform 99% \n \nenterococcus 89% \n \nshrimp 75% \n \nred drum 100% \n \nblue crab 100% \n \n methods \n \nAnalyzing data \u0026 calculating scores \n \nEnvironmental report cards are used by resource managers to assess and report on the ecosystem health of a region. Developing rigorous, quantitative assessments provides an accountability that is increasingly beneficial to support environmental protection efforts. A five-step process is used to develop report cards: 1) conceptualize, 2) choose indicators, 3) define thresholds, 4) calculate scores, and 5) communicate results. \nThis report card provides a transparent, timely, and geographically detailed assessment of health in coastal Georgia. Coastal Georgia health in 2019 is defined as the progress of two human health indicators (enterococcus and fecal coliform), three fisheries indicators (red drum, blue crabs, and shrimp), and six wildlife indicators (wood storks, American oystercatchers, sea turtle hatching, sea turtle nesting, right whale calves, and right whale population growth rate) toward scientifically derived thresholds or goals. Each of these groups of indicators are averaged into indices: the human health, fisheries, and wildlife indices. The three indices are combined into the Coastal Georgia Ecological Health Score. \nPreliminary analysis of water quality indicators was conducted during development of this report card. Although there are thresholds for water quality indicators through Environmental Protection Agency's National Coastal Condition Assessment, they do not adequately apply to the unique conditions in coastal Georgia (see highlights page). \nFor detailed information on indicators, thresholds, and methodology visit CoastalGaDNR.org/ReportCard. \n \n1 \n \n2 \n \nCreate a framework defining key goals, values, and threats. \n3 \n \nSelect indicators that convey meaningful information. \n4 \n \nDefine reporting regions and method of threshold attainment. \n5 \n \nCalculate indicator scores and combine into index grades. \n \nCommunicate results using visual elements, such as photos, maps, and conceptual diagrams. \n \nGrading scale for the indicators \nThe report card grading scale is a little different from the grading scale you saw in school. We use a 20-point scale to score the indicators, instead of the 10-point scale. Using a 20-point scale for environmental report cards is widely accepted as the best way to communicate health of an ecosystem. By using a scale that is equally divided, small changes in indicators can be more easily seen over time. \n \n80100% \n \n60\u003c80% \n \nAll human health, fisheries, and Most human health, fisheries, \n \nwildlife indicators meet desired and wildlife indicators meet \n \nlevels. Indicators in these \n \ndesired levels. Indicators in \n \nlocations tend to be very goroed,d drtuhmese6lo9ca%tions tend to be \n \nmost often leading to preferred good, often leading to \n \nhabitat conditions. \n \nacceptable habitat conditions. \n \n40\u003c60% \nThere is a mix of good and poor levels of human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators. \nbInlduiceatcorrsaibn tsh6es2e%locations \ntend to be fair, leading to sufficient habitat conditions. \n \n20\u003c40% \n \n0\u003c20% \n \nSome or few human health, \n \nVery few or no human health, \n \nfisheries, and wildlife indicators fisheries, and wildlife indicators \n \nmeet dAesmireedrleicvealsn. Indicators in theseolyoscatteionrsctaetncdhtoebrse \n \nmeet \n61%these \n \ndesired levels. Indicators in \nlocations tendwtooboedvesrtyorks \n \n70% \n \npoor, often leading to degraded poor, most often leading to \n \nhabitat conditions. \n \nunacceptable habitat conditions. \n \nAmerican 86% oystercatcher \n \nwood stork 78% \n \nright whale calves 34% \n \nright whale population \n \n0% \n \nsea turtle hatchlings \n \n64% \n \nsea turtle nesting \n \n100% \n \n features \nMarshes, beaches, \u0026 estuaries \n \nSouth Carolina \nSavannah \n \nGeorgia \n \nOgeechee \n \nAltamaha \n \nSuwannee \n \nSatilla \n \nSt. Mary's \n \nAtlantic Ocean \n \nFlorida \n \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nLegend \nConservation Lands \n \nWetlands \n \nShore and Sea Bird Habitat \n \nSea Turtle Nesting Habitat \n \nShellfish Harvest Areas \n \n0 \n \n10 \n \n20 Miles \n \n0 10 20Miles \n \nCoastal Georgia is dominated by marshes and wetlands, and provides \n \nhabitat for birds, shellfish, and sea turtles. \n \nLocated in the center of the South Atlantic Bight, coastal Georgia is a region rich in history, beauty, and natural wonders. Georgia's coast is bound on the east by 14 barrier islands which buffer the mainland from the Atlantic Ocean. Most of these islands remain undeveloped and boast pristine beaches perfect for nesting sea turtles and shorebirds. \nFive major freshwater rivers feed the Georgia coast, forming an extensive estuarine ecosystem. The 368,000 acres of saltmarsh provide essential nursery grounds for a diverse range of animals including fish, shrimp, oysters, and birds. Saltmarshes protect upland areas from the force of tides and serve as a natural filtration system for pollutants and nutrients that often enter waterways leading to the ocean. \nCoastal Georgia's river system is woven together by hundreds of streams, brackish and freshwater marshes, bogs, and swamps that extend far inland. This network delivers vast amounts of freshwater to the coast and creates a range of habitats that support diverse wildlife. \nAlthough relatively undeveloped, the coastal Georgia landscape is changing nonetheless. New residents are drawn by the region's natural beauty and abundance of recreational opportunities. Through a combination of wise management, stewardship, and collaboration, everything we love about coastal Georgia can be conserved for generations to come. \n \nThe importance of creating a report card \nThe Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the state agency entrusted to manage Georgia's diverse coastal natural resources. DNR collects data through numerous inventory and monitoring activities conducted along the coast. This report card contains grades for various categories produced by comparing and contrasting data from monitoring activities with known standards and reference points. While this report card does not address every indicator or environmental issue facing the coast, it does provide the public with broad fact-based knowledge about the condition of Georgia's coastal resources. \n \nCRD/DNR \n \nMonitoring a marsh in coastal Georgia. \n \n highlights \nWater quality \u0026 dissolved oxygen \nDNR monitors water quality throughout the coastal region. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is one important indicator used to quantify the health of a water body. Low DO is often a sign of degraded water quality. However, some areas in coastal Georgia, especially upriver blackwater creeks and coastal estuaries not fed by freshwater rivers, naturally experience low DO in warmer months without the expected negative effects of algal blooms, fish die-offs, and reduced species diversity observed elsewhere. \nA preliminary analysis of DO data from 2019 was conducted for this report card using thresholds established by EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment. Coastal Georgia's overall DO score is an 85%, or an A. \nAdditional monitoring and research is underway by DNR to understand how changes in water quality affect these complex systems and to determine other appropriate indicators of coastal health. \n \nDissolved oxygen trend \n2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 81% 85% 83% 85% 84% 85% \n2019 Dissolved Oxygen gets an \n \nCRD/DNR CRD/DNR \n \nRed drum increased their abundance for the third consecutive year. \nFisheries \u0026 blue crabs \nGeorgia's fisheries indicators represent three recreationally and commercially important species. Overall, the Fisheries Index Score was unchanged in 2019 and remained at 92%. For 2019, a drop in the shrimp score was offset by an increase in Red Drum. \nShrimp were scored at 75%, a decline of 12% from 2018. Even so, shrimp numbers and condition were good enough at the end of 2019 that the Shrimp Advisory Panel voted to extend the season until mid-January 2020. \nRed drum were up 10% for a score of 100%, a 10% increase from 2018. For the third consecutive year, Blue Crab abundance was well above average with a score of 100%. \n \nW. Hughes/DNR \n \nDissolved Oxygen station scores in 2019 (top). Water quality monitoring occurs throughout coastal Georgia (bottom). \nBlue crabs remained at 100% during 2019. This is most likely related to environmental conditions that lead to a successful spawn and recruitment. \n \n trends \nLooking at six years of data \n2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 \n92% 92% 92% 90% 95% 99% \n \nTim Keyes/DNR \n \n82% 91% 94% 97% 98% 89% 100% 100% 97% 84% 84% 75% 83% 69% 100% 100% 91% 100% \n \nAmerican oystercatchers had another great year. High productivity in 2019 can be attributed to on going predator suppression on our shell rake and marsh-island habitats, and few nests were lost to high tides. Active predator management on several islands, including Cumberland Island National Seashore, Little Egg Island Bar and Little St. Simons, contributed to high productivity. \n \n22% 62% 47% 100% 100% 100% \n \n46% 61% 30% 19% 86% 86% \n \n67% 70% 62% 84% 81% 78% \n \nCaleigh Quick/DNR \n \nright whale calves \n \n57% 57% 49% 45% 30% 34% \n \nright whale population \nsea turtle hatching \nsea turtle nesting \n \n66% 66% *12% *12% *0% *0% 77% 68% 64% 46% 43% 64% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% \n \nLoggerhead sea turtle hatching success can be influenced by a number of factors, including tidal inundation, nest loss to tropical storm events and predation. As a result, loggerhead hatching success has been variable over the last 20 years ranging from 52% to 74%. Hatching success improved in 2019 as a result of improved nest protection efforts (predator control) and lack of significant tidal surges from tropical storm events. \n \n*North Atlantic right whale photo-identification data are collected by numerous organizations along the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Canada, and are analyzed annually by scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service. In 2016 the NMFS changed the survey methodology to better estimate survival rates and population size, which changed the grading calculation. \n \n looking forward \nPrograms, plans and funding \n \nN ATIO N AL O CEA ERCE \n \nADM IN ISTR ATIO N U .S.D \n \nThese programs are made possible through funding provided, in part, by the following federal grants: \n \nNIC AND ATM O SPHERIC EPARTM EN T O F C O M M \n \nGeorgia Coastal Management Program Grants Provides technical assistance to 11 coastal counties to support sustainable environmentally sensitive economic growth Disburses $850,000, annually, in Coastal Incentive Grants Administers the Shellfish Program for commercial and recreational harvest of shellfish Reviews federal projects to ensure they do not conflict with the best interests of the State of Georgia \nAtlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Grants Coordinates the management of coastal fish species Supports data collection of numerous coastal fishes for management purposes \nInterjurisdictional Marine Fisheries Grants Gathers information and conducts activities to support management of U.S. multi-jurisdictional fisheries Supports shrimp and crab management through state and regional fishery management plans \nNOAA Species Recovery Grants Authority to States pursuant to Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Supports programs to recover federally listed species \nSport Fish Restoration Grants Derived from federal excise taxes paid by the outdoor fishing and boating industry Supports fisheries research, boating access, and outreach and education Supports vessel pump-out monitoring at local marinas \nState and Tribal Wildlife Grants Provides federal funds to states for developing and implementing programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted or fished Provides funds for research, survey, and management programs for proactive conservation of high priority species and habitats identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan \nCooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Provides funding for listed species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal lands Supports the States' ability to recover those federally listed and candidate species under USFWS authority (e.g., wood stork, American oystercatcher) \nBeaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Grants Protects public health by monitoring beach water quality Collaborates with the Public Health Departments and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to resolve chronic issues Informs citizens of the risk of swimming in waters with elevated bacteria - GaHealthyBeaches.org \nWetland Program Development Grants Monitors the health of coastal marshland plant communities and tidal waters Supports wetland restoration efforts of the Department Supports project development on federal, state, and local levels \n \n involvement \nYou can help protect Georgia's coastal resources \n \nHow you can help \nInstall a rain barrel for your home to collect water for irrigation \nInspect and pump out your septic system every 3-5 years \nAbide by all beach lighting rules and ordinances during sea turtle nesting and hatching season \nKnow your recreational fishing catch and size limits \nBuy a Georgia hunting or fishing license or Marine Habitat license plate. \nPick up after your pets \nParticipate in monitoring and cleanup activities in local waterways \n \nBenefits \nConserves water which is essential for healthy productive estuaries. \nFunctioning septic systems keep bacteria from entering waterways, which in turn can help reduce beach advisories and shellfish harvest closures. \nHatchling sea turtles can become easily disoriented and fail to crawl to the water if our homes and flashlights illuminate the beach. \nThese limits help sustain a healthy population of fish species. \nLicense fees support research and conservation of coastal species and habitats. Visit CoastalGaDNR.org/LicensePlate. \nFecal bacteria from pet waste can wash into creeks and rivers, resulting in beach swimming advisories or shellfish harvest closures. \nCitizen data can alert resource managers to potential issues. Visit AdoptaStream.Georgia.gov and RiversAlive.Georgia.gov. \n \nactivities \n \nGeorgia DNR sustains, protects, \u0026 conserves the coast \n \nThe mission of the Department of Natural Resources is to sustain, enhance, protect, and conserve Georgia's natural, historic, and cultural resources for present and future generations, while recognizing the importance of promoting the development of commerce and industry that utilize sound environmental practices. Along Georgia's coast, several Divisions of DNR work collaboratively, including the Coastal Resources Division (CoastalGaDNR.org), Wildlife Resources Division (GeorgiaWildlife.org), and Environmental Protection Division (EPD.Georgia.gov). Together they manage the region's unique natural resources for wildlife habitat, as well as recreational and commercial uses by the citizens of Georgia. \n \nAcknowledgements \nThe first report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2015. Data were collected by Georgia DNR's Coastal Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division, and Environmental Protection Division. This current version provides an assessment for 2019. The report card project was funded by grant award #NA19NOS4190151 from the Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of OCM or NOAA. Special thanks to photographer Ben Galland for his use of the cover photo. \n \nDNR \n \nWorkshop participants in December 2014 who helped produce this report card. \n \nCoastalGaDNR.org \n \n "},{"id":"dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2018","title":"Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2018.","collection_id":"dlg_ggpd","collection_title":"Georgia Government Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, issuing body.","Georgia Coastal Management Program, issuing body.","University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Integration and Application Network.","Georgia. Department of Natural Resources (1972- )"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2018"],"dcterms_description":["Began with: 2015.","\"This report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2016.\"--2015, final page.","Georgia Coastal Management Program appears as a co-publisher on some pieces although it is part of of: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division.","Continues the monograph: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division. Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card 2014.","2015, published in April 2016 (Harvested on July 14, 2016 from www.coastalgadnr.org); title from PDF cover (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023).","2020 (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023)."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["[Brunswick, Georgia] : Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 2016-"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Coastal ecosystem health--Georgia--Periodicals.","Coastal zone management--Georgia--Periodicals.","Georgia Government Documents--Serial"],"dcterms_title":["Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2018."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2018"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2018"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["state government records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"iiif_manifest_url_ss":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"CoDaesptaratlmeRnetsoof Nuartucreasl RDesiovuirscieos n \n \n Human Health \n \nIndex \n \nFis \n \nheries Index \n \nWildlife Index \n \nScoring Legend 80100% good 60\u003c80% moderately good 40\u003c60% moderate 20\u003c40% poor 0\u003c20% very poor \n \nB \n \nB \n \nIndicators \n \n 1 \n \n2 \n \nCreate a framework defining key goals, values, and threats. \n3 \n \nSelect indicators that convey meaningful information. \n4 \n \nDefine reporting regions and method of threshold attainment. \n5 \n \nCalculate indicator scores and combine into index grades. \n \nCommunicate results using visual elements, such as photos, maps, and conceptual diagrams. \n \nF \n \n80100% \nAll human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very good, most often leading to preferred habitat conditions. \n \n60\u003c80% \nMost human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be good, often leading to acceptable habitat conditions. \n \n40\u003c60% \nThere is a mix of good and poor levels of human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators. Indicators in these locations tend to be fair, leading to sufficient habitat conditions. \n \n20\u003c40% \nSome or few human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be poor, often leading to degraded habitat conditions. \n \n0\u003c20% \nVery few or no human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very poor, most often leading to unacceptable habitat conditions. \n \n South Carolina \nSavannah \n \nGeorgia \n \nOgeechee \n \nAltamaha \n \nSuwannee \n \nSatilla \n \nSt. Mary's \n \nAtlantic Ocean \n \nFlorida \n \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nLegend \nConservation Lands \nWetlands \nShore and Sea Bird Habitat \nSea Turtle Nesting Habitat \nShellfish Harvest Areas \n \n0 \n \n10 \n \n20 Miles \n \n0 10 20Miles \n \n Legend DO Score \n80100% 60\u003c80% 40\u003c60% 20\u003c40% 0\u003c20% \n0 10 20 Miles \n \n right whale calves \nright whale population \nsea turtle hatching \nsea turtle nesting \n \n N ATIO N AL O CEA ERCE \n \nADM IN ISTR ATIO N U .S.D \n \nNIC AND ATM O SPHERIC EPARTM EN T O F C O M M \n \n How you can help \nInstall a rain barrel for your home to collect water for irrigation \nInspect and pump out your septic system every 3-5 years \nAbide by all beach lighting rules and ordinances during sea turtle nesting and hatching season \nKnow your recreational fishing catch and size limits \nBuy a Georgia hunting or fishing license or Marine Habitat license plate. \nPick up after your pets \nParticipate in monitoring and cleanup activities in local waterways \n \nBenefits \nConserves water which is essential for healthy productive estuaries. \nFunctioning septic systems keep bacteria from entering waterways, which in turn can help reduce beach advisories and shellfish harvest closures. \nHatchling sea turtles can become easily disoriented and fail to crawl to the water if our homes and flashlights illuminate the beach. \nThese limits help sustain a healthy population of fish species. \nLicense fees support research and conservation of coastal species and habitats. Visit CoastalGaDNR.org/LicensePlate. \nFecal bacteria from pet waste can wash into creeks and rivers, resulting in beach swimming advisories or shellfish harvest closures. \nCitizen data can alert resource managers to potential issues. Visit AdoptaStream.Georgia.gov and RiversAlive.Georgia.gov. \n \n "},{"id":"dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2017","title":"Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2017.","collection_id":"dlg_ggpd","collection_title":"Georgia Government Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, issuing body.","Georgia Coastal Management Program, issuing body.","University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Integration and Application Network.","Georgia. Department of Natural Resources (1972- )"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2017"],"dcterms_description":["Began with: 2015.","\"This report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2016.\"--2015, final page.","Georgia Coastal Management Program appears as a co-publisher on some pieces although it is part of of: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division.","Continues the monograph: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division. Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card 2014.","2015, published in April 2016 (Harvested on July 14, 2016 from www.coastalgadnr.org); title from PDF cover (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023).","2020 (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023)."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["[Brunswick, Georgia] : Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 2016-"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Coastal ecosystem health--Georgia--Periodicals.","Coastal zone management--Georgia--Periodicals.","Georgia Government Documents--Serial"],"dcterms_title":["Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2017."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2017"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2017"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["state government records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"iiif_manifest_url_ss":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Coastal Georgia \n2017 Ecosystem \nReport Card \n \n DNR/CRD \n \nhealth \nModerately good health in 2017 \n \nIndex \n \nFis \n \nT. Keyes \nHuman Health \n \nheries Index \n \nCoastal Georgia monitoring programs assess oyster reefs (top), wood stork productivity (middle), and sea turtle hatching (bottom). \n \nA. Mackinnon \n \nB \n \nScoring Legend \n \nWildlife Index \n \n80100% good 60\u003c80% moderately good 40\u003c60% moderate 20\u003c40% poor 0\u003c20% very poor \n \nCoastal Georgia received a B+, 78%, a moderately good \nscore. Three indices covering 11 indicators including human health, fisheries, and wildlife data make up the grade for coastal Georgia. Scores ranged from 100% for sea turtle nesting trends to 12% for right whale population trends. \n \nB \n \nThe human health index scored a 87%, or A, in 2017. Overall, human health indicators are good, meaning that it is generally safe to swim and eat local shellfish. Data on fish consumption advisories was insufficient for use in the report this year. \n \nThe fisheries index scored a 95%, or A+, in 2017. Overall, fisheries indicators are very good, which means that sustainable fishing practices are used and that the coastal environment is able to support most commercial and recreational species. The blue crab indicator rebounded in 2017 with a score of 100%. \n \nThe wildlife index scored a 51%, or C, in 2017. Overall, wildlife indicators are moderate. Woodstork and sea turtle populations are being maintained, while Oystercatcher numbers were down. This may be attributed to the two recent hurricanes. Right whale population and right whale calving also declined. \n \nIndicators \n \nfecal coliform 90% \n \nenterococcus 97% \n \nshrimp 84% \n \nred drum 100% \n \nblue crabs 100% \n \n methods \n \nAnalyzing data \u0026 calculating scores \n \nEnvironmental report cards are used by resource managers to assess and report on the ecosystem health of a region. Developing rigorous, quantitative assessments provides an accountability that is increasingly beneficial to support environmental protection efforts. A five-step process is used to develop report cards: 1) conceptualize, 2) choose indicators, 3) define thresholds, 4) calculate scores, and 5) communicate results. \nThis report card provides a transparent, timely, and geographically detailed assessment of health in coastal Georgia. Coastal Georgia health in 2017 is defined as the progress of two human health indicators (enterococcus and fecal coliform), three fisheries indicators (red drum, blue crabs, and shrimp), and six wildlife indicators (wood storks, American oystercatchers, sea turtle hatching, sea turtle nesting, right whale calves, and right whale population growth rate) toward scientifically-derived thresholds or goals. Each of these groups of indicators are averaged into indices; the human health, fisheries, and wildlife indices. The three indices are combined into the Coastal Georgia Ecological Health Score. \nPreliminary analysis of water quality indicators was conducted during development of this report card. Although there are thresholds for water quality indicators through EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment, they do not adequately apply to the unique conditions in coastal Georgia (see highlights page). \nFor detailed information on indicators, thresholds, and methodology visit CoastalGaDNR.org/ReportCard. \n \n1 \n \n2 \n \nCreate a framework defining key goals, values, and threats. \n3 \n \nSelect indicators that convey meaningful information. \n4 \n \nDefine reporting regions and method of threshold attainment. \n5 \n \nCalculate indicator scores and combine into index grades. \n \nCommunicate results using visual elements, such as photos, maps, and conceptual diagrams. \n \nGrading scale for the indicators \n \nThe report card grading scale is a little different from the grading scale you saw in school. We use a 20-point scale to score \n \nthe indicators, instead of the 10-point scale. Using a 20-point scale for environmental report cards is widely accepted as the \n \nbest way to communicate health of an ecosystem. By using a scale that is equally divided, small changes in indicators can \n \nbe more easily seen over time. \n \nF \n \n80100% \nAll human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very good, most often leading to preferred habitat conditions. \n \n60\u003c80% \nMost human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be good, often leading to acceptable habitat conditions. \n \n40\u003c60% \nThere is a mix of good and poor levels of human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators. Indicators in these locations tend to be fair, leading to sufficient habitat conditions. \n \n20\u003c40% \nSome or few human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be poor, often leading to degraded habitat conditions. \n \n0\u003c20% \nVery few or no human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very poor, most often leading to unacceptable habitat conditions. \n \nAmerican oystercatchers \n \n19% \n \nwood storks 84% \n \nright whale calves \n \n45% \n \nright whale population 12% \n \nsea turtle hatching 46% \n \nsea turtle nesting \n \n100% \n \n features \nMarshes, beaches, \u0026 estuaries \n \nSouth Carolina \nSavannah \n \nGeorgia \n \nOgeechee \n \nAltamaha \n \nSuwannee \n \nSatilla \n \nSt. Mary's \n \nAtlantic Ocean \n \nFlorida \n \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nLegend \nConservation Lands \n \nWetlands \n \nShore and Sea Bird Habitat \n \nSea Turtle Nesting Habitat \n \nShellfish Harvest Areas \n \n0 \n \n10 \n \n20 Miles \n \n0 10 20Miles \n \nCoastal Georgia is dominated by marshes and wetlands, and provides habitat for birds, shellfish, and sea turtles. \n \nLocated in the center of the South Atlantic Bight, coastal Georgia is a region rich in history, beauty, and natural wonders. Georgia's coast is bound on the east by 14 barrier islands which buffer the mainland from the Atlantic Ocean. Most of these islands remain undeveloped and boast pristine beaches perfect for nesting sea turtles and shorebirds. \nFive major freshwater rivers feed the Georgia coast, forming an extensive estuarine ecosystem. The 368,000 acres of saltmarsh provide essential nursery grounds for a diverse range of animals including fish, shrimp, oysters, and birds. Saltmarshes protect upland areas from the force of tides and serve as a natural filtration system for pollutants and nutrients that often enter waterways leading to the ocean. \nCoastal Georgia's river system is woven together by hundreds of streams, brackish and freshwater marshes, bogs, and swamps that extend far inland. This network delivers vast amounts of freshwater to the coast and creates a range of habitats that support diverse wildlife. \nAlthough relatively undeveloped, the coastal Georgia landscape is changing nonetheless. New residents are drawn by the region's natural beauty and abundance of recreational opportunities. Through a combination of wise management, stewardship, and collaboration, everything we love about coastal Georgia can be conserved for generations to come. \n \nThe importance of creating a report card \n \nThe Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the state agency entrusted to manage Georgia's diverse coastal natural resources. DNR collects data through numerous inventory and monitoring activities conducted along the coast. This report card contains grades for various categories produced by comparing and contrasting data from monitoring activities with known standards and reference points. While this report card does not address every indicator or environmental issue facing the coast, it does provide the public with broad fact-based knowledge about the condition of Georgia's coastal resources. \n \nMonitoring a marsh in coastal Georgia. \n \nDNR/CRD \n \n highlights \nWater quality \u0026 dissolved oxygen \nDNR monitors water quality throughout the coastal region. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is one important indicator used to quantify the health of a water body. Low DO is often a sign of degraded water quality. However, some areas in coastal Georgia, especially upriver blackwater creeks and coastal estuaries not fed by freshwater rivers, naturally experience low DO in warmer months without the expected negative effects of algal blooms, fish die-offs, and reduced species diversity observed elsewhere. \nA preliminary analysis of DO data from 2017 was conducted for this report card using thresholds established by EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment. Coastal Georgia's overall DO score is an 85%, or an A. \nAdditional monitoring and research is underway by DNR to understand how changes in water quality affect these complex systems and to determine other appropriate indicators of coastal health. \n \nDissolved oxygen trend \n2014 2015 2016 2017 \n81% 85% 83% 85% \n2017 Dissolved Oxygen gets an \n \nB \n \nLegend DO Score \n80100% 60\u003c80% 40\u003c60% 20\u003c40% 0\u003c20% \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nDNR/CRD B. Maher \n \nRed drum numbers are up likely due to a successful 2016 spawn \nFisheries \u0026 blue crabs \nFisheries indicators in Georgia are important to analyze as they constitute a huge resource along the coast. Juvenile (Age 1) red drum remained above average (100%) while the blue crab spawning stock increased from a score of 47% in 2016 to 100% in 2017. \nThe decline in shrimp (84%) is somewhat misleading. Sampling was not conducted in September and October and less than half the stations were completed in November. This was due to Hurricane Irma and its aftermath, along with emergency repairs that put the Research Vessel Anna in dry dock for eight weeks. The fall is typically the peak season for white shrimp harvest and abundance. The absence of these fall collections are most likely the cause for the lower than average shrimp score in 2017. \nRegardless, the 2017 Fisheries Index score of 95% is the highest report in the four years of publishing this report card. \n \nW. Hughes \n \nDissolved Oxygen station scores in 2017(top). Water quality monitoring occurs throughout coastal Georgia (bottom). \nBlue crabs increased this year. This is most likely related to environmental conditions that lead to a successful spawn and following recruitment. \n \n trends \nLooking at four years of data \n \n2014 2015 2016 2017 \n \nfecal coliform \n \n92% 92% 92% 90% \n \nenterococcus \nshrimp \nred drum blue crabs American oystercatchers \n \n82% 91% 94% 97% 100% 100% 97% 84% 83% 69% 100% 100% 22% 62% 47% 100% 46% 61% 30% 19% \n \nHurricane Matthew, in 2016, caused acute damage to three offshore bars important to shorebird (such as oystercatchers) nesting (Ogeechee Bar, St Catherines Island Bar and Pelican Spit) one of which (St Catherines Island Bar) was completely lost, while the others were eroded significantly. Matthew also brought a broad scale deterioration of nesting habitat by eroding many stretches of beach and shell rakes making nesting sites more prone to flooding. \nHurricane Irma, in 2017, added to the damage of several nesting bars which will likely continue to affect shorebird and seabird productivity during the 2018 nesting season. \nHurricane Matthew had minimal impact on sea turtle hatching success, however hurricane Irma did have a minor impact, hence the slight decline in the hatching score. \n \nwood storks \n \n67% 70% 62% 84% \n \nright whale calves \nright whale population \n \n57% 57% 49% 45% 66% 66% *12% *12% \n \nsea turtle hatching \nsea turtle nesting \n \n77% 68% 64% 46% 100% 100% 100% 100% \n \nRight whale #2790 at the surface with her calf, 12 miles east of Blackbeard Island, GA. This is 2790's fourth known calf. Credit: Photo by Sea to Shore Alliance, taken under NOAA research permit #15488. \n \n*North Atlantic right whale photo-identification data are collected by numerous organizations along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. and Canada, and are analyzed annually by scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service. In 2016 the NMFS changed the survey methodology to better estimate survival rates and population size, which changed the grading calculation. \n \n looking forward \nPrograms, plans and funding \n \nN ATIO N AL O CEA ERCE \n \nADM IN ISTR ATIO N U .S.D \n \nThese programs are made possible through funding provided, in part, by the following federal grants: \n \nNIC AND ATM O SPHERIC EPARTM EN T O F C O M M \n \nGeorgia Coastal Management Program Grants Provides technical assistance to 11 coastal counties to support sustainable environmentally \nsensitive economic growth Disburses $850,000, annually, in Coastal Incentive Grants Administers the Shellfish Program for commercial and recreational harvest of shellfish Reviews federal projects to ensure they do not conflict with the best interests of the State of Georgia \nAtlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Grants Coordinates the management of coastal fish species Supports data collection of numerous coastal fishes for management purposes \nInterjurisdictional Marine Fisheries Grants Gathers information and conducts activities to support management of U.S. multi-jurisdictional fisheries Supports shrimp and crab management through state and regional fishery management plans \nNOAA Species Recovery Grants Authority to States pursuant to Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Supports programs to recover federally listed species \nSport Fish Restoration Grants Derived from federal excise taxes paid by the outdoor fishing and boating industry Supports fisheries research, boating access, and outreach and education Supports vessel pump-out monitoring at local marinas \nState and Tribal Wildlife Grants Provides federal funds to states for developing and implementing programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted or fished Provides funds for research, survey, and management programs for proactive conservation of high priority species and habitats identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan \nCooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Provides funding for listed species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal lands Supports the States' ability to recover those federally listed and candidate species under USFWS authority (e.g., wood stork, American oystercatcher) \nBeaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Grants Protects public health by monitoring beach water quality Collaborates with the Public Health Departments and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to resolve chronic issues Informs citizens of the risk of swimming in waters with elevated bacteria - GaHealthyBeaches.org \nWetland Program Development Grants Monitors the health of coastal marshland plant communities and tidal waters Supports wetland restoration efforts of the Department Supports project development on federal, state, and local levels \n \n involvement \nYou can help protect Georgia's coastal resources \n \nHow you can help \nInstall a rain barrel for your home to collect water for irrigation \nInspect and pump out your septic system every 3-5 years \nAbide by all beach lighting rules and ordinances during sea turtle nesting and hatching season \nKnow your recreational fishing catch and size limits \nBuy a Georgia hunting or fishing license \nPick up after your pets \nParticipate in monitoring and clean-up activities in local waterways \n \nBenefits \nConserves water which is essential for healthy productive estuaries. \nFunctioning septic systems keep bacteria from entering waterways, which in turn can help reduce beach advisories and shellfish harvest closures. \nHatchling sea turtles can become easily disoriented and fail to crawl to the water if our homes and flashlights illuminate the beach. \nThese limits help sustain a healthy population of fish species. \nLicense fees support research and conservation of coastal species and habitats. \nFecal bacteria from pet waste can wash into creeks and rivers, resulting in beach swimming advisories or shellfish harvest closures. \nCitizen data can alert resource managers to potential issues. Visit AdoptaStream.Georgia.gov and RiversAlive.Georgia.gov. \n \nactivities \nGeorgia DNR sustains, protects, \u0026 conserves the coast \nThe mission of the Department of Natural Resources is to sustain, enhance, protect, and conserve Georgia's natural, historic, and cultural resources for present and future generations, while recognizing the importance of promoting the development of commerce and industry that utilize sound environmental practices. Along Georgia's coast, several Divisions of DNR work collaboratively, including the Coastal Resources Division (CoastalGaDNR.org), Wildlife Resources Division (GeorgiaWildlife.org), and Environmental Protection Division (EPD.Georgia.gov). Together they manage the region's unique natural resources for wildlife habitat, as well as recreational and commercial uses by the citizens of Georgia. \nAcknowledgements \nThe first report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2015. Data were collected by Georgia DNR's Coastal Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division, and Environmental Protection Division. This current version provides an assessment for 2017. The report card project was funded by grant award # NA16NOS4190165 from the Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of OCM or NOAA. \nWorkshop participants in December 2014 who helped produce this report card. \n \nCoastalGaDNR.org \n \n "},{"id":"dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2016","title":"Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2016.","collection_id":"dlg_ggpd","collection_title":"Georgia Government Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, issuing body.","Georgia Coastal Management Program, issuing body.","University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Integration and Application Network.","Georgia. Department of Natural Resources (1972- )"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2016"],"dcterms_description":["Began with: 2015.","\"This report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2016.\"--2015, final page.","Georgia Coastal Management Program appears as a co-publisher on some pieces although it is part of of: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division.","Continues the monograph: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division. Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card 2014.","2015, published in April 2016 (Harvested on July 14, 2016 from www.coastalgadnr.org); title from PDF cover (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023).","2020 (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023)."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["[Brunswick, Georgia] : Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 2016-"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Coastal ecosystem health--Georgia--Periodicals.","Coastal zone management--Georgia--Periodicals.","Georgia Government Documents--Serial"],"dcterms_title":["Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2016."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2016"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2016"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["state government records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"iiif_manifest_url_ss":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Coastal Georgia \n2016 Ecosystem \nReport Card \n \n DNR/CRD \n \nhealth \nModerately good health in 2016 \n \nIndex \n \nFis \n \nT. Keyes \nHuman Health \n \nheries Index \n \nCoastal Georgia monitoring programs assess oyster reefs (top), wood stork productivity (middle), and sea turtle hatching (bottom). \n \nA. Mackinnon \n \nB \n \nScoring Legend \n \nWildlife Index \n \n80100% good 60\u003c80% moderately good 40\u003c60% moderate 20\u003c40% poor 0\u003c20% very poor \n \nCoastal Georgia received a B+, 76%, a moderately good \nscore. Three indices covering 11 indicators including human health, fisheries, and wildlife data make up the grade for coastal Georgia. Scores ranged from 100% for sea turtle nesting trends to 12% for right whale population trends. \n \nThe human health index scored a 93%, or A, in 2016. Overall, human health \nB indicators are good, meaning that it is generally safe to swim and eat local shellfish. Data on fish consumption advisories was insufficient for use in the report this year. \n \nThe fisheries index scored a 81%, or A-, in 2016. Overall, fisheries indicators are good, which means that sustainable fishing practices are used and that the coastal environment is able to support most commercial and recreational species. The blue crab indicator fared poorly in 2016 with a score of 47%. \n \nThe wildlife index scored a 53%, or C, in 2016. Overall, wildlife indicators are moderate. Woodstork and sea turtle populations are being maintained. American oystercatcher numbers declined due to higher tides during nesting season and raccoon depredation. Right whale population and right whale calving also declined. \n \nIndicators \n \nfecal coliform 92% \n \nenterococcus 94% \n \nshrimp 97% \n \nred drum 100% \n \nblue crabs 47% \n \n methods \n \nAnalyzing data \u0026 calculating scores \n \nEnvironmental report cards are used by resource managers to assess and report on the ecosystem health of a region. Developing rigorous, quantitative assessments provides an accountability that is increasingly beneficial to support environmental protection efforts. A five-step process is used to develop report cards: 1) conceptualize, 2) choose indicators, 3) define thresholds, 4) calculate scores, and 5) communicate results. \nThis report card provides a transparent, timely, and geographically detailed assessment of health in coastal Georgia. Coastal Georgia health in 2016 is defined as the progress of two human health indicators (enterococcus and fecal coliform), three fisheries indicators (red drum, blue crabs, and shrimp), and six wildlife indicators (wood storks, American oystercatchers, sea turtle hatching, sea turtle nesting, right whale calves, and right whale population growth rate) toward scientifically-derived thresholds or goals. Each of these groups of indicators are averaged into indices; the human health, fisheries, and wildlife indices. The three indices are combined into the Coastal Georgia Ecological Health Score. \nPreliminary analysis of water quality indicators was conducted during development of this report card. Although there are thresholds for water quality indicators through EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment, they do not adequately apply to the unique conditions in coastal Georgia (see highlights page). \nFor detailed information on indicators, thresholds, and methodology visit CoastalGaDNR.org/ReportCard. \n \n1 \n \n2 \n \nCreate a framework defining key goals, values, and threats. \n3 \n \nSelect indicators that convey meaningful information. \n4 \n \nDefine reporting regions and method of threshold attainment. \n5 \n \nCalculate indicator scores and combine into index grades. \n \nCommunicate results using visual elements, such as photos, maps, and conceptual diagrams. \n \nGrading scale for the indicators \n \nThe report card grading scale is a little different from the grading scale you saw in school. We use a 20-point scale to score \n \nthe indicators, instead of the 10-point scale. Using a 20-point scale for environmental report cards is widely accepted as the \n \nbest way to communicate health of an ecosystem. By using a scale that is equally divided, small changes in indicators can \n \nbe more easily seen over time. \n \nF \n \n80100% \nAll human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very good, most often leading to preferred habitat conditions. \n \n60\u003c80% \nMost human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be good, often leading to acceptable habitat conditions. \n \n40\u003c60% \nThere is a mix of good and poor levels of human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators. Indicators in these locations tend to be fair, leading to sufficient habitat conditions. \n \n20\u003c40% \nSome or few human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be poor, often leading to degraded habitat conditions. \n \n0\u003c20% \nVery few or no human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very poor, most often leading to unacceptable habitat conditions. \n \nAmerican oystercatchers \n \n30% \n \nwood storks 62% \n \nright whale calves \n \n49% \n \nright whale population 12% \n \nsea turtle hatching 64% \n \nsea turtle nesting \n \n100% \n \n features \nMarshes, beaches, \u0026 estuaries \n \nSouth Carolina \nSavannah \n \nGeorgia \n \nOgeechee \n \nAltamaha \n \nSuwannee \n \nSatilla \n \nSt. Mary's \n \nAtlantic Ocean \n \nFlorida \n \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nLegend \nConservation Lands \n \nWetlands \n \nShore and Sea Bird Habitat \n \nSea Turtle Nesting Habitat \n \nShellfish Harvest Areas \n \n0 \n \n10 \n \n20 Miles \n \n0 10 20Miles \n \nCoastal Georgia is dominated by marshes and wetlands, and provides habitat for birds, shellfish, and sea turtles. \n \nLocated in the center of the South Atlantic Bight, coastal Georgia is a region rich in history, beauty, and natural wonders. Georgia's coast is bound on the east by 14 barrier islands which buffer the mainland from the Atlantic Ocean. Most of these islands remain undeveloped and boast pristine beaches perfect for nesting sea turtles and shorebirds. \nFive major freshwater rivers feed the Georgia coast, forming an extensive estuarine ecosystem. The 368,000 acres of saltmarsh provide essential nursery grounds for a diverse range of animals including fish, shrimp, oysters, and birds. Saltmarshes protect upland areas from the force of tides and serve as a natural filtration system for pollutants and nutrients that often enter waterways leading to the ocean. \nCoastal Georgia's river system is woven together by hundreds of streams, brackish and freshwater marshes, bogs, and swamps that extend far inland. This network delivers vast amounts of freshwater to the coast and creates a range of habitats that support diverse wildlife. \nAlthough relatively undeveloped, the coastal Georgia landscape is changing nonetheless. New residents are drawn by the region's natural beauty and abundance of recreational opportunities. Through a combination of wise management, stewardship, and collaboration, everything we love about coastal Georgia can be conserved for generations to come. \n \nThe importance of creating a report card \n \nThe Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the state agency entrusted to manage Georgia's diverse coastal natural resources. DNR collects data through numerous inventory and monitoring activities conducted along the coast. This report card contains grades for various categories produced by comparing and contrasting data from monitoring activities with known standards and reference points. While this report card does not address every indicator or environmental issue facing the coast, it does provide the public with broad fact-based knowledge about the condition of Georgia's coastal resources. \n \nMonitoring a marsh in coastal Georgia. \n \nDNR/CRD \n \n highlights \nWater quality \u0026 dissolved oxygen \nDNR monitors water quality throughout the coastal region. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is one important indicator used to quantify the health of a water body. Low DO is often a sign of degraded water quality. However, some areas in coastal Georgia, especially upriver blackwater creeks and coastal estuaries not fed by freshwater rivers, naturally experience low DO in warmer months without the expected negative effects of algal blooms, fish die-offs, and reduced species diversity observed elsewhere. \nA preliminary analysis of DO data from 2016 was conducted for this report card using thresholds established by EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment. Coastal Georgia's overall DO score is an 83%, or an A-. \nAdditional monitoring and research is underway by DNR to understand how changes in water quality affect these complex systems and to determine other appropriate indicators of coastal health. \n \nDissolved Oxygen gets an \nLegend DO Score \n80100% 60\u003c80% 40\u003c60% 20\u003c40% 0\u003c20% 0 10 20 Miles \n \nDNR/CRD B. Maher \n \nDissolved Oxygen station scores in 2016(top). Water quality monitoring occurs throughout coastal Georgia (bottom). \n \nRed drum numbers are up likely due to a successful 2015 spawn \nFisheries \u0026 blue crabs \nFisheries indicators in Georgia are important to analyze as they constitute a huge resource along the coast. While shrimp remained near the long-term average in 2016 (scoring 97%), red drum were above average (100%), improving well above both 2015 and 2014 (2015: 69%, 2014: 83%). Unfortunately, the blue crab spawning stock estimates fell compared to 2015 (2016: 46%, 2015: 62%). \nBlue crab abundance has been unstable since the early 2000's with short periods of high abundance often followed by prolonged periods of below average abundance. Most below average periods are associated with drought conditions. \nThe red drum spawned in 2015 showed strong recruitment and the 2016 numbers for young-of-the-year were higher than the past two years. \n \nW. Hughes \n \nAlthough blue crabs declined again in 2016, the decline is likely due to lower than normal fresh water in-flow. \n \n trends \nLooking at three years of data \n \nfecal coliform \n \n2014 2015 2016 \n \n92% \n \n92% \n \n92% \n \nenterococcus \n \n82% \n \n91% \n \n94% \n \nshrimp \n \n100% 100% \n \n97% \n \nCoast-wide productivity for American Oystercatchers was low due to the fact that several banded birds were not confirmed to have fledged. This was caused by a combination of issues including high tides during the nesting season and raccoon depredation. \n \nred drum \n \n83% \n \n69% 100% \n \nblue crabs \n \n22% \n \n62% \n \n47% \n \nAmerican oystercatchers \n \n46% \n \n61% \n \n30% \n \nwood storks \n \n67% \n \n70% \n \n62% \n \nright whale calves \nright whale population \n \n57% \n \n57% \n \n49% \n \n66% \n \n66% *12% \n \nsea turtle hatching \nsea turtle nesting \n \n77% \n \n68% \n \n64% \n \n100% 100% 100% \n \nRight whale #2790 at the surface with her calf, 12 miles east of Blackbeard Island, GA. This is 2790's fourth known calf. Credit: Photo by Sea to Shore Alliance, taken under NOAA research permit #15488. \n \n*North Atlantic right whale photo-identification data are collected by numerous organizations along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. and Canada, and are analyzed annually by scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service. In 2016 the NMFS changed the survey methodology to better estimate survival rates and population size, which changed the grading calculation. \n \n looking forward \nPrograms, plans and funding \n \nN ATIO N AL O CEA ERCE \n \nADM IN ISTR ATIO N U .S.D \n \nThese programs are made possible through funding provided, in part, by the following federal grants: \n \nNIC AND ATM O SPHERIC EPARTM EN T O F C O M M \n \nGeorgia Coastal Management Program Grants Provides technical assistance to 11 coastal counties to support sustainable environmentally \nsensitive economic growth Disburses $850,000, annually, in Coastal Incentive Grants Administers the Shellfish Program for commercial and recreational harvest of shellfish Reviews federal projects to ensure they do not conflict with the best interests of the State of Georgia \nAtlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Grants Coordinates the management of coastal fish species Supports data collection of numerous coastal fishes for management purposes \nInterjurisdictional Marine Fisheries Grants Gathers information and conducts activities to support management of U.S. multi-jurisdictional fisheries Supports shrimp and crab management through state and regional fishery management plans \nNOAA Species Recovery Grants Authority to States pursuant to Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Supports programs to recover federally listed species \nSport Fish Restoration Grants Derived from federal excise taxes paid by the outdoor fishing and boating industry Supports fisheries research, boating access, and outreach and education Supports vessel pump-out monitoring at local marinas \nState and Tribal Wildlife Grants Provides federal funds to states for developing and implementing programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted or fished Provides funds for research, survey, and management programs for proactive conservation of high priority species and habitats identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan \nCooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Provides funding for listed species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal lands Supports the States' ability to recover those federally listed and candidate species under USFWS authority (e.g., wood stork, American oystercatcher) \nBeaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Grants Protects public health by monitoring beach water quality Collaborates with the Public Health Departments and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to resolve chronic issues Informs citizens of the risk of swimming in waters with elevated bacteria - GaHealthyBeaches.org \nWetland Program Development Grants Monitors the health of coastal marshland plant communities and tidal waters Supports wetland restoration efforts of the Department Supports project development on federal, state, and local levels \n \n involvement \nYou can help protect Georgia's coastal resources \n \nHow you can help \nInstall a rain barrel for your home to collect water for irrigation \nInspect and pump out your septic system every 3-5 years \nAbide by all beach lighting rules and ordinances during sea turtle nesting and hatching season \nKnow your recreational fishing catch and size limits \nBuy a Georgia hunting or fishing license \nPick up after your pets \nParticipate in monitoring and clean-up activities in local waterways \n \nBenefits \nConserves water which is essential for healthy productive estuaries. \nFunctioning septic systems keep bacteria from entering waterways, which in turn can help reduce beach advisories and shellfish harvest closures. \nHatchling sea turtles can become easily disoriented and fail to crawl to the water if our homes and flashlights illuminate the beach. \nThese limits help sustain a healthy population of fish species. \nLicense fees support research and conservation of coastal species and habitats. \nFecal bacteria from pet waste can wash into creeks and rivers, resulting in beach swimming advisories or shellfish harvest closures. \nCitizen data can alert resource managers to potential issues. Visit AdoptaStream.Georgia.gov and RiversAlive.Georgia.gov. \n \nactivities \nGeorgia DNR sustains, protects, \u0026 conserves the coast \nThe mission of the Department of Natural Resources is to sustain, enhance, protect, and conserve Georgia's natural, historic, and cultural resources for present and future generations, while recognizing the importance of promoting the development of commerce and industry that utilize sound environmental practices. Along Georgia's coast, several Divisions of DNR work collaboratively, including the Coastal Resources Division (CoastalGaDNR.org), Wildlife Resources Division (GeorgiaWildlife.org), and Environmental Protection Division (EPD.Georgia.gov). Together they manage the region's unique natural resources for wildlife habitat, as well as recreational and commercial uses by the citizens of Georgia. \nAcknowledgements \nThe first report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2015. Data were collected by Georgia DNR's Coastal Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division, and Environmental Protection Division. This current version provides an assessment for 2016. The report card project was funded by grant award # NA15NOS4190160 from the Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of OCM or NOAA. \nWorkshop participants in December 2014 who helped produce this report card. \n \nCoastalGaDNR.org \n \n "},{"id":"dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2015","title":"Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2015.","collection_id":"dlg_ggpd","collection_title":"Georgia Government Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, issuing body.","Georgia Coastal Management Program, issuing body.","University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Integration and Application Network.","Georgia. Department of Natural Resources (1972- )"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2015"],"dcterms_description":["Began with: 2015.","\"This report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2016.\"--2015, final page.","Georgia Coastal Management Program appears as a co-publisher on some pieces although it is part of of: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division.","Continues the monograph: Georgia. Coastal Resources Division. Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card 2014.","2015, published in April 2016 (Harvested on July 14, 2016 from www.coastalgadnr.org); title from PDF cover (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023).","2020 (Georgia Government Publications database, viewed September 11, 2023)."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["[Brunswick, Georgia] : Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 2016-"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Coastal ecosystem health--Georgia--Periodicals.","Coastal zone management--Georgia--Periodicals.","Georgia Government Documents--Serial"],"dcterms_title":["Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card, 2015."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2015"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_1396769676-2015"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["state government records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"iiif_manifest_url_ss":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Coastal Georgia \n2015 Ecosystem \nReport Card \n \n features \nMarshes, beaches, \u0026 estuaries \n \nSouth Carolina \nSavannah \n \nGeorgia \n \nOgeechee \n \nAltamaha \n \nSuwannee \n \nSatilla \n \nSt. Mary's \n \nAtlantic Ocean \n \nFlorida \n \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nLegend \nConservation Lands \n \nWetlands \n \nShore and Sea Bird Habitat \n \nSea Turtle Nesting Habitat \n \nShellfish Harvest Areas \n \n0 \n \n10 \n \n20 Miles \n \n0 10 20Miles \n \nCoastal Georgia is dominated by marshes and wetlands, and provides habitat for birds, shellfish, and sea turtles. \n \nLocated in the center of the South Atlantic Bight, coastal Georgia is a region rich in history, beauty, and natural wonders. Georgia's coast is bound on the east by 14 barrier islands which buffer the mainland from the Atlantic Ocean. Most of these islands remain undeveloped and boast pristine beaches perfect for nesting sea turtles and shorebirds. \nFive major freshwater rivers feed the Georgia coast, forming an extensive estuarine ecosystem. The 368,000 acres of saltmarsh provide essential nursery grounds for a diverse range of animals including fish, shrimp, oysters, and birds. Saltmarshes protect upland areas from the force of tides and serve as a natural filtration system for pollutants and nutrients that often enter waterways leading to the ocean. \nCoastal Georgia's river system is woven together by hundreds of streams, brackish and freshwater marshes, bogs, and swamps that extend far inland. This network delivers vast amounts of freshwater to the coast and creates a range of habitats that support diverse wildlife. \nAlthough relatively undeveloped, the coastal Georgia landscape is changing nonetheless. New residents are drawn by the region's natural beauty and abundance of recreational opportunities. Through a combination of wise management, stewardship, and collaboration, everything we love about coastal Georgia can be conserved for generations to come. \n \nThe importance of creating a report card \n \nThe Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the state agency entrusted to manage Georgia's diverse coastal natural resources. DNR collects data through numerous inventory and monitoring activities conducted along the coast. This report card contains grades for various categories produced by comparing and contrasting data from monitoring activities with known standards and reference points. While this report card does not address every indicator or environmental issue facing the coast, it does provide the public with broad fact-based knowledge about the condition of Georgia's coastal resources. \n \nMonitoring a marsh in coastal Georgia. \n \nDNR/CRD \n \n DNR/CRD \n \nhealth \nModerately good health in 2015 \n \nIndex * \n \nFis \n \nT. Keyes \nHuman Health \n \nheries Index \n \nCoastal Georgia monitoring programs assess oyster reefs (top), wood stork productivity (middle), and sea turtle hatching (bottom). \n \nA. Mackinnon \n \nB \n \nScoring Legend \n \nWildlife Index \n \n80100% good 60\u003c80% moderately good 40\u003c60% moderate 20\u003c40% poor 0\u003c20% very poor \n \nCoastal Georgia received a B+, 79%, a moderately good \nscore. Three indices covering 12 indicators including human health, fisheries, and wildlife data make up the grade for coastal Georgia. Scores ranged from100% for sea turtle nesting trends to 57% for right whale calving. \n*Data for fish consumption advisories were not included this year. \n \nThe human health index scored a 91%, or A, in 2015. Overall, human health \nB indicators are good, meaning that it is generally safe to swim and eat local shellfish. Data on fish consumption advisories was insufficient for use in the report this year. \n \nThe fisheries \n \nThe wildlife \n \nindex scored a 77%, or B+, in 2015. \n \nindex scored a 70%, or B, in 2015. \n \nOverall, fisheries \n \nOverall, wildlife \n \nindicators are \n \nindicators are \n \nB moderately good, which means that sustainable fishing practices are used and that the coastal \n \nB moderately good, suggesting that key species of birds, sea turtles, and whales are being maintained. \n \nenvironment is able to support \n \nPopulations of these high priority \n \nmost commercial and recreational \n \nspecies are being conserved and \n \nspecies. The blue crab indicator \n \nimproved due to attentive and \n \nwhich fared poorly in 2014 did \n \nrobust management strategies. \n \nbetter in 2015 with a score of \n \n62%. \n \nfecal coliform 92% \n \nenterococcus 91% \n \n* fish consumption \nadvisories \n \n44% \n \nshrimp 100% \n \n methods \nAnalyzing data \u0026 calculating scores \n \nEnvironmental report cards are used by resource managers to assess and report on the ecosystem health of a region. Developing rigorous, quantitative assessments provides an accountability that is increasingly beneficial to support environmental protection efforts. A five-step process of developing report cards is used to assess progress: 1) conceptualize, 2) choose indicators, 3) define thresholds, 4) calculate scores, and 5) communicate results. \nThis report card provides a transparent, timely, and geographically detailed assessment of health in coastal Georgia. Coastal Georgia health in 2015 is defined as the progress of two human health indicators (enterococcus and fecal coliform), three fisheries indicators (red drum, blue crabs, and shrimp), and six wildlife indicators (wood storks, American oystercatchers, sea turtle hatching, sea turtle nesting, right whale calves, and right whale population growth rate) toward scientifically-derived thresholds or goals. Each of these groups of indicators are averaged into indices; the human health, fisheries, and wildlife indices. The three indices are combined into the Coastal Georgia Ecological Health Score. \nPreliminary analysis of water quality indicators was conducted during development of this report card. Although there are thresholds for water quality indicators through EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment, they do not adequately apply to the unique conditions in coastal Georgia (see page at right). \nFor detailed information on indicators, thresholds, and methodology visit CoastalGaDNR.org/ReportCard. \n \n1 \n \n2 \n \nCreate a framework defining key goals, values, and threats. \n3 \n \nSelect indicators that convey meaningful information. \n4 \n \nDefine reporting regions and method of threshold attainment. \n5 \n \nCalculate indicator scores and combine into index grades. \n \nCommunicate results using visual elements, such as photos, maps, and conceptual diagrams. \n \nGrading scale for the indicators \nThe report card grading scale is a little different from the grading scale you saw in school. We use a 20-point scale to score the indicators, instead of the 10-point scale. Using a 20-point scale for environmental report cards is widely accepted as the \nF best way to communicate health of an ecosystem. By using a scale that is equally divided, small changes in indicators can \nbe more easily seen over time. \n \n80100% \nAll human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very good, most often leading to preferred habitat conditions. \n \n60\u003c80% \nMost human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be good, often leading to acceptable habitat conditions. \n \n40\u003c60% \nThere is a mix of good and poor levels of human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators. Indicators in these locations tend to be fair, leading to sufficient habitat conditions. \n \n20\u003c40% \nSome or few human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be poor, often leading to degraded habitat conditions. \n \n0\u003c20% \nVery few or no human health, fisheries, and wildlife indicators meet desired levels. Indicators in these locations tend to be very poor, most often leading to unacceptable habitat conditions. \n \nred drum 69% \n \nblue crabs 62% \n \nAmerican oystercatchers \n \n61% \n \nwood storks 70% \n \n highlights \nWater quality \u0026 dissolved oxygen \nDNR monitors water quality throughout the coastal region. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is one important indicator used to quantify the health of a water body. Low DO is often a sign of degraded water quality. However, some areas in coastal Georgia, especially upriver blackwater creeks and coastal estuaries not fed by freshwater rivers, naturally experience low DO in warmer months without the expected negative effects of algal blooms, fish die-offs, and reduced species diversity observed elsewhere. \nA preliminary analysis of DO data from 2015 was conducted for this report card using thresholds established by EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment. Coastal Georgia's overall DO score is an 85%, or an A. \nAdditional monitoring and research is underway by DNR to understand how changes in water quality affect these complex systems and to determine other appropriate indicators of coastal health. For more information on water quality in coastal Georgia, please visit: CoastalGaDNR.org/cm/wq. \n \nDissolved Oxygen gets an \n \nB \n \nLegend DO Score \n80100% 60\u003c80% 40\u003c60% 20\u003c40% 0\u003c20% \n0 10 20 Miles \n \nDNR/CRD \n \nFisheries \u0026 blue crabs \nFisheries indicators in Georgia are important to analyze as they constitute a huge resource along the coast. While shrimp remained above the long-term average in 2015 (scoring 100%), red drum declined slightly when compared to 2014 (2014: 86%, 2015: 69%). However, favorable environmental conditions resulted in a significantly better score for blue crabs in 2015 with a 62% (2014 = 22%). \nThe decline in the red drum score is no reason for concern at this time. Annual fluctuation in juvenile abundance are expected due to numerous factors that influence survival the first year. Shrimp numbers were bolstered by strong catches of overwintering and spawning white shrimp (Jan-Apr and May-Jul) and brown shrimp (Jun  Aug), which are all above the long-term average (1976 - 2015). Even though fall white shrimp were 63% below the long term average. The average results of shrimp, red drum, and blue crabs gives a Fisheries Index in 2015 a score of 77% compared to 70% in 2014. \n \nW. Hughes \n \nDissolved Oxygen station scores in 2015 (top). Water quality monitoring occurs throughout coastal Georgia (bottom). \nFavorable environmental conditions resulted in an increase in the 2015 blue crab score. \n \nright whale calves \n \n57% \n \nright whale population 66% \n \nsea turtle hatching 68% \n \nsea turtle nesting 100% \n \n involvement \nYou can help protect Georgia's coastal resources \n \nHow you can help \nInstall a rain barrel for your home to collect water for irrigation \nInspect and pump out your septic system every 3-5 years \nAbide by all beach lighting rules and ordinances during sea turtle nesting and hatching season \nKnow your recreational fishing catch and size limits \nBuy a Georgia hunting or fishing license \nPick up after your pets \nParticipate in monitoring and clean-up activities in local waterways \n \nBenefits \nConserves water which is essential for healthy productive estuaries. \nFunctioning septic systems keep bacteria from entering waterways, which in turn can help reduce beach advisories and shellfish harvest closures. \nHatchling sea turtles can become easily disoriented and fail to crawl to the water if our homes and flashlights illuminate the beach. \nThese limits help sustain a healthy population of fish species. \nLicense fees support research and conservation of coastal species and habitats. \nFecal bacteria from pet waste can wash into creeks and rivers, resulting in beach swimming advisories or shellfish harvest closures. \nCitizen data can alert resource managers to potential issues. Visit GeorgiaAdoptaStream.com and Riversalive.com/index.htm. \n \nactivities \nGeorgia DNR sustains, protects, \u0026 conserves the coast \nThe mission of the Department of Natural Resources is to sustain, enhance, protect, and conserve Georgia's natural, historic, and cultural resources for present and future generations, while recognizing the importance of promoting the development of commerce and industry that utilize sound environmental practices. Along Georgia's coast, several Divisions of DNR work collaboratively, including the Coastal Resources Division (CoastalGaDNR.org), Wildlife Resources Division (georgiawildlife.org), and Environmental Protection Division (epd.georgia.gov). Together they manage the region's unique natural resources for wildlife habitat, as well as recreational and commercial uses by the citizens of Georgia. \n \nAcknowledgements \nThis report card was produced by the Integration \u0026 Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Georgia DNR and published in April 2016. Data were collected by Georgia DNR's Coastal Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division, and Environmental Protection Division. This report card provides an assessment of coastal Georgia ecosystem health for 2015. This report card was funded by grant award # NA15NOS4190160 from the Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of OCM or NOAA. \nWorkshop participants in December 2014 who helped produce this report card. \nCoastalGaDNR.org \n \n "}],"pages":{"current_page":1,"next_page":null,"prev_page":null,"total_pages":1,"limit_value":10,"offset_value":0,"total_count":5,"first_page?":true,"last_page?":true},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Coastal ecosystem health--Georgia--Periodicals.","hits":5},{"value":"Coastal zone management--Georgia--Periodicals.","hits":5},{"value":"Georgia Government Documents--Serial","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2015","hits":1},{"value":"2016","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1},{"value":"2018","hits":1},{"value":"2019","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"2015","max":"2019","count":5,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"state government records","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"fulltext_present_b","items":[{"value":"true","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Georgia Government Publications","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"serial_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Coastal Georgia ecosystem report card.","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"call_numbers_sms","items":[{"value":"N200.C63 S1 E2","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"geojson","items":[{"value":"{\"type\":\"Feature\",\"geometry\":{\"type\":\"Point\",\"coordinates\":[-83.50018, 32.75042]},\"properties\":{\"placename\":\"United States, Georgia\"}}","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"index","limit":-2,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"placename","items":[{"value":"United States, Georgia","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}