environment the state of georgia’s · pdf fileenvironment the state of georgia’s...
TRANSCRIPT
the state of Georgia’s
environment 2009
EEEEENVIRNVIRNVIRNVIRNVIROOOOONMENTNMENTNMENTNMENTNMENTALALALALAL P P P P PRRRRROTECTIOTECTIOTECTIOTECTIOTECTIOOOOONNNNN D D D D DIVISIIVISIIVISIIVISIIVISIOOOOONNNNN
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES
From the Director S
tate
of
Ge
org
ia’s
En
vir
on
me
nt
20
09
//
From
the
Dire
ctor April 2009
Greetings:
As we celebrate the 40th observation of Earth Day I hope this report, The Stateof Georgia’s Environment 2009, provides Georgians with an understanding of boththe progress made and challenges remaining in the protection of our natural
resources. Think of it as a report card on how we are doing in protecting human
health and sustaining healthy ecosystems and the natural resources on which oureconomy relies.
As one famous Georgian, Pogo*, declared during the 1970 Earth Day, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
In other words, what each of us does individually matters to the quality of Georgia’s environment and thesustainability of our planet. Pogo’s message to us on that first Earth Day is still true today as Georgia’s
population has grown to more than 10 million people. In this report you will read that many of our challenges
result from the cumulative impact of the choices each of us make every day that affect, for example, theamount of waste we throw away, the emission of air pollutants, and how we care for our land and water
resources.
In compiling the report, we drew on the best available information from state and federal agencies. Inaddition to data available at the Environmental Protection Division (EPD), information was provided by the
Wildlife Resources Division and the Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources. We also want to thank and acknowledge the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, thePublic Health Division of the Georgia Department of Human Resources, the University of Georgia, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey for providing information. The contributions
from the individuals listed at the end of the report also are appreciated.
Please note that The State of Georgia’s Environment 2009 is also available for viewing, download and
printing from EPD’s Web site at http://www.georgiaepd.org/Documents/soe2009.html.
For more information on what you can do to help protect, preserve and restore Georgia’s environment,please visit the Conserve Georgia Web site at http://www.conservegeorgia.org.
Sincerely,
Carol A. CouchDirectorEnvironmental Protection Division
* Cartoonist Walt Kelly’s creation, Pogo is a wise-cracking resident of the Okefenokee Swamp.Mr. Kelly’s comic strip ran from 1949 until 1975.
1
Table of Contents
Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
Objective 1Protecting Human Health ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Objective 2Sustaining Healthy Ecosystems------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
Objective 3Ensuring Resources to Support a Growing Economy -----------------------------------------------54
Summary of Accomplishments and Challenges ---------------------------------------------------- 75
Glossary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80
Data Sources and References -------------------------------------------------------------------- 84
Contributors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 90
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Table of C
ontents
Produced by the Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Suite 1152Atlanta, Georgia 30334
© 2009 All Rights Reserved
See page 90 for complete photo credits.
2
Georgia is rich in natural resourcesand beauty. From the wilds of the
Okefenokee Swamp to the grandeur ofthe Blue Ridge Mountains, many of ushave been touched by this beauty. And,we all rely on the state’s naturalresources to support the quality of lifewe enjoy.
As the state’s population approaches 10million, however, much of Georgia’senvironment has been changed from itsnative condition. The state’s 14 percentgrowth between 2000 and 2006 wasmore than twice the national average,making Georgia the third fastestgrowing state in the U.S. A growingpopulation means that decisionsregarding how growth is accommodatedbecome increasingly important to thestate’s environmental quality.
The state’s economic growth has keptpace with its population growth andboth trends are expected to continueover the coming decades. This growthbrings many opportunities — opportuni-ties that only can be achieved ifsupported by effective management ofenvironmental and natural resources. AsGeorgia grows, environmental progresswill be necessary to sustain economicprogress.
The Environmental Protection Division’s(EPD) job is to protect and restore thestate’s environment, by taking the leadin ensuring clean air, water, and land toprovide a foundation for a vibranteconomy and healthy communities.EPD envisions Georgia’s environment ashealthy and sustainable, with its naturalresources protected and managed tomeet the needs of the current genera-tion and those to come.
This vision is consistent with the state’sstrategic goals (see sidebar. Within thestate strategic plan, two specific goalsare directly related to EPD’s mission:
• Improve overall environmentalquality and conservation practices
• Provide a safe environment whereGeorgians live, work and play
Drawing on these goals, EPD hasidentified three primary objectives forenvironmental management:
• Protecting human health
• Sustaining healthy ecosystems
• Ensuring resources to support agrowing economy
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ In
tro
du
cti
on
I n t r o d u c t i o nAbout this report
An update and expansion of 2003’sGeorgia’s Environment, this reportis a resource for the citizens ofGeorgia. It highlights what we knowand don’t know about the conditionof Georgia’s environment, andillustrates progress and challengesthat are fundamental to the state’sstrategic goals and EPD’s mission.
What are the state’sstrategic goals?
• A growing Georgia• A safe Georgia• A healthy Georgia• An educated Georgia• The best managed state in the U.S.
What is EPD’s mission?
The Environmental ProtectionDivision protects and restoresGeorgia’s environment. We take thelead in ensuring clean air, water andland. With our partners, we pursuea sustainable environment thatprovides a foundation for a vibranteconomy and healthy communities.
What is EPD’s vision?
Georgia’s environment is healthyand sustainable. Natural resourcesare protected and managed to meetthe needs of current and futuregenerations. All Georgians under-stand the importance of a healthyand sustainable environment andact to protect and restore it. EPD isresponsive, effective and efficient.Associates are valued and empow-ered to use their expertise andcreativity as leaders in protectingGeorgia’s environment.
On the Web:http://www.opb.state.ga.us/strategic-planning/strategic-planning.aspx
http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/mission.html
3
This report provides a starting point toevaluate the state’s progress towardmeeting these objectives. It presentsindicators that track the condition ofGeorgia’s environment and humanactivities that can alter environmentalconditions. With this information, EPDand its partners in the public and privatesectors can help the state plan forgrowth and better manage its out-comes.
What are environmentalindicators?
Environmental indicators are measuresof environmental conditions and thehuman activities that can alter them.They are based on readily available datafrom different sources and, to theextent possible, are numerical. Indica-tors may show trends over time or theymay address only one point in time as astarting point for future measurements.They are chosen and evaluated toanswer specific questions about thecondition of Georgia’s environment.Some indicators can provide only partialanswers because of limited data orinformation.
What are the best indicators to helpevaluate progress in meeting environ-mental objectives? In certain cases, theanswer is easy. Under federal or statelaws, standards have been establishedto assess the condition of certainnatural resources. Currently, there arestandards for air quality; drinking waterquality; the quality of water in rivers,streams, lakes and coastal waters; andfor land contaminated with hazardoussubstances. These standards defineindicators that can be used to measureprogress.
For many other environmental condi-tions, however, standards do not exist.In these cases, other indicators ofenvironmental quality were selected tocompare patterns or trends. For ex-ample, the amount of Georgia’s land inforest and wetlands is important to thequality of the state’s waters. However,simply looking at the number of acres
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // In
trod
uc
tion
for the current year does not indicatewhether or not Georgia’s environment ishealthy; but comparing the numbersfrom several years will show a trend —either positive or negative — that canbe used to evaluate progress.
This report uses a variety of indicatorsthat track the condition of Georgia’s air,water and land resources. Indicatorsrelated to human activities that alterthose conditions — for better or forworse — also were selected. Examplesinclude the release of pollutants,alteration of wildlife habitat, withdrawalof water for water supply and landconservation efforts.
The indicators in this report werechosen based on their relevance to thethree environmental objectives, thetime period and geographic area theyaddress and the quality of availabledata.
Overall, indicators were chosen todescribe the status of Georgia’s majornatural resources, to highlight thecritical issues that have been evidentfor some time, and to introduceemerging issues that will requireattention in the near future.
4
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ In
tro
du
cti
on
The changing face of Georgia
Population and economic conditions setthe context for the discussion ofenvironmental indicators and thechanging condition of Georgia’s envi-ronment. Recent trends in populationand economic conditions, and theenergy use associated with thesechanges, are highlighted below. Thesetrends highlight the opportunities andchallenges associated with Georgia’sgrowth, and provide a starting point forevaluating the state of Georgia’senvironment.
Population
• The state’s population doubledbetween 1960 and 2000. Today,more than 9 million people callGeorgia home.
• During the 1990s, Georgia grew 26percent while the U.S. grew 13percent. Migration from otherstates and countries accounts formore than half of Georgia’s growth.
• Population growth varies acrossthe state. One hundred countieshave populations less than 35,000.Twenty-three counties areprojected to lose population until2015.
• Almost 75 percent of Georgia’spopulation is concentrated inmetropolitan areas. Most of thestate’s fastest growing counties arein or adjacent to metro Atlanta andalong the coast.
Figure 1 Population changes in Georgia by county, 1990 - 2000. (U.S. CensusBureau)
-56.6 - 0.0
0.1 - 20.0
20.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 468.4
% loss
% gain
% gain
% gain
% gain
Sources of statistics
Georgia in Perspective 2007:A Statistical Profile of the State,Georgia Office of Planning andBudget; Georgia Energy Review2005 (updated 2006), GeorgiaEnvironmental Facilities Authority;Georgia Statewide ComprehensiveOutdoor Recreation Plan 2008-2013, Georgia Parks, Recreation andHistoric Sites Division.
5
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // In
trod
uc
tion
Figure 2 Georgia’s population, 1900 - 2015. (1900 - 2000 from the U.S. CensusBureau; projections for 2010 and 2015 from the Georgia Office of Planning andBudget)
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2015
Figure 3 Per capita gross domestic product, 1997-2007. This figure illustrates thetrend in economic output compared to population. (Bureau of Economic Analysis,Regional Economic Accounts)
0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Southeast
Georgia
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Dol
lars
(a
djus
ted
for i
nfla
tion
to
200
0 b
ase
year
)
Economy
• Georgia’s gross domestic product(GDP) nearly quadrupled between1984 and 2004 — from $88.6billion to $343.1 billion. The state’sper capita GDP has consistentlyexceeded that of the southeasternregion.
• Georgia’s per capita incomeincreased 43.5 percent between1995 and 2005.
• The state’s median householdincome of $44,140 in 2005 wassecond highest among south-eastern states.
• Economic conditions vary acrossthe state. Most of the state’ssouthern counties have medianhousehold incomes less than$30,000.
6
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4 Energy use per capita and per Georgia gross domestic product (GDP),1985 - 2005. (Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority) Note: Due to changes inthe method of calculation, estimates of Georgia’s GDP prior to 1997 are notincluded. A Btu is a common measurement of energy across different fuel types (1Btu equals the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound ofliquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit).
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
U.S. per capitaGeorgia per capita
2005200119971993198919850
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Georgia per GDP
Mill
ion
Btu
per
cap
ita
Btu
per
GD
P
Report organization
The report is organized by the threeenvironmental objectives. Each chapterpresents detailed information on theindicators related to each objective.
There are, of course, information gapsand limitations on the quality of the dataavailable. In these cases, the reportidentifies the gaps and the steps needed
to fill them. Finally, the report alsoincludes some sections that presentbackground information on environmen-tal management, highlight emergingissues or provide additional details onspecific environmental managementinitiatives. It concludes with a glossaryand appendix of data sources andreferences.
Energy use
• Georgia’s total energy use in 2005was 3,173 million Btu, which is 63percent higher than in 1985. Thestate’s population grew by 53percent over the same time period.
• The average amount of energy eachperson in Georgia uses per year(energy use per capita), has beenconsistently higher than thenational average. Georgia’s energyuse per capita increased by 7percent from 1985 to 2005;nationally, energy use per capitaincreased by about 5 percent overthe same time period.
• Energy use per capita in Georgiapeaked in 1996 and has declinedsince, but per capita use is stillhigher than that in the mid-1980s.
• The ratio of energy use to thestate’s GDP indicates the totalenergy being used to supporteconomic and social activity. From1997 to 2005, the amount ofenergy consumed to create onedollar of GDP in Georgia decreased24 percent.
• Recent decreases in Georgia’senergy use per capita and per GDPmay reflect increased use ofenergy efficient practices as wellas changes in the mix of the state’sindustries and economic sectors.
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ In
tro
du
cti
on
A note about references
This report lists a number of Websites as references for additionalinformation. These links are currentas of the date of publication,however, there is the chance thatthey may change over time.
7
Protecting human health, one ofEPD’s most important objectives, is
a major focus of the state laws thatcreated EPD’s regulatory and monitoringprograms.
To meet this objective, EPD implementslaws, rules and policies and enforcesstate and national standards. To ensurethis objective is being met, EPD trackspollutants in the state’s drinking waterand surface waters (lakes, rivers andstreams), on the land and in the air.
In this chapter, 10 indicators are used toevaluate progress toward the objectiveof protecting human health (Table 1.1).Indicators measure the condition of thestate’s water, land and air and trackhuman activities that affect theseresources.
Human activities that alter the condi-tion of the state’s natural resourcesinclude nonpoint source water pollu-tion, waste generation and disposal, andemissions of air pollutants.
ProtectingHuman Health
Table 1.1 Indicators of the condition of the state’s natural resources.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
Natural resource Indicators of condition
Drinking water Community water systems meeting drinking water standards
Surface water Bacteria levels in surface water
Contaminants in fish tissue
Non-point sources of pollution
Land Land contaminated above health-based standards
Solid waste disposal
Hazardous waste generation
Outdoor air Levels of air pollutants
Non-attainment areas
Emissions of air pollutants
8
Georgia’s drinking water comes fromsurface waters (rivers, lakes,
streams, ponds and reservoirs) and fromgroundwater (springs and wells). Morethan 80 percent of the state’s popula-tion gets its drinking water from publicwater systems (Figure 1.1), most ofwhich treat the water before it isdistributed.
To ensure that the drinking waterprovided by these systems is safe, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and EPD set standards that limitthe amount of 83 contaminants,including chemicals and disease-causing microorganisms (bacteria andprotozoa), that can be present in the
water. Owners and operators of publicdrinking water systems are required tomonitor the water for these contami-nants. Standards are violated when acontaminant exceeds the limits set forit in the regulations.
In 2007, 94 percent of the populationserved by community water systems inGeorgia received water that met allhealth-based standards (Table 1.2);EPA’s target for the southeastern stateswas 91 percent. The most commonreason for not meeting the standards ishigh levels of total coliform bacteria(see page 9 for more on this contami-nant). An increase in violations in 2006and 2007 was due to new and more
stringent federal andstate drinking waterregulations.
Less than 20 percentof Georgians get theirdrinking water fromsmall non-publicsystems or wells.Since these sourcesare not required tomeet specific stan-dards and are notsystematicallymonitored, the qualityof drinking water forthat portion of thestate’s populationcannot be assessed.
Table 1.2 Community water systems meeting health-based standards. (EPA, basedon Georgia Safe Drinking Water Information System data)
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
Community WaterSystems MeetingDrinking WaterStandards
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sDrinking Water
What are public andcommunity water systems?
A public water system is defined bythe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to serve at least 25people for at least 60 days a year.Community water systems arepublic systems that supply water tothe same population year-round.EPA tracks the performance ofcommunity drinking water systemsin all states to measure progresstoward meeting the objective ofprotecting human health.
How do Georgia’s resultscompare with those for the
Southeast?
The performance by Georgia’scommunity water systems hasgenerally exceeded that of drinkingwater systems in the Southeast asa whole. Over the past decade,Georgia’s community watersystems outperformed Southeast-ern systems in eight out of 10years.
Between 1998 and 2007, thepercentage of the state’s popula-tion served by community watersystems that met all health-basedstandards averaged 96 percent. Inthe Southeast as a whole, theaverage for the same time periodwas 94 percent.
Fiscal year
Number of systems
meeting health-based
standards
Percent of systems state-
wide meeting
Population served by
systems meeting health-based
standards
Percent of population* served by systemsmeeting health-
1998 1,574 95 6,230,632 97 1999 1,605 96 6,109,616 94 2000 1,621 97 6,497,878 99 2001 1,592 95 6,690,688 98 2002 1,599 96 6,910,480 98 2003 1,593 95 6,623,343 93 2004 1,643 97 7,239,274 98 2005 1,619 96 7,031,704 95 2006 1,612 94 7,033,525 95
health-based standards based standards
0 - 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
80 - 100%
Figure 1.1 Percent of population on a public watersystem, by county, 2007. (EPD)
*Population on community water systems only.
9
Backg rounde rWhat are co l i f o rm bacte r i a?
Drinking or coming into contact with water containing high levels of fecalbacteria increases the chance of illness (fever, nausea or stomach cramps)
from harmful bacteria entering the body through the mouth, nose, ears or cutsin the skin.
Even in polluted waters, harmful organisms are generally few in number and,unfortunately, difficult to identify. Routine monitoring is either impossible orimpractical; therefore, scientists and public health officials typically monitorbacteria that are associated with those transmitted by fecal contamination,which are easier to measure.
These bacteria are known as indicator organisms and are assumed to indicatethe presence of harmful organisms. The presence of indicator bacteria does notmean the water contains harmful microorganisms, but rather that the potentialexists. Types of indicator bacteria include:
Total coliforms are a group of bacteria that are widespread throughout thenatural environment. All members of the total coliform group can occur inhuman feces, but some can also be present in animal manure, soil, submergedwood and in other places in the environment. Total coliforms are the standardtest for drinking water because their presence indicates that a water supplyhas been contaminated by an outside source.
Fecal coliform bacteria, a subset of total coliform bacteria, are more likely tooriginate in feces. Georgia and many other states have used this group ofbacteria as the primary indicator for contamination of recreational waters.
Recently, EPA began recommending two other bacteria, E. coli and entero-cocci, as better indicators of health risks from water. Following this guidance,Georgia’s fecal coliform standard will be evaluated and updated to improve thetracking of public health risks. Until this evaluation is complete, EPD willcontinue to use fecal coliform as a primary indicator of water quality.
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a species in the fecal coliform group commonlyfound in the intestinal tract of humans, mammals and birds. This bacteria isone of the best indicators for freshwater recreation because its presence isdirect evidence of fecal contamination from warmblooded animals.
Enterococci are a subgroup within the bacterial coccus group that are alsocommonly found in the intestinal tract of humans and animals. BecauseEnterococci can survive in salt water, EPA recommends this group as theindicator of health risk in salt water used for recreation.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
10
Two indicators are tracked to assessthe quality of surface water from
the perspective of human health:bacteria levels in surface water andcontaminants in fish tissue.
This report uses three methods toevaluate bacteria in surface waters. Thefirst is the trend in fecal coliform levelsat 40 long-term or trend monitoringstations. The second, the number ofmiles of rivers that violate the fecalcoliform standards, is based on mea-surements from a larger number of sitesin the river basin monitoring program.The third comes from monitoring watersat public beaches.
Tracking bacteria levels is importantbecause water contaminated withbacteria can cause illness not only if itis ingested, but also if it comes incontact with the ears, nose, mouth orcuts in the skin. [See page 9 for moreinformation on bacteria and page 11 formore on monitoring.]
Each year, fecal coliform and othercontaminants are measured monthly at40 trend monitoring sites around the
state. Water samples have been takensince the early 1970s, so long-termtrends in water quality can be evalu-ated. Analysis of this data shows aconsistent decline in fecal coliformlevels since the early 1970s. This declineis primarily due to major improvementsin wastewater treatment by industriesand municipalities.
Because people tend to swim and engagein other water-related activities moreduring the summer, the standard for fecalcoliform is stricter between May andOctober. Since the early 1990s, averagesummer levels of the bacteria have beenbelow the health-based water qualitystandard (Figure 1.2). Winter levels offecal coliform have also shown a similartrend, with average levels falling belowthe winter standard since 1975.
Data from the 40 trend monitoring sitesprovides valuable information. However,other information, including data onshort-term variation in water qualityand on water quality in other rivers andstreams, is needed for a fuller picture ofthe bacteria levels in surface waters.
Bacteria Levelsin Surface Water
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sSurface Water
Figure 1.2 Average fecal coliform counts at 40 trend monitoring stations, May -October. Swimming and other recreational contact with surface waters is greatestbetween these months, making this the most critical time to monitor fecal coliformlevels. (EPD)
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
What are water qualitystandards?
Water quality standards define thegoals for a water body by designat-ing its uses and setting criteria toprotect those uses.
All waters in the state have aspecific designated use, such asdrinking water, fishing, recreation,wild and scenic or coastal fishing.There are also special designationsfor trout streams, waters thatsupport shell fishing and outstand-ing natural resource waters. Allwaters are protected for recreationduring the swimming season (May -October). All major lakes, a portionof the Chattahoochee River and thecoast are designated for recreationyear round.
Water quality criteria are designedto protect each water body’sdesignated use. Some criteria arenarrative — text descriptions ofrequired water quality conditions.Others are numeric criteria thatdefine limits on acceptableamounts of specific pollutants. Tohelp ensure that the state’s waterbodies meet their designated uses,EPD monitors their condition todetermine whether or not the waterquality criteria are met.
10
100
1,000
10,000
1970
1975
1980
1985
2005
1990
1995
2000
Year
Cou
nt p
er 1
00
ml
95% of measurements in each year were below this line
5% of measurements in eachyear were below this line
Water qualitystandardAverage
11
Backg rounde rHow do we monitor the qualityof Georgia’s surface water?
In the late 1960s, EPD began monitoring the quality of Georgia’s surfacewater. Since then, 40 sites, representing all the state’s major river basins,
have been continuously monitored. These sites are mostly on large streams orrivers along Georgia’s borders and track the quality of water coming in fromother states, as well as the quality of the water leaving Georgia.
In addition to sampling at these core stations, EPD also monitors all riverbasins on a rotating schedule — generating an in-depth study of each basinevery five years. In recent years, water quality data have been collected from125 to 240 sites every year. The number of stations monitored partly dependson state, federal and non-governmental funding.
While the program does not evaluate water quality in every body of water inthe state, it does track changes in water quality conditions across the state.For example, water quality is monitored in waters with significant recreationalor municipal uses, waters threatened by contamination from polluted runoff,and waters that receive wastewater or stormwater discharges. EPD also tracksefforts to improve water quality after problems are discovered.
As of 2008, water quality in more than 20 percent of the state’s river andstream miles and in more than 93 percent of the acres in the state’s majorlakes had been evaluated. EPD reviews its water quality monitoring strategyevery three to five years, with the goal of increasing the number of streammiles and lake acres it evaluates.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
What happens whenwater quality standards
are not met?
The federal Clean Water Actrequires each state to maintain alist of waters that do not meetwater quality standards. Statesmust rank these waters in order ofpriority and set a limit for themaximum amount of a contami-nant the water body can receiveand still meet water qualitystandards. This limit, called a totalmaximum daily load (TMDL), isestablished to ensure that thewater body supports its designateduses.
Developing the TMDL typicallyinvolves intensive monitoring todescribe the water quality problemmore fully, identify potentialsources of pollution, and determinethe level of pollution reductionnecessary to meet the target.
Once the TMDL is established, EPDdevelops a plan describing how theTMDL, and ultimately the waterquality standards, will be achieved.Once the water quality standardsare met, the state may remove thewater body from the list.
12
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
hTo supplement trend monitoring data,EPD also monitors all river basins on arotating, five-year cycle. This monitor-ing gives a more detailed snapshot ofwater quality in each river basin andprovides much of the information EPDuses to determine whether waterquality standards are being met.
Periodic river basin monitoring showsthat, while long-term trends in fecalcoliform have steadily improved, thereare still sections of streams and rivers
Table 1.3 Percent of assessed miles of rivers not meeting the water qualitystandard for fecal coliform, 2006 - 2007. The location of each river basin is shownin Figure 1.3. (EPD)
where fecal coliform levels exceed thewater quality standard (Table 1.3).
Of the river miles tested, 34 percent donot meet water quality standards forfecal coliform, indicating potentialhuman health risks from contact withthose waters. Fecal contaminationaffects all 14 river basins in the state,and it is currently the most commonwater quality problem in all but four.
River basin Total river
miles Percent of river miles assessed
Percent of assessed miles not meeting fecal
coliform standard
Altamaha 3,430 16% 31%
Chattahoochee 8,172 23% 39%
Coosa 7,126 25% 37%
Flint 9,122 18% 19%
Ochlockonee 1,716 15% 49%
Ocmulgee 7,268 25% 34%
Oconee 6,773 20% 40%
Ogeechee 6,981 12% 21%
Satilla 3,629 21% 32%
Savannah 7,413 15% 31%
Suwannee 4,961 20% 19%
St. Marys 485 33% 9%
Tallapoosa 774 31% 35%
Tennessee 2,300 24% 35% Total 70,150 20% 32%
Keeping swimmers onGeorgia’s coast safe
from bacteria
To protect swimmers on the coast,the state also monitors waters atdesignated public beaches forenterococcus bacteria. [See page 9for more on why this specificbacteria is tracked.] If high levels ofbacteria are found, the local healthdepartment issues an advisoryrecommending the public not swimthere, although the beach is notclosed.
Twenty-seven beaches weremonitored between 2005 and 2007.Of the beaches monitored in 2007,14 had at least one advisory (seetable below). Overall, EPA con-cluded that Georgia beaches wereaffected by high levels of entero-coccus bacteria on only 2 percentof the total number of beach days*in the 2007 swimming season.Nationally, beaches were affectedby high levels of bacteria on 5percent of beach days in 2007.
Beach advisories, 2004 - 2007.
2005 17 10
2006 11 3
2007 14 2
Beaches with % of beachadvisories days affected
*The total number of beach daysequals the number of beachesmonitored multiplied by thenumber of days in the swimmingseason. (EPA)
13
Altamaha
Chattahoochee
Coosa
Flint
Ochlockonee
Ocmulgee
Oconee
Ogeechee
Satilla
Savannah
St. Marys
Suwannee
Tallapoosa
Tennessee
Figure 1.3 Georgia’s 14 major river basins. (EPD)
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
What is a watershed?
A watershed is an area of landwhere all the water drains to thelowest point – usually a stream,lake or river. Rain runs off land inthe watershed through a network ofgullies, creeks and streams to thepoint defined as the outlet of thewatershed. That point may be on astream, river or lake.
The boundary of a watershed isformed by the highest mountains orhills around a stream, river or lakeand ends at the bottom or lowestpoint of the land where water flowsout of the watershed.
Small watersheds include smallstreams known as headwaterstreams, and may have one con-necting stream.
Small watersheds that contributewater to the same large stream orriver are part of the same largewatershed. For instance, the landthat drains into southwestGeorgia’s Ichawaynochaway Creekis an example of a large watershed.The land that drains into the UpperOcmulgee River in the central partof the state and the land thatdrains into the Broad River innortheast Georgia also are ex-amples of large watersheds.
There are 52 large watersheds inGeorgia (for a map, see http://www.georgiaplanning.com/documents/atlas/52watersheds.pdf). These largewatersheds drain into the state’s 14major river basins (Figure 1.3).
14
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
Figure 1.4 Percentages of recommended fish consumption restrictions due tomercury and organochlorines, 1997 and 2008. (EPD)
Some contaminants build up in fishtissue and may pose risks to human
health when the fish is consumed.Longer-lived fish (and the animals thateat them) can contain more contami-nants, and therefore can pose greaterrisks for human consumption.
EPD monitors for 40 types of contami-nants in fish in rivers, lakes and streamscommonly used for fishing. These areasinclude 26 major reservoirs that makeup more than 90 percent of the state’slake acreage, rivers visited by largenumbers of fishermen, and some riversdownstream from urban or industrialsources.
Each year, the state issues risk-basedguidelines recommending people limittheir consumption of species by waterbody, based on the levels of contami-nants found in the fish. These guidelinesare intended to protect sensitive groups(such as children and women ofchildbearing age) from health risksassociated with long-term, chronicexposure to the contaminants.
The contaminants monitored fall intotwo general categories: human-made
chemicals called organochlorines andnaturally occurring metals. Organochlo-rines that contribute to recommendedrestrictions on fish consumption includepolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); DDTand its by-products; and the pesticidesdieldren, chlordane and toxaphene.Mercury is the only metal that contrib-utes significantly to the recommendedrestrictions.
In the early years of monitoring,organochlorines accounted for most ofthe restrictions (Figure 1.4). However inthe late 1990s, restrictions due tomercury became more prevalent andcontinue to account for the majority ofadvisories today (see the sidebar onpage 15 for one reason for this change).
Fish consumption guidelines due tomercury are more common in thestate’s rivers than in its lakes. They arealso more stringent in the southernparts of the state. The chemicalconditions in streams found in southGeorgia lead to the transformation ofmercury into a form that poses thegreatest threat to human health(methylmercury); this form of mercuryalso easily builds up in fish tissue.
Contaminantsin Fish Tissue
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sSurface Water
Organochlorines
Mercury
20081997
68%
27%
73%
32%
142Total numberof restrictions
347Total numberof restrictions
15
Figure 1.5 Fish consumption guidelines, 2008. (EPD)
Restrictions recommended due to PCBcontamination vary across the state,with more occurring in theChattahoochee, Coosa, Ocmulgee,Satilla and Savannah basins. Rivers andlakes seem to be equally affected byPCBs. There is a ban on the manufac-ture of new products containing PCBs,but old equipment can still be a source.Also, contamination can remain in theenvironment a long time because PCBsbreak down very slowly.
Pesticide contamination results in thefewest number of recommendationslimiting fish consumption. Use of thepesticides that contribute to fishconsumption guidelines has beenbanned or restricted in the U.S. How-ever, like PCBs, they are still present inthe environment because of how slowlythey break down.
Why are fish consumptionrestrictions due to mercury
more common today?
One reason that restrictions due tomercury are more prevalent inGeorgia today is because ofchanges EPA made in how itevaluates risk from contaminants.
On the basis of new research, in thelate 1990s, EPA tripled the esti-mated toxicity of mercury andlowered the estimated toxicity oftwo important organochlorines(PCBs and chlordane).
The new values decreased theimportance of organochlorines inthe overall scheme of Georgia’sadvisories and greatly increased thesignificance of mercury.
Where can I find the fishconsumption guidelines?
The booklet, “Guidelines for EatingFish from Georgia Waters,” isavailable online at www.gaepd.org/Documents/fish_guide.html.
New guidelines are issued each yearbased on changing conditions in thestate’s lakes and rivers.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
Maximum recommended restriction
Do not eat
One meal per month
One meal per week
No restriction
16
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
The quality of Georgia’s surfacewaters is affected by pollution from
point and nonpoint sources. Pointsources include wastewater flowingfrom a single source — e.g., a pipe, anindustrial facility or a wastewatertreatment plant. Nonpoint sourcepollution, in contrast, can be created bya variety of human activities.
Pollution from nonpoint sources isgenerally carried by rainfall or snowmeltmoving over the ground. As this watermoves across the land, it picks up andcarries pollutants with it, finallydepositing them into lakes, rivers,wetlands and coastal waters.
Some contaminants, like mercury, alsocan settle directly out of the air andinto a body of water. Together, pollutionfrom these different nonpoint sourcescan slow progress toward the objectiveof protecting human health (and towardother environmental objectives, as willbe discussed later).
Mercury: the air-land-waterconnection
Mercury in fish tissue, and the fishconsumption guidelines that result, arenonpoint source problems. Although therisk to human health comes from eatingfish, the mercury does not come fromthe water body. Instead, much of themercury in our streams and rivers hasbeen deposited out of the air afteroriginating from combustion sources.
There are several different chemicalforms of mercury. Metallic and inorganicforms can be toxic at high levels.However, an organic form calledmethylmercury is of greater concern,because it is a powerful toxin, itremains in the environment for a longtime, and it readily enters the foodchain and can accumulate in the bodiesof fish, animals and humans.
Because mercury, like some otherpollutants, can remain in the environ-ment for a long time, it can be carriedgreat distances by air currents and thensettle onto soil or into lakes and
streams, far from the original source.Once on land or in water, mercury canundergo a complex series of chemicalreactions to create methylmercury. Thenatural chemical conditions that lead tothis transformation are more commonin south Georgia than in north Georgia,which contributes to the higher numberof mercury-based fish consumptionrestrictions in the southern part of thestate.
Today, most human-made mercury thatenters the environment comes throughemissions to the air from combustionsources such as coal-burning powerplants. Some of this mercury may entera global pool of mercury in the atmo-sphere. Much of it, however, falls outlocally, near the point where it wasemitted, or is deposited in other parts ofthe state or southeastern U.S.
All of these factors contribute to themanagement challenge posed bymercury. In 2008, mercury accountedfor nearly three-fourths of all advisorieson reduced fish consumption in Georgia.EPA assessments indicate that localindustrial facilities were the primarysource of mercury in some of thesewater bodies. For others, however, EPA’sresults suggest that as much as 72percent of the mercury came from coal-fired power plants in other parts of thestate.
To address these sources, the staterecently adopted regulations thatrequire new and existing power plantsto install technologies that reduce theamount of mercury they release. Theregulations also require additionalmonitoring and evaluation of mercurysources, information that will be criticalto improving our management ofmercury’s air-land-water connectionand decreasing risks to human health.
For more information on mercurytransport, see the 1997 EPA report toCongress available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/report.htm.Information on mercury in Georgiawaters is available in the data sourceslisted at the end of this report.
What are nonpoint sources?
Nonpoint sources of water pollu-tion include:
• Bacteria and nutrients fromlivestock, pet wastes and faultyseptic systems
• Sediments from improperlymanaged construction sites, cropand forestlands and erodingstream banks
• Oil, grease and toxic chemicalsfrom urban runoff and energyproduction
• Excess fertilizers, herbicides andinsecticides from agriculturallands and residential areas
• Mercury from coal-fired powerplants and other sources ofcombustion
Nonpoint Sourcesof Pollution
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sSurface Water
17
Bacteria: the land-waterconnection
Nonpoint sources also contribute tobacteria levels in surface water. Stormwater runoff is one source of highbacteria levels. Fecal coliform bacteriain stormwater may come from wildlifeand domestic animals, urban develop-ment (including sewer collection lines),leaking septic tanks, manure applied toagricultural land, or animals with accessto streams.
During rainy weather, the levels of fecalcoliform in surface water are oftenhigher than in the same streams underdry conditions (Table 1.5). This effect isgenerally more pronounced in urban andsuburban areas due to the large amountof paved surfaces and extensivedrainage systems that efficiently carrycontaminants into streams.
Bacteria levels in surface water also canbe affected by failing septic systems.Septic systems that are properly sited,installed and maintained do not poserisks to human health and on-sitesewage management is an importantpart of wastewater management inGeorgia. When systems fail, however,bacteria can enter groundwater or betransported into streams and otherwater bodies.
While all county health departmentsoversee the siting and installation ofseptic systems, there are few monitor-ing programs or maintenance require-ments in Georgia. The only localrequirements for septic system mainte-nance are in the city of Berkley Lake inGwinnett County and in a portion ofDouglas County that lies in the water-shed of the drinking water reservoir.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealthThere have been no comprehensivestudies of septic system failure ratesacross the state. A study in GwinnettCounty found failures that resulted inwastewater backing up onto the groundsurface in less than 1 percent of septicsystems. In the 16-county metroAtlanta area, the North Georgia Metro-politan Water Planning District esti-mates that approximately 1 percent ofseptic systems fail each year.
Information on septic system repairsfrom the Georgia Department of HumanResources, however, suggests thatfailure rates may be higher in somecounties. Failure rates are likely to varywith regional soil and groundwaterconditions, and may be higher in areaswith high water tables, like the coast.
The impact of failing septic systems isnot just determined by failure rates;location is also a factor. If systems arebuilt in unsuitable soils or next tosurface water bodies, bacteria canreadily be transported from failingsystems directly to groundwater ornearby surface waters.
Even with low failure rates, withoutmonitoring or maintenance programs,areas with large numbers of septicsystems may face greater risks to waterquality. The Georgia Department ofHuman Resources reports that, in thepast five years, the highest numbers ofnew installations of septic systemshave occurred in counties at the edge ofand surrounding the metro Atlanta area.High numbers have also been seen insome counties in the north Georgiamountains and in a few counties alongthe coast.
Table 1.5 Fecal coliform levels during dry and wet weather, 1998 - 2005 (countsper 100 ml). (EPD)
Streams in rural areas Streams in urban areas Average Range Average Range
Dry weather 160 51 - 744 225 28 - 5,289 Wet weather 414 158 - 4,480 2,514 148 - 41,611
18
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
The management of Georgia’s land-based resources differs markedly
from that for air and water. There are nomajor federal laws that specify overallstandards for land quality. There are,however, federal and state laws thatestablish health-based standards forland contaminated with hazardoussubstances. At sites where humans canbe exposed to contamination, cleanupstandards are established to ensure theprotection of human health.
Land contaminated above health-basedstandards can pose significant threatsto human health in the immediate area,either through direct exposure to soil orcontamination of drinking watersources. The number of acres contami-nated above health-based standardsthat have been identified and measuredis an indicator of the condition ofGeorgia’s land from a human-healthperspective.
EPD currently monitors land contami-nation from four primary sources:landfills, underground storage tanks,sites where hazardous waste is treatedor stored, and sites known to becontaminated with hazardous sub-stances. Contamination can also becaused by a number of other sourcesthat are not routinely monitored. As aresult, the total amount of land con-taminated above health-based stan-dards is not known. However, theacreage and number of contaminatedsites currently tracked by EPD providetwo measures of the condition ofGeorgia’s land from the perspective ofhuman health.
Landfills, if not properly managed, canresult in contamination of surface andgroundwater from liquid leaving thelandfill. This liquid, known as leachate,is created as rain or groundwater filtersthrough the landfill, picking up con-taminants along the way.
Underground storage tanks are used bygas stations and other businesses tohold gasoline, oil and other petroleumproducts. Ingredients in these products,such as benzene and toluene, can causecancer and other human illnesses.Corroded or leaking tanks can pose aserious threat to groundwater.
Sites where hazardous waste is treatedor stored are tracked and managedunder the federal Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act. Land at a portionof these sites has been contaminatedabove health-based standards.
Other sites contaminated with hazard-ous substances also are tracked onGeorgia’s Hazardous Site Inventory(HSI) — a list of sites in the state wherethere has been a release (or a suspectedrelease) of a hazardous substance abovea specific amount. These sites also havenot met the health-based, cleanupstandards established by the state.
Table 1.6 presents information on theextent of soil and groundwater knownto be contaminated above health-basedstandards, where that information isavailable. This amount has beendetermined by the extent of landcontamination that has been identified(for which acreages can be estimated)
Table 1.6 Estimate of land contaminated above health-based standards, 2006.(EPD)
Land ContaminatedAbove Health-based Standards
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sLand
Number of sites
Acres of contaminated
land
Acres of contaminated groundwater
Solid waste landfills 126 13,230 13,775 Underground storage tank sites
3,011 3,011 1,983
Sites where hazardous waste is stored or treated
69 3,095 5,787
Georgia’s Hazardous Site Inventory
550 not available not available
19
Figure 1.7 Sites on the state’s Hazardous Site Inventory, 1994 - 2007. (EPD)
minus land that has already beencleaned up. The data exclude land onthe Hazardous Site Inventory, as theacreage of these sites is not currentlyavailable.
Compared to the acreage of the state asa whole (about 38 million acres), theextent of land known to be contami-nated at levels above health-basedstandards is small. But, these lands aremore concentrated in urban areas wherethe potential for human exposure ishigher. They can pose significant threatsto human health in the immediate area,either through direct exposure to soil orcontamination of drinking watersources. Identifying these sites andcontrolling and cleaning up contamina-tion are important steps in makingprogress toward the objective ofprotecting human health.
Since the total number of acres on theHSI is not available, EPD tracks thenumber of sites on the inventory asanother indicator of land contamina-tion. The first step in adding a site to
the HSI is notifying EPD of a spill orcontamination.
Of the sites with spills or contaminationthat are reported to EPD, only thosewith an exposure pathway — a physicalroute to the human body throughdrinking water or contact with soil —pose a risk to human health and areadded to the Inventory. If there is notcurrently an exposure pathway, thenthe site is not added. Between thecreation of the HSI in 1994 and 2007,EPD received 2,173 notifications ofspills or contamination and evaluatedan additional 1,106 sites. Of the 3,279sites evaluated, 779 were added to theInventory.
At the same time that new sites areadded, others are cleaned up andremoved from the list (Figure 1.7). By2007, a total of 566 sites remained onthe list. These sites are found across thestate, but tend to be concentrated inlarger cities, including Atlanta, Augustaand Savannah, because of the history ofindustrial activity in those areas.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Cumulative number of sites removed from list
New listings each year
Total sites listed
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Num
ber
of s
ites
How much contaminated landhas been cleaned up?
Once contaminated sites areidentified, EPD must ensure theyare cleaned up to levels that nolonger pose a threat to humanhealth.
• By 2007, 210 sites listed onGeorgia’s Hazardous SiteInventory had been cleaned upto meet health-based standards.
• As of 2006, 18 sites and 588acres of sites where hazardouswaste is treated or stored hadbeen cleaned up.
• Also as of 2006, 246 acres attwo landfills had been cleanedup.
• There has been notable progresscleaning up lands contaminatedby leaking underground storagetanks:
– By 2006, 69 percent of thecontaminated soil area —or 6,745 acres — had beencleaned up to levels nolonger threatening tohuman health.
– Contaminated groundwaterlying under 3,441 acres —or 63 percent of the affectedarea — had been cleaned upto meet the standards or,because there is currently noexposure route, were foundnot to threaten humanhealth.
Cleanup of lands contaminatedabove the health-based standardswill continue. Reaching contami-nant levels that no longer threatenhuman health may, however, takelonger than in the past. Many of theless contaminated sites alreadyhave been cleaned up, leaving sitesthat are more challenging and cantake longer to clean.
20
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
EPD tracks the amount of wastedisposed in municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills and construction anddemolition (C&D) debris landfills. MSWlandfills accept waste from householdsand businesses, and nonhazardous wastefrom industries. C&D landfills acceptbuilding materials and debris fromconstruction, renovation and demolition.As of 2006, there were 119 active landfillsaccepting solid waste in Georgia.
From a human health perspective, oneof the biggest improvements in solidwaste disposal has been a shift to MSWlandfills with liners and leachatecollection systems. Since 1993, MSWlandfills have been required by federalregulations to have these systems toprotect groundwater and soil fromliquids (known as leachate) thatpercolate through the landfill and pickup contaminants from the waste.
In 1994, 54 percent of the state’smunicipal solid waste was disposed inunlined landfills without systems tocapture and treat leachate. By 2006, 98percent of MSW was disposed in linedlandfills with collection systems.
Federal regulations also require ground-water monitoring at landfills to ensureleachate does not reach the watertable. Groundwater monitoring isconducted at active landfills (thosecurrently accepting waste) and at those
closed after June 1991. As of 2006, 305active and closed landfills were subjectto groundwater monitoring require-ments.
Groundwater contamination has beenfound at approximately 150 of thesesites (affecting roughly 16,000 acres).However, most is contained within thelandfill boundaries. Only 546 acres ofgroundwater outside the boundaries areaffected. Of the 305 landfills withgroundwater monitoring, 119 are activeand 186 are closed. In 2006, only 19percent of the active landfills showedevidence of groundwater contaminationwhile 71 percent of the closed sites hadgroundwater contamination.
The quantity of waste disposed inGeorgia has risen consistently in recentyears (Figure 1.8). In 2007, more than 17million tons of solid waste was dis-posed. Of that total, more than 12.7million tons was disposed in MSWlandfills, up from 10.7 million tons in2001. The amount of C&D wastedisposed grew by 71 percent in thesame time period. Disposal of wastefrom other states also increased in thisperiod — almost 2 million tons of wastewere imported in fiscal year (FY) 2007,compared to approximately 900,000tons in FY 2001.
Increases in population, economicgrowth and landfill capacity all contrib-
Figure 1.8 Waste disposed of in Georgia municipal solid waste and constructionand demolition debris landfills, 2001 - 2007. (EPD)
Solid WasteDisposal
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sLand
Georgia’s wasteful ways
Georgia’s per capita rate of munici-pal solid waste (MSW) disposal —6.44 pounds per person per day —is more than twice the nationalaverage (see table below). Thisfigure does not even include wasteimported from other states.Imported waste added another 1.13pounds per person per day in 2007,10 percent higher than in 2004. Anaverage of 2.3 pounds per person isalso disposed of in constructionand demolition landfills.
To address the high rate of solidwaste disposal, the state promotesrecycling and waste reductionthrough technical assistance andeducation and grants to localgovernments to build recyclinginfrastructure. Specific projectsinclude establishing regionalrecycling collection hubs andmounting a statewide campaign toincrease awareness about recy-cling.
0
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000C&DMSW
2007200620052004200320022001
Fiscal year
Tons
Per capita MSW disposal rates forGeorgia and the U.S., 2004 - 2007(lbs per person per day) (EPD)
2004 6.39 3.21
2005 6.44 3.16
2006 6.39 3.15
2007 6.44 3.08
GA MSW U.S. MSWdisposed disposed
21
Backg rounde rScrap Tires: A recycling success
A long-standing priority of the state has been to assure clean up and recycling of scrap tires. Scrap tires may not seem like a threat to human
health, but when filled with rainwater they provide the perfect breedingground for mosquitoes, including those that carry dangerous viruses, such asthe West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitis. Large tire dumps also arefire risks. In 1992, a fire at an abandoned scrap tire processing facility inPalmetto burned approximately 3 million tires. Runoff containing pyrolytic oilfrom the burning tires contaminated the groundwater.
The state’s scrap tire program focuses, in part, on removing illegally dumpedscrap tires. Since the program began in 1992, more than 13.7 million scrap tireshave been removed from illegal dumps and recycled. In FY 2007 alone,268,000 illegally dumped tires were collected and recycled. The estimatednumber of illegally dumped tires dropped from 3.2 million in FY 1999 to415,000 in FY 2006, a reduction of 85 percent.
Each year, approximately 9 million scrap tires are generated in Georgia. Toensure the scrap tires generated in Georgia, plus the millions more imported,are properly managed, EPD tracks them from the point of generation to finaldisposition at a processor or recycler. Scrap tires can be processed as analternate fuel source or recycled into products such as artificial turf, pavingtiles or rubberized asphalt. In FY 2006, an estimated 15 million tires wereprocessed or recycled by scrap tire industries in Georgia.
What do recycled tires become?
As the largest processor of scrap tires in the state, Liberty Tire Recyclingprocesses about 95 percent of the scrap tires generated in Georgia. At its threefacilities, scrap tires are processed to create either tire-derived fuel or crumbrubber.
Tire-derived fuel is an alternate energy source produced by grinding whole tiresinto chips. This fuel has an energy content that is nearly equal to natural gasand is higher than most types of coal. Compared to many other solid fuels,tire-derived fuel also can be burned in ways that produce less ash and releaseless air pollution (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, specifically). Production ofthis fuel is a major use of scrap tires, using more than half of the number oftires generated nationally.
Crumb rubber is a finely ground rubber produced from whole tires. It is used asa raw material in the production of a variety of new rubber products, includingdoor mats, flooring, automobile parts, railroad ties and new passenger tires.Liberty Tire Recycling also provides crumb rubber to refiners, who reprocess thematerial to a consistency finer than talcum powder for use in other rubbergoods and automobile parts.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealthute to these trends. The cost to disposeof solid waste (known as tipping fees)also is relatively low in Georgia. In 2005,the average tipping fee for MSW inGeorgia was $35.38 per ton and for C&D
debris was $30.21 per ton. This wasabout $5 per ton lower than the averagein the Southeast and nearly $30 per tonlower than the average in the North-east.
Recyclables:An economic resource
Recycling is not only a key strategyto reduce waste, it also supportslocal businesses and creates jobs.Georgia is home to more than 50manufacturers that use recoveredmaterials in their processes. One-third of the plastic beveragecontainers (PET #1) recycled inNorth America are used byGeorgia’s carpet industry, andnearly 8 percent of the paperrecovered in the U.S. is used byGeorgia’s paper industry.
The Department of CommunityAffairs estimates that 2.6 milliontons of easily recyclable commodi-ties are currently discarded inGeorgia (including cardboard, officepaper, aluminum cans and plasticbeverage bottles). While commodityprices fluctuate with economicconditions, as of February 2008,the estimated value of thesematerials was more than $300million.
Recycling also saves energy.Recycling just 10 percent of the 2.6million tons of recoverable materialthat is currently disposed in Georgiawould save energy equivalent totaking nearly 58,000 passengercars off the road each year.
However, the infrastructure tocollect and process recyclablematerials is limited, forcing Georgiaindustries to import materials fromother states. Expanding therecycling infrastructure in the statewould increase the amount ofrecyclable materials availablelocally to support Georgia indus-tries.
22
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
Land can become contaminated when wastes and other materials
are not properly handled and/or dis-posed. When toxic or hazardousmaterials are being manufactured,stored, transported or used, there isalways the chance that they may spillor leak, which also can contaminateGeorgia’s land. Many common house-hold items, such as paint, electronicsand pesticides, are hazardous and, if notproperly managed, can lead to landcontamination.
Hazardous waste is managed under thefederal Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). Under that Act,EPD in partnership with EPA has theauthority to regulate all facets ofhazardous waste to reduce potentialhazards and ensure that waste ishandled in an environmentally soundmanner. This includes the generation,treatment, storage and disposal ofhazardous waste.
Table 1.7 shows the changes in thevolume of hazardous waste generatedor managed (i.e., treated or stored) inGeorgia between 2001 and 2007. Italso shows the amount of waste thatGeorgia facilities received from other
states and the amount that Georgiafacilities shipped to other states forhandling or disposal. There are nocommercial hazardous waste disposalfacilities in Georgia, so waste is shippedto other states for disposal.
The amount of hazardous wastegenerated and managed in Georgiavaries considerably from year to yeardepending in part on economic condi-tions. When the economy is less robust,industry generally produces less, and inturn, less waste is generated. Strongereconomic conditions lead to increasesin industrial production and in wastegeneration.
Another factor affecting the changingamounts of hazardous waste managedis the number of facilities permitted tomanage hazardous waste in Georgia andneighboring states in a given year. Forexample, between 2003 and 2005 thequantity of hazardous waste managedand received from other states declined,but the quantity shipped to other statesincreased. Two major commercialfacilities in Georgia that handledhazardous waste closed during thisperiod, presumably sending the wasteto other states.
Table 1.7 RCRA hazardous waste in Georgia, 2001 - 2007 (tons). (EPD)*
Hazardous WasteGeneration
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sLand
*Information on hazardous waste is reported to EPA by all the states every twoyears. Because EPA changed its reporting requirements in 2001, data from previousyears are inconsistent and cannot be compared with the numbers shown here.
How does hazardous wastegeneration in Georgia compare
to the rest of the nation?
In 2001, 2003 and 2005, the amountof hazardous waste generated in theU.S. ranged from 30.1 to 40.1 milliontons each year. The hazardous wastegenerated in Georgia was less than 2percent of the national total in eachof those years.
Since economic conditions affectthe amount of hazardous wastegenerated each year, one way tocompare Georgia with the nation iswith a measure based on economicactivity: the tons of hazardouswaste generated per dollar of grossdomestic product. As shown in thetable below, the amount of hazard-ous waste generated in Georgia perdollar of gross domestic producthas been consistently lower thanthe national figure.
Hazardous
waste generated
Hazardous waste treated
or stored
Hazardous waste received
from other states
Hazardous waste shipped to other states
2001 760,043 682,924 12,663 106,512 2003 203,298 2,094,734 8,837 84,031 2005 480,269 862,647 4,361 319,506 2007 102,636 738,718 3,462 52,315
1Tons per million dollars of state grossdomestic product.2Tons per million dollars of nationalgross domestic product.
Hazardous waste generated in GAand the U.S., 2001 - 2005. (EPD)
2001 2.5 4.12003 0.6 2.82005 1.3 3.1
Georgia U.S.hazardous hazardouswaste wastegeneration1 generation2
23
The federal Clean Air Act defines twomajor categories of air pollution:
criteria pollutants and toxic air pollut-ants. EPA has set health-based, airquality standards for criteria pollutants.As discussed below, there are nostandards for toxic air pollutantsdefined under the Clean Air Act, andmonitoring is underway to build theinformation base needed to assess risksfrom air toxics.
There are six criteria pollutants: carbonmonoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, ozone,nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.These pollutants are called “criteria”pollutants because the Clean Air Actrequires that EPA set standards orcriteria for them to protect humanhealth and the environment. Thesestandards define acceptable levels ofeach pollutant. Primary standards aredesigned to protect human health byprotecting the most sensitive individu-als, including children, the elderly, andthose with chronic diseases. Under theClean Air Act, these standards are to beset without regard to cost.
EPD tracks the levels of criteria pollut-ants in outdoor air as one indicator ofprogress toward the objective ofprotecting human health. The health-
based air quality standards can be usedas a benchmark to evaluate the levels ofspecific pollutants.
Since monitoring began more than 30years ago, the levels of three criteriapollutants — carbon monoxide, sulfurdioxide and nitrogen dioxide — havebeen well below the health-basedstandards and have not directly posedrisks to human health in Georgia.
Lead levels in outdoor air used to behigh enough to pose human health risks.When standards were first establishedin the 1970s, leaded gasoline wascommonly used and lead levels inGeorgia’s air were higher than thestandard until 1972. Removing lead fromgasoline resulted in a rapid drop in theamount of lead in outdoor air and, sincethe mid-1980s, levels have stabilizedwell below both the 1978 standard andthe new standard established in 2008(Figure 1.9).
Two criteria pollutants currently have asignificant impact on air quality inGeorgia: ozone and fine particulatematter. Levels of both are higher thanthe health-based standards in parts ofthe state.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
Levels of AirPollutants
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sOutdoor Air
Figure 1.9 Lead levels at a representative air quality monitor; quarterly average.(EPD)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
2008 standard
Metro Atlanta
1978 standard
1975
1980
1990
1995
2000
1985
2005
Mic
rogr
ams
per c
ubic
met
er
24
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
hOzone levels at three representative airquality monitors are shown in Figure1.10. These monitors are located in oron the downwind side of three majormetropolitan areas: Augusta, Columbusand Atlanta.
Trends in ozone levels at these monitorshighlight some progress as well ascontinuing air quality challenges.Weather has a strong influence onozone levels and some of the fluctua-tions in ozone levels are due to year-to-year variations in temperature, wind,and rainfall.
Trends in ozone concentration alsoreflect controls on emissions fromdifferent sources of pollution. The trendat each monitor shows a peak in 1998-1999 followed by a drop in ozoneconcentration. This drop reflects statecontrols on emissions from industrialsources and national requirements forfuels and vehicles that were phased induring the 1990s. A second decline isseen at each monitor in 2002-2003,which reflects controls on emissionsfrom coal-fired power plants.
As these controls have taken effect,however, the scientific understanding ofozone impacts on human health hasimproved and, as a result, standardshave been tightened. The current 8-hour standard, shown in light blue inFigure 1.10, was adopted in 2008. As ofOctober 2008, ozone levels at monitorstracking air quality in 26 counties werehigher than the current ozone standard.
Levels of fine particulate matter at tworepresentative monitors are shown inFigure 1.11. Levels at these monitorswere highest in 1999 and have beenlower since. The drop in fine particu-lates after 1999 most likely reflectscontrols on fuels and vehicles that wereput in place to address ozone. Becauseemission controls for fine particulatematter may reduce ozone precursorsand vice versa, control of one pollutantcan help manage the other. Declininglevels of sulfur dioxide, a precursor offine particulate matter, have alsocontributed to this drop (Figure 1.12).
Figure 1.10 Ozone levels at selected monitors in or downwind of major metropoli-tan areas; eight-hour average. Meteorological conditions during the summerpromote ozone formation and ozone concentrations are monitored from March toOctober each year. (EPD)
What are ozone andparticulate matter?
Ozone is a gas that forms whennitrogen oxides and volatile organiccompounds react in the presence ofsunlight. This ground-level ozonecan inflame and damage the liningof the lungs, reduce lung functionand aggravate asthma.
Ozone is rarely emitted directly intothe atmosphere. It forms in theatmosphere from compounds calledprecursors. Volatile organic com-pounds and nitrogen oxides are theprimary precursors of ozone.
Particulate matter includes smoke,dust, fly ash and liquid dropletsthat can remain suspended in theair for long periods of time. Fineparticulate matter, which includesparticles that are less than 1/20th ofthe diameter of a strand of humanhair, poses the greatest threat tohuman health. Particles this smallcan penetrate deep into the humanrespiratory system and contributeto respiratory and cardiopulmonarydisease.
Particulate matter results from alltypes of burning, including combus-tion of fuels in motor vehicles,power plants, and industrialfacilities. Particulate matter isdirectly emitted into the atmo-sphere from a number of sources.It also forms in the atmospherethrough the reaction of precursorsincluding sulfur dioxide, nitrogenoxides, and various hydrocarbons.
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
2008 standard1997 standard
ConyersColumbusAugusta
200720052003200119991997199519931991
Mic
rogr
ams
per c
ubic
met
er
25
Despite this progress, these and othermonitors still show levels of fineparticulates that exceed the currentstandard. As of October 2008, levels of
fine particulates at monitors tracking airquality in 29 counties exceeded thecurrent standard (ozone levels were alsoexceeded in 24 of these counties).
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
Figure 1.11 Levels of fine particulate matter at selected monitors in major metro-politan areas; annual average. Particulate matter can be high anytime of the yearand fine particulate matter is monitored year round. (EPD)
Figure 1.12 Levels of sulfur dioxide at selected monitors in major metropolitanareas; 24-hour average. Levels in Savannah reflect industrial activity in the area,with the decline after 1988 due to the closing of a major industrial source. InAtlanta, declining levels are due to controls on industrial emissions and the use oflow sulfur fuel, which began in 2004. (EPD)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Atlanta
Savannah
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Part
s pe
r mill
ion
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
StandardAtlanta Rome
200720062005200420032002200120001999
Mic
rogr
ams
per c
ubic
met
er
Scientific advances leadto changes in air quality
standards
Health-based air quality standardsare determined by the best scienceavailable at the time of theiradoption. As research progresses,the scientific understanding of apollutant’s impacts on humanhealth can improve, which may leadto tighter standards.
Since their adoption in the early1970s, standards for ozone,particulate matter, and lead havebeen tightened. In the 1990s, to bemore protective, the ozone stan-dard was lowered and changedfrom a 1-hour average to an 8-houraverage. The 8-hour standard, inturn, was tightened in 2008.
For particulate matter, standardswere changed to shift from mea-surement of larger particles tofocus on the fine particulates thatpose the greatest health risk. Thefine particulate matter standardwas tightened again in 2006. Atighter standard for lead in outdoorair also was adopted in 2008.
Changes in air quality standardsmay lead to expanded monitoring,new assessment of pollutant levelsin outdoor air and, ultimately,identification of new or expandednon-attainment areas (as describedin the next section).
26
The primary air quality standards setlimits on air pollution that are based
on human health impacts. An area withair quality cleaner than the primarystandard is called an “attainment” area;areas that do not meet the primarystandard are called “non-attainment”areas.
Non-attainment areas are determinedby the number of times a pollutantsurpasses the air quality standard for aspecific period of time, which is calledan exceedance. Non-attainment areasare declared when there are moreexceedances than allowed in a giventime period. There is a built-in allow-ance for levels of a pollutant to exceedthe standard occasionally and stillprotect human health.
Air pollution can move large distancesfrom the place it is emitted, so non-attainment areas may be defined asmultiple counties or as a region, even ifexceedances are only monitored in onecounty. Also, if a county contains asource (e.g., a power plant) thatcontributes to exceedances in anotherarea, the portion of the county contain-ing the source is also considered non-attainment.
A non-attainment designation is basedon a specific pollutant. This means thatthe same area could meet the standard
Non-attainmentareas
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sOutdoor Air
for one pollutant, but be designatednon-attainment for another. Non-attainment areas for different pollut-ants also may overlap or share commonboundaries.
Georgia’s non-attainment areas are asecond indicator of air quality (Figure1.13). As described in the previoussection, Georgia meets the standardsand is an attainment area for four of thecriteria pollutants: lead, sulfur dioxide,carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide.
For ozone and fine particulate matter,however, levels exceed the standard inseveral parts of the state, leading tonon-attainment designations for bothpollutants. Twenty full counties inGeorgia have been designated non-attainment for ozone and 24 fullcounties and three partial counties havebeen designated non-attainment forfine particulates.
These counties contain more than halfof the state’s population: 55.2 percentof the state’s population lives incounties where the ozone levels aresometimes higher than the standard and57.6 percent live in areas where levelsof fine particulates are sometimeshigher than the standard.
Figure 1.13 Air quality non-attainment areas: Ozone and fine particulate matter,2008. (EPD)
Sensitive populationsin non-attainment areas
Approximately 17 percent of thestate’s population falls into“sensitive” categories, meaning thatthey are less than five years old,more than 65 years old, or haveweakened immune systems orsymptoms of asthma.
People in these sensitive groupsmay feel greater effects from poorair quality, and air quality standardsare set at levels to protect them. Ofthis population, more than 50percent — approximately 850,000— live in areas that have beendeclared non-attainment for eitherozone or particulate matter or both.Actions to improve air quality areimportant to protect their health.
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
Fine particulatematter and ozonenon-attainment areas
Fine particulatematter only
27
BackgrounderAir Quality Index
The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a national rating system developed by EPA.The AQI indicates whether or not the air quality presents a potential threat
to human health on any given day. This system is designed to provide informa-tion on the risk of acute health effects over time periods of 24 hours or less. Itdoes not provide information on chronic exposure to pollution over months oryears.
The AQI is not a direct measureof air quality or air pollution.The level of pollutants mea-sured in the air each day isconverted to a number on ascale of 0 to 500 — the largerthe number, the greater thelevel of air pollution and thegreater the expectation ofpotential adverse healtheffects. Depending on the day’srating, EPD will declare theday’s air quality as good,moderate, unhealthy forsensitive groups, unhealthy orvery unhealthy.
EPD reports the AQI for five ofthe criteria pollutants: ozone,fine particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. TheAQI is reported on a daily basis, year round.
AQI values are reported to inform the public about the health risks of outdooractivities on a given day. A rating of 100 represents the dividing line betweenmoderate air quality and air that is unhealthy for sensitive groups.
To see AQI ratings across the country, go to http://airnow.gov/. Air quality
forecasts for Atlanta and other Georgia cities are available at: http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/smogforecast.
What happens whenair quality standards
are not met?
States must develop implementa-tion plans that outline how stan-dards will be met and maintained.When an area is designated non-attainment, the state must revisethe plan to assess current andprojected air quality, estimateemissions from sources thatcurrently affect air quality, andspecify actions to bring air qualityback into compliance with thestandards.
Once a non-attainment area meetsthe standards and the plan isrevised again to show that thestandards will be able to be met foranother 10 years, EPA changes thedesignation back to attainment.
In 1999, EPD developed a plan tomeet the 1-hour ozone standardthen in place in the 13-countymetro Atlanta non-attainmentarea. The plan focused on threeemission sources: cars and trucks,electricity-generating plants andlarge industry. Actions taken underthis plan helped improve theregion’s air quality and, in 2005, themetro Atlanta area met the 1-hourstandard for ozone.
At the same time, however, thescientific understanding of healthrisks from ozone improved and EPAadopted a more stringent 8-hourstandard. The metro Atlanta ozonenon-attainment area, based on thenew 8-hour standard, now covers20 counties.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
Air Quality Index(AQI) Values
Levels of Health Concern
0 to 50 Good
51-100 Moderate
101-150 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups
151-200 Unhealthy
201-300 Very Unhealthy
301 to 500 Hazardous
28
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
Emerging IssueRisks from Air Toxics
Unlike the criteria pollutants, air toxics have no established, health-basedstandards. While many of these pollutants are known to cause, or are
suspected of causing, cancer and other serious illnesses, the quantities atwhich they become dangerous and the significance of various exposure routesare not yet fully understood.
Since 1990, managing air toxics has focused on controlling their release fromstationary sources, such as factories, refineries and power plants. To assess thelevels of these pollutants in Georgia’s air, EPD began operating a statewidemonitoring system in 1998. The system monitors a common set of toxiccompounds and provides information on air quality in urban and rural areas. Itdoes not provide information on the air quality impacts or health risks fromindividual facilities or industries.
The air monitoring system provides data on the frequency of detection andconcentrations of toxic air pollutants. It does not provide any information onactual exposure to people. However, by making some general assumptionsabout how people spend their time (e.g., indoor vs. outdoor activities), EPDscientists can make conservative estimates of exposure. These estimatesprovide a preliminary assessment of the potential risks of adverse healtheffects from air toxics.
Georgia’s air toxics monitoring system tracks about 70 of the chemicals thatEPA has designated as hazardous air pollutants. Most of the 70 have not beendetected and fewer than 10 of the 70 are detected often enough to indicatepotential risks to human health. Benzene, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde areamong the compounds that are detected most frequently.
While the monitoring system is relatively new, early indications suggest thatconcentrations of some toxic air pollutants are declining. While air toxics cancome from a variety of sources, monitoring results also suggest that cars,trucks and other on- and off-road vehicles may be significant contributors.
However, the current understanding of how people are exposed to air toxicsand of the toxicity of many of these chemicals is too limited to allow accuratepredictions of risk at this time. Improved inventories, models and measurementtechniques are needed to better evaluate the risk from air toxics. Data fromGeorgia’s air monitoring program provides one piece of the information neededto improve our ability to assess the risks from air toxics.
How is Georgia’s air qualitymonitored?
Like the state’s water qualitymonitoring, EPD’s monitoring of airquality has evolved since it beganmore than 30 years ago. The list ofcompounds monitored has grownfrom the original six criteriapollutants to more than 200pollutants, including air toxics andcompounds that contribute to theformation of criteria pollutants.EPD has more than 150 air qualitymonitors at 68 locations aroundthe state.
Information from these monitors isused to track air quality trends andcompliance with air quality stan-dards. Ozone levels in the metroAtlanta area have been trackedconsistently since 1990, andmonitoring of fine particulatematter in metro Atlanta was addedin 1999. Monitoring of ozone andfine particulate matter was ex-panded to include other citiesaround the state as the standardswere strengthened in the late 1990sand Georgia’s population outside themetro Atlanta area grew.
The monitoring network is designedto track levels of air pollutionthroughout Georgia. Monitorlocations are selected to meetspecific objectives, which includemeasuring concentrations in areasof high population density, measur-ing the highest observable concen-tration, and determining normalbackground levels.
Some gaps in information remain,however. Air quality monitors arelocated in 38 counties; somecounties have multiple monitorswhile others do not have any.Monitors only sample the air thatpasses over them, so that informa-tion on the air quality betweenmonitors is limited.
29
Figure 1.14 Sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in the 13-county metroAtlanta area. (EPD)
Most air pollution comes fromhuman-made sources, such as
smokestack emissions from factoriesand exhaust from motor vehicles. EPAdivides these sources into two catego-ries: stationary and mobile. Stationarysources include factories, power plants,refineries, incinerators, dry cleaners,service stations and residential back-yard burning.
Mobile sources include vehicles thattravel on roads, such as gasoline- ordiesel-powered motor vehicles (e.g.,cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles) andthose that do not. This second groupincludes equipment used in construc-tion, farming, and lawn and gardenactivities, as well as off-road recre-ational vehicles, aircraft and trains.
Not all pollutants enter the atmospheredirectly. Some are formed when otheremissions, called “precursors,” enter theatmosphere and react with chemicals inthe presence of sunlight and hightemperatures. For example, ozone, apollutant of concern in Georgia, is rarelyemitted directly into the atmosphere.Instead, it forms in the atmospherewhen precursors including nitrogenoxides (NOx) react in the presence ofsunlight and high temperatures.
Because nitrogen oxides are the majorprecursor of ozone, EPD tracks trendsin NOx emissions as an indicator of airquality. Since federal law establishedemissions in 1990 as a baseline, EPD
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealth
Emissions of AirPollutants
Indicator of thequality of Georgia’sOutdoor Air
What are the sourcesof nitrogen oxides in the
metro Atlanta area?
In 2005, 725 tons of nitrogenoxides were emitted daily in the 13-county metro Atlanta ozone non-attainment area.
Mobile sources contributed morethan half of the total, with 42percent from on-road motorvehicles and an additional 15percent from off-road vehicles,such as equipment used in con-struction, as well as aircraft andtrains.
Stationary sources contributed theremaining 43 percent. Of thisamount, 36 percent came frompoint sources — power plants andfactories that release pollutantsfrom a single smokestack or point.Seven percent came from areasources, such as automobile servicestations, with small but numerouscontributions.
uses data from the original 13-county,1-hour ozone non-attainment area toevaluate progress in reducing emissionsof air pollutants.
Figure 1.14 shows NOx emissions bysource in the 13-county metro Atlantaarea for 1990, 2002 and 2005. Methodsfor estimating emissions have changedover time, meaning that we can only lookat trends using the years for which datahave been adjusted to be comparable tothe 1990 baseline (2002 and 2005).
Total NOx emissions in the 13-countymetro Atlanta area declined 43 percentbetween 1990 and 2005. This progresswas achieved, in part, by reducingemissions from large stationary sourcesin the area, which declined by morethan 60 percent during this timeperiod.
EPD has determined that power plantsoutside the 13-county area contribute asignificant portion of the NOx emis-sions that drift into the Atlanta area.Controls on these plants have alsoreduced NOx emissions, even as energyproduction increased. During this timeperiod, NOx emissions from powerplants decreased by more than 60percent while energy production inGeorgia increased by approximately 32percent. NOx controls at power plants,including a chemical reaction in whicha catalyst helps convert nitrogen oxidesto gaseous nitrogen and water, wereput in place at a cost of $800 million.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
200520021990
Tons
per
day
Area
PointStationary sources
Aircraft & railroad
Off-road
HighwayMobile sources
30
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Pr
otec
ting
Hum
an H
ealt
h
Figure 1.15 Average contribution to fine particulate matter concentrations in themetro Atlanta area by source, 2001 - 2005. “Secondary” refers to particulatematter that forms in the atmosphere. Secondary sulfate comes primarily frompower plants, with a small amount from other industrial sources. Secondary organicaerosols come from natural sources, gasoline and solvent use and combustion offuels. Secondary nitrate comes from power plants and mobile sources. Sources thatcontribute to the “other” category include soil, limestone/minerals, sodium fromsea-salt or pulp and paper processes, oil burning and road dust. (EPD)
Decreasing emissions from cars andother mobile sources also contributed tothe decline in total emissions. Between1990 and 2005, NOx emissions fromon-road mobile sources decreased byabout 22 percent. This decline resultedfrom advances in engine and exhausttechnologies and new fuel formulations,and outweighed a 53 percent increase inthe number of vehicle miles traveled(VMT) on a daily basis.
Looking ahead, control of NOx emis-sions from mobile sources will beincreasingly important to improve airquality in the metro Atlanta area. Foron-road mobile sources, projectedpopulation growth means that thenumber of vehicle miles traveled daily isexpected to increase for at least thenext 25 years. The benefits of the newtechnologies that led to recent reduc-tion in emissions will eventually beoffset by this VMT growth.
Off-road mobile sources have alreadygrown as a contributor to total NOxemissions. Unlike stationary sourcesand on-road mobile sources, NOxemissions from off-road mobile sourcesin the Atlanta area increased between1990 and 2005 — almost 25 percent.These sources represent the last largely
uncontrolled or under-controlledsources of emissions, as most efforts todate have focused on controlling otheremission sources.
EPA has begun to issue more stringentemissions standards for off-roadvehicles and equipment. However, sincethese vehicles are designed to last 20years or longer, it will take time beforeemission reductions are seen. Incentivesfor retrofitting or repowering existingequipment would contribute to morerapid reductions in emissions from thesesources.
Fine particulate matter differs fromozone in several ways. First, fineparticulates are emitted directly fromsome sources. This is called primaryparticulate matter. Fine particles in theatmosphere also include particles thatform through the reactions of precur-sors, called secondary particulatematter.
Second, the standard for fine particulatematter is newer than the ozone stan-dard and emissions have not beenmeasured over as long a period. Inaddition, due to the mixing of primaryand secondary particulate matter, it ismore difficult to identify sources;
Other
Secondary nitrate
Biomass burning
Secondary organicaerosol
Mobile sources
Secondary sulfate
31%
23%
24%
10%
6%6%
31
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Protecting H
uman H
ealthestimating contributions from differentsources requires multiple years of data.As a result, information on emissions andsources of fine particulates presentedhere is a composite snapshot for themetro Atlanta area from 2001-2005.
Figure 1.15 shows the relative contribu-tion of various sources to particulatematter in the metro Atlanta areabetween 2001 and 2005. Organicaerosols are a major contributor — at22.8 percent. About half of this contri-bution comes from natural sources,including vegetation. The remainder isfrom gasoline evaporation, use ofsolvents and the combustion of fuels inpower plants, vehicles and othersources.
Vehicles and other mobile sources arealso major contributors — at 23.6
percent. Of the contributions frommobile sources, one-third comes fromvehicles burning gasoline and theremainder from those using diesel fuel.Emissions of fine particulates fromvehicles have declined in recent years,due to increased numbers of vehiclessubject to tighter emissions standardsand cleaner fuel requirements that tookeffect in the mid-2000s.
The largest contributor is secondarysulfate — at 30.9 percent. Secondarysulfates form in the atmosphere fromreactions of sulfur dioxide, a precursorthat primarily comes from coal-firedpower plants. Controls on theseemissions are currently being put inplace and the contribution of secondarysulfate to levels of fine particulates isexpected to fall as these controls arefully phased in over the next 10 years.
Emerging IssuePrescribed burning: Managing Georgia’slands and protecting air quality
Between 2000 and 2004, biomass burning contributed approximately 10percent of the fine particulate matter in metro Atlanta’s air. Biomass burning
includes wildfires as well as planned or prescribed burning of forests and otherlands.
Prescribed burning uses fire as an economical and practical tool to maintainthe vitality and value of Georgia forests, farms and wildlands. This tool is usedby federal, state and private landowners and managers to maintain naturalforests, support fire-dependent species, improve wildlife habitat or forage forlivestock, and control insects and disease. Prescribed burns also reducehazardous fuel (buildup of wood debris, underbrush and other natural groundlitter) and suppress wildfires.
The Nemours Wildlife Federation estimates that 1 million acres are burned inGeorgia every year. If not coordinated and well managed, prescribed burning canhave unacceptable air quality impacts far from a burn site. In February 2007, forexample, prescribed fires in central Georgia caused a large spike in concentrationsof particulate matter in the metro Atlanta area.
The state recently adopted a Smoke Management Plan to help achieve airquality goals while improving the quality of Georgia lands. The plan requiresauthorization from the Georgia Forestry Commission before conducting openburning (except agricultural burning and burning of small leaf piles). TheCommission evaluates impacts from individual burns as well as cumulativeimpacts of multiple fires. The plan also includes provisions for coordinatedmonitoring of air quality and outdoor burning, smoke management training forpractitioners, and public notice and outreach.
32
This page intentionally left blank.
33
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Sustaining healthy ecosystems, thesecond environmental objective
addressed in this report, is fundamentalto the environmental progress neces-sary to support population growth andeconomic development.
The term “ecosystem” refers to all theplants and animals in an area, theinteractions between them, and thephysical environment in which they live.This objective addresses the health ofGeorgia’s ecosystems and their capacityto provide services that support basichuman needs – a capacity that isessential to support a growing popula-tion and economy and to thesustainability of life on the planet.
Ecosystems provide a variety of servicesevery day. Ecosystem services includeproduction of food and fiber, removal ofpollution and purification of air andwater. Healthy ecosystems helpregulate the climate, control flooding,and provide habitat for fish and wildlife,including species that are commerciallyimportant. They support recreationalactivities, like fishing, hunting, andhiking, with the economic benefits theybring. Healthy ecosystems also provideless tangible spiritual and educationalvalues.
Healthy ecosystems are a kind ofnatural capital that helps support ourquality of life, like the financial capitalthat helps support our economy.However, human activities – particu-larly the way we use and alter land –can degrade this natural capital and theservices on which we rely.
Evaluating the health of Georgia’secosystems starts with examination ofthe land itself. The way that land isused, and the way it has been altered asGeorgia’s population has grown, affectsthe state’s ecosystems.
This report tracks those effects bylooking at two important componentsof ecosystems: the habitat they provideand the species of plants and animalsthat live in that habitat. Habitat refersto the physical features of an area andthe vegetation found there, whichdetermines the suitability of that areafor different species.
While there are few accepted standardsor thresholds that define the health ofan ecosystem, a number of measuresare generally accepted as indicators ofecosystem health that can be used tocompare regions and to track changes inecosystems over time (Table 2.1).
SustainingHealthy Ecosystems
Table 2.1 Indicators of the condition of the state’s natural resources.
Georgia’s natural heritage:Biological diversity
Georgia has an extraordinarily richnatural heritage. Variations intopography and geology across thestate produce a wide variety ofecosystems. Terrestrial ecosystemsrange from the live-oak seaside forestsof the coast to the rock outcrops ofnorth Georgia. Aquatic ecosystemsinclude small streams, large rivers,lakes and estuaries where the state’smajor rivers meet the sea.
This ecosystem diversity, in turn,supports a highly diverse mix ofplants and animals. Compared tosimilar ecosystems around the world,the hardwood forests in northGeorgia, mixed forests in thePiedmont, and longleaf pine forestsin the Coastal Plain all have excep-tional biological diversity, as do manyof the state’s streams and rivers.
Georgia is part of a global “hotspot”of diversity for plants and animals.Nationally, Georgia ranks sixthamong the states in overall speciesdiversity. It ranks second in thenumber of amphibian species, thirdin freshwater fish and crayfishspecies, and seventh in reptile andvascular plant species. More than60 species are only found inGeorgia, a number exceeded by just11 states.
Natural resource Indicators of condition
Land Land cover types:
• Hardwood forests
• Forested wetlands
• Urban land
Impervious surfaces
Habitats and species Streamside forests
Freshwater fish community status
Coastal habitat conditions
Terrestrial habitat quality
Protected species
Habitat protection
34
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
This chapter first addresses twoindicators of changes in land condition:land cover and impervious surfaces. Itthen discusses six indicators of thecondition of different habitats and theplants or animals that live in thosehabitats. The habitats and species
discussed include those that are land-based (terrestrial) as well as those thatare water-based (aquatic). For several ofthe indicators, results are summarizedby ecological region or ecoregion (seesidebar and Figure 2.1).
B a c k g r o u n d e rTracking Changes in Georgia’s Landscape
The introduction of this report highlights the changing face of Georgia interms of population, economy and energy use. These drivers are also
changing the face of Georgia in terms of its landscape and the health of theecosystems that landscape supports. One way to track these changes is look atchanges in land cover over time.
The term “land cover” refers to the mix of vegetation, human structures, bareground and water at the surface of the earth. Some types of land cover, likeforested wetlands, are simply the vegetation naturally found in an area. Othertypes, like agriculture, are lands converted or altered for human use.
Changes in land cover over time can be identified by reviewing satellite images.These images can be converted into maps showing the types of land coveracross the state — a mix of natural vegetative cover and lands altered byhuman activities (Figure 2.2).
Researchers at the University of Georgia have tracked changes in Georgia’sland cover between 1974 and 2005. This research provides some of theindicators used to evaluate progress toward the objective of sustaining healthyecosystems, as well as the objective described in the next chapter, ensuringresources to support a growing economy.
What are ecoregions?
Ecoregions are large areas, coveringtens of thousands of square miles,that are geographically and ecologi-cally defined. An ecoregion has acommon underlying geology anddistinctive land forms, climate, soiltypes and plant and animal com-munities.
These factors all shape the devel-opment of ecosystems and, as aresult, ecoregions are often usedfor assessments of environmentalconditions and ecosystem health.
Six major ecoregions are found inGeorgia (Figure 2.1). The Blue Ridgeecoregion is in the northeast cornerof the state. The Ridge and Valleyand Southwestern Appalachiansecoregions are in northwestGeorgia. Because these twoecoregions have many features incommon, they are treated togetherfor the purposes of this report.
The Piedmont lies south of the BlueRidge and Ridge and Valleyecoregions and covers the remain-der of north Georgia.
Two ecoregions lie south of the FallLine, a geologic feature that runsacross the center of the state. TheSoutheastern Plains ecoregion isimmediately south of the Fall Lineand covers much of the southeast-ern U.S. In Georgia, this area isoften called the Upper CoastalPlain.
Finally, the Southern Coastal Plainlies along the much of the south-eastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts. InGeorgia, this ecoregion is oftencalled the Lower Coastal Plain orCoastal area.
Figure 2.1 Georgia’s ecoregions. (U.S. EPA)
Lower Coastal Plain(Southern CoastalPlain)
Blue Ridge
Ridge and Valley
SouthwesternAppalachians
Piedmont
Upper Coastal Plain(Southeastern Plains)
35
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Figure 2.2 Land cover in Georgia, 2005. (Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
High- and low-intensity urban
Row crops and pastures
Clear-cut or sparse
Deciduous forest
Evergreen and mixed forest
Forested wetlands
Non-forested wetlands (freshwater/salt/brackish), beaches and dunes
Open water
36
As the first indicator of ecosystemhealth, this report tracks broad
changes in three types of land cover:hardwood forests, forested wetlandsand urban land cover. Land coverprovides general information on habitatcondition, one aspect of ecosystemhealth. Changes in these land covertypes indicate associated changes inhabitat – or the physical features andvegetation likely to be found there –and the suitability for different plantand animal species.
Hardwood forests and forested wet-lands are native land cover types foundacross large areas of the state. Intensivemanagement is practiced on a verysmall percentage of the total acreage ofhardwood forest and forested wetlands,and these land covers can provide highquality habitat for plant and animalcommunities.
The significance of the two, however,varies by ecoregion. In north Georgia,hardwood forest is one of the mostextensive land covers. In south Georgia,hardwood forests are less extensive andforested wetlands are much more
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
Land Cover Types
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sLand Resources
significant as critical native habitat.Because of this difference, evaluation ofland cover change by ecoregion focuseson hardwood forest in north Georgiaand forested wetlands in south Georgia.
Urban areas, in contrast, have moreintensive land use and have beensignificantly altered by human activi-ties. The changes in habitat and in theplants and animals often found in theseareas contribute to a decline in ecosys-tem health.
Statewide, between 1974 and 2005,urban land cover consistently increased,and the land covers associated withcritical natural habitat steadily declined(Figure 2.3). Nearly 2.4 million acres ofhardwood forests and forested wetlandswere lost during this time period (Table2.2). More than 2.6 million acres ofurban land cover were added.
Looking at these changes by ecoregionshows that, over much of the state, theland covers associated with goodwildlife habitat declined (Figure 2.4).
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
200520011998199119851974
Acr
es
Hardwood forest Forested wetlands
Low intensity urban High intensity urban
Figure 2.3 Amount of hardwood forest, forested wetlands and urban land cover,1974 - 2005. (Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
Land cover types thatindicate habitat condition
Hardwood forest. Forest composedof at least 75 percent deciduoustrees in the canopy, deciduouswoodland. Hardwood forestsprovide native habitat across muchof north Georgia.
Forested wetlands. Cypress gum,evergreen wetlands, deciduouswetlands, depressional wetlandsand shrub wetlands. Forestedwetlands provide critical nativehabitat across much of southGeorgia.
Low-intensity urban. Single-familydwellings, recreation, cemeteries,playing fields, campus-like institu-tions, parks and schools. Low-intensity urban land cover isassociated with some loss of nativeterrestrial habitat.
High-intensity urban. Multi-familydwellings, commercial/industrial,prisons, speedways, junk yards andconfined animal operations.Transportation, roads, railroads,airports and runways. Utilityswaths. High-intensity urban landcover is highly altered, resulting insubstantial loss of native terrestrialhabitat.
37
The Piedmont and Blue Ridgeecoregions lost 1.2 million acres ofhardwood forests and the Upper andLower Coastal Plains lost more than 1.1million acres of forested wetlands. Theecoregions in northwest Georgia gainedjust over 150,000 acres of hardwoodforest.
The majority of hardwood forest lossoccurred in the Piedmont. Sixteencounties, located across the Piedmont,had losses greater than 25,000 acres
and together accounted for more than50 percent of the loss in the northGeorgia ecoregions.
Forested wetland losses were greatestin the southeastern part of the state.Taken together, the losses in sevencounties (Bulloch, Burke, Clinch, Echols,Screven, Ware and Wayne), each losingmore than 30,000 acres, accounted fornearly 25 percent of the total loss in theUpper and Lower Coastal Plains.
Table 2.2 Changes in Georgia’s land cover, 1974 - 2005. (Natural Resources SpatialAnalysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
Percent of state
land, 1974
Percent of state
land, 2005
Change in number of acres
Percent change
Low-intensity urban 2 8 2,348,000 385%
High-intensity urban < 1 1 329,690 255%
Hardwood forests 20 17 -1,188,000 -16%
Forested wetlands 14 11 -1,207,000 -22%
Figure 2.4 Changes in Georgia’s land cover by ecoregion, 1974 - 2005; change in acres and percent. (Natural Resources SpatialAnalysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Blue Ridge Change in
acres Percent change
Hardwood forest -60,616 -5% Low intensity urban
91,336 619%
High intensity urban
4,398 736%
Lower Coastal Plain
Change in acres
Percent change
Forested wetlands
-548,615 -23%
Low intensity urban
304,087 427%
High intensity urban
31,061 259%
Upper Coastal Plain
Change in acres
Percent change
Forested wetlands
-580,695 -23%
Low intensity urban
706,397 353%
High intensity urban
68,331 187%
Piedmont Change in
acres Percent change
Hardwood forest
-1,147,928 -29%
Low intensity urban
1,084,650 393%
High intensity urban
203,034 281%
Ridge & Valley and Southwestern Appalachians
Change in acres
Percent change
Hardwood forest 153,810 22% Low intensity urban
161,828 332%
High intensity urban
22,865 310%
38
In all ecoregions, the greatest percentchange was in the urban land covertypes. The bulk of new urban lands inGeorgia – more than 2.3 million acres –are low-intensity urban areas.
Nearly half of the increase in low-intensity urban lands occurred in thePiedmont. The counties that added themost acres of low-intensity urban areawere in the metro Atlanta area, withGwinnett, Fulton and Cobb countieseach gaining 80,000 to 90,000 acres.
The greatest percent increase in urbanland cover was seen in counties that, in1974, had very little urban area.Oglethorpe, Forsyth, Paulding andBacon counties all had increases of1,000 percent or more, representing agrowth in low-intensity urban area of10,000 to 33,000 acres in each county.
While much of the increase in low-intensity urban lands occurred in themetro Atlanta area, substantial in-creases were also seen around thestate’s other major cities, near smallercities, and in rural areas (Figure 2.5).The ways in which low-intensity urbanlands are commonly developed havecontributed to the decline in nativehabitat provided by hardwood forestsand forested wetlands, and have hadeffects seen in the other indicatorsdiscussed in this chapter.
Looking ahead, as the state continuesto grow, the challenge will be to shift todevelopment approaches, such asconservation design and low impactdevelopment, that help maintain areasof natural habitat and contribute to theobjective of sustaining healthy ecosys-tems.
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
Land cover change andpopulation growth
Across the U.S., and in Georgia,urban or developed land cover hasincreased more rapidly than thepopulation. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency reports that,from 1982 to 2002, the amount ofdeveloped land in the U.S. in-creased by 48 percent — a rate ofincrease nearly two times that ofthe population.
The urban land cover data usedhere provides information for asimilar time period that can becompared to this national trend.Between 1985 and 2005, Georgia’spopulation increased 53 percentwhile urban land cover in the stateincreased 255 percent — a rate ofincrease that is more than fourtimes greater than that of thepopulation.
For more information on land cover
changes across the U.S., see EPA’s
2008 Report on the Environment,available at http://www.epa.gov/
roe.
39
Figure 2.5 Urban land cover, 1974 and 2005. (Natural Resources Spatial AnalysisLaboratory, University of Georgia)
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
2005
1974
Urban Land Cover
Low-intensity
High-intensity
40
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
ImperviousSurfaces
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sLand Resources
The extent ofimpervious cover in
Georgia’s small watersheds
Ten percent impervious cover in awatershed is widely recognized asthe threshold where impacts on thehealth of aquatic ecosystems canbe expected.
A number of studies have foundthat, when impervious cover in awatershed exceeds 10 percent, thediversity of animals in streamsgenerally declines, along with otherindicators of ecosystem health.Environmentally sensitive speciesbecome less plentiful, leaving onesmore tolerant of poor quality water.
In 1991, 26 of Georgia’s smallwatersheds had more than 10percent impervious cover. By 2005,that number had grown to 75.
The maximum amount of impervi-ous surface is also increasing. In1991, only one small watershed hadmore than 30 percent imperviouscover. By 2005, seven smallwatersheds had more than 30percent impervious cover and, forthe first time, two had impervioussurfaces covering more than 40percent of the watershed.
One significant outcome of commonapproaches to converting land to
urban cover is an increase in impervioussurfaces. Impervious surfaces includethose through which water cannotpenetrate, such as paved streets, roofsand parking lots. These constructedsurfaces prevent rain from soaking intothe ground and cause stormwater to runoff more quickly.
An increase in impervious land cover is astriking aspect of the changing face ofGeorgia’s landscape — one that signifi-cantly impacts the health of aquaticecosystems. More rapid stormwaterrunoff leads to increased stream flowsafter rain, which increases the risk offlooding. Stormwater from impervioussurfaces can carry a range of pollutantsthat can degrade water quality.
More rapid runoff also contributes toerosion, altering the physical structureof streams. And, during dry periods, thedecrease in the amount of waterfiltering into the soil means there is lessgroundwater to sustain low flows instreams.
In areas with 10 percent to 20 percentimpervious surface, twice as muchwater flows as runoff to rivers andstreams as in forested areas. As imper-vious surfaces increase to between 35percent and 50 percent, the amount ofwater flowing as runoff is three timesgreater than it would be on a naturallandscape, greatly increasing impactson the water cycle, the physical
structure of streams and aquaticspecies.
Researchers at the University of Georgiahave compiled data on the extent ofimpervious surfaces in Georgia. State-wide, impervious cover increased by 81percent between 1991 and 2005, anaddition of nearly 370,000 acres. Whilethe greatest number of acres was addedin the Piedmont ecoregion, increaseswere seen across the state (Table 2.3). Amajority of the state’s 159 counties sawan increase in at least one smallwatershed (Figure 2.6).
The impact of these changes is evidentin the condition of streams and aquaticecosystems across the state, as seen insubsequent indicators, and in thegrowing cost of managing thestormwater that runs off these impervi-ous surfaces.
As Georgia continues to grow, landdevelopment practices that increasepervious surfaces – surfaces that allowrain and stormwater to soak into theground – will be necessary to sustainthe health of Georgia’s aquatic ecosys-tems and to ensure sufficient waterresources to support a growingeconomy, the objective described in thenext chapter.
Table 2.3 Changes in impervious surface cover, 1991 - 2005. (Natural ResourcesSpatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
Change in acres of impervious surface
Percent change
Ridge and Valley & Southwestern Appalachians
27,783 89%
Blue Ridge
7,535 121%
Piedmont
238,532 111%
Upper Coastal Plain (Southeastern Plains)
62,344 42%
Lower Coastal Plain (Southern Coastal Plains)
32,434 63%
Ecoregion
41
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Figure 2.6 Percent of impervious surface cover in small watersheds, 1992 and 2005. The small watersheds in this figure areequivalent to the 12-digit hydrologic cataloging units (HUCs) defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. (Natural Resources SpatialAnalysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
1992
2005
Percent ImperviousSurface Cover
0.01 - 5% impervious
5.01 - 10% impervious
10.01 - 25% impervious
25.01 - 45% impervious
42
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
Streamside Forests
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sHabitats and Species
Figure 2.7 Percent change in streamside forests, 1974 - 2005. (Natural ResourcesSpatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
The land along streams and rivers isparticularly important to the health
of aquatic ecosystems. Streamside orriparian lands lie directly along rivers,streams and other bodies of water. Ifforests or other natural vegetation ismaintained in these areas, riparian landscan provide a number of ecosystemservices.
Plant roots help stabilize stream banksand prevent erosion. Riparian vegetationtraps and removes pollutants, maintainsstream temperatures and producesorganic matter that aquatic animals useas food. It also provides habitat andtravel corridors for wildlife and addsaesthetic value to the landscape.
Conversion of riparian forests, however,has historically been common in urbanareas and on some lands managed foragriculture and forestry. Researchers atthe University of Georgia have evalu-ated trends in streamside forests inareas within roughly 400 feet of thestate’s streams and rivers (about 200feet on each side of a stream or river).
A decline in the extent of streamsideforests is evident across much of thestate (Figure 2.7). Between 1974 and2005, 41 of the state’s 52 large water-sheds showed declines in riparianforests. The greatest losses were in theUpper Chattahoochee (16 percent),Middle Savannah (14 percent), UpperOcmulgee (12 percent), and MiddleChattahoochee (12 percent).
The watersheds where the amount ofstreamside forests stayed the same orincreased all lie in parts of the statewhere forestry and agriculture are thepredominant land uses. For bothagriculture and forestry, voluntaryprograms increase the protection ofenvironmentally sensitive areas. Theseprograms include a specific set of bestmanagement practices, as well asincentives to take sensitive lands out ofproduction. The trend in streamsideforests provides evidence that, in someareas, these voluntary programs areworking to alter common practices inways that support the objective ofsustaining healthy ecosystems.
≥ 10% loss
1 - 9% loss
No change
1 - 9% gain
≥ 10% gain
43
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Freshwater FishCommunity Status
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sHabitats and Species
Figure 2.8 Scores for the fish Index of Biotic Integrity by ecoregion. Indexes for theBlue Ridge and Lower Coastal Plain ecoregions have not been completed, so streamhealth in these areas has not been evaluated. (Wildlife Resources Division)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor
Ridge and Valley140 sites evaluated
4%
21%
18%
30%
28%
Piedmont343 sites evaluated
2%
27%
23%
33%
15%
Upper Coastal Plain(Southeastern Plains)181 sites evaluated
2%
25%
27%
28%
19%
Changes in land cover, conversion ofstreamside forests and other human
activities can affect the health of aquaticecosystems. For streams and rivers,ecosystem health can be evaluated bytracking the condition of fish communi-ties. Since 1998, the Wildlife ResourcesDivision has used the Index of BioticIntegrity (IBI) to determine the status ofthe state’s freshwater fish communities.
The fish IBI combines several measures —including the different types and numberof fish species, the physical condition ofthe fish and their position in the foodchain — to generate scores of excellent,good, fair, poor and very poor. The ratingscan then be used to compare regions.
Since 1997, 664 sites have been evalu-ated in the Piedmont, Upper Coastal
Plain and Ridge and Valley ecoregions(Figure 2.8). Nearly half of the sitesevaluated between 1998 and 2007 hadfish communities in poor or very poorcondition. Only 21 percent were in goodor excellent condition.
Fish communities in the Ridge and Valleyecoregion scored somewhat better thanthose in other ecoregions. In the Ridgeand Valley, 32 percent of sites scoredgood or excellent and 39 percent scoredpoor or very poor. In the other twoecoregions, only 17-21 percent scoredgood or excellent and 50-51 percentscored poor or very poor.
When fish communities are in poor orvery poor condition, the water quality isconsidered poor, and the fish IBI is onemeasure that EPD uses to identify
Ridge andValley
Piedmont
Upper Coastal Plain(SoutheasternPlains)
How do streamside forestsaffect trout?
Streamside forests provide anumber of ecosystem services. Oneof the most important of thesebenefits is temperature control.Trees and shrubs provide shade,which keeps the water temperaturecooler. Lower temperatures allowthe water to hold more oxygen,which in turn creates a healthierhabitat for aquatic species.
A study of trout streams in northGeorgia showed that as thepercentage of riparian vegetationdecreased, water temperaturesrose. Young trout fared poorly in thewarmer water.
Researchers estimate that decreas-ing the width of riparian vegetationby 50 percent, from roughly 100feet to 50 feet, would increasetemperatures by 3-4 degreesFahrenheit and cause the totalweight of all trout to decline bymore than 80 percent.
For more information onriparian forests and trout streams
in north Georgia, see
http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/pdf/
buffer_science.pdf.
44
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
Table 2.4 Assessed river miles with poor quality fish or macroinvertebratecommunities, 2006-2007. (EPD)
waters that do not meet water qualitystandards. Another measure used is thetype and condition of small insects andinsect-like animals that live in or nearthe bottom of streams and rivers.
These animals, called benthic macro-invertebrates, are an important sourceof food for fish and an essential link inthe aquatic food chain. Like the fish IBI,this evaluation uses multiple measuresto score community status as verygood, good, fair, poor or very poor.Streams with poor or very poor scoresfor fish or benthic macroinvertebratesare added to the state’s list of waterswith poor water quality.
Overall, in 2006 and 2007, 40 percentof the river miles evaluated had poor orvery poor scores for fish or benthicmacroinvertebrates and were added tothe state’s list of waters with poorwater quality (Table 2.4). Fish andbenthic communities in poor or verypoor condition were the second mostcommon indicator of poor water qualityin eight of the state’s 14 major riverbasins.
These results are due, in part, to land-based activities and nonpoint sourcepollution that may result. Sediment, in
particular, clogs aquatic habitat andstresses fish and macroinvertebratecommunities. Other pollutants, includ-ing nutrients, metals and pesticides, arealso transported with sediment.
Much of the sediment in Georgiastreams is a result of past and presentland uses. Historically, agriculture was amajor source of sediment, and some ofthat sediment still affects the state’saquatic ecosystems.
Currently, a major source of sediment isthe conversion of land into higherintensity uses, including construction ofroads, houses and businesses. Erodingstream banks are also a source ofsediment today, as impervious surfacesincrease the amount and force ofstormwater that runs through streamsin urban and developing areas.
Erosion and transport of sediment maybe reduced as more protective ap-proaches to development, land distur-bance, and stormwater managementare adopted. As the state continues togrow, ongoing monitoring of fish andbenthic communities will be importantto track the impacts of land conversionon aquatic ecosystem health.
River basin Total river
miles
Percent of river miles assessed
Percent of assessed river miles with poor quality fish
or macroinvertebrate communities
Altamaha 3,430 1% 62%
Chattahoochee 8,172 12% 42%
Coosa 7,126 14% 40%
Flint 9,122 11% 28%
Ochlockonee 1,716 2% 52%
Ocmulgee 7,268 13% 52%
Oconee 6,773 9% 48%
Ogeechee 6,981 2% 10%
Satilla 3,629 3% 0%
Savannah 7,413 5% 48%
Suwannee 4,961 3% 21%
St. Marys 485 2% 0%
Tallapoosa 774 18% 44%
Tennessee 2,300 11% 49%
Total 70,150 8% 40%
What can we learn aboutrecreational fishing quality from
examining fish communitiesin Georgia streams?
The Georgia Wildlife ResourcesDivision evaluates the status of fishcommunities in wadeable streamsusing the Index of Biotic Integrity(IBI). The IBI looks at all species offish and examines their numbersand relative contribution to theoverall population.
Sportfish examined include large-mouth, redeye, shoal, smallmouth,and spotted bass; white bass andstriped bass hybrids; bluegill, flier,redbreast, redear, warmouth, andspotted sunfish; rock and shoalbass; brook, brown and rainbowtrout; black and white crappie;channel, blue, and flathead catfish;and chain and redfin pickerel.
Good IBI scores and good fishingare linked because fish are indica-tors of the events and processesthat go on throughout a watershedover time — from the chemicalcomponents in the water and soilnear the stream to the breakdownof leaves in the stream that supportthe food chain.
If the IBI score for a stream is high,many fish species are present,habitat is plentiful, adequate foodis available, and the fish are healthyand growing well.
Healthy fish communities in smallstreams can also translate intohealthy fish communities in largerrivers. As wadeable streams merge toform large streams and rivers, if goodenvironmental and habitat condi-tions occur along the way, healthyfish communities can continue tothrive. Eventually, these large riversflow into lakes and estuaries, helpingto support recreational fishingquality in these water bodies as well.
45
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
In the early 1970s, growing concernabout water quality was triggered, in
part, by fish kills caused by low levels ofdissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen refersto the amount of oxygen in the water.Just as humans cannot survive withoutoxygen, fish and other aquatic life musthave an adequate amount of oxygen inthe water to live.
Dissolved oxygen has been a commonindicator of a water body’s ability tosupport aquatic life since the 1970s.Levels of dissolved oxygen can beaffected by water temperature and theamount of decaying organic matter andpollution in the water, among otherfactors. Pollution that increases thedemand for oxygen can have a significanteffect. As bacteria use oxygen to breakdown the pollutants, levels of dissolvedoxygen can decline substantially.
As described in the preceding chapter,long-term trends in water quality aremonitored at 40 locations around thestate. Average dissolved oxygen levels atthese 40 stations have been good sincethe late 1970s (see figure). Average levelsduring the summer, when concentrationsof dissolved oxygen are naturally thelowest, consistently met or exceeded thewater quality standard.
In addition to long-term trend monitor-ing, EPD monitors waters in all riverbasins on a rotating schedule. As described in thepreceding chapter, monitoring results are used to identifystream and river segments where water quality standardsare not met.
Of the river miles tested in 2006 and 2007, 91 percentmet the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen.
These results reflect major improvements in wastewatertreatment by industries and municipalities.
Violations of the dissolved oxygen standard are currentlymore common in south Georgia than in north Georgia. Insouth Georgia, low dissolved oxygen can result from
Average amounts of dissolved oxygen at 40 trend monitoring stations, May -September. Levels above the water quality standard are needed to supporthealthy aquatic communities. Dissolved oxygen levels decrease whentemperature increases and levels are generally lowest during the summer,making May to September the critical months for assessment.
natural conditions. Low dissolved oxygen levels are morelikely to occur in streams with slower moving water,shallow depths, and higher temperatures – all conditionsthat are common in the southern part of the state. EPDplans to review the dissolved oxygen standard to improveits application to streams that are naturally low indissolved oxygen.
Backg rounde rDissolved oxygen in surface water
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
1970
1975
1980
1985
2005
1990
1995
2000
Dis
solv
ed o
xyge
n (m
g/L)
Water quality standard for streams supporting warm water fish
Water quality standard for trout streams
95% of measurements in each year were below this line
5% of measurements in each year werebelow this line
Average
46
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
Coastal HabitatConditions
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sHabitats and Species
Measures of coastalhabitat conditions
• Dissolved oxygen is required byall aquatic life.
• Chlorophyll, a plant pigment, ismeasured to indicate the amountof algae in the water.
• Nitrogen and phosphorous arenutrients that can contribute toundesirable levels of algae.
• Benthic invertebrates, animalsthat live on the bottom of waterbodies, are an important sourceof food for fish, shrimp and crabs.
For the interim report on the ecologicalcondition of Georgia’s estuaries, see:http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/GAreport3062306final
LOWRES.pdf.
How does the Southeasterncoast compare to the U.S.?
The 2005 National Coastal Condi-tions Report II compared assess-ment results for regions across theU.S. The Southeastern coast,including sites in Georgia, wasamong the healthiest in the nation.Twenty-three percent of sites inthe Southeast were rated in poorcondition, compared to 40 percentin the Northeast, 40 percent alongthe Gulf Coast, and 23 percent onthe West Coast. Figure 2.9 Overall condition of coastal habitats, 2000 - 2001. (Coastal Resources
Division)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Data missingPoorFairGood
Benthic index
Total organic carbon
Sediment toxicity
Sediment contaminants
Sediment quality index
Water clarity
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved inorganic phosphorus
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen
Bottom dissolved oxygen
Water quality index
Estimated percent of estuarine area
Georgia’s coastline includes 14barrier islands, approximately
500,000 acres of salt marsh, andextensive estuaries where the state’smajor rivers flow into the ocean. Likefreshwater ecosystems, coastal ecosys-tems supply vital services.
They provide habitat for many species,including economically significantspecies like shrimp and crabs and othermarine animals. They act as buffersagainst flooding and erosion and havenatural mechanisms for filteringpollutants. The health of these ecosys-tems can also be affected by land coverchange and other human activities.
The most recent assessment ofGeorgia’s coastal and estuarinehabitats was conducted by DNR’sCoastal Resources Division as partof the National Coastal Assessment.One hundred sites were sampled in2000 and 2001 and an interim report,“The conditions of Georgia’s estuarineand coastal habitats 2000-2001,”was published in 2005. Multiplemeasures were combined into acomposite index of water quality anda composite index of sediment quality.The condition of the benthic commu-nity, bottom-dwelling invertebratesthat live in the sediment, was alsoevaluated.
The assessment indicates that Georgia’sestuarine habitats are in fair to goodcondition (Figure 2.9). Water qualityratings were generally lower than othermeasures. Elevated levels of phosphorusand chlorophyll and low levels ofdissolved oxygen and water clarity werefound. These factors, however, may bedue to natural conditions, complicatinginterpretation of the results.
Water quality measurements wereweighted and combined into a compositeindex of water quality. Weighting themeasurements resulted in 80 percent ofsites scoring fair for water quality and 11percent scoring poor. Sediment qualitywas generally good, as was the conditionof the benthic community. For both, 93percent of sites ranked good or fair. Ofthe estuaries with poor benthic condi-tions, 80 percent also had poor waterquality and/or poor sediment quality.
Most sites rated fair or poor wereassociated with developed watersheds,although some showed no correlationwith human activities. Nonpoint sourcepollution is one of the primary threatsto coastal water quality and, as devel-opment continues in these areas,managing these pollution sources willbe increasingly important to protectand/or restore coastal and estuarinehabitats.
47
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Terrestrial HabitatQuality
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sHabitats and Species
Figure 2.10 Natural vegetation rankings, 1998. (Wildlife Resources Division)
Lower qualityhabitat
Moderatequality habitat
Higher qualityhabitat
Like freshwater and coastal aquaticsystems, terrestrial habitat is altered
by changes in land cover like thosediscussed at the beginning of thischapter. Clearing forests or convertingvegetated lands to more intensivehuman uses eliminates some habitatand divides other habitat into smallerand smaller pieces. Native vegetationalso may be replaced with nonnativespecies. These changes can contributeto the decline of wildlife species,including sensitive species that needinterior forests.
One way to evaluate habitat quality isto look at areas of natural vegetationand identify those that have the size,shape and location to provide highquality habitat. This type of analysiswas conducted for the Wildlife Re-source Division’s 2005 Wildlife ActionPlan. The analysis was based on land
What is high qualityhabitat?
High quality habitats play a key rolein long-term maintenance ofwildlife populations. Habitat qualityis determined, in part, by the sizeand shape of intact areas orpatches of natural vegetation.
High quality patches of habitat aregenerally larger, provide differenttypes of habitat on the edges and inthe center, and are relativelycompact. In larger areas with well-defined central cores, species areless likely to suffer from predators,parasites or human encroachment.
Fragmentation refers to breakingareas of continuous habitat intosmaller, more isolated parts.Fragmentation decreases habitatquality. Populations of plants andanimals may become isolated or toosmall to continue breeding. Travelcorridors also may be eliminated,disrupting short and long-termmigration patterns.
cover data from 1998 (the most recentinformation available at that time).
Figure 2.10 shows ranking of habitatquality based on the size and configura-tion of areas of natural vegetation. As of1998, only 36 percent of the state’slands had some type of natural vegeta-tive cover, such as natural forest,wetland or marsh. As seen in the figure,the amount of high quality habitat issmall and varies by ecoregion.
At 78 percent, the Blue Ridge ecoregionhad the greatest amount of naturalvegetation and extensive areas of highquality habitat. The Coastal Plain, incontrast, had 33 percent naturalvegetation and fewer areas of highlyranked habitat. The Piedmont had 35percent natural vegetation with smallerpatches of highly ranked habitat.
48
Table 2.5 Major sources of habitat loss by ecoregion. (Adapted from the StateWildlife Action Plan, Wildlife Resources Division)
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
Many high quality patches, includinglarge tracts of public land in theOkefenokee Swamp and the Oconeeand Chattahoochee National Forests,are part of a network of conservationlands.
This information can be used to identifylands that are important to protect ineach ecoregion. For the Wildlife ActionPlan, the habitat quality analysis wascombined with information on predicteddistribution and observed occurrence ofrare species to highlight conservationopportunity areas (see Appendix K athttp://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/index.html).
While the overall habitat quality islower, lands on which natural vegeta-tion has been altered can still be ofvalue to native wildlife. Agricultural
fields, pine plantations and forests indeveloped areas, for example, canprovide nesting sites, feeding areas andmigration routes for birds and animals.These lands can also be managed inways that support native wildlife andare compatible with protection ofadjacent areas of high quality habitat.
The sources of habitat loss are similaracross the state. The rapid pace of landconversion and habitat fragmentationare among the most common causes inall of Georgia’s ecoregions (Table 2.5).
Ecoregion Major sources of habitat loss
Southwestern Appalachians/ Ridge and Valley
- Increase in residential and commercial development along major highways and on outskirts of metro areas
- Prior conversion of forested lands to agricultural uses - Poor water quality - Alteration of streamflows and groundwater levels
Blue Ridge - Increase in residential and commercial development along major highways and on outskirts of metro areas
- Poor water quality - Conversion of hardwood and pine-hardwood forests to
pine plantations - Fire suppression
Piedmont - Rapid pace of residential and commercial development - Poor water quality - Prior conversion of forested lands to agricultural uses - Conversion of hardwood and pine-hardwood forests to
pine plantations
Upper Coastal Plain (Southeastern Plains)
- Prior conversion of forested lands to agricultural uses - Poor water quality - Conversion of hardwood and pine-hardwood forests to
pine plantations - Fire suppression
Lower Coastal Plain (Southern Coastal Plains)
- Rapid pace of residential and commercial development in coastal counties
- Prior conversion of native pine forests to pine plantations - Fire suppression - Alteration of streamflows, floodplains/wetlands and
groundwater levels
49
Protected Species
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sHabitats and Species
Table 2.6 Plants and animals on Georgia’s protected species lists, 2007. (WildlifeResources Division)
Recent changes in Georgia’slist of protected species
Georgia’s protected species list wasupdated in 2007. Since the lastupdate in 1992, 121 species wereadded and 18 species removed.
Also, 43 species that were alreadyon the list had their statuschanged. The status of 19 of theseimproved and the status of 24declined.
More information on Georgia’s
protected species can be found onthe conservation page at http://
www.georgiawildlife.com.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
As described in the introduction tothis chapter, Georgia’s aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems support extraor-dinary levels of biological diversity. Thisdiversity, however, is threatened, inpart, by some of the ways in which landis used and the ways land has beenaltered as the state’s population hasgrown.
Biological diversity can be difficult tomeasure directly. As an alternative, thenumber of species whose survival is atrisk provides an indicator of changes inbiological diversity, and thereforechanges in ecosystem health.
Georgia’s Wildlife Resources Divisionmaintains a list of the state’s protectedspecies. This list includes animals andplants that are endangered, threatened,rare or unusual in the state. When thelist is short, it indicates progress inprotecting the health of our ecosys-tems; when it is longer, it indicates thathuman activities are negatively impact-ing ecosystem health.
The protected species list was updatedin 2007. It now includes a total of 318species (Table 2.6). The update added121 species. Many of the new additionsare plants, and plant species now makeup nearly 50 percent of the protected
species in the state. A number ofcrayfish and freshwater mussels wereadded as well, raising the number ofinvertebrate species on the list to 51.Most of the invertebrate species areaquatic. Aquatic animals (fish andinvertebrates) now make up more thanone-third of Georgia’s protectedspecies.
These changes reflect the degree ofthreat to these species, based oncurrent habitat conditions and/orestimated population levels. For somespecies, they also reflect improvementsin the information used to evaluatetheir status. That is, biologists nowknow more about the status of somespecies; they cannot, however, be surethat these species have become moreimperiled in recent years.
A species can be added to the list for anumber of reasons, including changes tothe species’ habitat; over-collecting forcommercial, sporting, scientific oreducational use; disease or predation;and inadequate regulations. The mostsevere threat to Georgia species ishabitat loss. It is not, however, the onlysignificant threat. Turtles and crayfish,for example, are threatened by over-collection.
Endangered Threatened Rare Unusual Total
Mammals 6 2 2 0 10 Birds 5 4 11 0 20 Fish 32 8 17 0 57 Amphibians 0 5 4 0 9 Invertebrates 28 19 4 0 51 Reptiles 5 6 3 2 16 Plants 56 63 32 4 155
Total 132 107 73 6 318
50
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
HabitatProtection
Indicator of thecondition of Georgia’sHabitats and Species
Figure 2.11 Georgia conservation lands by ownership, 2008. (Wildlife ResourcesDivision)
The final indicator of ecosystemhealth looks at land stewardship —
the management of land to protectnatural habitat and maintain biologicaldiversity.
The Georgia Conservation Landsdatabase is one source of informationon habitat protection. The databaseincludes records of federal, state, localgovernment, and private lands inGeorgia that are managed for conserva-tion of animals, plants and naturalhabitats, as shown in Figure 2.11.
The federal government manages morethan 70 percent of Georgia’s conserva-tion lands. The state manages morethan 20 percent, including lands ownedby the state and those leased fromother owners. Private conservationgroups and local governments managethe remainder.
The degree of habitat protectionprovided on individual parcels dependson the land owner and their manage-ment objectives. Some lands, likewilderness areas and areas underperpetual conservation easement,provide permanent protection of natural
habitat. Other lands, like state parksand wildlife management areas, aremostly maintained in a natural state,although some areas are altered in waysthat include removal of natural habitat.Habitat on leased lands may currentlybe protected, but year-to-year leases donot ensure permanent protection ofhabitat on these lands. Lands such asmilitary bases and national forestsinclude large areas where naturalhabitat is protected, while some areasare altered for other uses, such astimber harvest.
Despite these different managementobjectives, conservation lands allprovide protected habitat for plants andanimals and help maintain healthyecosystems. Conservation lands alsoprovide economic benefits. Visits toGeorgia’s state parks, for example, areestimated to generate more than $769million per year for the state and localcommunities. Conservation lands arealso community assets that cancontribute to higher property values inthe areas around them.
A 2003 study by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey concludes that only 8 percent
Differing levels of protection
Only 8 percent of the state’s landarea currently has some degree ofnatural habitat protection.
Habitat types that cover large areasof the state (e.g., hardwood forests)tend to have a small percentageprotected, while those that occupya small fraction of the state (e.g.,coastal dunes) have a higherpercentage of their total areaprotected. As a result, someimportant habitats currently havevery little protection.
Bottomland hardwoods, forexample, cover more than 1.2million acres in Georgia, but receivelittle protection. Only 7 percent ispermanently protected with limitedimpacts on natural habitat, despiteits significance as high qualityhabitat for a variety of species.
Longleaf pine, an ecosystem knownfor its high level of biologicaldiversity, has a higher level ofprotection (13 percent is perma-nently protected). However, muchof the native longleaf pine foresthas already been converted to otherland uses. Once found across theSouthern coastal plain, intactlongleaf pine habitat now exists onless than 4 percent of the landwhere it historically occurred.
Land trusts and other privateconservation organizations
Local government
State government: Owned
State government: Leased
Federal government
51
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sustaining H
ealthy Ecosystems
Figure 2.12 Protected habitat for terrestrial animals, 2003. (U.S. Geological Survey)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
>50%20-50%10-20%1-10%<1%
Percent of habitat protected from conversion
Num
ber o
f an
imal
spe
cies
Voluntary action by privatelandowners is critical
to protect habitat
More than 90 percent of land in thestate is in private ownership andjust a small percentage is managedfor conservation or protection ofnatural habitats.
As Georgia continues to grow,sustaining the state’s ecosystemswill require protecting high priorityhabitat and critical species. Takingsuch actions on public lands alonewill not be enough. Managingprivate lands for conservation willalso be needed, and private land-owners can play a critical role inconservation.
The State Wildlife Action Plan,adopted by the Wildlife ResourcesDivision in 2005, emphasizesprotection, restoration and mainte-nance of natural habitats. Identify-ing critical habitats, voluntary andincentive-based programs forprivate lands, and habitat restora-tion and management by privateconservation organizations andpublic agencies, are all majorelements of the plan.
To read the full plan, go to: http://
www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/Documents/strategy.html.
of Georgia’s total land area is managedfor conservation and has some level ofprotection for natural habitats. Of theseconservation lands, only a small portion– equal to 3.5 percent of the state – ispermanently protected in its naturalstate through ownership, legal mandateor conservation agreement. Perma-nently protected lands include wilder-ness areas, state parks, wildlife man-agement areas, and lands held by landtrusts, among others.
Researchers with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey have evaluated the extent ofprotection that conservation landsprovide for habitats of terrestrialanimals found in Georgia. Researchersidentified areas where each of 405animal species are expected to befound. These areas were compared withthe location of protected lands todetermine the level of habitat protec-tion for terrestrial animals in place as of2003.
Of the 405 species, 29 have less than 1percent of their habitat protected fromconversion (Figure 2.12). More thantwo-thirds have less than 10 percent oftheir habitat protected from conversion— a total of 295 species.
This level of habitat protection wasfound for all major groups of animals:
• 71 percent of amphibian species• 73 percent of breeding bird species• 73 percent of mammal species• 74 percent of reptile species
Only 32 species — 7 percent of the totalnumber of animal species in the state —had more than 20 percent of theirhabitat protected.
These results are not surprising, giventhe low percentage of protected landsacross the state. This research, how-ever, provides information that canguide efforts to protect additional land.The Wildlife Resources Division hascombined it with habitat qualityrankings, described earlier in thechapter, to identify areas with opportu-nities for conservation (see Appendix Kat http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/index.html).
Ninety-two percent of Georgia’s landhas no protection of natural habitatand thus is subject to conversion andhabitat loss. The vast majority of thisland is held by private landowners.
As Georgia continues to grow, voluntaryhabitat protection on private lands willbe increasingly important. A variety ofoptions are available to private land-owners interested in protecting habitatand helping sustain healthy ecosystemsacross Georgia (see page 52).
52
B a c k g r o u n d e rIncentives for Habitat Protection on Private Lands
Land ownership can be thought of as a bundle of sticks, with each stickrepresenting a particular right. A landowner interested in habitat protection
or other conservation goals may sell or give away some or all of his or herproperty rights through fee simple acquisition, conservation easements ortransfer of development rights. Conservation use valuation assessments alsoprovide incentives for protection of private lands. With this tool, however, thelandowner does not transfer property rights.
Fee simple acquisition. A landowner sells the rights, title and interest in theproperty to a buyer, who then owns and manages the land. Public agencies andprivate nonprofits may be interested in acquiring land for specific conservationpurposes. If a sale to a qualified conservation organization is made at a dis-counted price, or if the land is donated, landowners can receive significant taxbenefits. The difference between the market price and the sale price is consid-ered a charitable deduction, which can reduce federal and state income taxes.Georgia also has a state income tax credit for donations and discounted salesof land.
Conservation easement. Conservation easements are a valuable tool forprotecting conservation values in perpetuity. A conservation easement is alegal agreement that transfers certain development rights to a third party,usually a land trust or government agency. Conservation easements arenegotiated by the landowner and the conservation organization. This providesthe flexibility to allow certain uses, such as continued farming or forestry,while protecting the land’s conservation values. The degree of restrictiondetermines the value of the easement and the tax deduction or other taxbenefits available to the landowner.
Conservation easements are tied to the land so the property can still be boughtor sold. Future owners must follow the provisions of the easement, and theland trust or conservation organization is responsible for monitoring andenforcing easement terms. For agricultural lands, the federal Farm ProtectionProgram can provide matching funds to purchase permanent conservationeasements that keep the land in agricultural use.
Transfer of development rights. A few localities in Georgia have developedprograms that allow the transfer of development rights. Under these programs,development rights are separated from one parcel and sold for use on anotherparcel. The landowner then enters into a conservation easement that perma-nently restricts development on the original parcel.
Conservation use valuation assessment. Some lands, including agriculturallands, forest lands and environmentally sensitive areas, are eligible for reducedproperty tax rates through conservation use valuation. These properties areassessed according to soil type and productivity rather than fair market value,which generally means a significant reduction in property taxes. Property mustmeet eligibility requirements set by the county and landowners must sign anagreement to keep the land in its current use for 10 years. Landowners canreenroll after 10 years to continue the conservation use valuation assessment.
(Georgia Wildlife Resources Division and Arizona Open Land Trust)
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
stai
ning
Hea
lthy
Eco
syst
ems
53
This page left blank intentionally.
54
The state’s natural resources provideGeorgians with a variety of basic
needs. Water resources provide water todrink; support production of goods, foodand electricity; and process wastewater.
Land serves many purposes, includingproduction of food, wood and mineralproducts and support of our growingcities and counties. Air is essential forlife and, in addition to harming humanhealth, poor quality air can impairvisibility and lessen our enjoyment ofthe environment around us.
The third objective established for EPDby state law focuses on the use ofGeorgia’s natural resources as a founda-tion for a strong economy and a richquality of life, both now and in thefuture. This objective is closely relatedto the objectives of protecting humanhealth and sustaining healthy ecosys-tems. For the most part, progress on thefirst two objectives will result inprogress on the third, and progress onall three will be necessary for Georgia’scontinued growth and prosperity.
As Georgia’s population and economyhas grown, the use of resources has alsoincreased and these trends are expectedto continue over the coming decades.
As demands increase, the ability ofsome resources to support criticalfunctions may be at risk.
Unfortunately, limited informationexists about the capacity of the state’sresources or their ability to supporteconomic growth. More demand forwater, for example, requires moreinformation about capacity, and studiesunder the State Water Plan, have begunto fill some of these information gaps.
This chapter focuses on the environ-mental services that Georgia’s naturalresources provide to support the state’seconomy. Table 3.1 lists the indicatorsselected to assess the capacity ofGeorgia’s resources to provide thoseservices. Indicators focus on thecondition of water resources, includingwater for water supply and the capacityto assimilate pollution as well as landsused for forestry, agriculture and solidwaste disposal.
Ensuring resources to support aGrowing Economy
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Table 3.1 Indicators of the condition of the state’s natural resources.
Natural resource Indicators of condition
Water supply Total water use
Per capita water use
Groundwater levels
Assimilation of pollution
Pollutants in surface waters
Nonpoint sources of pollution
Working lands Land used for agriculture and forestry
Brownfield revitalization
Land used for solid waste disposal
Air quality Visibility
55
As Georgia’s population andeconomy grows, so does its need
for water. Water withdrawn from thestate’s rivers, streams, lakes andaquifers is used for a variety of pur-poses, ranging from household use toindustrial, agricultural and thermoelec-tric production. The total amount ofwater used for these purposes is anindicator of the sustainability ofGeorgia’s water supply.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)conducts an extensive evaluation ofwater use every five years. The mostrecent USGS analysis covers water usein the year 2005. For the purposes ofthis report, water use is grouped intofive major sectors (see sidebar).
The largest single use of water in thestate is for electricity production (Figure3.1). In 2005, half of all water with-drawn was used in cooling processesassociated with the generation ofthermoelectric power. There are 15plants operating on fossil fuels and twonuclear-powered plants in Georgia. In2005, these 17 plants used an esti-mated 2.7 billion gallons of water a day.
Water for thermoelectric power produc-tion, however, is used differently fromother sectors. More then 90 percent ofthe total water withdrawn for thermo-electric power production is almost
immediately returned, usually to thesource from which the water came.
The amount returned varies with thetype and age of the plant. For someplants, almost all the water used forcooling is returned to the source closeto where it was withdrawn. In otherplants, water is converted to steam andis consumed in the cooling process (i.e.,not returned to the source). For theplants currently operating in Georgia,the estimated amount of water lostthrough evaporation ranges from lessthan 1 percent to 70 percent.
The combined water use for publicsupply, domestic and commercial use,and industrial and mining use accountsfor about 37 percent of the totalwithdrawals in state. For these sectors,the amount of water returned to thesource after use varies widely, depend-ing on the specific use.
In the agricultural sector, more than 90percent of water is used for irrigation.The amount of irrigation water usedeach year depends on the amount andtiming of rainfall. In the past twodecades, water used for irrigation hasgenerally accounted for 8 percent to 17percent of the total water withdrawn.Irrigation water is largely consumedthrough evaporation or plant use, andlittle is returned to the water source.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
Total Water Use
Indicator of thesustainabilityof Georgia’sWater Supply
Figure 3.1 Water use by sector, 2005. Due to rounding, percentages do not total100. (U.S. Geological Survey)
Water in Georgia is usedby five major sectors
Public supply. Water withdrawn bypublic and private water suppliersand delivered for a variety of uses,including domestic, commercial andindustrial.
Domestic and commercial. Waterfrom individual water systems, suchas wells, withdrawn for self-supplied households and commer-cial establishments.
Industrial. Self-supplied industriesthat use water for fabrication,processing, washing and cooling.The largest industrial water users inGeorgia are pulp and paper mills,textile industries, chemical manu-facturers and mining and mineralindustries.
Agricultural. Water used to irrigatecrops, large nurseries and golfcourses. Also, water used forlivestock watering, feedlots, catfishand aquaculture operations, andother livestock farm operations.
Thermoelectric power. Water usedin the generation of electric power,primarily for cooling purposes.Excludes water used for hydroelec-tric production.
Total = 5,528 million gallons per day
Agricultural irrigation andlivestock
Industrialand mining
Domestic and commercial
Public supply
Thermoelectric
50%
23%
14%
11%
3%
56
Sources of water
All of the water used in Georgia comesfrom the surface water sources in thestate’s 14 major river systems andgroundwater stored in six majoraquifers. Surface waters provided 79percent of the water withdrawn in2005, and aquifers provided theremaining 21 percent.
Figure 3.2 shows the major water usesectors and the amount of surfacewater and groundwater that each usedin 2005. Among the largest water users,water for thermoelectric production andpublic supply primarily came fromsurface water sources. Agriculturalirrigation, in contrast, occurs largelythrough withdrawals from groundwater.Industrial users rely almost equally onsurface and groundwater sources.
Some of the state’s water sources aremore heavily used than others. In 2005,withdrawals from the Chattahoocheeand Flint river basins accounted fornearly one-third of all surface water
withdrawals in the state. Withdrawalsfrom the Oconee and Ocmulgee riverbasins also accounted for approximatelyone-third of the total.
Much of the water withdrawn fromthese river basins, however, is forthermoelectric use. Looking only atpublic supply, domestic and commercialuses, withdrawals from surface watersin the Chattahoochee and Flint basinsaccounted for more than half of thetotal in 2005. Withdrawals from theCoosa, Ocmulgee and Oconee basinsadded up to an additional third of thetotal. All of these basins serve areas ofthe state that are densely populatedand have seen rapid population growthin recent years.
Groundwater withdrawals occurpredominantly, but not exclusively, inthe southern portion of the state. Themajority of groundwater withdrawals —55 percent in 2005 — are from theFloridan aquifer system, primarily theUpper Floridan aquifer.
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Figure 3.2 Amount of surface and groundwater used by major sectors in Georgia,2005 (million gallons per day). Due to rounding, numbers in each category may notadd up exactly. (U.S. Geological Survey)
Once water is withdrawn,is any returned to
the source?
When thinking about current andfuture use of Georgia’s waterresources, it is worth noting thatthe numbers in this report onlyrepresent the water that is with-drawn, and say nothing about theamount of water that is returned tothe source.
Returning water after it has beenused helps support water with-drawals by users downstream andhelps maintain the health ofaquatic ecosystems.
The loss of water through evapora-tion or plant use, as happens withmuch of the water withdrawn foragricultural uses, or throughwastewater disposal practices thateither delay the return of water orreturn it to other sources, canaffect the ability of that watersource to support other water uses.
Surface water
4,357
Groundwater
1,171
Public supply Domestic andcommercial
Industrial and mining
Thermoelectric Agricultural irrigation
Livestock andaquaculture
983 254 9 9 140140
42,717 265 486 60 7 323 280
1,237 149
2,720 751 67 604
57
Trends in water use
The U.S. Geological Survey has trackedtrends in water use every five yearsbetween 1980 and 2005 (Figure 3.3).Thermoelectric withdrawals werehighest in 1980 and were relativelyconstant through 2000. In 2005,withdrawals for thermoelectric powerproduction dropped, primarily due toretrofits at several plants that de-creased water use.
Industrial water use declined between1980 and 2005, with decreases inrecent years largely due to moreefficient use of water at industrialfacilities and a shifting mix of industrialwater users.
Agricultural water use declined duringthe 1980s but increased in the 1990s.Most agricultural water is used forirrigation, which is influenced byrainfall. Irrigation in 2000, a droughtyear, was 52 percent higher than it wasin 1995, a wet year. Increased amountsof water used for irrigation also reflectsan increase in the number of acres
irrigated, which was 38 percent higherin 2005 than in 1985.
Withdrawals for public water supplysteadily increased from 1980 to 2000,with the quantity withdrawn in 2005roughly equal to that in 2000. By 2005,withdrawals were 62 percent higherthan in 1980. As described in the nextsection, water conservation initiativesappear to be slowing the growth inwithdrawals for public supply. But,because increases in population canoutweigh the effects of water conserva-tion, the trend of increasing withdraw-als may continue as the state’s popula-tion continues to grow.
Georgia’s population and economicgrowth has raised questions about thelong-term capacity of the state’s waterresources. Assessments of the capacityof individual water sources are currentlyunder development. This informationwill help create a better understandingof the current and potential impacts ofincreased withdrawals from the state’swater resources.
Managing competinguses of water
The state’s lakes, rivers and streamssupport a range of uses and providea variety of benefits to Georgians.Some of these uses occur afterwater is withdrawn from a waterbody and transported for use. Theseare called offstream uses andinclude water supply for householduse, for commercial and industrialpurposes, and for agriculturalproduction, among others.
At the same time, Georgia’s surfacewaters provide benefits throughuses that occur within the banks ofstreams, rivers and lakes. Theseinstream uses include dilution andprocessing of wastewater, naviga-tion, recreation and hydropowerproduction — uses that directlybenefit people. Instream uses alsoinclude the water needed for fishand wildlife and ecosystem health.
Managing Georgia’s waters meanstaking steps to ensure that water isavailable, now and in the future, tomeet demands for offstream wateruse while maintaining each waterbody’s capacity to provide instreamuses as well.
Figure 3.3 Trends in water use in Georgia, 1980 - 2005. (U.S. Geological Survey)
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Public supply / Domestic and commercial
Thermoelectric
Agricultural irrigation and livestock
Industrial and mining
200520001995199019851980
Mill
ion
gallo
ns p
er d
ay
58
Per CapitaWater Use
Indicator of thesustainabilityof Georgia’sWater Supply
Per capita water use is a measure ofthe efficiency with which house-
holds, businesses and industries usewater. Greater efficiency in water usecan save money for consumers and helpmeet current and future water de-mands, while minimizing impacts on theenvironment.
Per capita use can be calculated anumber of different ways. In Georgia,municipal and industrial users who usemore than 100,000 gallons per day arerequired to have a water withdrawalpermit. Taking the total amount ofwater withdrawn under these permitsand dividing it by the state’s populationprovides an estimate of overall wateruse per person per day. This indicatorcaptures changes in population andeconomic activity.
Table 3.2 shows a consistent decline inoverall per capita water use from 2003to 2007. The decline is due to increasedefficiency among industrial water users,restrictions on outdoor watering, andimplementation of water conservationpractices such as installation of lowflow plumbing fixtures and otherdevices.
Overall per capita water use includeswater for residential, commercial andindustrial purposes. Measuring residen-tial water use alone provides a more
accurate assessment of householdprogress on water conservation andefficiency. As an alternative to overallper capita water use, EPD recentlyevaluated residential per capita wateruse as a measure of water conservation.
Although statewide data are notavailable, information on residential percapita water use has been collectedfrom representative communities acrossthe state. In 2005, residential water useranged from 60 to 88 gallons per personper day (Table 3.3). Differences amongcommunities may be due to differencesin the accounting of water use, theextent of outdoor water use, and thetype and age of the housing stock.
Seasonal differencesin per capita water use
Residential per capita water use isgenerally highest during thesummer and lowest during thewinter. This difference, which islargely due to outdoor water use,can be substantial.
A study of water use in eightrepresentative Georgia communi-ties found that the average percapita water use was 30-67percent higher in the summer thanin the winter. In some communi-ties, residential per capita wateruse during the summer exceeded100 gallons per person per day.
Outdoor water use is an area wherewater conservation practices canbe readily implemented to increasethe efficiency of residential wateruse.
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Table 3.2 Overall water use per personper day (municipal/industrial permitsexcluding thermoelectric withdrawals).Because methods of calculation differ,these numbers cannot be comparedwith those for other states. (EPD)
Table 3.3 Residential water use in representative public water systems, 2005. (Percapita use is calculated by dividing the gallons per residential account per day bythe 2000 U.S. Census household size for the water system; commercial andindustrial accounts excluded) (EPD)
Water system
Daily residential water use per household
(gallons)
Daily residential water use per person
(gallons) Douglas 200 78 LaGrange 170 68 Leary 170 65 Macon 220 88 Pickens County 152 60 Reidsville 160 68 Toccoa 145 63 Savannah 211 85
Fiscal year
Total withdrawals under municipal and
industrial permits (gallons per capita per day)
2003 198 2004 192 2005 187 2006 187 2007 185
59
Emerging IssueResponding to Exceptional Drought
Georgia is currently in a drought of historic severity. By December 2007,more than 99 percent of the state was at some level of drought, with 50
percent of the state experiencing exceptional conditions that are expected tooccur only once every 100 years.
Drought conditions led to unprec-edented responses from state and localofficials and from Georgia citizens. ALevel 4 drought, the most severedrought defined by the Georgia DroughtManagement Plan, was declared in thefall of 2007. This declaration affectedmuch of the northern half of the stateand included a mandatory ban onoutdoor water use (with limited excep-tions).
From November 2007 through March2008, water providers in the affectedareas also were charged with decreasingwater use each month by 10 percentcompared to the same period for thepreceding year. Because there is not asmuch water use during cooler months,this extra measure was needed to reducewater use. Local governments and utilities worked to help customers under-stand water conservation practices as the best way to battle drought and toenforce the ban on outdoor water use. As a result, the reduction target wasexceeded each month (see table).
The 10 percent reduction requirement expired March 31, 2008 and was notextended. Outdoor water use restrictions, however, continued. Becauseoutdoor water use is a large portion of water use in spring and summer months,restrictions helped achieve reductions much higher than 10 percent.
These reductions reflect outstanding water conservation efforts by Georgiacitizens along with savings due to outdoor watering restrictions. They demon-strate that water providers, businesses and citizens can and will respond whenthreats to water supplies become critical. And, some of the water conservationpractices, like installing low flow plumbing fixtures and other devices, willcontribute to long-term water efficiency.
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
Saving water throughenergy conservation
Water conservation is just one wayto contribute to the sustainabilityof Georgia’s water supply — energyconservation contributes as well.Energy use and water use areclosely connected, and reducingthe use of one often reduces theuse of the other.
In Georgia, 60 percent of thestate’s electricity comes from coal-fired generation. According to theSandia National Laboratory, coalgeneration requires 25 gallons ofwater for each kilowatt-hour ofgeneration. The Sandia researchersconclude that consumers may useas much water indirectly, inelectricity use, as they use directly,by taking showers and wateringlawns.
Georgia released its State EnergyStrategy in December 2006. TheStrategy’s policy objectives includeminimizing the impacts of energyproduction on water supply andwater quality. Research conductedto support development of theStrategy found that increasingenergy efficiency in Georgia wouldsave a substantial amount of water.
Using cost-effective, energyefficiency measures in Georgiacould save 159 million gallons perday by 2015 — almost as much asthe 2005 daily water use in all ofFulton County, as estimated by theU.S. Geological Survey.
To read the Georgia Energy Strategygo to http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=93#a4.
Reductions in water usein Level 4 drought areas(% change compared to theprevious year). (EPD)
Water usereductions
Nov. 2007 15%Dec. 2007 13%
Jan. 2008 11%Feb. 2008 13%
Mar. 2008 14%
Apr. 2008 31%May 2008 29%
Jun. 2008 20%
Jul. 2008 13%Aug. 2008 24%
Sep. 2008 18%
60
Figure 3.4 Georgia’s principal aquifers. (U.S. Geological Survey)
Coastal Plain aquifers
Surficial aquifer system (not a principal aquifer)
Brunswick aquifer system
Floridan aquifer system
Claiborne, Clayton and Providence aquifers
Cretaceous aquifer system
Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers
Crystalline-rock aquifers
Ridge & Valley and Appalachian Plateau aquifers
Paleozoic-rock aquifers
N
Ridge and
Valley
and
AppalachianPlateaus
Blue Ridge
CoastalPlain
Piedmont
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
GroundwaterLevels
Indicator of thesustainabilityof Georgia’sWater Supply
The amount of water sustainablyavailable from individual water
sources is finite, and, for sources ofgroundwater, water withdrawals cancontribute to declining groundwaterlevels.
In some aquifers, when the water levelgoes down, the amount of wateravailable for our use is reduced. Ground-water levels provide an additionalindicator of the sustainability ofGeorgia’s water supply.
Twenty-one percent of the water usedin Georgia in 2005 came from ground-water. Figure 3.4 shows the primaryaquifers that supply groundwater inGeorgia.
Persistent declines in groundwaterlevels have been observed in three ofGeorgia’s principal aquifers: the Claytonand portions of the Cretaceous and theUpper Floridan. Water levels in repre-sentative wells in each of these aquifersare shown in Figure 3.5 on page 61.
The Cretaceous aquifer is in centralGeorgia. The water level at a represen-tative well in Washington County has
fallen about 30 feet since the mid1980s (Figure 3.5a). This declinerepresents more than 6 percent of theheight of water in the aquifer beforewater levels dropped due to groundwa-ter withdrawals in the area.
The Clayton aquifer is found in south-west Georgia. The Clayton is a relativelysmall aquifer with a small recharge area,which limits the rate at which theaquifer is replenished by rainfall. Thewater level at a Randolph County wellin this aquifer has fallen more than 40feet since the mid-1960s (Figure 3.5b).This represents about 17 percent of theheight of water in the aquifer thatwould have been available beforewithdrawals in the area began to affectwater levels.
Falling water levels have increased thecost of withdrawing groundwater fromthe Clayton aquifer. Water levels alsohave not recovered, indicating that thewithdrawals have exceeded theaquifer’s ability to replenish itself. EPDhas not issued new withdrawal permitsfor the Clayton aquifer since the mid-
61
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
Figure 3.5 Groundwater levels in selected wells (blue lines indicate measuredlevels; red indicates estimated water level). (U.S. Geological Survey)
How is groundwaterreplenished?
An aquifer is a geologic formation,such as crystalline bedrock,limestone or sand, that can storeand release significant quantities ofgroundwater. The addition of waterto an aquifer is called recharge.
Shallow aquifers receive most oftheir water from rainfall. Rain sinksdownward through open pores andfractures in soil or bedrock andslowly moves into deeper parts ofan aquifer. Deeper, buried aquifers– also called confined aquifers –are recharged by leakage fromadjacent aquifers and by rainfallwhere the aquifer is at or near thesurface. Aquifers that meet thesurface also may be recharged bywater from streams and rivers.
Groundwater recharge occurs all overGeorgia. The most significant areasof recharge are found in northwestGeorgia, in areas just below the FallLine that runs across the central partof the state, in southwest Georgia,and in river valleys throughout theCoastal Plain.
Water in an aquifer is always movingfrom recharge areas to dischargeareas. Depending on aquifer charac-teristics, groundwater may moverapidly (hundreds of feet per day) orslowly (an inch or less per day). Someof the water in the Upper Floridanaquifer has been underneath Georgiafor thousands of years.
Aquifers discharge naturally tosprings, lakes, wetlands and streams,which helps maintain stream flowduring dry periods. Some alsodischarge to the Atlantic Ocean andthe Gulf of Mexico. Groundwaterpumping removes water from anaquifer and is a type of discharge.When discharge exceeds recharge,water levels will decline.
a. Cretaceous aquifer, Washington County
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
Dai
ly d
epth
to
wat
er le
vel,
feet
bel
owla
nd s
urfa
ce
b. Clayton aquifer, Randolph County
Dai
ly d
epth
to
wat
er le
vel,
feet
bel
owla
nd s
urfa
ce
130
140
150
160
170
1801970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006
c. Upper Floridan aquifer, Worth County
190
195
200
205
210
215
Dai
ly d
epth
to
wat
er le
vel,
feet
bel
owla
nd s
urfa
ce
1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006
d. Upper Floridan aquifer, Miller County
10
15
20
25
30
35
4045
501979 1982 1985 1998 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
Dai
ly d
epth
to
wat
er le
vel,
feet
bel
owla
nd s
urfa
ce
62
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
1990s to protect this resource for thosewho currently rely on it.
The third aquifer showing persistentdeclines, the Upper Floridan, is themost significant in terms of water use.The Floridan aquifer system underliesmuch of south Georgia and is a principalsource of water for people, businessesand farms across the region.
Agricultural irrigation is the largest useof groundwater in the southern half ofthe state. With the introduction ofcenter-pivot irrigation systems in themid-1970s, the Upper Floridan aquiferbecame the primary source of irrigationwater in southwest Georgia and waterlevel monitoring in this region showimpacts to the aquifer.
At some wells in the Upper Floridan,water levels have fallen continuouslysince the 1970s. For example, waterlevels at a well in Worth County havedropped about 20 feet (Figure 3.5c).While the cause of the declines cannotbe determined definitively, a variety offactors — including an increase in thenumber of irrigated acres and a shift tocrops, like cotton, that require morewater — may have contributed. In someareas, increased water use for nonagri-cultural purposes may also havecontributed.
Declining water levels, however, havenot been observed in all wells in the
Upper Floridan aquifer. For example, ata well in Miller County, the overall trendin water levels has remained the samesince the 1970s, although levels havevaried seasonally by 25 feet or more(Figure 3.5d). And, in some areas, levelshave rebounded after withdrawalsdecreased (see sidebar).
The wells in Worth and Miller countieshighlight how different areas of theaquifer can respond differently based onthe rate at which groundwater isreplenished and the way in which it isused for irrigation. Much is unknownabout why water levels fall or stay thesame and it is difficult to predict long-term changes in water levels in re-sponse to withdrawals.
Regardless of the cause, water levels insome wells in the Floridan aquifer havedropped steadily and sharply since the1970s. These declines show that thereare impacts from the use of groundwa-ter from the aquifer. If declines in waterlevels accelerate or become moreextensive, future generations may notbe able to get as much water from theFloridan aquifer system as is currentlyused in southwest Georgia and otherparts of the state.
Recovery of groundwaterlevels in Camden County
In Camden County in southeasternGeorgia, groundwater withdrawalsfrom the Upper Floridan aquiferhave supplied the Durango PaperCompany, the cities of Kingslandand St. Marys, and the Kings BayNaval Submarine Base. By 2002,Durango was withdrawing ground-water at a rate of about 35 milliongallons per day (mgd) with thecities and naval base withdrawingan additional 5 mgd.
These withdrawals caused waterlevels in the area to decline toabout five feet below sea level.When the paper company stoppedwithdrawing water in late 2002,water levels recovered withinweeks to elevations of about 30feet above sea level.
The quick recovery of water levelsindicated that total groundwaterwithdrawals of 40 mgd did notexceed the sustainable yield of theUpper Floridan aquifer in CamdenCounty.
63
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
How do we know if thereis enough water to meet
our needs?
Understanding how water is usedprovides only one piece of thepuzzle needed to determine if ourwater resources can meet theneeds of the current and futuregenerations. EPD also must assesshow much water is available, sincethere are limits on the amount ofwater that individual sources cansupply.
Growth of the state’s economy andpopulation brings increased demandfor water and an increased need forwater to assimilate or processpollution. Managing Georgia’s waterresources to meet these needs willrequire better information on thelong-term capacities of the state’swaters. Currently, information onthis is limited.
The provisions of Georgia’s StateWater Plan, adopted in 2008, areintended to help address this gap.Over the next two years, EPD willconduct resource assessments todetermine the amount of surfacewater and groundwater available tosupport current and future wateruse. Other assessments willdetermine the capacity of surfacewaters to process or assimilatepollution.
Backg rounde rManaging the Use of StressedWater Sources
In two areas of the state, water withdrawals have not just affected waterlevels in the water source. They have also led to other impacts. In coastal
Georgia, groundwater withdrawals have affected water quality in parts of theUpper Floridan aquifer. In southwest Georgia, groundwater withdrawalscontributed to decreases in the amount of water in tributaries of the FlintRiver. As a result, EPD has restricted use of some water sources in these areas.
Georgia’s coastal region, along with adjoining areas in South Carolina andFlorida, rely heavily on the Upper Floridan aquifer as a major source of water formunicipal and industrial uses. In two areas, pumping of groundwater hascontaminated the aquifer with saltwater. This phenomenon, known as saltwa-ter intrusion, occurs when seawater is drawn into the aquifer, contaminatingwells. It can also occur when brackish water is drawn into the aquifer fromother geologic formations. Saltwater intrusion affects the long-term viability ofthe Upper Floridan as a water source.
Recent scientific studies have shown Glynn County is vulnerable to saltwaterintrusion due to pumping on the Brunswick peninsula. Chatham County andparts of Effingham, Bryan and Liberty counties overlay a cone-shaped area oflowered water levels that exceeds 100 square miles and extends into SouthCarolina. This cone of depression is caused by groundwater pumping in Georgiaand South Carolina and contributes to the spread of saltwater in the aquiferunder Hilton Head Island. These areas now face limitations on use of theUpper Floridan aquifer and water users must look to other sources to meetincreasing demands for water.
Pumping for agricultural irrigation has increased significantly in southwestGeorgia’s lower Flint river basin since the 1970s. The onset of drought in 1998raised concerns about the impact of irrigation withdrawals on low flows in theFlint River and some of its tributaries.
In response, EPD initiated detailed studies of groundwater-surface waterinteractions in this basin. In 2006, EPD adopted a plan to manage waterwithdrawals to protect stream flow. The plan limits water use in specificwatersheds within the river basin. In 13 of the small watersheds in the lowerpart of the basin, irrigation withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer havebeen capped at current levels. Fourteen small watersheds face restrictions onadditional withdrawals from the Upper Floridan. Other sources of water willhave to be used to meet additional demands for irrigation and other wateruses.
To learn more about the Coastal Georgia Permitting Plan for Managing Saltwa-ter Intrusion, go to: http://www1.gadnr.org/cws
To learn more about the Flint River Basin Plan, go to: http://www1.gadnr.org/
frbp/index.html
64
proportion where standards are violated,have remained relatively constant. In2008, 39 percent of miles assessed fullymet the standards.
Water quality in the state’s lakes andestuaries is also evaluated on a two-year cycle. In 2008, 400,528 acres oflakes were assessed, equaling 94percent of the state total. Of the acresassessed, 53 percent fully met waterquality standards, a slight decline fromthe 2006 figure of 59 percent.
Violations of water quality standardsindicate that the assimilative capacityof these waters has been reached orexceeded. It is difficult or impossible toissue permits for additional discharge oftreated wastewater to these waters, alimitation that can hamper economicdevelopment.
In the watersheds of water bodies thathave reached their assimilative capaci-ties, demand for additional wastewatertreatment will have to be met throughother means. For wastewater treatmentplants and other point sources, this maymean applying treated wastewater toland, reusing the wastewater, or using atechnology that completely removesthe pollutant that causes the violationof water quality standards. Or, it mayrequire actions to decrease the amountof nonpoint source pollution thatreaches the water body.
In addition to supplying the statewith water, Georgia’s surface waters
also perform another critical function –assimilating pollution. Water bodieshave a natural ability to process – orassimilate – most pollutants in a waythat prevents harm to aquatic life orhumans who come in contact with thewater. This ability, called assimilativecapacity, not only protects humanhealth and sustains healthy ecosys-tems, it is also critical to the long-termsupport of a growing economy.
There is a limit, however, to the amountof pollutants a water body can assimi-late. When the total amount of pollu-tion from point and nonpoint sourcesexceeds that limit, the quality of thewater is reduced and water qualitystandards may be violated (see page 11).The extent to which standards areviolated is one indicator of a limitedcapacity to assimilate increases intreated wastewater – a capacitynecessary to support continued popula-tion and economic growth.
Violations of water quality standards areassessed and reported every two years.Figure 3.6 shows the statewide trendsince 1992. The percentage of the totalmiles of river and streams that havebeen assessed has steadily increased,reaching 20 percent in 2008. Theproportion of assessed miles that meetwater quality standards, and the
Figure 3.6 Violations of water quality standards in streams and rivers, 1992 -2008. Georgia has a total of 70,150 miles of streams and rivers. (EPD)
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000Miles violating water quality standards
Miles meeting water quality standards
Miles assessed
200820062004200220001998199619941992
Mile
s of
rive
rs a
nd s
trea
ms
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Pollutants inSurface Waters
Indicator of thecapacity of Georgia’swaters to AssimilatePollution
Monitoring more milesof streams and rivers
The number of stream and rivermiles evaluated for water qualityhas steadily increased since 1992.
Increasing the number of river milesevaluated has allowed EPD toidentify a larger number of streamsegments where water qualitystandards are violated. However,the percentage of assessed rivermiles where one or more standardis violated, and the percentage thatmeet water quality standards, haveremained fairly constant.
Since the late 1990s, between 57percent and 61 percent of the rivermiles assessed each year violatedone or more standard. Between 39percent and 43 percent of the rivermiles assessed each year met allwater quality standards.
65
health of fish communities has not yetbeen evaluated in five river basins).
Mercury in fish tissue is the mostcommon problem in two basins andcontributes to violations in severalothers. Low dissolved oxygen is a majorindicator of poor water quality in sevenriver basins, all in south Georgia.
All violations of water quality standardsin harbors and sounds are due todissolved oxygen. In lakes, the majorityare due to organochlorines in fish tissueand high levels of chlorophyll.
Elevated levels of chlorophyll indicatethe presence of large amounts ofnutrients, which causes growth of algaeand aquatic plants. Algae are animportant food source for aquatic life,but excessive amounts of nutrients likephosphorus can cause too much plantgrowth, negatively affecting fishing,recreation and drinking water supplies.
Indicators of poor water quality
Tables 3.4 and 3.5 show the majorindicators of poor water quality in thestate’s streams, rivers, harbors, soundsand lakes. Check marks show theindicators of poor water quality thatwere most common in 2006-2007.Together, the checked pollutants orconditions account for 80 percent ofthe stream miles or 80 percent of theacres of harbors, sounds and lakes withpoor water quality. Factors contributingto poor water quality in the remaining20 percent of waters include elevatedlevels of copper and other metals,additional organochlorine compounds,and altered temperature and pH.
Fecal coliform bacteria are a majorcontaminant in streams and rivers in 13of the state’s 14 major river basins. Poorquality fish and invertebrate communi-ties are major indicators of poor waterquality in eight river basins (and the
Table 3.4 Major indicators of poor water quality in Georgia’s streams and rivers,2006-2007. (EPD)
Table 3.5 Major indictors of poor water quality in Georgia’s harbors, sounds andlakes, 2006-2007. Sounds and harbors with poor water quality are found in theSavannah and Satilla river basins. Lakes with poor water quality are found in eightof the state’s major river basins. (EPD)
Dissolved oxygen
Organochlorines in fish tissue
Chlorophyll
Sounds and harbors �
Lakes � �
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
When water qualitystandards are not met
When water quality standards areviolated, EPD must limit theamount of pollutants allowed in thewater body. The amount of pollut-ant allowed is called the totalmaximum daily load (TMDL), and itis established to ensure that thewater body can support its desig-nated uses (see sidebar on page 10for an explanation of designateduses).
Once the TMDL is established, EPDdevelops a plan for how the TMDL,and ultimately the water qualitystandards, will be achieved. Oncethe water quality standards aremet, the state may remove thewater body from its list of waterswith poor water quality.
The table below shows the amountof water bodies partially or com-pletely removed from this listbetween 2000 and 2008. Watersthat were partially removed nowmeet at least one water qualitystandard that was violated in thepast. Waters that have been totallyremoved now meet all water qualitystandards.
River basin Fecal
coliform
Poor quality fish and
invertebrate communities
Dissolved oxygen
Mercury in fish tissue
Organo-chlorines in fish tissue
Altamaha � �
Chattahoochee � �
Coosa � � �
Flint � � �
Ochlockonee � � �
Ocmulgee � �
Oconee � �
Ogeechee � � �
Satilla � � �
Savannah � �
Suwannee � � �
St. Marys � �
Tallapoosa � �
Tennessee � �
Water bodies removed from thestate’s list of waters with poorwater quality, 2000 - 2008. (EPD)
Riversegments 3,092 1,739(miles)
Lakes(acres) 402,374 268,646
Estuarinewater bodies 281 179(square miles)
Partially Totallyremoved removed
66
Limits on wastewater discharges
Several areas of the state currently facestringent limitations on additionaldischarge of treated wastewater, whichmay constrain growth and development.
High levels of chlorophyll have beenmeasured in Lake Lanier, LakeAllatoona, Carter’s Lake and LakeWalter F. George (watersheds shown ingreen in Figure 3.7). High chlorophylllevels are due to large amounts ofphosphorus; any new or increaseddischarge of treated wastewater wouldincrease the amount of this nutrient.
Until TMDL studies are completed andsteps are taken to improve waterquality, communities in the watershedsof these lakes will be unable to releaseadditional phosphorus-containingwastewater to the lakes.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the Savannahharbor violate water quality standards.Wastewater released into the lower
Savannah River basin (shown in pink onthe state’s eastern border in Figure 3.7)contains organic matter that requiresoxygen to decompose. Because bacteriaand other microorganisms consumeoxygen during this decomposition,organic matter acts as an oxygen-demanding substance. The consumptionof oxygen, in turn, lowers levels ofdissolved oxygen in the harbor and newor increased releases of oxygen de-manding substances in that part of thebasin are prohibited.
The Coosa River at the Georgia-Alabamastate line also violates water qualitystandards for dissolved oxygen. Themajority of the Coosa River watershedaffects water quality in this segment ofthe river. As a result, communities inthe pink area on the state’s westernborder in Figure 3.7 cannot increase theamount of oxygen-demanding sub-stances going into the streams andrivers that flow into the Coosa.
Figure 3.7 Watersheds with limits on additional wastewater discharges, 2008. (EPD)
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Discharge limits on phosphorus
Watersheds with phosphoruslimits
Discharge limits onbiochemical oxygen demand
Watersheds with biochemical oxygen demand limits
67
Figure 3.8 Total phosphorus loads to lakes Allatoona and Lanier (average for 2006and 2007). (EPD)
As Georgia’s population increases,demands for wastewater disposal
also increase. Nonpoint sources ofpollution, however, decrease the abilityof water bodies to assimilate additionaldischarges of treated wastewater.
The pollutants that enter Georgia’swater come from point sources,including releases of treated wastewa-ter, and from stormwater runoff andother nonpoint sources. Over the pastthree decades, improvements inwastewater treatment technology havedecreased point source impacts onwater quality. As pollutants from pointsources have decreased, the contribu-tion of nonpoint sources has increased.
National studies indicate that nonpointsources can add a significant amount ofpollution to a water body. The totalnonpoint source contribution to Georgiawaters has not been fully evaluated, butrecent lake studies suggest the likelysize of the problem.
The water quality standard for chloro-phyll is violated in lakes Lanier andAllatoona due to phosphorus levels thatexceed each lake’s capacity to assimi-late the nutrient. This phosphoruscomes from wastewater treatmentplants and nonpoint sources, such asstormwater runoff from agriculturalfields, lawns and paved surfaces.
Recent studies demonstrate that morethan 75 percent of the phosphorusentering each lake is the result ofnonpoint source pollution, primarilycarried by stormwater runoff (Figure
3.8). This contribution consumes asignificant portion of each lake’sassimilative capacity and is a majorcause of water quality standard viola-tions. These violations limit EPD’sability to permit additional releases oftreated wastewater into streams in thelakes’ watersheds.
Watershed monitoring across the statealso highlights stormwater as a sourceof pollution. Between 1998 and 2005,measurements at 42 locations showthat, on average, phosphorus concen-trations are three times higher duringrainy weather than concentrations inthe same streams under dry conditions.
Decreasing pollution from nonpointsources would help maintain thecapacity of Georgia’s waters to assimi-late treated wastewater, but it is asignificant challenge. The many types ofnonpoint sources create a complex mixof pollutants, which varies dependingon activities on the land. The specificsources of pollutants can also bedifficult to determine.
Without changes in what have beenstandard practices, continued growth islikely to result in more land disturbance,new impervious surfaces and increasedstormwater runoff. These changes mayincrease the amount of pollution thatreaches Georgia’s streams, unlessconcerted actions are taken to reducenonpoint source pollution — actionsnecessary to protect water quality andmaintain assimilative capacity in orderto meet future demands for wastewaterdisposal.
Total phosphorous load263,918 pounds per year
LakeAllatoona
LakeLanier
Total phosphorous load187,100 pounds per year
Point source loads
Nonpointsource loads
12% 22%
88% 78%
Nonpoint Sourcesof Pollution
Indicator of thecapacity of Georgia’swaters to AssimilatePollution
Controlling point sourceimpacts on water quality
Since the early 1970s, local govern-ments and utilities, with financialassistance from the state andfederal governments, have madeconsiderable financial investmentsto decrease the amount of pollutionreleased in treated wastewater.
As a result, the proportion of water
quality problems caused by point
sources has declined, as has theamount of assimilative capacity
used by point sources.
In 1972, wastewater treatment onlyremoved 65 percent of the oxygen-demanding pollutants generated bypoint sources in Georgia. Within 10years, the percentage removed hadincreased to 90 percent and, by1990, had reached 96 percent (seetable below).
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
1972 802 283
1982 925 96
1990 1,483 62
Pollutants Pollutantsgenerated released
Generation and point sourcedischarge of oxygen-demandingpollutants (thousand pounds),1972 - 1990. (EPD)
68
Georgia’s economic prosperity,historically as well as today, has
relied on the state’s land. From thefounding of the original colony,Georgians have worked this land toprovide food, fiber, wood and otherforest products. At the same time,working lands used for forestry andagriculture have provided environmen-tal benefits including habitat forplants and animals and preservation ofair and water quality.
The ways in which the state’s landsare used changes continuously. Treesare harvested and forests regrow;agricultural lands are put into andtaken out of production. Workinglands also are converted to differentuses.
These changes can be dramatic. Asmuch as 80 percent of the Piedmont,for example, was cleared in the lastcentury. By 2005, 58 percent (6.4million acres) of the Piedmont hadbeen reforested. Trends in land coverare one source of information onGeorgia’s changing landscape and theways its resources are used to supporta growing economy.
Trends in five major land cover types— evergreen forest, deciduous forest,clear-cut and sparse land cover, mixedforest, and row crops and pasture —are examined to track the extent oflands used for forestry and agriculture.The first four represent land managedfor forest products and the fifth tracksland worked for food and fiber. As inchapter two, we draw on analysis ofland cover changes by researchers atthe University of Georgia.
Lands Usedfor Agricultureand Forestry
Indicator of theextent of Georgia’sWorking Lands
It is important to note that this indica-tor tracks broad changes at the stateand ecoregion level in the extent oflands used for agriculture and forestry.It is not assumed that all land in thesecategories is actively or intensivelymanaged for production.
These categories include lands that areunder active management, as well asthose that may be used for futureproduction. Whether under activemanagement or not, much of the landin these categories helps to maintain airquality, water quality and naturalhabitat — all environmental benefitsassociated with working, vegetatedlandscapes.
As of 2005, taken together, forest andagricultural land in these five categoriescovered 76 percent of the state, downfrom 80 percent in 1974 (Table 3.6).Statewide, the acreage of hardwoodforest declined consistently between1974 and 2005, while the acreage ofmixed forest consistently increased(Figure 3.9). The extent of evergreenforest and clear-cut/sparse land covervaried over this period. The acreage ofagricultural land generally declined,although an increase was seen in 2005.
Market forces, changes in productiontechnology, incentive programs andfinancial considerations may all havecontributed to changes in the extent offorested and agricultural lands. Some ofthese factors result in land simply beingtaken out of production or shifted to adifferent type of vegetated cover.Others contribute to the conversion ofland to more intensive use, includingresidential and commercial uses.
Landcover classification
% of state land in 1974
% of state land in 2005
Change in number of acres
Percent change
Hardwood forest 20 17 -1,188,341 -16%
Evergreen forest 27 26 -565,323 -6%
Clear-cut/sparse 5 8 +1,096,935 +58% Mixed forest 2 3 +475,731 +58% Row crops and pasture
26 22 -1,596,370 -16%
Table 3.6 Statewide change in forest and agricultural lands, 1974 - 2005. (NaturalResources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
What land cover typesindicate lands used for
forestry and agriculture?
Evergreen forest. Forest composedof at least 75 percent evergreentrees, managed pine plantationsand evergreen woodland.
Hardwood forest. Forest composedof at least 75 percent hardwoodtrees in the canopy and deciduouswoodland.
Clear-cut and sparse. Recentclear-cuts, sparse vegetation andvegetation that is common early inthe succession from cleared land toforest regrowth.
Mixed forest. Mixed deciduous/coniferous canopies, mixed wood-land and natural vegetation in thecoastal plain ecoregions, and mixedshrub/scrub vegetation.
Row crops and pastures. Rowcrops, orchards, vineyards, grovesand horticultural businesses.Pasture and non-tilled grasses.
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
69
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
Figure 3.9 Statewide change in forest and agricultural lands, 1974 - 2005. (NaturalResources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
Forest lands
Taken together, between 1974 and2005, the extent of forested land coverin the state declined by just 182,000acres (Table 3.6). The mix of differentforest types, however, changed mark-edly. Hardwood forest cover declined by16 percent, a loss of nearly 1.2 millionacres. The change in acres of hardwoodforest was greater than that seen in theother forest land covers. The majority ofthese losses were in the Piedmont(Figure 3.10).
During this period, the acreage ofevergreen forest (primarily managedpine forests) declined after peaking in1998. Between 1974 and 1998, ever-green forest increased by approximately439,000 acres. This was followed by adecline of nearly 1.5 million acres and,as a result, the total acreage of ever-green forest declined by 6 percent —approximately 565,000 acres —between 1974 and 2005.
The 1998 peak in evergreen acreage waspreceded by a 1991 peak in acreage ofclear-cut and sparse lands. In the sevenyears between the two measurements,trees grew and a portion of the clear-cut/sparse land became evergreen forest.
Between 1974 and 2005, the increase inclear-cut/sparse land was much greaterthan the other forest-related land covers.Most of this gain was seen in thePiedmont and the Upper Coastal Plain.
During the same period, mixed forestcover increased by more than 475,000acres statewide. Mixed forest includesevergreen forests mixed with deciduoustrees or shrubs, which may occur inpreviously clear-cut areas. A steadyincrease in this type of forest resulted in a58 percent increase in acreage by 2005.
Most of the state’s ecoregions lostevergreen forest and gained mixedforest during this time, with theexception of the Lower Coastal Plain.Sixty-six percent of the state’s totalloss of evergreen forest was in thePiedmont, as was 57 percent of themixed forest gain.
These changes, however, varied bycounty. Evergreen forest, for example,increased by more than 25,000 acres inseven counties, while eight countieslost more than 25,000 acres.The greatest change in evergreen forestcover was in Gwinnett County, wherenearly 60,000 acres were lost between1974 and 2005.
The economic andenvironmental value of forest
and agricultural lands
Agriculture and forestry are amongthe most important sectors ofGeorgia’s economy. Researchers atthe University of Georgia estimatethat, in 2006, agricultural com-modities produced in Georgia had atotal value of $10.4 billion. Thisincludes a value of $663 million fortimber, the state’s most valuablevegetative crop.
Timber value contributes to theGeorgia Forestry Commission’sestimate of $16.1 billion in directeconomic benefit from the state’sforest resources.
UGA researchers also estimatethat, in 2006, Georgia’s food andfiber industry had a total direct andindirect economic impact of $55.2billion and provided a total of366,000 jobs.
The lands that support this employ-ment and economic impact alsoprovide an array of other benefits.Recreational uses range fromhunting to hiking, and income fromhunting leases and nature- andagricultural-based tourism helpssupport local economies.
Proper stewardship of vegetatedlands also provides environmentalservices. Vegetated lands maintainair quality by removing or trappingair pollutants and support waterquality by absorbing or breakingdown pollutants in stormwater.
They also slow the movement ofstormwater, controlling runoff,erosion and flooding. Finally, theycan provide critical habitat forplants and game and nongamespecies of animals.
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Mixed forest
Clearcut/sparse
Hardwood forest
Row crops/pasture
Evergreen forest
200520011998199119851974
Acr
es
70
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Figure 3.10 Change in forest and agricultural lands by ecoregion, 1974 - 2005. (Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory,University of Georgia)
Lower Coastal Plain (Southern Coastal
Plain)
Change in acres
Percent change
Hardwood forest -26,784 -18%
Evergreen forest 138,204 6%
Mixed forest -286 -0.5%
Clearcut/sparse 95,364 17%
Row crops/pasture 3,233 0.5%
Upper Coastal Plain (Southeastern
Plains)
Change in acres
Percent change
Hardwood forest -106,802 -7%
Evergreen forest -21,864 -1%
Mixed forest 106,128 18%
Clearcut/sparse 650,924 88%
Row crops/pasture -971,771 -15%
Ridge and Valley & Southwestern Appalachians
Change in acres
Percent change
Hardwood forest 153,810 22%
Evergreen forest -149,063 -40%
Mixed forest 57,205 302%
Clearcut/sparse -67,407 -51%
Row crops/pasture -191,319 -29%
Blue Ridge Change in
acres Percent change
Hardwood forest -60,616 -5%
Evergreen forest -65,789 -20%
Mixed forest 41,808 268%
Clearcut/sparse 27,185 150%
Row crops/pasture -46,344 -37%
Piedmont Change in
acres Percent change
Hardwood forest -1,147,948 -29%
Evergreen forest -466,811 -14%
Mixed forest 270,884 238%
Clearcut/sparse 390,868 89%
Row crops/pasture -390,169 -18%
71
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
Figure 3.11 Changes in row crop and pasture lands, 1974 - 2005. (Natural Re-sources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia)
Converting land to moreintensive uses
Conversion of land to urban landcover can contribute to a decline inforest and agricultural lands andthe environmental benefits thoselands provide.
Most of the urban land added inGeorgia since 1974 has been low-intensity urban cover, such assingle-family homes, schools andrecreation areas. Increases in thistype of land cover are often linkedto conversion of agricultural andforested lands.
As described in the previouschapter, between 1974 and 2005,low-intensity land cover in Georgiaincreased 385 percent, an additionof more than 2.3 million acres.While much of this change occurrednear major cities, smaller cities andrural areas also saw substantialincreases in this type of land cover.
Of the new acres of low-intensityurban lands, 33 percent were addedin the metro Atlanta area. Twenty-six percent were added in Georgia’s14 other metropolitan areas (asdefined by the U.S. Census Bureau).The remaining new acres of low-intensity land cover — roughly 40percent — were added in the 90counties that lie outside of thestate’s metropolitan areas.
No change inagricultural land cover
Increase inagricultural landcover
Decrease inagriculturalland cover
federal initiative to remove highlyerodible cropland from production. As of2007, more than 300,000 acres wereenrolled in this program, which repre-sents about 19 percent of the decline inacres of row crops and pasture between1974 and 2005.
Although the Lower Coastal Plainshowed a slight gain in row crop andpasture land, all other ecoregionsshowed a loss in farmlands between1974 and 2005 (Figure 3.11). Losses inthe Upper Coastal Plain alone ap-proached 1 million acres, and substan-tial decreases in row crop and pastureacreage were also seen in the Piedmontand Ridge and Valley/SouthwesternAppalachians regions (Figure 3.10). Fiftypercent of the total statewide declineoccurred in 23 counties, with eachlosing more than 25,000 acres.
Agricultural lands
In 2005, row crops and pasture lands inGeorgia covered nearly 8.4 million acres.Of the five land cover types consideredhere, agricultural lands are more exten-sive than all except evergreen forests.
While agriculture remains a dominantsector of Georgia’s economy, the totalamount of land in row crops andpasture has declined substantially since1974 (Table 3.6). In the 15 years from1974 to 2001, cropland and pasture landdeclined by more than 2 million acres.Acres of row crops and pasturesincreased somewhat by 2005, but theloss between 1974 and 2005 stillaccounted for 16 percent of the state’sfarmlands.
Part of this decline can be attributed tothe Conservation Reserve Program, a
72
BrownfieldRevitalization
Indicator of theextent of Georgia’sWorking Lands
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Acres enrolled
Acres cleaned up
2002 17 7 2003 65 13 2004 157 67 2005 649 178 2006 1,279 339 2007 510 273 2008 564 196 Total 3,241 1,073
Table 3.7 Acres enrolled and cleaned upunder the brownfield revitalizationprogram, 2002 - 2008. (EPD)
Figure 3.12 Tivoli Tenside is an apartment complex that opened in Fall 2008 between Atlantic Station and the Westsideneighborhood of Atlanta. The before photo (above right) shows how the lot looked before redevelopment. (EPD)
The time required to clean up brown-fields varies widely, depending on thesize of the site, property acquisition andconstruction schedules and economicfactors. By the end of 2008, a total of281 brownfield properties were enrolledin the program, and cleanup had beencompleted at 130 of these sites –revitalizing more than 1,000 acres. Thecleanup of these properties wascompleted with private funds, and theyare now being put back into productiveuse (Figure 3.12).
Reclaiming and reusing brownfieldsis an alternative to converting
forest and agricultural land intodeveloped or urban land. As citiesspread, many commercial and industrialproperties within them are left aban-doned or underutilized because ofenvironmental contamination.
Often, these “brownfield” properties areclose to transportation corridors andutilities, and many contain serviceablestructures that could house a businessor be converted to housing. But untilrecently, real or perceived environmen-tal liability has caused many potentialpurchasers to shun these properties infavor of land that has not previouslybeen developed.
Georgia law now encourages the reuseand redevelopment of brownfieldsthroughout the state. Legislationpassed in 2002 placed limits on liabilityfor purchasers of brownfields propertywho voluntarily conduct environmentalinvestigation and cleanup. Tax incentivelegislation followed in 2003, creatingan opportunity for property tax abate-ment to offset clean-up costs. Since2002, 3,241 acres have been enrolledin the brownfield revitalization program(Table 3.7).
73
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Ensuring R
esources to Support a Grow
ing Economy
Table 3.8 Years of capacity remaining in Georgia landfills. (EPD)
Figure 3.13 Years of landfill capacity remaining by region, 2007. (EPD)
<10 years
10 - 19 years
20 - 29 years
30+ years
Land Used for SolidWaste Disposal
Indicator of theextent of Georgia’sWorking Lands
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Municipal solid waste (lined and unlined)
27 19 26 29 27 31
Construction and demolition
14 17 26 21 19 29
available to accept waste) in currently
permitted landfills and on the currentrate of solid waste disposal. This
capacity, however, is not evenly
distributed across the state (Figure3.13).
From 2002 to 2007, the years of
remaining capacity in C&D landfills inGeorgia more than doubled, while the
capacity in municipal solid waste
landfills remained relatively constant.Since the remaining capacity is based
on current disposal rates, it does not
account for external factors. Forexample, permitting new landfills and
expanding existing landfills would add
capacity, while natural disasters andincreased amounts of waste imported
from other states would decrease
capacity.
Land is also used for landfills todispose of solid waste, including
municipal solid waste (MSW) andconstruction and demolition debris(C&D). Currently, EPD has issuedpermits for landfills on approximately40,000 acres in Georgia – an arearoughly equal to the size of Lake Lanier.
In recent years, the trend has beentoward fewer landfills that are muchlarger and have much greater capacitythan those permitted in the past. Oneresult of this trend is that the distancethat waste is hauled for disposal hasgreatly increased.
As of 2007, more than 31 years ofcapacity remained in municipal solidwaste landfills in Georgia (Table 3.8).This estimate is based on the remainingcapacity (i.e., the amount of space
74
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ En
surin
g R
esou
rces
to
Supp
ort
a G
row
ing
Econ
omy
Visibility
Indicatorof the qualityof Georgia’s Air
Figure 3.14 Visibility levels at Cohutta, GA. These images werecreated using WinHaze, computer imaging software that simu-lates air quality differences. (EPD)
In 1948, a visitor to the southernAppalachian mountains in north Georgiacould see an average of 93 miles. By1990, due to air pollution, that distancehad dropped to an average of 22 miles.
The images in Figure 3.14 were createdusing a computer program that simu-lates air pollution levels. As state andnational agencies work toward thefederal goal of no human impact onvisibility by 2064, this tool will allowscientists to evaluate the effectivenessof different approaches to reducingpollution.
The causes of haze also tend to harmhuman health. As we make progress inmeeting the health-based air qualitystandards discussed in chapter one, wewill also be making strides towardimproving visibility.
Projection: 2064
Baseline: 2000-04 Projection: 2018
Georgia’s land provides recreationalopportunities and aesthetic value.
Unfortunately, these benefits can beimpaired by air pollution that decreasesvisibility.
The list of substances that cause hazeand smog includes sulfates, organicmatter, elemental carbon (soot),nitrates, dust and water vapor. Thesesubstances come from a variety ofnatural and human-caused sources,including open burning, emissions frominternal combustion engines, andemissions from factories and powerplants. Aerosols, tiny drops of liquidthat form in the atmosphere whencertain chemicals react with each other,also contribute to haze.
As a group, the substances that causehaze and smog can impair visibility,harm human health and cause long-term damage to the health of ourecosystems.
75
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sum
mary of A
ccomplishm
ents & C
hallenges
Summary ofAccomplishments& ChallengesOver the past few decades, much of Georgia has grown and prospered. This
growth and prosperity has relied, in part, on the state’s rich natural resourcesand the quality of its environment.
At the same time, as demonstrated by the indicators discussed in this report,progress toward EPD’s environmental management objectives is evident. A numberof environmental challenges continue to face the state, however, and new oneshave begun to emerge.
As summarized below, this report highlights the progress that has been madetoward three objectives:
• Protecting human health
• Sustaining healthy ecosystems
• Ensuring resources to support a growing economy
This report also highlights the environmental challenges that remain as well asareas of opportunity – where actions can be readily taken to move toward betterenvironmental outcomes while supporting the state’s economy and quality of life.
Looking toward the future, Georgia’s natural resources and the quality of itsenvironment will continue to be critical to the state’s growth and prosperity. Withmore people and a growing economy, use of our resources will continue to increaseand demands on our environment intensify. As Georgia grows, further environmen-tal progress will be necessary to sustain the state’s economic progress.
Protecting human health
For air and water resources, the past three decades have seen reductions in therelease of pollutants and in the levels of pollution in the environment. While theseefforts have been undertaken primarily to protect human health, advancement inthis area also helps meet the other environmental objectives.
These reductions have been largely due to controlling point sources – discharges oftreated wastewater by municipalities and industries and releases of air pollutantsfrom the smokestacks of power plants, factories and other facilities.
The job of controlling air and water pollution to protect human health, however, isobviously not finished. For both air and water, pollutants still exceed health-basedstandards or thresholds in many areas of the state some of the time.
As efforts to improve the quality of Georgia’s air and water resources continue,three important challenges lie ahead:
Increased impact from smaller, diffuse pollution sources. Over the past threedecades, investments in controlling pollution from point sources have paid off bydecreasing releases from these sources. As pollution from point sources hasdecreased, the relative contribution of sources that are smaller, more numerous andwidespread has increased. Stormwater that carries pollution off the surface of the
p Bacteria levels in surface water, p. 10Dissolved oxygen in surface water,
p. 45Community water systems meeting
drinking water standards, p. 8Levels of air pollutants, p. 23Emissions of air pollutants, p. 29
p Bacteria levels in surface water, p. 10Contaminants in fish tissue, p. 14Dissolved oxygen in surface water,
p. 45Pollutants in surface water, p. 64Non-attainment areas, p. 26
p Nonpoint sources of waterpollution, p. 16 and 67
Emissions of air pollutants, p. 29
For more information,go to the sections on these
indicators or topics:
76
Bacteria levels in surface water, n
p. 10Dissolved oxygen in surface water, p. 45Non-attainment areas, p. 26
Contaminants in fish tissue, p. 14 n
Nonpoint sources of water pollution,p. 16
Risks from air toxics, p. 28
Land contaminated above n
health-based standards, p. 18Scrap tires, p. 21
Solid waste disposal, p. 20 n
Hazardous waste generation, p. 22Lands used for solid waste disposal, p. 73
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
mm
ary
of A
ccom
plis
hmen
ts &
Cha
lleng
esland and emissions from motor vehicles are now the greatest concern for water andair quality, respectively.
Reducing pollution to meet or exceed health-based standards will require moreeffective solutions for these smaller sources — solutions that will have to beshaped, in part, by land use and transportation policies. The number and distribu-tion of these nonpoint sources in the future will be partially determined by thetransportation choices and land use decisions made today.
Changing standards. As scientific knowledge improves, standards may change.These changes may simply reflect a better understanding of pollutants and how tomeasure them in order to protect human health (e.g., standards for bacteria insurface water). Or, changes may reflect improved information on the impacts ofpollutants. Air quality standards have been tightened for this reason, even as airquality has improved.
Tighter standards increase the importance of controlling releases from the smallersources described above – mobile sources of air pollution and nonpoint sources ofwater pollution. Tighter standards also make it more difficult to site and issuepermits to new point sources of pollutants, including the energy facilities andwastewater treatment plants that may be needed as the state continues to grow.
Additional contaminants of concern. Continued progress toward the objective ofprotecting human health will require better understanding of the risks from airtoxics. It will also require better management of contaminants that can travel longdistances and affect a different part of the environment (land, air, water) than theone in which they originated.
These challenges have several implications for the protection of human health.First, government regulation alone cannot do the job. Other tools, such as invest-ments in increased knowledge, incentive programs, technical assistance andeducation will become increasingly important.
Second, individual citizens, businesses and local governments make many of thedecisions that affect air and water resources. EPD and other state agencies muststrengthen and expand partnerships with public and private sector organizations inorder to encourage decisions that have better environmental outcomes. And, airand water resources have to be considered as plans are laid for the state’s transpor-tation, land use and energy futures.
For land resources, progress has been made in the clean up of contaminated land.The most notable advances have been in cleaning up sites contaminated byunderground storage tanks and scrap tire dumps. Contaminated lands, however,continue to be identified and ongoing investment in assessing and cleaning themup will be necessary to maintain progress toward the objective of protecting humanhealth.
Land resources are also affected by waste generation and disposal. Solid wastedisposal, in particular, poses a significant challenge for the state. The amount of solidwaste disposed in Georgia has risen steadily in recent years. And, the amountdisposed per person is consistently higher than the national average. At the sametime, Georgia industries that use recovered materials in their manufacturing pro-cesses must import them because there is not an adequate supply within the state.
Some of what is treated as waste in Georgia is actually a resource that industries inthe state can use. Addressing this challenge will require expanding Georgia’srecycling infrastructure and promoting recycling and waste reduction by citizens andbusinesses.
77
Sustaining healthy ecosystems
Georgia’s landscape has seen dramatic changes over the years. The ways in whichland is used, and the ways in which land has been altered as the state has grown,have affected the health of Georgia’s ecosystems.
Over the past three decades, the extent of hardwood forests and forested wet-lands, native land covers associated with critical natural habitat, declined steadily.The extent of urban land cover — low-intensity urban cover, in particular — jumpeddramatically. The rate of increase in urban land cover between 1974 and 2005 wasmore than four times greater than the rate of increase in the state’s population.Between 1991 and 2005, the amount of impervious cover – surfaces that preventrain from soaking into the ground and cause stormwater to run off more quickly –increased twice as rapidly as the state’s population.
Changing land cover has altered the quality and extent of natural habitat across thestate and the condition of the animal and plants species that live in those habitats.The effects are evident in the decline of streamside forests in most of the state’slarge watersheds, the limited amount of moderate and high quality terrestrialhabitat, and an increased number of protected species.
The effects of human activities on the health of Georgia’s ecosystems also areapparent in the condition of Georgia’s freshwater fish communities. Less than one-quarter of the sites evaluated had fish communities that scored in good or excel-lent condition; the remainder rated fair, poor or very poor. Freshwater fish commu-nities in poor condition can be attributed, in part, to nonpoint source pollution,including stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and sediment from land-disturbing activities. Some aquatic habitats along the coast are also degraded dueto nonpoint source pollution.
Alteration of natural habitat associated with low-intensity urban land cover andincreased impervious surfaces is one of the major long-term threats to Georgia’srich biological diversity. Lands protected by federal, state or local governments, orby private conservation groups, are less subject to habitat conversion. By providingprotected habitat for plants and animals, these lands help maintain healthyecosystems.
Lands with permanently protected natural habitat, however, cover less than 4percent of the state’s area. The vast majority of land in Georgia is subject toconversion and habitat loss, and private landowners hold the vast majority of thatland. Voluntary land protection and incentive-based habitat management programsfor private lands are becoming increasingly important.
As Georgia continues to grow, the challenge is to shift to development strategiesthat lead to better environmental outcomes – for low-intensity urban areas, inparticular. This includes approaches that protect natural habitat, such as designingdevelopments to maintain natural and open areas. It also includes investing in theidentification of critical habitats, as well as actions by private landowners andpublic land managers to preserve viable examples of all natural habitats in anecoregion.
Development strategies with better environmental outcomes also include practicesthat decrease the movement of sediment from land-disturbing activities as well asthose that increase pervious surfaces, which allow rain and stormwater to soak intothe ground. Stormwater management has traditionally focused on movingstormwater away from roads, buildings and other areas as quickly as possible, anapproach that is becoming increasingly expensive. This approach also has environ-
p Land cover types, p. 36Impervious surfaces, p. 40
p Streamside forests, p. 42Terrestrial habitat quality, p. 47Protected species, p. 49
p Freshwater fish communitystatus, p. 43
Coastal habitat conditions, p. 46
p Terrestrial habitat quality, p. 47Habitat protection, p. 50
p Incentives for habitat protection onprivate lands, p. 52
p Impervious surfaces, p. 40
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sum
mary of A
ccomplishm
ents & C
hallenges
78
Total water use, p. 55 n
Groundwater levels, p. 60 n
Pollutants in surface waters, p. 64 n
Nonpoint sources of water n
pollution, p. 16 and 67
Per capita water use, p. 58 n
Responding to exceptional drought,p. 59
Lands used for agriculture and n
forestry, p. 68
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ Su
mm
ary
of A
ccom
plis
hmen
ts &
Cha
lleng
esmental costs, with impacts on water quality, the physical structure of streams andthe amount of groundwater available to sustain stream flows during dry periods.
Designing developments so that more stormwater soaks into the ground – support-ing groundwater levels and contributing to stream flow during dry periods — can bemore cost effective and will improve environmental outcomes.
Ensuring resources to support a growing economy
Georgia’s water and land resources have supported the state’s development overthe years and, as the state continues to grow, these resources will continue to becritically important.
For water resources, however, capacities are finite and must be managed to supporta variety of uses. These include uses that occur after water is withdrawn from awater body (called offstream uses), such as water supply for household use,commercial and industrial purposes and agricultural production. They also includeinstream uses that occur within the banks of a water body — assimilation ofwastewater, recreation and support of fish and wildlife, among others.
While water use for thermoelectric and industrial purposes was lower in 2005 thanin 1980, the amount of water used for public supply increased over this time period.
Agricultural use also was higher, although the amount of water used for irrigation
varies from year to year with rainfall.
Water withdrawals have affected the viability of some water sources. Groundwaterlevels in several aquifers (or parts of aquifers) have shown steady declines and theuse of some water sources in south Georgia has been restricted.
The capacity to assimilate pollution also has been reached or exceeded in somewaters, as demonstrated by the poor water quality found in roughly 60 percent ofthe stream miles recently evaluated. The most common indicators of poor waterquality are high levels of fecal coliform, communities of aquatic animals in poorconditions, low levels of dissolved oxygen, contaminants in fish tissue, and highlevels of nutrients.
In many of the streams, rivers and lakes with poor water quality, pollution fromnonpoint sources decreases their capacity to assimilate treated wastewater. It isdifficult or impossible to increase discharges of treated wastewater to waters thatviolate water quality standards, a limitation that can hamper economic development.
Looking ahead, Georgia faces the challenge of decreasing the impacts of nonpointsources of water pollution, a challenge that will have to be met, in part, by chang-ing land use and transportation policies. EPD, in turn, faces the challenge ofimproving information on Georgia’s water supply and the wastewater capacity ofindividual water sources – a challenge being addressed under the State Water Plan.
Finally, the state, local governments and water users face the challenge of findingways to meet the mix of demands for offstream water use that will be placed oneach water source, while maintaining the capacity of that source to provideinstream use as well. Ultimately, actions to manage water supply and quality,increase the efficiency of water use, and respond to droughts will all be needed.
For land resources, trends in land cover show the dynamic nature of Georgia’slandscape and the changes that can occur over relatively short periods of time, inresponse to economic factors, new technology, and federal and state policies. Morethan 75 percent of the state’s land area currently has forested or agricultural land
79
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // Sum
mary of A
ccomplishm
ents & C
hallengescover. The acreage of hardwood forests, however, has declined markedly since1974. The acreage of evergreen forest and agricultural lands has varied, but bothwere lower in 2005 than in 1974.
One of the most significant changes taking place today is the conversion offorested and working landscapes to urban landscapes. The Piedmont region hasseen the most change in the state, but it is not just the metro Atlanta area beingaffected. Low-intensity urban land cover has also increased in the state’s othermajor cities, smaller towns and rural areas. This trend reflects decisions made bymany individual landowners responding to a complex mix of factors – individualdecisions that add up to large changes in the state’s landscape.
As with the objective of sustaining healthy ecosystems, the challenge here is tocontinue the shift to practices that lead to better outcomes for Georgia’s water,land and air resources. These include revitalization of brownfields, as well asincentives for maintaining working lands and protecting critical environmentallands. It also includes promoting good stewardship of private lands.
Private landowners hold more than 90 percent of the state’s forest and agriculturallands. When under good stewardship, these lands provide a wide range of benefits,including wildlife habitat, water quality protection and maintenance of streamflow. Gaining these benefits will require encouraging landowners to manage theirlands for environmental benefits as they also manage for economic benefits.
Conclusion
In summary, as Georgia continues to grow, further progress toward all three
environmental objectives will require decreasing pollution from mobile and
nonpoint sources, continuing the shift to development approaches that have betterenvironmental outcomes, and ongoing improvement in managing the state’s
environment.
Improving environmental management will require the use of a broader range oftools in addition to regulation: investing in improved knowledge about the state’s
resources and their use, providing information and incentives to shift behaviors, and
ensuring that technical assistance and education inform the individual decisionsthat help determine environmental outcomes.
Use of a broader range of tools, in turn, will require stronger and more effective
partnerships among state agencies, local governments and private sector organiza-tions.
Finally, environmental factors and planning for energy, land use and transportation
must be better integrated. Production and use of energy affects air and waterresources, and the condition of air and water resources influences choices regarding
energy capacity. Transportation decisions shape changes in land and resource use
and these decisions affect, and are affected by, the quality of Georgia’s air, landand water resources. Trade-offs and impacts across these sectors must be fully
considered as plans are laid for the state’s energy, transportation and environmen-
tal futures.
A number of steps down these roads already have been taken, but more are needed.
Long-term solutions will involve everyone. EPD, our partners in the public and
private sectors, and all Georgians can, by working together, ensure the environmen-tal progress that will be necessary for Georgia’s continued growth and prosperity.
p Land cover types, p. 36Lands used for agriculture and
forestry, p. 68
p Incentives for habitat protection onprivate lands, p. 52
Brownfield revitalization, p. 72
80
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ G
loss
ary Aerosols
Tiny particles and droplets suspended in the atmo-sphere, including carbon-based (organic) aerosols, thatcontribute to haze and the formation of particulatematter. Aerosols can come from natural sources, suchas vegetation, and human-made sources, such asgasoline evaporation, use of solvents and the combus-tion of fuels in power plants, vehicles and othersources.
Air Quality Index (AQI)A national rating system developed by EPA thatindicates whether or not the air quality presents apotential threat to human health on any given day.
Air toxicsToxic air pollutants, or air toxics, is one of two majorcategories of air pollution as defined by the Clean AirAct and includes compounds such as benzene,acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Aquatic ecosystemWater-based ecosystems that include small streams,large rivers, lakes and estuaries where the state’smajor rivers meet the sea.
AquiferA geologic formation, such as crystalline bedrock,limestone or sand, that can store and release signifi-cant quantities of groundwater.
Benthic macroinvertebratesSmall insects and insect-like animals that live in ornear the bottom of streams, rivers and other aquaticecosystems. They are an important food source forfish and an essential link in the aquatic food chain.They are also used as an indicator of the health ofthese water bodies.
Best management practices (BMPs)Commonsense, economical and effective methods tominimize nonpoint source water pollution. BMPs aredesigned to prevent or reduce the movement ofsediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutantsfrom the land to surface or groundwater, protectingwater quality from adverse effects of various humanactivities.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)The amount of oxygen required by microbes to break downorganic matter in the water. Wastewater from sewagetreatment plants contains organic materials that are decom-posed by microorganisms, which use oxygen in the process.Other sources of oxygen consuming waste includestormwater runoff from farmland or urban streets, feedlotsand failing septic systems.
Biological diversityAlso called biodiversity, it is the variety among living organ-isms and the habitats and ecosystems in which they live. Thenumber of different types of animal and plant species in agiven area is a component of biodiversity, but it also includesvariety ranging from genetic differences in a population tovariability among ecosystems.
BrownfieldLand that, in a past use, was contaminated with hazardoussubstances or is suspected of being contaminated; forexample, land that was previously occupied by a chemicalmanufacturer. This land is often, but not always, abandoned.
ChlorophyllA plant pigment measured to determine the amount of algaein a water body.
Clean Air ActThe primary federal law in the U.S. governing air pollution.
Clean Water ActThe primary federal law in the U.S. governing water pollution.
CommunityNatural communities refer to groups of interacting plantsand animals.
Community water systemsPublic water systems that supply water to the same popula-tion (at least 25 people) year-round.
Conservation designA planning and design approach to residential and commer-cial development in which buildings are grouped together onpart of the site while permanently protecting naturalfeatures on the remainder of the site, usually througheasements or other mechanisms that ensure protection inperpetuity. Also called conservation subdivision design.
Criteria pollutantsAre defined by the Clean Air Act and have health-based, airquality standards set by EPA. The six criteria pollutants are:carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, ozone, nitrogendioxide and particulate matter.
Glossary
81
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // G
lossaryDesignated usesPart of the water quality standard for a water body (seeentry for “water quality standard”). All waters in the statehave a specific designated use, such as drinking water,fishing, recreation, wild and scenic or coastal fishing. Thereare also special designations for trout streams, waters thatsupport shell fishing and outstanding natural resourcewaters.
Discharge areasPortions of an aquifer where groundwater flows into anotherwater body (e.g., springs, lakes, wetlands, streams oroceans).
Dissolved oxygenThe amount of oxygen in surface water. Just as humanscannot survive without oxygen, fish and other aquatic lifemust have an adequate amount of oxygen in the water to live.
EcoregionLarge areas, covering tens of thousands of square miles,which are geographically and ecologically defined. Anecoregion has a common underlying geology and distinctivelandforms, climate, soil types and plant and animal commu-nities.
EcosystemEcosystems encompass all the plants and animals in a givenarea, the interactions between them and the physicalenvironment in which they live.
Ecosystem servicesThe benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These includethe processes that maintain ecosystem function as well asdirect benefits such as production of food and fiber, supportof recreational activities, removal of pollution and purifica-tion of air and water. Other ecosystem services range fromclimate regulation and flood control to less tangible spiritualand educational values.
ExceedanceWhen the amount of a specific air pollutant surpasses the airquality standard for a specific period of time. When there aremore exceedances than allowed in a given time period, thearea can be declared an air quality non-attainment area.
Exposure pathwayThe physical route a pollutant takes to the human body, suchas through drinking water or coming in contact with soil.
Fine particulate matterA type of air pollution composed of particles that are 2.5microns in diameter and smaller (less than 1/20th thediameter of one strand of human hair). Fine particulates,including smoke, dust, fly ash and liquid droplets, can remainsuspended in the air for long periods of time. Particles thissmall can penetrate deep into the human respiratory systemand contribute to respiratory and cardiopulmonary disease.Particulate matter results from all types of burning, includingcombustion of fuels in motor vehicles, power plants andindustrial facilities.
GroundwaterWater beneath the earth’s surface. Groundwater cancome to the surface in the form of a spring or dis-charge directly to streams, rivers and other waterbodies. Groundwater supplies water to wells and isone of the two major sources of the water used inGeorgia.
HabitatThe physical features of an area and the vegetationfound there, which determines the suitability of thatarea for different species.
Habitat fragmentationThe breaking up of a continuous habitat into smallerfragments. Habitat fragmentation is mainly caused byhuman activities such as conversion of forests intoagricultural or developed areas, but can also be causedby natural processes such as fire. Fragmentationdecreases habitat quality.
Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI)A list of sites in the state where there has been arelease (or a suspected release) of a hazardoussubstance above a specific amount.
High quality habitatThe quality of habitat is determined, in part, by thesize and shape of intact areas or patches of naturalvegetation. High quality patches of habitat aregenerally larger, provide different types of habitat onthe edges and in the center, and are relatively com-pact. In larger areas with well-defined central cores,species are less likely to suffer from predators,parasites or human encroachment.
Impervious coverSurfaces through which water cannot penetrate, suchas paved streets, roofs and parking lots. Theseconstructed surfaces prevent rain from soaking intothe ground and cause stormwater to run off morequickly.
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)A tool used to evaluate the condition of aquaticcommunities (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrate). It com-bines several measures to generate ratings of commu-nity condition. The fish IBI uses the different typesand number of fish species, the physical condition ofthe fish and their position in the food chain. Ratingscan be used to compare regions or changes over time.
Instream usesAll the human and ecological uses of surface watersthat occur within the banks of streams, rivers andlakes. These include dilution and processing ofwastewater, navigation, recreation and hydropowerproduction, as well as the water needed for fish andwildlife and ecosystem health.
82
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ G
loss
ary
Land conversionA change in land use from one type to another (e.g.,from agricultural or forest land to a residentialdevelopment).
Land coverLand cover refers to the mix of vegetation, humanstructures, bare ground and water at the surface ofthe earth. Some types of land cover, like forestedwetlands, are the vegetation naturally found in anarea. Other types, like agriculture, are lands convertedor altered for human use.
Land stewardshipThe management of land to protect natural habitatand maintain biological diversity.
LeachateLiquid created as rain or groundwater filters through alandfill, picking up contaminants along the way. If thisliquid is not properly managed (i.e., captured andtreated), it can seep into and contaminate soil andgroundwater.
Low impact developmentA planning and design approach to stormwatermanagement that emphasizes the use of naturalfeatures and replication of the pre-developmentmovement of water into the soil.
MethylmercuryOne of several different chemical forms of mercury. Itis a powerful toxin that remains in the environmentfor a long time and can readily enter the food chain,accumulating in the bodies of fish, animals andhumans.
Mobile sources of air pollutionVehicles that travel on roads, such as gasoline- ordiesel-powered motor vehicles (e.g., cars, trucks,buses and motorcycles) as well as off-road vehicles,such as equipment used in construction, farming, andlawn and garden activities and off-road recreationalvehicles. Aircraft and trains are also considered mobilesources.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)The generic term for a group of gases that containnitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Nitrogenoxides play a key role in the formation of ozone andparticulate matter. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the sixcriteria air pollutants defined by the EPA.
Non-attainment areaDeclared when a specific air pollutant surpasses theair quality standard for a specific period of time(known as an exceedance). When there are moreexceedances than allowed in a given time period, thearea is determined to be non-attainment.
Nonpoint source pollutionWater pollution that comes from diffuse sources. Contami-nants include bacteria and nutrients from livestock, petwastes and faulty septic systems; sediments from improperlymanaged construction sites, crop and forestlands anderoding stream banks; oil, grease and toxic chemicals fromurban runoff and energy production; excess fertilizers,herbicides and insecticides from agricultural lands andresidential areas, and mercury from coal-fired power plantsand other sources of combustion. As rainfall moves acrossthe land, it picks up and carries these pollutants with it,eventually depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands andcoastal waters.
Offstream usesOffstream uses of water occur after water is withdrawn froma water body and transported for use. They include water forthermoelectric cooling, household use, commercial andindustrial purposes, and agricultural production.
OrganochlorinesHuman-made chemicals that include polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs); DDT and its by-products; and the pesti-cides dieldren, chlordane and toxaphene. These compoundscontribute to Georgia’s recommended restrictions on fishconsumption.
Oxygen demanding substancesNatural and human-made organic matter that require oxygenfor decomposition in streams, rivers, and lakes. Microorgan-isms such as bacteria consume oxygen in order to decom-pose these substances. When levels of oxygen-demandingsubstances are too high, consumption of oxygen for decom-position can rob fish and other aquatic organisms of theoxygen they need to live.
OzoneA gas that forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organiccompounds react in the presence of sunlight. Ground-levelozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs,reduce lung function and aggravate asthma. It is one of thesix criteria air pollutants as defined by EPA.
Pervious coverSurfaces through which water can penetrate into the soil,such as grass, gravel, and specialized porous paving materi-als. These surfaces allow rain to soak into the ground,decreasing stormwater runoff.
Point source pollutionWater pollution that comes from a single source or point —e.g., wastewater flowing a pipe, an industrial facility or awastewater treatment plant.
Protected speciesAnimals and plants designated by the Georgia Department ofNatural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asendangered, threatened, rare or unusual.
83
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // G
lossaryPublic water systemServes at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year, asdefined by EPA.
Recharge areasLocations where water is added to an aquifer. Shallowaquifers receive most of their water from rainfall. Deeperaquifers are recharged by leakage from adjacent aquifers andby rainfall where the aquifer is at or near the surface.Aquifers that meet the surface also may be recharged bywater from streams and rivers. Groundwater recharge occursall over Georgia.
RiparianLands that lie directly along rivers, streams and other bodiesof water. Also known as streamside lands.
River basinThe area of land drained by a river and its tributaries. Itincludes the land surfaces drained by the many streams andcreeks that flow downhill into one another and eventuallyinto one river. Georgia has 14 major river basins.
Saltwater intrusionThe migration of salty or brackish water into freshwateraquifers. Saltwater intrusion may occur naturally, but it canalso be caused or exacerbated by groundwater pumping.
SedimentsLoose particles of sand, clay, silt and other substances thatlie at the bottom of a water body or are transported byflowing water. They come from the weathering of rock,erosion of soil, and decomposition of plants, animals, andother organic matter. Sediments can be deposited by wind,water or ice.
Stationary sources of air pollutionAir pollution from factories, power plants, refineries, incin-erators, dry cleaners, service stations and residential back-yard burning, among others.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)A gas formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal andoil, is burned. It is one of the six criteria air pollutantsdefined by the EPA and is a key component in the formationof particulate matter in the atmosphere.
Surface watersInclude rivers, lakes, streams, ponds and reservoirs. Surfacewater is one of the two major sources of the water used inGeorgia.
Sustainable environmentWhere natural resources are protected and managed to meetthe needs of the current and future generations.
Terrestrial ecosystemsLand-based ecosystems that, in Georgia, range from the live-oak seaside forests of the coast to the rock outcrops of northGeorgia.
Tipping feeThe cost charged to dispose of solid waste at alandfill.
Total maximum daily load (TMDL)The total amount of a specific pollutant (or the upperlimit) a water body can receive and still meet itsdesignated uses (see entry for “designated use”).
Water quality standardsDefine the goals for a water body by designating itsuses (see entry for “designated use”) and settingcriteria to protect those uses. Water quality criteriaare designed to protect each water body’s designateduse. Some criteria are narrative — text descriptions ofrequired water quality conditions. Others are numericcriteria that define limits on acceptable amounts ofspecific pollutants.
WatershedAn area of land where all the water drains to thelowest point – usually a stream, lake or river. Rainruns off land in the watershed through a network ofgullies, creeks and streams to the point on the stream,river or lake that is defined as the outlet of thewatershed.
WetlandsAreas that are inundated or saturated by water oftenenough to support vegetation typically adapted for lifein saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generallyinclude swamps, marshes, and bogs.
Working landsLands that have been put to use generally for humanbenefit. They include lands used for forestry andagriculture as well as for solid waste disposal (landfills)and brownfield development.
84
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ D
ata
Sour
ces
& R
efer
ence
s
Objective 1: Protecting human health
Indicator: Community water systems meetingdrinking water standards
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division Watershed
Protection Branch: Georgia Safe Drinking WaterInformation System
EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, basedon data from Georgia Safe Drinking WaterInformation System. Available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
Additional referenceEPA. Factoids: Drinking water and groundwater
statistics for 2007. Available athttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data_factoids_2007.pdf
Indicator: Bacteria levels in surface water
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection Branch
EPA Beach Monitoring and Notification Program,based on data from Georgia Beach MonitoringProgram (Coastal Resources Division). Available athttp://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/
Additional referencesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division. Water quality in
Georgia 2006-2007 (Georgia’s 2008 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) report). Available at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html
Rules and regulations of the Georgia Department of NaturalResources. Section 391-3-6-.03. Water quality control:Water use classifications and water quality standards.Available at http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/pages/GEORGIA_DEPARTMENT_OF_NATURAL_RESOURCES/ENVIRONMENTAL_PROTECTION/WATER_QUALITY_CONTROL/index.html)
Introduction
Data sourcesU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. Availableat http://www.bea.gov/regional/
U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. Availableat http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration. State Energy Data System.Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html
Georgia Environmental Facilities AuthorityEnergy Resources Division
Additional referencesGeorgia Office of Planning and Budget. Georgia in
Perspective 2007: A Statistical Profile of theState. Available at http://www.opb.state.ga.us/publications/other-publications/other-publications.aspx
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. GeorgiaEnergy Review 2005 (updated 2006). Available athttp://www.gefa.org/index.aspx?page=192
Georgia Parks, Recreation and Historic SitesDivision. Georgia Statewide ComprehensiveOutdoor Recreation Plan 2008-2013. Available athttp://www.gastateparks.org/net/content/go.aspx?s=132975.0.1.5
U.S. EPA. 2008 Report on the Environment.Available at http://www.epa.gov/roe/
Data Sources & ReferencesA note about references: This report lists a number of Web sites as references. These links are current as of thedate of publication, however, there is the chance that they may change over time.
85
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // D
ata Sources & R
eferencesIndicator: Contaminants in fish tissue
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection Branch
Additional referenceEPD. Guidelines for eating fish from Georgia Waters,
2008 update. Available at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/fish_guide.html
Indicator: Nonpoint sources of pollution
Data sourcesEPA Mercury TMDL Reports for the Altamaha (2002),
Chattahoochee (2003), Coosa (2004), Flint (2003),Ochlocknee (2002), Ocmulgee (2002), Oconee (2002),Ogeechee (2005), Satilla (2006), Savannah (2001, 2005),St. Mary’s (2002), and Suwanee (2002) river basins.Available at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/TMDL_page.html
Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionWatershed Protection Branch
Georgia Department of Human ResourcesDivision of Public Health
Additional referencesMetropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. Septic
systems status and issues working paper. March 2006.Available at http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/files/District_Septic_Report_Mar2006.pdf
Radcliffe., D, B. Bumback, S. Udvardy, P. Hartel, L. West, andT. Rasmussen. 2006. Scientific basis for bacteria TMDLsin Georgia. Available at http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/pdf/tag_tmdl_bacteria.pdf
EPD Fecal Coliform TMDL Reports for the Altamaha (2007)and Chattahoochee (2003) river basins. Available athttp://www.gaepd.org/Documents/TMDL_page.html
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Mercury studyreport to Congress. Volume III: Fate and transport ofmercury in the environment. Available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/report.htm
Indicator: Land contaminated abovehealth-based standards
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionLand Protection Branch
Indicator: Solid waste disposal
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Land Protection Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency Office ofResource Conservation and Recovery. MSWgeneration, recycling and disposal in the U.S.:Facts and figures for 2007. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm
Additional referencesGA Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Fact
sheet: Recycling does make a difference. Availableat http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/EnvironmentalManagement/publications/WhyshouldIrecycle.pdf
GA Department of Community Affairs. 2005.Georgia Statewide Waste CharacterizationStudy. Available at http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/EnvironmentalManagement/publications/GeorgiaMSWCharacterizationStudy.pdf
GA Department of Community Affairs. 2007. Georgiasolid waste management annual report and five-year progress update. Available at http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/research/programs/downloads/swar97.pdf
Liberty Tire recycling page. Available at http://www.libertytire.com/home.html
US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.Scrap tires page. Available at www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/tires/tdf.htm
Indicator: Hazardous waste generation
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of EconomicAnalysis. Regional Economic Accounts. Availableat http://www.bea.gov/regional/
US EPA. National Biennial RCRA Hazardous WasteReport: Documents and Data. Available at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm
86
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ D
ata
Sour
ces
& R
efer
ence
sIndicator: Levels of air pollutants
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Air Protection Branch. Available at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/
Indicator: Non-attainment areas
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Air Protection Branch
Backgrounder: Air Quality Index
ReferenceAir quality forecasts for Atlanta, Columbus, Macon
and other cities. Available at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp
Emerging Issue: Risks from air toxics
ReferenceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division. Air
Protection Branch Ambient Monitoring Programannual data reports. Available at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/report.php
Indicator: Emissions of air pollutants
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Air Protection Branch.
Additional referenceGeorgia Environmental Facilities Authority. 2005.
Georgia energy review. Available at http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=192#a5
Emerging Issue: Prescribed burning
ReferencesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division. 2008.
Georgia’s Smoke Management Plan. Availableat http://www.garxfire.com/pdf%20files/SMP_MOU.pdf
Georgia Forestry Commission. What is prescribed fire?Available at http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/ForestFire/PrescribedBurning.cfm
Wiggers, E. 2006. The role of prescribed burning incontemporary natural resources management.Presented at the 2006 Air Quality and ClimateSummit, Georgia Institute of Technology.Available at http://air.eas.gatech.edu/2006/Presentations.shtml
Objective 2: Sustaining healthy ecosystems
Introduction
ReferencesBruce A. Stein. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America’s
biodiversity. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe. Available athttp://www.natureserve.org/publications/statesUnion.jsp
P.S. White et al. 1998. “Southeast” in Status and trends ofthe nation’s biological resources. US Department of theInterior, US Geological Service.
Backgrounder: Tracking changes in Georgia’s landscape
Data sourcesUS Environmental Protection Agency. Ecoregion maps and
GIS resources. Available at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm
Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University ofGeorgia. Summary tables available at http://narsal.uga.edu/glut/state.html. Complete data set forGeorgia land cover data available through the GeorgiaGIS Clearinghouse at http://gis.state.ga.us
Indicator: Land cover types
Data sourceNatural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of
Georgia. Summary tables available at http://narsal.uga.edu/glut/state.html. Complete data set forGeorgia land cover data available through the GeorgiaGIS Clearinghouse at http://gis.state.ga.us
Additional referencesU.S. EPA. 2008 Report on the Environment. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/roe/
U.S. Forest Service. 2007 Forest Inventory and Analysis:State Inventory Data Status. Georgia page. Availableat http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/states/georgia.shtml
87
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // D
ata Sources & R
eferencesIndicator: Impervious surfaces
Data sourceNatural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of
Georgia. Summary tables available at http://narsal.uga.edu/glut/state.html. Complete data set forGeorgia land cover data available through the GeorgiaGIS Clearinghouse at http://gis.state.ga.us
Additional referencesPaul, M.J. and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in an urbanizing
landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics32: 333-365.
Tilburg, Christine and Merryl Alber. Impervious surfaces:review of recent literature. Georgia Coastal ResearchCouncil. Available at http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/jrgcrddnr/ImperviousLitReview_Final.pdf
Indicator: Streamside forests
Data sourceNatural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University
of Georgia. Available at http://narsal.uga.edu
Additional referenceKramer, E. and B. Bumback. 2005. A statewide analysis
of riparian vegetation change from 1974 to 1998.Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water ResourcesConference (K. Hatcher, ed.). Available at http://www.uga.edu/water/GWRC/Papers/kramer%20revised.pdf
Indicator: Freshwater fish community status
Data sourcesGeorgia Wildlife Resources Division
Stream Survey Team
Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionWatershed Protection Branch
Additional referencesJones, K.L., G.C. Poole, J.L. Meyer, W. Bumback, and E.A.
Kramer. 2006. Quantifying expected ecological responseto natural resource legislation: a case study of riparianbuffers, aquatic habitat, and trout populations. Ecologyand Society 11(2): 15. [online] Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art15/
Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Water quality inGeorgia 2006-2007 (Georgia’s 2008 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) report). Available at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html
Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center. 1999.Alcovy River Watershed Protection Plan. Appendix G:Erosion and sedimentation in the Georgia Piedmont:A historic perspective. Available at http://www.negrdc.org/Alcovy_Web/reports/Appendix_G.pdf
Backgrounder: Dissolved oxygen in surface water
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection Branch
Additional referenceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division. Water
quality in Georgia 2006-2007 (Georgia’s 2008Integrated 305(b)/303(d) report). Available athttp://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html
Indicator: Coastal habitat conditions
Data sourceD. Guadagnoli, B. Good, J. MacKinnon, P. Flournoy, J.
Harvey, and L. Hartwell. 2005. The condition ofGeorgia’s estuarine and coastal habitats 2000-2001 interim report. Georgia Department ofNatural Resources, Coastal Resources Division(http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/GAreport3062306finalLOWRES.pdf)
Additional referenceEPA. 2005. National coastal condition report II.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/downloads.html
Indicator: Terrestrial habitat quality
Data sourceGeorgia Wildlife Resources Division
Nongame Conservation Section
ReferenceElliott, M. and Kramer, E. 2006. Identification of
conservation opportunity areas in Georgia.Appendix K in State Wildlife Action Plan(Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy).Available at http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/statewildlifeactionplan_conservation.aspx
Indicator: Protected species
Data sourceGeorgia Wildlife Resources Division
Nongame Conservation Section
Additional referenceGeorgia Rare Species and Natural Community
Information Web page. Available at http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/documentdetail.aspx?docid=89&pageid=1&category=conservation
88
Sta
te o
f G
eo
rgia
’s E
nv
iro
nm
en
t 2
00
9 /
/ D
ata
Sour
ces
& R
efer
ence
sIndicator: Habitat protection
Data sourceGeorgia Wildlife Resources Division Nongame
Conservation Section. Data for conservationlands also available through the Georgia GISClearinghouse at http://gis.state.ga.us
Kramer, E. et al. 2003. The Georgia Gap AnalysisProject: A Geographic Approach to Planning forBiological Diversity. Final Report. U.S.Department of the Interior and U.S. GeologicalSurvey.
Additional referencesRicketts, T. et al. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North
America: A conservation assessment. Island Press.
Georgia Wildlife Resources Division. 2006. StateWildlife Action Plan (Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy). Available at http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/statewildlifeactionplan_conservation.aspx
Georgia Parks, Recreation and Historic SitesDivision. Georgia Statewide ComprehensiveOutdoor Recreation Plan 2008-2013. Availableat http://www.gastateparks.org/net/content/go.aspx?s=132975.0.1.5
Backgrounder: Incentives for habitatprotection on private lands
ReferencesGeorgia Wildlife Resources Division. 2008.
Landowner’s Guide to Conservation Incentives.Available at http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/documentdetail.aspx?docid=370&pageid=1&category=conservation
Arizona Open Land Trust. Land protection methods.Available at http://www.aolt.org/landownerresources/tools.shtml
Objective 3: Ensuring resources to supporta growing economy
Indicator: Total water use
Data sourceU.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Program.
Available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/
Additional referencesFanning, J.L. and Trent, V.P. 2009. Water use in
Georgia by county for 2005 and water use trends,1980-2005. US Geological Survey ScientificInvestigations Report 2009-5002. Available athttp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5002/
USGS Water Science for Schools. Available at http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html
Indicator: Per capita water use
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection Branch
CH2M-Hill. 2008. Georgia water use andconservation profiles. Prepared for the GeorgiaEnvironmental Protection Division.
Additional referencesGeorgia Environmental Facilities Authority. 2006.
State energy strategy. Available at http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=192#a5
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. 2009. Stateenergy strategy update. Available at http://www.gefa.org/index.aspx?recordid=24&page=205
Jensen, V. and Lounsbury, E. 2005. Assessment of energyefficiency potential in Georgia. Georgia EnvironmentalFacilities Authority. Available at http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=192#a5
Emerging issue: Responding to exceptional drought
Data sourcesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division Drought & Water
Use Information page. Available at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/outdoorwater.html
U.S. Drought Monitor: Georgia page. Available at http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_state.htm?GA,SE
89
Sta
te o
f Ge
org
ia’s E
nv
iron
me
nt 2
00
9 // D
ata Sources & R
eferencesIndicator: Groundwater levels
Data sourceU.S. Geological Survey National Water Information
System. Groundwater data available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/gw
Additional referencesU.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Georgia’s groundwater
resources and monitoring network. USGS Fact Sheet2006-3007. Available at http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org/Files_PDF/Fact_Sheet_2006-3077_ground_water_network.pdf
Backgrounder: Managing the use of stressedwater sources
ReferencesGeorgia Environmental Protection Division. 2006. Flint River
Basin Regional Water Development and ConservationPlan. Available at http://www1.gadnr.org/frbp/Assets/Documents/Plan22.pdf
Georgia Environmental Protection Division. 2006. CoastalGeorgia Water and Wastewater Permitting Plan forManaging Saltwater Intrusion. Available at http://www1.gadnr.org/cws/Documents/saltwater_management_plan_june2006.pdf
Indicator: Pollutants in surface waters
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection Branch
Additional referenceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division. Water quality in
Georgia 2006-2007 (Georgia’s 2008 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) report). Available at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html
Indicator: Nonpoint sources of pollution
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection Branch
Indicator: Land used for agricultureand forestry
Data sourceNatural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory,
University of Georgia. Summary tables available athttp://narsal.uga.edu/glut/state.html. Completedata set for Georgia land cover data availablethrough the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse athttp://gis.state.ga.us
Additional referencesUniversity of Georgia College of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences. 2006. Ag Snapshots:A brief focus on Georgia’s agricultural industry.Available at http://www.caed.uga.edu/publications/pdf/AG%20SNAPSHOTS%20for%20web.pdf
Georgia Forestry Commission. undated. Georgia ForestFacts. Available at http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/AboutUs/documents/GAForestFactSheetC.pdf
Trimble, S. 1974. Man-induced soil erosion of thesouthern Piedmont. Soil Conservation Societyof America.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency.Conservation Reserve Program: Annual summaryand enrollment statistics FY 2007. Available athttp://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_file/annual_consv_2007.pdf
Indicator: Brownfield revitalization
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division Hazardous
Waste Management Branch. Summary tablesavailable at http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/outreach/BFList.pdf
Indicator: Land use for solid waste disposal
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Land Protection Branch
Indicator: Visibility
Data sourceGeorgia Environmental Protection Division
Air Protection Branch
90
ContributorsS
tate
of
Ge
org
ia’s
En
vir
on
me
nt
20
09
//
Con
trib
utor
s Coordinating editorGail Cowie
Design and layoutSusan Wood
Map coordination andproductionBarbara Stitt-Allen
EditingSusan WoodStephanie Busch
Section authors andreviewersChuck MuellerGretchen Loeffler-PeltierMarlin GottschalkRandy ManningJim KennedyStephanie Busch
Contributors and reviewers
Environmental ProtectionDivisionLinda MacGregorBrad AddisonElizabeth BoothClay BurdetteTim CashBecky ChampionDoug DavenportErnie EarnKevin FarrellBill FrechetteJeff LarsonRob McDowellKathy MethierSusan SalterDon SchrieberJeremy SmithMork WinnMichelle VincentMark SmithVerona BarnesAlex ClearyMadeleine KellamJan SimmonsJennifer KaduckWinthrop BrownKevin CollinsJeff Cown
Pete DasherChristy Kehn-LewisLisa LewisLon RevallDick SwansonCindy WolfeJames CappSusan JenkinsJimmy JohnstonJim BoylanJon MortonSusan Zimmer-DauphineeNap CaldwellKevin ChambersAlice Miller Keyes
InternsNing AiLaura BurbageKeri GoodmanHyun Jung ParkByron Rushing
GIS analysis and mapping
Environmental ProtectionDivisionRenee AlonsoAmber AlfonsoScott BalesBo NoakesTom ShillockJames StapelMindy Crean
Wildlife Resources DivisionThom Litts
Photo credits
James Randklev: cover, 3, 23, 42
Jim Couch: 1
Georgia Department of EconomicDevelopment: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14,17, 30, 31, 38, 39, 48, 54, 62, 66
Mike Kemp: 18, 73
John B. Jensen: 52
Madeleine Kellam: 72
Air Protection Branch: 74
Wildlife Resources DivisionBrett AlbaneseJon AmbroseChris CanalosMatt ElliottPatti LanfordKristina Sorensen
Coastal Resources DivisionElizabeth CheneyDominic Guadagnoli
Department of Human ResourcesScott UhlrichLeslie Freymann
Georgia Environmental FacilitiesAuthorityJulie Harrison
University of GeorgiaElizabeth Kramer
US Geological ServiceJulia Fanning
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr.
Suite 1152, East Tower
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
1.888.373.5947
404.657.5947 (in Atlanta)
www.georgiaepd.org
Printed on recycled paper.