Recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Council to ...

Governor’s Environmental Advisory Council2 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive; Suite 1152; Atlanta, GA 30334IntroductionOn January 24, 2007, the Georgia Board of Natural Resources requested by resolution thatthe Governor’s Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) investigate non-point source(NPS) pollution in the State. An excerpt from the resolution states:“The Board of Natural Resources requests that the EAC conduct a comprehensive reviewof current statutes, regulations and non-point sources programs as to their efficacy incontrolling non-point source pollution, and with specific attention to riparian buffers,impervious surfaces, and storm water management practices, and to report findings andrecommendations to the Board for its consideration by 30 July, 2007.”In response to the resolution, the EAC conducted three day-long meetings to investigate,evaluate and discuss NPS in Georgia. Agencies across the State administration briefed theEAC on their efforts to address NPS. Surveys within State government were conducted tocompile a complete record of the total investment being made against the issue and tobetter understand good and bad management practices. Representatives from the states ofFlorida and North Carolina presented the programs of their respective states to benchmarkagainst Georgia. At every EAC meeting, the public was invited to offer their comments onthe issue of NPS. Appendix A provides a record of each EAC meeting, complete with theagenda, meeting minutes and copies of the presentations from the meeting. Additionallyprovided are the results from the surveys conducted within the State administration.The EAC wants to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Carol Couch, Director of theEnvironmental Protection Division and key members of her staff, Dr. Marlin Gottschalk,Linda MacGregor, Mork Winn and Michelle Vincent. Additionally, the EAC would liketo thank Mr. Eric Livingston from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection andMs. Coleen Sullins from the North Carolina Department of Environment and NaturalResources for sharing their NPS pollution strategy and programs.NPS pollution is the most significant threat to water quality today in Georgia. There areover 6,000 miles of streams that have been assessed as not meeting water quality standardstoday. In the face of the growth that will double the population of Georgia in the next 30years, NPS pollution unaddressed will create a crisis in the quality of life for allGeorgians. The EAC has found that there are many strategies, practices, investments andincentives that can be incorporated to improve water quality and address NPS pollution.This report identifies what the EAC believes are the six most important findings from theirreview of the topic and offers recommendations to each finding. This report is notintended to provide all the answers to addressing NPS pollution. It is intended to givedirection on how to begin reversing the current NPS pollution trends.Peter Madsen, ChairZack Aultman ♦ Robert Barr ♦ Greg Blount ♦ Bruce Coles ♦ Patrick Corleto ♦ David HankersonKen Morrow ♦ Steve Nygren ♦ Nick Ogden ♦ Jeff Pope ♦ Walter ReevesMerry Tipton ♦ Doyle Welzbarker ♦ Connie Wiggins

The EAC also believes that if Georgia addresses NPS pollution in a comprehensive andcommitted manner with significant investments of people and fiscal resources, theenhanced environmental quality across the State will further enhance it as a place peoplewill want to live, work and recreate. The EAC also believes that if NPS pollution is notaddressed today, the future costs realized in a reduction in growth and quality of life and inremediation, will far exceed investment costs being discussed today.The EAC offers the following recommendations to address these findings regarding NPSpollution:• Georgia needs to execute a comprehensive strategy to reduce NPS pollution.• Significant State investment is required in monitoring and enforcement programs.• Non-point source pollution remedies are best addressed at a watershed level.• Market-based incentives and solutions must be developed.• Georgia must become aggressive in buying and protecting land parcels that willsupport the reduction of NPS pollution.• New legislation and regulation is essential to support the reduction of NPSpollution.

FindingGeorgia needs to execute a comprehensive strategy to reduce NPS pollution.There are numerous responsible entities across Georgia addressing NPS pollution today.DNR, EPD, Forestry, Agriculture, Soil and Water Conservation, Transportation,Community Affairs, UGA and others all have significant programs contributing in somemanner to the reduction of NPS pollution. During the February 8 th EAC meeting,representatives from 8 different offices across State government discussed their ongoingprograms to address NPS pollution. Subsequently, a survey sent across State governmentidentified NPS pollution programs, employees doing NPS related work, and budgets,expenditures and contracts for NPS programs. It also identified results and work productsfor NPS-related contracts and programs, and the existence of any performance measuresfor NPS-related work. Attachment A has the complete compilation of the survey results.The survey results are significant, because they represent the first time that there has beenany compilation of the resources and programs addressing this important issue. Bottomline, there are numerous programs and people, and significant investment being made inGeorgia toward the reduction of NPS pollution.Yet, NPS continues to grow as a water quality problem. Either Georgia must invest morein the programs to counter the problem, or it has to get better results from its currentinvestments, or both. What was apparent to the EAC was the lack of any unified andcomprehensive strategy to address the issue. State agencies today are acting in anindependent manner attacking NPS pollution. Undoubtedly, some programs aresucceeding and others are not. Some programs may have substantial resources, others donot. There is no established means to synchronize efforts or cross-level resources.Georgia needs a comprehensive strategy to reduce NPS pollution. Such a strategy wouldidentify short term and long range goals for the State, and additionally identify individualperformance measures for each State agency contributing toward the goals. A lead agencyneeds to be identified, and the EAC recommends that EPD be that agency responsible forsynchronizing the efforts across State government. Periodic reviews against performancemeasures will identify where resources are available or where more investment isrequired. The reviews will serve as a means to highlight exceptional programs andinnovation. Coupled with a comprehensive monitoring program, the State NPS pollutionteam should also be able to focus investments on the most impaired watersheds.EAC Recommendation• Create a statewide strategy to reduce NPS Pollution and a forum represented by allState agencies involved.• Establish EPD as the leader of the NPS Pollution Forum.• Establish performance measures for those agencies with people and resourcescommitted to NPS programs• Through the NPS Pollution Forum, review performance, monitor progress, andfocus resources where most needed and where they yield the greatest benefits.3

FindingSignificant State investment is required in monitoring and enforcement programs.Currently, approximately 20% of the state’s waters are tested [for water quality] accordingto the Draft Submission to the Water Council (June 28, 2007). From informationpresented by North Carolina, Florida and EPD, this level of testing and assessment isinadequate to provide the data needed to execute a comprehensive strategy to reduce NPSpollution and to answer policy questions regarding water supply. Substantial funds arespent in Georgia for the various kinds of water quality monitoring, data assessment, andmodeling work currently underway; however, both the regulated community andenvironmental organizations, such as the Georgia Conservancy, have expressed littleconfidence that the State is developing sufficient data to adequately inform current orfuture decision making. Without comprehensive data, all sides are left to speculateregarding the impact of future development and are unable to adequately assess thebenefits of new storm water management programs. According to EPD, state funding forwater quality assessment has been cut in recent years, and federal contract work has beenaccordingly curtailed.EAC Recommendations• Funding for water quality monitoring, data assessment, and modeling, withparticular focus on actual ambient monitoring, needs to be a budget and fundingpriority supported by a strong case from EPD that the funds are used costeffectively when compared to sister states. Ensure there is enough instream,ambient data for sound decision making.• This expanded data should be used to measure the State’s performance under acomprehensive strategy to reduce NPS pollution.• This expanded data should be used to measure and evaluate storm water and NPSpollution management practices implemented by local governments and theregulated community.Numerous sources expressed a concern to the EAC that the General Assembly has notfully funded Erosion and Sedimentation Inspectors at levels authorized by a user feesystem under amendments to the Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) Act. We also heard ofvarying degrees of enforcement under this Act. In a survey prepared by EPD and sent toall agencies addressing NPS pollution, it was reported that greater than ninety percent(90%) of the construction sites covered by the State General Permits statewide aresignificantly out of compliance with permit conditions. There were also widespreadreports of inconsistent interpretation and enforcement by EPD regions and localgovernments acting as issuing authorities under the E&S Act.4

EAC Recommendations• State revenue generated from user fees under the E&S Act should be appropriatedto the E&S program for enforcement of the Act.• Performance at all levels of government needs to be managed consistently as partof a comprehensive strategy to reduce NPS pollution.• Local governments need much better training and support from EPD to address andensure standardization of basic enforcement issues and improve local storm watermanagement programs.5

FindingNon-point source pollution remedies are best addressed at a watershed level.Geographic diversity is a significant characteristic of the State. Designing programs toaddress any environmental issue across a State with coastal, plain and mountain regions, aswell as agricultural, suburban and urban land uses presents a major challenge. Areassupported by surface waters for water supply must be addressed differently than areassupported primarily by underground aquifers. While the State will always play asignificant role in the reduction of NPS pollution, the problem must be broken down intosmaller parts to be properly addressed. The representatives from both Florida and NorthCarolina discussed their approaches with the EAC in April. North Carolina, throughlegislation, has established Basinwide Water Quality Planning and Management Plans.Florida advocates an integrated watershed management approach of planning,implementing, monitoring and assessing water quality within a watershed area. It is withinthat watershed area that all the tools to include storm water management, buffer protection,limitations on impervious areas and land use zoning, can be best applied to protect waterquality. Watershed strategies should be built upon common standards thresholdsestablished by the State. It is also within a watershed that innovative approaches such ascredit trading can be tested and evaluated. The recently published Georgia state water planendorses watershed management as the best way to protect Georgia waters. It recommendsthe delineation of water planning regions complemented by the establishment of waterplanning councils. It is also within a watershed that county and municipal governmentsplay a critical role to protect the waters that support their constituents. A water planningcouncil can be a synchronizing force to insure consistent approaches to reducing NPSpollution among the governments serviced by the common water source or within commonwatersheds. And lastly, monitoring must be established to serve the watershed to enablethe assessment of collective efforts to remedy the NPS pollution.EAC Recommendations• The State must remain responsible for establishing minimum standards to protectbuffer areas and for identifying significant or sensitive water bodies that requireenvironmental protection.• Georgia watersheds or water basins should be delineated, and regional waterplanning councils should be established to ensure the protection of water quality.• Regional watershed plans should be established to promote the reduction of NPSpollution as it applies within the watershed. Those plans will also identify the howall the NPS “tools” (buffers, storm water ordinances, limitations on imperviousareas, etc) can be used to effectively reduce NPS pollution. Within watersheds,innovative pilot programs to reduce NPS pollutions should be tested.• State water quality monitoring should support the needs of watershed councils toassess the results of their programs and plans.6

FindingMarket-based incentives and solutions must be developed.The EAC heard presentations on innovative and effective programs in Georgia, Florida,and North Carolina that reward property owners for preserving green space and buffers.While the outright purchase of green space was advocated by Florida as the single mostimportant factor in reducing NPS pollution, even Florida, with all of its resources, has notbeen able to purchase the land that is needed for adequate watershed supply protection andoverall NPS pollution reduction. Thus, programs that promote the preservation andtransfer of development rights (TDR) appear to be a necessary supplement to statepurchase and preservation of green spaces. Across the country over 200 TDR programswith varying characteristics are in place today. Just such a program is in place within theChattahoochee Hill County in South Fulton County and it holds much promise toencourage development practices that have long term NPS pollution benefits withoutgovernmental restriction or takings issues.The EAC also heard extensively about how land use decisions impact pollution and how astate must try to encourage land uses that minimize harmful runoff. Other sister stateshave fought many years over mandated riparian buffer widths and other regulatorymandates. These issues are not new. However, where the true conservation value of landcan be quantified and incorporated into a market based trading system, new conservationopportunities appear possible. This approach has particular applicability in Georgia.The EAC also reviewed the issues associated with trading water pollution credits, and inparticular how trading nutrient reduction credits could help within the nutrient-richwatersheds upstream of Lakes Lanier, Allatoona, Weise and Jackson. EPD is familiar withnumerous pollution allocation trading programs across the county.Sound market-based solutions and incentives come from understanding how to quantifyenvironmental benefits and services. Putting natural resource economics to work indecision-making will provide Georgia the ability to put market forces to work to addressenvironmental problems like NPS pollution and to promote sustainable development.EAC Recommendations• The State, through EPD, should provide funds to establish a fully functioning pilotproject that facilitates the transfer of development rights.• The State should establish a means to provide financial incentives for developers topreserve green space and create expanded riparian buffers.• EPD should establish and implement numerous pilot projects to assess waterquality trading opportunities in Georgia.7

FindingGeorgia must become aggressive in buying and protecting land parcels that willsupport the reduction of NPS pollution.Georgia recognizes the need to buy and conserve land. The 2006 Land Conservation Actestablished the process to do so. Land, in its natural state, will always be an effectivemeans to reduce NPS pollutions. Local communities, such as Cobb, Paulding and CarrollCounty have created recent greenspace initiatives to fund, acquire and preserve greenspacethereby protecting natural resources, establishing passive recreation areas and improvingquality of life. Land conservation done properly will not only reduce NPS pollution, but itcan also enhance the values of the developed land around it. Yet, in areas like MetroAtlanta, where counties are rapidly exceeding 20% total impervious surface cover, Georgiaand its local communities must get even more aggressive in protecting the remaininggreenspace. The State must identify the most environmentally sensitive areas; the criticalbuffers and wetland filters, and protect the lands through acquisition. Aggressiveacquisition means identifying those land parcels that are critical to reducing NPS pollutionand providing more resources to buy and protect the land. If water councils are establishedto serve a Georgia watershed, those councils can be a great aid in the identification ofcritical land parcels to reduce NPS pollutions.Georgia can also encourage land conservation through the use of incentives and the freemarket system. Regulatory and fiscal support for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)pilot programs like what is ongoing in the Chattahoochee Hills Country in South FultonCounty will encourage new patterns of development that will minimize land disturbance,protect the natural filter qualities of the land while also providing exceptional quality oflife in new communities.Georgians have demonstrated by voting of tax increases on numerous occasions, thatgreenspace is important to their quality of life. Even in a mature statewide watershedmanagement program such as Florida, leaders recognize that the most important action toprotect against NPS pollution is the acquisition of critical land areas. In the face of highpopulation growth, Georgia must get even more aggressive in the purchase and protectionof land parcels that will forever reduce NPS pollution.EAC Recommendations• The State should identify critical land parcels that must be purchased and protected.• Increase State funding to support more aggressive land acquisition.• Develop additional incentives to encourage local preservation of greenspace.• Support with regulation and funding pilot TDR projects that create the marketincentive for land conservation and sustainable development in accordance with thegoals of the NPS strategy.8

FindingNew legislation and regulation is essential to support the reduction of NPS pollution.From the foregoing, new legislation and regulatory reform appear warranted to supportNPS pollution reduction and any State-Wide Water Plan to be approved by Georgia’sWater Council. The State Water Plan will likely identify legislation to address waterquality issues and specifically the reduction of NPS pollution. Representatives for thestates of North Carolina and Florida that came before the EAC identified legislation andregulation as essential components of a strategy to reverse the NPS pollution trend. Therecommendations below represent four directions to enable State and local government tobetter address the reduction of NPS pollution.EAC Recommendations• The Growth Strategies Act of 1990 and its implementing regulations needcomprehensive reform to reflect the State’s experience and to put greater teeth intoplanning documents that can promote the reduction of NPS pollution.• Georgia needs a comprehensive Storm Water Utility Statute and model ordinanceto help local governments raise the funds needed to address NPS pollution andimplement better storm water management ordinances.• Local governments need legislation to clearly authorize and require the registrationand recording of transfers of development rights.• New legislation may be needed to expand and streamline the State’s conservationuse easement income tax credit, so as to further encourage land owners anddevelopers to preserve valuable green space and expand beyond minimum streambuffers.9