Elusive Geologies: Methods & Mosaics for Groundwater on Karst Landscapes by Elyna Grapstein

///////

ELUSIVE /////// GEOLOGIES

Methods & Mosaics for Groundwater Health on Karst Landscapes

Elyna Grapstein | Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis 2022 College of Environment + Design | University of Georgia

///////

“The hardest thing of all to see is what is really there.”

///////

J.A. Baker, The Peregrine

PRACTICUM INFORMATION

Elusive Geologies: Methods & Mosaics for Groundwater Health on Karst Landscapes A Non-Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree: Master of Landscape Architecture

Athens, Georgia May 2022

Major Professor:

Doug Pardue

Committee:

Jon Calabria Michael Marshall Kathleen Rugel

CONTENTS

01.

02.

03.

List of figures Acknowledgements Abstract

08 11 13

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose & Significance

1.2 Scope of Project

KARST & THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN: A BACKGROUND

2.1 Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin – An Overview

2.2 Geophysical Properties & land Covers of the Dougherty Plain

2.3 Karst

2.4 Karst Aquifers

2.5 Karst Challenges

2.6 Floridan Aquifer System & the Dougherty Plain

2.7 UFA Surface Water-Groundwater Interactions

2.8 Target Tributaries & UFA Groundwater Challenges

LANDFORMS & BIOTA OF THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN

3.1 Karstic Biodiversity

3.2 Caves

3.3 Sinkholes

3.4Longleaf pine and the Southern Grassland Biome

3.5 Geographically Isolated Wetlands

04.

05.

06.

07.

ISSUES, CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES

4.1 Agricultural Irrigation

4.2 Water Wars

4.3 Groundwater Conservation Initiatives & Well Moratoriums

4.4 Progress Made: Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Stakeholders

4.5 Notable Incentive Programs

4.6 Predicting the Future: Climate & the Regional Role of the Dougherty Plain

SHIFTING PARADIGMS

5.1 Agriculture, Karst, & Landscape Architecture

5.2 Understanding Landscapes through Mixed Methods Approaches

5.3 A Need for New Perspectives

METHODS

6.1 Literature Review

6.2 Tactile Survey

6.3 Semi-Structured Interviews

6.4 Content Analysis

6.5 Spatial Analyses & GIS

6.6 Typology Formation

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

7.1 Literature Review

81 5

7.2 Interview & Conversation Revelations 7.2.1 Solar

7.2.2 Conservation Agriculture & Incentive Programs

7.2.3 Data Gaps

7.3 Qualitative Analyses

08.

09.

7.3.1 Proposed Solutions and Intervention Techniques

7.3.2 Role of Landscape Architecture

7.4 Spatial Analyses & GIS

7.5 Typology Formation

TYPOLOGIES

8.1 GIWs

8.2 Sinkholes & Lineaments

104

8.3 Riverbanks

112

8.4 Well Sites

120

CONCLUSION

126

Glossary of acronyms

128

Glossary of terms

130

Literature Cited

132

Georgia’s Agricultural Mural in Colquitt, GA. The work is painted on a peanut silo. Mural by Charlie Johnston. Photograph by author. October 2021. 7

FIGURES

01.01

Karst-Aquifer Interface

02.01

ACF River Basin

02.02

Extent of FAS

02.03

Ocala Limestone

02.04

Physiographic Regions in SW Georgia

02.05

Karst Areas of the World

02.06

Radium Springs, Georgia

02.07

Karst Landforms

02.08

FAS Geologic Section

02.09

Dougherty Plain Hydrogeologic Section

02.10

Surface Geologies of the Dougherty Plain

03.01

Georgia Blind Salamander

03.02

Dougherty Plain Cave Crayfish

03.03

Shinyrayed Pocketbook

03.04

Gulf Moccasinshell

03.05

Longleaf Pine Ecosystem

03.06

Northern Bobwhite

03.07

Mole Skinks

03.08

Eastern Indigo Snake

03.09

Gopher Tortoise

03.10

Geographically Isolated Wetland

04.01

Expansion of Center Pivot Irrigation Over Time

04.02

Anatomy of a Center Pivot System

04.03

Anomalies in Decadal Precipitation

04.04

Anomalies in Decadal Temperature

05.01

KSI - Social Criteria Targets

05.02

KSI - Environmental Criteria Targets

05.03

KSI - Economic Criteria Targets

06.01

Graphical Methodology

06.02

Tactile Survey Route

06.03

Semi-Structured Interview Questions I

06.04

Semi-Structured Interview Questions II

06.05

Becher Photography Typology Example

07.01

Graphical Methodology with Scalar Value

07.02

Emergent Codes & Subcodes from Content Analysis I

07.03

Groundwater Conservation Results - Sunburst Diagram

07.04

Groundwater Conservation Results - Code Co-Occurences

07.05

Emergent Codes & Subcodes from Content Analysis II

07.06

Groundwater Conservation Results - Sunburst Diagram

07.07

Land Use of the Dougherty Plain

07.08

Slope of the Dougherty Plain

07.09

Aspect of the Dougherty Plain

08.01

Path Through a GIW Ecotone

08.02

Sinkhole in a Longleaf Pine Forest

104

08.03

Along Ichawaynochaway Creek

112

08.04

Research Fields at Stripling Irrigation Center

120 9

Exposed Ocala limestone. October 2021.

Ichauwaynochaway Creek. October 2021.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Before anything else, I need to acknowledge the limitations of this thesis. Given the complicated nature of karst, groundwater, and the political tensions surrounding this topic, there is much left to examine, especially through a landscape architectural lens. I sincerely hope that future students continue to look to southwestern Georgia and other karst terrains as a context for landscape design and groundwater conservation. If there is one thing I’ve taken away from all of this, it is that the invitation to collaborate is always open. I would like to acknowledge everyone that helped to complete this research, shared enthusiasm, and offered their time and support throughout this process. Thank you to my committee and major professor for their mentorship, and to Matthew Price and Jeff Hepinstall-Cymerman for the sinkhole and wetland spatial data. I need to express particular gratitude to the Jones Center for housing me during my time in southwestern Georgia, and a special thank you to Steven Brantley for arranging the stay. This project would not have come to fruition without the kindness of those that volunteered their time and expertise. Thank you to Coleman Barrie; Steven Brantley; Casey Cox; Steve Golladay; Mark Masters; Calvin Perry; Todd Rasmussen; Kathleen Rugel; and Gordon Rogers for your help, your patience, and your input. I am grateful for all that you contribute to understanding water, geology, and the human dimensions of natural resource conservation. Thank you to my dear friend Andrew Laws for the unwavering support throughout the writing process, to my family and friends for the encouragement, and to Tyler for everything. To my MLA 2022 cohort: I am grateful that I have had such a supportive group of intelligent and passionate students to learn from and work with throughout the duration of this program. Finally, thank you. The reader. I hope this is useful to you.

Longleaf understory hues & textures. October 2021.

Above: Setaria sp. Below: Andropogon sp.

ABSTRACT Aquifer depletion and water quality degradation caused by irrigation pumping in the American southeast is a growing challenge. Within the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint River (ACF) Basin, reduction in stream discharge and the growing presence of nitrates found in groundwater are of particular concern to a multitude of stakeholders. Coupled with the mounting legal pressures posed by the Tri-State Water Wars, there are several factors that justify stakeholder anxiety pertaining to groundwater quality and the ecological health of the ACF Basin. This is especially true of the Dougherty Plain, a karstic ecoregion and agricultural hub located in southwestern Georgia. To address these critical concerns, a pilot design methodology specific to karst landscapes was developed using the Dougherty Plain as a study region. A combination of a literature review, tactile survey, semi-structured interviews, and content analysis worked in unity to contribute to the identification and formation of Dougherty Plain design typologies. Each typology is characteristic of the Dougherty Plain by way of their commonality and relevance to aquifer health. Through mixed-method approaches, existing information about the study region were linked with approaches that communicate the hidden properties of karst, which are equally important to the landscape’s design potential, in regard to groundwater conservation. Serving as a foundation for designers to conceptualize the complexity of karst landscapes, and the importance of karst as a harbor for biodiversity and groundwater reserves, this design thesis assembles an argument that karstspecific design methods are necessary for landscape architects if they are to contribute to the protection of natural resources and facilitate the implementation of groundwater protection initiatives on these unique landscapes. The typologies that resulted from these methods serve as a basis from which local stakeholders can consider regional connectivity across the Dougherty Plain by providing a framework for landowners to adopt management strategies at the site scale. As the selected typologies are frequent across the landscape, sitescale interventions that are adopted as part of a landscape-scale initiative would contribute to resource protection, species conservation, and regional groundwater sustainability.

Keywords: agriculture, aquifer, Dougherty Plain, geohydrology, groundwater, karst, transdisciplinary, Upper Floridan Aquifer, wicked problems 13

INTRODUCTION 01 1.1 PURPOSE & SIGNIFICANCE Developing sustainable landscapes through landscape planning, management and design are didactic and powerful analytical exercises amidst the rapid development of land around the world (Burri et al. 2019). On a global scale, there are efforts taking place to enhance the resilience and sustainability of ecosystems and the biota they sustain across a large gradient of land use types. From highly modified to intact ecologies, devising management strategies for each of these contexts is a mammoth undertaking (Beller et al. 2019). Developing sustainability strategies and implementing them across their respective ecoregions and social structures are notable challenges, further instituting the ability to promote environmental health as a wicked problem of our time. Karst ecosystems are particularly challenging landscapes to manage for resource protection. A highly porous geology, karst composes about 12% of the earth’s landscape, provides potable water for about 25% of the world’s population, and is largely characterized by extensive ecological degradation (Liao et al. 2018; Li et al. 2021). The anthropogenic influence on karstic ecosystems’ hydraulic, biological, and chemical dynamics is substantial (van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen 2012, 156). For this reason, there is an essential need for research that studies human-karst dynamics through the assessment of existing practices, looking to novel methodologies that could improve the environmental health of these landscapes, and modifying infrastructures to best outfit these regions for an ever-changing future. Karst landscapes pose interesting questions for resource managers and stakeholders. Due to their high connectivity between the surface and subsurface, unconfined (exposed) aquifers in karst areas often function as groundwater recharge zones (Green et al. 2006; Sappa, Vitale, and Ferranti 2018). However, this same characteristic also makes karst aquifers particularly susceptible to contamination (Green et al. 2006). The fast infiltration rate characteristic of karst provides little time for mitigation after contamination has occurred, making 14

ground-level strategies that integrate sustainable socio-economic practices, habitat conservation initiatives, and water protection vital to the health of the overall landscape (van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen 2012). The Dougherty Plain, a karst ecoregion located in southwestern Georgia, USA, is an area of interest as it overlays an unconfined portion of the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS), one of the sixty-six principal aquifers in the United States (Figure 01.01) (Marella and Berndt 2005). The FAS is also the principal source of freshwater to Florida and the Georgia coastal plain (Marella and Berndt 2005). The FAS underlays the entire state of Florida and portions of South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia (Marella and Berndt 2005). The Dougherty Plain is densely agricultural and thus, there are concerns regarding agricultural runoff contaminating the underlying sandstone and carbonate rock aquifer, the same system that carries groundwater to Apalachicola Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. There is the additional concern of agricultural users exceeding recommended drawdown limits during the months where irrigation needs are at their peak, and consequently impacting the groundwater-fed waterways that sustain several rare and endangered aquatic species in the region. As an important recharge area for the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) (the uppermost portion of the FAS), and an important node amidst the ongoing legal battles for water rights between Florida, Alabama and Georgia, the Dougherty Plain encompasses many of the sociopolitical and environmental complexities that characterize karstic groundwater conservation as a wicked problem. Sustainable development of the Dougherty Plain is of interest to an array of stakeholders, from farmers that depend on the UFA for irrigation to the scientists performing research on the unique biota of the region. Up until recently, furthering sustainable development initiatives on the Dougherty Plain has largely been addressed by engineering disciplines and policymakers. However, amidst global uncertainties presented by climate change and land development, landscape conditions often change more quickly than law makers and researchers can anticipate, shining a light on the importance of adaptive management strategies, natural capital markets, collaborative decision making, and interdisciplinary conversations to best prepare regions for the future (DeFries and Nagendra 2017; Burri et al. 2019). As an interdisciplinary profession in which many of the challenges addressed are considered wicked, landscape architecture could have valuable input to give in the context of regional planning on agri-karst terrains (Buchanan 1992). Nevertheless, nearly all specialists interviewed for this thesis expressed the initial belief that landscape architecture is an urban-centric discipline without much presence in rural communities or contexts. This belief is not unfounded. At the localized level, specialists in irrigation, agriculture, ecology, or geopolitics may not necessarily think to collaborate 15

Figure 01.01 The Dougherty Plain is situated atop karst geology (orange) and a portion of the FAS, one of the Principal Aquifers of the United States (blue). Graphic by author.

with landscape architects when confronting environmental challenges. The responsibilities and specializations within landscape architecture are broad, making it difficult even for registered practitioners to agree on a common definition of the profession (Newton 1974; Hohmann and Langhorst 2004, 6). Furthermore, landscape architects have commonly critiqued themselves for disproportionately directing attention to urban dwellers and city design, leaving rural communities without the realm of expertise that landscape architects can offer (Lipschitz 2019). In the case of the Dougherty Plain, a predominantly agricultural landscape which has many environmental, social, and economic interests at play, the role of landscape architecture in addressing the region’s challenges seems generally unexplored (Brantley 2021). These groundwater and karst aquifer-related challenges pose interesting questions for landscape architects. Despite the profession’s traditional appreciation and theoretical roots in pastoral aesthetics, landscape architects have largely overlooked contemporary agricultural landscapes as a medium for design intervention (Lipschitz 2019). Urban environments and communities, primarily because of their coastal settings and the looming consequences imposed by rising sea levels, have received the bulk of landscape design-related attention (Branam 2012). Despite there being many opportunities to improve environmental health on agrarian landscapes, such as the transformation of existing infrastructures, mitigating flood impacts, and habitat restoration, landscape architects have been relatively slow to reach out to agricultural communities and industries with collaborative intentions (Lipschitz 2019). Given that the landscape architecture discipline has tasked itself with mitigating ecological collapse through site-specific design work, ignoring agriculture as a design context would be a significant missed opportunity (Stults and Meerow 2017, 25). Additionally, and notably, because the agricultural sector overwhelmingly contributes to resource degradation on a global scale, the margin for change when working in an agricultural context is, often times, sizeable (Follett et al. 2005; Rosenberg and Lehner 2022). To meet ambitious goals, landscape architects will need to redistribute attention across the urbanrural gradient to address the impacts on the landscape caused by modern

agricultural practices (Eaton 2017). Amidst the numerous environmental and social challenges that hinder resource protection in agrarian settings, one such need includes addressing the paradigm that frames the perception of water as a utility. For this reason, it is imperative that landscape architects identify and emphasize the connectedness of systems. On karst, for the sake of environmental protection, this need is arguably even more necessary. With an emphasis on preserving groundwater quality, karst environments are centerfold in the conversation about resource protection, and yet landscape architects have largely been absent from the dialogue about the agri-karst interface. This absence is especially noteworthy given that karst areas are highly researched, often prompted by the political tensions surrounding water rights and their general ecological sensitivity; this leaves interested parties with multiple datasets about these karstic regions that could be readily employed to inform design decisions (Parise et al. 2018). Further, as natural resources are increasingly strained and as social tensions intensify, novel approaches to landscape planning and design are needed to address a multitude of challenges. The Dougherty Plain, which serves as a central point for the political, environmental, and social tensions that frame the southeastern Tri-State Water Wars, is such a landscape.

1.2 SCOPE OF PROJECT The intention of this thesis is twofold: to identify the areas in which landscape architecture can contribute to groundwater conservation in southwest Georgia; and to develop a methodology that allows landscape architects to make sense of karst landscapes while incorporating specialized knowledge into landscape analysis processes to achieve sustainable landscape goals. An argument is made that there is a need for a landscape architecture design methodology specific to karst landscapes, as traditional site analysis techniques do not adequately reveal the importance of certain features and highly technical challenges unique to karstic geologies. Serving as a pilot methodology for karst terrains, this thesis extracts themes that come about from mixed methods to provide design results which could contribute to the overall aquifer health of the Dougherty Plain through a landscape architectural perspective. The guiding research questions of this document are the following: 1. What are the most frequently supported intervention techniques promoted on the Dougherty Plain landscape pertaining to groundwater conservation? 2. What are the landscape architectural approaches best suited to addressing the wicked problems surrounding groundwater conservation on the Dougherty Plain? 17

02 /// 03 /// 04 /// 05 LITERATURE REVIEW

Flint River, Radium Springs Boat Ramp. October 2021.

Cotton bale textures, Stripling Irrigation Center. October 2021.

KARST & THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN: A BACKGROUND 02 2.1 APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN – AN OVERVIEW The Dougherty Plain falls within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, a tri-river watershed that spans approximately 13 million acres (Figure 02.01) (K. Rugel 2020; Couch and McDowell 2006). The Chattahoochee River headwaters begin in the Appalachian Mountains of northeastern Georgia, flows through the city of Atlanta, and then continues south to form the state border between Georgia and Alabama. The Flint River headwaters are located near the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, and its path flows through the plains of southwestern Georgia (K. Rugel 2020; Rogers 2021). Whereas many of the southeast’s waterways have been dammed through interventions largely performed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Flint River is one of only forty waterways in the United States that flows unobstructed for more than two hundred miles (K. Rugel 2020).

SOUTH CAROLINA

Athens E

E H

Atlanta

T AH

FL I NT

Macon

GEORGIA

ALABAMA Montgomery

ACF BASIN

ATL A

Albany

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER WATERSHED FLINT RIVER WATERSHED

Valdosta

DOUGHERTY PLAIN LA

Panama City

Graphic by author. 20

Tallahassee

H LAC I C O

Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint (ACF) River Basin. Region of study is indicated by dotted hatch.

APALACHICOLA RIVER WATERSHED

A PA

Figure 02.01

L AC H I C

A OL

Y BA

FLORIDA

The Flint and the Chattahoochee Rivers that are hydrologically connected to the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and are two characteristic landforms of the Dougherty Plain. Habitat to an array of biota and the key features of an agricultural and recreational landscape, these two rivers and their respective basins meet at the southwestern-most corner of Georgia. Their confluence is both natural and built, converging at Lake Seminole, a lake that was formed following the construction of the hydroelectric Jim Woodruff Dam in 1957 (Zediak and Brandt 1994, 219). The convergence of the Flint and Chattahoochee and the outflow from Lake Seminole forms the Apalachicola River which runs through the Florida Panhandle, eventually discharging in the Apalachicola Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. The Chattahoochee River supports a multiplicity of industries. In addition to providing the city of Atlanta with drinking water, the Chattahoochee serves as a space for various water-based recreation opportunities to Atlantans and rural Georgians alike, and it provides important thermoregulation services to a nuclear powerplant in Dothan, Alabama (K. Rugel 2020). Projected population growth in and around the city of Atlanta, with an estimated metro-area county growth ranging between 27 and 107% between 2015 and 2050, has prompted interest in protecting the Chattahoochee in recent decades (ARC Series 16 Forecast Dashboard 2021). Most recently, the Chattahoochee RiverLands project released a report outlining design goals and a master plan to establish a protective buffer and a recreational trail network along the water’s edge (The Chattahoochee RiverLands 2020). The Flint River watershed is primarily agricultural, and the waterway itself is considered a recreational jewel to the region’s fishing enthusiasts and freshwater paddlers (Abdi et al. 2009). The Dougherty Plain overlaps with the Lower Flint River Basin (LFRB) to a greater extent than it does with the lower Chattahoochee. Agribusiness, which makes up approximately 34% of the regional economy, is highly dependent on the LFRB and its tributaries for crop irrigation (Couch and McDowell 2006, 17). At present, groundwater withdrawals in the LFRB account for nearly two-thirds of the region’s total freshwater use; this consumption is projected to increase by 450,000 cubic meters per day by the year 2050 (Flatt 2004; GWPPC 2017; Coleman J Barrie et al. 2022).

2.2 GEOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES & LAND COVERS OF THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN The Dougherty Plain is considered a distinct ecoregion within the Southeastern Plains (Omernik and Griffith 2012). Its boundary extends from Alabama’s southeast corner, south through a portion of the Florida Panhandle, and up through the southwestern portion of Georgia (Wiken, Nava, and Griffith 2011). The study area of this thesis is the portion of the Dougherty Plain that falls within the Georgia state boundary as referenced in Figure 02.01. 21

With mostly flat topography, the waterways of the Dougherty Plain are generally low velocity, although there are rolling hills scattered throughout the landscape that have come about as a result of the karstic carbonate limestone geology (Omernik and Griffith 2012). The karst topography facilitates the formation of sinkholes and the presence of springs (Omernik and Griffith 2012). There are few surface waterways in the flattest parts of the plain; in these areas, water can easily percolate into the karst, ultimately navigating through clayey sandy soils and limestone until it ends up in subterranean conduits and underlying aquifers such as the Floridan Aquifer, and its uppermost component, the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) (Figure 02.02). This is particularly noticeable within the Flint River watershed, where observable tributaries are infrequent as compared to the Chattahoochee River (Omernik and Griffith 2012). Soil depths on the Plain vary, ranging from greater than 200 feet in particular areas to having the limestone bedrock entirely exposed in others (Wiken, Nava, and Griffith 2011). Many of the geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) and other depressional areas that are characteristic of the landscape act as a refuge for the area’s

SOUTH CAROLINA ALABAMA

GEORGIA

GULF OF MEXICO

STUDY AREA - DOUGHERTY PLAIN Figure 02.02 Extent of the Floridan Aquifer System and its unconfined portions. Graphic by author. 22

EXTENT OF FAS UNCONFINED AQUIFER

FLORIDA

biodiversity, creating a land cover patchwork amidst the predominantly agricultural landscape (Omernik and Griffith 2012). GIWs occasionally are linked to the underlying Upper Floridan Aquifer. This relationship is indicated by high pH values and a calcium signature left behind by interactions with the limestone bedrock (Brantley 2021). Prior to agricultural development for food crops and pine plantations, the region was classified as a southern mixed forest cover type, and, like much of the American southeast, it was largely dominated by the firedependent longleaf pine ecosystem (Pinus palustris) (Wiken, Nava, and Griffith 2011; Frost 2007). Today, while there are still tracts of public land managed as hunting forests, much of this landscape is utilized for agricultural purposes as the Dougherty Plain is considered one of the most fertile landscapes in Georgia (Omernik and Griffith 2012). In addition to wooded and agricultural landscapes, the Dougherty Plain is peppered with small cities and towns. The urbanization is largely concentrated around the city of Albany, which has an estimated population of 70,000 (Albany, Georgia 2020). Enclosed by the Fall Line Hills to the northwest and the Tifton Upland to the southeast, the Dougherty Plain is underlaid by thin layers of clay, sand residuum, and highly transmissive Ocala limestone that holds the UFA (Figure 02.03) (Watson 1981). Beneath these layers is a confining layer of limestone called the Lisbon Formation (Battle and Golladay 2003). Water drains from the rolling hills of the Fall Lines, navigating toward the northwestern boundary of the Dougherty Plain where tributaries separate the Fall Line Hills from the karstic plain (Jones et al. 2017, 6). The Ocala Limestone of the Dougherty Plain and Upper Floridan Aquifer has been dated to the late Eocene epoch and is composed of a “white bioclastic limestone that is honeycombed with solution cavities” (Sever 1965).

Figure 02.03 Exposed Ocala Limestone along Ichawaynochaway Creek, a tributary to the Flint River. Photo by author. 23

The Pelham Escarpment serves as the defining border between the Dougherty Plain and the Tifton Upland physiographic region to the southeast (Figure 02.04) (Jones et al. 2017, 7). The Pelham Escarpment contains many deep ravines that support plant and animal species which require cooler environments to survive. The Tifton Upland extends slightly into the Florida panhandle. It has somewhat hilly topography and is composed of agricultural, pasture, and mixed pinehardwood forest land covers (Omernik and Griffith 2012).

2.3 KARST Karst basins are present around the world and tend to occur where paleooceanic recession has taken place (Figure 02.05) (K. Rugel et al. 2012). Karst is

PINE MTN RIDGES

SOUTHERN OUTER PIEDMONT

SAND HILLS

COASTAL PLAIN RED UPLANDS

COASTAL PLAIN RED UPLANDS ATLANTIC SOUTHERN LOAM PLAINS

COASTAL PLAIN RED UPLANDS

OD FLO SE

SOUTHERN HILLY GULF COASTAL PLAIN

COASTAL PLAIN RED UPLANDS

LO W T E

ES AC R R

ATLANTIC SOUTHERN LOAM PLAINS DOUGHERTY PLAIN TIFTON UPLAND OKEFENOKEE PLAINS

Figure 02.04 Physiographic regions surrounding the Dougherty Plain. Graphic by author. Spatial data sourced from US EPA (Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States 2013). 24

TALLAHASEE HILLS/VALDOSTA LIMESINK

NORTH

Figure 02.05 Karst areas of the world. There are many ways to characterize and sub-characterize karst. These features occur globally. Continuous Discontinuous Continuous carbonate rock carbonate rock evaporite rock

Discontinuous evaporite rock

Mixed carb./evap.

Graphic by author. Data sourced from Chen et al. 2017.

characterized as a soluble geologic system, and forms on landscapes that are composed of bedrock such as gypsum, dolostone, limestone, halite, and marble (T.R. Stokes and Griffiths 2019). Karst landscapes are shaped by the interactions water has on the soluble bedrock (K.L. Stokes et al. 2009). This interaction dissolves the geology, and results in underground heterogeneities not typically displayed by non-karstic geologies (K.L. Stokes et al. 2009). Depending on the presence of confining layers, the hydrogeology (or, groundwater systems) of karstic systems and the geomorphology (or, landforms) of karstic systems can be highly connective where their highly soluble geologies are close to the ground surface (McCormack et al. 2016). On the Dougherty Plain, the directness of these connections vary across the landscape (K. Rugel, Stephen W. Golladay, C. Rhett Jackson, Todd C. Rasmussen 2016). This solubility tends to result in pitted and fluted bedrock surfaces, and on landscapes that contain springs, sinkholes, extensive cave networks and subsurface water flows (T.R. Stokes and Griffiths 2019). Cave systems are characteristic of karst landscapes, and they often function as biologic hotspots, providing habitat for species that are adapted to low-light conditions and freshwater aquifer interactions (T.R. Stokes and Griffiths 2019). The Dougherty Plain’s geology is settled atop Ocala limestone, a highly soluble carbonate geology (Hayes, Maslia, and Meeks 1983). While much of the Floridan 25

Aquifer System is karstic, the Dougherty Plain in unique in that it is directly underlaid by an unconfined portion of the FAS, meaning the karst bedrock is exposed or near the ground surface and thus functions as an important aquifer recharge zone. This also makes the groundwater in the UFA highly accessible on the Dougherty Plain as compared to deeper aquifers in the region (Hayes, Maslia, and Meeks 1983). Like many karst landscapes, the surface of the UFA is characterized by a high density of sinkhole formation (Doctor et al. 2020). Sinkholes serve as direct conduits to the underlying aquifer, providing areas for water and contaminants alike to enter fractures in the limestone bedrock, also known as lineaments, that function as subsurface drainages for the Dougherty Plain before settling into the aquifer (Torak and Painter 2006). These conduits are systems of high concern to water managers as any changes in the quality of runoff may have dire implications for the social and ecological systems that karstic environments support. This includes the endemic, often rare, cave-dwelling biota that live within and atop karstic systems. The Dougherty Plain is additionally characterized by the presence of springs, or blue holes, that typically form when the roof of an underlying limestone cave collapses (Beck 1986). When this occurs, water that was formerly separated by the roof of the cave can make its way to the surface, making groundwater visible to those above the bedrock. Radium Springs near Albany, Georgia is perhaps the most famous regional example of this characteristic karst formation (Figure 02.06).

Figure 02.06 Radium Springs located south of Albany, Georgia. Photograph by author. 26

Karst basins of the world are typically highly researched by a wide range of disciplines because their aquifers and unique lifeforms are particularly vulnerable to potential contamination that may occur at the ground surface. In the case of the Dougherty Plain, where the landscape is predominantly agricultural and the water is easily extractable, over-allocation of water and fear of groundwater contamination has been a regional concern since the introduction of center-pivot irrigation systems to the region in the late 1960s (Allums et al. 2009; Glenn I Martin, Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Kirkman 2013, 42). The relationship between surface water and groundwater in karstic and temperate systems is poorly researched as compared to other topographies such as alluvial, volcanic, and glacial systems (K. Rugel et al. 2012). The Dougherty Plain may be a unique case where, because of the regional tension surrounding water consumption and groundwater quality control, a high volume of data pertaining to groundwater dynamics are available (GAWPPC 2021; Rogers 2021).

2.4 KARST AQUIFERS Carbonate geologies are abundant around the world, contributing to a unique patchwork of landscapes that are comprised of depressional features like sinkholes, isolated wetlands, sinking streams, blue holes, caves, and aquifers (Figure 02.07) (Rasmussen 2021). The readiness for sedimentary carbonates to dissolve upon contact with water creates a hydrodynamic network of underground lineaments, or bedrock fractures, that link inflows of groundwater with their outflows (Rasmussen 2021). The makeup of a karstic landscape’s carbonates influences the long-term evolution of the landscape, laying the groundwork that in turn will affect the scale of impact that mechanical weathering and erosion may have on the geology. The erosion of carbonates, often by wind and water, promotes speleogenesis, or the formation of caves (Beck and Americus 1980). Direct conduits to karstic aquifers, such as sinkholes, commonly occur in the epikarst or unsaturated zone of the aquifer (Rasmussen 2021). Epikarst is “located at the top of the aerated or vadose zone in carbonate rocks” which consists of soil layers, an epikarst zone, and a transmission zone through

Figure 02.07 Karst landforms and subsurface morphologies typical of the FAS. Graphic sourced from “Floridan Aquifer Landscape Characteristics” (2021). 27

which water can percolate (P.W. Williams 2008). On the Dougherty Plain, the epikarst refers to the weathered limestone between soil layers and bedrock, but this epikarst layer is not uniformly present throughout the southwestern Georgia landscape (Ford and Williams 2013). Predicting and mapping groundwater flow and transport in karst aquifers is made complicated by the geologic heterogeneity of carbonate rock. A fundamental understanding of localized geology and hydraulic conductivity capabilities are needed to identify subterranean conduits (Rasmussen 2021). Stratigraphic surveys give insight to the layers of soil and geology, allowing data interpreters to determine if the geologic units are likely to form conduits (Rasmussen 2021). Lineament patterns, underground ridgelines (strikes) and their surrounding slopes (dips), recharge and discharge locations can additionally be identified through field surveys, aerial image analysis, and LiDAR; advanced technologies that predict the locations and presence of these features are nascent (C. Barrie 2021; Rasmussen 2021). From the surface, lineaments can be identified by visually connecting aligned sinkholes, which typically form atop bedrock fractures (C. Barrie 2021). Lineaments have been documented to occur in both variable and parallel directions (K. Rugel et al. 2019). In the Lower Flint River Basin (LFRB), Rugel et. al. determined that reaches of Ichawaynochaway Creek and bedrock fractures share a North-South azimuth trend (K. Rugel et al. 2019). Further, it was observed that reaches with a northwest bearing displayed increased groundwater discharge 55% of the time (K. Rugel et al. 2019). Information that sheds light on the hydromorphic traits of karst has important land management implications, especially where physical orientation of landforms and surface-groundwater connectivity are correlated. While groundwater withdrawals in karstic aquifers are most productive when a well intersects with a conduit, understanding “where withdrawals are currently reducing baseflow” in the LFRB may provide important guidance on resource management and groundwater conservation (Rasmussen 2021; K. Rugel et al. 2019).

2.5 KARST CHALLENGES Karst brings an added layer of complexity to regional water planning. Identifying and understanding karst landscapes and the management practices best suited for them are of the utmost importance to a broad range of specialists (Brinkmann and Parise 2012). As important sources of potable water, the ability to study and quantify the inputs and outputs of these geologic systems is critical for the long-term sustainability of aquifers, and the hydro-social relationships they have been tasked with supporting (Ford and Williams 2013, 1). Although karst regions are generally well-studied, modeling karst systems, particularly 28

carbonate limestone karst like the Dougherty Plain, and their associated variables is notoriously challenging (Hartmann et al. 2014). This is, in part, due to the soluble geology, which makes for highly connective water flows between the surface and subsurface, resulting in rapid infiltration rates, complex conveyance patterns, and subterranean conduits (Oehlmann et al. 2013; Daher et al. 2011). While this connectivity makes groundwater easily accessible and their overtopping landscapes desirable for agriculture, this same characteristic makes groundwater and underlying aquifers particularly vulnerable to exploitation and contamination by and from the very industries they often support (Green et al. 2006, 157).

2.6 FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM & THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN The Dougherty Plain covers the largest unconfined swath of the Floridan Aquifer North

Valdosta

FAS Updip

CL -1,000’

AY TO

EA QU

U GH TRO

RID AN AQU IFER

CL AIB OR N

-500’

HAWTHORN GROUP

FLO

OCALA LIMSTONE

GUL F

0’

UPP ER

IFE

UI FE

LISBON FORMATION

R EA RL Y

CE NE

Upper Confining Layer Upper Floridan Aquifer Middle Confining Unit

Lower Floridan Aquifer

RO CK S

FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

500’

South

-1,500’

-2,000’ Lower Confining Units

CRETACEOUS GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS

Figure 02.08

-2,500’

Floridan Aquifer System geology and subsurface relationships.

-3,000’ 0 Confining Layer

Aquifer

Extent of FAS

Graphic by author, adapted from Williams and Kunianski (2016).

miles

that falls within the Georgia state boundary, making it an important recharge zone, and an area of interest to those who rely on this groundwater within the region (Hicks, Gill, and Longsworth 1987). Across much of the FAS, a confining layer of rock and sediment interferes with the recharge of the aquifer by slowing or blocking infiltration (E. Kuniansky 2001). Additionally, much of the FAS is overlaid by the Surficial Aquifer which may only recharge the FAS where a confining layer does not interfere between the two aquifer systems (E. Kuniansky 2001, 59). The Dougherty Plain is located atop an unconfined portion of the FAS, providing near direct hydraulic connectivity between surface water flows on land and the groundwater within the Upper Floridan Aquifer (Figure 02.08) (E.L. Kuniansky, Bellino, and Dixon 2012).

SL OU

T FL IN

RI V

CR EE K SP RI NG

CR EE K DR Y

200’

CH AT TA HO O

CH EE

RI V

The FAS is one of multiple aquifers in this region of southwest Georgia. The Claiborne Aquifer underlies the UFA and is occasionally used for groundwater extraction (Perry 2021). Wells that extract groundwater from the Claiborne are significantly more expensive to construct than UFA wells as they require drilling several hundred feet deeper into the ground to achieve aquifer access (Perry 2021). However, in July 2012, amidst growing demand for freshwater irrigation sources in the region, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division

100’

SEA LEVEL

Figure 02.09

LISBON FORMATION

100’

Hydrogeologic section representative of the the Dougherty Plain. Graphic by author adapted from Watson 1981.

OCALA LIMESTONE

MIDDLE EOCENE 200’ GROUND

WATER TABLE

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

6 miles

(GA EPD) issued a moratorium on permit applications for new groundwater wells that would extract from the UFA (Gordon and Gonthier 2017). The 2012 moratorium additionally extended to certain subbasins of the Flint River, including Ichawaynochaway Creek, Spring Creek, and Muckalee Creek (Gordon and Gonthier 2017). Since then, the number of permitted wells that extract groundwater from the Claiborne Aquifer have increased, as have the number of irrigated agricultural fields on the Dougherty Plain (Gordon and Gonthier 2017; Watering Georgia: The State of Water and Agriculture in Georgia 2017). The hydraulic connectivity between the Claiborne and the UFA is not fully understood (Gordon and Gonthier 2017). The direct hydraulic connectivity between the UFA and regional streams is a result of the many sinkholes, karst sinks, flow conduits, and karstic streambeds where the aquifer can exchange water with surface flows (Plummer et al. 1998). Composed of four hydrologic units, the UFA can be sub-categorized as (1) the surficial aquifer system, (2) the upper semi-confining unit (USCU), (3) the aquifer itself, and (4) the lower confining unit (Torak and Painter 2006). The surficial aquifer spans across the top of the UFA and consists of weathered limestone that locally contains water‐bearing zones exhibiting water‐table conditions. The upper half of the USCU consists of sandy deposits and the bottom half thickness is composed of clayey substrate. The sandy layer desiccates during times of drought, and the lower clayey layer tends to remain saturated. Little water is transmitted to the UFA where the USCU is present because of its poor hydraulic conductivity (Torak and Painter 2006). The lower confining unit is principally composed of the Lisbon Formation; depending on the depth of the overtopping layers, this lower confining unit can effectively block hydraulic exchanges between the aquifer and above-ground waterbodies (Figure 02.09) (Torak and Painter 2006). The UFA’s Ocala limestone begins as a thin stratigraphic unit in the northernmost part of the Flint River Basin and increases in thickness and depth moving toward the southeastern corner of the ACF within the Georgia border (Singh et al. 2017). UFA transmissivity correlates with the thickness and degree of limestone dissolution (Singh et al. 2017). The UFA is enclosed by the USCU except where the USCU is thin, such as in river valleys or outcrop areas (Torak and Painter 2006). These are areas where the UFA can obtain recharge through direct infiltration from rainfall (Singh et al. 2017).

2.7 UFA SURFACE WATER-GROUNDWATER INTERACTIONS The UFA is mostly recharged through seasonal precipitation during the winter months of December through March when the rate of evapotranspiration is low (Torak and Painter 2006). The lowest geologic confining unit of the UFA is 31

composed mostly of the Lisbon Formation, which is largely impervious to water (K. Rugel et al. 2012). Creeks and overland streams in the region begin as springs and seeps in the Fall Line Hills and flow southeast across the Dougherty Plain, all the while exchanging water with the underlying UFA through springs, fractures, and stream beds (Albertson and Torak 2002; Mosner 2002). Rainfall in the Lower Flint River Basin is generally greatest during the winter and early spring, but short-duration, high-intensity rainfall associated with thunderstorms may occur during late spring, summer, and early fall (K. Rugel et al. 2012).

Claiborne (undifferentiated)

Eocene and Oligocene Residuum (undifferentiated)

Ocala Limestone

Neogene (undifferentiated) / Suwannee Limestone and its residuum

Figure 02.10 Surface geologies of the Dougherty Plain and surrounding geologic diversity of Georgia and Florida. Graphic by author. Data sourced from Lawton 1976. 32

Stream alluvium

Dougherty Plain (study region) NORTH

Groundwater levels in the UFA and streamflow within the LFRB respond to seasonal precipitation patterns and irrigation pumping typical of the American southeast (Mitra, Singh, and Srivastava 2019). Increased irrigation and groundwater pumping during the spring and summer months, in combination with high evapotranspiration and runoff from high-intensity convective storms, contribute to the lowering of groundwater levels and reduced surface water flow in creeks, streams, and other Dougherty Plain waterways (Mitra, Singh, and Srivastava 2019).

2.8 TARGET TRIBUTARIES & UFA GROUNDWATER CHALLENGES Rugel et. al. successfully analyzed historic water pumping data and revealed evidence which supports that stream behavior is affected along Lower Flint River Basin tributaries during post-irrigation portions of the growing season (K. Rugel et al. 2009). For example, significant changes in early summer baseflow recession of Ichawaynochaway Creek, a tributary of the Flint River, were found to coincide with heightened seasonal pumping during the post-irrigation period (K. Rugel et al. 2009). This refers to a short-term baseflow recession, and does not account for the long-term effects of groundwater water removal on Flint River tributary baseflow (K. Rugel et al. 2009). Tributaries of the LFRB are sourced in the Fall Line Hills in the form of seeps and springs (Figure 02.10) (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). They flow across the Dougherty Plain, receiving seasonal discharge or baseflow from the UFA through limestone outcrops and riverbeds (K. Rugel et al. 2012). Historically, baseflows have kept intermittent creeks flowing during summer months, providing critical refugia for aquatic species including numerous species of mussels and Gulf Striped Bass (K. Rugel et al. 2012). Hydrologic modeling of different agricultural groundwater withdrawal scenarios has suggested that eight reaches across the Dougherty Plain, including several Flint River tributaries such as Spring Creek and Ichawaynochaway Creek, are at high risk of seasonal drying, putting the future of the mussel populations and other biota in those waterways into question (Albertson and Torak 2002; K. Rugel et al. 2012). In addition to this modeling, researchers from Auburn University have conducted sensitivity analyses on stream reaches in the ACF River Basin to identify areas that have experienced the largest decreases in stream-aquifer flux in response to groundwater withdrawal (Singh et al. 2017).

LANDFORMS & BIOTA OF THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN 03 3.1 BIODIVERSITY The Dougherty Plain falls within the boundary of the North American Coastal Plain (NACP), and its plant biota are composed of those found within the Coastal Plain Floristic Province (CPFP) (Noss et al. 2015). Although it is not considered an official global biodiversity hotspot, the NACP is characterized by high endemism and high species richness (Noss et al. 2015). The combination of lightning strikes and fire-based landscape management performed by indigenous groups contributed to the maintenance of pine savannas native to the region (Noss et al. 2015). At the surface level, these fires helped maintain forest understories by “removing litter, cropping dominant grasses and top-killing trees and shrubs, and local variation in post-fire microtopographic gradients. (Noss et al. 2015)” The heterogeneity on the ground that, in part, came about from the carbonate limestone landscape, provides microrefugia for fire-sensitive species, and allows for fire-adapted and non-adapted organisms to co-occur (Noss et al. 2015). The ACF Basin is home to some of the greatest species richness of freshwater organisms in North America, many of which are endemic to the region, and several of which are state and federally protected (K. Rugel 2020; Zigler et al. 2020). The Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei) is endemic to southwestern Georgia groundwaters and is currently characterized as “Vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Figure 03.01) (Fenolio et al. 2013). The Dougherty Plain Cave Crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes) which often co-occurs with the Georgia blind salamander, is not listed by the IUCN, but it is designated as “threatened” at the state level (Figure 03.02) (Fenolio et al. 2017). The Flint River Basin alone is known to provide habitat for two federally threatened, and four federally endangered, species of mussels: the Fat threeridge (Amblema neislerii); the Shinyraryed pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata); Gulf moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus); Chipola slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis); and the Purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus) (Figures 03.03 and 03.04) (Mullen 2019; Albertson and Torak 2002). Moreover, the caves that have naturally formed as a result of the karstic 34

landscape have yielded troglobionts (cave-obligate species) that are endemic to southwestern Georgia (Zigler et al. 2020). Across the range of the Dougherty Plain, the persistence of the landscape’s biodiversity is highly dependent on each organism’s ability to reach the water table (Coleman James Barrie 2019). On the Dougherty Plain, where seasonal groundwater withdrawal is expected to increase, the future of the UFA seasonal water table elevation is in question, posing a potential threat to the terrestrial ecologies which overtop the aquifers below (Coleman James Barrie 2019). Beyond the Floridan Aquifer System and karst landscapes, it is widely accepted that aquifers of all types support biologically diverse taxa that interact with and are dependent upon both the solid and liquid components of the system (Hancock, Boulton, and Humphreys 2005). For this reason, it is crucial to perceive aquifers as active ecosystems rather than lifeless reservoirs of water when it comes to aquifer management planning and resource allocation for agricultural purposes (Hancock, Boulton, and Humphreys 2005).

Figure 03.01 Georgia blind salamander.

3.2 CAVES Limestone in southwestern Georgia is distinctly younger and significantly more porous than the limestone types found in other regions of the state; like in many carbonate karst areas around the world, this quality encourages the formation of caves, sinkholes, and

Photo by Matthew L Niemiller (Fenolio et. al. 2013).

Figure 03.02 Dougherty Plain cave crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes ) is syntopic with the Georgia blind salamander. Both species are top predators of the UFA. Photo by Matthew L Niemiller (Fenolio et. al. 2013)..

Figures 03.03 and 03.04 From left: Shinyrayed pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata); Gulf Moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus). Photos sourced from USGS (Albertson and Torak 2002). 35

cavities throughout the Dougherty Plain area (Beck and Americus 1980). Within the Flint River Basin, most cavities are water-filled where the limestone is near the water-surface level of the river and where the topography is flat (Beck and Americus 1980). Caves are known to exist in this area, having been located by well drilling and diving excursions through water-filled caves and their conduits (Beck and Americus 1980). There is widespread interest in organisms that have evolved and carry out their full life cycles underground, in caves or otherwise. Biologists are researching a broad range of adaptations exhibited by cave-dwelling species, including traits such as pigment degeneration, optic degeneration, and cave-based trophic dynamics (Fenolio et al. 2013). Inventories of rare and unique troglobionts and stygobionts (obligate groundwater dwellers) help characterize the Dougherty Plain as an area of conservation interest (Fenolio et al. 2013; Fenolio et al. 2017). There are 281 animal species known to occur in cave systems across the state of Georgia, 51 of which are troglobionts (Zigler et al. 2020). The Dougherty Plain is considered one of three biographic clusters of troglobiont species richness in Georgia; all known troglobiont species on the Dougherty Plain are associated with the UFA (Zigler et al. 2020).

3.3 SINKHOLES From a social standpoint, sinkholes pose serious hazards and land development challenges to agricultural, residential, and industrial infrastructure. Environmentally, sinkholes serve as important conduits to subsurface waterways while transporting sediment from surface to subterranean (Cahalan and Milewski 2018). Sinkholes form in areas where bedrock experiences dissolution or weathering as a result of precipitation and groundwater movement (Cahalan and Milewski 2018). As dissolution and sedimentation do not occur uniformly across the landscape, there are different typologies of sinkholes that naturally form, including dissolution sinkholes which form from dissolved bedrock, cover-subsidence sinkholes that form slowly in typically sandy conditions, and cover collapse sinkholes which form abruptly, and eventually mold into a bowl-shape from clayey sediment that lines the cavity (Cahalan and Milewski 2018; Galloway, Jones, and Ingebritsen 1999). Sinkholes serve as surficial indicators of the lineament systems that underlie them (Quinn, Tomasko, and Kuiper 2006). On the Dougherty Plain and along the Pelham Escarpment, sinkholes tend to form from subsidence and cave-collapse, and generally not from collapsing bedrock (Jancin and Clark 1993). Predictive modeling by Cahalan and Milewski (2018) has shown that smaller diameter sinkholes commonly appear within the Flint River floodplain in Dougherty County. Historically, sinkholes have served as refuge for fire-sensitive and fire intolerant species across the savannas and grasslands of southwestern Georgia. These microclimatic depressions in the landscape have protected plant species from catching fire in the understories of longleaf pine ecosystems, especially fire-intolerant oak (Quercus) species (Bátori et al. 2021; S. Golladay 2021). There is growing evidence that sinkholes may 36

serve as important microrefugia for species, namely vascular plants, that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and contribute to the conservation of functional groups needed to maintain existing ecosystem feedback loops (Bátori et al. 2021).

3.4 LONGLEAF PINE & THE SOUTHERN GRASSLAND BIOME Once widespread across the Coastal Plain, from Virginia through central Florida and as far west as Texas, the extent of the longleaf pine ecosystem covered close to 92 million acres across the southeastern United States (Figure 03.05) (Jose, Jokela, and Miller 2007). Woodlands and savannas alike, from wetmesic seepages to dry-xeric upland forests, longleaf grew across a multitude of topographies and hydrologies prior to European settlement (Edwards et al. 2013, 366). Longleaf communities have been deeply shaped by a long lineage and coevolution with wildfire. In turn, the interaction between fire and the various ranges of topography, soil type, and hydrology have resulted in one of the most biologically diverse and species-rich communities in North America, with particular regard to vascular plants (Edwards et al. 2013). Historically, lightning strikes and Native American management techniques would ignite fires that set the forest understory of pine needles and wiregrass (Aristida sp.) aflame, keeping fire-intolerant hardwood trees from encroaching into the longleaf canopy (Edwards et al. 2013). Acclaimed biologist E.O. Wilson notably described the Southern Grassland Biome as such: “…the Southern Grassland Biome, when it is properly defined to include the longleaf pine savanna and its intermittent hardwood bottomlands, is probably the richest terrestrial biome in all of North America. It is not unusual to find more than two hundred species of herbaceous plants per acre in the ground flora of the longleaf savanna, and the pitcher-plant bogs, with as many as fifty species of thin-stemmed and crowded herbaceous species per square meter, possibly hold the record for small-scale biodiversity in the world. (Noss 2012)”

The mapping and recognition of southeastern grasslands has largely been overlooked by conservationists (Noss 2012). Only recently has the longleaf pine ecosystem been characterized as part of the Southern Grassland Biome (Estes 2022). Most original tracts of longleaf pine forests that occurred on nutrient-rich and fertile soils were cleared to establish industrial pine plantations and row-crop farms, and nearly 98% of original longleaf forest stands have been eliminated since the beginning of the 1800s (Drew, Kirkman, and Gholson Jr 1998; Edwards et al. 2013). Remarkably, despite the abundance of fertile soil, southwestern 37

Georgia still houses some of the most extensive upland longleaf pine forest tracts in the entire southeast (Edwards et al. 2013). This is largely a result of private landowners maintaining longleaf stands for hunting game birds like the northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus; Figure 03.06), and white-tailed deer (Odocoilem virginianus) (Edwards et al. 2013; Brockway et al. 2005). In non-karstic systems where rivers are bordered by a natural floodplain, a riparian zone of riverine-adapted plant life forms along riverbanks. In the case of the Dougherty Plain, dry upland forest stands of longleaf pine, where they still remain, extend

Figure 03.05 Longleaf pine ecosystem maintained by the Jones Center, an ecological research station in Newton, GA. Photo by author. 38

all the way to riverbank edges as a result of the porous limestone bedrock which prohibits the formation of a floodplain (Edwards et al. 2013). There are various wildlife species that rely on longleaf pine forests for habitat, specifically xeric tracts of longleaf (Edwards et al. 2013). Mole skinks (Plestiodon egregious; Figure 03.07) are a common reptile in southwestern Georgia, and seemingly disappear from the ground quickly as they are able to “swim” through sand and loose soil (Edwards et al. 2013; Carbajal-Marquez and

Valdez-Villavicencio 2012). The southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) depends on deep and well-drained soils to maintain its subterranean lifestyle; its populations have largely declined in Georgia and it is now considered a species of concern throughout its native range (Parsons 2019). The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi; Figure 03.08) is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its survival is largely jeopardized by habitat fragmentation that arises from road and highway construction (Breininger et al. 2012). Similarly, the southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) that depends on wiregrass and longleaf needles for cover, is experiencing population declines (Beane et al. 2014). Finally, and perhaps most famously, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus; Figure 03.09) has experienced a population decline of nearly 80% over the last one hundred years across its native range which matches the extent of the original longleaf pine forest ecosystem (Howze and Smith 2019). The gopher tortoise is the official state reptile of Georgia, and it is considered a “keystone species” or ecosystem engineer, as they are responsible for the cultivation of extensive underground burrowing networks that provide refuge to many of the aforementioned species (Edwards et al. 2013). In response to its decline, the easternmost populations of the gopher tortoise, including within the Georgia state boundary, were petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2006 (Howze and Smith 2019). At the time of writing, gopher tortoises in their western range are listed under the ESA, yet they only remain a candidate species within their eastern range, making conservation initiatives for easternmost populations of gopher tortoises voluntary (Goodman et al. 2018; Howze and Smith 2019). Today, prescribed burns and active fire management of longleaf pine landscapes are integral to the health and success of remaining tracts of this

Figure 03.06, top left: northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Photo by Matt Tillett (2011). Figure 03.07, bottom right: mole skinks (Plestiodon egregius). Photo from Carbajal-Marquez and ValdezVillavicencio (2012). Figure 03.08, top right: eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). Photo by S.A. Snyder (1993). USFS.. Figure 03.09, bottom left: gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Photo by author. 40

once widespread ecosystem. While Pre-Columbian lightning-ignited fires are thought to have occurred largely from late-May through August, the consensus remains that fire frequency is the major influence behind biologic community structure in these systems (Edwards et al. 2013). However, the predominant understory species of these forest systems, southern wiregrass, serves as important fuel for prescribed and natural burns, and wiregrass largely depends on summer fires to produce viable seed (Edwards et al. 2013). Given the many physiographic variations across the native range of longleaf pine forests, restorations and management plans to maintain them are best outlined at the ecoregional scale, be they xeric sandhill, dry upland, mesic upland, rocky upland and glades, or otherwise (Edwards et al. 2013).

3.5 GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED WETLANDS By definition, geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) are distinct depressional areas that are enclosed by surrounding uplands (Herteux, Gawlik, and Smith 2020) (Figure 03.10). In the American southeast, GIWs provide important habitat and forage for native wildlife (C. Barrie 2021). GIWs typically fill and desiccate on a seasonal basis, providing variable volumes of water and a range of different hydroperiods across wetlands throughout the year (Herteux, Gawlik, and Smith 2020). Globally, the main driver of wetland loss is land-use conversion to agriculture (Herteux, Gawlik, and Smith 2020). On the Dougherty Plain, an estimated 68% of GIWs are considered impaired from anthropogenic-induced disturbances (Herteux, Gawlik, and Smith 2020). The Clean Water Act, which has been in effect in the United States since 1972, serves to maintain and restore the integrity of the waterways of the country (Zedler 2004). While the use of the term “waterways” technically includes the nation’s wetlands, GIWs are not officially considered wetlands under the Clean Water Act as they lack an obvious hydraulic connection to surficial waterways, leaving them unprotected by this legislation (Leibowitz et al. 2008). Many GIWs in southwestern Georgia, namely those that occur on agricultural lands, have been altered through manmade interventions, including the clearing of wetland vegetation and establishing berms within the wetlands to accommodate center pivot irrigation equipment (Herteux, Gawlik, and Smith 2020; C. Barrie 2021). Nearly one-half of all GIWs across the Dougherty Plain are less than one hectare large, making draining, and vegetation removal relatively feasible for landowners (Glenn I Martin, Kirkman, and HepinstallCymerman 2012). The risk of eutrophication is high for these wetlands as they are situated amidst crops that are fed nitrogen-rich fertilizers (Glenn I Martin, Kirkman, and Hepinstall-Cymerman 2012). Pesticide and nitrate contamination 41

have been recorded within the UFA, and nitrate contamination has been found in higher levels where karst features are most prominent on the Dougherty Plain landscape (Crandall, Katz, and Berndt 2013; Katz, Berndt, and Crandall 2014). Agriculture famously threatens wetland ecosystems around the world, and given the high density of GIWs on the Dougherty Plain, it would be challenging to maintain a pasture, pine plantation, or a row-crop farm without intersecting a geographically isolated wetland (Glenn I Martin, Kirkman, and Hepinstall-Cymerman 2012). Buffer programs exist around the world, intending to protect agricultural wetlands from non-point source pollution generated by agricultural practices. Many of these programs recommend a buffer width between 5 and 50 meters (16 and 164 feet), despite that common agricultural pollutants such as nitrate, neonicotinoid pesticides, and atrazine pesticide concentrations are not necessarily mitigated by buffer width (Sawatzky and Fahrig 2019). Evidence suggests that concentrations of these chemicals are most effectively mitigated at the landscape scale. The establishment of 500 to 1,000 foot radii of unfarmed land, or otherwise incentivizing landscape-scale conservation to keep farms uncropped, were found to be the most impactful approaches in one study on a non-karstic landscape (Sawatzky and Fahrig 2019).

Figure 03.10 Geographically Isolated Wetland (GIW) marsh dominated by grasses and sedges situated within a longleaf pine forest. The landscape is actively managed by the Jones Center in Newton, GA. Other GIW vegetation types include cypress savannas, cypress-gum swamps, and shrub bogs (Kirkman and Jack 2017, 159). Photo by author. 42

ISSUES, CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES 04 4.1 AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION Today, like so many of decades prior, agriculture is the predominant land cover type of the Dougherty Plain (Glenn I Martin, Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Kirkman 2013). A patchwork of peanut, corn, wheat, cotton, and soybean row-crop farms compose the landscape; pine plantations and pecan orchards are additionally scattered throughout the region (Turner and Ruscher 1988; Glenn I Martin, Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Kirkman 2013). Commercial forestry and timber harvest in the American southeast largely centers around loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) (Napton et al. 2010; Zhao et al. 2019). Faster growing than the once widespread longleaf pine, these timber species have largely replaced the longleaf ecosystem because of their shorter forest rotations and higher economic returns (Alavalapati, Stainback, and Carter 2002). Widespread implementation of center pivot irrigation systems began in the lower Flint River Basin in the mid-1970s to prevent crops from experiencing droughty conditions and to enhance overall crop yield (K. Rugel et al. 2009; K. Rugel et al. 2012). Groundwater extraction for irrigation purposes increased more than 100% in southwestern Georgia between 1970 and 1976, mainly due to increased water demand when center pivot irrigation systems replaced cable tow irrigation systems in the area (Figure 04.01) (Pierce, Barber, and Stiles 1984). Between 1976 and 1977 in the Flint River Basin alone, the amount of irrigated area jumped from 53,000 hectares to 106,000, and subsequently soared to 263,000 hectares by the year 1980 (Pollard, Grantham, and Blanchard 1978; Jill Qi, Brantley, and Golladay 2020). By the year 2000, the area irrigated in the LFRB had increased nearly ten-fold since 1970, with a total of 607,000 hectares of irrigated land spanning across the basin (Torak and Painter 2006). Groundwater withdrawals from the FAS in the year 2000 approximately totaled 4 billion gallons per day, ranking as the fifth largest among the sixty-six principal aquifers of the United States (Bellino et al. 2018). Nearly ninety percent of this extracted groundwater was obtained from the Upper Floridan Aquifer (Figure 04.02) (Marella and Berndt 2005). The UFA is an essential source of freshwater 44

for public, industrial, and agricultural supply throughout the southeastern United States, and factors such as population growth and increased agricultural production have contributed to an amplified demand for groundwater from the FAS dating back to the year 1950 (Bellino et al. 2018). In 2009, there were more than 4,500 metered center-pivot irrigation systems operating within the Lower Flint River Basin during the growing season, which typically lasts from March through November (K. Rugel et al. 2009; Perry 2021). Approximately eighty percent of this water was withdrawn from the UFA (K. Rugel et al. 2009). Between 1985 and 2010, the greatest agricultural withdrawals were in the Flint River Basin, eighty-four percent of which were composed of groundwater withdrawals (K. Rugel et al. 2009). In 1990, there were five counties on the Dougherty Plain that accounted for two-thirds of the total Flint River Basin groundwater withdrawals, largely due to the need for irrigable water on the agricultural lands (Glenn Ivy Martin 2010). Within the Flint River Basin, agricultural withdrawals were greatest in the Lower Flint River and Spring Creek subbasins, both of which occur on the Dougherty Plain (K. Rugel et al. 2009). Agricultural irrigation is responsible for the largest allocation of groundwater of any single category in the state of Georgia (Glenn I Martin, HepinstallCymerman, and Kirkman 2013). Groundwater extracted from the UFA on the Dougherty Plain is largely used to irrigate row crop farms in the region. The conversion of forested land on the Dougherty Plain into agricultural lands and pine plantations over the last thirty years has intensified; this same trend is observable across the entire American southeast (Glenn I Martin, HepinstallCymerman, and Kirkman 2013). In their land cover type conversion analysis, Glenn I Martin, Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Kirkman (2013) observed that row crop agriculture across the Dougherty Plain stayed relatively stable between the years 1948 and 2007, and yet, there was a “dramatic increase in the intensity of agricultural practices that occurred during the sample period.” The Dougherty Plain saw an increase in irrigated agriculture by 157% between 1993 and 2007, a sharper jump than any other portion of the state (Glenn I Martin, HepinstallCymerman, and Kirkman 2013). In the same time frame, only 15% of the United States saw an increase in irrigated agriculture (Glenn I Martin, HepinstallCymerman, and Kirkman 2013). Fortunately, research has greatly contributed to the irrigation efficiency of the agricultural industry. As of 2015, center pivot irrigation systems are using 30% less water per acre per year than in preceding years, and cover cropping and drip irrigation have become more common practices in the ACF Basin (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015).

4.2 WATER WARS Population growth, urban sprawl, and the long term extensification of agricultural 45

landscapes are of particular concern in the ACF Basin (Mitra, Singh, and Srivastava 2019). These stresses posed by anthropogenic actions threaten the availability and supply of freshwater and aquatic nutrients to the Apalachicola Bay, a region that is currently straining to support a dwindling shellfish industry (Lawrence 2016). These stresses are magnified by occurrences of La Niña Southern Oscillation events which are known to induce droughts in the region, resulting in lost agricultural productivity that has prompted water-use restrictions in previous years (Abtew and Trimble 2010). These economic impacts have contributed to the intensification of long-term conflicts between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, often referred to as the Tri-State Water Wars (Vest 1992). These tri-state tensions date back to the 1980s and 1990s at a time when Atlanta, Georgia was noticeably urbanizing (Rogers 2021). Atlanta is the largest city within the ACF Basin and receives the bulk of its drinking water from Lake Lanier, a manmade lake that was formed following the construction of Buford

1976

1992

Dam in 1956 on the upper Chattahoochee River (Payne 2014). Buford Dam was originally installed to produce hydropower and to control flooding; supplying water to the public was considered “an incidental benefit” (Payne 2014). However, with a new reliable water source in the mix, county governments were able to leverage grants and municipal bonds over the next few decades to increase water withdrawals from Lake Lanier, using the region’s projected growth as proof of need (Basmajian 2011). The other notable manmade water body in the Atlanta area is Allatoona Lake. The construction of the Allatoona Lake and Dam Project was authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1941 to provide water supply to Atlanta (Burkett 1993). In 1989, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Atlanta proposed to double the amount of water uptake from Lake Lanier, recognizing the constraints on their allocation of water at the time to serve as a limitation to the city’s growth (Payne 2014). Subsequently, in 1990, Alabama filed the first lawsuit pertaining to water

2013

Figure 04.01 Growth of center pivot irrigation across the Dougherty Plain. Data made available by M.D. Williams et al. 2017. Maps by the author. 47

rights in the ACF River Basin against the USACE as there was fear of increased withdrawals reducing surface flows along the reaches of the Chattahoochee River that form the Georgia-Alabama border, potentially hindering development along the borderland (Lipford 2004; Payne 2014). Soon after, Florida joined the lawsuit fearing damage to the oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay, and Georgia then followed suit by joining with the USACE (Payne 2014). On January 3, 1992, the governors from the three states agreed to work toward reaching a settlement and classified the lawsuit as inactive (Payne 2014). Come 1997, Florida, Alabama and Georgia each adopted the Apalachicola-

END GUN

SPAN

TOWER

SPRINKLER DROP

UPPER FLORIDAN WELL

ChattahoocheeFlint River Basin Compact, signifying a commitment to work together in order to form water allocation and planning protocols amidst the current dispute (Payne 2014; ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact 1997). Alas, after years with no permanent agreement and after numerous extensions, the Compact officially expired in August 2003 (Payne 2014). A series of lawsuits between the tri-states have taken place since then, as have record-breaking droughts, two separate moratoriums on UFA well installations on the Dougherty Plain, and large mussel die-offs in and around Apalachicola Bay (Payne 2014; Rogers 2021).

Groundwater extraction for agricultural practices on the Dougherty Plain has received a lot of water conservation-related attention amidst the Water Wars. Unforeseen impacts to hydrological patterns occurring in the area raise concern for both agrarian and non-agrarian communities alike, and the response of the FAS to regional stresses has manifested in the form of reduced spring discharge and increases in nitrate contamination of groundwater (Allums et al. 2009). Groundwater withdrawals have additionally contributed to reductions in streamflow in the ACF River Basin (Torak, Painter, and Peck 2010). It is well understood that these effects contribute to freshwater quality decline and volume

PIVOT POINT

SANDY CLAY RESIDUUM 0’ - 100’ Avg. depth of 50’

OCALA LIMESTONE 0’ - 350’ Thickest in southeastern portion of DP; exposed along reaches of major waterways.

Figure 04.02 Anatomy of a center pivot system and depth to the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Graphic by the author. 49

modification, which consequently contribute to economic and environmental damage to communities downstream of affected river and stream reaches (Mitra, Singh, and Srivastava 2019). A primary concern relating to the ongoing conflict is the lowering of streamflow levels in the Flint River and its tributaries during drought, which is induced in part by increased pumping of groundwater to meet water needs for irrigation purposes (Singh et al. 2017). Most recently, the state of Georgia had been involved in a legal battle with Florida over water distribution rights to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (Sherman 2021). In the lawsuit, Florida alleged that Georgia was overusing the ACF Basin waters, resulting in the collapse of the Apalachicola Bay oyster and fishery industry (Sherman 2021). Though the United States Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit in April 2021 citing Florida’s failure to prove that overuse of ACF water was the cause of the industry’s decline, the ACF Basin remains contentious terrain for the three states. Located at the geographic intersection of the Tri-states, and coupled with its unique geohydrology and agriculturally dense landscape, Georgia’s Dougherty Plain remains a focal point in the Tri-State Water Wars conversation (Perry and Yager 2011).

4.3 GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES & WELL MORATORIUMS Managing drawdown of groundwater resources and balancing water yield with precipitation and recharge rates has been part of the regional conversation for decades. The Flint River Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan was created in 1999 by the GA EPD in response to growing concern over water conservation in southwestern Georgia (McDowell 2005). The Conservation Plan included a call for extensive monitoring of stream-aquifer interactions, water extraction patterns, and the creation of an Advisory Committee to assist the Environmental Protection Division in drafting the Conservation Plan (McDowell 2005). Most famously, the Conservation Plan preceded the Flint River Drought Protection Act which the Georgia State Assembly passed in the year 2000 (Couch and McDowell 2006). The Flint River Drought Protection Act’s passage included the first of two moratoriums to come, effectively suspending the issuance of new farm use permits from the UFA on the Dougherty Plain (McDowell 2005). This first moratorium was lifted in 2006 with the exception of “Red Zones” or “Capacity Use Areas” on the Dougherty Plain (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). The second moratorium was put into place in July 2012, preventing new extraction from the FAS across the entirety of the Dougherty Plain (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). As of writing, the latter moratorium is still in place. These moratoriums have contributed to the increase in new irrigation wells 50

that extract groundwater from the deeper Claiborne Aquifer. Although more expensive to drill a well to the Claiborne, as opposed to the shallower UFA, there is not much alternative to landowners that require additional groundwater access at this time. The hydraulic connectivity between the FAS and the Claiborne aquifer are poorly understood, leaving the possibility that overexploitation of this resource could have unforeseen impacts on the ground and the UFA (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). In 2001, an irrigation buyout program was temporarily installed which paid farmers not to irrigate their crops throughout the duration of a statedeclared drought. This was the first and only time that a buyout program was implemented under the Flint River Drought Protection Act, although droughts have intensified since the time of initial implementation (Elfner and McDowell 2004). The policy did not prove to operate effectively, and the state government claimed that the cost of the program was too high to continue implementing it on a drought-to-drought basis (Elfner and McDowell 2004). Making use of the buy-back program was especially challenging to farmers. Declaring drought and requesting participation in the buy-back needed to be announced by landowners by March 1st, which is between five and eight months prior to the lowest flows occurring in the region’s streams and waterways (Couch and McDowell 2006). Notably, extraction restrictions from the UFA and FAS have been restricted to the Lower Flint River Basin agricultural lands; uptake from the upper and middle reaches of the Flint River have not been hampered (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015).

4.4 PROGRESS MADE: APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT STAKEHOLDERS After decades of landowner frustration pertaining to water use and allocation, water users of the ACF Basin region came together to form the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint Stakeholders (ACFS) group in July 2008 in an effort to encourage productive conversations about the state of the region’s water supply (K. Rugel 2020). Meeting attendees included farmers, municipal leaders, power companies representatives, outdoor enthusiasts, economists, ecologists, and government resource managers from federal and state agencies, among others (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). The group agreed that a consensus about water-use would be necessary among those present, and come 2015, the group released the ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan with the intention of “defin[ing] the water quantity and water quality needs of the Basin stakeholders, evaluat[ing] alternative water management scenarios, improv[ing] conditions throughout the Basin, and urg[ing] action on Basin51

wide management recommendations” (K. Rugel 2020; ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). What started as a core group of interested parties in 2008 has since transitioned into a dynamic organization built of more than onehundred members who actively work to fulfill the original objectives outlined in the Sustainable Water Management Plan: 1.

“Ensure and/or maintain adequate water supplies for public supply/municipal uses including wastewater assimilation needs of current and projected future populations;

2. Maintain existing and promote future water availability and access for water dependent industries, power generation and recreational interests; 3. Promote the optimization of the use of water for agricultural irrigation including: types of irrigation technology, selection of crops, sustainable and resource-based permitting, and water withdrawal monitoring; 4. Determine the nature and extent of commercial navigation that the ACF Basin can effectively support; 5. Protect the natural systems and ecology of the ACF Basin by defining and implementing desired flow regimes and lake levels, water quality enhancements to maintain a healthy natural system and support a productive aquatic ecosystem in the Basin and the estuary; 6. Create and support relationships with local governmental institutions and other public bodies within the ACF Basin to promote sustainability of water resources and to address concerns associated with the historical and cultural resources of the Basin as they relate to the management of the Basin’s water resources.” (Rooks 2011; ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015).

These objectives are telling of stakeholder values and provide important insights into stakeholder communication, and dedication to the sustainability of the Basin for future generations. The ACFS continue to meet regularly and hold meetings that are open to any interested party. Prior to releasing the Sustainable Water Management Plan in 2015, the ACFS identified fourteen specific sectors of water-related concern to the ACF watershed: “water supply, farm and urban agriculture, recreation, local government, water quality, industry and manufacturing, navigation, historic and cultural, hydropower, environmental and conservation, seafood industry, thermal power, business and economic development and ‘other.’” (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). All of these categories are assigned a representative from each of the four sub-basins outlined by the ACFS: the Upper Chattahoochee; Lower/Middle Chattahoochee; Flint River; and the Apalachicola River (Rooks 2011; K. Rugel 2020; ACFS Sustainable Water Management 52

Plan 2015). Tasked with representing the interests of their respective regions, consensus building surrounding water management is addressed and, ideally accomplished, through both conversation and using performance metrics that account for the breadth of water needs throughout the watershed (GAWPPC 2021; ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). As noted by K. Rugel (2020), the ACFS commitment is unique in that it is a collective governance initiative spearheaded by stakeholders. While there are many instances and case studies in which formal governments instigate outreach to stakeholders to address resource challenges, the ACFS is a distinctively citizendriven, apolitical organization (K. Rugel 2020). Its existence sets a unique tone for the Basin, signaling a deep need for water solutions that continue to maintain aspects of cultural identity as indicated by the fourteen water sectors outlined in the Sustainable Water Management Plan.

4.5 NOTABLE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS In response to environmental degradation issues posed by the traditional agricultural practices in the United States, the federal government has been allocating funding to address these problems on a voluntary basis for decades (Agrawal 1999). Among these investments are the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Bill programs (Claassen 2003; A.P. Reimer and Prokopy 2014a). Born from the New Deal, Farm Bill programs in the United States date back to 1933 and were originally designed to alleviate the economic pains brought about by the Great Depression (Morgan 2010). The first Farm Bill was designed to keep farmers and their families financially afloat; at the time, one-quarter of the U.S. population lived on farms (Morgan 2010). Its passage incentivized farmers to increase planting of crops in exchange for financial support from the federal government (Morgan 2010). Since then, this piece of legislation has been reauthorized roughly every five years, maturing into an expansive government program that provides subsidies for a range of agricultural and conservation-motivated efforts. In 2010 alone, the United States government spent more than $5 billion on programs affiliated with the Farm Bill, including direct payments to farmers for implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs), and providing conservation-oriented farmers with on-theground technical assistance (A.P. Reimer and Prokopy 2014a). Agri-environmental policies in the United States do not have direct regulatory control over pollution sourced from agriculture, resulting in many of the voluntary, incentive-based policy tactics evident in the multitude of Farm Bills that have passed since the 1930s (Dowd, Press, and Los Huertos 2008). The Farm Bill passed in 1985 ushered in a new age in agricultural policy, incorporating environmental concerns into the legislation. Provisions to limit 53

wetland and erosive soil conversion to croplands were established, as was the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which provided incentives to farmers to plant vegetative cover on erosive soils and wetlands (Gray and Teels 2006; Paudel, Dwivedi, and Dickens 2021). USDA conservation programs have undergone revisions in recent decades, specifically the 1996 Farm Bill which added new incentive programs to the master list (Schertz and Doering 1999; Stubbs 2010; A.P. Reimer and Prokopy 2014a). Perhaps most famously, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was formed in 1996, establishing a federal conservation program that targets agricultural landscapes, providing cost-share incentives and technical assistance to farmers in exchange for adopting conservation and BMPs on agricultural properties (A. Reimer and Prokopy 2014b). Today, EQIP is the second largest federal conservation program in the country, and has been applied to nearly 200 million acres since its creation (Stubbs 2010; USDA 2011; A.P. Reimer and Prokopy 2014a). The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is the primary agency within the USDA that is dedicated to conservation initiatives and BMPs; it administers most federal conservation programs, including EQIP and the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) which aims to optimize irrigation efficiency on agricultural lands (A.P. Reimer and Prokopy 2014a; Sun 2013). Interestingly, while EQIP and other programs like it are federal, NRCS state extensions are largely responsible for implementing EQIP on a statewide basis (A. Reimer and Prokopy 2014b). Unlike EQIP and other NRCS-administrated programs, CRP programs are administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), a separate agency within the USDA (A.P. Reimer and Prokopy 2014a; USDA 2022a). One of the many FSA programs of relevance to the Dougherty Plain is the Longleaf Pine Initiative (LLPI). Since 2009, LLPI has worked with public and private conservation partners throughout nine southeastern states to increase the presence of longleaf pine forests throughout its native range (Aubrey 2021). With a 15-year goal to raise longleaf pine acreage from 3.4 to 8 million acres, the LLPI offers technical resources and monetary incentives to landowners willing to convert portions of their property to longleaf forest (McIntyre et al. 2018, 298). Funds for the LLPI are provided through the CRP, acting as just one of several subsidiary Initiatives outlined under the CRP. Sub-categorized under Initiatives are Conservation Practices (CPs) which outline specific actions that landowners can take to conserve a variety of resources. For example, Under CP-36, 38D, and 38C-3A, farmers are permitted to convert existing croplands and pastures into longleaf plantations and receive federal funding for doing so (Paudel, Dwivedi, and Dickens 2021). The incentives for participating include a 50% reimbursement for establishing the longleaf stand, a payment upon signing of $247 per hectare, and a yearly payment based on the opportunity cost of the converted land for the first ten years (Paudel, Dwivedi, 54

and Dickens 2021). CRP-CP36 falls within the LLPI, whereas CP38D and CP38C-3A fall under the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) program, a separate initiative, which aims to restore 200,000 hectares of high connectivity landscape to provide habitat for threatened, endangered and candidate species as identified by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) (Paudel, Dwivedi, and Dickens 2021). The FWS is an agency situated within the Department of Interior (DOI), unlike the FSA and NRCS. Between 2016 and 2018, private landowners have committed to restoring nearly 137,000 hectares of farmland to longleaf pine forests (Susaeta and Gong 2019). While interest in restoring longleaf pine ecosystems is growing, a reliable economic model for land transitions and monetary returns is not yet available to landowners, serving as a potential obstacle to convincing landowners to plant longleaf instead of other common southern timber species (Susaeta and Gong 2019; GAWPPC 2021). Although there have been a handful of economic analyses performed in regard to longleaf management, results are mixed (Susaeta and Gong 2019). The CRP additionally incentivizes the installation of buffer strips along marginal wetlands through CP-30 under the Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR) Initiative (Conservation Reserve Program CP-30). In exchange for installing grass wetland buffers on marginal lands, participants are guaranteed up to 15 years of annual rental payments from the USDA; up to 90% reimbursement of the cost of buffer installment; a sign-up incentive (SIP) of $100 per acre; and a maintenance rate incentive (Conservation Reserve Program CP-30). Additional incentives are sometimes offered by individual states through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CP-30 is offered in continuous sign-up, meaning enrollment can take place at any point (Conservation Reserve Program CP-30). CLEAR was originally created to incentivize practices that improve water quality through sediment capture, mitigating nutrient loading, and combating algal blooms in freshwater systems. Other CLEAR practices include grass swale installation (CP-8A); riparian buffer installation (CP22); wetland restorations (CP23); and prairie strip installation (CP43) (Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR) Prairie Strip Practice Fact Sheet 2019). At least 40% of all CRP acres are CLEAR CPs (Richards, Krome, and Hernandez 2020). The FWS actively works with non-federal landowners to establish native longleaf pine systems on private land, ultimately to achieve their long-term goal of providing habitat for threatened, endangered and declining species (Van Lear et al. 2005). The Safe Harbor Program was initiated by the FWS in 1995 under the Endangered Species Act (Smith et al. 2018). Like the CRP and the aforementioned NRCS programs, Safe Harbor is also funded by each Farm Bill passage (USFWS 2018). Landowners that voluntarily enroll in this program are expected to manage their land for endangered species habitat to support 55

the existing populations known to occur on their grounds (Smith et al. 2018). In exchange for their participation and fulfillment of conditions, landowners are given assurance from the FSW that the agency will not require additional management activities without consent, even if population numbers of the target species continue to increase (Smith et al. 2018; Kush et al. 2004). This program is a conservation initiative as much as it is a trust-building initiative, working to address the fears and concerns of private landowners surrounding longleaf pine management and the potential population increases of rare species, thus hindering activity and development on these lands long-term. Long-term, the Safe Harbor Program aims to restore 200,000 hectares of habitat for a multitude of endangered species (Paudel, Dwivedi, and Dickens 2021). In the southeast, this program is largely promoted to protect habitat for red cockaded-woodpecker (Picoides borealis) populations, a species that is currently designated as endangered under the ESA (Mehmood and Zhang 2005). These land conversion incentives pose interesting questions surrounding the Dougherty Plain’s regional identity and trust in government programs. Fluctuations in crop pricing, climate change impacts on crop success, as well as changes in legislation, policy and regulations are likely contributors to farmer suicide rates in Georgia (Scheyett, Bayakly, and Whitaker 2019). Relationships between personal self-worth, altering stewardship practices for water conservation purposes, and reduced crop production as a result of the 2001 irrigation buyout program are understudied, but could provide clues to understanding farmer willingness to participate in initiatives that hope to promote groundwater health. Understanding individual experiences with government programs is of particular importance, as it impacts the motivation of landowners to apply and re-enroll in conservation programs (A. Reimer and Prokopy 2014b). Finally, the baseline willingness of farmers to participate in conservation programs varies across state and watershed levels, and largely depends on the target item of each program (Liu, Bruins, and Heberling 2018). Economic models surrounding the behavior and decision making of farmers’ willingness to participate in the adoption of best management practices are based around the concept that farmers are always making economic and return-driven choices. While economic concerns have been and continue to be the primary motivator behind BMP adoption, more research is needed to understand the role of psychology in BMP implementation (Liu, Bruins, and Heberling 2018). Factors such as relationships with extension officers, local and state-level policies, and the proportion of locally impaired waterways as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have each been found to influence farmer participation in conservation programs (Liu, Bruins, and Heberling 2018). Understanding these trends could help public agencies gauge the needs of farmers and identify the thresholds of incentive programs that will increase landowner participation in BMP adoption. From a strictly economic 56

standpoint, farmers are likely to enroll in public conservation programs based on the opportunity cost of land, making clear the importance of maintaining slidingscale financial incentives and continuous enrollment opportunities for farmers to make conservation landscapes economically competitive with crop values (Camhi 2019).

4.6 PREDICTING THE FUTURE: CLIMATE & THE REGIONAL ROLE OF THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN Climate change poses a level of uncertainty for the American southeast. The net availability of the southeast’s water supply is projected to decline over the course of the next few decades with the westernmost portions of the region experiencing the greatest losses (ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan 2015). Droughts have already become increasingly common in the southeast, and this trend is expected to continue amidst a warming climate, and during La Niña years (Karl et al. 2009). Generally, where droughts increase, managed and natural forest productivity will decline, and incidences of tree mortality will rise (Karl et al. 2009). Surface water storage systems in the southeast are typically built as “within-year” systems, sized to hold water when flows are at their peak, which is typically in autumn months, and release water during the driest months in the spring and summer (Sun 2013). These systems are particularly vulnerable to climatic changes in runoff and precipitation patterns because of their small size. While precipitation patterns are difficult to project, of particular note are projected changes in regional evapotranspiration (ET) (Sun 2013). Water loss through ET is likely to increase as temperatures rise and the native ranges of locally adapted species shift, contributing to declines in stream flows and groundwater recharge (Sun 2013). The ACFS is presently working to put together models that will help predict future droughts in the ACF Basin. In January 2022, the ACFS launched an online dashboard that provides interested parties with real-time data on streamflow levels, reservoir levels, precipitation and drought trends (“ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin Drought & Water Dashboard” 2022). This tool will help landowners and various stakeholders within the ACF Basin make management decisions based on real-time data by making this information accessible in a single online location. Digital platforms such as this in combination with the wealth of research that has been conducted on ACF water resources have helped to establish the ACF is a uniquely data-rich catchment basin. Maintaining the UFA as a reliable source of irrigable water is of the utmost concern to many stakeholders of the Dougherty Plain. As its karst geology allows for quick recharge during times of precipitation, the biggest concern 57

for stakeholders now surrounds the uncertainties about changes in future precipitation patterns and bridging prolonged periods of drought (Figure 04.03) (GAWPPC 2021). Across the state of Georgia, temperatures have been increasing from historic seasonal averages, and storm events are less frequent and of higher intensities, making the need for climate change mitigation and groundwater conservation increasingly dire (Figure 04.04) (Binita, Shepherd, and Gaither 2015). Practices and methodologies for artificially recharging karstic landscapes are still being explored. Given that karst aquifers supply nearly one quarter of the world’s potable water, there is interest in emerging techniques for Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) in regions where precipitation is projected to decline and where urbanization is expected to grow (Daher et al. 2011). This practice recharges underlying aquifers through surface infiltration such as the construction of artificial streams and basins, but is not intended for later recovery (Daher et al. 2011; Holländer, Mull, and Panda 2009). Developing such methodologies is challenging given the high heterogeneity of water exchange patterns in karst aquifers, though rechargeability indices and modeling techniques like the Aquifer Rechargeability Assessment in Karst are under development to account for these heterogeneities (Daher et al. 2011). Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is also gaining traction as a potential remediation for areas expected to experience prolonged periods of drought (Wilson 2007). This practice entails injecting water into aquifers for later extraction, but has been highlighted as controversial given its association with injecting sewage effluent into aquifers for disposal, and the

1980s

1990s

Decadal Anomalies in Precipitation -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Figure 04.03 Anomalies in decadal precipitation in 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s as compared to 30-year climate normal (1971-2000). Graphic adapted from Binita, Shepherd, and Gaither (2015). 58

2000s

2010s

NORTH

overall degradation of water quality (Bacchus 2022; M.C. Monroe and Hundemer 2021). Increased artificial recharge can be facilitated through intentional vegetation management that replaces deep-rooted vegetation with shallow-rooted vegetation or bare soil, or by changing to plants that intercept less precipitation, thus increasing the amount of water that reaches the soil (Bouwer 2002). Of course, this fails to address water quality concerns, and does little to prevent nitrate contamination of groundwater from agricultural landscapes. In wooded areas, artificial recharge has been achieved by replacing lucrative timber species with drought-adapted trees (Querner 2000). This is particularly relevant to the Dougherty Plain which has experienced a dramatic intensification of land use conversion from longleaf pine forest and unirrigated agriculture to loblolly pine plantations, slash pine plantations and irrigated row-crop agriculture in the last thirty years (Glenn I Martin, Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Kirkman 2013). One recent study that modeled a land conversion from one 235,000 acre coniferous forest on the Dougherty Plain to longleaf pine suggested that restoring these ecosystems could be a reliable water conservation technique as they exhibit less evapotranspiration than other dominant forest types in the region (Ji Qi, Brantley, and Golladay 2021).

1980s

1990s

Decadal Anomalies in Temperature -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Figure 04.04

2000s

2010s

NORTH

Anomalies in decadal temperature in 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s as compared to 30-year climate normal (1971-2000). Graphic adapted from Binita, Shepherd, and Gaither (2015). 59

SHIFTING PARADIGMS 05 5.1 AGRICULTURE, KARST, & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE In the landscape architecture discipline, the focus on water management has largely been influenced by engineering vernacular, with a particular emphasis on stormwater. Design professions, landscape and non-landscape architects alike, have been accused of discipline-wide complicity in maintaining a paradigm which frames water as utilitarian, ignoring the eco-socio-political relationships between water and all that it interacts with (Tucker 2019). While this paradigm has been challenged in recent decades by design professionals, and a shift toward addressing water through hydro-social and multi-scalar approaches is gaining footing as a basis for a new water paradigm, the phasing away from engineer-dominant epistemologies is still underway (Linton and Budds 2014; Boelens et al. 2016; Tucker 2019). The perception of water as something to be engineered likely enables technocratic water management strategies that isolate natural systems from social ones (Tucker 2019). This approach muddles the influence humans have had on the form and flow of water systems, surface and groundwater alike. Designers are no exception. Traditional design pedagogy trains aspiring landscape architects to consider water, namely stormwater, as a nuisance and as something to relocate, infiltrate or empirically address as a problem that needs solving (Tucker 2019). This approach arguably cultivates a discipline and a practice that is subservient to engineering interventions, diminishes design methodologies, and maintains the current water paradigm instead of promoting more sustainable alternatives, even when there are several archetypes of green infrastructures and water restoration projects from which to derive ideas and inspiration (Tucker 2019; Lipschitz 2019). There is a deep need, rooted in the historical treatment and perception of water as a utility, for landscape architects to emphasize the connectedness of systems, particularly systems that are hidden from sight. The vision of surface water as a nuisance falls within an “old-world” design framework and contributes to the neglect of subterranean systems. Consequently, there has been a general 60

failure to incorporate acknowledgements of groundwater or any kind of care for subsurface systems into the realm of landscape architecture (Laboy 2017). In the context of karst, the failure to acknowledge the underlying geology, subsurface hydrology, and other related features is nothing short of an analytical oversight. Conversely, in situations that allow for the acknowledgement of the subsurface by designers, surface-subsurface relationships are inferred from point-specific observations and then extrapolated to the landscape (Doolittle et al. 2012). Regional validation of these point-data does not always take place. This neglection of the subterranean is not unique to landscape architects. The underground and its biotic and abiotic systems are often overlooked in traditional architectural practices (Laboy 2017). Design that makes groundwater visible to the public eye is increasingly common in urban environments, including submerged gathering spaces that collect runoff during storm events and intentional material choices that improve groundwater quality (Laboy 2017). While these initiatives engage with the notion of the hydro-social cycle in urban settings, similar initiatives are largely unexplored in agrarian and rural contexts. In this way, the Dougherty Plain landscape poses two major contextual challenges for landscape architects: designing with complex subsurface systems, and working in a land cover type that is, at present, foreign to the discipline. Landscape designers have focused on urban settings, primarily in coastal locations, in anticipation of the several growing threats posed by climate change such as storm surges, sea level rise, and an intensifying heat island effect (Lipschitz 2019). This literature review uncovered published research that has examined the relationship between landscape architecture and geology, and the perceptions of landscape architecture as an urban-centric discipline. Only one publication about the relationship of karst and landscape architecture was found, and its emphasis was on geo-tourism of cave sites in Indonesia (Cahyanti and Agus 2017). The only karst-specific landscape architectural designs found through the literature review were the Town Branch Commons design in Kentucky, USA and The Community Park in Guiyang, China (“Town Branch Commons” 2013; Holmes 2021). While both designs occur on karstic landscapes and weave interpretive lessons about karst into their fabric, they also both primarily serve as educational landscapes that abstract karst, they are both designed at the site-scale, and they both occur in urban centers. These two designs validate the research findings of Al Basha and Sándor (2020) and Lin and Brown (2021): the relationship between geology and landscape architecture is largely abstracted in practice or linked to enhancing human comfort in designed spaces; it is not ordinarily tied to water quality or resource protection. There are, however, opportunities to explore hydro-social interactions in agricultural settings, especially pertaining to water conservation and quality. For example, designers and educators in Illinois have begun examining the history 61

of tile drain infrastructure in Midwestern agricultural landscapes and exploring possibilities to transform existing drainage infrastructures (Lipschitz 2019). In fact, there are potential solutions that have already been devised specifically for cities, but the application of these designs has yet to extend outside of urban centers and into rural communities, including interventions such as: two-stage ditch design; saturated buffers for effluent uptake; and constructed wetlands for water treatment (Lipschitz 2019). These proposals create unique opportunities for planting experimentation, including the selection of species well adapted for nutrient loading, situating plants so they serve as corridors, and selecting species for their seasonal water use properties to help maintain minimal baseflows in stream reaches that provide habitat for endangered species in the southeast (S.W. Golladay et al. 2004; Lipschitz 2019). Design standards and construction guidelines are currently lacking in this context (Johnson and Buffler 2008). Moreover, design standards for karstic environments also appear to be lacking. On karst, and especially on karstic agricultural landscapes, an emphasis on slowing water for treatment through natural infrastructure is needed more than infiltration design. The Georgia stormwater handbook also fails to address how to design on karstic landscapes, only mentioning that development of any kind should, ideally, not occur on these landscapes (Georgia Stormwater Management Manual 2016). However, interest in designing for water through a systems approach is gaining traction throughout the landscape design professions. Historically in the practice, landscape architects might have been considered providers of construction details and other blueprints. In recent years, these blueprints, and the design process overall, have become essential pieces of the toolkit landscape architects use for determining, in collaboration with stakeholders, the best possible solutions to social, economic, ecological and spatial challenges (Kempenaar and van den Brink 2018). Until recently, most aquatic conservation efforts were designed to emphasize surface water as the target system, most likely because of its visibility and observable vulnerability to human activity (Boulton 2005). However, research in recent decades has identified groundwater as a cornerstone of the global hydrological cycle, a harbor of unique ecological communities, and a source of cultural significance to societies that value ecosystems which depend on groundwater sources (Boulton 2005). Karstic systems, which compose the subterranean of many of the world’s agriculture epicenters, are especially vulnerable to the footprint of the industry. Over-utilized and, arguably, under-protected, the future of these geologic systems is deeply tied to the future of the social and agricultural realms that lie on their surface.

5.2 UNDERSTANDING LANDSCAPES THROUGH MIXED METHODS APPROACHES Land management and ecology have long been perceived as quantitative 62

disciplines, relying on numeric metrics to indicate landscape scale trends. This dependence on the quantitative could be the case for a number of different reasons, the most likely being the heritage association of hard science with observable trends and objective, unbiased data collection and analysis (Ashley and Boyd 2006). On the other hand, qualitative methods are known to focus on subjective phenomena, such as ideas and perceptions (Ashley and Boyd 2006). The separation of qualitative and quantitative methods in conservation science disciplines has been narrowing in recent years, especially as the link between healthy ecosystems and human communities has become increasingly clear (Menzel and Teng 2010). Awareness of the link between human health and ecology, united with urgency needed to find solutions to environmental problems that are exacerbated by a changing climate, loss of (human and wildlife) habitat, and resource depletion, novel approaches to landscape planning and design are more desirable now than possibly ever before (Leitao and Ahern 2002). Landscape planners have been using quantitative data to inform design and policy decisions for decades, beginning in the 1950s with transportation planners; water resource and urban planners followed suit in the 1960s and 1970s (Fabos 1985; Leitao and Ahern 2002). The creation of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the 1960s made quantitative map-based metrics more usable to planners, providing a spatial visualization platform to accompany and make graphic sense of raw data (Leitao and Ahern 2002). Only within the last two decades has planning for sustainability at the regional and landscape scales become just as much part of the conversation as planning at the site scale (Leitao and Ahern 2002). This presents a crucial threshold for planning on karstic landscapes, as these landscapes require both site-specific and regional approaches to planning and design given the unique challenges associated with their heterogeneity (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). The hydrodynamics, microclimates as formed by topographical changes, and the various land use types that exist atop these geologic systems call for both regional metrics that describe the ecological dynamics of the area, as well as specialized knowledge of the region and the interactions occurring at the site and micro-levels (van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen 2012). That said, there is an argument to be made that there is value in developing a specialized design methodology for karst environments, especially one that calls designers to pinpoint characteristics and feature classes that require design attention across multiple scales. While there is a great deal of value in utilizing traditional landscape architectural approaches to conduct site inventories, these approaches on their own fall short of understanding the full complexity and system dynamics of karst landscapes. Consequently, they fail to highlight or reveal the hydrologic significance of critical 63

features, and they neglect to incorporate poetic aspects of karst that contribute to its unique identity. Combining methods that integrate published research with knowledge from specialists, and first-person observations of karst features could lead to a holistic and thoughtful design output that better represents the landscape, and that definitively unifies the relationship between site and region (Howard et al. 2013). Mixed method approaches are able to incorporate each of these pieces into a single process. Poets, artists, and explorers hold a uniquely distinctive role in qualitative approaches to understanding landscapes. With intentions to observe, internalize, and reflect, poetic and artistic methods may give a narrative to landscapes in a form that quantitative and normative approaches are simply not intended to accomplish. For example, “transareal traveling” is a non-normative approach that combines mapping and spatial analysis with a forced personal reflection of regional space (Diedrich, Lee, and Braae 2014). Shifting away from universal design solutions, regional transects that combine detailed analysis with personal experience creates a methodology which seemingly integrates the most reliable sources needed to make sense of landscapes as geologically complex as karst. Furthermore, transects designers the opportunity to experience and acknowledge landscape ephemera, or the temporal and textural aspects of a landscape that would otherwise go unnoticed (Brassley 1998). Components such as seasonal changes, the hues and textures of different farm crops, and the growth and decay of plant matter are not necessarily inventoried by designers, despite their potential to evoke the spirit of their respective landscapes, or the genius loci (Vecco 2020). Combining nontraditional approaches with more traditional, or normative, datasets allows for measurements, indices and spatial information to remain represented in a quantitative form, but with an added narrative attached to them provided by a specialist, a literature review, and/or the designer’s own interpretation upon visitation. Assessing the sustainability of a landscape and the environmental health of a landscape tend to depend on different sets of metrics. Sustainability indices include development measures in their calculations, whereas environmental indices tend to measure individual components of whole environments (van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen 2012). Indices or metrics specific to karst landscapes are needed to adequately gauge successes and failures of management choices in these complex landscapes; the Karst Sustainability Index (KSI) produced by van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen (2012) was developed to do just that by hybridizing environmental and sustainability indices to examine the practices taking place on karst (Table 01; Figure 05.01; Figure 05.02; Figure 05.03). The Karst Sustainability Index provides a foundation from 64

which designers, planners and the like can begin thinking about enhancing the sustainability of karstic areas, but these metrics require that karst specialists be the ones responsible for their evaluation (van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen 2012; Murphy 2008). For non-specialists and generalists that work on karst landscapes, background knowledge of karst and the various socioenvironmental layers embedded in their existence are essential to bridge the language barriers that are bound to arise from interdisciplinary collaboration (Dalgaard, Hutchings, and Porter 2003).

5.3 A NEED FOR NEW PERSPECTIVES In a time of uncertainty, amidst global climate change, resource overconsumption and land use conversion, landscape conditions often change faster than legislators and scientists can predict (Burri et al. 2019). Approaches to landscape management that utilize transdisciplinary research and encourage adaptive management strategies provide a means to address sustainable resource use under rapidly evolving conditions (Burri et al. 2019). As presented throughout the last three chapters, preserving groundwater quality in the FAS is a primary concern to water users on the Dougherty Plain. A wealth of datasets pertaining to the region’s ecology, geohydrology, agricultural practices, and climate are available, and each one can help inform what best management practices are for working landscapes, and how to best incentivize landowners to adopt them. Yet, the Dougherty Plain’s karstic terrain still presents many challenges, and an understanding of these systems at multiple scales, from site to landscape, are needed to best implement groundwater conservation practices. A range of disciplines have contributed research to the Dougherty Plain, adding to the vast library of publications and wealth of knowledge that is available to interested parties. Notably, landscape architects have been absent from this conversation, despite taking on projects that entail solving landscapescale problems at the site and regional levels. On the other side of the same coin, given the significance of karst landscapes and aquifers to communities around the world, it is surprising that there is, at present, no design methodology that incorporates the geologic connectivity and nuanced challenges characteristic of karst has been made available to landscape architects, especially given that practitioners are generally untrained in the level of geology and hydrology needed to understand the complexities of karstic landscapes (Al Basha and Sándor 2020; Lin and Brown 2021). Regarding the Dougherty Plain, ecologists, biologists, hydrologists and the like have published a swath of information pertaining to the importance of 65

protecting the region’s natural systems and the consequential resilience this protection would bring. Design research is new terrain, despite the value that “research through design” approaches have historically had. Defined by Faste and Faste (2012), this research style stems from the theory that designing with known conditions is a baseline approach, but as conditions change and designs age, new approaches to landscape design are adapted and re-adapted to incorporate the lessons learned from recorded achievements and failures. This sort of research is ongoing, and thus, continues to build upon itself, ultimately promoting and integrating new findings about the region as they come about (Handmer and Dovers 1996; Bahadur, Ibrahim, and Tanner 2010; Faste and Faste 2012). While research in the traditional sense results quantifiable contributions to a field study, design research tends to result in planning through creative exploration (Faste and Faste 2012). There is a lineage of designers that have defined “design research” as research though action, or knowledge acquired through the act of design (Biggs 2002; Zimmerman, Stolterman, and Forlizzi 2010; Faste and Faste 2012). Although not formalized in the way that hard science methodologies are perceived to be, design research serves as a novel approach in addressing many challenges that require urgent attention.

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

En1

1.0

0.8

En2

1.0

En11

0.8

0.6

En10

0.4

En3

0.4

0.2

En4

En9

S6 S5 66

En8

En5 En7

En6

Table 01. Karst Sustainability Index indicators and targets for maintaining a sustainable karst landscape (Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen 2012).

ECONOMIC Ec1 1.0

0.8

Ec6

0.6

Ec2

0.4

0.2

Ec5

Left to right: Figure 05.01, 05.02, 05.03.

Ec3

Radar diagrams depicting the ideal baseline conditions of a sustainable karst landscape as defined by the indicators and targets outlined by van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen (2012) in Table 01 . Meeting the percentage objectives outlined by Table 01 and visualized in these diagrams constitutes a sustainable karst landscape as defined by van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen (2012). Graphics by the author.

Ec4

06 /// 07 METHODS /// RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Exposed Ocala limestone. October 2021.

Sy nt h

Sy sis he nt

METHODS

is es

Literature Review

GIS

ology formatio Typ n

Content Analysis

Sustainable Karst Landscapes

Semi-Structured Interviews

Figure 06.01

Tactile Survey

sis the n Sy

Conversation

S y n the sis

Graphical depiction of design methdology. The size of each circle correlates with the amount of time spent on each method.

Conversation

The methods used in this research were selected to provide informational, spatial, and haptic insights into the various social and environmental realms present on the Dougherty Plain (Figure 06.01). The literature review and informal conversations with specialists supported the formation of the research questions and provided background information about the region of study. The tactile survey provided an opportunity to experience unanticipated ephemera emergent of the landscape that would not have otherwise come across through more traditional methodologies. Semi-structured interviews and the subsequent content analysis of interview transcripts shed light into the social realm of the Dougherty Plain, helping to highlight data gaps, landscape changes, and the groundwater conservation initiatives already in place. It also allowed for those interviewed to articulate the potential for landscape architecture to fill a niche in regional groundwater conservation, and what that niche could be based on background research and the perspectives articulated by stakeholders. The formation of typologies specific to the Dougherty Plain followed these preceding methods and allowed for the summarization of significant features that are characteristic of the region. The typologies provide a conceptual framework from which design interventions to address patch, site, and regional sustainability concerns could be derived. These methods serve multi-scalar purposes, forcing the recognition of site, watershed, and ecoregional levels with above and belowground features in mind. 70

6.1 LITERATURE REVIEW A critical review and synthesis of relevant literature was conducted. The literature review was performed to reveal important characteristics of karst landscapes, common landscape features of the Dougherty Plain and their relationships to groundwater, economic dependence on the UFA as a water source, nonpoint source pollution types found in the region’s groundwater, and the regional contentions that have set the Dougherty Plain up as an area of interest. Focus was given the following categories: the social and environmental issues specific to the region; the relationship between spatial planning and groundwater protection; and the economic constraints of implementing solutions across the landscape to best address the research questions posed in Chapter 1. Subsequent revelations from the literature review included information about various methodologies that could be employed in the context of this work, including field-based studies used by Diedrich, Lee, and Braae (2014) and content analysis procedures later described in this chapter. Reviewing literature about design research and mixed methods approaches revealed the value of tactile and haptic experiences to landscape designers, inspiring the field-visit to the study region described in Chapter 5.

6.2 TACTILE SURVEY Adopted from the regional transect methodology proposed by Diedrich, Lee, and Braae (2014), a threeday visit to the Dougherty Plain was arranged in October 2021. This method was originally created to incorporate ephemeral site properties into the design process with specific emphasis on “temporal dynamics and atmospheric encounters” (Diedrich, Lee, and Braae 2014). In application to this thesis, the method was modified to emphasize ecoregional transitions, ecology, geology, row-crop agriculture, and the haptic qualities of landscape features that are seemingly neglected in existing literature about the Dougherty Plain. Given these changes, the method was renamed “tactile survey” to better fit the context and intentions of this work. As housing was provided by the Jones Center at Ichauway, an ecological research station located in Newton, Georgia, most time was spent in and around Newton. The use of this method allowed for organic experiences and conversations to take place with individuals encountered throughout the visit. These experiences provided insights to the region and insights about the individuals that work, study and live there, thus promoting the sharing and exchange of local knowledge without necessitating outreach or feedback as is standard for traditional designbased engagement practices (Oliver et al. 2012; Kempenaar 2021). More 71

formally, this method additionally provided opportunities to schedule in-person meetings and interviews with individuals that have specialized knowledge about the Dougherty Plain. Potential sites for visitation along this tactile survey were initially identified through the literature review. Site selection was based on the presence of karstic features, and their relevance to row-crop agriculture, ecology, geophysical region barriers that define the Dougherty Plain, and the whereabouts of the specialists that had agreed to be interviewed for this project. Survey sites were added, removed, and modified as needed, often based on in-field occurrences that interfered with travel. Sites were added when interview responses revealed relevant places and characteristic features of the region that had not been previously considered for visitation. The final transect route is outlined in Figure 06.02. In-person meetings and site visits with specialists were scheduled one month in advance of the tactile survey. Meetings were scheduled with individuals that live in, work in, and/or conduct research about the Dougherty Plain. Site visits that were accompanied by specialists included sinkholes, geographically isolated wetlands, limestone outcroppings along Ichawaynochaway Creek, center pivot fields, and a series of landscape features that characterize the Dougherty Plain as a distinct ecoregion. Route Study Area

COLUMBUS WATERFRONT

GA Fall Line

UP LA

Node

PROVIDENCE CANYON

S ND

Urban

Agricultural Ecological/ Geological

ALBANY RADIUM SPRINGS

JONES CENTER

COLQUITT

STRIPLING IRRIGATION CENTER

T I F T ON

Figure 06.02 Tactile survey route. 72

UPL A N D

GEORGIA FLORIDA

6.3 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Ten specialists within the realms of ecology, biology, policy and agriculture were contacted in September 2021 to participate in individual interviews for a thesis pertaining to landscape architecture and karstic groundwater conservation on the Dougherty Plain. These specialists were identified as potential interview candidates based on their expertise of the Dougherty Plain within their respective professional domains. Interviewees consisted of specialists and researchers in the fields of aquatic zoology, water policy, irrigation optimization, ecohydrology, nonprofit work, and agriculture. One County Extension Coordinator with the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension was interviewed, and their specialization can be described as generalized. Four specialists agreed to meet in-person within the study region, and three specialists agreed to speak via video chat. In-person interviews took place near locations of interest respective to each interviewee’s field of study, and in certain instances included walking tours of relevant landscape features. Semi-structured interview methods were based on those applied by O’Keeffe et al. (2016), including the development of a question topic guide following the literature review. Interviews consisted of open-ended questions pertaining to landscape architecture, groundwater use, and groundwater quality of the Upper Floridan Aquifer (Figure 06.03; Figure 06.04). The questions organized under each topic guide were asked word-for-word, and their topic guides were treated as prompts. This allowed the interview to progress as a flexible conversation while keeping topics of conversation relevant to the research questions (O’Keeffe et al. 2016). Interview questions were asked orally, and interviewees were not given the questions prior to the interview. Answers given to interview questions served as both a means for qualitative comparison in the content analysis phase of this research, and the semi-structured form of each interview provided windows of opportunity for the interviewer to ask clarifying questions about complex and technical topics that would otherwise be difficult to make sense of solely from a literature review. The semi-structured interview method was pursued in lieu of other interview methods to allow for question adjustments to better incorporate new revelations from previous interviews. Moreover, the semi-structured interviews that were conducted in-person informed the locations visited during the tactile survey. For example, a visit to the Flint RiverQuarium in Albany, GA and an informal conversation with an aquatic zoologist was arranged on behalf of the researcher by an interviewee. Virtual semi-structured interviews were conducted within one month following the tactile survey. Virtual interviews followed the same format as the in-person interviews. A total of seven interviews occurred, and six of those interviews were recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai software (Otter.ai). Only the interviews that had been recorded and transcribed were used in the qualitative analyses. Transcripts were edited manually to correct transcription errors. 73

///////

EXTRACTION /// RECHARGE

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

/////// ///////

///////

Informal conversations surrounding groundwater and Dougherty Plain-related concerns were had during the three-day period with one independent scientist, three graduate students affiliated with the Jones Center, and one recreational fisherman at the Radium Springs Boat Ramp. Topics discussed included groundwater protection, suicide rates of farmers, incentive programs for farmers,

Of the “solutions” currently being pushed on DP farmers, which ones do you believe would be the most helpful to maintaining aquifer health in relation to extracting and recharging groundwater?

What changes to agriculture on the Dougherty Plain do you believe would be the most helpful to maintaining groundwater and aquifer health?

Are there common site and/or social constraints to installing or implementing these infrastructures?

In what locations would these changes be the most impactful?

///////

Semi-structured interview questions organized by topic guides (light blue). Topic gudes were developed following the literature review.

///////

Figure 06.03

Are there incentives to encourage landowners to implement “solutions” on their property?

COLLABORATION

///////

forest restoration, and forest economics. Informal conversations were not recorded, nor were they included in qualitative analyses. They did, however, provide additional insight about the study region through the purview of how each individual studies and lives within the Dougherty Plain.

What does your discipline offer when considering the unique challenges & opportunities pertaining to water conservation and land management on the Dougherty Plain?

Is there overlap between other disciplines that are working to solve the same or similar challenges?

What are some of the remaining uncertainties or gaps in research that make design on the Dougherty Plain challenging?

///////

DESIGN

///////

SUITABILITY

///////

What kinds of specialists have you most enjoyed collaborating with previously? Do you often agree or disagree when it comes to evaluating challenges and proposing solutions?

Do you imagine design can or should play a role in groundwater maintenance on the Dougherty Plain?

Had you ever considered collaborating with landscape architects previously?

Figure 06.04 Semi-structured interview questions organized by topic guides (light blue). Topic gudes were developed following the literature review. 75

6.4 CONTENT ANALYSIS To answer the first research question, interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis and emergent coding techniques on responses that reflected ideas about known solutions pertaining to groundwater use and quality. A content analysis was additionally performed on responses pertaining to attitudes about the role of landscape architecture in regional groundwater conservation. Although the latter analysis did not directly answer a research question, findings provided a design framework that outlined the potential role of landscape architecture in the region as defined by the landscape-scale needs and concerns of stakeholders. These methods were borrowed from the traditional content analysis approach described by Hsieh and Shannon (2005, 1279-1281). Transcripts were manually coded using MAXQDA software as a data organization tool (VERBI 2021). Emergent coding, a form of inductive theme-identification, was applied to the six transcripts to identify themes (codes) related to groundwater-related design solutions, and the viewpoints of stakeholders pertaining to the role of landscape architecture in Dougherty Plain groundwater conservation. An inductive content analysis approach was pursued to facilitate the researcher’s understanding of stakeholder beliefs surrounding water-related challenges and interdisciplinary work on the Dougherty Plain. This methodology was appropriate in the context of this work as it allowed for the systematic sorting of interview responses to different questions for interpretive purposes. Content analyses are widely employed by social scientists to accomplish this same objective (Kleinheksel et al. 2020). The six transcripts were coded on a statement-by-statement basis. Codes were identified manually based on their relevance to the research questions, and their relevance to attitudes about the potential regional role of landscape architecture. Categories, or sub-codes, were inductively determined within each of these codes based on word-choice and the context given to each statement. Gaskell (2002) and Laurett, Paço, and Mainardes (2021) recommend a sample size between 15 and 25 interviewees in content analysis research, but there is currently no consensus across social science disciplines on reasonable sample sizes for qualitative analysis of transcripts (Vasileiou et al. 2018). As this thesis has a smaller sample size due to time restrictions and constraints posed by lack of funding and scheduling challenges, it should be noted that there are limitations to this analysis. Future applications of this design methodology should increase their interviewee sample size if possible.

6.5 SPATIAL ANALYSES & GIS Spatial data were mapped for visualization purposes. Datasets were acquired from secondary sources to create accompanying figures for concepts and landscape changes outlined in the literature review. These layers contributed to visualizations that depicted various land uses and common spatial features of the landscape. Spatial data of United States karst landscapes were made available by the USGS (Weary and Doctor 2014). The Dougherty Plain boundary shapefile was extracted from the EPA’s Ecoregion Download Files by State – Levels III and IV Ecoregions by State which contains Georgia’s physiographic regions (Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States 2013). National land cover and land use data were accessed through the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) made available by the USGS and then clipped to the Dougherty Plain boundary (USGS 2019b). GIW spatial data were provided by Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman and were produced by Glenn I Martin, Kirkman, and Hepinstall-Cymerman (2012). Irrigation data for the United States were downloaded and clipped to the Dougherty Plain boundary (Xie 2021). Digital elevation models for the Dougherty Plain were downloaded from The National Map (USGS 2019a). Center pivot irrigation point data were provided by M.D. Williams et al. (2017). Irrigation well locations for the Lower Flint River Basin were provided by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division upon request (Lewis 2022). Sinkhole and lineament spatial data for Dougherty County were collected and provided by Cahalan and Milewski (2018). 6.6 TYPOLOGY FORMATION At present, the Dougherty Plain regional layout looks to be a patchwork of karst features and natural land covers, fractured by the distinct edges that come with anthropogenic land-use types. With a surface that, to the layperson, generally does not reflect the hydraulic conductivity of the landscape, the health and resilience of underlying aquifers are compromised by failing to consider priority areas that facilitate the vertical movement of water for protection. Following the methods outlined in this chapter, typologies of the Dougherty Plain were created to highlight select features as important areas of vertical connectivity on croplands; to shed light on existing research that shows these features to be hydrologically significant; and to make the case for reimagining land-use surrounding these features to enhance the well-being and sustainability of the UFA and FAS overall. In architecture and design disciplines, theories and themes are generally perceived as both generalizations and abstractions that contribute to the formation of spatial narratives (Faludi 1973; Crewe and Forsyth 2003). These theories and themes are often categorized and communicated as typologies by 77

designers, allowing for the graphical organization of spatial information (Figure 06.05a; Figure 06.05b) (Allmendinger 2002). The use of typologies to characterize Dougherty Plain features unites technical jargon that is native to geohydrology and engineering disciplines with landscape architecture, showcasing items that are characteristic of a rural and karst landscape in a graphical language typical of design professions. For this thesis, a composite list of initial typologies was created throughout the duration of the literature review early in the research process; original typologies were based on literature review findings which identified specific features as areas of hydric importance, and the general presence of these features across the Dougherty Plain. Examples of original typologies include center pivot fields; springs; sinkholes; swamps; and waterways. This list and typology criteria were refined throughout the methodologies following the literature review. Final typologies were determined based on their thematic and spatial frequency as told through the methods leading up to their selection, including: literature review findings; validation of literature review findings through informal conversations and semi-structured interviews with regional specialists; the commonality of potential typologies across the landscape as shown through GIS visualizations; the haptic and in-field experiences imprinted by the tactile survey; and their relevance to landscape architecture as defined by stakeholders and the researcher/designer. The three predominant roles of typology formation are: i.

Correcting and clarifying misconceptions about relationships between features;

ii. Organizing information and knowledge “around clearly defined parameters;” iii. Guiding efforts for the purpose of research, spotlighting and theory building (Tiryakian 1968; Crewe and Forsyth 2003). The development of Dougherty Plain typologies addressed each of these functions by showcasing the surface-groundwater relationship respective to each typology; organizing information about each typology, thus giving a foundation for proposed design interventions respective to each one; and building the case for the protection of, or the rethinking of, landscape strategies surrounding each typology. Generalized design interventions were proposed based on each typology and the reference condition, or Genius Loci, of each typology, providing a basis from which features at the patch and site scales, when coupled with regional planning, can help the Dougherty Plain achieve sustainability goals. A modified Karst Sustainability Index, first developed by van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen (2012), was created to better reflect the findings of this design method and tailor the index specifically to the Dougherty Plain agricultural landscapes. These modifications were based on findings from the content analyses. These modifications also allowed for the incorporation of “aesthetic” or tactile qualities that were revealed by the tactile survey into a sustainability scoring system. 78

Figures 06.05a (top) and 06.05b (bottom) Typologies of industrial structures by Hilla and Bernd Becher (Anran 2022). The rigidity of each structure and image give them a diagramatic feel. 79

is es

Sy sis he nt

Sy nt h

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Literature Review Site

GIS

gy Forma polo tio Ty n

Regional

Content Analysis

Conversation Conceptual

Regional

Semi-Structured Interviews

Figure 07.01 sis he nt y S

Regional

Mosaic

Tactile Survey Conversation Conceptual

Patch

Site

Syn the sis

Graphical depiction of design methdology with scalar value provided by each method.

Site

Patch

In addition to answering the questions posed in Chapter 1, the combination of methods applied in this thesis serve as a pilot strategy in determining a baseline approach for landscape architectural design to promote sustainable karst landscapes. Given that the methods applied were selected to serve multiscalar purposes, each portion of this method revealed information relevant to various scales about the topics of interest. This includes results that are specific to the Dougherty Plain geohydrology, karst landscapes, and the attitudes that regional specialists have about groundwater-related solutions, and the role that landscape architecture could play in southwestern Georgia groundwater conservation (Figure 07.01). Scales, from smallest to largest, are referred to as: patches, sites, and regional. Patches refer to karst features that can be categorized as singular points in the landscape. Sites are somewhat larger and are capable of containing multiple patches within their boundaries (ie. property boundaries, land use extents). Regional refers to the Dougherty Plain in its entirety. 80

7.1 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review provided introductory background information about the Dougherty Plain and details about its landscape in relation to karst and land use. Notably, the literature review revealed the extensive presence of agriculture throughout the region, which is ultimately what led to this thesis’s focus on Dougherty Plain center pivot croplands. The language in the reviewed works, especially regarding geology and hydrogeology, was technical and would be difficult to understand without prior background in these topics. This literature review served as an introduction to the language surrounding karst, which consequently resulted in more fruitful conversations and interviews conducted in-field. The literature review additionally provided background information about the approaches selected for this pilot methodology. Interview methods and content analysis techniques were reviewed to determine application feasibility and relevance to answering the research questions. Typologies were determined to be an appropriate outcome for this project based on their three predominant roles in architectural disciplines (Tiryakian 1968).

7.2 INTERVIEW & CONVERSATION REVELATIONS The semi-structured interview method with regional specialists was selected as a qualitative approach to expose thoughts, opinions, values, and ideas that would not have otherwise been articulated in the publications read for the literature review. Interviews, without analysis, revealed speculations about the future of the region and the challenges that go beyond the role of center pivot irrigation and row crop agriculture on the Dougherty Plain. Interview responses to questions pertaining to common water conservation initiatives across the landscape and the role of landscape architecture in the Dougherty Plain were analyzed through mixed methods; they are discussed further in Chapter 7.3. Outlined below are key topics and findings revealed by conversations with specialists that were not otherwise made obvious through the literature review. The concepts discussed in this section were not used in the formal qualitative analyses outlined in Chapter 6, but they provide added dimension to the narrative of the Dougherty Plain as told by those that live in and work in the region. Unique insights were made about the financial needs of Dougherty Plain stakeholders in order to adopt BMPs, and how to best plan for a sustainable future. The interviews with specialists revealed important information that were later fused into typology formation and intervention strategies, especially those concepts mentioned in 7.2.1, and 7.2.2.

7.2.1 Solar Solar panel fields are rapidly establishing a foothold in the region, driven by economic incentives that make leasing farmland to solar companies lucrative 81

in comparison to irrigating crop fields (GAWPPC 2021; Cox 2021). More than 6,000 acres of irrigated farmland on the Dougherty Plain have been converted to solar farms since 2016 (GAWPPC 2021). The impacts of this land use transition are, at present, not well-researched on the Dougherty Plain. As this is a relatively new phenomenon to the area, no academic publications that discuss solar on Georgia’s karst landscapes were available as of March 2022. Of the individual specialists interviewed for this thesis, those more closely tied to agriculture and farming were the most likely to view the replacement of croplands with solar fields with mixed feelings in regard to the cultural and economic shift it signifies. All interviewees agreed the conversion is likely a positive change for maintaining groundwater volume as these fields are no longer irrigating on a large scale. One interviewee was skeptical of converting open fields into solar fields, arguing that Dougherty Plain agricultural landscapes are well suited for longleaf pine restorations, a native and drought-tolerant ecosystem. This suggests a need for corridor planning for ecological connectivity. Where farmland properties and their irrigation wells are strongly connected to rivers and streams, which are partly groundwater-fed, solar fields could have the greatest impact on stream health in terms of preserving or enhancing water volume. From a biodiversity standpoint, the growth of the solar industry on the Dougherty Plain is removing opportunities for longleaf pine restoration and/ or sustainable forestry across the landscape. In a region that is, by some, to be considered a global biodiversity hotspot, there is a clear need for landowner outreach and education about the ecological tradeoffs of installing solar fields on farmland (Noss et al. 2015).

7.2.2 Conservation Agriculture & Incentive Programs All interviewees were aware of precision agriculture practices and many of the irrigation technologies available to farmers that are designed to increase wateruse efficiency. Some, like Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI), a technology that turns off specific pivot sprinklers when circling over un-cropped portions of the pivot radius, are too expensive or technologically intimidating for farmers to want to integrate (Cox 2021; Perry 2021). Other water-saving tactics, such as Advanced Irrigation Scheduling which includes the real-time collection of soil moisture, temperature, evapotranspiration, and crop stage, were more widely adopted by farmers on the Dougherty Plain than VRI at the time of interviewing. Conservation tillage has also been widely adopted by farmers that are concerned with resource conservation on the Dougherty Plain. The two forms of conservation tillage are “no-till,” which entails planting crops into untilled soil, and “strip till,” which involves tilling soil in narrow strips for crop plantings (Perry 2021). Conservation tillage practices have been recommended to row-crop farmers since the 1980s for soil conservation, often with the intention of preserving soil for future crop production (Unger and McCalla 1980; Mannering and Fenster 1983; Gebhardt et al. 1985). Each interviewee emphasized the importance of incentive programs and public 82

funding to encourage the adoption of conservation programs and technologies outlined in the previous paragraph. It was mentioned repeatedly that, at the state level, there are no incentive programs for the agricultural sector, and most farmers in the state rely on federal programs to supplement the costs of adopting BMPs. The only incentive program mentioned by interviewees was EQIP, although it should be noted that more than 6,000 acres of the Dougherty Plain are enrolled in the CRP program according to the Farm Service Agency (USDA 2022b).

7.2.3 Data Gaps Although deeply researched, there are remaining data gaps within the Dougherty Plain and the ACF Basin that could provide important insights about the future of groundwater conservation in the region. A disproportionate amount of research has been conducted on waterways in the LFRB and on the Dougherty Plain as compared to upper and middle reaches of the Flint River (Rogers 2021). Many stakeholders have been advocating for source switching during periods of prolonged drought, meaning that dependence on the groundwater found in deeper aquifers would replace UFA groundwater needs during dry periods to maintain flows in the Flint River and its sensitive tributaries. However, deeper aquifers such as the Clayton and Claiborne are not well studied, and their relationship to shallower aquifers and the biota they sustain are not fully understood (Rogers 2021). Strategies about how to best protect sensitive karst features came up with two interviewees. While research has been conducted on the effectiveness of vegetative buffer strips in protecting karstic features from non-point source pollution, this type of research has not been extensively conducted on the Dougherty Plain. While generalizations could be made based on the results of studies performed in other regions, the heterogeneity of karstic geology likely calls for research to determine the most effective BMPs for Ocala limestonespecific karst. The optimum widths of buffer strips and plant lists that foster native diversity while protecting groundwater from common contaminants should be researched on the Dougherty Plain (GAWPPC 2021). Developing plant lists for the region would be extremely helpful to landowners looking to perform ecological restoration projects on their property, including the installation of buffers, but this is a nuanced task. As the southeastern landscape was historically dependent on fire management and once dominated by longleaf pine stands, plant lists will vary depending on the willingness of landowners to implement fire as a landscape management tool. Landowners that are unwilling to incorporate a fire regime into their management plan will need to use plants that are dependent on water table and aquifer dynamics, as opposed to native plant species that are dependent on fire to complete their life cycles (S. Golladay 2021). Even with the wealth of research available on the study region, research is still needed in areas that could contribute to filling data gaps about planting design and land management. Understanding these 83

QUESTION CODE SUB-CODE

Familiar Solutions

Economic

Nature Based

Spatial Planning

Irrigation Planning & Tech

Cost-effective interventions

Source Switching

Urban Planning

Soil Moisture Sensors

Incentive Programs

BMPs

Sensitivity Planning

VRI

Business Structure

Mimicry

Hardware

Future innovations

General efficiency Figure 07.02 Emergent codes and subcodes determined from content analysis regarding proposed solutions and internvention techniques.

Smart Irrigation

dynamics could make implementing BMPs across agricultural landscapes easier for landowners while maximizing the benefit to aquifer and biodiversity health.

7.3 QUALITATIVE ANALYSES The qualitative analysis of transcripts sought to answer the first question posed in the Introduction: 84

1. What are the most frequently supported intervention techniques promoted on the Dougherty Plain landscape pertaining to groundwater conservation?

Table 02. Code organization and sub-code descriptions used to organize interview answers pertaining to groundwater solutions on the Dougherty Plain.

Incentive Programs

Federal programs that encourage land-use and management practice changes.

ECONOMIC

Business Structure BMPs

NATURE-BASED

Mimicry

Diversifying income streams. Sustainable agri-stewardship (ie. conservation tillage, cover cropping). Emulating/allowing natural systems persist.

Incorporating the "Internet of Things" into agriculture. Improving upon existing systems to optimize General Efficiency water. "Crop per drop." Scheduling/Smart Irrigation Focus on temporal use of water using Smart Irrigation technology. Future Technology

IRRIGATION & TECH

Hardware

Mimicry (2)

PLANNIN G

Spatial application of water using VRI.

Soil Moisture Sensing

Field-scale sensors that indicate temporal and spatial irrigation needs.

Watershed Sensitivity Planning

Looking to urban centers to address groundwater-related issues. Planning around sensitive areas at the landscape scale, including source switching and redistributing wells by sensitivity.

Efficiency (6)

TURE NA

SOLUTIONS

C MI

Physical equipment excluding software & data collection materials.

VRI

Urban Planning

SPATIAL PLANNING

ECO NO

Incentive Programs (5)

7.3.1 Proposed Solutions and Intervention Techniques

Features that are inexpensive to implement (without subsidies).

TION & TE IGA C RR

As stated in Chapter 6, transcripts were analyzed using an emergent coding technique with respect to this research question. The same technique was applied to statements from transcripts concerning the role of landscape architecture on the Dougherty Plain; this was performed to generate a design framework that would outline the potential role of landscape architecture as defined by regional stakeholders. These analyses provided considerations and guidance for the subsequent formation of Dougherty Plain landscape typologies. Codes came about from responses given in semi-structured interviews and without prior theories or hypotheses from the researcher going BMPs (3) into the conversation. Two code-subcode1 segment models were Watershed drawn to categorize Sensitivity answers given to Planning (6) the two research questions. Sub-codes 1 were selected based on their frequency of Business Structure mentioning in the six (4) total transcripts.

Bottom-line management

Soil Moisture Sensing (4)

Smart Irrigation (4) VRI (3)

Hardware Future (2) Tech (2)

Figure 07.03 Sunburst diagram depicting the commonly mentioned groundwater conservation solutions by interviewees. Improving general efficiency of irrigation equipment and intentional planning around watershed sensitivity were the most frequently mentioned solutions.

Through manual coding, four codes that encompass all responses pertaining to intervention techniques promoted on the Dougherty Plain for groundwater conservation were identified: (i) Economic; (ii) Nature-Based; (iii) Irrigation Planning & Tech; and (iv) Spatial Planning (Figure 07.02). Sub-codes within each of these codes were identified, defined and tracked numerically to gauge the interventions that interviewees mentioned most frequently (Table 2). Proposed solutions and intervention techniques mentioned by those interviewed predominantly centered around technology and irrigation efficiency (Figure 07.03). There was a broad 85

Soil Moisture Sensors VRI

Urban Planning

Hardware

Watershed Sensitivity

Smart Irrigation

Bottomline Management Efficiency Incentive Programs

Future Technology Mimicry

Figure 07.04 Sub-code co-occurences. Interviewees tended to group tech-based strategies together.

Tech - Tech Tech - Economic Nature - Economic

BMPs

Business Structure

understanding of the irrigation technologies available to farmers, such as VRI and soil moisture sensors, and there was unanimous recognition that many of these practices had not yet been adopted by farmers due to cost. Half of the interviewees speculated that intimidation of technology is a generational barrier to the adoption of irrigation technology, and that older farmers in the region are less willing to adopt techbased strategies.

Although they did come up, relative to tech-based interventions, there was very little mention of natural systems, forestry, and ecosystem stability as playing a role or serving as a solution in aquifer protection. Only individuals that identified as professionals within disciplines pertaining to environmental research mentioned resilience and sustainability planning in their interview responses. There was near unanimous emphasis placed on sensitivity planning, or prioritizing areas with particularly high hydraulic conductivity for protection, but with little to no speculation as to what the changes to these areas should be if agriculture were transitioned out of these areas. Five of the six interviewees speculated that planning around these sensitive areas could serve as an application of landscape architecture on the Dougherty Plain. All but one of the interviewees were involved in active research and writing publications specifically or indirectly related to agriculture, groundwater health, and ecology of the Dougherty Plain at the time of interaction. However, researchers are, as noted by one interviewee, generally not directly involved in decision-making that contributes to the impact on large-scale land use, management, or policy (with the exception of the ACFS group which is partly composed of Dougherty Plain landowners and farmers). This suggests a need to better communicate with the region’s landowners and policymakers in order to institute both localized and broad-reaching landscape changes that are informed by the breadth of the region’s hydrological and ecological data. Statements from interview transcripts that were categorized within multiple subcodes were noted as sub-code co-occurrences (Figure 07.04). Interviewees were most likely to list tech-based interventions for center pivot systems following the

mentioning of other irrigation-based technologies. Mention of nature-based solutions and irrigation efficiency technologies were frequently followed with statements about the importance of subsidizing BMPs and biomimicry based restorations, or making the cost of implementing such things affordable to a point where farmers would not experience financial burden. This analysis supported findings from the literature review about the technologies available that enhance irrigation efficiency, and the importance of incentive programs as part of the pathway to BMP adoption. Interestingly, EQIP was the only subsidy program listed by interviewees despite the occurrence of land enrolled in CRP throughout the region. However, this does indirectly support the emphasis that interviewees gave to efficiency-based technologies, which is the sort of intervention that EQIP funding is known to support. In addition to the small sample size noted in Chapter 6, another shortcoming of this analysis is related to interviewee identity. Those who participated in this research were those already taking part in the conversation surrounding groundwater and resource protection. Future studies should look toward including non-conservation minded stakeholders and specialists in surveys and interviews to better understand the spectrum of interest in row-crop agriculture and aquifer protection on the Dougherty Plain.

7.3.2 Role of Landscape Architecture After performing the content analysis of statements pertaining to the role of landscape architecture in the Dougherty Plain ecoregion, the following were manually coded based on emergent themes mentioned and emphasized by interviewees: (i) Restoration and Conservation; (ii) Landscape Aesthetics; and (iii) Spatial Planning (Table 3; Figure 07.05). Five of the six interviewees expressed that the spatial planning of infrastructure around areas considered hydrologically sensitive could serve as an application of landscape architecture on the Dougherty Plain (Figure 07.06). Comments about sensitivity planning were often in reference to the current distribution of UFA wells across the region. Interviewees additionally saw potential for landscape architects to facilitate restoration and conservation-based projects throughout the landscape with specific emphasis on recharging groundwater by mimicking and protecting natural landscape features that are closely tied to groundwater. This signals an interesting deviation from the emphasis on irrigation efficiency technologies articulated in the previous content analysis, potentially carving out an ecological and regional planning niche for landscape architects. One interviewee mentioned that landscape architects could contribute to the aesthetic planning of the region, but later stated that there is probably not much need or desire for aesthetic-centric design work on Dougherty Plain agricultural landscapes. No sub-codes emerged from the Aesthetics code in this content analysis because the interviewee quickly questioned the need for it upon mention, but its mention does potentially allude to the importance of the ephemeral landscape qualities observed and considered through the 87

QUESTION CODE

Role of LA

Restoration/ Conservation

Aesthetics

Recharge

tactile survey. Perhaps the Aesthetics code is not a strongly desired contribution of landscape architecture to the region from the stakeholder perspective, but its subcode vacancies present potential for aestheticsbased methods like Spatial tactile surveys and Planning ephemeral inventories of landscapes to serve a purpose, even if the purpose is uncertain to those who reside in the Sensitivity region. Planning

N/A Well Distribution

SUB-CODE

Mimicry

Figure 07.05 Emergent codes and subcodes determined from content analysis regarding proposed solutions and internvention techniques.

None of the interviewees suggested that landscape architecture would not be of value to the region, but many expressed that landscape architecture is not a discipline that has been present in their decades-long conversation about the ACF Basin or the protection of the UFA. This suggests that landscape architects need to make their value known in the Dougherty Plain and areas like it if they are to be included in the implementation of groundwater-related solutions across agri-karst landscapes. It also may allude to a larger problem of the discipline finding it difficult to define and articulate its function and value as mentioned 88

RESTORATION & CONSERVATION

Recharge

Replenishing groundwater.

Mimicry

Emulating/allowing natural systems persist.

AESTHETICS SPATIAL PLANNING

Landscape attractiveness. Well Distribution

Specific references to the regional layout of UFA irrigation wells.

Watershed Sensitivity Planning

Planning around sensitive areas at the landscape scale.

ICS HET ST E A

TORATION RES

Recharge

Mimicry

ROLE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

SPATIAL PLA NN I

In evaluating responses about intervention techniques and perceptions regarding landscape architecture as a discipline, a baseline was established that allows for comparisons to be made between the landscape architectural approaches on karst landscapes and the bevy engineering and efficiency-based solutions that have previously been

Table 3. Code organization and sub-code descriptions used to organize interview answers pertaining to the role of landscape architecture on the Dougherty Plain.

Well Distribution

in the literature review. Two interviewees expressed that landscape architecture could have a role to play in the synthesis of relevant research and planning of the region, which appropriately aligns with one of the functions of generating typologies.

Watershed Sensitivity Planning

Figure 07.06 Sunburst diagram depicting the commonly Efficiency mentioned groundwater conservation solutions by interviewees. Improving general efficiency of irrigation equipment and intentional planning around watershed sensitivity were the most frequently mentioned solutions.

proposed for the region. Interviews with stakeholders and content analysis of their responses allowed for discourse to take place, facilitating an exchange of knowledge between designers and specialists, while providing an opportunity for stakeholders to consider landscape architecture as a solution-driven discipline. These results additionally provided considerations and guidance for the subsequent formation of Dougherty Plain landscape typologies and the metrics that could be applied to gauge the success of design interventions. Unique from the other methods employed throughout this process, content analyses allowed for the evaluation of perceptions that local stakeholders and specialists have toward landscape architecture; this could not have been known or revealed solely through a literature review, as these results were specific to the study region and the region’s unique conditions. Through the process of gauging the needs of the region and understanding the role that individuals perceive landscape architecture to serve, services that landscape architecture could provide, or roles that landscape architects could fill, were identified in such a way that a contribution to the region could be made while playing to 89

the strengths of the profession. They additionally contributed to modifications made to the sustainability indicators listed in the Karst Sustainability Index created by van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen (2012) to better suit the agricultural landscapes that are characteristic of the Dougherty Plain. As the KSI was developed for karst landscapes around the world, it fails to capture the social, economic, and environmental nuances of each individual karst region. Modifications to the sustainability indicators were based on the findings of this content analysis, resulting in a sustainability evaluation with criteria based on restoration, spatial planning, and “aesthetics” or landscape ephemerality.

7.4 SPATIAL ANALYSES & GIS USA Rivers and Streams

Deciduous Forest

nlcd_2019_land_cover_l48_202

Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest

NLCD_Land_Cover_Class

Shrub/Scrub

Open Water

Herbaceous

Developed, Open Space

Hay/Pasture

Developed, Low Intensity

Cultivated Crops

Developed, Medium Intensity

Woody Wetlands

Developed, High Intensity

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

Barren Land

Figure 07.07 Dougherty Plain land use classification. Row-crop agriculture and pasture are the predominant land uses of the region.

Slope_MergedGTs

Left: Figure 07.08

Value ≤3 ≤6 ≤10

Dougherty Plain slope. Darker colors indicate higher slopes. The region is mostly flat with slight gradient changes along waterways.

≤15 ≤20

20 Miles

The acquisition of spatial data revealed regional information gaps about important karst landscape features. Glenn I Martin, Kirkman, and HepinstallCymerman (2012) devised a method for identifying GIWs using NWI data, and kindly provided GIW data for the LFRB of the Dougherty Plain. However, a spatial layer for GIWs is still lacking along the lower Chattahoochee and outside the LFRB within the Dougherty Plain. Sinkhole and lineament data were also generously provided by Cahalan and Milewski (2018) for Dougherty County which falls within the study region, but at present, spatial data for sinkholes in other Georgia counties is sparse, as are lineament delineations USA Rivers and Streams

≤25

Aspect_Merge1

≤30 ≤40

Value

≤60

Flat (-1)

≤100

North (0 - 22.5)

≤1,000

Northeast (22.5 - 67.5)

USA Rivers and Streams

East (67.5 - 112.5) Southeast (112.5 - 157.5) South (157.5 - 202.5) Southwest (202.5 - 247.5) West (247.5 - 292.5) Northwest (292.5 - 337.5) North (337.5 - 360)

Right: Figure 07.09 Dougherty Plain aspect. Predominant northwest aspect on the southeasternmost portion of the ecoregion and southeast aspect in the northwestern most portion help illustrate the Dougherty Plain as distinct from surrounding areas. 90

20 Miles

aside from those mapped by Hyatt and Jacobs (1996). Laying out various maps with spatial data pertaining to the FAS, UFA, southeastern geology, and land cover types added important narrative to telling the story of the Dougherty Plain landscape (Figure 07.07). General landscape analyses performed through GIS, including slope and aspect calculations generated through DEM analysis provided visual accompaniments that support claims about the landscape made by publications read in the literature review (Figure 07.08; Figure 07.09).

7.5 TYPOLOGY FORMATION

ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENTAL

SOCIAL/TACTILE

Four typologies specific to the Dougherty Plain’s agricultural landscape were derived from the findings outlined in the literature review and throughout this chapter. As described in Chapter 6, an original list of typologies was created early in the literature review process, and then refined over the course of subsequent methods, namely the tactile survey, semi-structured interviews, and GIS work. The original list largely consisted of typologies that are characteristic of most karst areas around the world, including caves and springs. Through the acquisition of spatial data and information gained from interviews with specialists, the list was refined to better suit the Dougherty Plain specifically regarding their high Table 4. Dougherty Plain - KSI criteria adapted from the Karst Sustainability incidence in the Index created by van Beynen, Brinkmann, and van Beynen (2012). landscape and their relevance to row-crop DOUGHERTY PLAIN - KSI INDICATOR agriculture, the target land use of this thesis. S1. Importance of karst-groundwater features are communicated to landowners. For example, while springs do occur on the S2. Policies reflect regional research about spatial Dougherty Plain, there sensitivity. are few in the region compared to the rest S3. Karst features are made visible through genius loci. of the FAS, and even En1. Increase in amount of karst area forested or in fewer that cooccur native vegetation in priority areas. with farmlands. The same is true of caves En2. Adoption of BMPs supports biodiversity through in the unsaturated zone mimicry and/or restoration of ecosystems. of the UFA. In-field En3. Agriculture is discontinued around karst features events additionally that hold potential for corridor/regional planning. contributed to the selection of typologies. Ec1. Economic incentives are in place to support Tactile experiences with sustainable agricultural practices and BMPs. landscape features left ECONOMIC Ec2. UFA water extraction is stable or declining. a better sense of the region in both its fixed Ec3. Increase in agricultural water efficiency ($ value/form, as well as the consumption) through adoption of irrigation tech. temporal and textural 91

qualities that give landscape personified life. Finally, the tactile survey left the researcher with a better sense of the strategies that could be implemented to enhance the health of underlying aquifers and the overall sustainability of the region by serving as a large-scale site visit from which to visualize and experience the spirit of place, or genius loci. The four typologies that resulted are the following: (i) GIWs; (ii) sinkholes; (iii) riverbanks; and (iv) irrigation well sites. Although, arguably, more typologies could have been included, these four were found to serve as the clearest connections between surface geologies and the UFA. The selected typologies serve as a window into the Dougherty Plain landscape, providing an overview of each feature’s relevance to landscape. They also provide structure and focus to designers, allowing for the communication of design strategies that enhance the sustainability of the region in relation to groundwater when enacted at a large scale. This practice serves as a simplification of the landscape through the identification of characteristic features which serve as important focal points for regional aquifer and groundwater protection. These typologies also serve as a classification system for common landscape features characteristic of the region that serve important groundwater-related functions. Each of these typologies can be considered archetypal of the Dougherty Plain by way of their frequency across the landscape and their relationship to groundwater through karst. They are likely to be encountered at the site-scale, and due to their abundance across the landscape, design interventions proposed through these typologies are scalable across the region. The genius loci, or Spirit of Place, of each typology was considered to be the landscape “reference condition,” meaning it is what the site inherently wants to be, and therefore serves as a restoration, conservation, or mimicry goal from which design guidelines can be derived. Doing so allowed for the integration of content analysis findings about the role of landscape architecture into the process of setting goals to achieve a sustainable karst landscape while meeting the needs and expectations of stakeholders. As this whole region was historically fire dependent, the longleaf pine ecosystem was considered the baseline reference condition for typologies, with the exception of the irrigation well typology that was not given a reference condition in order to address policy-oriented constraints. The design and planning interventions proposed for each typology are intentionally vague to best illustrate their scalability. Due to time restrictions, the information and guidance provided for each typology is non-exhaustive. More work is needed to build on these typologies, including the assembling of generalized construction blueprints, management plans, and other guiding documents for landowners to best implement design solutions on the landscape. Reflective of the interconnectedness of karst, approaches and interventions were organized by scale: patch, site, and regional, which ultimately builds to a landscape mosaic of sustainable karst features. Interventions that are implemented at the patch and site levels have localized benefits and could be completed by a property owner. Building sustainable mosaics of these typologies across the region calls for considerations about landscape 92

connectivity and community partnerships, something that Dougherty Plain stakeholders are capable of accomplishing as demonstrated by the enthusiasm and success of the ACFS. To gauge the success of each intervention’s ability to facilitate the Dougherty Plain into a more sustainable state, a modified version of The Karst Sustainability Index was created to reflect the specific conditions of the Dougherty Plain (Table 4). Categories and their respective criteria were adjusted to incorporate results from the content analyses. This allowed for the level of impact each typology-based intervention could have on the social/tactile, ecological and environmental health of the region to be gauged through criteria partly defined by the specialists that understand the complexities of the region. The Social category was grouped with Tactility to capture the importance of the reference condition in guiding sustainable design interventions by way of visibility to stakeholders. Scores for design interventions were determined solely by addressing criteria, unlike the original KSI which includes calculated targets that karst landscapes should attempt to meet. These targets would need to be calculated specifically for the Dougherty Plain to fit within the new criteria, apart from those criteria that are subjective and difficult to measure, such as S1 and S3 (Table 4). Some typology interventions scored well, and others were less successful. The interventions that fell short of reaching all the outlined criteria ideally should be modified to best reach regional groundwater sustainability goals. As karstic landscapes vary in their geology, ecology, and climate among other factors, different typologies would likely come about in distinct karst areas around the world. The typologies derived in this thesis are specific to the Dougherty Plain. The findings, proposed interventions, and sustainability scores for each typology are covered in the next chapter.

08 /// DOUGHERTY PLAIN LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGIES

PATCH

MOSAIC

8.1 : GIWs

8.2 : Sinkholes

8.3 : Riverbanks

8.4 : Well Sites

Figure 08.01 Pathway through a GIW ecotone in a longleaf pine stand. Photo by author.

8.1 /// GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED WETLANDS (GIWs) OVERVIEW: GIWs serve as important harbors of biodiversity for the region, namely within their upper ecotones. A clay lens at their base generally makes these features impermeable, although their ability to collect rainfall and spillover during storm events can serve as important pulse recharge for underlying aquifers. Frequently occurring across the Dougherty Plain landscapes, many of these GIWs cooccur with center pivot irrigation fields, and in many instances have had berms installed within them to accommodate for center pivot rotations.

SURFACE /// SUB-SURFACE ROLE: • Temporary retention (Golden et al. 2021); • Hydrologic pulse during times of overflow (Golden et al. 2021); • Nutrient attenuation may contribute to the maintaining of downstream water quality (Golden et al. 2021) ROLE OF LA: • Develop grading plans and sensitivity planning for GIW modifications; • Planting plans for ecotonal reestablishment and burn schedule development. 96

GIWs Jones Center / Newton, GA Potential for biodiversity conservation and pulse recharge protection.

BIODIVERSITY VALUE Upland ecotones contain most species richness. Microrefuge for amphibians.

GROUNDWATER CONNECTIONS Clay lens stores rainfall; overtopping during storm events serves as pulse recharge for UFA. Known to capture and filter sediment, fertilizer and pesticides prior to infiltration.

UNCERTAINTIES & CHALLENGES Might be considered sinkholes. Four types: marsh; cypress savannah; cypress gum; bog. Managing without fire and/or prescribed burns.

OPPORTUNITIES: • ECONOMIC »

Income from incentive programs, including: ◊ Agricultural Conservation Easement Program +

Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Partnership

◊ Conservation Reserve Program +

Longleaf Pine Initiative

◊ Working Lands for Wildlife (NRCS) • ENVIRONMENTAL/RESTORATIVE »

Pulse recharge zones for the UFA where clay lens limit rainfall percolation

Protect biodiversity: ◊ 40% of plants and 30% of amphibians in longleaf pine ecosystems are attributed to GIWs and GIW ecotones (Kirkman and Jack 2017)

• SOCIAL/TACTILE »

Redefine center pivot-GIW relationships through restoration interventions

Ascribing power to GIWs through policy or otherwise 97

SPATIAL / CONCEPTUAL VISIBILITY Aristida purpurascens Coelorachis rugosa Lachnanthes caroliniana Panicum hemitomon Panicum hians Rhynchospora tracyi Xyris sp.

Ctenium aromaticum Dichanthelium angustifolium Dichanthelium erectifolium Solidago odora Sporobolus floridanus Stylisma aquatica Viola lanceolata

Ilex glabra Ludwigia linifolia Ludwigia suffruticosa

Gaylussacia dumosa Muhlenbergia capillaris Rubus cuneifolius Symphyotrichum adnatum Symphyotrichum dumosum

Andropogon virginicus Astrida stricta Pityopsis graminifolia Schizachyrium tenerum

CLAY PERCH MAX. WATER LEVEL

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY Low nutrient levels from internal recycling Wetting < > Drying creates a visibly dynamic system

TEMPORALITY Wetting/drying (hydroperiods) allow GIWs to sustain populations of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

WETLAND

HYDRIC

Hydrologic Complexity of Longleaf Pine Forest Ecosystems

MOVEMENT Surface runoff is intersected, mitigating nutrient loading into aquifers and capturing sediment transport.

UPLAND

A sampling of GIW plant species found in a GIW-longleaf ecotone as surveyed by Kirkman (1999). The total area of GIWs on the Dougherty Plain, and across longleaf pine ecosystems in the southeast, is disproportionate to the biodiversity they are credited with sustaining .

GIW - GIW Connectivity

Metapopulations are supported through inter-wetland connectivity. Promotes genetic diversity for obligate-GIW species.

GIW Upland Connectivity Ecotones promote movement of species with both terrestrial and aquatic stages.

GIW connectivity matrix concept. Temporal dynamics, fire regimes and food web stability contribute to the preservation of the Dougherty Plain’s GIW mosaic. Graphic adapted from Kirkman and Jack (2017). 98

High Point

Intact GIW

Hydroperiods, canopy and understories are maintained by fire regime and food web dynamics.

GIW - Stream Connectivity

Permits movement of larger species. Facilitates movement of abiotic materials, including woody debris and sediment.

ICHAWAYNOCHAWAY CREEK

JONES CENTER

FLINT RIVER

Row Crop/ Pasture

100-Year Floodplain

Confirmed GIW

Open Water

Forest

GIW Intersection w/ Center Pivot Field

Roadway

1.5 miles

CONDITIONS Existing Row-Crop Condition: Crops extend to GIW edges

Center pivots may irrigate intersecting GIWs without VRI

Clay lens creates a saturated patch amidst croplands.

Manmade berms bisect GIWs to support center pivot rotations

Challenges to revealing Genius Loci, or, uncovering the reference condition: • Manmade berms may bisect GIWs to sustain center pivot systems (C. Barrie 2021); • Many co-occur with center pivot fields across the Dougherty Plain (Kirkman and Jack 2017); • There are four primary GIW vegetation types - establishing each GIW’s original plant communities depends on restoring entire systems in some cases; • Influxes of water and fertilizers from center pivot fields alters the biochemistry of each GIW and may influence the communities that each GIW can support.

100

Reference Condition / Genius Loci:

Longleaf pine savanna Pinus palustris

Fire-based management

GIW vegetation types

Clay lens captures rainfall & overland flow

Cypress savanna. Photo by Jeffrey Lepore.

Ecotonal transition between GIW and forested areas Muhlenbergia capillaris Panicum tenue Solidago odora

Sandy clay residuum

Cypress gum. Photo by author.

Evergreen shrub. Photo by author.

Signs of Genius Loci, or, what the site wants to be: • GIWs remain depressional and saturated in the landscape, making them noticeably distinct both aerially and in-field; • Farmers and landowners are unable to make use of GIWs for croplands without landform modification.

101

STRATEGIES / APPROACHES

SCORE

ENVIRONMENTAL

SOCIAL/TACTILE

En1

En2

Ec1

Ec2

Ec3

ECONOMIC

A min. 500’ buffer is established to best mimic the structure of GIW ecotones.

TRANSITION

Row crop

GIW in a center pivot field. A berm bisects the GIW.

Center pivot fields intersect with GIWs. Berms bisect GIWs to facilitate center pivot rotations. Crops extend up to GIW perimeters.

Patch 102

Adoption of VRI prevents fertilization and/or irrigation of GIW and its buffer.

VRI adoption prevents direct input of fertilizers and irrigable water into GIWs. Buffers around GIWs are established by landowners. Buffers resemble the complexity and species composition of nearby, intact GIWs situated in longleaf pine stands. Incentives for buffer installation are in place and comparable to the income otherwise gained from crop yield of the same area.

ENVIRONMENTAL

En3

/////// /////// SOCIAL/TACTILE

ECONOMIC

Connectivity plans for intact and restored GIWs across property lines are established.

PROPOSED ECOTONE

Berms are removed, and center pivots no longer cross GIWs leaving potential for canopy establishment and/or sustainable forestry to replace croplands. Existing land uses across properties are taken into consideration for connectivity purposes.

EXISTING FOREST

PROPOSED ECOTONE

Berms are removed from GIWs and 3/4 pivot systems are adopted on farmlands that with GIWs best suited for corridor establishment.

/////// ///////

Mosaic

103

Figure 08.02 Sinkhole in a longleaf pine stand. Photo by author.

8.2 /// SINKHOLES & LINEAMENTS OVERVIEW: Sinkholes may function as near-direct conduits toward underlying aquifers and lineaments which function as subsurface water conduits; connectivity varies with each sinkhole. Within longleaf pine stands, sinkholes serve as a refuge for fire-intolerant vascular plant species. Most literature recommends protecting sinkholes as if they are riparian areas. Many dissolution and cover subsidence sinkholes occur on center pivot fields across the Dougherty Plain. Most sinkholes have formed within the floodplain of the Flint River, but they do appear across the landscape. Sinkhole data for the state of Georgia are not widely available, making connectivity planning a challenge. Spatial data for lineaments (bedrock fractures) are even more sparse. These are critical for protection as they serve as conduits for groundwater flows. There are three types of sinkholes: dissolution, cover subsidence, and cover collapse. Understanding the formation of each may help illustrate the relevance of sinkholes to groundwater and aquifers. SURFACE /// SUB-SURFACE ROLE: • Conduits for water and sediment between the ground and bedrock fracutures (Cahalan and Milewski 2018) ROLE OF LA: • Develop planting plans and lineament corridor plans; • Advise against land uses that could directly pollute sinkholes. 104

SINKHOLES Jones Center / Newton, GA Potential for corridor planning. GROUNDWATER CONNECTIONS

BIODIVERSITY VALUE High biodiversity counts at surface and in UFA. Fire refuge for vascular plants.

Usually indicate locations of bedrock fractures (lineaments). Highly connective to aquifers.

UNCERTAINTIES & CHALLENGES Missing spatial data in GA. Formation is related to thickness & texture of overlying materials. OPPORTUNITIES: • ECONOMIC »

Income from incentive programs, including: ◊ Conservation Reserve Program +

CP 22 - Riparian Buffers (buffer must be 35’ - 100’ width)

◊ Sinkhole Treatment No. 527 (NRCS) »

The presence of sinkholes may indicate underlying lineaments, which serve as high value groundwater extraction sites.

• ENVIRONMENTAL »

Refuge for fire-sensitive and fire intolerant species, especially fire-intolerant oak (Quercus) species and other vascular plants (Bátori et al. 2021; S. Golladay 2021).

• SOCIAL/TACTILE »

Contributes to the visual complexity of the landscape;

Lineament corridor planning and/or easements at the surface level could reflect subsurface fractures via land use and landscape management changes. 105

SPATIAL / CONCEPTUAL VISIBILITY Dissolution:

RAIN

Rainfall percolates through limestone joints, forms a gradual depression. Occurs where flow is focused in geologic openings like joints, bedrock fractures, & where groundwater meets atmosphere. Graphic adapted from Tihansky 1999.

Cover Subsidence:

Sediment/residuum particulates fall through openings in limestone bedrock. Slow, vertical erosion creates shallow depressions, ranging from 1” to several feet in both diameter and depth. Graphic adapted from Tihansky 1999.

Cover Collapse:

Most catastrophic to infrastructure and most common in clayey environments. Clay overburden spalls into bedrock cavities, causing a structural arch that eventually breaches. Most common in floodplains. Graphic adapted from Tihansky 1999.

MAPPED SINKHOLES

Data Gaps. Sinkhole data are largely missing on the Dougherty Plain. Mapped sinkholes pictured are in Dougherty County. Highest concentrations occur within the Flint River floodplain (Cahalan and Milewski 2018). 106

ALBANY, GA

FLINT RIVER

High-Intensity Urban

100-Year Floodplain

Confirmed Sinkhole

Low-Intensity Urban

Evergreen Forest

High Density Sinkhole Areas

Row Crop/ Pasture

Mixed Forest

2.5 miles

107

CONDITIONS

Existing Row-Crop Condition::

Row crops extend to sinkhole edge. Corn, cotton, and peanut varieties are commonly planted.

Lineaments remain vulnerable across croplands.

Center pivots irrigate (and sometimes fertilize) crops uniformly.

Sinkholes are un-buffered from surface runoff and groundwater flows.

Challenges to revealing Genius Loci, or, uncovering the reference condition: • Management challenges of integrating a fire regime and concerns of applying burns near croplands; • Willingness of landowners to convert productive farmland into other land use types (forestry or otherwise).

108

Reference Condition / Genius Loci:

Oaks & shrubs take refuge from fire in depressions Quercus sp.

Longleaf pine Pinus palustris

Burns every 2-10 years. Fire regime.

Savanna understory Astrida stricta

Sandy clay residuum Lineament

Sinkhole networks indicate bedrock fractures Ocala limestone

Signs of Genius Loci, or, what the site wants to be: • Pumping from UFA wells makes their formation more likely (Cahalan and Milewski 2018, 339); • Farmers and landowners are unable to make use of sinkhole areas for croplands.

109

STRATEGIES / APPROACHES

SCORE

ENVIRONMENTAL

SOCIAL/TACTILE

0’

500’

Ec2

En1

Ec3

En2

ECONOMIC

2000’ 1000’

TRANSITION

Row crop

Sinkhole

Existing condition of many center pivot fields. Crops extend up to sinkhole edge.

Patch 110

VRI available via incentive programs

Sinkhole w/ 100’ buffer 30 meter (~100’) buffers around sinkholes in center pivot fields would reduce sediment accumulation, phosphorus loading, and nitrogen loading.

Incentive programs fu landowners to adopt as VRI. Incentives for with known sinkholes generous. Adoption o technologies alone is but does little to prom the region’s surficial e contribute to overall s

ENVIRONMENTAL

En3

/////// /////// SOCIAL/TACTILE

ECONOMIC

CP fields transition into conservation & restoration sites

Coservation corridors for verified bedrock fractures

Sinkhole w/ 100’ buffer

Transboundary corridor development with restored forestlands, grassland understory, and fire regime.

Mosaic

/////// ///////

und opportunities for technologies such VRI on farmlands should be the most of irrigation efficiency s good for the aquifer mote and sustain ecosystems that sustainability.

Widespread adoption of tech and ecological buffer practices

111

Figure 08.03 Along the riverbank. Photo by author.

8.3 /// KARST RIVERBANKS OVERVIEW: The Dougherty Plain riverbank typology encompasses a variety of ecosystems and sensitivity levels. Certain streams in the region, and certain reaches of those streams, are known to have strong connections to groundwater. Riverbank ecosystems vary and depend on the presence or lack of a floodplain. Some waterways have riparian areas that are standard for most riverine systems, but others have uniquely karst riverbanks with floodplains that are not visible at the surface vegetative level where water can infiltrate quickly - these areas effectively have underground floodplains (Roger 2021). Given this variety, the genius loci for this typology will vary by reach and should be determined infield at the reach scale. SURFACE /// SUB-SURFACE ROLE: • Certain reaches of regional streams have been found to have direct surface water-groundwater relationships; • Surface flows in some streams are particularly vulnerable to groundwater withdrawal, especially during periods of prolonged drought. ROLE OF LA: • Identify, prioritize, and map sensitive/connective reaches of streams; • Advocate for strategic placement of land uses based on surrounding systems. 112

KARSTIC RIVERBANKS Ichawaynochaway Creek / Newton, GA Potential for buffer prioritization. CURRENT USE GROUNDWATER CONNECTIONS Reaches with NW bearings display higher gw discharge

(more research needed on other Flint River tributaries)

Irrigation wells border banks where farmland intersects with waterways; moratorium restricts regional well mosaic to existing condition.

ECOLOGY Reduced floodplain inundation co-occurs with irrigation intensification; replacement of wetland forests with upland species.

GEOLOGY Exposed limestone bedrock; high transmissivity.

OPPORTUNITIES • ECONOMIC »

Recreation and tourism;

Property value increases alongside riverfronts and stream paths;

• ENVIRONMENTAL »

Provides water, habitat, and forage for a wealth of native wildlife;

Home to many state and federally endangered aquatic species.

• SOCIAL/TACTILE »

Recreation activities, including fishing and paddling, namely on the Flint River, are popular tourist activities;

Groundwater volume is, in a sense, made visible during periods of drought that result in reduced surface water flows.

113

SPATIAL / CONCEPTUAL VISIBILITY Selected Waterway Nuances:

LAKE BLACKSHEAR CHICKASAWHATCHEE CREEK ICHAWAYNOCHAWAY CREEK BIG CYPRESS CREEK

N T R.

SPRING CREEK

O OC AH CH A TT

E R. HE

NORTH

Notable waterways of the Dougherty Plain.

///////

West

Spring Creek

• A direct tributary into Lake Seminole reservoir at the GA–FL border; • The second most heavily allocated sub-basin for water withdrawals in GA; • During the 2011 drought, Spring Creek changed from gaining to losing during the months of April, June, and July.

114

LAKE SEMINOLE

Ichawaynochaway Creek • Flows typically run parallel to regional groundwater gradient with variations taking place reach by reach; • Reaches with high specific conductance are correlated with enhanced surfacesubsurface connectivity; • Reaches with NWSE azimuths have significantly high levels of specific conductance, indicating groundwater connections (Rugel et al 2019).

CHICKASAWHATCHEE CREEK ICHAWAYNOCHAWAY CREEK BIG CYPRESS CREEK

N T R.

SPRING CREEK

Stream sensitivity to UFA pumping in the LFRB. Sensitivity analysis findings by Singh et al. (2017) suggest that targeting reaches for reduced pumping is more effective in streamflow recovery (approximately 78%) than blanket proposals to reduce irrigation NON-SENSITIVE LOW SENSITIVITY MEDIUM SENSITIVITY HIGH SENSITIVITY

intensity by percentage.

Graphic adapted from Singh et al. (2017).

/////// ///////

East

Lower Flint River

• With headwaters in Atlanta, the river is of interest to stakeholders and residents across the state; • One of 40 rivers nationwide that flows unimpeded for >200 miles; • Ranked among America’s Most Endangered Rivers in 2009 and 2013 by American Rivers.

Commonalities: • Each has reaches with surface flows that are sensitive to groundwater pumping, indicating surface/subsurface relationships. Approaches/Interventions: • Approaches should be made on a reach-byreach basis to preserve the genius loci of each unique portion of each respective riverine system; • Reaches with significant connections to aquifers should be prioritized for water quality protection; • Policy goals and landowner incentives should aim to reduce pumping in selected sensitive areas. This approach is likely to be more effective than reducing irrigation intensity for maintaining surface flows (Singh 2017). 115

CONDITIONS

Existing Row-Crop Condition:

Nearby farmlands pose contamination threats to groundwater and surface water flows when wells are pumped. Center pivot

Riverside ecosystems may be overtaken by invasive & non-native species. Sorghum halepense Arundo donax

Stream baseflows are supplemented by groundwater.

Challenges to revealing Genius Loci, or, uncovering the reference condition: • Willingness of landowners to integrate and periodically manage vegetative buffer zones.

116

Reference Condition / Genius Loci: Native ecosystems border the flow. Plant communities vary depending on presence of floodplain. Taxodium distichum

Baseflows are supplemented by groundwater. Minimum baseflows are necessary for aquatic species to survive. Surface water

Exposed bedrock along channels. Ocala limestone

Signs of Genius Loci, or, what the site wants to be: • Native vegetation manages to thrive, even under the challenging circumstances brought about by nutrient loading, seasonal drawdown, and the presence of invasive and non-native species.

117

STRATEGIES / APPROACHES

ENVIRONMENTAL

En3

SCORE

ECONOMIC

TRANSITION

25’ BUFFER

SOCIAL/TACTILE

Georgia Erosion & Sedimentation Control Act of 1975 mandates a min. 25’ riparian buffer

Existing condition of many center pivot fields and wells near rivers and creeks. While there are areas with large tracts of intact forest alongside rivers, especially along the lower Ichawaynochaway by the Jones Center, this is not the regional pattern. Patch 118

CPs don’t irrigate areas that have been reclaimed as buffer zones. CPs cannot rotate a full 360 degrees over a mature canopy.

Buffers are 500’, functioning as both nutrient loading mitigation and wildlife habitat.

Each individual crop field is treated as a potential point source of nitrate pollution. Minimum of ~500’, riparian buffers along riverbanks are instituted with priority areas occurring where surface-subsurface connectivity is significant. Source switching to deeper aquifers becomes standard for irrigation during periods of drought to maintain surficial water flows.

ENVIRONMENTAL

En2

Ec1

/////// ///////

SOCIAL/TACTILE

Incentives are in place to encourage conversion of croplands to sustainable forest lands, particularly those already within proximity to existing forests to establish connectivity.

Solar fields are strategically incentivized to landowners with properties that have strong connections to groundwater and not within proximity of intact ecosystems.

ECONOMIC

EXISTING FOREST CROPLAND CONVERTED TO FOREST

500’ BUFFER

Regional riparian conservation corridors become standardized with an emphasis on reaches with the highest sensitivity to groundwater withdrawal and known populations of at-risk species. Farmlands that are highly connective and isolated from intact forested areas are best suited for solar field installations, and policy and/ or management guidelines are put in place so that new and growing land uses are spatially intentional with regard to aquifer protection.

/////// ///////

Mosaic

119

Figure 08.04 Center pivot operations. Photo by author.

8.4 /// WELL SITES OVERVIEW: Unique from the other three typologies, well sites on the Dougherty Plain are a manmade connection to underlying aquifers. Of critical relevance to the region’s economy, rural identity, and a significant symbol of the tensions surrounding the existing well moratorium, well sites are extremely relevant as a typology in that they are a common feature of the landscape, and there is a need to consider their impacts on aquifers at the site and regional scale. The intervention emphases for this typology are largely rooted in policy and encourage the adoption of adaptive strategies to alter the patchwork of irrigation wells in the region. The moratorium is the most significant constraint on design interventions, and consequently, the emphasis of this section is on policy change. Through policy intervention, the genius loci of each proposed intervention are reflected by the intentional spatial distribution of wells, which is determined by the hydrologic sensitivity of an area. These interventions received a low score on the Dougherty Plain-KSI, and notably does not achieve any of the environmental goals established by the index. More work is needed to best accomplish sustainability goals with regard to this typology, including designing for decommissioned well sites. ROLE OF LA: • Critique existing practices that hinder adaptive management strategies; • Develop plans for well decommisions and new well mosaics post-moratorium. 120

CENTER PIVOT IRRIGATION Stripling Research Park / Camilla, GA Potential for increased efficiency and an argument against the well moratorium.

TECH Advanced Irrigation Scheduling informs temporal irrigation needs. Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI) informs spatial irrigation needs.

ATED IG

IRRIGATED

UNI RR

VRI concept in plan view.

Shallow Mid

GROUNDWATER CONNECTIONS Wells mostly draw from UFA; mosaic of UFA wells is fixed until moratorium is lifted.

Deep Soil moisture sensor.

SURFACE /// SUB-SURFACE ROLE: • Groundwater, primarily from the UFA, is drawn up to irrigate corn, cotton, soybean, and peanut crops. VALUE: • ECONOMIC »

Sustains a predominant livelihood for those who farm in the region

• ENVIRONMENTAL »

N/A

• SOCIAL/TACTILE »

Can foster an understanding of aquifers;

Serves as a direct social connection between people and aquifers, an environment that would otherwise go unexperienced by most.

121

///////

SPATIAL / CONCEPTUAL VISIBILITY

MOTOR

PUMP SHAFT

CASING

PUMP LIFT PIPE SANDY CLAY RESIDUUM GROUT

GRAVEL ENVELOPE

OCALA LIMESTONE PUMP BOWLS

UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER

122

INTAKE STRAINER

CHICKASAWHATCHEE CREEK

COOLEEWAHEE CREEK

ALBANY, GA

ICHAWAYNOCHAWAY CREEK

SPRING CREEK

BIG SLOUGH

COLQUITT, GA

BAINBRIDGE, GA

Urban

Evergreen Forest

100-Year Floodplain

LFRB Irrigation Wells

**NOTE: no well data were obtained for the Spring Creek watershed.

10 miles

123

STRATEGIES / APPROACHES

SCORE

ENVIRONMENTAL

TRANSITION

SOCIAL/TACTILE

UFA wells have been placed on or near center pivot fields. Under the current moratorium, new UFA wells cannot be installed.

124

Ec1

Ec2

ECONOMIC

Well moratorium creates a semi-fixed patchwork of UFA wells. Limits implementing new findings about hydrologic sensitivity. Moratorium has driven the installation of wells to deeper aquifers that are less understood than the UFA.

Fixed

Irrigating from deeper aquifers during prolonged periods of drought can preserve river baseflows that are fed by UFA groundwater.

Moratorium keeps the UFA well patchwork in place.

Funding is made available to landowners for “source switching” or drawing water from deeper aquifers that are not directly connected to surface flows during prolonged periods of drought.

ENVIRONMENTAL

/////// ///////

SOCIAL/TACTILE

Permitting agencies (GA EPD) begin to classify wells by sensitivity. Databases and contact information are in place for landowners that use wells considered highly sensitive, or most influential to river baseflows.

ECONOMIC

Moratorium is lifted for landowners that have wells considered to be highly sensitive. Sensitive wells are decommissioned, and landowners are permitted to install new UFA wells where sentivitiy is lower (if lower sensitivity areas on landowner property permits).

Future modifications are informed by new findings about inter-aquifer dyanmics and river-groundwater relationships.

The moratorium is not lifted regionally, but is instead based on hydrologic benefit. Landowners with UFA wells in place in particularly sensitive areas are permitted to install a UFA well elsewhere on the property in exchange for decommissioning wells in sensitive zones. Georgia EPD labels all permitted wells by hydrologic sensitivity and can directly communicate with landowners most likely to impact surface flows from crop irrigation during times of drought.

/////// ///////

Adaptive

125

CONCLUSION 09 This work sought to identify the interventions and common groundwater-related interventions promoted by stakeholders on the Dougherty Plain, and to develop landscape architectural approaches best suited for addressing wicked problems surrounding groundwater conservation. A pilot design methodology specific to karst landscapes was conceptualized and executed to explore the value of mixed method approaches, while creating space for landscape architects to make sense of karst landscapes by incorporating specialized knowledge into the landscape analysis processes. The creation of typologies through this approach created a framework from which to identify the importance of common karst and social features of the Dougherty Plain while structuring holistic design strategies around these features to best protect groundwater resources. A content analysis of interview transcripts with regional specialists about current practices revealed that the interventions local stakeholders believe would contribute the most to groundwater conservation are technologybased. Interview answers about the potential for landscape architecture to contribute to groundwater conservation in southwest Georgia expanded on the interventions described by stakeholders, prompting further interest, as articulated by interviewees, about rethinking the landscape based on the current distribution of land use, the potential for restoration work, and the potential role of landscape aesthetics in groundwater protection across the Dougherty Plain. Interviews with specialists allowed for discourse to take place, facilitating an exchange of knowledge while providing an opportunity for stakeholders to consider landscape architecture as a discipline capable of addressing regional challenges. In contrast to the content analysis findings that tech-based solutions are more commonly supported intervention types by stakeholders, landscape architectural approaches through this design method revealed a desire by stakeholders for systems-based solutions, resulting in typologies that have inherent surface-subsurface relationships characteristic of both karst landscapes and agricultural land use. The design methodology applied in this work and subsequent typology formation demonstrated the contributions that landscape architects are able to make given the unique circumstances presented by karst landscapes, including: simplifying the landscape in way that data and proposed design interventions are understandable; articulating management and data needs; 126

giving consideration to a multitude of ecological, social and economic systems; and putting an emphasis on the development of sustainable systems across multiple scales, as opposed to focusing solely on the efficiency of existing systems. By identifying the commonly supported interventions for groundwater conservation through a content analysis, a distinction was made between the bevy of engineering interventions that have become so widely accepted in the region, and the systems-based intervention proposals that resulted from the typology formation. Time constrictions for this work limited the development of each typology, but there are additional roles that each typology could outline for landscape architects. This includes the development of restoration blueprints for landowners; management strategy development at the property-level; visualization of processes and management strategies; and proactive outreach to landowners to better facilitate a landscape mosaic that promotes regional groundwater health. Georgia’s Dougherty Plain is considered representative of the many limestone karst systems that occur globally (Coleman J Barrie et al. 2022). The implications of these findings may span across other karstic areas that provide potable and irrigable water to communities around the world. Landscape architecture in the context of rural karst remains relatively unexplored, and there are many research questions pertaining to design in these areas that remain. However, within the ACF Basin, there is much design-related work that could be performed around multitude of land uses that fall within its bounds. Time restrictions prevented the creation of typologies for future scenarios on the Dougherty Plain, but projected urbanization and the growth of the solar industry in southwest Georgia will impact the land cover types of the region in coming decades. Consequently, there will be a need to add, remove, and modify typologies over time. Landscape architects will have an increasingly valuable skillset in rural regions that have historically not seen significant population growth and land use changes comparable to those projected, but a dialogue between local stakeholders, specialists, and landscape designers is an important step forward to best outfit these regions for the changes to come. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Florida’s drawdown case against Georgia, an influx of funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in November 2021, and with the present Farm Bill set to expire in 2023, Georgia is in a rare position to advocate for and experiment with landscape-scale initiatives that could contribute to overall health of groundwater and biodiversity. As discussed throughout this thesis, even progressive policies and cutting-edge equipment risk being ineffective without coupling interventions with ecosystem management and restoring systems that serve groundwater recharge and biodiversity services (Dronova 2019). Although change in the agricultural sector is famously slow, there is a unique opportunity at this moment in time for stakeholders and designers to realize the importance of the karst that supports Georgia’s agricultural market and regional biodiversity through novel approaches and perspectives, and moreover, to actually have it result in implementable solutions. If there were ever a time to rise to the challenges posed by groundwater-related wicked problems, there is, truly, no time like the present. 127

ACRONYM GLOSSARY ACF – Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint ACFS – Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Stakeholders ASR – Aquifer Storage and Recovery BMP – Best Management Practice CLEAR – Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers CP – Conservation Practice CPFP – Coastal Plain Floristic Province CREP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CRP – Conservation Reserve Program EPA – Environmental Protection Agency EQIP – Environmental Quality Incentives Program FAS – Floridan Aquifer System FWS – Fish & Wildlife Service 128

GA EPD – Georgia Environmental Protection Division GIS – Geographic Information Systems GIW – Geographically Isolated Wetland KSI – Karst Sustainability Index LFRB – Lower Flint River Basin LLPI – Longleaf Pine Initiative NACP – North American Coastal Plain NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation Service PFW – Partners for Fish and Wildlife SIP – Sign-Up Incentive UFA – Upper Floridan Aquifer USACE – Army Corps of Engineers USDA – United States Department of Agriculture 129

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Confining layer - A layer of sediment or clay that water cannot easily penetrate. Recharge is limited where the aquifer is confined percolating water won’t be able to pass the confining layer to enter the aquifer.

Dip – “The angle at which beds are inclined from the horizontal. The true dip is the maximum angle of the bedding-planes at right angles to the strike. Lesser angles in other directions are apparent dips. (W.H. Monroe 1970)”

Epikarst – “The uppermost layers of rock below the soil on a karst. This zone is distinguished from lower zones by a higher porosity and storage capacity for water as a result of the presence of many solutionally enlarged fissures. (W.H. Monroe 1970)”

Genius loci – “...the intangible quality of a material place, perceived both physically and spiritually. It reveals itself through visible tangible and perceivable non-material features. It is also made known by underlying processes, because genius loci is a signifier of a process that is happening and cannot intentionally be created. (Vecco 2020)”

Karst – “[Terrain] with special landforms and drainage characteristics on account of greater solubility of certain rocks in natural waters than is common. Derived from the geographical name of part of Slovenia. (W.H. Monroe 1970)”

Limestone – “A sedimentary rock consisting mainly of calcium carbonate CaC03-. (W.H. Monroe 1970)”

Phreatic Zone – “Zone where voids in the rock are completely filled with water. (W.H. Monroe 1970)” 130

Strike - “The direction of a horizontal line in a bedding-plane in rocks inclined from the horizontal. On level ground it is the direction of outcrop of inclined beds. (W.H. Monroe 1970)”

Subcutaneous Zone – see “Epikarst” definition.

Water table – “The surface between phreatic water, which completely fills voids in the rock, and ground air, which partially fills higher voids. (W.H. Monroe 1970)”

Wicked problem – A complex social, environmental or cultural problem that is difficult to solve or lacks any comprehensive solution because of its interconnected nature.

131

LITERATURE CITED Abdi, I, T Tsegaye, M Silitonga, and W Tadesse. 2009. “Spatial and temporal variability of heavy metals in streams of the Flint Creek and Flint River Watersheds from non-point sources.” Drinking Water Engineering and Science Discussions 2 (1): 25-49. Abtew, Wossenu, and Paul Trimble. 2010. “El Niño–Southern Oscillation link to South Florida hydrology and water management applications.” Water Resources Management 24 (15): 4255-4271. ACFS Sustainable Water Management Plan. 2015. https://www.acfstakeholders. org/_files/ugd/f8e0c1_50131a17d65a427ba277021282819926.pdf. Agrawal, GD. 1999. “Diffuse agricultural water pollution in India.” Water science and technology 39 (3): 33-47. Al Basha, Nawarah, and Gábor Sándor. 2020. “Inspirative Geology-the Influence of Natural Geological Formations and Patterns on Contemporary Landscape Design.” Alavalapati, Janaki RR, George A Stainback, and Douglas R Carter. 2002. “Restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem on private lands in the US South: an ecological economic analysis.” Ecological Economics 40 (3): 411-419. Albany, Georgia. 2020. edited by U.S. Census Bureau. Albertson, Phillip N, and Lynn J Torak. 2002. Simulated effects of ground-water pumpage on stream-aquifer flow in the vicinity of federally protected species of freshwater mussels in the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (Subarea 4), southeastern Alabama, northwestern Florida, and southwestern Georgia. Vol. 2. Vol. 4016: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Allmendinger, Philip. 2002. “Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory.” Planning theory 1 (1): 77-99. Allums, Stephanie E, Stephen P Opsahl, Stephen W Golladay, and David W Hicks. 2009. “Effects of Land-Use on Groundwater Quality in springs of the Upper Floridan Aquifer.” Proceedings of the 2009 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April. Anran. “Typology Of Typologies.” Accessed May 1. https://anran.li/typologies. “Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin Drought & Water Dashboard.” 2022. National Integrated Drought Information System. Accessed January 31, 2022. https://www.drought.gov/watersheds/acf-dashboard. 132

1997. Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact. 104. ARC Series 16 Forecast Dashboard. 2021. edited by Atlanta Regional Commission. Ashley, Peter, and Bill WE Boyd. 2006. “Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in environmental management.” Australasian Journal of environmental management 13 (2): 70-78. Aubrey, Doug P. 2021. “Grass (stage) root movement to ensure future resilience of longleaf pine ecosystems.” New Forests: 1-12. Bacchus, Sydney. 2022. “Email communication with Dr. Sydney Bacchus.” February 1, 2022. Bahadur, Aditya V, Maggie Ibrahim, and Thomas Tanner. 2010. “The resilience renaissance.” Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters 45. Barrie, Coleman. 2021. “Personal Communication with Coleman Barrie, Civil Engineering Ph.D. Student at Auburn University.” September 2021. Barrie, Coleman J, Todd C Rasmussen, E William Tollner, Stephen W Golladay, and Steven T Brantley. 2022. “Steady vs dynamic stream-aquifer interactions: Lower Flint River Basin, Southwest Georgia, USA.” Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 40: 101046. Barrie, Coleman James. 2019. “Groundwater Flow on a Karstic Landscape in Southwest Georgia.” University of Georgia. Basmajian, Carlton. 2011. “The river and the region: the Chattahoochee River and the Atlanta Regional Commission.” Journal of Planning History 10 (4): 310-355. Bátori, Zoltán, László Erdős, Márió Gajdács, Károly Barta, Zalán Tobak, Kata Frei, and Csaba Tölgyesi. 2021. “Managing climate change microrefugia for vascular plants in forested karst landscapes.” Forest Ecology and Management 496: 119446. Battle, Juliann, and Stephen W Golladay. 2003. “Prescribed fire’s impact on water quality of depressional wetlands in southwestern Georgia.” The American midland naturalist 150 (1): 15-25. 133

Beane, Jeffrey C, Sean P Graham, Thomas J Thorp, and L Todd Pusser. 2014. “Natural history of the southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) in North Carolina, USA.” Copeia 2014 (1): 168-175. Beck, Barry F. 1986. “A generalized genetic framework for the development of sinkholes and karst in Florida, USA.” Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 8 (1): 5-18. Beck, Barry F, and Georgia Americus. 1980. An introduction to caves and cave exploring in Georgia. Citeseer. Beller, Erin E, Erica N Spotswood, April H Robinson, Mark G Anderson, Eric S Higgs, Richard J Hobbs, Katharine N Suding, Erika S Zavaleta, J Letitia Grenier, and Robin M Grossinger. 2019. “Building ecological resilience in highly modified landscapes.” BioScience 69 (1): 80-92. Bellino, Jason C, Eve L Kuniansky, Andrew M O’Reilly, and Joann F Dixon. 2018. Hydrogeologic setting, conceptual groundwater flow system, and hydrologic conditions 1995–2010 in Florida and parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. US Geological Survey. Biggs, Michael. 2002. “The role of the artefact in art and design research.” International journal of design sciences and technology. Binita, KC, J Marshall Shepherd, and Cassandra Johnson Gaither. 2015. “Climate change vulnerability assessment in Georgia.” Applied Geography 62: 62-74. Boelens, Rutgerd, Jaime Hoogesteger, Erik Swyngedouw, Jeroen Vos, and Philippus Wester. 2016. Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective. Taylor & Francis. Boulton, Andrew. 2005. “Chances and challenges in the conservation of groundwaters and their dependent ecosystems.” Aquatic Conservation. Bouwer, Herman. 2002. “Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering.” Hydrogeology journal 10 (1): 121-142. Braae, Ellen, Lisa Diedrich, and Gini Lee. 2013. “The travelling transect: Capturing island dynamics, relationships and atmospheres in the water landscapes of the Canaries.” Nordes 1 (5). Branam, Easton Leigh. 2012. Spanning the Rural Urban Divide: Toward an Expanded Theory of Landscape Architecture. University of Washington. Brantley, Steven. 2021. Informal interview with Steven Brantley, ecohydrologist. edited by Elyna Grapstein. Brassley, Paul. 1998. “On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape.” Landscape research 23 (2): 119-132. Breininger, DR, Marc J Mazerolle, MR Bolt, ML Legare, JH Drese, and JE Hines. 2012. “Habitat fragmentation effects on annual survival of the federally protected eastern indigo snake.” Animal Conservation 15 (4): 361-368. Brinkmann, Robert, and MARIO Parise. 2012. “Karst environments: problems, 134

management, human impacts, and sustainability. An introduction to the special issue.” J Cave Karst Stud 74 (2): 135-136. Brockway, Dale G, Kenneth W Outcalt, Donald J Tomczak, and Everett E Johnson. 2005. “Restoring longleaf pine forest ecosystems in the southern US.” In: Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests, Stanturf, John A.; Madsen, Palle; eds., Chapter thirty-two, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2005, p. 501-519. Buchanan, Richard. 1992. “Wicked problems in design thinking.” Design issues 8 (2): 5-21. Burkett, Edmund B. 1993. “Allatoona Dam and Lake: A Perspective on History and Water Supply Usage.” Burri, Nicole M, Robin Weatherl, Christian Moeck, and Mario Schirmer. 2019. “A review of threats to groundwater quality in the anthropocene.” Science of the Total Environment 684: 136-154. Cahalan, Matthew D, and Adam M Milewski. 2018. “Sinkhole formation mechanisms and geostatistical-based prediction analysis in a mantled karst terrain.” Catena 165: 333-344. Cahyanti, Pita AB, and Cahyono Agus. 2017. “Development of landscape architecture through geo-eco-tourism in tropical karst area to avoid extractive cement industry for dignified and sustainable environment and life.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Camhi, Ashley L. 2019. “The Conservation Reserve Program as a payments for water quality case study: an environmental economic analysis.” Arizona State University. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/ conservation-reserve-program-as-payments-water/docview/2228138215/se2?accountid=14537. Carbajal-Marquez, RA, and JH Valdez-Villavicencio. 2012. “Petrosaurus thalassinus (San Lucan Banded Rock lizard) limb regeneration.” Herpet. Rev 43 (4). The Chattahoochee RiverLands. April 2020 2020. SCAPE Landscape Architecture DPC. https://chattahoocheeriverlands.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ Task8_Report-Full_Web-1.pdf. Chen, Zhao, Augusto S Auler, Michel Bakalowicz, David Drew, Franziska Griger, Jens Hartmann, Guanghui Jiang, Nils Moosdorf, Andrea Richts, and Zoran Stevanovic. 2017. “The World Karst Aquifer Mapping project: concept, mapping procedure and map of Europe.” Hydrogeology Journal 25 (3): 771785. Claassen, Roger. 2003. Emphasis shifts in US agri-environmental policy. Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR) Prairie Strip Practice Fact Sheet. 2019. edited by USDA. Conservation Reserve Program CP-30. edited by USDA. Couch, Carol A, and RD McDowell. 2006. “Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan.” Georgia DNR-EPD Division. 135

Cox, Casey. 2021. Informal Interview with Casey Cox, 6th Generation Farmer on the Dougherty Plain, Longleaf Ridge Farms edited by Elyna Grapstein. Crandall, Christy A, Brian G Katz, and Marian P Berndt. 2013. Estimating nitrate concentrations in groundwater at selected wells and springs in the surficial aquifer system and Upper Floridan aquifer, Dougherty Plain and Marianna Lowlands, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, 2002–50. USGS. Crewe, Katherine, and Ann Forsyth. 2003. “LandSCAPES: A typology of approaches to landscape architecture.” Landscape Journal 22 (1): 37-53. Daher, Walid, Séverin Pistre, Angeline Kneppers, Michel Bakalowicz, and Wajdi Najem. 2011. “Karst and artificial recharge: Theoretical and practical problems: A preliminary approach to artificial recharge assessment.” Journal of Hydrology 408 (3-4): 189-202. Dalgaard, Tommy, Nicholas J Hutchings, and John R Porter. 2003. “Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity.” Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 100 (1): 39-51. DeFries, Ruth, and Harini Nagendra. 2017. “Ecosystem management as a wicked problem.” Science 356 (6335): 265-270. Diedrich, Lisa, Gini Lee, and Ellen Braae. 2014. “The Transect as a Method for Mapping and Narrating Water Landscapes: Humboldt’s Open Works and Transareal Travelling.” NANO: New American Notes Online (6). Doctor, Daniel H, Jeanne M Jones, Nathan J Wood, Jeff T Falgout, and Natalya Igorevna Rapstine. 2020. “Progress toward a preliminary karst depression density map for the conterminous United States.” Doolittle, James, Qing Zhu, Jun Zhang, Li Guo, and Henry Lin. 2012. “Geophysical investigations of soil-landscape architecture and its impacts on subsurface flow.” Hydropedology: Synergistic Integration of Soil Science and Hydrology. Academic Press, Elsevier: 413-447. Dowd, Brian M, Daniel Press, and Marc Los Huertos. 2008. “Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: The case of California’s Central Coast.” Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 128 (3): 151-161. Drew, Mark B, L Katherine Kirkman, and Angus K Gholson Jr. 1998. “The vascular flora of Ichauway, Baker County, Georgia: a remnant longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem.” Castanea: 1-24. Dronova, Iryna. 2019. “Landscape beauty: A wicked problem in sustainable ecosystem management?” Science of the Total Environment 688: 584-591. Eaton, Marcella. 2017. “The New Landscape Declaration: A Summit on Landscape Architecture and the Future.” Landscape Journal: design, planning, and management of the land 36 (1): 90-92. Edwards, Leslie, Jonathan Ambrose, L Katherine Kirkman, Hugh Nourse, and Carol Nourse. 2013. The natural communities of Georgia. University of Georgia Press. Elfner, Mary A, and Robin John McDowell. 2004. “Water conservation in Georgia: Bringing efficiency into mainstream thinking.” Journal‐American Water Works 136

Association 96 (4): 136-142. Estes, Dwayne. 2022. Eastern Grasslands. In NDAL Annual Symposium; Ecological Systems Include People; Expanding the Scope of Landscape Design: Ecology, People, & Time. Virtual. Fabos, Julius Gy. 1985. “Land-use planning: From global to local challenge.” Faludi, Andreas. 1973. A reader in planning theory Oxford. Pergamon Press. Faste, Trygve, and Haakon Faste. 2012. “Demystifying “design research”: Design is not research, research is design.” IDSA education symposium. Fenolio, Danté B, Matthew L Niemiller, Andrew G Gluesenkamp, Anna M McKee, and Steven J Taylor. 2017. “New distributional records of the stygobitic crayfish Cambarus cryptodytes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in the Floridan Aquifer System of southwestern Georgia.” Southeastern Naturalist 16 (2): 163181. Fenolio, Danté B, Matthew L Niemiller, Michael G Levy, and Benjamin Martinez. 2013. “Conservation status of the Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei) from the Floridan Aquifer of Florida and Georgia.” Reptiles & Amphibians 20 (3): 97-111. Flatt, William P. 2004. “Agriculture in Georgia: Overview.” New Georgia Encyclopedia 1. “Floridan Aquifer Landscape Characteristics.” 2021. [Floridan Aquifer Landscape Characteristics]. Accessed March 14, 2022. https://bluewateraudit.org/aboutthe-aquifer/. Follett, RF, SR Shafer, MD Jawson, and AJ Franzluebbers. 2005. Research and implementation needs to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in the USA. Elsevier. Ford, Derek, and Paul D Williams. 2013. Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons. Frost, Cecil. 2007. “History and future of the longleaf pine ecosystem.” In The longleaf pine ecosystem, 9-48. Springer. Galloway, Devin L, David Richard Jones, and Steven E Ingebritsen. 1999. Land subsidence in the United States. Vol. 1182. US Geological Survey. Gaskell, George. 2002. “Entrevistas individuais e grupais.” Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som: um manual prático 2: 64-89. GAWPPC. 2021. Interview with Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center Representative at Albany State University. edited by Elyna Grapstein. Gebhardt, Maurice R, Tommy C Daniel, Edward E Schweizer, and Raymond R Allmaras. 1985. “Conservation tillage.” Science 230 (4726): 625-630. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual. 2016. http://documents. atlantaregional.com/gastormwater/GSMM_2016%20EDITION_FINAL_V1.pdf. Golden, Heather E, Charles R Lane, Adnan Rajib, and Qiusheng Wu. 2021. 137

“Improving global flood and drought predictions: integrating non-floodplain wetlands into watershed hydrologic models.” Environmental Research Letters 16 (9): 091002. Golladay, Stephen. 2021. Informal Interview with Stephen Golladay, Aquatic Biologist with the Jones Ecological Research Center. edited by Elyna Grapstein. Golladay, Stephen W, Paula Gagnon, Margaret Kearns, Juliann M Battle, and David W Hicks. 2004. “Response of freshwater mussel assemblages (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf Coastal Plain of southwestern Georgia.” Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23 (3): 494506. Goodman, Steven J, Jennifer A Smith, Thomas A Gorman, and Carola A Haas. 2018. “Longevity of gopher tortoise burrows in sandy soils.” Southeastern Naturalist 17 (3): 531-540. Gordon, Debbie W, and Gerard Gonthier. 2017. Hydrology of the Claiborne aquifer and interconnection with the Upper Floridan aquifer in southwest Georgia. US Geological Survey. Gray, Randall L, and Billy M Teels. 2006. “Wildlife and fish conservation through the Farm Bill.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (4): 906-913. Green, Ronald T, Scott L Painter, Alexander Sun, and Stephen RH Worthington. 2006. “Groundwater contamination in karst terranes.” Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus 6 (1): 157-170. GWPPC. 2017. Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Regional Water Plan. Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center (Albany, GA). https://waterplanning.georgia.gov/ document/regional-water-plans/lower-flint-ochlockonee-regional-water-plan/ download. Hancock, Peter J, Andrew J Boulton, and William F Humphreys. 2005. “Aquifers and hyporheic zones: towards an ecological understanding of groundwater.” Hydrogeology Journal 13 (1): 98-111. Handmer, John W, and Stephen R Dovers. 1996. “A typology of resilience: rethinking institutions for sustainable development.” Industrial & Environmental Crisis Quarterly 9 (4): 482-511. Hartmann, A, N Goldscheider, T Wagener, J Lange, and M Weiler. 2014. “Karst water resources in a changing world: Review of hydrological modeling approaches.” Reviews of Geophysics 52 (3): 218-242. Hayes, Larry R, Morris L Maslia, and Wanda C Meeks. 1983. “Hydrology and model evaluation of the principal artesian aquifer, Dougherty Plain, southwest Georgia.” Georgia Geologic Survey, Atlanta Bulletin 97, 1983. 93 p, 45 Fig, 19 Tab, 43 Ref. Herteux, Camille E, Dale E Gawlik, and Lora L Smith. 2020. “Habitat Characteristics Affecting Wading Bird Use of Geographically Isolated Wetlands in the US Southeastern Coastal Plain.” Wetlands 40 (5): 1149-1159. Hicks, DW, Harold E Gill, and SA Longsworth. 1987. Hydrogeology, chemical quality, and availability of ground water in the Upper Floridan Aquifer, 138

Albany area, Georgia. Vol. 87-4145: Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Hohmann, Heidi M, and Joern Langhorst. 2004. “An apocalyptic manifesto.” Unpublished discussion paper. Department of landscape Architecture, lowa state University. www. iastate. edu/nisi/dead. Holländer, Hartmut M, R Mull, and SN Panda. 2009. “A concept for managed aquifer recharge using ASR-wells for sustainable use of groundwater resources in an alluvial coastal aquifer in Eastern India.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, parts A/B/C 34 (4-5): 270-278. Holmes, Damian. 2021. “Reshaping Karst Topography with Farming Culture: A New Community Park Design in Guiyang.” Last Modified November 1, 2021. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://worldlandscapearchitect.com/reshapingkarst-topography-with-farming-culture-a-new-community-park-design-inguiyang/#.Yh1FJejMLb0. Howard, Peter, Ian Thompson, Emma Waterton, and Mick Atha. 2013. The Routledge companion to landscape studies. Routledge. Howze, Jennifer M, and Lora L Smith. 2019. “Detection of gopher tortoise burrows before and after a prescribed fire: implications for surveys.” Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 10 (1): 62-68. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E Shannon. 2005. “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.” Qualitative health research 15 (9): 1277-1288. Hyatt, James A, and Peter M Jacobs. 1996. “Distribution and morphology of sinkholes triggered by flooding following Tropical Storm Alberto at Albany, Georgia, USA.” Geomorphology 17 (4): 305-316. Jancin, M, and DD Clark. 1993. “Subsidence-sinkhole development in light of mud infiltrate structures within interstratal karst of the coastal plain, Southeast United States.” Environmental Geology 22 (4): 330-336. Johnson, Craig W, and Susan Buffler. 2008. “Riparian buffer design guidelines for water quality and wildlife habitat functions on agricultural landscapes in the Intermountain West.” Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-203. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 53 p. 203. Jones, L Elliott, Jaime A Painter, Jacob H LaFontaine, Nicasio Sepúlveda, and Dorothy F Sifuentes. 2017. Groundwater-flow budget for the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in southwestern Georgia and parts of Florida and Alabama, 2008–12. US Geological Survey. Jose, Shibu, Eric J Jokela, and Deborah L Miller. 2007. “The longleaf pine ecosystem.” In The longleaf pine ecosystem, 3-8. Springer. Karl, Thomas R, Jerry M Melillo, Thomas C Peterson, and Susan J Hassol. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. Katz, BG, MP Berndt, and CA Crandall. 2014. “Factors affecting the movement and persistence of nitrate and pesticides in the surficial and upper Floridan aquifers in two agricultural areas in the southeastern United States.” 139

Environmental earth sciences 71 (6): 2779-2795. Kempenaar, Annet. 2021. “Learning to design with stakeholders: Participatory, collaborative, and transdisciplinary design in postgraduate landscape architecture education in Europe.” Land 10 (3): 243. Kempenaar, Annet, and Adri van den Brink. 2018. “Regional designing: A strategic design approach in landscape architecture.” Design Studies 54: 8095. Kirkman, L Katherine, and Steven B Jack. 2017. Ecological restoration and management of longleaf pine forests. CRC Press. Kleinheksel, AJ, Nicole Rockich-Winston, Huda Tawfik, and Tasha R Wyatt. 2020. “Demystifying content analysis.” American journal of pharmaceutical education 84 (1). Kuniansky, Eve. 2001. US Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13-16, 2001. Vol. 1. Vol. 4011. Kuniansky, Eve L, Jason C Bellino, and Joann Dixon. 2012. Transmissivity of the upper Floridan aquifer in Florida and parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Kush, John S, Ralph S Meldahl, Charles K McMahon, and William D Boyer. 2004. “Longleaf Pine: A Sustainable Approach for Increasing Terrestrial Carbon in the Southern United Stat es.” Environmental Management 33 (1): S139-S147. Laboy, Michelle. 2017. “On Groundwater: Invisible Architectural Environments.” Journal of Architectural Education 71 (2): 232-237. Laurett, Rozélia, Arminda Paço, and Emerson Wagner Mainardes. 2021. “Sustainable development in agriculture and its antecedents, barriers and consequences–an exploratory study.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 27: 298-311. Lawrence, Stephen J. 2016. Water use in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, 2010, and water-use trends, 1985-2010. US Geological Survey. Lawton, David E. 1976. Geologic map of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Leibowitz, Scott G, Parker J Wigington Jr, Mark C Rains, and Donna M Downing. 2008. “Non‐navigable streams and adjacent wetlands: addressing science needs following the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (7): 364-371. Leitao, Andre Botequilha, and Jack Ahern. 2002. “Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning.” Landscape and urban planning 59 (2): 65-93. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. 2013. edited by Environmental Protection Agency. Lewis, Cliff. 2022. “LFRB Irrigation Well GIS Data, GA EPD.” February 16, 2022. 140

Li, Si-Liang, Cong-Qiang Liu, Jin-An Chen, and Shi-Jie Wang. 2021. “Karst ecosystem and environment: Characteristics, evolution processes, and sustainable development.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 306: 107173. Liao, Chujie, Yuemin Yue, Kelin Wang, Rasmus Fensholt, Xiaowei Tong, and Martin Brandt. 2018. “Ecological restoration enhances ecosystem health in the karst regions of southwest China.” Ecological Indicators 90: 416-425. Lin, Jiawei, and Robert D Brown. 2021. “Integrating microclimate into landscape architecture for outdoor thermal comfort: a systematic review.” Land 10 (2): 196. Linton, Jamie, and Jessica Budds. 2014. “The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water.” Geoforum 57: 170-180. Lipford, Jody W. 2004. Averting water disputes: A southeastern case study. PERC. Lipschitz, Forbes. 2019. “From Drain to Delta: Green Infrastructure for Working Landscapes.” In Fresh Water: Design Research for Inland Water Territories, edited by Mary Pat McGuire and Jessica M. Henson, 71-81. AR+D. Liu, Tingting, Randall JF Bruins, and Matthew T Heberling. 2018. “Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis.” Sustainability 10 (2): 432. Mannering, Jerry V, and Charles R Fenster. 1983. “What is conservation tillage?” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38 (3): 140-143. Marella, Richard L, and Marian P Berndt. 2005. Water withdrawals and trends from the Floridan aquifer system in the southeastern United States, 1950-2000. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Martin, Glenn I, Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman, and L Katherine Kirkman. 2013. “Six decades (1948–2007) of landscape change in the Dougherty Plain of Southwest Georgia, USA.” southeastern geographer 53 (1): 28-49. Martin, Glenn I, L Katherine Kirkman, and Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman. 2012. “Mapping geographically isolated wetlands in the Dougherty Plain, Georgia, USA.” Wetlands 32 (1): 149-160. Martin, Glenn Ivy. 2010. “Evaluating the location, extent, and condition of isolated wetlands in the Dougherty Plain, Georgia, USA.” University of Georgia. McCormack, T, O Naughton, PM Johnston, and LW Gill. 2016. “Quantifying the influence of surface water–groundwater interaction on nutrient flux in a lowland karst catchment.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20 (5): 21192133. McDowell, Robin John. 2005. “Status of the Flint River Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan.” McIntyre, R Kevin, James M Guldin, Troy Ettel, Clay Ware, and Kyle Jones. 2018. “Restoration of longleaf pine in the southern United States: a status report.” In: Kirschman, Julia E., comp. Proceedings of the 19th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 2017 March 14-16; Blacksburg, VA. e-Gen. 141

Tech. Rep. SRS-234. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Mehmood, Sayeed R, and Daowei Zhang. 2005. “Determinants of forest landowner participation in the Endangered Species Act Safe Harbor program.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10 (4): 249-257. Menzel, Susanne, and Jack Teng. 2010. “Ecosystem services as a stakeholder‐ driven concept for conservation science.” Conservation Biology 24 (3): 907909. Mitra, Subhasis, Sarmistha Singh, and Puneet Srivastava. 2019. “Sensitivity of Groundwater Components to Irrigation Withdrawals during Droughts on Agricultural-Intensive Karst Aquifer in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 24 (3): 05018032. Monroe, Martha C, and Sadie Hundemer. 2021. “Water availability in southwest Georgia and northeast Florida: FOR368/FR438, 10/2021.” EDIS 2021 (5). Monroe, Watson Hiner. 1970. A glossary of karst terminology. US Govt. Print. Off. Morgan, Dan. 2010. The farm bill and beyond. German Marshall Fund of the United States. Mosner, Melinda Susan. 2002. Stream-aquifer Relations and the Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Lower Apalachicola Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in Parts of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, 1999-2000. Vol. 2. Vol. 4244: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Mullen, Jeffrey D. 2019. “Agricultural water policy during drought: A strategy for including groundwater permits in future irrigation buyout auctions in the Flint River basin.” Water 11 (1): 151. Murphy, Patricia. 2008. “EPA’s Report on the Environment (ROE)(2008 Final Report).” Napton, Darrell E, Roger F Auch, Rachel Headley, and Janis L Taylor. 2010. “Land changes and their driving forces in the Southeastern United States.” Regional Environmental Change 10 (1): 37-53. Newton, Norman T. 1974. “Landscape Architecture: A Profession in Confusion?” Landscape Architecture 64 (4): 256-263. Noss, Reed F. 2012. Forgotten grasslands of the South: natural history and conservation. Island Press. Noss, Reed F, William J Platt, Bruce A Sorrie, Alan S Weakley, D Bruce Means, Jennifer Costanza, and Robert K Peet. 2015. “How global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: lessons from the North American Coastal Plain.” Diversity and Distributions 21 (2): 236-244. O’Keeffe, Jimmy, Wouter Buytaert, Ana Mijic, Nicholas Brozović, and Rajiv Sinha. 2016. “The use of semi-structured interviews for the characterisation of farmer irrigation practices.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20 (5): 1911-1924. 142

Oehlmann, S, T Geyer, T Licha, and S Birk. 2013. “Influence of aquifer heterogeneity on karst hydraulics and catchment delineation employing distributive modeling approaches.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17 (12): 4729-4742. Oliver, David M, Rob D Fish, Michael Winter, Chris J Hodgson, A Louise Heathwaite, and Dave R Chadwick. 2012. “Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data: farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems.” Environmental Modelling & Software 36: 76-85. Omernik, James M, and Glenn E Griffith. 2012. “Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia (EPA).” Otter.ai, Inc. Otter.ai. https://otter.ai/. Parise, Mario, Franci Gabrovsek, Georg Kaufmann, and Natasa Ravbar. 2018. “Recent advances in karst research: from theory to fieldwork and applications.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications 466 (1): 1-24. Parsons, Elizabeth. 2019. “Determining habitat requirements and landscape factors for the decline of the southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis).” Paudel, Karuna, Puneet Dwivedi, and David Dickens. 2021. “Factors affecting the spatial density of longleaf pine plantations under the Conservation Reserve Program in Georgia, United States.” Trees, Forests and People 3: 100045. Payne, Heather. 2014. “Lake Lanier and the Corps: How Adaptive Management Could Help in the AFC System.” Idaho L. Rev. 51: 279. Perry, Calvin. 2021. Informal Interview with Calvin Perry, Public Service Assistant at Stripling Irrigation Research Park. edited by Elyna Grapstein. Perry, Calvin, and Radford Yager. 2011. “Irrigation water conservation efforts at the UGA CM Stripling Irrigation Research Park.” Pierce, Robert R, Nancy L Barber, and HR Stiles. 1984. Georgia Irrigation, 197080: A decade of growth. Vol. 83. Vol. 4177: US Geological Survey. Plummer, LN, Eurybiades Busenberg, JB McConnell, Stefan Drenkard, Peter Schlosser, and RL Michel. 1998. “Flow of river water into a Karstic limestone aquifer. 1. Tracing the young fraction in groundwater mixtures in the Upper Floridan Aquifer near Valdosta, Georgia.” Applied Geochemistry 13 (8): 9951015. Pollard, Lin Davis, Rodney G Grantham, and HE Blanchard. 1978. A preliminary appraisal of the impact of agriculture on ground-water availability in southwest Georgia. US Geological Survey. Qi, Ji, Steven T Brantley, and Stephen W Golladay. 2021. “Simulated longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) restoration increased streamflow—A case study in the Lower Flint River Basin.” Ecohydrology: e2365. Qi, Jill, ST Brantley, and SW Golladay. 2020. “Simulated irrigation reduction improves low flow in streams—A case study in the Lower Flint River Basin.” Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 28: 100665. Querner, EP. 2000. “The effects of human intervention in the water regime.” 143

Ground water 38 (2): 167. Quinn, John J, David Tomasko, and James A Kuiper. 2006. “Modeling complex flow in a karst aquifer.” Sedimentary Geology 184 (3-4): 343-351. Rasmussen, Todd C. 2021. “Personal Communication with Todd Rasmussen, Professor of Hydrology & Water Resources at the University of Georgia.” September 2021. Reimer, Adam P, and Linda S Prokopy. 2014a. “Farmer participation in US Farm Bill conservation programs.” Environmental management 53 (2): 318-332. Reimer, Adam, and Linda Prokopy. 2014b. “One federal policy, four different policy contexts: An examination of agri-environmental policy implementation in the Midwestern United States.” Land Use Policy 38: 605-614. Richards, Donale, Margaret Krome, and Alejandra Hernandez. 2020. “Building sustainable farms, ranches and communities: a guide to federal programs for sustainable agriculture, forestry, entrepreneurship, conservation, food systems, and community development.” Rogers, Gordon. 2021. Informal Interview with Gordon Rogers, Executive Director & Flint Riverkeeper. edited by Elyna Grapstein. Rooks, Wilton. 2011. “How Do Stakeholders Get a Voice….” 2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference, Statesboro, Georgia. Rosenberg, Nathan, and Peter Lehner. 2022. “The Climate Crisis and Agriculture.” Environmental Law Reporter 52 (2). Rugel, Kathleen. 2020. “Stakeholders Reach Consensus in Troubled WatersApalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, Southeastern USA.” Case Studies in the Environment 4 (1). Rugel, Kathleen, Stephen W Golladay, C Rhett Jackson, Robin J McDowell, John F Dowd, and Todd C Rasmussen. 2019. “Using hydrogeomorphic patterns to predict groundwater discharge in a karst basin: Lower Flint River Basin, southwestern Georgia, USA.” Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 23: 100603. Rugel, Kathleen, C Rhett Jackson, J Joshua Romeis, Stephen W Golladay, David W Hicks, and John F Dowd. 2012. “Effects of irrigation withdrawals on streamflows in a karst environment: lower Flint River Basin, Georgia, USA.” Hydrological Processes 26 (4): 523-534. Rugel, Kathleen, Josh Romeis, C Rhett Jackson, Stephen W Golladay, David W Hicks, and John F Dowd. 2009. “Use of historic data to evaluate effects of pumping stress on streams in southwest Georgia.” Proceedings of the 2009 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Rugel, Kathleen, Stephen W. Golladay, C. Rhett Jackson, Todd C. Rasmussen. 2016. “Delineating groundwater/surface water interaction in a karst watershed: Lower Flint River Basin, southwestern Georgia, USA.” Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 5: 1-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejrh.2015.11.011. Sappa, Giuseppe, Stefania Vitale, and Flavia Ferranti. 2018. “Identifying karst 144

aquifer recharge areas using environmental isotopes: A case study in Central Italy.” Geosciences 8 (9): 351. Sawatzky, Margaret E, and Lenore Fahrig. 2019. “Wetland buffers are no substitute for landscape‐scale conservation.” Ecosphere 10 (4): e02661. Schertz, Lyle P, and Otto C Doering. 1999. Making of the 1996 Farm Act. Iowa State University Press. Scheyett, Anna, Rana Bayakly, and Michael Whitaker. 2019. “Characteristics and contextual stressors in farmer and agricultural worker suicides in Georgia from 2008–2015.” Journal of rural mental health 43 (2-3): 61. Sever, Charles W. 1965. Ground-water resources and geology of Seminole, Decatur and Grady Counties, Georgia. USGPO. Sherman, Mark. 2021. “Supreme Court gives Georgia win in water war with Florida.” Associated Press, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-floridaamy-coney-barrett-gulf-of-mexico-us-supreme-court-926c7211539d116f62336bc da40f554f. Singh, Sarmistha, Subhasis Mitra, Puneet Srivastava, Ash Abebe, and Lynn Torak. 2017. “Evaluation of water‐use policies for baseflow recovery during droughts in an agricultural intensive karst watershed: Case study of the lower Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin, southeastern United States.” Hydrological Processes 31 (21): 3628-3644. Smith, Jennifer A, Kerry Brust, James Skelton, and Jeffrey R Walters. 2018. “How effective is the Safe Harbor program for the conservation of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers?” The Condor: Ornithological Applications 120 (1): 223-233. Snyder, S.A. 1993. Indigo Snake. USFS Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). Stokes, Kathryn L, Shari L Forbes, Laura A Benninger, David O Carter, and Mark Tibbett. 2009. “Decomposition studies using animal models in contrasting environments: evidence from temporal changes in soil chemistry and microbial activity.” In Criminal and environmental soil forensics, 357-377. Springer. Stokes, Tim R, and Paul A Griffiths. 2019. “An overview of the karst areas in British Columbia, Canada.” Geoscience Canada: Journal of the Geological Association of Canada/Geoscience Canada: journal de l’Association Géologique du Canada 46 (1): 49-66. Stubbs, Megan. 2010. Environmental quality incentives program (EQIP): status and issues. Congressional Research Service. Stults, DM, and Sara Meerow. 2017. Professional Societies and Climate Change. The Kresge Foundation. Sun, Ge. 2013. “Impacts of climate change and variability on water resources in the Southeast USA.” In Climate of the Southeast United States, 210-236. Springer. Susaeta, Andres, and Peichen Gong. 2019. “Economic viability of longleaf pine management in the southeastern United States.” Forest Policy and Economics 100: 14-23. 145

Tillett, Matt. 2011. Northern Bobwhite. In Flickr. Tiryakian, Edward A. 1968. “Typologies.” International encyclopedia of the social sciences 16: 177-186. Torak, Lynn J, and Jaime A Painter. 2006. Geohydrology of the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, southwestern Georgia, northwestern Florida, and southeastern Alabama. Torak, Lynn J, Jaime A Painter, and Michael F Peck. 2010. Geohydrology of the Aucilla-Suwannee-Ochlockonee River Basin, south-central Georgia and adjacent parts of Florida. U. S. Geological Survey. “Town Branch Commons.” 2013. SCAPE. Accessed February 28, 2022. https:// www.scapestudio.com/projects/reviving-town-branch/. Tucker, Matthew. 2019. “Hydrosocial Territories of the Anthropocene.” In Fresh Water: Design Research for Inland Water Territories, edited by Mary Pat McGuire and Jessica M. Henson, 182-190. AR+D. Turner, Monica Goigel, and C Lynn Ruscher. 1988. “Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA.” Landscape ecology 1 (4): 241-251. Unger, Paul W, and TM McCalla. 1980. “Conservation tillage systems.” In Advances in Agronomy, 1-58. Elsevier. USDA. 2011. FY 2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan. https:// www.ocfo.usda.gov/docs/FY11budsum.pdf. ---. 2022a. “Conservation Reserve Program.” Accessed January 30, 2022. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/ conservation-reserve-program/index. ---. 2022b. Conservation Reserve Program Statistics - 2022 County Average Stats. edited by Farm Service Agency. USFWS. 2018. Farm Bill Conservation Programs. US Fish & Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Farm-Bill-Brochure-508Compliant.pdf. USGS. 2019a. 30-Meter Resolution Digital Elevation Model. ---. 2019b. National Land Cover Database. edited by Earth Resources Observation & Science Center (EROS). van Beynen, Philip, Robert Brinkmann, and Kaya van Beynen. 2012. “A Sustainability Index for Karst Environments.” Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 74 (2): 221-234. van Beynen, Philip, and Kaya Townsend. 2005. “A Disturbance Index for Karst Environments.” Environmental Management 36 (1): 101-116. Van Lear, David H, WD Carroll, PR Kapeluck, and Rhett Johnson. 2005. “History and restoration of the longleaf pine-grassland ecosystem: implications for species at risk.” Forest ecology and Management 211 (1-2): 150-165. 146

Vasileiou, Konstantina, Julie Barnett, Susan Thorpe, and Terry Young. 2018. “Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period.” BMC medical research methodology 18 (1): 1-18. Vecco, Marilena. 2020. “Genius loci as a meta-concept.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 41: 225-231. VERBI Software. MAXQDA 2022. Software. 2021. maxqda.com. Vest, Robert E. 1992. “Water wars in the southeast: Alabama, Florida, and Georgia square off over the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin.” Ga. St. UL Rev. 9: 689. Watering Georgia: The State of Water and Agriculture in Georgia. 2017. Georgia Water Coalition. https://chattahoochee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ GWC_WateringGeorgia_Report.pdf. Watson, Thomas W. 1981. Geohydrology of the Dougherty Plain and Adjacent Area, Southwest Georgia. Georgia Geologic Survey. Weary, David J, and Daniel H Doctor. 2014. Karst in the United States: a digital map compilation and database. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Reston, VA, USA. Wiken, ED, F Jiménez Nava, and Glenn Griffith. 2011. “North American terrestrial ecoregions—level III.” Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada 149. Williams, Lester J, and Eve L Kuniansky. 2016. Revised hydrogeologic framework of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Williams, Marcus D, Christie Hawley, Marguerite Madden, and J Marshall Shepherd. 2017. “Mapping the spatio-temporal evolution of irrigation in the Coastal Plain of Georgia, USA.” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 83 (1): 57-67. Williams, Paul W. 2008. “The role of the epikarst in karst and cave hydrogeology: a review.” International Journal of Speleology 37 (1): 1. Wilson, Doug. 2007. “The feasibility of using aquifer storage and recovery to manage water supplies in Georgia.” Windham, R. Jeannine; Johannes H.N. Loubser; Mark T. Swanson. March 12, 2009 2009. A Look Into the Outlands: The Cultural Landscape of the Dougherty Plain of Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta, Georgia). Xie, Yanhua, & Lark, Tyler. 2021. LANID-US: Landsat-based Irrigation Dataset for the United States (2.0). Zenodo. Zediak, John E, and Joanne U Brandt. 1994. “Water Releases from Jim Woodruff Dam and the Threatened Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon.” Water Quality ‘94 Proceedings of the 10th Seminar. 147

Zedler, Joy B. 2004. “Compensating for wetland losses in the United States.” Ibis 146: 92-100. Zhao, Dehai, Bronson P Bullock, Cristian R Montes, Mingliang Wang, Dale Greene, and Lori Sutter. 2019. “Loblolly pine outperforms slash pine in the southeastern United States–A long-term experimental comparison study.” Forest ecology and management 450: 117532. Zigler, Kirk S, Matthew L Niemiller, Charles DR Stephen, Breanne N Ayala, Marc A Milne, Nicholas S Gladstone, Annette S Engel, John B Jensen, Carlos D Camp, and James C Ozier. 2020. “Biodiversity From Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats of Georgia, USA.” Journal of Cave & Karst Studies 82 (2). Zimmerman, John, Erik Stolterman, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. “An analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach.” proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems.

148

KARST AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

PRINCIPAL AQUIFERS OF THE UNITED STATES

SURFACE 149