Plans of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District : Long-term wastewater management plan, 2030

Acknowledgements
We owe special thanks to those individuals who gave their time, expertise, and insights to create this Plan. They brought diverse perspectives to create sound, achievable goals for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. These people include participants in the Technical Coordinating Committee, the six Basin Advisory Councils, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, MACTEC Engineering Consulting, Inc., the District planning staff provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission, and those who provided written comments on the plans. We would also like to acknowledge and thank members of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Planning team whose valuable contributions were essential in developing this Plan. These include:
McKenzie MacGregor Incorporated, USInfrastructure, Inc., and Maddaus Water Management.
LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WW.DOC

Table of Contents

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Plan Highlights...................................................................................................................... ES-1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... ES-3
Planning Process .............................................................................................................. ES-3 Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils Participation............ ES-4 Key Planning Assumptions.............................................................................................. ES-4 Policy Goals ..................................................................................................................... ES-5 Integration of Planning Efforts ........................................................................................ ES-5 Existing Wastewater Management Conditions ..................................................................... ES-6 Wastewater Treatment, Discharge, and Reuse................................................................. ES-6 Existing Septic Usage ...................................................................................................... ES-7 Existing WWTP Impacts on Stream Quality ................................................................... ES-7 Projected Conditions............................................................................................................. ES-7 Wastewater Management Issues ........................................................................................... ES-8 Alternatives Development and Evaluation ........................................................................... ES-9 Wastewater Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... ES-9 Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance Program............................... ES-12 Septic Systems Inspection and Maintenance Program........................................................ ES-13 Local Planning Recommendations...................................................................................... ES-14 Flexibility Within the Plan.................................................................................................. ES-14 Regulatory Recommendations ............................................................................................ ES-15 Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration............................................................. ES-15 Funding ............................................................................................................................... ES-16 Education and Public Awareness........................................................................................ ES-16 Implementation Actions...................................................................................................... ES-17 Assessment of Progress....................................................................................................... ES-18 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... ES-19
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Planning Process ......................................................................................................................1-3 Wastewater Management Planning Steps ............................................................................1-3 Public Participation..................................................................................................................1-4 Policy Goals .............................................................................................................................1-4 Planning Assumptions .............................................................................................................1-4 Report Organization.................................................................................................................1-5 Integration of District Planning Efforts ...................................................................................1-6

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW TABLE OF CONTENTS.DOC

TOC-1

Table of Contents

SECTION 2 PLAN OVERVIEW Wastewater Treatment Facilities..............................................................................................2-1 Collection System Maintenance...............................................................................................2-4 Septic and Decentralized System Management .......................................................................2-4 Local Planning Recommendations...........................................................................................2-7 Regulatory Requirements.........................................................................................................2-8 Governance ..............................................................................................................................2-8 Funding ....................................................................................................................................2-8 Education and Public Awareness.............................................................................................2-9 Integration with Other District Plans .......................................................................................2-9

SECTION 3 EXISTING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities ...............................................................................3-1 Existing Discharge Locations ..................................................................................................3-2 Existing Reuse .........................................................................................................................3-3 Non-potable Reuse..............................................................................................................3-3 Indirect Potable Reuse ........................................................................................................3-4 Existing Septic System Usage..................................................................................................3-5 Existing Surface Water Quality ...............................................................................................3-6

SECTION 4 WASTEWATER PROJECTIONS Population and Employment Projections.................................................................................4-1 Population Projection Methodology ...................................................................................4-1 Employment Projection Methodology ................................................................................4-3 Projections........................................................................................................................... 4-3 Wastewater Flow Projection ....................................................................................................4-4 Septic System Usage Forecasts................................................................................................4-5

SECTION 5 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES Water Resource Considerations ...............................................................................................5-1 Reliance on Surface Water for Multiple Uses.....................................................................5-1 Limited Assimilative Capacity vs. Need for Returns..........................................................5-1 Georgia Power Removal of Heat Load from the Chattahoochee River ..............................5-2 TMDLs and Non-point Source Pollution............................................................................5-2 Nutrient Standards for Lakes ..............................................................................................5-2 Upper Chattahoochee Trout Fishery and Recreation Use...................................................5-3 Stream Temperatures ..........................................................................................................5-3 Proximity of Discharges to Water Supply Intakes..............................................................5-3 Efficient and Effective Infrastructure ......................................................................................5-4 Serving Additional Wastewater Flow .................................................................................5-4 Higher Levels of Treatment and Plant Performance...........................................................5-4 Number of Small Facilities .................................................................................................5-4 Septic Systems ....................................................................................................................5-4 Wastewater Collection Systems..........................................................................................5-5 Combined Sewer Systems...................................................................................................5-5 Other Planning Considerations ................................................................................................5-6 Stewardship of State Waters ...............................................................................................5-6 Basin Considerations ..........................................................................................................5-6 Consumptive Use ................................................................................................................5-6 Water Supply Needs for Indirect Potable Reuse.................................................................5-6 Non-Potable Reuse..............................................................................................................5-7

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW TABLE OF CONTENTS.DOC

TOC-2

Table of Contents

Minority and Low Income Population Areas- Environmental Justice................................5-7

SECTION 6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION Public Participation..................................................................................................................6-1 Policy-goal Criteria Development ...........................................................................................6-1 Stepped Process for Developing and Evaluating Solutions .....................................................6-2

SECTION 7 PLANNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Infrastructure Plan....................................................................................................................7-1 Plan Description..................................................................................................................7-1 Treatment Standards ...........................................................................................................7-3 Principles Used to Develop Plan.........................................................................................7-5 Recommended Actions ............................................................................................................7-8 Capital Improvement Phasing Plans ......................................................................................7-11

SECTION 8 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8-1 Recommended Inspection and Maintenance Program.............................................................8-2 Proposed EPA CMOM Program..............................................................................................8-9 Summary of Recommendations .............................................................................................8-10

SECTION 9 SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9-1 Siting, Design, Construction and Inspection............................................................................9-2 Septic System Maintenance .....................................................................................................9-3 Public Awareness.....................................................................................................................9-3 Managing Septic Systems ........................................................................................................9-4 Managing Decentralized Treatment Systems...........................................................................9-5 Policies for Connections to Public Sewer ................................................................................9-5 Monitoring and Documenting Contamination of Surface Waters ...........................................9-7 Summary of Recommendations ...............................................................................................9-7

SECTION 10 LOCAL PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS Develop Local Wastewater Management Plans.....................................................................10-1

SECTION 11 PLAN FLEXIBILITY Essential Elements of the Plan ...............................................................................................11-1 Flexible Elements of the Plan ................................................................................................11-2 Plant Capacities.................................................................................................................11-2 Interim Facilities ...............................................................................................................11-2 Phasing .............................................................................................................................. 11-3 Site Specific Issues ...........................................................................................................11-3

SECTION 12 LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS Discharge Permits ..................................................................................................................12-1 Streamlined Permitting ..........................................................................................................12-2 Wasteload Assessments .........................................................................................................12-3

SECTION 13 GOVERNANCE AND INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COLLABORATION Moving from Coordination to Collaboration .........................................................................13-1 Obstacles to Collaboration .....................................................................................................13-2

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW TABLE OF CONTENTS.DOC

TOC-3

Table of Contents

Opportunities for Regional Collaboration..............................................................................13-2 Tools to Advance Collaboration ...........................................................................................13-3 Inter-Jurisdictional Relationships ..........................................................................................13-8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 13-9

SECTION 14 FUNDING Local Funding ........................................................................................................................14-1 State Gap Financing...............................................................................................................14-2 Federal Funding .....................................................................................................................14-4 District Operations .................................................................................................................14-4 Public-Private Partnerships ....................................................................................................14-5

SECTION 15 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS PLAN Purpose................................................................................................................................... 15-1 Education and Public Awareness Plan Approach ..................................................................15-1 Campaign Identity.............................................................................................................15-1 Campaign Elements ..........................................................................................................15-2 Element 1: Public Awareness Campaign .........................................................................15-2 Element 2: Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups.............................................15-6 Element 3: Primary and Secondary Education.................................................................15-9

SECTION 16 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS Roles ......................................................................................................................................16-1 Action Items...........................................................................................................................16-2 Implementation Costs ..........................................................................................................16-14 Infrastructure Costs ........................................................................................................16-14 Programmatic Costs .......................................................................................................16-15

SECTION 17 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS Plan Reviews and Updates.....................................................................................................17-1 Ensuring Plan Relevancy ..................................................................................................17-2 Setting Common Expectations..........................................................................................17-2 Future Planning Work.......................................................................................................17-2 Reviewing District and Other Plans..................................................................................17-3 Recommended Annual Reviews and Updates ..................................................................17-3 Performance Measures...........................................................................................................17-3 Type of Reports.................................................................................................................17-6 Responsibilities .................................................................................................................17-6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 17-6

TABLES

ES-1 Estimated Costs for District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan ...................... ES-12 ES-2 Implementation Responsibilities................................................................................... ES-17

1-1 Screening Criteria for the Water Supply and Wastewater Management Plans...................1-5

2-1 Wastewater Demand Centers..............................................................................................2-5 2-2 Estimated Costs for District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan ............................2-9

3-1 Summary of Existing Wastewater Treatment Capacity by Basin.......................................3-1

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW TABLE OF CONTENTS.DOC

TOC-4

Table of Contents

3-2 Summary of Existing Wastewater Treatment Capacity by County ....................................3-2 3-3 Currently Permitted Discharges by Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater
Treatment Plants in the District ..........................................................................................3-2
4-1 Population and Employment Projections by County..........................................................4-3 4-2 Population and Employment Projections by Basin.............................................................4-4 4-3 Summary by County of Projected Wastewater Flow to be Received at Treatment
Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 4-5 4-4 Summary by Basin of Projected Wastewater Flow to be Received at Treatment
Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 4-5
6-1 Results of Evaluation of the Four Alternatives...................................................................6-5
7-1 Wastewater Treatment Plants Planned to be in Operation in 2030 ....................................7-2
10-1 Local Wastewater Planning Elements .............................................................................10-3
13-1 Multi-Jurisdictional Projects............................................................................................13-3
15-1 Communication Activities and Audiences ......................................................................15-7 15-2 Existing Water Resource Education Programs in the District .......................................15-12
16-1 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Wastewater Capital Improvements ..............16-3 16-2 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Wastewater Collection System Inspection
and Maintenance ..............................................................................................................16-5 16-3 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Septic System Management .........................16-8 16-4 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Wastewater Management
Planning ...........................................................................................................................16-9 16-5 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Streamlined Permitting and
Allocations ....................................................................................................................16-10 16-6 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Governance and Inter-Jurisdictional
Collaboration.................................................................................................................. 16-11 16-7 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Funding ......................................................16-12 16-8 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness ...............16-13 16-9 Estimated Costs for District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan .......................16-15 16-10 Estimate of Programmatic Costs for WW Plan .............................................................16-16
17-1 Summary of Plan Elements to be Reviewed and Updated Regularly by the District........................................................................................................................17-4
17-2 Summary of Critical Performance Measures...................................................................17-5
FIGURES
ES-1 Planning Process ............................................................................................................. ES-4 ES-2 District Policy Goals ....................................................................................................... ES-5 ES-3 Discharge Types at Existing Publicly Owned Treatment Facilities................................ ES-6 ES-4 Trend of Wastewater Flow to be Managed at WWTPs .................................................. ES-7 ES-5 Planning Procedure ......................................................................................................... ES-9 ES-6 District Plan for Wastewater Treatment Facilities ........................................................ ES-10 ES-7 Planned Interbasin Transfers for 2030 .......................................................................... ES-11

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW TABLE OF CONTENTS.DOC

TOC-5

Table of Contents
1-1 District Study Area .............................................................................................................1-2 1-2 District Policy Goals...........................................................................................................1-4 1-3 Integration of the Three District Long-term Plans..............................................................1-7
2-1 Demand Centers District Wastewater Plan......................................................................2-2
3-1 Level of Treatment at Existing Publicly Owned Treatment Facilities ...............................3-2 3-2 Discharge Types at Existing Publicly Owned Treatment Facilities ...................................3-2 3-3 Estimated Percent of Housing Units Using Septic Systems in 2000 ..................................3-5 3-4 Estimated Septic System Usage in 2000 ............................................................................3-5 3-5 Relationship of Septic System Usage to Density of Development.....................................3-6
4-1 Population Projection Methodology ...................................................................................4-2 4-2 Wastewater Flow Calculation.............................................................................................4-4 4-3 Trend of Wastewater Flow to be Managed at WWTPs ......................................................4-5 4-4 Current and Projected (Baseline) Septic System Usage .....................................................4-6 4-5 Comparison of Projections for Wastewater Managed by Septic Systems to
Wastewater Generated .......................................................................................................4-6
6-1 Policy Goals and Policy-goal Criteria ................................................................................6-2
7-1 Wastewater Treatment Plants for 2030...............................................................................7-1 7-2 Withdrawals and Discharges for 2030................................................................................7-3 7-3 Interbasin Transfers for 2030 with Proposed Plans ............................................................7-4 7-4 Phasing of Existing Publicly Owned WWTPs ...................................................................7-6
13-1 Levels Leading to Collaboration .....................................................................................13-1 13-2 Future Structures and Roles.............................................................................................13-8
APPENDICES
Appendix A Index Appendix B County Level Summaries Wastewater Implementation Plan Appendix C Partner Organizations

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW TABLE OF CONTENTS.DOC

TOC-6

Executive Summary Executive Summary

This is the first edition of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District's (District) Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan). It presents a 30-year plan for the newly established District to address service needs and to balance the uses of water resources. By law, this plan will be reviewed annually by the District, and updated at least every 5 years.
Wastewater flows within the District are expected to nearly double during this planning horizon. To address this level of need, the WW Plan anticipates a future of large, highperformance treatment facilities that produce reusable water. The WW Plan also intends more intensive management of public wastewater collection systems and privately owned septic systems. Finally, the plan includes new policies and programs to foster coordinated wastewater management decisions among the local governments in the District.
The WW Plan addresses the statewide concern regarding how metropolitan north Georgia manages water resources. The WW Plan is the first comprehensive regional approach to be developed that addresses wastewater management in metropolitan north Georgia. The overall goal of the WW Plan is to meet projected wastewater management needs without compromising environmental and downstream needs, thereby helping the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) make permitting decisions. The WW Plan supports the District's companion plans for water supply and conservation, and watershed management by providing a linked strategy for meeting future water needs, while protecting water quality.
The District is comprised of 16 counties in metropolitan north Georgia. These counties lie primarily within the boundaries of five major river basins: the Chattahoochee, Etowah (a subbasin of the Coosa), Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee. Small portions of the District are also in the Tallapoosa Basin and in smaller basins of the Coosa Basin. The District lies in the upstream headwaters of all of these basins and as such is comprised of relatively small streams and rivers.

Plan Highlights

Water resource issues in the District are driven by the geography of the region, and are dominated by small headwater streams. Among other uses, these streams receive the discharge flows from most wastewater treatment plants. Recent studies by the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) have indicated that many streams are reaching their limit to accept discharges and EPD is not issuing new discharge permits for them. The Georgia General Assembly

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-1

Executive Summary

recognized the need to develop a regional plan to address issues such as growing demand, water quality, interbasin transfers, reliability and performance, funding and public education.

The WW Plan proposes to consolidate many small treatment facilities over the planning period to reduce cost and improve performance. The WW Plan wastewater management solution represents a departure from current plans by focusing on cost effectiveness through gradual, consolidated expansion. At the same time, it recognizes the investment in existing infrastructure, and strikes a balance between consolidation and the use of existing facilities.

The WW Plan continues the local ownership and operation of wastewater facilities with increased inter-jurisdictional collaboration to gain efficiencies and avoid duplication. The District's role is to maintain and update the WW Plan and assist with inter-jurisdictional collaboration. Various state agencies continue in their roles of setting standards, regulating, permitting, and funding. The WW Plan has the following benefits:

Surface water quality is protected and water supply is supported; Wastewater treatment is more consistent, and reclaimed water adds to the viability and
reliability of water supply sources;
Costs are lower than with a non-regional solution; Consumptive wastewater management practices are discouraged; Collective voice and unified plan can support legislative and funding requests to state
and federal agencies;
Permitting processes are simplified; Inspection and maintenance of wastewater collection systems and septic systems are
improved; and
Quality of life is enhanced for District citizens.

The WW Plan includes the following key elements:

The District has prepared three integrated water management plans

Consolidated treatment at 48
plants;
Protection of water quality
through upgrading the level of treatment, integrating watershed protection, and enhancing the reliability of treatment and pumping systems;
Integration of reclaimed water by
returning flow to local streams and water supply lakes;
Returning flow to the
Chattahoochee Basin;
Elimination of the heat load from
the Chattahoochee River currently

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-2

Executive Summary
imposed by the Georgia Power Company generating plants;
Revision of the temperature standard for the Chattahoochee River from the numeric
standard to one that is more closely related to protecting the trout;
Improved inspection and maintenance of wastewater collection systems; Improved inspection and maintenance of septic systems; Local planning efforts to optimize and refine existing local plans for consistency with the
WW Plan;
Preparation of tools to aid in inter-jurisdictional collaboration, including model
agreements, fair share funding formulas, dispute resolution, and rewards;
Additional funding opportunities through Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
(GEFA) or federal funding; and
Education and public awareness.
Introduction
In 2001, the Georgia General Assembly recognized the value of the metropolitan north Georgia area watersheds for water supply, recreation, habitat for fish and wildlife, economic prosperity, and quality of life, by enacting Senate Bill 130. They determined that adequate supplies of clean water for drinking and other purposes constituted the lifeblood of the metropolitan north Georgia area and were, therefore, essential to the health, welfare, and economic progress of the area and the State. They established the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District and charged it with addressing comprehensive water resource management planning in the 16county area of metropolitan north Georgia.
Part of the District's charge was to create three distinct, but integrated, long-term plans: stormwater/watershed, wastewater, and water supply management. The planning horizon for the long-term plans was set at 2030. A short-term plan addressing wastewater management was also included.
The WW Plan that follows outlines the long-term water management strategy through 2030. It provides a summary of the planning process, existing conditions and issues, evaluated alternatives, recommended solution, implementation actions, and measures to assess progress.
Planning Process
This WW Plan was prepared using an open step-by-step planning process involving a broad group of stakeholders. It was based on policy goals established at the project outset, and was integrated with other concurrent planning efforts. As required by Senate Bill 130, the EPD established Planning Standards that the WW Plan must meet. The planning process enabled the District to engage a wide range of stakeholders, and to complete the WW Plan within the compressed schedule mandated in the law establishing the District. Figure ES-1 shows the primary steps in the wastewater planning process.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-3

Executive Summary

Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils Participation

FIGURE ES-1 Planning Process

A cornerstone of the decision

process was a series of

facilitated meetings with the

Technical

Coordinating

Committee (TCC) and six

Basin Advisory Councils

(BACs). The TCC was

comprised of local county and

city utility staff, and served as

a technical advisory group to

provide information, guidance,

and feedback during WW Plan

preparation. Each BAC was

comprised of a cross-section of

stakeholders who represented

one of the major basins:

Chattahoochee, Etowah, Lake

Lanier, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and

Flint.

These regional resources provided critical technical information and direction to the District and the consultant team. Both the TCC and BACs were consulted on each of the major deliverables in the planning process. Feedback and suggestions from these groups were used to refine the recommendations through each successive step via regular meetings and professional facilitation.

Key Planning Assumptions

Key planning assumptions used as a basis for the evaluation and recommendations included:

Planning horizon through 2030; The water/wastewater/watershed plans were integrated across the District and across
all planning topics to optimize the efficient use and management of the limited and reusable water resources;
There would be growth in the District over the planning period. There would be water
resource limitations on long-term development, but the plans would support economic development within these limitations;
EPD guidance on limiting conditions in the ACF and ACT basins; reallocation of Lakes
Lanier and Allatoona;

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-4

Executive Summary
Interbasin water transfers from outside the District would neither be studied nor
included in any District plan;
Plan solutions will be mindful of impacts of the plan in areas outside the District; and Georgia Power will remove by 2008 the heat load from the Chattahoochee River caused
by its generating plants.
Policy Goals
The District's policy goals served as guideposts for all of the District's planning efforts. Using the same goals across all plans helped ensure consistency of purpose. The WW Plan was developed with the policy goals in mind, shown on Figure ES-2.
FIGURE ES-2 District Policy Goals

Integration of Planning Efforts

Each jurisdiction in the 16-county District faces a multitude of requirements linked to water resource management. The resulting activities form a complex network, including watershed management, infrastructure improvements to water conservation, land use planning, and facility permitting. Moreover, each jurisdiction's independent activities affect the water resources that are shared throughout the District.

District water resources can meet long-term needs if carefully managed

Responsible water resource management calls for consistency in the management of the jurisdictions' vital water resources. By adopting an integrated approach to planning, the District serves as an umbrella under which many existing water resource

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-5

Executive Summary

management requirements can be addressed. This approach facilitates the jurisdictions' ability to consider all requirements related to water resource management in a comprehensive manner, helping to avoid duplication of effort, and enhancing the effectiveness of water quality improvement measures. In addition, integrated, region-wide planning can simplify reporting requirements faced by jurisdictions in the District planning area.

The main purpose of the District is to promote intergovernmental coordination for all water issues, to facilitate inter-jurisdictional water related projects, and to enhance access to funding for water related projects among local governments in the District area.

Existing Wastewater Management Conditions

Existing wastewater management throughout the District can be characterized by individual jurisdictions providing their own services, interconnected with other jurisdictions on an as needed basis. Wastewater management includes wastewater treatment, wastewater collection systems, septic systems, and the interaction of these infrastructure systems with the natural systems.

Wastewater Treatment, Discharge, and Reuse

In the District today, there are 233 wastewater treatment facilities. Of these, there are 103 publicly owned facilities with a total capacity of 723 million gallons per day (MGD). This includes facilities that are currently on-line and those that will be operating by 2005. In 2001 these facilities treated 565 MGD. The majority (87%) of publicly owned treatment facilities have advanced levels of treatment, and regularly produce better effluent quality than required by their permits. Treatment standards vary throughout the District depending upon site-specific conditions and the end-use of the returned flow.

As shown in Figure ES-3, over 90% of the wastewater treatment plants in the District release treated effluent to surface waters. Small amounts of flow are discharged to land application systems and are used for non-potable reuse today. Indirect potable reuse is practiced in the District, both in planned and unplanned forms. Planned indirect potable reuse is practiced by Clayton County, where it specifically returns treated effluent upstream of water supply intakes. Unplanned reuse includes many other examples where highly treated wastewater is discharged upstream of water intakes.

FIGURE ES-3 Discharge Types at Existing Publicly Owned Treatment Facilities

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-6

Executive Summary

Existing Septic Usage

Approximately 21% of the wastewater generated in the District is currently served by septic systems. Highly developed counties, such as DeKalb and Fulton, have less than 10% of housing units using septic systems. Developing counties range between 40% and 90% of housing units using septic systems, depending upon the availability of wastewater collections systems.

Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Impacts on Stream Quality

Most wastewater treatment plants within the District consistently perform well, producing better quality effluent than required by their discharge permit. Many plants in the District have among the most stringent requirements in the US. Proactive strategies employed by the State over the past 30 years, such as the phosphorus detergent ban and increasingly stringent effluent limits for point source discharges, have reaped benefits for the State. Problems at wastewater treatment plants or in streams due to wastewater management are localized, documented, tracked, and addressed. EPD has recently taken a zero tolerance policy toward violations in some areas, causing increased attention to preventing and resolving discharge issues.

Although water quality does not meet the standards for the designated use in approximately 55% of the miles of streams in the District, the most prevalent cause for streams not supporting the use is excessive fecal coliform content primarily from non-point runoff. Further, 11 segments totaling 93 miles in length are listed as not supporting uses, due to combined sewer overflows and urban runoff. These segments include portions of the Chattahoochee and South Rivers and some of their tributaries. The City of Atlanta is undertaking a program to address the combined sewer overflows and is required by a consent decree to have the program completed by 2007.

Projected Conditions

Population within the District is projected to increase from 4 million in 2000, to nearly 7 million

by 2030. Under a high-growth scenario (similar to the 1990-2000 decade), the population could

reach nearly 8 million by 2030. The timing and physical location of wastewater management

needs will mirror population and employment growth. This growth is expected to be

FIGURE ES-4 Trend of Wastewater Flow to be Managed at WWTPs

slightly more rapid in the first

half of the planning period and

slower as the area matures.

Demands will have different

dimensions in the rural,

suburban, and urban areas.

The perimeter counties of

Bartow, Forsyth, and Paulding

face the largest rates of growth,

but population in these

counties in 2030 will still be

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-7

Executive Summary

significantly less than today's well-developed counties of DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Fulton.
Depending upon the extent of water conservation, the projection of wastewater flows varies. Under the recommended conservation program, the amount of wastewater needing treatment is estimated to be 978 MGD on a maximum month flow basis. The trend is shown in Figure ES4. Approximately 50 MGD of additional flow will be managed by on-site septic systems.
Wastewater Management Issues
Water resource issues in the District are driven by the geography of the region, dominated by headwater streams. Among many other uses, streams receive the discharges from most wastewater treatment plants within the District. Recent EPD water quality modeling has indicated that some of the most heavily used rivers are reaching their limit to assimilate pollutants and no new discharge permits have been issued for these since the early 1990s. This has triggered an emphasis on land application systems, which now conflicts with the need for returns to the streams and the need to reduce consumptive losses.
The concern over water quality and the ability to permit additional wastewater discharges triggered Georgia Power Company to announce that they would go beyond the State requirement and eliminate their heat impact on the river. This will allow new discharges of highly treated wastewater. At the same time, data has shown that trout are reproducing naturally in the cold-water sections of the Chattahoochee River immediately downstream of Buford Dam. The Department of Natural Resources is preparing to study the fisheries to determine the proper classification and requirements for this stretch of the river. These findings could significantly impact the requirements for discharges.
One way point source and non-point source discharges are linked is through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements of the Clean Water Act. The State of Georgia is under a Federal Consent Decree to develop and implement TMDLs for impaired streams under one of the most aggressive schedules in the country. Although most of the stream impairments are caused by non-point source pollution, the court has threatened to shut down future water and wastewater permits, which would likewise halt development. In addition, the public interest and concern regarding sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, and the reliability and performance of wastewater treatment facilities is growing.
The recent drought, from 1998 through 2002, has brought additional attention to water resources throughout the State. There is a concern that the metropolitan area will transfer water from other parts of the State or the Southeast, although that is not currently done. Senate Bill 130 specifically precluded the study or recommendation of any such interbasin transfers from outside the District.
Based on population growth, the amount of wastewater will approximately double by 2030. Management of water resources relies on the return of highly treated reclaimed water to the streams, to support instream flows and water supply. At the same time, the costs for wastewater management will increase, due to the need for higher levels of treatment, expanded sewer service within the District, higher level of reliability and performance, replacement of

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-8

Executive Summary

older facilities with technologically advanced plants, pro-active management of wastewater collection systems and septic systems, and public education.

Therefore, the WW Plan addresses growth and public service needs, cost effective replacement and upgrades through consolidation, return of more water to sources, more emphasis on management of sewer systems and private septic systems, and an increased level of interjurisdictional collaboration to ensure that local and regional needs are balanced.

While these issues are not new, and members of the District are currently addressing these issues, the entire region needs to embrace them in order for the solutions to be effective. These issues were considered in developing the infrastructure elements of the WW Plan, and then further defined as necessary policies for the successful implementation of the WW Plan.

Alternatives Development and Evaluation

A range of potential management alternatives was identified to address the District's policy

goals and planning criteria. These were narrowed from eight themes to three solutions, and

then refined into the recommended solution, as shown in Figure ES-5.

FIGURE ES-5 Planning Procedure

Policy-goal criteria were used

throughout the WW Plan development

process to determine how well each

alternative addressed the criterion.

The final solutions included:
Current Plans: based on the
jurisdictions' existing plans;
Consolidated Expansion: Foc-
used on fewer, more regionalized plants;
Basin Water Resources:
Emphasized returning wastewater to the same basin that provided the water supply; and
Recommended Solution: As-
sembled from desirable features of other solutions.

Wastewater Infrastructure

The WW Plan replenishes supplies through wastewater returns. As shown on Figure ES-6, the significant features of the infrastructure component of the plan for 2030 are:

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-9

Legend

= County Boundaries = Lakes = Streams = Discharge WWTP's:
Existing without Expansion Existing with Expansion

River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Etowah River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin

New

Coosawattee Subbasin
Oostanaula Subbasin

COOSA RIVER BASIN

Adairsville North WPCP New Cherokee Northeast Etowah WWTP

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN

New Forsyth/Cumming Lake Lanier WWTP

Hall
Gainesville Linwood WRF

New West Bartow WWTP

Bartow

Etowah Subbasin
Canton WPCP

Bethelview
Cherokee

Industrial

WWTPs

Cherokee Rose

Road

WRF
LAKE SIDNEY LANIER

Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

Cartersville WPCP

Creek WWTP

LAKE Cobb NAoLonLdAaTy OCrOeeNkAWRF

Cherokee Fitzgerald Creek WWTP

Forsyth

Flowery Branch WPCP

Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC

Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek WRF

Fulton Big

New Southeast Forsyth WRF/Forsyth Reuse

Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF

Creek WRF

Paulding

Cobb

Fulton Johns Creek WRF

Gwinnett
Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF

OCONEE RIVER BASIN

Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF

Cobb RL Sutton WRF Cobb South Cobb WRF

Atlanta RM Clayton WRC

Gwinnett Yellow River WRF Loganville WPCP

Monroe Jacks Creek WPCP

TALLAPOOSA RIVER

Atlanta Utoy

BASIN

Douglas Creek WRC

Fulton

Douglasville Sweetwater Creek WWTP Douglas South Central UWRF

Atlanta South River WRC

DeKalb
DeKalb Polebridge
WPCP

Walton

Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF

New South Walton WWTP

Fulton Camp Creek WRF

Clayton Northeast WRF

Clayton

Rockdale

Clayton W.B. Casey WRP

Fayetteville Whitewater Newnan Wahoo Creek WPCP Creek WPCP

Newnan Mineral Springs WPCP

Fayette

Coweta

Henry

Henry New Walnut Creek WRF

Clayton Shoal Creek LAS

Henry Bear Creek WRF

LAKE JACKSON

Henry Indian Creek LAS Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP

WEST POINT LAKE

New South Coweta WWTP
Peachtree City Line Creek WPCP
FLINT RIVER BASIN

OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN

Metro trict

orgia Wat

politan North Ge
er Planning Dis 2317_001_Maps_ES-6/2-1.fh9

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
District Plan for Wastewater Treatment Plants in 2030

Date: September 2003

Scale:

As Shown

Job No.:

2317.001

Figure ES-6

Executive Summary

Consolidate wastewater treatment plants o Construct 6 new wastewater treatment plants o Expand 39 existing wastewater treatment plants o Retire 61 existing wastewater treatment plants
Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River Return reclaimed water to the Etowah and Flint Basins from users within those basins Upgrade wastewater treatment plants to protect water quality and move toward reuse Use a portion of treated effluent for non-potable irrigation, offsetting direct withdrawals
or the use of potable water Enhance reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations

The WW Plan includes interbasin

FIGURE ES-7 Planned Interbasin Transfers for 2030

transfers within the

District to better share

the water resources

throughout

the

District, as shown in

Figure ES-7. The WW

Plan includes using

water from the

Etowah Basin to serve

most users in the

Etowah Basin and for

portions of the

northern

Chattahoochee Basin.

Water continues to be transferred from the Chattahoochee Basin into the Ocmulgee Basin, but

more of the highly treated wastewater effluent is returned to the Chattahoochee Basin through

Gwinnett County (via Lake Lanier) and through DeKalb County (via the Chattahoochee River).

More of the Ocmulgee and Oconee water demand is supplied from within their own basin

thereby reducing the future interbasin transfers.

Costs associated with the WW Plan are summarized in Table ES-1. These costs are approximately $500 million less than the cost of the other alternatives considered, including implementation of individual existing plans. The WW Plan includes an increase in the level of service, degree of reliability and protection of streams and lakes. Accordingly, user costs will also increase over the 30-year planning period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-11

Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Estimated Costs for District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan

Item
Infrastructure Treatment Facilities Collection System Combined Sewer System Projects
Major Sewer System Rehabilitation
Treatment O&M Collection System O&M Programmatic and Policy Measures1 Total

Projected Costs by Time Period

2001 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030

($ billion)

($ billion)

($billion)

Total for 30 Years
($ billion)

$ 1 $ 5 $ 1 To be determined by local utilities $ 2 $ 3 <$ 1 $ 12

$ 2 $ 5
0 To be determined by local utilities $ 2 $ 4 <$ 1 $ 13

$ 3 $ 5
0 To be determined by local utilities
$ 3 $ 4 <$ 1 $ 15

$ 6 $ 15 $ 1 To be determined by local utilities $ 7 $ 11 <$ 1 $ 40

1 Estimated set-up costs and annual costs are presented in Table 16-10. Total estimated set-up costs are $10.1 million. Total estimated annual costs are $1.1 million/year.
All costs are estimated future amounts in 2003 dollars.

Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance Program

The WW Plan intends increased emphasis on wastewater collection system inspection and maintenance, to reduce overflows and leakage.

The District contains many wastewater collection systems. Within the District sewers and manholes, which range in age from new to over 100 years old, include approximately 9,000 miles of sewers and more than 300,000 manholes within the District. Like many other sewer systems in the country, the sewer systems in the District face many challenges. Some of the challenges are attributed to age, while others are attributed to maintenance, operational, and management issues. These challenges result in intermittent problems throughout the District, such as sanitary sewer overflows and pipe breaks.

The WW Plan includes actions for maintaining more than 9,000 miles of sewers

It is recommended that sewer system inspection and maintenance programs for various jurisdictions in the District consist of elements designed to assure compliance with the requirements of the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program and the proposed US Environmental

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-12

Executive Summary

Protection Agency (EPA) CMOM (Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance) regulations. These elements are needed to ensure proper understanding of the sewer systems; ensure availability of adequate collection and conveyance capacity; ensure proper operation of all sewer system components; reduce or eliminate wastewater overflows, spills, and bypasses; and extend the longevity of the sewer system components.

The WW Plan includes recommendations for the top dozen inspection and maintenance actions for improving the performance of wastewater collection systems.

Septic Systems Inspection and Maintenance Program

The WW Plan intends increased emphasis on managing septic systems to avoid future problems with failures and public costs for correction. Approximately one-fifth of the District's wastewater is currently treated by septic systems. Septic systems have been proven to be an environmentally sound method for onsite wastewater treatment when properly designed, sited, constructed, and maintained. When they are not, they can become a source of groundwater and surface water contamination, as well as a public health hazard. Septic systems are expected to be a permanent element of wastewater management within the District. Therefore, it is important to insure septic systems are installed, operated, and managed properly.

The majority of the District falls under the definition of critical areas (areas with special water quality protection considerations). Therefore, the following recommended actions apply to all septic systems in the District:

Improve Siting, Design, and Construction Requirements. Add minimum lot size

requirements, increase tank size for garbage disposals, and conduct more detailed

inspections during construction.

Improve Maintenance

The WW Plan recommends pumping out septic tanks

Requirements. Establish a

every 5 years

requirement for pumping

every 5 years and a

tracking system for septage

hauler manifests. A Septic

System Inspection and

Maintenance Guidance

Committee should be

established by the District

to develop guidelines for

inspection

and

maintenance of systems.

Manage Decentralized

Systems. Establish a

proactive management system including a septic system database, continued

Department of Human Resources management with EPD support, local wastewater

plans including septic issues, and public sewer connection policies.

Manage Private Treatment Systems. Each jurisdiction needs a policy for private

wastewater systems. Some already have adopted policies.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-13

Executive Summary

Local Planning Recommendations
While the District prepared the WW Plan, it will be implemented by the local jurisdictions that own and operate the wastewater management systems. The local jurisdictions need to integrate the WW Plan into their own master plans.
The specifics of the WW Plan will be developed and/or refined at the local level. Preparation of the local master plans is both an opportunity to demonstrate conformance with the WW Plan and/or provide improvements and innovations to the WW Plan, based on a more in-depth analysis of local circumstances and factors. Local jurisdictions should develop local plans that, at a minimum, conform to the core principles of the WW Plan. The local plans will target wastewater services that are developed cost effectively, with a long term, regional perspective, while providing quality customer service.
To achieve these goals local wastewater management plans need to include:
County-wide and basin-wide perspectives; 30-year planning horizon with 5-year updates; Inter-jurisdictional dialogue, cooperation, and resource sharing; Wastewater services areas, collection systems, septic system use areas, and transitions
from septic systems;
Wastewater treatment, reuse, and management; Ancillary facilities, such as biosolids management; Net return and consumptive use calculations; and Education and public awareness activities.
In addition, it is expected that future wastewater management plans will be more fully integrated with land use and transportation planning.
Flexibility within the Plan
The purposes of the local plans described above are to address local needs and site-specific issues, to refine and improve the District WW Plan, and to demonstrate consistency with the District WW Plan. Local plan development will give jurisdictions an opportunity to negotiate modifications to the District WW Plan with other District members. The District WW Plan includes guidance regarding the extent to which local jurisdictions can change the District WW Plan while remaining consistent with its essential elements.
In addition to local plan development, the updating of the WW Plan every 5 years will provide local jurisdictions with an opportunity to modify the WW Plan. These updates will provide flexibility based upon continuing experience and events that may impact the WW Plan. It is expected that the WW Plan will be updated based upon revised projections, changing land use, new legislation and regulations, court rulings, additional funding options, and other external factors.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-14

Executive Summary

Regulatory Recommendations

Regulatory permitting of wastewater discharges is crucial to the implementation of the WW Plan. EPD is required to modify existing permits and issue new permits in accordance with the WW Plan. The following specific actions have been identified to expedite implementation of the WW Plan:

Develop a regional Section 404 permit for the District. The District may negotiate a
Regional Permit with the Savannah District of the Army Corps of Engineers that will cover a wide variety of typical projects. This will also allow the District to negotiate a uniform wetland mitigation strategy.
Simplify EPD permitting for District projects. EPD will modify its permit cycle, permit
application requirements, standard permit conditions, guidelines, and reporting requirements to be consistent with the District WW Plan and to streamline the permitting process for projects consistent with the WW Plan.
Use the WW Plan to assign wasteloads. EPD will use the WW Plan, and its subsequent
updates, to issue NPDES discharge permits. Permits will be issued for demonstrated need, not the full capacity shown in the WW Plan. Site-specific effluent limits will continue to be established by EPD. A uniform treatment standard for the District is not envisioned by this plan.

Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration

Senate Bill 130 requires that the WW Plan include:
"...[M]easures to maximize efficiency through multi-jurisdictional approaches to avoid duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs."

The extensive number of existing inter- and intra-jurisdictional agreements among local governments and utilities demonstrates the appreciation and benefits of cooperative service delivery. District-wide relationships, understanding of common and unique problems, and trust are evolving through the forum of the Atlanta Regional Commission and other regional development centers, the requirements of joint service delivery strategies in House Bill 489 (the Service Delivery Strategy Act), and this current District planning effort. The WW Plan will build and expand on this communication and cooperation to optimize limited wastewater treatment infrastructure and financial and technical resources.

The following specific actions have been identified to facilitate implementation of the WW Plan:

Continue to use existing tools; Develop and share model inter-jurisdictional agreements; Establish a fair share funding formula framework; Establish level of service expectations and commitments; Establish a formal system of dispute resolution; Explore the most appropriate role for the State; and

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-15

Executive Summary
Publicize and reward successful partnerships.
Funding
Successful implementation of the WW Plan hinges on the ability to fund its programmatic measures, capital improvements, and monitoring activities. The majority of projects within the WW Plan will be financed by bond funds and repaid by users. A key component is assurance of adequate monies at the lowest interest rates, backed by the strength of the State, through GEFA.
A range of funding options for District needs was examined, including current and innovative funding mechanisms. Currently, water projects in the District are funded locally. This is expected to continue into the future. Long-term, the most critical funding needs for implementing the WW Plan are for capital facility improvements and maintenance, local planning, public education, and ongoing District operations. Of these needs, the funding of facility improvements is the most challenging. This is due to the difficulty of arranging for timely financing of needed improvements, especially those that serve two or more communities.
Investment in wastewater collection and treatment systems in the District is expected to reach $24 billion accumulated over the next 30 years. An additional $18 billion will be expended on operation and maintenance of these systems. The programmatic measures recommended by the WW Plan will require about $64 million. Specific funding recommendations of the WW Plan include:
Fund capital improvements primarily by local jurisdictions (note: projects required
pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations in this plan);
Increase financing opportunities through GEFA loans; Increase federal funding through a unified funding appeal; Identify funding for District activities; and Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships.
Education and Public Awareness
Education and public awareness are essential to wastewater management, as public behaviors can greatly affect water quality and the ability to implement projects on schedule and within budget. Public understanding and support are needed to manage more wastewater, treat at higher levels and costs, and return to streams and lakes. In addition, septic tank owners need to inspect and maintain their individual systems.
The legislation creating the District mandated that education and public awareness measures be designed to reach 75 to 90% of the population of the District by 2006. These measures are to be undertaken by the District, other state agencies, local governments, public education institutions, or by other public or semi-public entities.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-16

Executive Summary

Watershed management, water supply planning, and wastewater management share the same goal clean water. The joint recommendation of all three concurrent long-term plans is to build on the existing Clean Water Campaign, a cooperative, multi-agency public education initiative spearheaded by 20 local governments and managed by the Atlanta Regional Commission. It seeks to build awareness of water quality problems and solutions in the Atlanta region. Its mission is to educate the public about the common sources of water pollution due to stormwater runoff and the negative effects on our water supply, recreational opportunities, aquatic ecosystems, and quality of life. The scope should be expanded to encompass all water resource management components.

Changes in basic behavior and practices are necessary to achieve long-term improvements in water quality. However, such changes will not occur until citizens become aware of water quality issues and actions that lead to environmental degradation. To build that awareness, three elements have been incorporated in the Education and Public Awareness Plan:

Public Awareness Campaign: Use multiple methods to present information to the
general public and target audiences.
Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups: Educate target groups of individuals
who have some level of influence over the decisions to be made concerning wastewater management.
Primary and Secondary Education: Educate the next generation, i.e., school-aged
children, on ways wastewater can be treated and reused to ensure protection of our water resources.

Implementation Actions

Long-term wastewater management involves taking actions to meet short-term, long-term and ongoing needs and goals. This WW Plan was developed with a 30-year planning horizon, and it includes a suite of strategies and activities to be implemented over time by local governments, the District, and the State. Table ES-2 summarizes the responsibilities for implementing the WW Plan.

TABLE ES-2 Implementation Responsibilities

Responsible Entity
Local Government, Utility or Authority

Program Element
Expand, construct, upgrade and retire wastewater treatment plants and conveyance infrastructure.
Increase return flow to the Chattahoochee River from DeKalb County. Enhance the reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations. Reclaim water for Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett and Hall counties. Develop local wastewater management plans. Develop public sewer connection policies, if needed. Develop policies for private wastewater systems. Improve inspection and maintenance of sewer systems. Promote education and public awareness. Fund capital improvements. Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-17

Executive Summary

Responsible Entity
District
DNR/EPD DHR/County Boards of Health GEFA Others

Program Element
Negotiate a Regional Permit with the Corps of Engineers for District projects. Promote education and public awareness. Develop unified funding appeal for federal assistance for District projects. Develop model inter-jurisdictional agreements. Establish a fair share funding formula framework. Establish level of service expectations and commitments. Establish a formal system of dispute resolution. Explore most appropriate role for State. Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Review WW Plan annually and report to EPD Director. Update WW Plan no less frequently than every 5 years. Revise the temperature standard for the Chattahoochee River. Establish a streamlined permitting process for District projects. Use WW Plan to issue permits and assign wasteloads. Explore most appropriate role for State. Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Modify permits for consistency with the WW Plan.
Improve inspection and maintenance of septic systems.
Increase gap financing available for District projects. Explore most appropriate role for State. Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Georgia Power Company removes heat load from the Chattahoochee River.

Assessment of Progress
The planning process used to develop the WW Plan was designed to meet the District's overall goals, the requirements of Senate Bill 130 and the planning standards developed by the EPD.
The WW Plan includes measures to assess progress toward meeting the goals and indicators to demonstrate the trend towards achieving full implementation of the WW Plan.
Senate Bill 130 provides for annual review of the WW Plan, with updates no less than every 5 years. It is essential than an updated plan be prepared no less frequently than every five years in order to allow for appropriate adjustments. The following changes in the WW Plan's basis would require updates of the WW Plan, as these events would impact the essential elements of the WW Plan:
Return of reclaimed water to the lakes is not permitted; Changes to EPD guidance on limiting factors for the ACF and ACT basins; Changes to interbasin transfer policies, by legislation or judicial decisions; Water conservation is not implemented or does not produce the estimated results; Georgia Power heat load is not removed from the Chattahoochee River; and Chattahoochee River is designated as a primary trout stream.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-18

Executive Summary
Conclusion
This first regional long-term planning effort is a milestone in developing a wastewater management strategy for the 16-counties comprising the District. It is a starting point in defining key issues affecting not only wastewater, but includes many related issues affecting quality of life and economic growth. It represents a set of management recommendations for sustaining the District's opportunities for economic development while preserving environmental quality. It is premised upon equitably sharing the water resources of the District, and efficiently providing needed future services.
The WW Plan defines consolidated treatment facilities, the need for inter-jurisdictional collaboration, a program for education and public awareness, and inspection and maintenance programs for wastewater collection systems and septic systems. In addition, it identifies key planning assumptions that need to be tracked for external impacts to the WW Plan. Many entities, including local, state, federal, and private, have actions required for successful implementation of the WW Plan.
When fully implemented, this WW Plan preserves water supply and water quality throughout the District; minimizes consumptive practices; costs less than other options; adds reliability to infrastructure elements; promotes a collective voice supporting funding opportunities and maintains the ownership; operation and management with local jurisdictions supplemented by inter-jurisdictional collaboration.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WW EXECUTIVE SUM.DOC

ES-19

Section 1
Introduction

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) was established by the Georgia legislature in 2001 in Senate Bill 130 to address the pressing need for comprehensive water resources management in the 16-county area of metropolitan north Georgia.
The District is a planning entity dedicated to developing comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans that will be implemented by the local governments in the District. It is comprised of 16 counties: Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton (see Figure 1-1). These counties lie primarily within five major river basins: Chattahoochee, Etowah (a sub-basin of the Coosa), Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee. Small portions of the District are also in the Tallapoosa Basin and smaller watersheds of the Coosa Basin.
The legislature, in creating the District, mandated the preparation of three long-term plans:
Long-term Wastewater Management Plan Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan District-wide Watershed Management Plan
The Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan), provides strategies and recommendations for effective wastewater management. It also includes the specific tasks and milestones for implementation of these recommendations.
The overall goal of the WW Plan is to present a program for managing the wastewater from a rapidly growing region, while maintaining water quality standards and supporting designated uses on streams and water bodies within the District. This WW Plan builds upon the existing wastewater management planning efforts that have taken place in the District. It is also the beginning of an iterative process of plan reviews and updates. Annual review of the wastewater, water supply and conservation, and watershed management plans are required, as stated in Senate Bill 130:
"The District shall review ...management plan(s) and (their) implementation annually to determine whether there is a need to update such plan(s) and shall report to the director the progress of implementation of its goals..."

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

CLERMONT

NELSON

LULA

ADAIRSVILLE

,.- Bartow WHITE

KINGSTON

75

CARTERSVILLE

EUHARLEE

EMERSONAllLaatokoena

TAYLORSVILLE

ACWORTH

,.- WALESKA 575 CANTON

GRBOAULLND

Cherokee

Forsyth
CUMMING

GAINESVILLE

,.- SLLiadannkieeeyr

985
OAKWOOD

FLOWERY

HOLLY SPRINGS

BRANCH REST

Hall

WOODSTOCK MOUNTAIN PARK

ALPHARETTA

HAVEN BUFORD SUGAR HILL

,.-85

SUWANEE

GILLSVILLE

ROSWELL

Paulding

KENNESAW

BRASWELL DALLAS

MARIETTA

Cobb HIRAM

POWDER SPRINGS

SMYRNA

DULUTH

BERKELEY

,.- /( LAKE

400

NORCROSS

285

DORAVILLE CHAMBLEE

LILBURN

DeKalb

Gwinnett DACULA LAWRENCEVILLE

GRAYSON

SNELLVILLE

LOGANVILLE

AUSTELL LITHIA
SPRINGS 20
,.- VRIILCLAA DOUGLASVILLE

ATLANTA

CLARKSTON STONE MOUNTAIN
DECATUR PINE LAKE
LITHONIA Rockdale

BETWEEN
Walton
WALNUT GROVE
JERSEY

Douglas

285

,.- Fulton PEOAISNTT HAPEVILLE

CONYERS

,.- UNION
CITY

COPLALREKGE

FOREST PARK LCAITKYE

20

MONROE SCOIRCCIALEL

GHOOOPED

FAIRBURN

RIVERDALE MORROW

,.- PALMETTO 85

JONESBORO
Fayette Clayton

STOCKBRIDGE
Henry

Coweta
NEWNAN

TYRONE FAYETTEVILLE
PEACHTREE CITY

SHARPSBURG

WOOLSEY

,.- LOVEJOY

MCDONOUGH

HAMPTON 75

LGORCOUVSET

JaLcakkseon

TURIN

MORELAND

SENOIA BROOKS

PWLoaekinsett

GRANTVILLE CORINTH

HARALSON

Legend
Rivers and Streams County Boundaries
District Study Area Interstates Cities

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, October 2003, HDYKE

5

0N5

10 Miles

Figure 1-1
District Study Area
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District

Section 1: Introduction
Senate Bill 130 also states that:
"...the District shall prepare updated ...management plan(s) no less frequently than every five years..."
Planning Process
A multi-step decision process was used to develop the WW Plan. This approach was designed to facilitate an open, reviewable planning procedure. It focused on specific District goals for water resource management. The procedure was directed at completing the planning work within the schedule mandated in the law that established the District.
Wastewater Management Planning Steps
The primary steps in the process included:
Development of the District Policy Goals Goals for wastewater management were developed in coordination with the water supply and watershed management teams to impart consistency between water resource planning efforts.
Identification of the Need Available data and studies were used to define existing treatment capacity and septic usage. These were compared with the projected wastewater flows and treatment requirements to determine the needs.
Development of Alternatives Wastewater treatment alternatives were developed in conjunction with the water supply and conservation alternatives to address the previously defined needs.
Evaluation of Alternatives Using the policy-goal derived criteria, the alternatives were evaluated to select the recommended solution.
Preparation of the Implementation Plan Once the recommended solution was identified, the implementation plan was developed.
Preparation of the Draft Long-term Wastewater Management Plan A draft plan was prepared and reviewed by the District Board, Technical Coordinating Committee, Basin Advisory Councils, and the public. Comments on this draft were incorporated into the final plan.
Preparation of the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan The WW Plan is the culmination of the previous sequential planning steps. Recommendations in this document were evaluated against the District Policy Goals and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Planning Standards to assure that the WW Plan meets the goals for regional wastewater management.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

Section 1: Introduction
Public Participation
A cornerstone of the planning process was a series of facilitated meetings with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and six Basin Advisory Councils, or BACs (Chattahoochee, Etowah, Lake Lanier, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Flint). Participation by the general public was encouraged by posting the planning documents on the District web site for comment.
The TCC was comprised of local county and city technical staff and served as a technical advisory group to provide information, guidance, and feedback during preparation of the WW Plan. These regional resources contributed significant effort to the planning process and provided critical technical information and direction to the District and the consultant team.
The BACs were consulted on each of the major deliverables in the planning process.
Feedback and suggestions from both groups were used to refine the recommendations through each successive step. Comments from the TCC and BACs were captured during each meeting using computer terminals and a professional facilitator. This facilitated input process greatly reduced the time needed to assimilate the feedback and assured participants that their comments were captured in the process.
Policy Goals
The District's Policy Goals, shown in abbreviated form in Figure 1-2, served as guideposts for evaluating the wastewater management alternatives. Key elements were evaluated with these goals in mind. The Policy Goals guided the development of all three planning studies (wastewater, water supply, and watershed).
FIGURE 1-2 District Policy Goals

Planning Assumptions

The District planning efforts are directed at developing proactive, forward-looking tools to manage the local water resources, in light of the projected growth facing the region. The

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

Section 1: Introduction

requirements and standards for the planning efforts were established in both Senate Bill 130 and the EPD Planning Standards. Prior to development of the solutions for water and wastewater management, additional minimum requirements were identified and assigned as screening criteria. Table 1-1 summarizes the screening criteria. All solutions had to meet these screening criteria to be considered viable for the District.
TABLE 1-1 Screening Criteria for the Water Supply and Wastewater Management Plans

Criterion Meet projected demands
Follow EPD guidance for limiting factors for the ACF and ACT basins
Meet in-stream standards

Definition
Provide water supply and wastewater capacity to meet projected demands through 2030, allowing for consideration of water conservation. Limit net surface water withdrawals to 705 MGD in the Chattahoochee Basin. Limit interbasin transfer from the Etowah Basin to 100 MGD by 2030. Return to the Chattahoochee River at least 58% of the water withdrawn. Meet streamflow requirements in the Chattahoochee River and in the Etowah Basin. Meet EPD's in-stream water quality and flow standards, according to water use classification.

Report Organization
This document is the recommended WW Plan for the District. This report is based on a series of interim reports and technical memoranda that were developed during the planning process and reviewed with the TCC and BACs. It includes the recommendations and rationale for each of the management plan components. In addition, the document includes the specific recommended tasks, milestones, and responsibilities (and estimated costs) for the implementation of the WW Plan.
This document is organized as follows:
Executive Summary Provides a brief overview of the entire plan.
Section 1, Introduction Provides an overview of the wastewater management planning process and the contents of the document.
Section 2, Plan Overview Provides an overview of the major components of the recommended WW Plan.
Section 3, Existing Wastewater Management Conditions Summarizes the current conditions across the District, including wastewater treatment facilities, discharge locations, reuse of reclaimed water, use of septic tanks, and stream quality.
Section 4, Wastewater Projections Provides the methodology and results for population, employment, and wastewater production forecasts.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

Section 1: Introduction

Section 5, Wastewater Management Issues Summarizes the wastewater management issues considered in developing the WW Plan.

Section 6, Alternatives Development and Evaluation Summarizes the process and interim steps that were taken to develop the WW Plan.

Section 7, Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities Provides an overview of the recommended infrastructure improvements included in the recommended WW Plan.

Section 8, Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance Describes the recommended inspection and maintenance program for sewer systems to reduce sanitary sewer overflows.

Section 9, Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems Describes the recommended septic management improvements to reduce impacts to stream quality.

Section 10, Local Planning Recommendations Describes the role and requirements for local plans.
Section 11, Plan Flexibility - Presents guidelines regarding the extent to which local jurisdictions can modify the WW Plan while remaining consistent with its essential elements
Section 12, Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations Summarizes the legal and regulatory changes to facilitate implementation of wastewater management in the District.

Section 13, Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Summarizes roles and responsibilities for the District, state agencies, and local governments.
Section 14, Funding Summarizes the potential funding mechanisms for the recommended WW Plan and the District operations.
Section 15, Education and Public Awareness Plan Includes the recommended programs for education and public awareness related directly to wastewater management.
Section 16, Implementation Actions Includes the specific actions, milestones, and responsibilities for implementation of the recommended WW Plan.
Section 17, Assessment of Progress Includes the performance measures that will be used to assess implementation progress.

Integration of District Planning Efforts

The District's long-term planning efforts included a Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan and a District-wide Watershed Management Plan, in addition to this Longterm Wastewater Management Plan. A Short-term Wastewater Plan was also developed. An

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

Section 1: Introduction
overall goal for the District was to integrate the planning efforts to ensure consistency and synergy to the greatest extent.
Throughout the development of the WW Plan, the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan, and the District-wide Watershed Management Plan, there were continuous opportunities for coordination (Figure 1-3).
FIGURE 1-3 Integration of the Three District Long-term Plans

Integration of the three long-term planning studies included:
Inventory of existing water quality conditions, and existing waster and wastewater permits within the District;
Evaluation of water quality conditions under various wastewater, water supply, and watershed conditions;
Evaluation of the effects of water conservation on future water and wastewater needs; Evaluation of impacts of wastewater discharge locations to water supply quantity and
quality; Evaluation of on-site septic tank systems on water quality and future wastewater needs;
and Development of public education and awareness recommendations.

Based on these collaborative efforts, the WW Plan recommendations reflect the influences of the recommended water supply and conservation and watershed plans. Key benefits and synergies between the WW Plan recommendations and the water supply and watershed plans are summarized below:
Wastewater Management The wastewater management recommendations provide highly treated flow that benefits the surface waters into which it is returned. The high level of treatment protects water quality, while also supplementing our stream flows

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

Section 1: Introduction
and safe yield for reservoirs. Improved management of wastewater infrastructure will result in more reliable systems. Water Supply and Conservation The wastewater management recommendations address the need for water supply protection by maintaining or improving overall water quality. Reclaimed water returned to surface water bodies in the District help to augment stream flow and provide additional safe yield for Lake Lanier.
Watershed Management The wastewater recommendations do not increase point
source pollutant loading, even as flows increase. Returning flows to surface waters results in sustained base flows and reduced hydrologic changes, with associated downstream impacts on stream changes and flooding, and improvements in impaired watersheds across the District.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1-8

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WW- INTRODUCTION.DOC

Section 2
Plan Overview
Managing wastewater in metropolitan North Georgia over the next 30 years requires a regional solution. Major features of the proposed solution are expansion and upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities, improvement of collection system maintenance, and better management of septic systems. Because the solution involves an unprecedented degree of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, revisions to planning, governance, and funding policies are included. Only by using a regional approach will metropolitan North Georgia be able to manage wastewater successfully over the next 30 years and beyond.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Important features of the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan) for 2030 are:
Consolidate wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs): The District currently contains 103
publicly owned WWTPs. In addition, there are almost an equal number of privately owned and public-agency owned WWTPs. The number of WWTPs needs to be reduced over the next 30 years by retiring most of the small WWTPs. Forty-eight WWTPs are included in the WW Plan. These include 6 new strategically located facilities, in Bartow, Cherokee, Coweta, Forsyth, and Walton Counties. Forty-two existing facilities, including most of the largest ones, will be retained, and 61 will be phased out over the next 30 years. Some existing facilities will become centralized facilities serving expanded areas and multiple jurisdictions. Facilities proposed for 2030 are shown on Figure 2-1.
Continue to protect water quality: Protecting the quality of the region's surface waters, in spite of increased wastewater volumes associated with the projected growth, is paramount. Protection will largely be attained by upgrading the level of treatment provided at WWTPs, by installing more advanced treatment technologies. Integrating watershed protection with wastewater management will also improve water quality. Better understanding of water resources, enhanced monitoring of water quality, and more accurate predictive models will better define wastewater management needs in the coming years for protecting surface water quality.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Legend

= Demand Center Boundary 1 = Demand Center
= County Boundaries = Lakes = Streams = Discharge WWTP's:

River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin

Existing without Expansion

Existing with Expansion New

Coosawattee Subbasin

Oostanaula Subbasin

COOSA RIVER BASIN

Adairsville North WPCP New Cherokee Northeast Etowah WWTP

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN

New Forsyth/Cumming Lake Lanier WWTP

Gainesville Linwood WRF

New West Bartow WWTP

Etowah

1

Subbasin

Canton WPCP

Industrial

Bethelview Road WRF

Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

2

LAKE
SIDNEY LANIER 4

WWTPs

Cherokee Rose

Cartersville WPCP

LAKE

Creek WWTP

ALLATOONA

Cherokee Fitzgerald

3

Flowery Branch WPCP

Cobb Noonday Creek WRF Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek WRF

Creek WWTP
7
Fulton Big

Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC New Southeast Forsyth WRF/Forsyth Reuse

Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF

6

Creek WRF

Fulton Johns

8

OCONEE RIVER BASIN

5

Creek WRF

Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF

10

TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN

Cobb RL Sutton WRF Cobb South Cobb WRF
Atlanta Utoy
9 Creek WRC

Atlanta RM Clayton WRC
11

Douglasville Sweetwater Creek WWTP Douglas South Central UWRF

Atlanta South River WRC

Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF

Gwinnett Yellow River WRF

12
DeKalb Polebridge
WPCP

Loganville WPCP Monroe Jacks
Creek WPCP
14 15
13 New South Walton WWTP Rockdale Quigg
Branch WRF

Fulton Camp

Creek WRF 16

20

Clayton Northeast WRF

Clayton W.B. Casey WRP

Fayetteville Whitewater

Newnan Wahoo Creek WPCP

Creek WPCP
19

Newnan Mineral Springs WPCP

21

Henry New Walnut Creek WRF

Clayton Shoal Creek LAS Henry Bear Creek WRF

17

18

Henry Indian Creek LAS Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP

New South Coweta WWTP
Peachtree City Line Creek WPCP

OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN

FLINT RIVER BASIN

Metro trict

orgia Wat

politan North Ge
er Planning Dis 2317_001_Maps_ES-6/2-1.fh9

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Demand Centers District Wastewater Plan

Date: September 2003

Scale:

As Shown

Job No.:

2317.001

Figure 2-1

Section 2: Plan Overview

Use watershed-based treatment standards: Because of the variety of surface waters in the region, treatment standards should be developed for each wastewater treatment plant to reflect the characteristics of the watershed that receives the flow from the plant. As higher treatment standards are required to protect water quality, the treatment standards will become more similar across the region than they are today.
Integrate reclaimed water into the solution: Returning treated flows to the local
streams will preserve resources for communities downstream from the District. Having all utilities that withdraw water from Lake Lanier return a significant portion of their reclaimed water to the lake is included in the WW Plan. Reclaimed water will become increasingly important in the Etowah Basin to sustain this valuable resource.
Return flow to the Chattahoochee River: Increasing the return of flows to the
Chattahoochee Basin is particularly important, in view of EPD's guidance on the limiting factors for the ACF and ACT basins. The WW Plan recommends the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP return a significant portion of its flow to the Chattahoochee River, the county's source water.
Support basin orientation: Plans for wastewater management should consider the river
basin impacts. For new or increased withdrawals, water should be returned to the source water basin, in general. This will preserve the resource for downstream communities.
Eliminate the heat load from the Chattahoochee River: Combined with more stringent wastewater treatment standards, eliminating the heat load currently imposed by the Georgia Power Company generating plants will allow additional reclaimed water to be returned to the Chattahoochee River, while supporting water quality standards. By 2004, the heat load from Plant Yates will be removed and by 2008, from Plant McDonough.
Revise the temperature standard for the Chattahoochee River: The EPD needs to replace the numeric temperature standard for the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam with one that is more closely related to protecting the trout in this reach. A revised standard will allow WWTPs to discharge more flow into the river and will be better suited to protecting the trout.
Continue to apply advanced technology: Over the next three decades, technology advances will emerge to enhance wastewater treatment. Utilities need to continue to use the latest technologies to improve treatment performance and reliability and to reduce operational costs.
Enhance reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations: The operational reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations will be enhanced over the next 30 years as higher levels of protection are required for water resources, particularly those resources used for drinking water supplies. New standards will be defined by the EPD.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 2: Plan Overview

The WW Plan for wastewater treatment facilities was developed by dividing the District into 21 wastewater demand centers. Each demand center matches the projected wastewater flow for 2030 with the treatment facilities that would handle the flow. Projected 2030 wastewater flows for each demand center and the counties where the flow originates are shown in Table 2-1. The demand centers do not correspond to the service area of a particular wastewater service provider, and some demand centers are served by more than one provider.
Collection System Maintenance
More than 40 jurisdictions operate wastewater collection systems across the District. The oldest parts of some systems date back to over 100 years ago. Some systems are highly functional, while others are problematic. The public and the regulatory agencies have placed new emphasis on the functioning of collection systems, which is also a requirement contained in Senate Bill 130. Programs to improve the performance of collection systems through enhanced inspection and maintenance are included in the WW Plan.
In general, some utilities have not committed adequate resources to ongoing inspection and maintenance of the wastewater collection systems. As a result, parts of the systems in the District perform poorly due to premature deterioration and inadequate capacity. These problems could be minimized with improved inspection and maintenance.
Part of the WW Plan is to improve collection system inspection and maintenance by devoting more effort and funds to these activities. Major rehabilitation work is currently underway in some of the older sewer systems (City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Cobb County, DeKalb County, and Gwinnett County). Other jurisdictions will need to undertake similar programs, and the present programs may need to be intensified. The recommended program consists of several components, including:
Inventory and map sewer systems; Develop a computerized maintenance management system and use it to better focus
maintenance; Monitor rainfall and wastewater flows; Develop a hydraulic model and use it to certify capacity availability for new
connections; Establish a sewer inspection program and use it in a rehabilitation program; Develop a grease management program; Enhance the process for rapid reporting and response to sewer system overflows; and
Develop a training program for maintenance staff.
Septic and Decentralized System Management
Septic systems will continue to be widely used to manage wastewater in parts of the District that are less densely populated. Septic systems are an environmentally sound method for onsite wastewater management, if they are properly designed, sited, constructed, and maintained. When they are not, septic systems can become a source of groundwater and surface

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 2: Plan Overview

TABLE 2-1 Wastewater Demand Centers

Where Wastewater is Collected

Where Wastewater is Treated and Returned

Demand Center No. (See Map)

County Areas in Demand Center

Projected 2030 Flow
(MMFMGD)

Wastewater Treatment Plants

2005 Proposed Plant 2030 Discharge Water Body Capacity Capacity (MMF- (MMFMGD) MGD)

1 Bartow

36 Adairsville North WPCP

Oothkalooga Creek

1

32

New West Bartow WWTP Cartersville WPCP

Etowah River Etowah River

15

32

Industrial WWTPs

Etowah River

2

2

Total

36 Total

18

36

2 Cherokee

24 New Cherokee NE Etowah WWTP Etowah River

-

Fulton

3 Canton WPCP Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP

Etowah River Lake Allatoona

4 5

27

Cherokee Fitzgerald Creek WWTP

Little River

2

Total

27 Total

11

27

3 Forsyth

46 Bethelview Road WRF

Lake Lanier

8

New Southeast Forsyth/Fowler Reuse

Chattahoochee River

-

46

Total 4 Hall
Total 5 Paulding
Total 6 Cobb
Cherokee Fulton Total 7 Fulton Cobb DeKalb Total 8 Gwinnett DeKalb
Total 9 Douglas
Total 10 Cobb
Fulton Paulding Total

New Forsyth/Cumming Lake Lanier WRF

Lake Lanier

-

46 Total

8

46

39 Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

Lake Lanier

12

Gainesville Linwood WRF

Lake Lanier

5

39

Flowery Branch WPCP

Lake Lanier

< 0.5

39 Total

17

39

12 Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek WRF Pumpkinvine Creek

1

12

12 Total 25 Cobb Noonday Creek WRF

Noonday Creek

1

12

20

201

1 Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF

Lake Allatoona

8

12

4 30 Total 50 Fulton Johns Creek WRF

28

321

Chattahoochee River

72

15

6 Fulton Big Creek WRF

Chattahoochee River 24

43

2

58 Total

24

58

146 1

Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC

Lake Lanier

40

Chattahoochee River 20

40 20

Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF Chattahoochee River 16

25

Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF

Chattahoochee River/Lake Lanier

3

40

Gwinnett Yellow River WRF

Yellow River

12

22

147 Total

91

147

18 Douglasville Sweetwater Ck. WRF Chattahoochee River

4

6

Douglas South Central UWRF

Chattahoochee River

1

12

18 Total 69 Cobb RL Sutton WRF

5

18

Chattahoochee River 60

603

14 Cobb South Cobb WRF

Chattahoochee River 40

50

10 93 Total

100

1103

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 2: Plan Overview

Where Wastewater is Collected

Where Wastewater is Treated and Returned

Demand Center No. (See Map)

County Areas in Demand Center

Projected 2030 Flow
(MMFMGD)

Wastewater Treatment Plants

2005 Proposed Plant 2030 Discharge Water Body Capacity Capacity (MMF- (MMFMGD) MGD)

11 Fulton

156 Atlanta RM Clayton WRC

Chattahoochee River 122

DeKalb

62 Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC

Chattahoochee River 44

220

Clayton

2 Atlanta South River WRC

Chattahoochee River 54

Total

220 Total

220

220

12 DeKalb Gwinnett

74 5

DeKalb Polebridge WPCP

South River

20

63

Chattahoochee River

-

30

Henry

2

Rockdale

8

Clayton

4

Total

93 Total

20

93

13 Rockdale

15 Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF

Yellow River

8

15

Total

15 Total

8

15

14 Walton

6 Loganville WPCP

Big Flat Creek

2

2

New South Walton WWTP

Big Flat Creek

-

4

Total

6 Total

2

6

15 Walton

5 Monroe Jacks Creek WPCP

Grubby Creek Tributary to Jacks Creek

3

5

Total 16 Fulton
Total

5 Total 22 Fulton Camp Creek WRF 22 Total

3

5

Chattahoochee River 24

244

24

244

17 Coweta

12 Newnan Wahoo Creek WPCP

Wahoo Creek/LAS

3

Newnan Mineral Springs WPCP

Mineral Springs Branch/LAS

1

10

Send to Meriwether County

-

-

2

Total

12 Total

4

12

18 Coweta

7 New South Coweta WWTP

White Oak Creek

-

7

Total

7 Total

0

7

19 Fayette Coweta

21 Fayetteville Whitewater Creek 3 WPCP

Whitewater Creek

4

Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP Line Creek Tributary

4

24

Peachtree City Line Creek WPCP

Line Creek

2

Total

24 Total

10

24

20 Clayton

37 Clayton Northeast WRP

Cotton Indian Creek

6

10

Clayton Shoal Creek LAS

LAS/Wetlands

4

4

Total

Clayton WB Casey WRP 37 Total

Huie LAS/Wetlands 24

24

34

385

21 Henry

31 Henry Bear Creek LAS

Bear Creek/LAS

< 0.5

1

Henry Indian Creek LAS

LAS

2

7

Henry Walnut Creek

Walnut Creek

4

23

Total DISTRICT TOTAL

31 Total 978

6

31

6342 1,0001,3,4,5

Where Proposed 2030 Capacity is allocated to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, per a local planning study. 1 In Demand Center 6, 2 MGD of capacity would be available for use beyond 2030. 2 The existing capacity for the Johns Creek WRF is not included in the totals, because this capacity is being replaced. 3 In Demand Center 10, 17 MGD of capacity would be available for use beyond 2030. 4 In Demand Center 16, 2 MGD of capacity would be available for use beyond 2030. 5 In Demand Center 20, 1 MGD of capacity would be available for use beyond 2030.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 2: Plan Overview

water contamination and a public health hazard. The WW Plan includes actions to improve the management of septic systems to ensure that they perform properly. The recommended actions address all areas of septic system management.

The key recommendations for improving management of septic systems are:

Require pumping of septic tanks every five years; Follow DHR Manual guidance for establishing the appropriate lot size for a single-family
home using a septic system. Local jurisdictions may find that larger lot sizes are more appropriate; Track septic system data such as location, age, performance and maintenance; Provide information to septic system owners about proper system operation and maintenance; and Improve agency oversight of septic system design, siting, and installation.

Similar to septic system management, improvements in the way decentralized wastewater systems are managed are included in the WW Plan. Many existing decentralized systems will be integrated into the larger, public system as wastewater collection systems are extended in response to growth. Further, each county needs policies for installation and operation of future private decentralized systems.

Local Planning Recommendations

The District's WW Plan needs to be integrated into the local long-range plans for the jurisdictions that manage wastewater. The first step is to review the present local long-range plans to determine if they are compatible with the District's WW Plan. Many local plans will not need to be changed, and others will only need to be changed years from now, when it is time to install improvements to the wastewater infrastructure.

The local plans will take the framework presented for the regional solution and develop the local details of how best to implement the District WW Plan. Many innovations and optimizations at the local level are needed.

A new aspect of the local plans, that may not be included presently, is the instances of interjurisdictional cooperation, where local planning studies involving more than one jurisdiction will be needed. By taking a leadership role in initiating the local planning, a jurisdiction may be better able to guide the inter-jurisdictional cooperation.

Another aspect that may not be included in present local plans is defining areas where wastewater collection systems will be provided and areas where they will not. Wastewater management in areas without collection systems will be accomplished by septic systems. Because these areas will rely on septic systems as a long-term wastewater management approach, and not just as an interim measure, the local plan will need to address the policy implications. Some parts of the areas where wastewater collection systems will be provided may need to be transitional areas that use septic systems initially until the collection system is extended at a later date. Plans for these areas to have the collection system installed with the

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 2: Plan Overview

initial development need to be presented in the local plan. This plan also needs to resolve where and how to provide public collection systems in areas that have septic systems installed previously as interim measures.

Regulatory Requirements

One of the chief ways that the WW Plan will be carried out is that EPD will use it to issue discharge permits in the District. By conforming to the District WW Plan, local jurisdictions can receive permits more quickly, streamlining the permitting process.

Governance

The WW Plan includes provisions to address governance issues associated with the greater degree of inter-jurisdictional collaboration that is proposed. Many jurisdictions already work together to manage wastewater. Their successful experience can benefit jurisdictions that will need to develop new agreements. Several initiatives to be fostered by the District under the WW Plan are:

Model inter-jurisdictional agreements; Fair share funding formula framework; Level of service assurances; Formal system of dispute resolution; Increased State role; Appeals process for modifying the WW Plan; and Publicize and reward successful partnerships.

Funding

Funding the WW Plan involves supporting the cost of the proposed capital improvements, as well as the cost of the other programs included in the WW Plan. These are estimated to be in the range of $43 billion spread over the next 30 years, as summarized in Table 2-2.

One of the advantages of the proposed WW Plan is that it reduces the total outlay for wastewater management by around $500 million over a non-regional plan. The savings result mainly from the consolidation in the number of treatment facilities.

Funding of these costs will come from traditional sources, such as revenue bonds for capital improvements, and from innovative sources, such as possible gap funding through GEFA or federal funding. The costs will largely be borne by the users of wastewater management services within the District.

Because the presence of the District is part of the WW Plan, funds to support its operations are needed. Its funding will largely come from the members, although state and federal grant money could support some of its operations. The District may be able to tap into more funding sources for its members, because it can present a unified appeal for meeting the regional needs.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-8

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 2: Plan Overview

TABLE 2-2 Estimated Costs for District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan

Item
Infrastructure Treatment Facilities Collection System Combined Sewer System Projects
Major Sewer System Rehabilitation
Treatment O&M Collection System O&M Programmatic and Policy Measures1 Total

Projected Costs by Time Period

2001 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030

($ billion)

($ billion)

($billion)

Total for 30 Years
($ billion)

$ 1 $ 5 $ 1 To be determined by local utilities $ 2 $ 3 <$ 1 $ 12

$ 2 $ 5
0 To be determined by local utilities $ 2 $ 4 <$ 1 $ 13

$ 3 $ 5
0 To be determined by local utilities
$ 3 $ 4 <$ 1 $ 15

$ 6 $ 15 $ 1 To be determined by local utilities $ 7 $ 11 <$ 1 $ 40

1 Estimated set-up costs and annual costs are presented in Table 16-10. Total estimated set-up costs are $10.1 million. Total estimated annual costs are $1.1 million/year.
All costs are estimated future amounts in 2003 dolars.

Education and Public Awareness
The final lynchpin in the WW Plan is the Education and Public Awareness Program (E&PA Program). The goal of the E&PA Program is to acquaint a large cross-section of the public with the importance of water resources and wastewater management. When the public recognizes the value of water resources, it will make better judgments about supporting the WW Plan.
Integration with Other District Plans
The solutions included in the WW Plan are integrated with the District's other two concurrent planning activities, the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan and the District-wide Watershed Management Plan. All three plans function together to provide solutions to the water resources issues in the District.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2-9

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WW - PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC

Section 3
Existing Wastewater Management Conditions

Today, the publicly owned wastewater facilities in the District have the capacity to treat more than 700 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater. Once treated, the majority is then discharged back into surface water bodies. Historically, the District has met increased demand for wastewater treatment by seeking permit increases and then building or expanding treatment facilities. However, water quality standards have been increasingly challenging to maintain. As an alternative to getting new or increased wastewater discharge permits, many cities and counties have used land application, non-potable urban reuse, or septic systems as a means to support growing demands.

Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities

In the District today, there are 233 wastewater treatment facilities. Of these, 103 are publicly owned, with a total available capacity of 723 MGD. This includes facilities that are currently on-line and those that will be operating by 2005. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the total existing wastewater treatment capacity (in terms of maximum monthly flow) by basin and for each county in the District, respectively.

The WW Plan envisions more advanced treatment facilities for producing reusable water

TABLE 3-1 Summary of Existing Wastewater Treatment Capacity by Basin

Basin
Chattahoochee Etowah Flint Ocmulgee Oconee Total

Total Available Treatment Capacity
(MGD) 498 66 45 109 5 723

The Chattahoochee Basin includes 69% of the existing capacity in the District, including the five largest wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Three counties, Cobb, Fulton, and Gwinnett, have 70% of the treatment capacity of the District.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WW- EXISTING CONDITIONS.DOC

Section 3: Existing Wastewater Management Conditions

The vast majority (87%) of publicly owned treatment facilities have advanced levels of treatment (reduce biochemical oxygen demand to below 20 milligrams per liter (mg/L)). Figure 3-1 summarizes the treatment types at existing publicly owned treatment facilities. The Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill Water Reclamation Center (WRC) has the highest level of treatment within the District.
FIGURE 3-1 Level of Treatment at Existing Publicly Owned
Treatment Facilities
Existing Discharge Locations

TABLE 3-2 Summary of Existing Wastewater Treatment Capacity by County

County
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Total

Total Available Treatment Capacity
(MGD) 19 15 34 131 6 56 8 10 7 280 101 19 16 4 11 6 723

Most WWTPs in the District release treated flow to surface water bodies. Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of existing treatment capacity by type of discharge.

FIGURE 3-2 Discharge Types at Existing Publicly Owned
Treatment Facilities

When the inventory of wastewater management facilities was prepared in mid2002, 233 wastewater facilities were identified in the District. They discharged about 565 MGD of flow in 2001. Table 3-3 summarizes the number of facilities and flows to each basin.

TABLE 3-3 Currently Permitted Discharges by Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants in the District

Basin Chattahoochee Etowah Coosa Flint
Ocmulgee Oconee Totals

Number of Facilities 93 50 4 18
45 23 233

Flow Discharged in 2001(MGD) 405 44 2 10
100 4
565

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WW- EXISTING CONDITIONS.DOC

Section 3: Existing Wastewater Management Conditions
Existing Reuse
Although non-potable reuse facilities currently comprise only 1% of the treatment capacity within the District, reuse is receiving a high level of interest. Three types of reuse of reclaimed water were studied during the planning process: non-potable reuse, indirect potable reuse, and direct potable reuse.
Non-potable reuse is currently practiced in the District in the forms of golf course irrigation, industrial process water use, and other urban irrigation uses. Indirect potable reuse is currently practiced in the District in an incidental way, because some wastewater treatment facilities discharge upstream of water supply intakes. For indirect potable reuse to be more useful, the reclaimed water needs to be returned to lakes or water bodies used for water supply. Direct potable reuse is not currently practiced in the United States, due to concerns over its safety.
Non-potable Reuse
Existing non-potable reuse applications in the District generally belong to one of the following categories:
Irrigation with secondary-treated effluent in restricted areas or land treatment of
wastewater; and
Irrigation with high quality treated effluent in unrestricted areas such as golf courses
and parks.
Although most of these indirect non-potable reuse projects were developed to eliminate or reduce wastewater discharges, the reclaimed water from at least one treatment system recharges the potable water supply via soil percolation. Non-potable reuse and land application of wastewater are considered as 100% consumptive use. Non-potable reuse that replaces surface water withdrawals is one way that this practice is not a consumptive use, and it is considered beneficial.
A summary of a few selected existing water reuse applications in the District are presented below:
The Clayton Shoal Creek Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), owned by the Clayton County Water Authority (CCWA), provides up to 1 MGD of reclaimed water to the River's Edge Golf Club for all of its irrigation demands.
The Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP, owned by the Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority (CCWSA), is permitted to discharge 2.5 MGD to either the Towne Lake Golf Course or Lake Allatoona.
The Cobb Northwest Cobb Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is permitted to discharge 4 MGD to Lake Allatoona or 2 MGD to the Cobblestone Golf Course for irrigation purposes.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WW- EXISTING CONDITIONS.DOC

Section 3: Existing Wastewater Management Conditions
The Dick's Creek WRF is located in Forsyth County and serves customers in the Laurel Springs golf course development, along with several other residential and mixed-use developments. It is a privately owned facility with a permitted capacity of 0.76 MGD.
The Cauley Creek WRF, located in North Fulton County, is privately owned by Cauley Creek Water Reclamation, LLC in a trust indenture relationship with Fulton County. The current capacity of the WRF is 2.5 MGD but is expandable to 5 MGD. The water will be distributed under pressure via two separate transmission pipelines that will serve the Shakerag area of North Fulton County. The primary pipeline serves the 18-hole St. Ives and the 36-hole Atlanta Athletic Club golf courses. It could also be used to serve the Quail Hollow, Montclair, and St. Ives communities, due to the proximity of the pipeline to these developments. The pipeline will be extended in the future along Old Alabama Road to serve the 18-hole Country Club of the South and the 27-hole River Pines golf courses. The second transmission pipeline will extend northward along Bell Road and will provide reclaimed water to the Homestead, Shakerag communities, the Standard Club, and Technology Park for landscape irrigation.
Indirect Potable Reuse
Indirect potable reuse is already practiced in the District, both in planned and incidental forms. Several major water supply intakes on the Chattahoochee River are currently located downstream of discharges from treatment facilities in Fulton and Gwinnett Counties. Clayton County is also practicing planned indirect potable reuse.
Planned Indirect Potable Reuse Examples
Gwinnett County has constructed the 20-MGD Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC, an indirect potable reuse facility. The facility treats wastewater to extremely stringent levels and returns it to the Chattahoochee River, where many downstream drinking water intakes exist. A transmission main transports the treated effluent 20 miles south, to a common outfall at the existing discharge location of the Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF. This pipeline provides opportunity for major water users (such as golf courses) along the pipeline route to use the highly treated effluent for irrigation. EPD has also approved a permit to allow Gwinnett County to discharge the reclaimed water into Lake Lanier, a primary source of drinking water in the District. However, local citizen groups are contesting this permit.
CCWA operates four wastewater treatment plants with two land application facilities. The four plants are the Clayton W.B. Casey, R.L. Jackson, Northeast Clayton, and Shoal Creek WPCFs. The Casey and Jackson plants provide secondary treatment for up to 19.5 MGD of wastewater. The effluent from the plants is pumped from a 20-MGD pumping station, to one of two forested spray irrigation facilities. These forested sites of 3,700 and 325 acres recharge Pates Creek via soil percolation. Pates Creek is the major source for the County's municipal water supply. Hooper Reservoir and Blalock Lake are impoundments downstream of the land application facility. By increasing the base flows in Pates Creek during drought situations, the reliability of the water supply source is increased. According to CCWA, 16% of the 19.5 MGD of effluent is lost through evapotranspiration, while up to 84% (approximately 16 MGD) is returned to the 32,000 acre watershed of the Hooper Reservoir and Blalock Lake.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WW- EXISTING CONDITIONS.DOC

Section 3: Existing Wastewater Management Conditions

Existing Septic System Usage

Septic systems in Georgia are governed by O.C.G.A. 290-5-26, "On-Site Sewage Management Systems," administered by the Department of Human Resources (DHR). This law and the associated regulations are enforced by County Boards of Health and the Division of Environmental Health. Local water and wastewater utilities are involved to the extent that if public sewer is available, septic systems are not permitted. The EPD regulates community onsite sewage management systems through a general permit.

Specific information on the number and location of septic systems is not available from local utilities or the county health departments. Some have estimated the number of septic systems, but locations are not available, except for general information on sewered areas.

The 1990 census data provided both the number of housing units and the number of housing

units with septic systems by census tract units. The 2000 census did not collect similar

information regarding the number of housing units on septic systems. Therefore, the percentage of housing

FIGURE 3-3 Estimated Percent of Housing Units
Using Septic Systems in 2000

units using septic systems in 1990 was

used to estimate the number using

septic systems in 2000. Figure 3-3

shows the percent of housing units

using septic systems.

Highly

developed counties, such as DeKalb

and Fulton, have less than 10% of

housing units using septic systems.

Developing counties have between

40% and 90% of housing units using

septic systems.

Figure 3-4 presents the estimated flow managed by septic systems. Most of the counties in the District have less than 8 MGD going to septic systems. Over 40% of housing units in Gwinnett County are served by septic systems resulting in approximately 20 MGD going to septic systems.

FIGURE 3-4 Estimated Septic System Usage in 2000

Using this data, it is estimated that approximately 87 MGD was flowing to septic systems in the year 2000. This represents about 21% of the wastewater generated across the District.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WW- EXISTING CONDITIONS.DOC

Section 3: Existing Wastewater Management Conditions
The relationship between density and septic tank use was plotted, as shown in Figure 3-5. A best-fit curve was defined to describe the relationship. This information represents the District's experience with moving from septic systems to collection systems and wastewater treatment, as a community becomes more densely populated. This relationship was used to project future septic system usage in the District, as described in Section 4.
FIGURE 3-5 Relationship of Septic System Usage to Density of Development

Existing Surface Water Quality
Presently, water quality does not meet the standards for the designated use in approximately 55% of the miles of streams in the District. Approximately one-third of the stream miles do not support the use, and 22% only partially support the use. Watershed Characterization District Watershed Management Plan, CH2MHill, October 2002, indicates:
"Non-point source pollution was identified as the major cause of water quality impairment in the District. Contamination by fecal coliform bacteria, a common component of non-point source runoff, is the principal cause of failure to support designated uses, causing or contributing to 92% of stream miles not fully supporting their designated use."
The most prevalent cause for streams not supporting the use is excessive fecal coliform content. The primary source of fecal coliforms is non-point source runoff. Discharges from WWTPs are considered to impair only a few streams, according to the inventory compiled by the EPD. Programs to address these impairments are underway. The most significant is the City of Atlanta's program to address discharges from its combined sewer system, which impair several streams.
Improving the present surface water quality is a goal of the District's WW Plan.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WW- EXISTING CONDITIONS.DOC

Section 4
Wastewater Projections

The population of the 16-county District is expected to increase from nearly 4.0 million today to 7.8 million in 2030. A corresponding increase in economic activity is projected. The increases in population and economic activity will increase the flow of wastewater needing to be managed to nearly 1.0 billion gallons per day, during a maximum month in 2030.

Population and Employment Projections

Official population and employment projections for counties in the District were not available from the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and the Regional Development Centers (RDCs), due to delays in processing the 2000 Census. To meet the planning deadline of May 2003 given in Senate Bill 130, interim projections were developed for preparing the Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan and the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan).

The population and employment projections were derived using data and information available within the limitations of the District's planning schedule and budget. The projections incorporated objectives and well-informed judgments about local conditions, historic trends, and regional growth patterns that can be logically anticipated without sophisticated mathematical techniques. The results of the 2000 census were the starting point for developing the projections. The projections were used for the initial planning process, and will be updated regularly, at least every 5 years as required by Senate Bill 130.

ARC, the RDCs, and the District members were given the opportunity to review and advise on the projection methodology and results.

Population Projection Methodology

The projection methodology begins by computing the District's "share" of the United States' population, as projected to the year 2030 by Woods and Poole, a national demographicforecasting firm. The District population totals are split among the 16 counties, based upon historical data and growth trends. The county projections are adjusted to reflect current population densities for developed land within the county, and future land use shown in the county's comprehensive plan.

The following summarizes the method used to develop the "moderate growth" population projections for each county in the District. Figure 4-1 shows this process graphically.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

4-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WW- PROJECTIONS.DOC

Section 4: Wastewater Projections
Projection steps:
1. Calculate the District's share of U.S. population for 2010, 2020, and 2030, based on linear regression of the District's share of U.S. population from 1950-2000 census data.
2. Apply share of U.S. population to the Woods and Poole national population projections for 2010, 2020, and 2030, to get District projections for 2010, 2020, and 2030.
3. Compute each county's share of the District's population for 2010, 2020, and 2030, based
on linear regression of each county's historical share of District population from 19502000 census data. 4. Compare each county's projected share of the total District population to the county's land use and existing development densities. An "upper bound" was calculated by first determining the density of population on developable land. This was done using the 2000 census population and the year 2000 land use information. Land use information was provided by ARC for thirteen of the 16 counties, and through Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Bartow, Hall, and Walton Counties.
5. Shift projected population from counties that exceeded the upper bounds to lessdeveloped counties in the District.
FIGURE 4-1 Population Projection Methodology

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

4-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WW- PROJECTIONS.DOC

Section 4: Wastewater Projections

Based on input received from ARC and the other RDCs, final adjustments were made to the projections. A range of projections was presented to represent two growth scenarios:

Moderate growth (baseline); and High growth (15% above moderate).

High growth projections were used to plan for wastewater management needs.

Employment Projection Methodology

Employment projections were developed by applying a ratio of population to employment to the interim population projections. The ratios of employment to population for each county were developed based on previous ARC population and employment forecasts for 13 of the 16 counties. For Bartow, Hall and Walton, the rate of growth for employment was based on the rate of growth of population in each county. The ratio of county population to employment was derived from the 2000 census.

Projections

The population and TABLE 4-1 employment for 2000 from Population and Employment Projections by County

the census data were

compared with the projections for 2030, which were developed for the WW Plan. Table 4-1 presents the comparison for each county using the high

County
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb

Population

20001

2030 Projection

76,019

307,100

141,903 398,800

236,517 375,700

607,751 921,200

Employment

20001

2030 Projection

35,330

154,000

37,575

157,600

142,538 240,800

322,365 558,300

growth projections. These Coweta

89,215

232,100

27,947

111,000

projections were disaggregated into basin areas for those counties that span more than one basin, using available planning agency projections as a guide.

DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall

665,865 92,174 91,263 98,407 816,006 588,448 139,277

1,061,700 229,700 212,300 349,500 1,325,700 1,154,900 321,200

385,864 33,462 34,457 38,688 725,932 305,686 90,236

615,300 79,200 66,600 161,100 1,299,700 706,000 181,600

Table 4-2 compares the Henry

119,341 302,800

34,546

88,800

information by major river basin.

Paulding Rockdale Walton

81,678 70,111 60,687

254,800 196,700 186,900

11,556 37,963 18,903

44,900 100,400 55,100

The high-growth projection indicated that the

District Total 3,974,662 7,830,900 2,283,047 4,620,200 1 2000 Census Data

population of the 16

counties in the District will increase from nearly 4.0 million today to approximately 7.8 million

in 2030, nearly doubling. In addition, the employment is projected to more than double over the

same period. Three counties, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett, are projected to exceed 1.0 million

people in 2030.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

4-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WW- PROJECTIONS.DOC

Section 4: Wastewater Projections

TABLE 4-2 Population and Employment Projections by Basin

Population

Basin

20001

2030 Projection

Chattahoochee 1,852,065 3,373,200

Etowah

466,919 1,204,700

Flint

348,352 664,700

Ocmulgee

1,218,209 2,347,600

Oconee

89,117

240,700

District Total 3,974,662 7,830,900 1 2000 Census Data

Employment

20001

2030 Projection

1,419,918 2,625,800

168,290 529,800

191,982 352,700

485,249 1,041,300

17,609

70,500

2,283,047 4,620,200

Wastewater Flow Projections
The wastewater flow calculation procedure is illustrated in Figure 4-2. Wastewater flow calculations began with use by water customers. Only indoor water use becomes wastewater flow. Per capita and per employee indoor water use rates, developed as an output of the Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS) model, were multiplied by population and employment projections. Wastewater flow projections were calculated using the estimated results for the recommended water conservation program.

FIGURE 4-2 Wastewater Flow Calculation

Total wastewater generated was determined by summing all indoor water uses. The wastewater generated is discharged to either septic systems or wastewater collection systems. The septic system flows were subtracted to determine the flow into collection systems.
Wastewater collection systems are subject to leakage, when infiltration and inflow (I/I) enter the system. For the District, flows were analyzed and a factor of 20% was developed to represent the effect of I/I, on a year-round basis. Adding this factor results in the Annual Average Daily Flow, which is the flow that arrives at the wastewater plant for treatment. Design capacities and discharge permits for wastewater treatment facilities are commonly based on the Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF). The MMF was typically calculated by adding 25% to the AADF. MMF represents the average of the daily flows for the month with the highest flows during the year. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 show the MMF wastewater projections by county and basin. The trend is illustrated in Figure 4-3.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

4-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WW- PROJECTIONS.DOC

TABLE 4-3 Summary by County of Projected Wastewater Flow to be Received at Treatment Facilities

County
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton District Total

Projected 2030 Flow (MMF MGD) 36 25 43 100 22 139 18 21 46 249 151 39 33 22 23 11 978

Section 4: Wastewater Projections

TABLE 4-4 Summary by Basin of Projected Wastewater Flows to be Received at Treatment Facilities

Basin
Chattahoochee Etowah Flint Ocmulgee Oconee District Total

Projected 2030 Flow (MMF MGD) 498 109 74 279 18 978

FIGURE 4-3 Trend of Wastewater Flow to be Managed at WWTPs

Septic System Usage Forecasts
A transition in the use of septic systems is projected over the planning period. One statistic for the use of septic systems comes from the 1990 census, which tabulated the number of structures that use septic systems. As growth occurs in the District over the planning period, population density in many areas will increase. As population becomes denser, the prevalence of collection systems will increase and the prevalence of septic systems will decline.
To reflect this, an empirical correlation was developed between the percent of the population served by septic systems and the population density, based on the 1990 census data for the 16 counties:
% population served by septic systems = 87.4 x e -(0.83 x density [people/acre])
This correlation was used, along with the projected population density in 2030, to estimate the percent of the population to be served by septic systems in 2030. These results were used as a baseline in the calculation of the wastewater flow projections shown above. Figure 4-4 shows the current and projected baseline flows to be managed by septic systems by county.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

4-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WW- PROJECTIONS.DOC

Section 4: Wastewater Projections

Alternates were explored for the extent of septic system use, depending on the wastewater

management strategy adopted

by various counties. The results of the correlation derived from

FIGURE 4-4 Current and Projected (Baseline) Septic System Usage

the 1990 census data were

considered to be a baseline.

Alternate approaches (high

septic usage and decreased

septic usage) were selected to

illustrate the range of future

septic system use in the District.

Septic usage in urban areas

(greater than 2 people per acre

with less than 40% of population

using septic systems) was

assumed as the baseline for all

alternatives. Septic usage in

developing areas (less than 2

people per acre or greater than

40% of population using septic systems) varied, based on the alternate approaches. The

wastewater handled by septic systems ranged from 13 MGD to 127 MGD which represented 2%

to 18% of the wastewater generated in the District in 2030, as shown in Figure 4-5.

FIGURE 4-5 Comparison of Projections for Wastewater Managed
by Septic Systems to Wastewater Generated

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

4-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WW- PROJECTIONS.DOC

Section 5
Wastewater Management Issues

One layer of the wastewater management planning process is determining where and when treatment capacity should be in place, and where and how treated water should be returned. Population and employment growth projections indicate the needed location and timing for future services. Resource constraints and public expectations form another layer of issues to be considered in the planning process. Issues of special concern in the District include:
Dependence upon lakes and streams that are reaching their assimilative capacity; Need to double the quantity of flow returned to the already-constrained surface waters;
and Public understanding, confidence, and support of the facilities, programs, and costs
required for providing exceptional wastewater management systems.

This section presents special District-related issues addressed by the WW Plan.
Water Resource Considerations

Reliance on Surface Waters for Multiple Uses
Water resource issues in the District are driven by the geography of the region dominated by headwater streams and reservoirs. The surface waters are used for drinking supplies, recreation, fisheries, and are the discharge points for most wastewater treatment plants within the District. Downstream of the District, other jurisdictions rely upon these same steams to meet similar needs. The waters of the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Etowah Basins are also shared by other states.
Limited Assimilative Capacity vs. Need for Returns
Recent studies by the EPD have indicated that many of the heavily used streams within the District have nearly reached their limit for receiving additional discharges. Requests for permit increases have been put on hold pending development of more sophisticated models. This has triggered the use of land application systems and other consumptive uses of treated flows. This approach is not sustainable, given the future wastewater quantities to be managed and the need to return flows to streams for other uses. Therefore, higher levels of wastewater treatment will be required in the future.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 5: Wastewater Management Issues

Georgia Power Removal of Heat Load from the Chattahoochee River
Within the Chattahoochee Basin, the concern over water quality and the ability to permit additional wastewater returns triggered the Georgia Power Company to agree to convert two power plants to remove heat impacts from the river. Removing the heat load adds to the oxygen resources in the river, freeing-up assimilative capacity for future discharges. This is a unique, unexpected opportunity for the District to develop an optimal plan for additional discharges to the Chattahoochee River.
TMDLs and Non-point Source Pollution
The State has been operating under an EPA consent order to establish TMDLs for impaired waters on an expedited schedule. This process involves defining the sources of impairment, identifying the pollutants and assimilative capacity of the affected waters, and assigning wasteloads for each chemical. In some cases, the wasteloads may be shared or allocated among point sources (i.e. wastewater discharges) and non-point sources. TMDLs have been developed for the impaired stream segments in the Chattahoochee, Flint and Ocmulgee Basins. TMDLs have not yet been developed for the Etowah or Oconee Basins.
Non-point source pollution is the major cause of water quality impairment in the District, and addressing these impairments will rely most heavily on the measures recommended in the District-wide Watershed Management Plan. The success of the non-point source control strategies may influence future wastewater treatment requirements. At this time, the TMDL categories that could require joint watershed/wastewater control strategies include nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), metals, and temperature.
To date, discharges from wastewater treatment plants are listed as the cause of impairment on only 6 stream segments in the District. Corrections are underway to address each situation, and future impairments from wastewater discharges are not anticipated.
Nutrient Standards for Lakes
The EPD has established standards for phosphorus and nitrogen for the major lakes in Georgia. To protect these lakes, standards for phosphorus also have been established for their major tributaries. The EPA is now developing nutrient standards for streams, which will be added in the next few years to those already in place for the lakes.
Lake Lanier The currently defined load into Lake Lanier from point sources is 36,900 lbs/yr of phosphorus. As the amount of reclaimed wastewater discharged to the lake increases, the concentration of phosphorus in the flow must be decreased to maintain this mass limit.
West Point Lake The standard defined load for the Chattahoochee River entering West Point Lake is 1,400,000 lbs/yr of phosphorus. This load is shared by point and non-point sources.
Lake Allatoona Phosphorus loads for point sources of 16,200 lbs/yr have been allocated to each of the four jurisdictions (Bartow and Cobb Counties, the City of Canton, and the Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority) within the headwaters of Lake Allatoona.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 5: Wastewater Management Issues
Lake Jackson The phosphorus loadings established for the major tributaries into Lake Jackson are very restrictive. Allocations of phosphorus loads for the point sources are being determined on a discharge-specific basis.
Upper Chattahoochee Trout Fishery and Recreation Use
The secondary trout fishery supported by the unusually cold waters released from Buford Dam is unique to the Chattahoochee River. The secondary trout waters designation extends from Buford Dam to the I-285 West bridge. Data collected by the Wildlife Resources Division of the DNR revealed that there have been instances of trout reproduction in the section immediately below Buford Dam. This section of the river also includes the Chattahoochee River Natural Recreation Area, which is heavily used for rafting and swimming. The trout and recreation uses of this section of the river pose special considerations for wastewater returns.
Stream Temperatures
Current regulations limit temperature increases in streams to 2F in secondary trout waters and to 5F in other streams. Several streams are designated as secondary trout waters in the District. In addition to the Chattahoochee River downstream from Buford Dam to the I-285 West Bridge, they include small streams in Bartow, Cherokee, and Paulding Counties.
The temperature of the water in the Upper Chattahoochee River is unusually cold, because the releases from Buford Dam are taken from the cold water in the lower depths of Lake Lanier. Discharges from WWTPs into this reach of the river can cause the temperature standard to be exceeded under a certain combination of circumstances. This raises the question as to what standard will protect the trout, especially in unnatural settings, such as the unusually cold water in the Chattahoochee River. This question is being considered by the EPD at this time. One possible outcome is that the EPD could develop a different standard for temperature in the Chattahoochee River that will protect the trout and be amenable to the discharges from WWTPs.
Stormwater also has pronounced effects on the temperature of the Chattahoochee River. The prevailing water temperature in the tributaries is higher than the temperature of the river. During storms, particularly summer storms, the runoff in the tributaries raises the temperature of the river at the confluence. The temperature effects from WWTP discharges should be viewed within the context of the effects from stormwater.
Proximity of Discharges to Water Supply Intakes
Greater quantities of flow will be discharged from WWTPs in the future to the same streams and lakes that supply our drinking water. Greater quantities of water will also be withdrawn in the future for drinking water, often in proximity to the discharge locations. This places greater need for highly reliable treatment facilities, real-time flow and water quality monitoring, and communications protocol.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 5: Wastewater Management Issues

Efficient and Effective Infrastructure

Serving Additional Wastewater Flow
The biggest pressure on infrastructure management will be from the increased volume of wastewater associated with the growth projected for the region over the next 30 years. The growth provides an opportunity to modify the present infrastructure to make it more efficient and reliable. As the fringe counties develop their infrastructure, they can benefit from the lessons learned by the more urbanized counties in the District.
Higher Levels of Treatment and Plant Performance
The need to serve twice the volume of wastewater within the District, placed against the background of highly constrained water resources conditions, will require high levels of treatment and treatment plant reliability. Advanced treatment technologies will be needed to produce reuse-quality effluent across the District. Treatment plants and related infrastructure will need to be designed and operated at a high level of reliability, to assure the public that system failures are extremely unlikely.
Number of Small Facilities
There are more than 230 wastewater treatment facilities in operation today within the 16-county District. Of these, approximately 130 are privately owned and 103 facilities are publicly owned. Two-thirds of the publicly owned facilities treat very small volumes of wastewater at various levels of performance and reliability. Most of these facilities treat less than 1 MGD. They treat less than 10% of the total volume of wastewater produced in the District.
Issues that can arise with smaller (vs. larger) treatment facilities include:
Higher unit costs to upgrade treatment levels; Less reliable performance because operators are often less skilled and staffing is not
typically around the clock; Lower ability to process sudden changes in influent flow or loadings; Greater manpower to monitor and regulate a large number of facilities required by the
EPD; and Absenteeism of private owners who are difficult to locate in case of problem
performance.

Because of these issues, one of the important principles of the WW Plan is to reduce the number of small (less than 3 MGD) WWTPs during the next 30 years, and to focus wastewater management within larger public treatment facilities. Regionalization and consolidation will lead to fewer plants that perform more reliably and consistently.

Septic Systems

Many areas of the District are unsewered. The residents and businesses within the unsewered areas meet their wastewater management needs by means of septic systems (also called on-site

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 5: Wastewater Management Issues
sewage management systems). Septic systems can be a reliable method for wastewater management. However, when septic systems are not properly sited, designed, operated, or maintained, there is a potential for environmental harm, especially when located in critical areas. Another issue associated with septic systems is that they do not return flow to a surface water body; and therefore, are considered consumptive.
It is estimated that approximately 26% of residential and commercial structures within the District use septic systems. Some of those are located in critical areas (areas needing special consideration to protect water quality). Current records of septic systems do not have sufficient detail to allow quantifying this number with a degree of accuracy.
Septic systems that are properly sited, designed, and maintained can prove to be a long term cost effective and environmentally sound method for wastewater management. Unfortunately, these are the factors found lacking in failing systems located in critical areas, which presents the most risk to public health and/or the environment. Therefore, septic systems need the greatest priority and attention. Resolving issues with septic systems entails a more comprehensive and proactive management system.
Some jurisdictions in the District installed large number of septic systems to sustain growth, but have discovered that these areas need to be connected to the public wastewater collection system, because the septic systems were not installed as the permanent wastewater management solution. Connecting these homes to the public wastewater collection system is proving highly disruptive in the neighborhoods. By designating areas to be served with public wastewater collection systems, and other areas where septic systems will be the permanent means of managing wastewater, jurisdictions can avoid growth-related problems.
Wastewater Collection Systems
The wastewater collection systems within the District play a critical role in protecting human health and the environment. Sustaining this role requires proper planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Inadequate resources are committed by some jurisdictions to ongoing inspection and maintenance of the sewer systems. As a result, some systems are beset with sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). More concerted and more effective programs are needed by these jurisdictions to improve the inspection and maintenance of their collection systems.
Combined Sewer Systems
Eleven stream segments are currently impaired by discharges from the City of Atlanta's combined sewer system. The City is developing a program to address this issue and is under a consent decree to have the improvements in place by 2007. The WW Plan relies on the City's completion of this program to address the water quality impacts from its combined sewers.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 5: Wastewater Management Issues

Other Planning Considerations
Stewardship of State Waters
Wastewater management is taking on a new role, as utilities across the District place more emphasis on stewardship of water resources. Reclaiming water and returning it to its source basin has received heightened importance. Concerns are growing throughout the state regarding the depletion of water resources through interbasin transfers and consumptive losses. The WW Plan provides the widest scale look that has ever been assembled of water stewardship in the metropolitan north Georgia region. Also, Senate Bill 130 requires that the District neither study nor include in the WW Plan any interbasin transfer of water from basins outside the District.
Basin Considerations
The WW Plan is integrated with the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan and the District-wide Watershed Plan to protect the water resources in each of the major basins within the District. Returning reclaimed water to its source was an important criterion for the WW Plan. The proposed solution is a balanced approach to preserving and sustaining the region's water resources. The WW Plan takes a regional view of this issue, which is a new perspective.
Consumptive Use
An important consideration for the District is the effect of consumptive use, which is the portion of water withdrawn for use but not returned to the stream via a point discharge. The following water uses are considered 100% consumptive:
Septic systems Land application of wastewater effluent Interbasin transfers Power generation using cooling towers Outdoor watering
Another significant type of consumptive use is the water lost through leaks in distribution systems. Measures to curtail these leaks and to make outdoor water more efficient are included in the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan. The WW Plan focuses on the consumptive losses of septic systems and land application systems, as well as interbasin transfers.
Water Supply Needs for Indirect Potable Reuse
When the WW Plan was integrated with the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan, it became apparent that indirect potable reuse will become a crucial component of the District's water supply after 2030. This is because the demand for water supply will exceed the region's available supplies sometime after this date. One of the few ways

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 5: Wastewater Management Issues
the District can increase its supply is to recycle water through indirect potable reuse. For planning purposes, indirect potable reuse has been defined as using advanced treatment technologies to reclaim water and returning it to an impoundment, such as a lake, that is used for water supply. While the region has been using indirect potable reuse in an incidental way for many years, new considerations need to be invoked as the use of this practice expands sometime after 2030.
The WW Plan supports this practice as part of the District's solution for its future water supply. It incorporates it in a modest way, so that experience can be developed before this type of reuse becomes essential.
Non-Potable Reuse
Because indirect potable reuse is expected to have such an important role in providing the District's water supply in the future, the application of non-potable reuse is not emphasized by the WW Plan. Non-potable reuse applications that are economical and offset potable demands are acceptable. However, non-essential consumptive uses are discouraged.
Existing non-potable reuse applications in the District generally belong to one of the following two categories:
Irrigation with secondary-treated effluent in restricted areas or land treatment of wastewater
Irrigation with high quality treated effluent in unrestricted areas such as golf courses and parks.
The total potable water demand that can be offset by non-potable reuse is estimated to be less than 10% of the projected 2030 demand. This type of reuse can be costly due to the distribution systems that are required to convey the reclaimed water to the end user. Additionally, irrigation, the most common application of non-potable reuse, is considered consumptive. If non-potable reuse offsets water withdrawn from surface sources, then it is not consumptive.
Minority and Low Income Population Areas Environmental Justice
A doubling of population and wastewater flows during the next 30 years will require expansions of existing treatment facilities, and new facilities to be built in developing areas. All water users expect long-term plans will equitably address service needs and environmental protection across the District. With the implementation of the WW Plan, the percentage of wastewater treated in minority and low income areas will decline during the next 30 years. This is due to the recommended placement of new facilities and discharges in proximity to the future growth projected to occur in the urbanizing counties.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 5 WW- WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.DOC

Section 6
Alternatives Development and Evaluation

A step-wise decision process was used to develop the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan). This approach was designed to facilitate an open process that focused on specific District goals for water resource management. It maximized the use of existing information, while assuring completion within the schedule mandated in the law establishing the District. The water and wastewater alternatives were developed simultaneously to account for the interdependence between the water and wastewater alternatives.
Public Participation
The District Plan was developed with extensive public involvement, as is appropriate for a regional planning effort. Opportunities for participation were focused on the TCC and the BACs, which met routinely with the planning consultants during development of the plan. Three topics that the TCC and BACs contributed heavily to were:
Development of the policy goals; Determination of the policy-goal criteria; and Consideration of the theme-based alternatives.
Further participation was encouraged through the District's web site, www.northgeorgiawater.com. Background planning work was posted on the web site as it was prepared and became available for public review. Comments to the information on the web site were directed to ARC, which relayed them to the planning consultants.
Policy-goal Criteria Development
The District's starting point for developing all three management plans was identifying policy goals (shown in Figure 6-1). The next step was to develop criteria related to each policy goal. Three categories of criteria were developed to evaluate water and wastewater solutions at various points throughout the management plan development process:
Screening Criteria Evaluation Criteria Implementation Criteria

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

6-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WW- ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.DOC

Section 6: Alternatives Development and Evaluation
FIGURE 6-1 Policy Goals and Policy-goal Criteria

A stakeholder process developed these criteria to identify the parameters that comprise a desired solution. Each criterion was related to a specific policy goal (Figure 6-1) and was assigned a metric to determine how well an alternative or scenario addressed the planning goal. Some criteria are numeric because the metric can be determined quantitatively by calculations. Other criteria are qualitative, requiring informed reviews to be made.

Stepped Process for Developing and Evaluating Solutions

Next, a methodology was established for developing the water and wastewater solutions. The following key steps were identified to lead to the recommended management plans for the District:

1. Developing and screening a range of alternatives; 2. Combining screened theme-based alternatives into management solutions;

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

6-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WW- ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.DOC

Section 6: Alternatives Development and Evaluation
3. Evaluating solutions and presenting the recommended solution; and 4. Developing the implementation plan for the recommended solution.
The intent of the evaluation process was to objectively compare alternative solutions. This approach helped to eliminate bias towards any particular alternative, in an effort to develop a consensus.
The evaluation process narrowed the range of alternatives using the screening, evaluation, and implementation criteria. Each level of evaluation involved an increased level of detail developed for the most worthy alternatives.
Step 1: Screening a Range of Alternatives
Using the policy goals and planning objectives, a range of potential alternatives was identified, with input from the TCCs and BACs. The alternatives were based on management concepts or themes that were developed to address each objective. For example, to address wastewater capacity needs, one alternative would be to build one centralized treatment facility in each basin. In this stage of the solution development, the focus was on developing capital improvements alternatives to meet the needs for 2030. However, the development of nontechnology approaches that could contribute to managing the District's water resources was also performed.
Eight theme-based alternatives were discussed with the TCC at the September and October 2002 meetings. After considering the comments and insights provided by the TCC and BACs, and applying the evaluation criteria, selected theme-based alternatives that merited further development were identified and are listed as follows:
Ideas for Maximizing the Use of Existing Facilities were improved, based on the input from reviews and discussions with TCC members and District staff. This solution would rely primarily on existing facilities and plans, would fit easily within the existing system of utilities in the District, and would have a framework in place for implementation.
Centralizing facilities would provide opportunities for consolidation of existing facilities in the urbanized areas, as well as the opportunity to establish regional facilities in less developed areas expected to grow significantly by 2030. Growth and higher levels of treatment will require expansions and improvements to many water and wastewater facilities. The underlying assumption is that consolidating facilities will yield savings in capital and operating costs over the long term and improve reliability. A cost effective solution for meeting these needs requires finding opportunities to consolidate facilities and to reduce the number of facilities that must undergo renovation and modification over the next 30 years.
Both Basin Self-sufficiency and Reduce Consumptive Losses compared favorably versus
the criteria, as they had components aimed at minimizing interbasin transfers and carefully using the proposed allocations from Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier. They also included reuse of reclaimed water to meet future water supply needs.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

6-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WW- ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.DOC

Section 6: Alternatives Development and Evaluation

Step 2: Combining Screened Theme-Based Alternatives into Management Solutions
Using the screened theme-based alternatives identified in Step 1, three potential solutions were developed for comparison:
Current Plans: This solution was based on the existing jurisdictions' plans to provide service within county boundaries or existing service areas, with the continued use of existing infrastructure and expansions as needed. The individual utilities' plans were combined into a comprehensive plan to meet projected 2030 demands, within the constraints of the water resources in the District.
Consolidated Expansion: This solution was the greatest departure from the Current Plans option. It was based on achieving long-term cost effectiveness by using existing infrastructure investments, and focusing expansions and new capacity requirements at fewer, more regionalized plants. It also set the stage for meeting the growing needs beyond 2030. This solution emphasized an approach to providing service that recognized, but was not constrained by, existing service arrangements, and a balanced use of the available water resources.
Basin Water Resources: This solution was driven by basin dynamics. As with Current Plans, it relied on existing facilities, but rearranged some of the service areas to achieve a better balance in its use of the available water supplies in the District. This solution emphasized limiting changes to the current interbasin transfers, based on taking water supply from the basin where the service is provided and returning wastewater to its source basin.
These three solutions were presented at the November 2002 TCC meeting, and at the December 2002 BAC meetings. Based on the feedback received from the TCC and BACs, the potential solutions were revised. In addition, the Recommended Solution was developed based on both the feedback received and an evaluation of the potential solutions.
In developing the Recommended Solution, the best pieces of potential solutions were combined
into a hybrid solution. The Recommended Solution combines the portions of each of the short-
listed solutions that scored well using the evaluation criteria. By design, this process resulted in a Recommended Solution that scores higher than any of the other solutions.

Step 3: Evaluating Solutions and Presenting the Recommended Solution
Following Step 2, each of the four solutions was again evaluated, using the evaluation and implementation criteria. During this step, both the economic and non-economic factors included in the evaluation criteria were considered. Following this level of evaluation, solutions were scored and ranked (Table 6-1). The highest scoring solution was chosen as the Recommended Solution.

Step 4: Develop the Implementation Plan for the Recommended Solution
Once the recommended solution was identified, the implementation plan was developed. At several TCC and BAC meetings, feedback was solicited to help identify implementation issues for the recommended plan. Based on the feedback received, a summary of issues was prepared and used as a basis for developing the non-capital strategies incorporated into the implementation plan.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

6-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WW- ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.DOC

Section 6: Alternatives Development and Evaluation

TABLE 6-1 Results of Evaluation of the Four Alternatives

Rank
1. 2. 3. 4.

Alternative
Recommended Solution Consolidated Expansion Basin Water Resources
Current Plans

Score (out of 95 possible points)
73 70 61 54

The implementation plan suggests a series of actions for the state, regional, and local officials, and residents of the 16-county District to undertake. It also addresses key requirements for the District that are mandated in Senate Bill 130, and the planning standards established by the EPD.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

6-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WW- ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.DOC

Section 7
Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

One aspect of the WW Plan is a vision of wastewater treatment infrastructure that will be in place in 2030. The infrastructure plan presents a long-term overview of where treatment facilities will be located and an estimate of their capacity. Because the treatment facilities are owned and operated by local governments, they will refine the WW Plan as time unfolds, optimizing it, and adding innovation. A list of action items needed to implement the infrastructure plan is included.

Infrastructure Plan

The Plan envisions that over the next 30 years the infrastructure for wastewater collection and treatment will change the most in the outlying counties of the District. Within the urbanized counties, fewer changes are anticipated. This approach results in a cost-efficient plan, because most of the existing large-capacity facilities will be retained.

Plan Description

Approximately 345 MGD of additional treatment capacity will be needed by 2030, through new

and expanded facilities. High levels of treatment will be applied at many facilities. Many small

facilities will be phased out of service as they exhaust their useful life, and as

FIGURE 7-1 Wastewater Treatment Plants for 2030

new facilities become available. The

consolidations will reduce the number

of wastewater treatment plants in the

District from 103 publicly owned

plants today to 48 plants by 2030,

through a steady, phased approach.

The number of proposed treatment

plants is shown on Figure 7-1 and a

list is given on Table 7-1. Details on

this phased approach to capital

improvements and consolidation are

presented by county in Appendix B.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

TABLE 7-1 Wastewater Treatment Plants Planned to be in Operation in 2030

Location by County Wastewater Treatment Plant

Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb

Adairsville North WPCP New West Bartow WWTP Cartersville WPCP Industrial WWTPs Canton WPCP Cherokee Fitzgerald Creek WWTP New Cherokee NE Etowah WWTP Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP Clayton Northeast WRP Clayton Shoal Creek LAS
Clayton WB Casey WRP
Cobb Noonday Creek WRF Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF Cobb RL Sutton WRF Cobb South Cobb WRF Newnan Mineral Springs WPCP Newnan Wahoo Creek WPCP New South Coweta WWTP Send to Meriwether County
DeKalb Polebridge WPCP

Douglas Fayette Forsyth
Fulton

Douglas South Central UWRF Douglasville Sweetwater Creek WRF Fayetteville Whitewater Creek WPCP Peachtree City Line Creek WPCP Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP Bethelview Road WRF New Forsyth/Cumming Lake Lanier WRF New Southeast Forsyth/Fowler Reuse Atlanta RM Clayton WRC Atlanta South River WRC Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC Fulton Big Creek WRF Fulton Camp Creek WRF Fulton Johns Creek WRF Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF

Gwinnett
Hall
Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton

Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC
Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF Gwinnett Yellow River WRF Flowery Branch WPCP Gainesville Flat Creek WRF Gainesville Linwood WRF Henry Bear Creek WRF Henry Indian Creek LAS Henry Walnut Creek WRF Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek WRF Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF Loganville WPCP
Monroe Jacks Creek WPCP

New South Walton WWTP

Discharge Water Body
Oothkalooga Creek Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River Little River Etowah River Lake Allatoona Cotton Indian Creek LAS/Wetlands
Huie LAS/Wetlands
Noonday Creek Lake Allatoona Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Mineral Springs Branch/LAS Wahoo Creek/LAS White Oak Creek South River (63 MGD) Chattahoochee River (30 MGD) Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Whitewater Creek Line Creek Line Creek Tributary Lake Lanier Lake Lanier Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Lake Lanier (40 MGD) Chattahoochee River (20 MGD) Lake Lanier/Chattahoochee River Yellow River Lake Lanier Lake Lanier Lake Lanier Bear Creek/LAS LAS Walnut Creek Pumpkinvine Creek Yellow River Big Flat Creek Grubby Creek Tributary to Jacks Creek Big Flat Creek

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The discharges from the proposed WWTPs are integrated with the withdrawals by the proposed water treatment plants, to balance the effect on each of the major river basins. For the four larger river basins in the District, the discharge to withdrawal ratio under the WW Plan will range from 117% to 25%. Withdrawal flows, discharge flows, and their ratio are shown in Figure 7-2 for 2030, according to the WW Plan.
FIGURE 7-2 Withdrawals and Discharges for 2030

Affecting the discharge-to-withdrawal ratio is flow withdrawn from one river basin, but discharged in another. Termed "interbasin transfer," this practice is common in the District today. The WW Plan will continue most existing interbasin transfers. Other interbasin transfers will result from balancing the availability of the District's water resources with the demands. Interbasin transfers under the WW Plan are shown in Figure 7-3.

Treatment Standards

The WW Plan proposes that watershed-based standards be used for discharges from WWTPs. Protective standards would be determined by the EPD for each river, as is the current policy. WWTPs on heavily used rivers, such as the Chattahoochee River, would be faced with more restrictive discharge standards than WWTPs on rivers that receive less discharge, such as the Etowah River below Lake Allatoona. This approach is considered reasonable, because it protects water quality without requiring a higher level of treatment than is necessary.

The WW Plan used the results of the water quality model prepared by Natural Resource Engineering, Inc to investigate the treatment standards needed to protect the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. The results indicated that if very high levels of treatment are applied at the WWTPs, and if the Georgia Power Company removes its heat load from the river, up to 520 MGD of flow can be discharged to the river and still meet the instream standard of 5.0 mg/L for dissolved oxygen during critical, low-flow periods. The WW Plan is consistent with this finding. The model also indicated that the location of the discharges is an important

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
factor affecting the results. Hence, the model should continue to be used as a tool to define acceptable discharges to this reach of the river.
FIGURE 7-3 Interbasin Transfers for 2030 With Proposed Plans

Studies of similar detail were not preformed under the WW Plan for the other rivers. Water quality modeling of these rivers is performed by the EPD in response to requests to increase discharges. The WW Plan determined that the treatment standards for the other rivers would not need to be as restrictive as those proposed for the Chattahoochee River, in order to limit the discharge of materials to today's levels.
Higher levels of treatment at the WWTPs will undoubtedly be required during the next 30 years. Some of the reasons include:
TMDLs As the causes of impairments to surface water uses are resolved, more
restrictive discharge limits may be imposed on some WWTPs. These will be specific to the cause of the impairment, such as excessive fecal coliform content or metals concentration.
In-stream nutrient standards The EPD is developing standards, as required by EPA, to
establish allowable concentrations of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, in streams. When these standards are determined, nutrients in the flow discharged by WWTPs may need to be reduced below today's values.
Indirect potable reuse standards During the later half of the planning period, indirect
potable reuse will be relied upon to a greater degree. It is anticipated that it will eventually become appropriate for the EPD to develop standards for this practice. One part of these standards will define treatment levels for producing reclaimed water.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Managing increasing volumes of wastewater Growth in the District will lead to
increasing volumes of wastewater for treatment and discharge. As the volume of discharges increases, the level of treatment must increase correspondingly, to provide the same level of protection for surface water quality.
Recognizing that treatment standards will become increasingly more stringent, it was determined that treatment technologies available today (those that achieve the Metro Chattahoochee WWTP Limits) have the capability to keep WWTP discharge loads at or below today's levels, for all but a few watersheds. While this work demonstrates that water quality can be protected, determining specific treatment limits that will protect water quality for each discharge is a responsibility of EPD.
Principles Used to Develop Plan
The following core principles guided development of the wastewater treatment facilities aspects of the WW Plan, and should be supported by local wastewater management plans:
Consolidate wastewater treatment plants: The District currently contains 103 publicly owned WWTPs. In addition, the number of privately owned, public-agency owned, and industrial WWTPs exceeds the number of publicly owned WWTPs. Many of these were intended as interim facilities to be used until public services become available. Of the publicly owned WWTPs, almost three-quarters are less than 3.0 MGD in capacity. These facilities comprise only 9% of the WWTP capacity of the District. Historically, the larger wastewater utilities in the District have found that fewer, larger WWTPs are superior to numerous, smaller WWTPs.
The WW Plan focuses on consolidating wastewater treatment facilities in order to improve performance, reliability, and consistency of operation, as well as to provide cost-effective services. Advantages to having fewer WWTPs include:
o Better reliability: The larger WWTPs are staffed around the clock, while many of the small WWTPs are not. Also, the skill level of plant operators tends to be higher at larger WWTPs. Further, larger WWTPs are better able to handle sudden changes in flow or loadings. Hence, the larger WWTPs often have more reliable and more consistent treatment performance than smaller WWTPs. This will become increasingly important over the next 30 years, as more complex treatment processes are installed to meet stricter treatment standards.
o Improved oversight: It is difficult for the EPD to monitor and regulate a large number of WWTPs. Reducing the number of WWTPs will allow the EPD to provide better monitoring of operations.
o Lower costs: Larger WWTPs are less expensive to build and upgrade than having to improve many smaller WWTPs. It is less costly to operate a few larger WWTPs than to operate many smaller WWTPs. Thus, larger WWTPs are a more cost-efficient way to deliver wastewater management services to the customer. As upgrades to WWTPs are required over the coming years, it is expected that many of the utilities operating smaller WWTPs will realize how costly it is to modify and staff the smaller WWTPs.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

This will add incentive to decommission these facilities and to use larger, consolidated WWTPs to provide wastewater treatment services. o Far-sighted: Having fewer, larger WWTPs will expedite the retrofit-to-indirect potable reuse processes that will be needed beyond 2030, to meet water supply demands. Thus, consolidation will be beneficial in the long-term.

Consolidation of WWTPs will result in the retirement of 61 WWTPs over the course of

the next 30 years. It is expected that many of the existing plants will remain in service for

10 or 20 more years, until their useful life is exhausted, or until it is no longer economical

to continue to operate them. The phase-out of existing WWTPs is illustrated on

Figure 7-4.

FIGURE 7-4

Continue to protect water quality:

Phasing of Existing Publicly Owned WWTPs

Protecting surface water quality is

especially important in the District

because many of the streams in the region

are headwaters for other communities.

Further, waters in the District are heavily

used for drinking water supply and

recreation, and their quality must be

safeguarded. Resolving the causes of

impaired use of waters through the TMDL

process will better protect water quality,

as well. In most cases, protecting water

quality will entail installing higher levels

of treatment at WWTPs as they are

expanded. The levels of treatment that are

projected to be needed can be attained by

currently available treatment technology,

although providing the higher levels of

treatment will cost more. Integrating

wastewater management and watershed

protection will also improve water

quality.

For the Chattahoochee River, which receives more discharges of treated flow than any other stream in the District, a detailed predictive water quality model has been used to determine wasteloads for 2030 flows. The model results indicate that even with the projected growth in the region, the discharges can be accommodated if all facilities incorporate a high level of treatment, provided the current heat load is removed and the current temperature standard is rewritten.

Another way the WW Plan seeks to protect water quality is to improve management of septic systems. One of these measures is routine pumping of septic tanks. The routine

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

pumping will increase the volume of septage that will need to be managed. Frequently, septage is processed at WWTPs.
Integrate reclaimed water into the solution: Reclaiming water to the natural
environment to sustain water supply sources (indirect potable reuse) is part of the WW Plan. Having all utilities that withdraw water from Lake Lanier return a significant portion of their reclaimed water to Lake Lanier is included in the WW Plan. Use of reclaimed water, while only serving a minor role before 2030, will become increasingly important beyond 2030. Consolidating WWTPs over the next 30 years will make implementation of indirect potable reuse easier to implement after 2030.
Return flow to the Chattahoochee River: The Chattahoochee Basin extends far
downstream from the District. Downstream communities want to benefit from this resource, just as the District benefits. It is crucial to return reclaimed water to the river used as the water supply. One implication of this principle is that the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP needs to return a significant portion of its flow to the Chattahoochee River, the county's water source.
Support basin orientation: The river basin impacts of withdrawing water and
discharging reclaimed water must be considered in wastewater management planning. Downstream communities want to benefit from water resources in the same way that the District benefits. In many instances, downstream communities have become dependent on the flows currently discharged in the Atlanta area, so changing existing basin flow patterns is not proposed. For new or increased withdrawals and discharges, water should be returned to the source basin, as indicated in the WW Plan.
Another aspect of basin orientation is consideration of returning flows to surface streams, as opposed to using septic systems or land application to manage the flow. Because the vast majority of wastewater in the District is managed by WWTPs, the WW Plan emphasizes returning these flows within basins to address this issue. Specific targets for returning flows are not included in the WW Plan.
Meet 10% reuse goal: The EPD has set a goal to reuse 10% of the water withdrawn for
potable or non-potable purposes. The WW Plan exceeds this goal by using a Districtwide approach, under which a few utilities will meet the goal for the entire District. The most important way to accomplish reuse has been determined to be supporting the region's water supply. Meeting the reuse goal will be achieved by returning reclaimed water to Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona, which are used for water supply. The following facilities are proposed to return reclaim water directly to these lakes:
o Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP o Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF o Bethelview Road WRF o Flowery Branch WPCP o New Forsyth/Cumming Lake Lanier WRF o Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

o Gainesville Linwood WRF o Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC o Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF
The projected 2030 flow from these facilities is approximately 150 MGD, which is roughly 14% of the total water withdrawn.
Means of reusing water, in addition to returning water to lakes used for water supply, are included in the WW Plan. Several facilities will be reclaiming water for irrigation of golf courses and landscaped areas. Using reclaimed water for irrigation is recognized as one of the reuse practices that will be in use in the District. If the reclaimed water is used in place of water that would have been withdrawn from surface water sources, then the reclaimed water will serve to preserve water resources. Otherwise, using reclaimed water for irrigation will deplete the water resources, because irrigation is a consumptive use that does not return flow to the river in a measurable way.
Continue to apply advanced technology: Over the next 30 years, utilities will need to
continue to apply advanced treatment technologies to meet the treatment standards that will become progressively more rigorous over time. Advanced technologies can include the latest technologies currently being applied, such as membrane treatment systems, as well as technologies not yet developed.
Enhance reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations: Many
wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations in the District are located on water bodies that are heavily used. In this circumstance, consistent and uninterrupted performance is essential. Over the next 30 years, higher standards for reliability are expected to be established by the EPD. Class I Reliability (according to EPA standards) is expected to be a minimum level throughout the District. Higher standards, including on-site storage and multi-barrier process redundancy, may be required for WWTPs that discharge into waters classified for water supply or recreation. The EPD is expected to develop reliability standards for these facilities during the planning period.
Recommended Actions
Implementing the recommended solution for wastewater management will involve the following actions for improving existing facilities, constructing new facilities, and organizing facilities for future indirect potable reuse.
Wastewater Management Action No. 1 - Remove the heat load from the Chattahoochee River.
The Georgia Power Company has committed to the EPD to install cooling towers at Plants McDonough and Yates. The cooling towers will be operational at Plant Yates by 2004 and at Plant McDonough by 2008. The cooling towers will dissipate the excess heat, removing the heat load from the Chattahoochee River. Because removing the heat load will reduce the rate that oxygen-demanding materials deplete the oxygen reserves in the river, water quality will improve even as growth occurs.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-8

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater Management Action No. 2 Revise the temperature standard for the Chattahoochee River.
The EPD currently uses an absolute standard to limit temperature increases in rivers caused by discharges from wastewater treatment plants. For example, the temperature increase is limited to a 2F rise in Secondary Trout Streams, which is the designation for the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. This standard is not related to conditions that protect trout in the river, especially considering the unnaturally cold waters in this reach, which receives the low-lakelevel releases from Buford Dam. A revised standard that is more focused on conditions needed for trout should be developed by the EPD for this reach of the river. A revised standard would both allow wastewater treatment plants to discharge more flow into the river and protect trout. In-depth study is needed to develop a scientifically based standard.
Wastewater Management Action No. 3 Develop two immediate multi-county wastewater treatment projects.
Two projects involving multiple counties working within a regional framework are needed to solve current wastewater management issues. Paulding, Douglas, and Cobb Counties need to develop an arrangement for treating the wastewater generated in the Chattahoochee Basin of Paulding County. DeKalb, Rockdale, Henry, Gwinnett, and Clayton Counties need to organize a structure for DeKalb County to act as a regional service provider to expand the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP for use by these four counties.
Wastewater Management Action No. 4 - Increase return flow to the Chattahoochee River from DeKalb County.
An aspect of the regional project at the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP is to return part of the treated flow to the Chattahoochee River, DeKalb County's water source. The water quality modeling in the Chattahoochee River performed for the WW Plan included the discharge from DeKalb County in the vicinity of the river's confluence with Utoy Creek. However, additional discharge locations and conveyance options may be evaluated and considered. When this project is completed, DeKalb County can join the City of Atlanta and Gwinnett County in returning to the Chattahoochee River the water that was used to meet water supply needs for residents in the Ocmulgee Basin. DeKalb County will continue to send some flow to the South River.
Wastewater Management Action No. 5 Construct six new wastewater treatment plants.
New wastewater treatment plants will be needed soon in Southeast Coweta and South Walton Counties. Local governments need to determine operating utilities for these two facilities, and the utilities need to undertake pre-planning and site purchase on an expedited basis. Planning for four other new wastewater plants needs to be undertaken in Bartow, Cherokee, and Forsyth Counties to meet needs after 2010. The new plants will be more strategically located than the present plants, and the completion of the new plants will allow many small facilities to retire.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7-9

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Wastewater Management Action No. 6 Expand 39 existing wastewater treatment plants to meet capacity needs.

Thirty-eight existing wastewater treatment facilities will require capacity expansions before 2030. Some of these projects are already underway by the local utilities, and these efforts need to continue. Programmed capital improvements are presented in Appendix B. All utilities will need to review their capital improvement plans to determine if they are in accord with the District Plan and revise parts that are not. Many of the plant expansions will centralize wastewater treatment in a few locations, so that smaller plants can be decommissioned. Treatment processes will be upgraded with the expansions, as required by regulations to protect surface water quality. The non-capital tasks associated with this action include financing, inter-jurisdictional agreements, and state permitting.
Wastewater Management Action No. 7 Upgrade wastewater treatment plants to protect water quality.

Over the next 30 years, most wastewater treatment plants in the District will need to install upgraded levels of treatment. Reasons for upgrading include:

Maintaining wasteloads while handling more wastewater flow; Meeting potential new treatment standards for indirect potable reuse; Increasing the removal of compounds to meet forthcoming wasteload allocations from
Total Daily Maximum Load assessments; and
Increasing the removal of nutrients to comply with forthcoming regulations on nutrients
in surface streams.

Because the impacts of these programs on individual treatment plants have not yet been determined, upgrade projects cannot be assigned a specific schedule.

The water resources in the District vary widely in quantity and quality; therefore, using a single set of treatment limits for all plants is not recommended. Treatment limits should be developed individually for each watershed, to protect the local water resources.
Wastewater Management Action No. 8 Enhance reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations.

The District has two reasons for needing highly reliable wastewater treatment and pumping systems. First, many areas of the District are in the headwaters of basins, where systems failures could affect many downstream users. Second, some wastewater systems in the District are located upstream from drinking water intakes, where failures must be avoided.

The reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations will be enhanced under the WW Plan, as needed, to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements. During the next 30 years, it is projected that requirements to meet standards for Reliability Class I, as defined by EPA, will be imposed as a minimum standard for all facilities. For those facilities upstream from drinking water intakes or recreational waters, even more demanding requirements are anticipated. These reliability measures, which will be defined in new state standards for indirect

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

7-10

Section 7: Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
potable reuse systems, could include mechanical redundancy, multiple-barrier treatment processes, and off-line storage. Requirements for enhancing reliability will be defined by the EPD and will become applicable when plants are expanded and/or upgraded.
Wastewater Management Action No. 9 Retire 61 treatment plants.
The planned decommissioning of 61 existing wastewater plants is included in the WW Plan. These facilities will come off-line gradually, as their useful life is exhausted and new facilities come on-line. If treatment upgrades become necessary for the older facilities, it may be more cost effective to decommission them, rather than spending the funds for retrofitting older facilities with upgraded treatment processes. Typically, new sewers and/or pumping stations and force mains will be needed to convey the flow from the older facilities to the larger plants. The non-capital tasks associated with this action could include remediation and redevelopment of the properties for other uses.
Wastewater Management Action No. 10 Reclaim water for Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties.
The cities and counties that withdraw water from Lake Lanier for drinking water supply need to return reclaimed water to the Lake. Long-term sustainability of the resource can be achieved through returning reclaimed water to the Lake. The District should negotiate a change in the Corps' storage pricing structure to provide a credit to permitted withdrawers for returning the reclaimed water to the Lake.
Capital Improvement Phasing Plans
The phasing plans for the wastewater treatment capital improvements and associated conveyance projects are presented by county in Appendix B.
The phasing plans indicate the timeframe by which the facilities should be operational. A sequence of steps leads up to the operational milestone, including planning, site procurement (at times), environmental studies, design engineering, funding, and construction. These steps must be started from 2 to 10 years in advance of the targeted operational milestone date.
The phasing plans list expansion projects. Projects to upgrade the treatment facilities will be needed during the next 30 years, but they have not been included. The time they are needed depends on regulatory requirements that are still under development.
Interim projects not included in the phasing plans will be required over the planning period. Interim projects may be undertaken by public utilities, private developers, public agencies, and/or industries. Justification for an interim project will be based on specific conditions that create a short-term need that is too costly or impractical to address with the long-term plan. An explanation for the need of each proposed interim project will need to be prepared as a part of a local plan and will need to be accepted by the EPD, the District, or similar oversight body. Interim projects will be developed in a way that fits into the long-term WW Plan before the end of the planning period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 7 - WW TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC

7-11

Section 8
Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

Like wastewater collection systems across the country, the collection systems in the District face

many challenges. Challenges identified by representatives of various systems in the District

include the following:

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SS0s); Grease build-up;

The WW Plan recognizes the importance of maintaining sewer
infrastructure

Defective sewers and manholes; Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) into sewer systems;

Inadequate collection and treatment capacities; Vandalism;

Root intrusion; Insufficient staff;

Lack of adequate funding; and Lack of adequate enforcement of existing laws

and regulations.

Facing these challenges requires intensified efforts for wastewater collection system inspection and maintenance. Development of programs meeting the challenges is required by Senate Bill 130.

The volume of wastewater within the District is expected to increase significantly over the next 30 years, due to development. Most of the jurisdictions are currently expanding or are planning to expand their sewer systems to accommodate future growth. A commensurate level of effort needs to be spent inspecting and maintaining the existing collection system infrastructure, so that the complete system will perform properly.

Introduction

There are approximately 9,000 miles of sewers and more than 300,000 manholes within the District. Sewers and manholes within the District range in age from new, to over 100 years old.
A wide range of structural, mechanical, electrical, and operational failures occur infrequently in collection systems within the District. Examples include cracks or holes in pipes caused by

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance
corrosion or external forces, loss of electricity to pump stations, or blockage of a sewer pipe by accumulations of grease. A continuous maintenance effort, including an inspection program, should reduce the occurrence of overflows. Rapid access to replacement parts and backup equipment supports rapid response to SSOs when they occur.
It is recommended that wastewater collection inspection and maintenance programs for various jurisdictions in the District consist of elements designed to assure compliance with the requirements of the current NPDES Permit Program and the proposed EPA CMOM (Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance) regulations. These elements need to ensure proper understanding of the sewer systems; ensure availability of adequate collection and conveyance capacity; ensure proper operation of all sewer system components; reduce or eliminate wastewater overflows, spills, and bypasses; and extend the longevity of the sewer system components. This Section details those recommended elements of an inspection and maintenance program.
More detailed information on sewer system inspection and maintenance is provided to the District in the Technical Memorandum for Task 12 - Revised Draft Sewer System Inspection and Maintenance Program.
Recommended Inspection and Maintenance Program
NPDES permits require permittees to properly manage, operate, and maintain at all times all parts of the collection system they control. Some collection system operators within the District have found inspection and maintenance programs to be very helpful in meeting their permit obligations, reducing or preventing SSOs, maintaining superior system performance, extending the longevity of sewer system components, maintaining relatively high customer satisfaction, protecting wastewater treatment plants, and protecting human health and the environment.
It is recommended that all system operators within the District establish wastewater collection system inspection and maintenance programs. These programs should consist of several minimum elements designed to assure compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Permit Program. Those minimum required elements of a sewer system inspection and maintenance program are listed below, and are described in detail in the following paragraphs.
Sewer system survey, inventory, and mapping; Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS); Flow and rainfall monitoring; Hydraulic modeling; Capacity certification; Sewer system inspection; Sewer system maintenance; Grease management; Overflow response; Sewer system inspection and maintenance rraining; and
Sewer system rehabilitation.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

Sewer System Action No. 1 - Conduct a survey and inventory of the sewer system, and prepare system maps.

The first step in developing an effective inspection and maintenance program is to perform a comprehensive survey of the sewer system, and document the attributes in a computerized database and map. The purposes of surveying and inventorying a sewer system are to determine the horizontal and vertical locations of sewer system components, to document the attributes of various sewer system components, and to develop a GIS database of the system. The locations of most sewer pipes and associated appurtenances within the District are currently documented using paper maps and microfiche. Unfortunately, most of the paper maps are old and have not been updated in many years. Also, due to the extensive sewer networks within some of the old sewer systems, the number of maps used to document the locations of sewer pipes and associated appurtenances has continued to increase over time and has almost become unmanageable.
Without proper mapping of a sewer system, it is difficult to determine which parts of a sewer system need inspection, or to track ongoing, mostly unscheduled, maintenance work. Without proper documentation and tracking of inspection and maintenance work, it is difficult and time consuming to determine the amount of resources that should be allocated to sewer system inspection and maintenance on an annual basis.
The first step in developing an effective sewer system inspection and maintenance program is to perform a comprehensive survey (using GPS equipment and conventional surveying equipment), inventory, and mapping of the sewer system. The locations and attribute data gathered during a sewer system survey and inventory can be used to establish a GIS database of a sewer system. GIS data can then be used to map an entire sewer system; or portions thereof as needed for inspection and maintenance purposes. The GIS database can also be used to establish a sewer infrastructure management system, as discussed in the next section of this document.
Owners of sewer systems can either commit sufficient funding to complete the survey, inventory, and mapping of their system during one budget period, or commit to funding the program over a period of time. Once the initial survey, inventory, and mapping is complete, data on new sewers and associated appurtenances can then be added on an ongoing basis. This procedure would allow operators and maintenance personnel to better understand their system, and would allow relatively easy retrieval of locational and attribute data when needed for operational, maintenance, and management purposes.
Sewer System Action No. 2 - Develop a computerized maintenance management system.

Concurrent with the sewer survey, inventory, and mapping, a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) should be developed by each system operator within the District to facilitate the management, operation, and maintenance of their sewer system. A CMMS is probably one of the most powerful tools available to wastewater authorities today in the pursuit for better sewer system management, operation, and maintenance. A CMMS is a GIS-based tool for maintaining sewer system data; tracking and documenting ongoing activities; ensuring proper coordination between sewer system maintenance work and other activities; tracking the

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

value of the sewer system assets; facilitating adequate overflow emergency response activities; and facilitating the development and implementation of a capacity assurance plan. Whenever possible, CMMS's for various jurisdictions within the District should be designed in a manner that promotes coordination, communication, and data sharing among various sewer systems.
Sewer System Action No. 3 - Establish a flow and rainfall monitoring program.
Flow monitoring is used to determine the quantity of wastewater flows at specific locations within a sewer system, and to determine availability of capacity, or lack thereof. Strategically located flow monitors are a means to track trends in sewer basin flows, and can aid in determining the amount of I/I entering a sewer segment or sewer basin. The combination of flow and rainfall monitoring is typically used to estimate the peak flows associated with various rainfall events. Flow and rainfall data is also used to distinguish between rainfall-induced infiltration from groundwater-induced infiltration, and to perform a source defect analysis. (A source defect analysis is a method for estimating the infiltration or inflow associated with specific sewer system defects. Flow and rainfall monitoring should be performed continuously within old and deteriorating sewer systems. Flow monitoring should be performed continuously at all major pump stations and wastewater treatment facilities.
Sewer System Action No. 4 - Develop a hydraulic modeling program.
Operators of sewer systems within the District should implement a hydraulic modeling program to facilitate the determination of prevailing sewer system capacity, and to ensure that planned future expansions have adequate capacity to handle anticipated wastewater flows.
To avoid overflows of wastewater, a sewer system must have adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak flows for all parts of the collection system. The conveyance capacity of a sewer system can be estimated through a hydraulic model, using commercially available computer software or manual calculations. The prevailing base and peak flows can be estimated through strategically placed permanent and temporary flow meters and sewer system inspection. Based on the results of flow monitoring, sewer system inspection results, and hydraulic modeling, the remaining (unused) capacity of the sewer system can be estimated. The accuracy of a hydraulic model is dependent upon the quality of the input data. A comprehensive sewer system survey, inventory, and mapping program will provide the data needed to develop an accurate hydraulic model.
The hydraulic model of each sewer system should be maintained and updated continuously. Prior to allowing new connections into a sewer system, wastewater authorities should ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the sewer system to handle predicted flows. A hydraulic model is the best tool for allowing informed decisions to be made regarding new sewer connections.
Sewer System Action No. 5 - Establish a capacity certification program.
Reduction of SSOs within the District can be greatly promoted by the development of capacity certification programs for the various sewer systems within the District. Capacity certification programs allow various jurisdictions to determine whether adequate wastewater collection and

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

treatment capacities exist within their sewer systems, before authorizing new flows and sewer service connections.
Certification of sewer collection capacity alone is not sufficient. It is also necessary to certify transmission and treatment capacities to ensure reduction in system overflows and bypasses, while ensuring compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permits. Each jurisdiction should develop its own capacity certification program based on system specific conditions and available information.
The capacity certification program should include a step-by-step procedure for determining and certifying capacities for various system components. The capacity certification program should clearly describe how the review of initial building permit applications, requests for zoning or rezoning, and requests for sewer connections, will be addressed, and which agencies of the organization would be responsible for certifying capacity availability. Building permit applications should include detailed plans, estimated wastewater flows, and supporting calculations. The authorizing agency within a jurisdiction should certify that the system has available adequate capacity to collect, transmit, and treat additional flows associated with new building construction and occupancy. Alternately, the authorizing agency should certify that ongoing or planned sewer system improvements would provide the capacity needed to handle the additional flows. A capacity certification form should be completed and signed by authorized representatives before a service connection is allowed. The City of Atlanta has one of the most comprehensive capacity certification programs in the District.
Sewer System Action No. 6 - Establish a sewer system inspection program.

The purposes of sewer system inspections are to:

Evaluate the prevailing conditions of various sewer system components; Identify the types and locations of sewer system defects allowing the entry of extraneous
flow (I/I); Estimate the volume of I/I from various sewer system defects and the total I/I entering
the system; and
Gather data needed to facilitate the identification of methods for correcting sewer
system defects.

The sewer system inspection program should include procedures for performing various anticipated inspection activities including the following:

Physical inspections of manholes and sewer pipes; Building inspections; Smoke testing; Dye-water testing; Flow isolation and measurement; Closed Circuit Television Inspection (CCTV); Sonar Inspection/Totally Integrated Sonar and CCTV Inspection Technique (TISCIT);
and Right-of-way/easement inspection.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance
Most of the inspection activities listed above are normally performed as part of an SSES. Recently, the EPA has been requiring some owners of sewer systems to perform an SSES as part of an overall sewer system rehabilitation program under an EPA Consent or Administrative Order. The City of Atlanta is currently performing a comprehensive SSES to meet the requirements of an EPA Consent Decree.
The schedule for inspections and maintenance should be system specific. Typical inspection schedules include the following:
Inspect all elevated stream crossings monthly; Inspect all valves monthly; and
Inspect and clear all rights-of-way annually.
Sewer System Action No. 7 - Establish a sewer system maintenance program.
A sewer system maintenance program should be developed and implemented to ensure that the sewer system is maintained in a manner that minimizes failures and extends the longevity of the system. The focus of sewer system maintenance activities should be on maintaining the hydraulic capacity of the sewer system since the primary function of the system is conveyance. Typically, two different classes of problems can reduce hydraulic capacity: Structural and operational.
Structural defects involve the degradation of the sewer pipe itself. Serious structural defects can lead to pipe collapse, causing SSOs. Sewer repair and rehabilitation activities are focused on restoring the structural integrity of the pipe. Most operational defects affect the hydraulic capacity of the pipe. Roots, sediments, fats, oils, and grease all reduce the cross-sectional area of the pipe, which in turn reduces hydraulic capacity. Sewer cleaning and source control activities are directed toward preventing or reducing the impacts of operational defects on the collection system. The sewer system maintenance program should include the following:
Schedules and procedures for preventive and routine maintenance; Procedures for corrective maintenance; Schedules and procedures for right-of-way/easement maintenance; An inventory management system; An information management system; Procedures for generating maintenance work orders; and
Reports listing equipment and work orders generated during a previous time period.
Sewer system maintenance activities should include the following activities:
Periodic service calibration of instrumentation; Routine inspection and service of all pumps and associated equipment; Periodic cleaning of sewers and associated appurtenances; and Routine inspection and maintenance of sewer and force main rights-of-way, stream
crossings, stream banks adjacent to sewers, and force mains.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

Maintenance data should be input into CMMS to facilitate easy access and coordination with other sewer system-related activities.
Sewer System Action No. 8 - Develop a grease management program.

The discharge of grease into the District's sewer systems poses serious clogging problems and costs the sewer system owners and operators substantial amounts of time and money unclogging and cleaning the system. The major grease discharges include industrial facilities, commercial facilities (such as restaurants), multi-family residential units, and schools. The cumulative effects of grease discharges from single-family residential units can also be considerable, especially in areas with 4- to-8 inch sewers. Grease probably causes more than half of the sewer system blockages experienced in the District.
Many municipalities in the District have incorporated grease trap requirements for commercial food establishments or processors that discharge a large volume of waste oils or tallow. Although existing municipal codes and ordinances in the District require the installation of grease traps, routine maintenance and inspection can sometimes be lacking. Lack of maintenance of grease traps can lead to failure. Local governments have a role in assuring that grease trap owners routinely maintain their traps and reduce the amount of waste oils discharged to the sewer system. Control of grease from commercial establishments, multifamily units, and institutions would further reduce the amount of grease entering sanitary sewer systems, which would undoubtedly reduce clogging of sewer systems. The development and implementation of grease management programs by sewer system operators would alleviate some of the maintenance challenges and reduce or eliminate overflows caused by blockages associated with grease accumulation in sewers. Cobb County has one of the most comprehensive grease management programs in the District.
The grease management program should include the following:
Legal authority regulating the discharge of grease from industrial and commercial facilities;
Legal authority for an enforcement program; Written methods and procedures for preventing/controlling discharges of grease from
industrial and commercial facilities; Staff organization and responsibilities for effective grease control; Inventory of equipment for clearing blockages associated with grease; Inspection/tracking program to ensure routine inspections of grease traps, tracking of
sewer system blockages and overflows associated with grease, and investigations to identify sources causing blockages in the sewer system; and
Grease management training program to ensure that the community understands the
importance of reducing/eliminating grease discharges into the sewer system.
Sewer System Action No. 9 - Enhance the process for rapid reporting and response to sewer system overflows.

Each operator should develop and implement a written overflow emergency response program (ORP) to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment from sanitary sewer

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance
overflows. The ORP should include procedures that will be followed, to ensure expedient notification and response to overflows impacting or having the potential to impact the public, surface waters, ground surfaces, and structures. Most municipalities within the District have overflow response programs meeting the requirements of the EPD. However, more work needs to be done to improve response time and to reduce the occurrence of overflows. Cherokee and Gwinnett Counties have implemented some of the best procedures for tracking and responding to overflows. The ORP should include the following provisions:
Procedures for investigating the causes and extents of overflow events; Procedures to ensure rapid dispatch of personnel and equipment to correct and repair
conditions causing or contributing to overflows; Procedures for public notification in the event an overflow occurs; Procedures for limiting public access to areas affected by overflows; Procedures for notifying regulatory authorities about overflows; Training program to ensure personnel are adequately trained regarding the provisions
and implementation of the ORP when overflows occur; Procedures to minimize the volume of untreated wastewater flowing or transmitted to
the portion of the sewer system impacted by overflow events; Procedures for monitoring, sampling, and analyzing water samples impacted, or
potentially impacted, by overflow events; and
Procedures for reporting the results of the monitoring, sampling, and analysis of water
samples, impacted or potentially impacted by overflows, to appropriate regulatory authorities.
Sewer System Action No. 10 - Develop a training program for sewer system inspection and maintenance.
Owners or operators should develop and implement a training program to ensure that inspection and maintenance personnel are well trained regarding all aspects of the sewer system inspection and maintenance, especially their specific areas of responsibility. The sewer system inspection and maintenance-training program should include the following:
Format and outline of initial general training for all employees. This training should cover all aspects of the sewer system, including the management, operation, and maintenance program.
Format and outline of employee-specific training programs. These programs should include detailed courses covering specific inspection and maintenance activities.
Procedures for tracking all training activities.
Schedules for personnel training, including periodic refresher training.
Some parts of the training program could be fulfilled by the Georgia Water and Wastewater Institute, which is operated by the Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-8

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

Sewer System Action No. 11 - Develop a sewer system rehabilitation program.

Sewer rehabilitation is necessary to restore the structural integrity of a sewer system and to reduce the hydraulic loads, by eliminating I/I. Capacity enhancement, which includes rehabilitation as well as other structural modifications, is necessary where peak flow conditions contribute to SSOs or cause compliance problems at the treatment plant.
Operators of sewer systems within the District should develop and implement a sewer system rehabilitation program. This program should include a phased approach for the rehabilitation of various sewer system components. The purpose of a sewer system rehabilitation program is to ensure that a program is in place for the rehabilitation of identified defects. The sewer system rehabilitation program should include the following:
Procedures for prioritizing rehabilitation work based on severity of defects, cost effectiveness, and hydraulic capacity; and
Schedule for sewer system rehabilitation.
Sewer System Action No. 12 - Establish District forum for training and information exchange on system management procedures.

The District should convene a forum of utility representatives to develop common training programs, and to exchange information on procedures, tools, and software systems for information management and system modeling.

Proposed EPA CMOM Program

The CMOM program was introduced as part of the SSO proposed rule to the NPDES permit. The intent of the CMOM program is to reduce SSOs from municipal sanitary sewer systems. The SSO proposed rule is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The CMOM program, once adopted, would require collection system owners and operators to develop a program to address the problem areas leading to SSOs.

A CMOM Program has requirements in addition to the sewer system maintenance program recommended above. It includes all of the elements recommended, along with setting performance standards. There are five proposed performance standards under the proposed CMOM program:

Require proper management, operation, and maintenance of the collection system, and clarify how the standard in the existing NPDES Permit applies to sanitary sewer collection systems.
Require that municipal sanitary sewer collection systems provide adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak flows.
Require all feasible steps to stop and mitigate the impacts of SSOs (this is similar to the existing standard but expands the duty to mitigate to address SSOs that do not result in a discharge to waters of the United States).
Require notification to parties with a reasonable potential for exposure to pollutants associated with specific SSO events.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8-9

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

Section 8: Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance
Require a written summary of the CMOM program be developed and that it, along with required program audits, be made available to the public.
The list below presents the topics that should be included in a CMOM program to ensure compliance with the proposed SSO rule under consideration.
CMOM Program Goals, Organization, and Legal Authority Measures and Activities Design and Performance Provisions Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications Communications Overflow Emergency Response Plan System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
CMOM Program Audits
An important underlying principle to the CMOM requirements is that a permittee's program would be tailored to the size and complexity of its collection system. The CMOM programs of small municipalities may be different from those of large municipalities, in terms of types and frequencies of activities.
The recommendations for development of a Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance Program are meant to be the building blocks of the utility's CMOM program when the final rule is put into effect. They are consistent with the CMOM program requirements and are the most essential elements of the proposed CMOM program.
Summary of Recommendations
It is recommended that utilities within the District develop Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance Programs that are tailored to their individual needs and that can become the foundation for a future CMOM Program.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WW- SEWER SYSTEM I-M.DOC

8-10

Section 9
Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems
Septic systems will continue to be widely used to manage wastewater in the District. Improvements need to be made in the way that they are managed, to make them more reliable and protect public health. Most importantly, requirements for routine maintenance need to be imposed. Better management of decentralized wastewater management systems is also needed.
Introduction
Approximately one-fifth of the Districts' wastewater is treated by septic systems. Septic systems have been proven to be an environmentally sound method for onsite wastewater treatment when properly designed, sited, constructed, and maintained. When they are not, they can become a source of ground and surface water contamination, as well as a public health hazard. Therefore, it is important to insure septic systems are installed, operated, and managed properly. To reduce the extent of problems with septic systems today, procedures for managing septic systems need to be strengthened, and new emphasis on inspection and maintenance is needed.
Septic systems in Georgia are governed by O.C.G.A. 290-5-26, "On-Site Sewage Management Systems," administered by the Department of Human Resources (DHR). DHR has written the "Manual for On-Site Sewage Management Systems" (DHR Manual) that details requirements for design, siting, and construction of septic systems. These regulations establish the minimum requirements that are enforced by County Boards of Health.
Other local regulating agencies may also establish requirements, typically setting minimum lot sizes where septic systems will be allowed. Local wastewater utilities are involved only to the extent that if public sewer is available, septic systems are not permitted. In one case in the District, a local water utility has regulated septic systems of homes and businesses that purchase their water to require septic tank pumping every five years.
Of special concern are those septic systems located in critical areas, or those areas where risks to public health and/or the environment due to septic tank failure are higher. The criteria for defining critical areas for septic tanks include:

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems

Locations in close proximity to water features, such as streams, rivers, lakes, and
groundwater;
Locations within watersheds of streams with impaired uses; Locations having unsuitable soil or rock; Locations within small water supply watersheds; Areas of concentrations of failing septic tanks; Other problem areas; and Locations where consumptive use is an issue.

These criteria result in the majority of the District falling under the definition of critical areas. Therefore, it is recommended that any new requirements apply to all septic systems in the District.
The current system of regulating septic systems does not provide for their management. What little management of septic systems exists is through a variety of local ordinances and the overview of the DHR Manual. This Section also makes some recommendations to manage septic systems so that they can provide the much needed onsite wastewater treatment resource they are capable of being in those areas where public sewer is not, or will not, be available.
More detailed information on Septic Systems is provided in the various Technical Memoranda that have been prepared for the District. These include:
Deliverable 11a and 11b - Review of Existing Septic System Regulations, Discussions with Local Wastewater Authorities and EPD
Deliverable 11c - Criteria for Defining Critical Areas Deliverable 11d - Septic System Inspection and Maintenance Program in Critical Areas Deliverable 11e - Management of Decentralized Wastewater Systems, and
Deliverable 5d - Impacts of Septic Tanks.

Siting, Design, Construction and Inspection

The siting, design, and construction requirements in the DHR Manual were reviewed and found to be thorough. However, some improvements to the requirements are recommended for septic systems within the District.
Septic System Action No. 1 - Improve siting, design, and construction.

Local governments, or the County Boards of Health within the District, need to establish additional septic system design requirements to supplement the existing DHR regulations to make them more effective. These requirements will improve the design, siting, permitting, and construction of new septic systems and will offer a proactive way to avoid problems with future septic systems.
Two key recommendations are to establish a minimum lot size requirement for placement of septic systems, and to require that residential septic tanks be sized as if the home included a garbage disposal (i.e. 50% increase in capacity). The minimum lot size should be determined

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems

through local planning and should be decided within the framework of other community issues. Where the presence of surface waters, wells, poor soil or rock require, the lot size needs to be increased in accordance with the requirements of the DHR Manual.
One area found lacking is enforcement of the regulations. It is recommended to require the County Boards of Health to take greater care in insuring new septic systems are designed, sited, and constructed according to the DHR Manual and new District requirements. This will involve stricter reviews of septic system designs and siting, as well as increased inspection during construction.
Septic System Maintenance
Currently, the system owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the septic system. The DHR Manual provides limited guidance for operation and maintenance. Most septic system owners are not aware of this guidance and generally do not even think about their septic system unless, or until, a major failure has occurred.
Septic System Action No. 2 Improve maintenance requirements.
The single most effective method for extending the life of a septic system and insuring its proper operation is to pump out the settled solids from the septic tank before excessive amounts accumulate and begin to migrate into the absorption field. Since the DHR Manual only presents a guideline for the estimated frequency for pumping, it is recommended that the County Boards of Health establish a requirement within the District for system owners to have their septic tanks pumped out every five years. Local jurisdictions will need to plan for accepting septage at local wastewater treatment plants or provide alternative treatment locations.
DHR is currently prohibited by a legislative act from requiring any type of maintenance activities on ordinary septic systems. One way to implement this recommendation would be to enact new legislative. Another way would be for the EPD to add a requirement for water withdrawal permits that the county have a program requiring routine pumping of septic tanks. This type of requirement is most appropriate to be added to the water withdrawal permits, because septic systems owners commonly receive public water service.
Further, a requirement is needed for septage haulers to submit copies of their hauling manifests to the County Boards of Health. Monitoring hauling manifests will prevent public health and environmental problems, by insuring proper operation of septic systems through routine maintenance. Submittal of the manifests will allow tracking of compliance with the pumping requirement. This will also allow tracking of proper septage disposal.
Public Awareness
One of the problems in septic system maintenance and operation is that most system owners have no idea of how their systems work, or what is needed to keep them functioning properly. Public education tools that have been prepared by DHR should be used to improve the public's knowledge of septic system maintenance and operation.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems
Managing Septic Systems
Currently, there is no formal management program in place within the District for septic systems after initial installation. Initial oversight of system design, siting, and installation is lacking, which has resulted in septic systems performing at less than adequate levels. Another problem is the insufficient attention septic systems receive after installation, resulting in lack of system maintenance and undetected failures.
There are various reasons for systems failure, including shortcomings in siting, design, installation, construction, or maintenance. Ultimately, it is the absence of a comprehensive management program addressing each of these issues that prevents septic systems from reaching their potential as an effective, reliable, and environmentally sound wastewater treatment strategy.
Septic System Action No. 3 Manage Septic Systems.
The purpose of establishing a management program for septic systems is to prescribe a proactive management program that will raise the level of performance of these systems. This will reduce risk to public health and environmental harm caused by failing or failed systems.
The following recommendations are tools for providing more proactive management.
Create Septic System Database. It is recommended that the County Boards of Health establish computerized databases of septic system locations, repairs, and required maintenance actions. The database will be used to identify locations of septic system installations, track required tank pumping is being performed, and will help identify sources of water quality problems when correlated with surface water quality data. The data would also be useful for sending reminder notices to system owners pump their septic tanks.
Continue Septic System Management under DHR with EPD Support. Management of septic systems should continue to be performed by the DHR, but the EPD should become more involved in providing technical assistance and other support since the EPD is the agency with responsibility for water quality. An example of the EPD's support may be increased involvement on the DHR Technical Review Committee on behalf of District members.
Include Septic System Area Planning in Local Wastewater Management Plans. Local governments should develop, and periodically update, wastewater management plans to identify areas for long-term septic system use, as well as those areas where public sewer service will eventually be available. These plans should identify sewered and unsewered areas for the planning period, which will provide for proper placement of septic systems. The plans will also provide for future transition to sewer in those areas that are planned to be sewered in the future. It is recommended that local DHR staff participate in these planning activities.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems
Managing Decentralized Treatment Systems
Many of the less urbanized counties have numerous decentralized wastewater treatment systems. These can be operated by the public utility, an industry, a private firm or developer, or a public agency, such as a school board. As the larger public wastewater systems are extended into more areas in response to growth, the WW Plan envisions that the decentralized systems will be connected into the larger systems. This will allow the numerous small WWTPs to be retired by 2030. During the interim, new decentralized systems may need to be installed, with plans of how to tie them into the larger systems.
Septic System Action No. 4 Enact local policy for private wastewater systems.
Procedures need to be developed by the local jurisdictions regarding how decentralized treatment systems will be integrated into the WW Plan. Decentralized systems, including private systems, could be an interim component leading into the WW Plan. On the other hand, facilities in the WW Plan could be implemented through a partnership with a private firm.
Enact Local Policy for Private Wastewater Systems. The local jurisdictions need to have
policies on private wastewater systems, tailored to their own needs and conditions. Some jurisdictions already prohibit private wastewater systems. Other jurisdictions may want to allow private systems only in very limited situations, while still others may view private systems as building blocks towards the long-term plan that can be installed without requiring public financing. Some jurisdictions may want to include requirements that the private systems be turned over to the public utility for operation. Technical specifications for the installation of private systems may be desired by some jurisdictions.
The local policy should clearly address how to deal with existing private and publicagency wastewater systems. This, along with the service delivery plan contained in the local master plan, will enable EPD to evaluate permit requests from private service providers in the context of the District and local wastewater management policies. Decommissioning as many of these as possible will further the WW Plan's target of reducing the number of small treatment plants.
Policies for Connections to Public Sewer
The Department of Human Resources provides limited standards to be used for connections to public sewer systems. The DHR Rule states that a connection to a public or community sewer system must be made if the sewer is within 200 feet of the property line. The DHR Rule further states that if an existing septic system fails, an immediate connection shall be made to the public sewer system, if such a system is available. In addition to these stated requirements, other situations to consider include: (1) How to handle the connection of new customers presently served by functioning septic systems; and (2) How to handle new construction in areas to be served by sewer in the near future.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems
Septic System Action No. 5 Establish policies concerning connection to public sewers.
It is recommended that jurisdictions establish a policy on connections to public sewer that follows their own wastewater management plan. In areas designated by the plan for sewer service, it may be necessary for the jurisdiction to extend sewer service. It also may be necessary to require developers to either extend sewer service to new developments, or to install both septic systems and dry sewers for future connection.
The sewer connection policy should address:
Connections to new developments If the new development is within the planned area for future sewer service and a new sewer will not be extended for the development, the policy needs to address whether or not dry sewers are to be installed at the time of development;
Connections to existing developments The policy will need to address how sewer connections will be made within the development. It will need to address which properties will connect and how connection costs will be handled;
Connections to isolated properties When sewers are extended to new developments and past properties on septic systems, the policy needs to address whether or not these properties will be required to connect to the sewer immediately, or only if their septic system fails; and
Funding methods The policy must address what the costs of connecting to the sewer system will be, and who will pay them.
Specific solutions will vary, depending on the individual utilities and the extent of wastewater treatment facilities in each jurisdiction. The general recommendations are:
In locations where the wastewater management plans designate an area to be eventually served by sewer, but septic systems are allowed as an interim treatment solution, developers should be required to install dry sewers for future connection to the public sewer;
In areas within one mile of an existing sewer, where the wastewater management plan calls for future sewer, developers should be required to extend the sewer rather than to install septic systems;
For existing developments in critical areas with multiple failing septic systems, consideration should be given to extending and connecting to public sewer during the development of local plans.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems
Monitoring and Documenting Contamination of Surface Waters
Failed septic systems can have a negative impact on water quality. It is important for water quality monitoring programs to consider septic systems when evaluating data. Since other surface water quality monitoring programs either presently exist or have been recommended in the Watershed Management Plan, it is recommended that results of those monitoring efforts be used to identify areas of concern for possible septic system failures.
The monitoring process would unfold as follows: water quality monitoring indicates an area with elevated contaminant levels. The local regulating agency then checks the septic system location database to determine if the area in question has any septic systems. If septic systems are present, then field investigations would be conducted to determine if one or more failed systems exist, and if any untreated wastewater is reaching the adjacent water body.
Another purpose of a monitoring program will be to collect data where none presently exists. This will help set baseline data and will establish performance criteria.
A major resource in identifying system failures is from public nuisance complaints of odors or foul water run-off. In order to make effective use of this information source, it is necessary to establish a procedure to forward these complaints to the proper local regulating authority to follow up and investigate.
Summary of Recommendations
The key recommendations for management of septic and decentralized systems are:
Use existing DHR regulations for design, siting, and construction with some modifications at the District level;
Require pumping of septic tanks every five years; Provide public education about septic systems operation and maintenance using DHR's
tools; Establish a database of the location and maintenance of septic systems; Develop a database system to track septic system use, maintenance, and corrective
measures; Improve the oversight of septic system design, siting, and construction; Develop local policies for privately owned wastewater management systems; Develop local wastewater management plans for both sewered and non-sewered areas; Continue to manage septic systems under DHR with increased support from EPD; Require installation of both septic systems and dry sewers for future connection in areas
to be eventually served by sewer; Require extending the sewer rather than installing septic systems in areas within one
mile of an existing sewer, and where the wastewater management plan calls for future sewer;

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 9: Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems
Require connection to the sewer only if a septic system fails in those areas where the
sewer is extended to, or past, properties served by septic systems; Give priority to extending and connecting to public sewer to existing developments in
critical areas with multiple failing septic systems; Establish a process to utilize water quality monitoring data to identify potential septic
system failures; and Establish a procedure for forwarding septic system nuisance complaints to the proper
regulating agency for investigation and corrective action.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

9-8

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 9 WW- SEPTIC SYSTEMS.DOC

Section 10
Local Planning Recommendations

While the District will have prepared the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan), it will be implemented by the local jurisdictions that own and operate the wastewater management systems. The local jurisdictions need to integrate the WW Plan into their own local master plans. While most of the local jurisdictions have ongoing wastewater planning efforts, the efforts and details vary widely within the District. Following the framework and goals established by the District, all jurisdictions should use the local wastewater management plan to refine the WW Plan and to address specific local needs. While flexibilities are included in the WW Plan, it is the local jurisdictions' responsibilities to evaluate the options and to determine their benefits and costs.
Develop Local Wastewater Management Plans

Because the WW Plan is regional in breadth, it covers a wide range of topics. The specifics will be developed and/or refined at the local level by the jurisdictions impacted by the WW Plan. Preparation of local plans is an opportunity to demonstrate conformance with the District WW Plan, and/or to provide improvements and innovations to the WW Plan, based on a more indepth analysis of local circumstances and factors. Local jurisdictions should develop local plans that, at a minimum, conform to the core principles of the WW Plan, to ensure that wastewater services are developed cost effectively, with a long-term regional perspective while providing good customer service.

The following section discusses the actions required to implement the recommendations associated with developing local wastewater management plans. Section 16 - Implementation Actions lists the timeline associated with each action.
Local Planning Action No. 1 - Develop local wastewater management plans.

Local wastewater management plans will be needed to support proposed infrastructure improvements to the wastewater management system. In some cases, the current local plan will align with the District WW Plan, and no revisions will be needed. In other cases, the current local plan will need to be revised to incorporate the District's core principles.

The purpose of local wastewater management plans is to refine the WW Plan by addressing local and site-specific issues. The relationships and methods used to develop the Service

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 10 WW - LOCAL PLANS.DOC

10-1

Section 10: Local Planning Recommendations
Delivery Strategies, required by House Bill 489, may be useful in developing local wastewater plans. It is expected that the local governments will take the initiative in developing these plans.
At times, new local wastewater management plans will need to be developed to address proposed inter-jurisdictional projects. These should be developed in cooperation with all affected jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include the county, cities within the county, neighboring counties, and wastewater utilities, if different. The District can provide a facilitation role for inter-jurisdictional cooperation, if needed. This is described further in Section 13 - Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration.
The wastewater management plans should address wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, reuse, and effluent and biosolids management. The plans should have a minimum planning horizon of 30 years. Flexibility in implementation is achievable by presenting effective, local plans that meet District goals.
The local plan will go one step further than the District WW Plan in refining the wastewater treatment plant expansion details. Based on the framework developed in the WW Plan, local systems should develop wastewater treatment expansion master plans that define the number, location, and capacities of treatment facilities, and their implementation schedule. The plans also should include a sewer system master plan based on planning for future growth and indicate the schedule for providing wastewater collection system improvements. Plans for using on-site wastewater management systems (septic systems) should be identified. If communities are to be connected to the wastewater collection system at a future time, plans should be developed for this transition. Private service providers should also be considered in the local plan. The local plan should address key issues, such as consumptive use. Where changes to service areas are recommended, local plans that are coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions can investigate options and compare alternatives, if needed, to determine costeffective, long-term solutions. Residuals handling and management also should be refined as part of the master planning. The local plans should also address education and public awareness programs.
Implementation of water reclamation and reuse programs should be refined on a local level, based on the recommended District programs. Coordination between water and wastewater planning is essential in the implementation of water reuse programs. The local wastewater management plan should include detailed studies in wastewater treatment technologies, quantities, quality, and permitting requirements for the indirect potable water reuse, if applicable.
Local governments, utilities, and authorities can use the local plans to describe interim measures necessary to transition from now through 2030. It is important that local plans include specific policies and conditions for allowing private wastewater systems within their jurisdictions. This will enable EPD to evaluate permit requests from private service providers in the context of the District and local wastewater management plans.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 10 WW - LOCAL PLANS.DOC

10-2

Section 10: Local Planning Recommendations

Table 10-1 summarizes the essential elements that a local wastewater plan should include. In addition to traditional components, regional elements should be incorporated where appropriate, based on the WW Plan.

TABLE 10-1 Local Wastewater Planning Elements

Traditional Elements
Flow Projections Collection Treatment Technology Reclamation/Reuse Effluent Management Biosolids Management Capital Improvement Plans

Regional Elements
Sewer System Master Plan Inter-jurisdictional Projects Septic System Transition Plan Consumptive Use Coordination with Water Supply
and Watershed Plans

Local Planning Action No. 2 - Review local plans for consistency with District plans.

Local jurisdictions should develop local plans that, at a minimum, conform to the core principles of the WW Plan. EPD will review and approve the local plans, and issue permits based on the local plans' consistency with the WW Plan, pursuant to, Senate Bill 130:
"Local governments within the District shall implement the provisions of the district plans that apply to them...Upon the district's approval of the plan, the director may modify all existing permits... to make them consistent with the plan." (emphasis added)

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 10 WW - LOCAL PLANS.DOC

10-3

Section 11
Plan Flexibility

Section 10 presented an action plan for preparing local master plans to implement the Longterm Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan). The purpose of the local plans is to address local needs and site-specific issues, refine and improve the WW Plan, and to develop consistency with the WW Plan. This section presents guidance regarding the extent to which local jurisdictions can change the WW Plan, while remaining consistent with its essential elements.
Local jurisdictions have two ways to modify the WW Plan. One is through developing refinements and modifications to the plan that the District accepts as consistent with the WW Plan. The District board can approve modifications to the WW Plan at any time. The other method is through regularly scheduled reviews and updates. A review of the WW Plan is required, by law, every year and an update at least every 5 years. The reviews and updates will consider the most recent growth projections and other pertinent information. Proposed modifications to the essential elements of the WW Plan are most appropriate for the 5-year updates.
Essential Elements of the Plan
The WW Plan was developed based on core principles. The local plans need to retain these core principles, because they are essential elements of the WW Plan. Further, the WW Plan has been developed in conjunction with the Water Supply and Conservation Plan and the Watershed Management Plan. Any flexibility interjected by local plans needs to be acceptable under these two plans, as well.
The eight core principles, described in Section 7, are:
Consolidate wastewater treatment plants; Continue to protect water quality; Integrate reclaimed water into the solution; Increase return flow to the Chattahoochee River; Support basin orientation; Meet 10% reuse goal; Continue to apply advanced technology; and Enhance reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 11 WW- FLEXIBILITY.DOC

11-1

Section 11: Plan Flexibility

Any local changes to the WW Plan should address these core principles at least as well as the WW Plan. One of the best reasons to modify the WW Plan is if the local changes can improve on the stated principles.

Flexible Elements of the Plan

Some elements of the District WW Plan are recognized as needing local review and evaluation. Changes in these areas may be needed to improve its practicality.
Plant Capacities
Plant capacities listed in Appendix B were determined to match the maximum monthly wastewater flow projected in 2030, except in the few cases where plant capacity was installed in advance of the projected 2030 needs. In practice, plant capacity is added in convenient increments and not to match a specific projected flow or time period. At times, it may be desirable to construct somewhat more capacity than is shown in Appendix B to add a convenient increment of capacity. For example, if a WWTP with 5 MGD capacity needs to handle a projected flow of 8 MGD, the most cost efficient plan may be to double the current capacity to 10 MGD. The WW Plan did not determine convenient increments of plant capacity for expansion projects and did not look beyond 2030 in setting capacities. The local plans need to address these questions.
Another topic to be addressed by the local plans is the amount of infiltration/inflow in the collection system, and how it affects the ratio of the annual average flow to peak month flow. The projections of plant capacity included infiltration/inflow at an annual average rate of 20% of the wastewater discharged into the collection system, and they used a 1.25 ratio for peak month flows. These factors were selected as representative of the District, after reviewing flow records for 2001 for all the major WWTPs. It is recognized that each utility needs to determine appropriate values for these factors for its system. When determining these factors, consideration should be given to the extent of control of infiltration/inflow that will be attained by the sewer collection system inspection and maintenance program to be undertaken within the District. The impacts of water conservation measures on future flows must also be considered.
The effects of any changes in plant capacity will need to be evaluated in light of the core principles of the WW Plan. It is anticipated that most utilities will need to expand their WWTPs in phases, rather than installing all of the proposed 2030 capacity today. This phasing will provide the utility and the District time to incorporate the changes in capacity into the planning process. The utilities must recognize that they will receive discharge permits based on their projected near-term needs and that the plant capacity in the WW Plan is not an allocation of wasteload capacity that is reserved for the utility.
Interim Facilities
For some counties, the WW Plan recognizes that interim WWTPs may need to be installed, because it may not be timely or cost effective to implement the long-range plan today. For

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 11 WW- FLEXIBILITY.DOC

11-2

Section 11: Plan Flexibility
example, long interceptor sewers may be needed to reach plants that are far away from today's population centers in areas where extensive growth is anticipated. For interim facilities, a local plan should be prepared at the time the facility is proposed showing how the facility will be decommissioned and tied into the long-range plan.
Interim expansions of existing facilities may be needed, because the long-range plan cannot be implemented before the additional capacity is needed.
Interim facilities can provide a means to add wastewater treatment capacity and wastewater service customers, until the capital funds can be raised to install a long-range, more comprehensive solution. Interim facilities can be installed under public projects or by private developers, according to the policies determined by each county.
Phasing
The timeframe for phasing the capital improvements shown in Appendix B was developed to provide adequate treatment capacity for the projected wastewater flows and to make steady progress towards the core principles of the WW Plan. Within this context, the timeframe is flexible. For example, delaying the date that a plant is decommissioned is generally acceptable. Expanding a plant in more or fewer projects is also generally acceptable. The local plans are expected to delve into the timeframes for capital improvements in greater detail than the WW Plan.
An important consideration that the local plans must investigate is the bond covenants, repayment schedules, and grant/loan requirements related to the financing for the existing facilities. These may dedicate when phasing actions can be undertaken. Alternately, refinancing outstanding bonds can be used, if allowed and needed to address specific timetables.
Site Specific Issues
Local jurisdictions will have advantages in producing their plans that should be realized and appreciated in implementing the WW Plan. Local jurisdictions have the opportunity to focus their attention on their portion of the District, resulting, in most cases, in a better understanding of:
Local growth patterns; Land availability and pricing; and Capabilities of existing facilities.
In many cases, these advantages will produce cost-effective solutions for meeting local wastewater management needs that may differ from the details of the WW Plan, but are consistent with the essential elements of the WW Plan. In such cases, local jurisdictions should use their discretion to implement their preferred plan, as long as the essential elements of the WW Plan are met.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 11 WW- FLEXIBILITY.DOC

11-3

Section 12
Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations

A major accomplishment of the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan) is that it will allow the EPD to issue discharge permits more quickly. Because the WW Plan establishes the regional framework for wastewater management, each local plan will not need to address the regional issues, which will speed approval by the EPD. Further, the local jurisdictions will have a predictable plan to follow in securing discharge permits.
Because the WW Plan can be implemented within present regulations, no legislative actions are required.
Discharge Permits

Senate Bill 130 grants the EPD broad powers for issuing discharge permits in accordance with the WW Plan. These powers are the most potent way to facilitate implementation of the WW Plan. Regulatory permitting of wastewater discharges is crucial to the implementation of the WW Plan.

From a proactive perspective, one of the most useful purposes of the WW Plan is that it will be the guide that the EPD will consult when issuing permits. The WW Plan offers new insights into making natural resource allocations and issuing permits, because it is regional and long-range, two perspectives generally not included in the plans previously developed by the local governments. Under the WW Plan, receiving discharge permits will become more predictable, because everyone will understand that permits are being issued according to the WW Plan. This will allow local jurisdictions to develop more viable plans, because they will be able to understand what guide the EPD is using to issue discharge permits.

Local jurisdictions will receive permits more quickly from the EPD, if their local plans are in accordance with the WW Plan. The EPD will be able to approve these permit applications promptly. If the local jurisdictions' plans vary from the WW Plan, the EPD will need to determine if the variance follows the essential elements of the WW Plan. If EPD is uncertain if the local plan is in accordance with the essential elements of the WW Plan, it can consult the District, ARC, or the appropriate RDC for guidance. Of course, the District Board can revise the WW Plan to accommodate a local plan, if it chooses, and advise EPD of its action.

Because the WW Plan will be used by the EPD, issuing discharge permits will be expedited, becoming streamlined.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WW- REGULATORY.DOC

12-1

Section 12: Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations
Streamlined Permitting
Obtaining permits from the EPD, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and other agencies can be a time-consuming, costly, and often confusing process. While many permits, ranging from local to federal, may be required for a project, the greatest opportunity and best potential for streamlining lies within the ACOE and the EPD permitting processes for the District. The District should advocate and assist these agencies in simplifying the permitting and reporting requirements, and reducing review time. Efforts should be made to make sure that compliance with the WW Plan no longer requires applicants to support the need for the project, which can be a time consuming part of the permitting process.
Permitting Action No. 1 Develop a regional Section 404 permit for the District.
Many District projects will involve activities within the "Nation's Waters," which includes wetlands, streams, lakes, and ponds. Through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOE has jurisdiction over impacts to these areas and requires appropriate permitting that varies, based on proposed impacts. Typical permits include: Nationwide Permits, Regional Permits, and Individual Permits. The typical timeframe for acquiring these permits ranges from 45 days to several years.
The District may negotiate a Regional Permit with the Savannah ACOE that will cover a wide variety of typical projects. Authorized for a specific geographic region and activity, Regional Permits usually allow for impacts that exceed the Nationwide Permit thresholds (0.5 acre of wetland and 100 linear feet of stream), but that do not warrant an Individual Permit. An example of a Regional Permit is the one for raw water intake structures on Lake Lanier (Lake Lanier Resource Manager's Office oversees this permit).
A Regional 404 permit may be used for any category of activities that are similar in nature, will cause minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will only have minimal cumulative effect on the environment.
Obtaining a Regional Permit will allow the District to negotiate a uniform wetland mitigation strategy. This benefit will provide the District with a mitigation strategy and a predictable estimate of compensatory mitigation cost. Developing a Regional Permit will require a major effort on behalf of the District and substantial coordination with other resource agencies, but will save time overall when applied to multiple individual projects.
Permitting Action No. 2 Streamline EPD permitting for District projects.
Currently, the Water Protection Branch at EPD regulates wastewater discharge permitting. Water withdrawal permits are handled by the Water Resources Program of the EPD's Water Resources Branch. The Drinking Water Permitting and Engineering Program is under the same branch and issues permits for public water systems, including permits for the expansion or modification of existing public water treatment plants. While consolidation of these permits may not be practical, coordination and communication among the groups handling the permits should be increased in order to expedite projects.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WW- REGULATORY.DOC

12-2

Section 12: Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations

Consolidate permit cycle. The water withdrawal permit is typically issued for a ten-
year period; the permit to operate treatment facilities is typically also issued for a tenyear period. Wastewater discharge permits are issued on a five-year cycle. It is recommended that the permit cycles for these permits be coordinated and that all permits in a river basin be renewed on the same cycle.
Develop standard permit conditions for District permits. Discharge permits for
facilities in the District can include standard permit conditions with compliance schedules, if necessary, for incorporating certain aspects of the WW Plan into the permit.
Modify EPD guidelines to be consistent with the Plan. Modify permit application
guidelines to be consistent with the WW Plan. For example, modify the antidegradation requirement to consider consumptive loss issues.
Consolidate and standardize reporting. Reporting is required for several regulatory
programs, such as the NPDES permits and stormwater permits. These water quality reports can be consolidated and simplified to meet multiple requirements.
Develop compliance guidelines. EPD, in consultation with the District, will develop
guidelines for local compliance with the plans. The guidelines will include a timeline of EPD and local government actions and priorities.
Wasteload Assessments

The metropolitan Atlanta area has become so large that a regional plan must be used to allocate the natural resources. The demand is too great to allocate resources using the former means of a first-come first-served basis, because this approach does not optimize the use of resources. Also, because resources are constrained, they must be shared equitably.
Permitting Action No. 3 Use the WW Plan to assign wasteloads.

The EPD will use the WW Plan to assess requests for discharges to surface waters and issue permits according to its evaluation. The wasteloads need to consider that many users share the water resources in the District for a variety of purposes. The WW Plan is the agreed-upon way to share the resources. The responsibility to determine the treatment limits and reliability standards needed to protect surface-stream water quality will remain with the EPD.

As EPD develops treatment standards for regional WWTPs, the water quality models it uses need to recognize that wasteloads will be removed from the surface streams when WWTPs are decommissioned. Within the constraints of water quality protection, the wasteload from the decommissioned WWTPs should be transferred to the regional WWTP that will receive the wastewater, provided both WWTPs discharge within the same watershed.

While the EPD will use the WW Plan to respond to discharge requests, the EPD will not grant the full 2030 flow shown in the WW Plan in the next few years. Permits will be increased, as they are needed according to the growth in the local community. This is the present policy followed by the EPD and no changes to the policy are anticipated. This policy preserves

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WW- REGULATORY.DOC

12-3

Section 12: Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations
wasteload for situations when communities grow at rates differently than indicated by the projections developed for the WW Plan. This policy gives the EPD flexibility to accommodate future conditions.
Under this policy, the local jurisdictions should view the 2030 discharge quantities given in the WW Plan not as a discharge allocation given to them, but they should view the WW Plan as providing a way that the 2030 discharge quantity can be made available, as it is needed.
Permitting Action No. 4 Allow flexible permitting for jurisdictions that have multiple discharges within the same water body.
Some jurisdictions have more than one WWTP discharging in close proximity to each other within the same water body. For example, the City of Atlanta has three facilities that discharge to the Chattahoochee River. All three facilities are currently required by their permits to meet the same treatment limits. There could be financial and operational benefits, with no compromise to water quality, if the facilities were allowed to optimize the combined permitted wasteload among the three facilities. Other examples of similar situations occur in Cherokee, Cobb, Douglas, Fayette, and Fulton Counties.
This action will allow jurisdictions to propose permit limits for EPD consideration that will optimize the capabilities of the treatment facilities discharging to a stream segment, provided the total mass of discharged material is not increased, and water quality standards will continue to be met. This provision will add flexibility for jurisdictions to optimize investments in treatment technologies and facility operations.
Under this provision each of the close-proximity discharge points will continue to have specific permit limitations. The permit limits may be different for each location, provided that the total wasteload does not exceed that assigned to the permit holder, and provided that water quality standards are not exceeded at the points of discharge.
Permitting Action No. 5 Establish criteria to eliminate flow limits from NPDES wastewater discharge permits.
Enforceable flow limits in NPDES discharge permits do not appear to provide any significant measure of protection to water quality in receiving streams, given the mass loading limits already in NPDES permits and the use of TMDLs.
It is recommended that the Georgia EPD eliminate permit flow limits by developing criteria and conditions that would be incorporated into future permits that are wasteload dependant. The criteria should be developed to maintain or improve pollutant loading to the receiving stream while providing local jurisdictions the ability to increase flows.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WW- REGULATORY.DOC

12-4

Section 13
Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration

Senate Bill 130 requires that the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan) include:
"...[m]easures to maximize efficiency through multi-jurisdictional approaches to avoid duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs."

The extensive number of existing inter-jurisdictional agreements among local governments and utilities demonstrates the appreciation and benefits of cooperative service delivery. In fact, many wastewater facilities today serve residents and businesses from more than one jurisdiction. District-wide relationships, understanding of common and unique problems, and trust are evolving through the forum of the Atlanta Regional Commission and other regional development centers, as well as the requirements of joint service delivery strategies in House Bill 489, and this current District planning effort. The WW Plan will build and expand on this communication and cooperation to optimize limited wastewater treatment infrastructure as well as financial and technical resources.
Moving from Coordination to Collaboration

To achieve the true spirit of Senate Bill 130, and the long-term benefits Legislators envisioned

for metropolitan North Georgia's residents, local governments will need to move from simple

communication and coordination to true collaboration. Trying to achieve significant new levels of service for the growing District will

Figure 13-1 Levels Leading to Collaboration

require calculated risks and the evolution of new

business and governance models.

Increasingly, integrated District activities can yield a variety of benefits to individual communities and the District at large:

Avoid conflicts and surprises Eliminate redundant activities, facilities
and costs
Address common needs Enable solutions beyond the reach of any single jurisdiction

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-1

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration
Increase funding for infrastructure and services Enhance collective fiscal capacity Provide effective policy advocacy for unique District interests Ensure reliability of public services Streamline planning and permitting Leverage the strengths and voices of all Build understanding and trust
Ultimately, collective progress will require leaders who have a vision of collaboration's benefits, and who have the desire and ability to work with new partners where the opportunity for mutual benefit is clear. These leaders will also be able to discern the circumstances where independent action is appropriate, while openly communicating and coordinating with District partners.
Obstacles to Collaboration
While the record of coordination in the District is commendable, it also points to several serious impediments to truly collaborative inter-jurisdictional planning, project sponsorship, and service delivery. Specific obstacles have been identified as critical for the District to address:
Availability of funding for capital improvements in advance of established customer base especially troublesome for communities with little wastewater infrastructure in place
Integrity of revenue stream for current bond obligations communities or systems with substantial and publicly-financed infrastructure investments must address current commitments to bond holders
Lack of equity (perceived or real) without some intervention, negotiations typically favor more established, wealthier, large communities and put others at economic or political disadvantage. At the same time, communities that have been "progressive" and that have made major investments are hesitant to "subsidize" other jurisdictions
Concerns about level of service many jurisdictions feel that they are best able to provide the level of service desired by their citizens, and are hesitant to relinquish local control of operations or purchase service from wholesale service providers.
Opportunities for Regional Collaboration
The WW Plan identifies numerous opportunities for regional collaboration on a variety of issues. Examples include preparing model inter-jurisdictional agreements, combining forces to pursue innovative funding sources, and joint projects. Projects with multi-jurisdictional involvement are listed in Table 13-1.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-2

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration

TABLE 13-1 Multi-jurisdictional Projects Project City/County Regionalization
Coweta/Line Creek Service Delivery Plan
DeKalb Polebridge WPCP
Fulton/Etowah Basin Service Delivery Plan
Paulding/Chattahoochee Basin Service Delivery Plan

Project Purpose

Major Jurisdictions Involved

Consolidate wastewater treatment at a few regional facilities, allowing many smaller plants to be retired. Provide wastewater management for the area in Coweta County in the Line Creek Basin at a regional plant(s), allowing the Senoia LAS to be retired.
Regional wastewater treatment plant for multi-county area around the facility
Provide wastewater management for the area in Fulton County in the Etowah Basin at a regional plant(s), allowing the Fulton Little River WRF to be retired. Provide wastewater management for the area in Paulding County in the Chattahoochee Basin at a regional plant(s).

Counties and cities throughout the District
Coweta County, Senoia, Fayette County, Peachtree City
DeKalb County, Clayton County Water Authority, Gwinnett County, Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority, and Rockdale Water Resources
Cobb County Water System, Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority, Fulton County
Cobb County Water System, Douglasville/Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority, Paulding County, Hiram

Tools to Advance Collaboration
Both traditional and new tools are elements of this WW Plan. The goal is to facilitate more robust inter-jurisdictional relations so that stakeholders can move from simple communication through effective coordination to productive collaboration.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 1 - Continue to use existing tools.
Basic known tools should continue to be used. These include:
Ongoing dialogue through the District forum at both the technical and board levels Compliance with State requirements for county-municipal coordination of service
delivery strategies (House Bill 489) Coordination of local plans with regional plans (Georgia Planning Law regulations) Increased use of a long tenured, local citizen management or oversight water services
board as decision makers.
These tools alone will not propel the District's jurisdictions beyond their disparate, individual interests into successful voluntary collaboration. Several breakthrough strategies have been identified and are detailed in the following section. These strategies include:

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-3

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration
Prepare model inter-jurisdictional agreements Establish a fair share funding formula framework Assure an appropriate level of service Establish a formal dispute resolution system Increase the State role in compliance with the WW Plan and project sponsorship Establish a formal amendment process Publicize and reward successful partnerships
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 2 - Develop and share model inter-jurisdictional agreements.
The agreements between entities that govern joint projects and service delivery are important, complex, and time-consuming to prepare. The challenge of constructing an agreement, especially for a first-time partnership, can be a sufficient impediment that delays even initial negotiations. As with ordinances, there is efficiency to be gained by establishing a model agreement that can be used as a starting point for local government discussions. A model agreement developed by the District would be a tool that could be used on a voluntary basis. Where communities are comfortable using old agreements as the basis for new ones, or are willing to start from scratch, the model ordinance would not be imposed on them.
The District should establish a model inter-jurisdictional agreement for use by member governments and utilities. The model should reflect the successful features of existing agreements in the District, and should address issues discussed in this WW Plan, such as a fair funding formula, level of service and dispute resolution. In view of the variety of initiatives the District will be expected to launch, the timing of model ordinance development should be discussed with District members to gauge their relative sense of urgency about this tool. Model preparation should be considered a priority to be completed in the first year, if imminent joint projects or service arrangements identified in the WW Plan appear to be at risk of floundering without assistance from the District.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 3 Establish a fair share funding formula framework.
Assuming that additional gap financing is available to allow projects to proceed (as discussed under in Section 14 - Funding), the framework for a fair share cost formula must be established for capital projects and joint services. This is absolutely critical to the District's progress. While each inter-jurisdictional negotiation will have a unique set of issues, fairness and cost sharing must be part of each. No single formula can apply to each negotiation, but the District can and must assure its members that key items will be addressed in all negotiations. By setting the basic framework for all negotiations, the District can eliminate some of the initial, and substantial, delays associated with negotiation start-up.
Basic elements that all inter-jurisdictional deliberations should include are:
The cost of new or improved infrastructure and its financing - including both plants and conveyance systems, and consideration for investment in existing infrastructure

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-4

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration

Value of money both the absolute and time value of money invested in planning, permitting, operating, and maintaining infrastructure
Timing issues - costs of remedial upgrades required for or penalties assessed against a facility or system before new jurisdictions become customers of that facility or system
Opportunity costs - associated with yielding to others' priorities Commitments in bond covenants for repayment particularly important and complex
when service areas are changed Current obligations - opportunities to refinance Ability to pay current and projected Opportunities for phased payment to correspond with revenue from new customers; Benefit received in direct service (vs. intangible benefits that cannot be quantified) Fee structure(s) current and projected Special service requirements for a particular industry or long-standing customer Governance and decision making relative balance of power in ongoing decisions in
areas such as policy, operations, planning and fees Compliance - with state and federal rules and regulations.
The District, in consultation with its members, bond and legal counsel, and state agencies (EPD and GEFA in particular), should develop a framework within two years of the adoption of final District Plans. The process of developing the framework may identify other elements that should be included, and/or other obstacles to joint sponsorship of projects and interjurisdictional cooperation that should be addressed. The results of this effort could include standard approaches, documents, and/or templates for guiding and assisting negotiating entities. Effectiveness of the framework should be monitored annually and reported to the District Board, with recommendations for refinement.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 4 Clearly establish level of service expectations, commitments and appeals process.
District members must have a way to ensure that under District Plans, their constituents will receive appropriate levels of service at fair prices, and means of redress for poor service. This must be two-pronged. First, when entering into inter-jurisdictional agreements, all parties must clearly articulate their needs and expectations, and agree to clear service commitments and performance measures. Second, the agreements must include provisions for tracking and reporting on performance by the service provider, penalties for poor performance, and an appeal mechanism for jurisdictions that contract for service and for remedies or changes, in terms of service.
This is a particularly important issue to address in certain situations. For example, confidence about future level of service is likely to be critical when services area changes are recommended, or anywhere customers are not served by the local jurisdiction in which they reside. Confidence will also be important when smaller jurisdictions are served by larger jurisdictions, or in circumstances where third party contract operators provide the service. Also, wastewater service providers must have quality assurances from generators.
The District, with the assistance of District members, must establish two items. First, the District Board should adopt a statement of District service standards. The statement should

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-5

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration
articulate the general quality or level of service that local entities and individual customers can expect as a result of District Plans. Levels of service issues could include payment, response times, interruption of services, and an appeals process. Second, the District, with the assistance of District members and the EPD, should develop more detailed guidelines for service providers, and model agreements for local governments to use as they contemplate or enter into service agreements.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 5 Establish a formal system of dispute resolution.
While District efforts continue to be focused on reaching consensus, conflicts are inevitable. A formal system of conflict resolution must be established and agreed to by District members. It is needed to ensure timely progress in reaching agreements when voluntary deliberations falter. Too often, inter-jurisdictional negotiations drag on for years, while real needs go unmet and mutually beneficial projects are stalled.
A variety of common problems can be overcome with a formal process for "getting to yes." Sometimes progress on agreements fails because relationships and negotiation history are lost when there are shifts in political leadership. Other times, deliberations reach a stalemate because parties to the negotiation are unable to overcome a particular obstacle or point of disagreement. In still other cases, one party may be hesitant to enter into negotiations because the party feels that it is weaker and at a distinct disadvantage with a larger, more established partner, and that there is no objective third party to intervene on its behalf.
The District should build on the lessons learned from mediation established in state regulations for local government negotiations on planning and service delivery strategies. Non-binding mediation does not yield sufficient results without the prospect of binding arbitration, should the mediation fail. The District should, with the assistance of experts in alternative dispute resolution, establish a clear, tiered system for inter-jurisdictional consensus building. At a minimum, three tiers should be included: informal negotiations; non-binding mediation; and binding arbitration. Triggers for moving from one level to the next must be clearly identified. For example, any party to mediation can request binding arbitration, but arbitration might also be triggered if mediation does not result in an agreement in six months. The District should consider triggering the informal negotiation process (and by extension the possibility of mediation and eventually arbitration), if local governments have not voluntarily initiated discussions about projects for which the District Plans clearly hold them responsible. Mediation and arbitration panels could consist of District members.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 6 Actively explore the most appropriate role for the State to play in the District's long-term water resource issues.
While the focus of this WW Plan is local implementation with District support, the State of Georgia has clear interests in the success of District Plans. In the case of inter-jurisdictional relations, ultimately the State is better positioned to ensure compliance with District goals. Senate Bill 130 promotes the use of permitting and funding tools to ensure expeditious implementation of District Plans.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-6

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration
The DNR already has the ability to sponsor and operate water facilities, the EPD has the authority to issue permits, and GEFA has the ability to fund water and sewer projects. The State's regional reservoir program and water conservation office are sponsoring initiatives pertinent to the District. In addition, current legislative proposals for a State plan for water resources are on the horizon. The District Plans must be coordinated with both.
The District and its members should work with state agencies to explore appropriate long-term roles for the state. First, the State may champion cooperative planning and cost effective implementation to share water resources and pledge a partnership approach for agencies such as the DNR, EPD, and GEFA. Another option that should be considered is the State moving into a more dominant role, such as sub-state (or District) planning, aggressive sponsorship of capital programs, or expanding the District Board to represent more stakeholders. Findings and recommendations should be included in the first five-year update of District Plans at the latest.
Historically, EPD has faced funding constraints needed to effectively administer and enforce regulatory programs. It is recommended that EPD identify staffing needs and costs to implement their responsibilities for enforcement of the District Plans, and that the District support efforts to secure additional funding for EPD from the Georgia legislature. In addition, EPD should identify staffing needs and costs for more responsive processing of permit requests, and the District should support efforts to secure the additional State funding.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 7 Amend District WW Plan as necessary to allow local innovation and flexibility.
District members must have some flexibility and means to amend District Plans. The standard for submitting an amendment must be high, and for granting the a request even higher, if District goals are to be met. This amendment process directly addresses one of the District's basic goals that of allowing flexibility and would allow District members to request permission to deviate from District Plans for unusual, but valid reasons. Also, the amendment process should be viewed as a tool for innovation available to local governments who individually or collectively want to aggressively pursue alternative approaches to achieving District goals. The amendment process must be carefully coordinated with the EPD, since deviations from District Plans must occur within the context of the State's Planning Standards, and would have direct bearing on EPD permits.
The District, with assistance of the EPD and District members, should establish a formal amendment process. The Board alone should grant amendments, rather than allowing District staff to issue or approve amendments administratively. However, there must be a mechanism to respond to real issues that arise or are recognized after the District Plans are adopted, but before they will be fully updated.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 8 Publicize and reward successful partnerships.
The District and State should recognize particularly successful inter-jurisdictional partnerships and their benefits. The goal of this tool is to reinforce desired behavior and encourage the same by others. The recognition system can be as simple as publicity for negotiations and projects that go well, to actual awards. The District and the State should also consider offering bonuses

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-7

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration
for jurisdictions that demonstrate innovation and leadership in tackling inter-jurisdictional projects or service, such as in the form of expedited permits or preferential funding.
The District and the EPD should establish a recognition program for identifying, publicizing, and rewarding successful partnerships. While this effort should be focused on local governments and service providers, it also should be coordinated with public education and involvement efforts.
Inter-jurisdictional Relationships
Use of these tools involves the active participation of multiple organizations. Figure 13-2 illustrates the relationships between the entities involved in governance of the wastewater systems in the District.
FIGURE 13-2 Future Structure and Roles

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-8

Section 13: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration
Conclusions
In combination, these new tools for inter-jurisdictional cooperation, along with traditional tools and others mentioned elsewhere in this document, form a robust system of incentives for local action that supports District Plans, and disincentives for actions that undermine District-wide needs.
While the benefit of inter-jurisdictional agreements is proven, there are specific obstacles that the District must overcome in order to realize improved and mutually beneficial arrangements for sharing water resources, and serving an expanding population Key strategies for advancing inter-jurisdictional collaboration and successful implementation have been identified:
Continue using existing tools; Prepare model inter-jurisdictional agreements; Establish a fair share funding formula framework; Assure an appropriate level of service; Establish a formal dispute resolution system; Increase the State role in compliance with WW Plan and project sponsorship; Establish a formal amendment process; and Publicize and reward success partnerships.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WW- GOVERNANCE.DOC

13-9

Section 14
Funding
Successful implementation of the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan) hinges on the ability to fund the programmatic measures, capital improvements, and monitoring activities. A range of funding options for District needs was examined, including current and innovative funding mechanisms. Currently, wastewater projects in the District are funded locally. This is expected to continue into the future. Long-term, the most critical funding needs for implementing the WW Plan are for capital facility improvements and maintenance, local planning, public education, and ongoing District operations. Of these, the funding of facility improvements is the most challenging, due to the difficulty of arranging for timely financing of needed improvements, especially those that serve two or more communities.
Spread over the next 30 years, investment in wastewater collection and treatment systems in the District is expected to reach $22 billon. An additional $18 billion will be expended on operation and maintenance of these systems.
Local Funding
Wastewater infrastructure in the District is sponsored and funded almost exclusively by local governments or their local utilities. The primary funding source is local revenue bonds (repaid through user fees). These are supplemented to varying degrees by State loans, local general obligation bonds, general fund appropriations, local sales taxes, and/or development impact fees. In a very small number of cases, the private sector funds facilities.
Funding Action No. 1 - Fund capital improvements primarily by local participants.
Local governments and utilities will need to budget funds for several activities required to ensure consistency with the WW Plan. The cost of these efforts can be considered part of capital costs, or paid for directly out of utility revenues. Some additional costs will be associated with participation in other District activities, as discussed elsewhere. Funding for this work will be the responsibility of each of the local governments, and can be funded through utility revenues or through the general fund, depending on local guidelines.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WW- FUNDING.DOC

14-1

Section 14: Funding

State Gap Financing
The traditional system of individual jurisdictions financing their own facilities through longterm bonds is not well-suited to meeting the needs of an integrated water/wastewater system that serves multiple jurisdictions. Debt ceilings and the cost of financing vary greatly from locality to locality, because bonds are issued based on a community's financial strength and a verifiable revenue stream for debt retirement. Each jurisdiction must balance use of its bonding capacity (both general obligation and revenue) among a variety of improvements beyond wastewater, such as roads, public buildings, or parks. Because wastewater utilities typically operate as enterprise funds and have the ability to recover costs through user fees, revenue bonds will be the preferred funding mechanism, leaving general obligation bonds for other nonrevenue producing improvements.
While communities with well-established utility systems usually are able to seek their own bond funding on the strength of their local government and the utility's projected revenue stream, communities with no or small systems are unable to cost-effectively use revenue bond financing. They often rely on the low-cost loans available through the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), which leverages the financial strength of the State. GEFA's ability to provide low interest financing originates from three sources:
Georgia Fund, capitalized with state general obligation bonds and the 1997 Authority's State guaranteed revenue bonds;
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), which is funded with federal grants and 20% state match; and
Drinking Water SRF, which is capitalized with federal grants and 20% state match.
Collectively, these sources, along with their respective repayments, currently total $115 million annually. Loans have a maximum term of 20 years from the date that construction is expected to be complete and interest rates that vary with market conditions at the time they were made based on the State's last general obligation bond sale. The rates have ranged from approximately 4% to approximately 6%. Presently the interest rate on Georgia Fund Loans is 3.98% and the interest rate for both SRFs is 3%. Capitalized interest is permitted during the construction period; this cost is added to the borrower's loan balance then amortized over the life of the loan. Since 1999, interest earnings from repaid loans have covered the costs of operations, thereby allowing GEFA to be self-funded.
The success of the WW Plan hinges on facilities providing service to multiple jurisdictions. More often than not, project partners will have different timing needs for the facilities and different abilities to pay. In fact, District Plans anticipate that some communities that are just beginning to develop will need to partner with neighboring older communities that can lead infrastructure development. Both communities will need assistance to finance improvements in advance of customers' connections to the system and paying fees that can be used to retire the debt. The older community may be unwilling to use its full bonding capacity to pay for facilities that do not directly benefit its residents, and the emerging communities are unlikely to have adequate cash or bond capacity to offer their fair share at a project's inception. Even with good faith agreements and strong political will on the part of both parties, this type of project

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WW- FUNDING.DOC

14-2

Section 14: Funding
will stall. Without a new level of assistance from the State, timely progress for needed projects will be in jeopardy.
Funding Action No. 2 - Increase financing opportunities available through GEFA loan funds.
While the full extent of GEFA's funding potential is worthy of analysis beyond the scope of this planning effort, four actions should be considered in the near future:
Increase GEFA loan cap. First, GEFA's enabling legislation could be amended, removing the restriction that limits the amount of bonds that GEFA could have outstanding at any one time. Currently the debt service limit is a figure not to exceed 1% of State revenues for the prior fiscal year. Since the State revenues are approximately $15 billion, GEFA is limited to a debt service at any one time of $150 million. (This debt service would include the current outstanding GEFA general obligation debt issued by the State, as well as the GEFA Guaranteed Revenue debt.) At the prevailing interest rate of 3.98%, the maximum amount of outstanding bonds at any given time is limited to $2.5 billion.
Through GEFA communities are able to borrow an aggregate of $35 million to $38 million from the federal, state and repayment sources. The loan cap should be raised substantially by leveraging the federal grants through the issuance of bonds to provide funding for a portion of the loans. Under this scenario GEFA could increase the caps for individual loans, and/or become a more attractive option to larger or fiscally stronger communities, since current programs are targeted to smaller, rural areas. This expanded capacity for GEFA would assure that traditional recipients of GEFA funds would not be subsidizing District projects. Preliminary estimates show the potential loan capacity is between $3.6 billion to $7.2 billion over 20 years, provided the State maintains its current annual investment. Ideally, the amount of the increase could be set aside for District projects, since traditionally most GEFA funding is directed outside the District's 16 counties.
Allocate money to District projects. Second, GEFA could modify its loan criteria to give preference to District projects, at least for a portion of GEFA's loan portfolio. There are several ways that this could be done. One simple method would be to use the current selection criteria, but allow for multi-year funded projects, and give priority to projects that met associated financial and environmental prerequisites and are scheduled to issue a notice to proceed within six months. The same could be done for other State loans or grants.
Increase individual loan cap. Third, GEFA could increase the caps for individual loans, and/or open eligibility for loans to larger or fiscally stronger communities, since current programs are targeted to smaller, rural areas. This would need to be done while assuring traditional recipients of GEFA funds that they would not be subsidizing District projects.
Extend period of capitalized interest. Fourth, terms and conditions of loans and bonds could be modified to allow for longer periods of capitalized interest. GEFA's practice has been to issue loans that do not exceed 20 years and by statute cannot exceed a maturity of 25 years. Local governments are accustomed to 30- or 40-year terms. Another condition that could be revised is an allowance of balloon payments in the future when the customer base has increased to better support the debt. This would involve the State accepting some risk in return for better

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WW- FUNDING.DOC

14-3

Section 14: Funding
advance planning, property acquisition, and construction of distribution, conveyance, and treatment facilities.
Federal Funding
The District is likely to be more successful in winning direct federal appropriations for grants or program support if its members present a collective appeal to Congressional leaders and agency officials. While federal appropriations should not be considered a routine source of funds, they can serve special capital needs or unique programs.
Funding Action No. 3 - Increase federal funding through a unified funding appeal from the District for federal assistance.
The District should lead the development of a unified annual or multi-year funding request from the 16 counties to federal agencies and officials. This would demonstrate clarity of purpose; would illustrate the capacity for collaboration among local, regional, and state interests; and would eliminate the need for federal staff or elected officials to select among competing local requests. This would require the equivalent of the regional transportation planning process that metropolitan planning organizations, such as the Atlanta Regional Commission, use to prioritize funding requests, and to balance needs and fiscal resources.
Part of a unified appeal could emphasize District efforts in a way that distinguishes the 16county area nationally. This concurrent regional water, wastewater, and watershed planning effort undertaken by the District is unique. The District should consider seeking federal funds for a demonstration project that advances this innovative "Total Water Management Approach."
District Operations
The funds required for District operations will depend on the roles and tasks ultimately assigned to the District. At a minimum, the District is expected to continue to serve as a forum for dialogue and decision making, a monitor of plan progress, a liaison for District members with State officials, and the preparer of the 5-year plan update. Other possible roles include continued planning efforts; technical assistance; and research and development of model programs, projects, or ordinances for local governments.
Four basic sources are available to support District operating functions. First, as now, local governments are likely to bear primary responsibility for funding basic District functions, probably based on a fair share formula developed by District members. State funding for routine District operations was included in Senate Bill 130 for only the District's first years, but should be sought at some level permanently, to ensure that the State's interests in metropolitan north Georgia are addressed. Third, federal funding, especially for special studies, programs or projects should be considered a reasonable, and actively sought, supplement to routine funding. Congressional appropriations and/or federal agency grants should not be considered as likely sources of operating funds. Finally, private grants may be reasonably sought, but primarily for special projects.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WW- FUNDING.DOC

14-4

Section 14: Funding

Funding Action No. 4 - Fund District activities.
Funding for specific District operations or activities could be provided by directly affected governments or requested as state or federal grant funds. The District Board, comprised of representatives from local jurisdictions, can choose the activities that the District undertakes. Some optional activities it may wish to undertake include providing technical assistance to local governments on septic tank policies, facilitation of inter-jurisdictional agreements, or public education. As activities are authorized, their cost will need to be funded.
Public-Private Partnerships
Public-private partnerships usually involve an agreement between the public agency that needs the project, designating who will eventually become the project owner, and the private entity that will actually build the project. The private entity may, but will not necessarily, serve as operator. The types of public-private partnerships for the design, construction, operation, and ownership of wastewater facilities are as follows:
Contract Operations Concession Design Build Design-Build-Operate Build-Own-Operate-Transfer
Sale of the Assets
The advantage of the public-private partnership is its potential opportunity to gain excellent service at a very competitive price, when compared to the traditional ways of delivering the project or the service. Results can often be achieved more quickly if that is a desired goal. The disadvantage of public-private partnerships is that contracts have to be well thought-out and developed, such that the public interest is protected. This is not necessarily easy to achieve. The service is no longer provided under the direct influence of employees of the local government agency headed by elected officials, which can be especially significant in long duration contracts. Experience has shown that public-private partnerships suffer when comprehensive, fair, and realistic performance goals have not been established for all parties to the contract.
Locally, Fulton County has used public-private partnerships successfully a number of wastewater treatment service arrangements. In contrast, the City of Atlanta's privatization of its water system was not successful and the arrangement has been terminated.
Funding Action No. 5 - Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships.
The use of public-private partnerships to provide wastewater services has grown in the District. This trend could well continue as the WW Plan is implemented. Opportunities for cost effective and beneficial public-private partnerships might occur with larger facilities that become regionalized, requiring significant capacity expansions using the best technologies. In other circumstances, small private facilities may serve the interim needs of a community until adequate demand for a public facility is established.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WW- FUNDING.DOC

14-5

Section 14: Funding
Because of increasing pressure to deliver services at lower costs, wastewater utilities in the District should evaluate public-private partnerships whenever they are appropriate, or at least be prepared to respond to unsolicited appeals that they will likely receive from private industry sources. Upon request, the District could play a role in facilitating a dialogue on the issues, and in evaluating the best uses and pitfalls of public-private partnerships.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WW- FUNDING.DOC

14-6

Section 15
Education and Public Awareness Plan

Purpose

Senate Bill 130 requires the development of an Education and Public Awareness (E&PA) program that will outline measures the District can implement to raise public awareness of wastewater management issues, and educate target groups that have some level of influence over wastewater management. The provisions require the following:
Raising public awareness of wastewater management issues among 75 to 90 percent of
the District's population by 2006;
Educating the public and identified target groups in order to increase awareness and
encourage behavioral changes; and
Coordinating with existing agencies and governmental entities to maximize the visibility
of the District and its message.
In order to meet this legislative directive, a comprehensive E&PA Plan for the WW Plan must be effectively implemented to educate the public and build public confidence regarding wastewater management issues, particularly with regard to wastewater discharges and indirect potable reuse. The E&PA Plan must be coordinated and integrated with the E&PA Plans for the District-wide Watershed Management Plan and the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan. A single comprehensive E&PA program is recommended, incorporating measures from all three District plans.
Education and Public Awareness Plan Approach

Campaign Identity

The Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan, the District-wide Watershed Management Plan, and this Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan) share the same goal - adequate clean water. This overarching theme of the District will support the education and public awareness messages and can be combined with the Clean Water Campaign (CWC) to effectively and economically enhance and uphold the goals of both the District and the CWC. The CWC is an existing collaborative effort spearheaded by a group of 20 governments in the metro Atlanta area and is managed by the Atlanta Regional Commission. Its mission is to educate metro residents about the impacts of polluted stormwater runoff on our

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-1

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

lakes, rivers, and streams; and our water supplies, recreational areas, and aquatic habitat. The District can help expand the CWC with components of wastewater management education and public awareness.
Campaign Elements
Educating the public on issues concerning wastewater management, such as treatment and quality, reuse, recreational contact, fisheries, and sewer spills, is a crucial building block towards gaining acceptance and raising awareness of the residents in the 16-county District. By learning more about the subject and obtaining new and accurate information, the public may respond with a change of attitudes toward wastewater management issues. With more knowledge, residents can make informed decisions when forming opinions.
Three elements have been incorporated into the campaign:
Element 1 Public Awareness Campaign. Senate Bill 130 established a goal of reaching 75 to 90 percent of the District's population by 2006. To achieve this goal, virtually every household in the District must be reached multiple times with clear, concise messages. This element will use multiple methods to present information to the general public and target audiences.
Element 2 Outreach and Education to key target groups. Senate Bill 130 mandates that the District develop programs to educate target groups of individuals who have some level of influence over the decisions to be made concerning wastewater management.
Element 3 Primary and Secondary Education. The objective of this element is to
educate school-aged children, on ways wastewater can be treated and reused to ensure protection of our water resources.
In keeping with the goals of shared responsibility for implementation and leveraging existing programs, the entity or entities responsible for implementation, are identified for each recommended activity. Opportunities for the District to partner with other organizations to fund and implement various recommendations are also described.
The active cooperation and participation of local governments, businesses, and state agencies will be important during the WW Plan implementation. Solutions proposed by the WW Plan will succeed only if the responsible entities embrace the concept of regional solutions to wastewater management. These entities should view the WW Plan as a guideline requiring collaboration and partnership to achieve regional wastewater management improvement.
Element 1: Public Awareness Campaign
A mass media campaign would be the quickest and most successful way to meet the goal of reaching 75 to 90 percent of the District's population. However, reaching out by way of paid local and public television, newspaper advertising and radio spots can be very costly. Therefore, it is recommended that the District use specific strategies that would limit the cost of

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-2

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan
these outreach methods. The District should attempt to prepare public education materials in English, Spanish, and Korean, incorporating expressive visual messages to aid in understanding.
Mass Media
Mass media recommendations include the following:
Commercials and public service announcements (PSAs); Interviews with a District representative on local television shows such as Fox 5's Good
Day Atlanta or Channel 46's Good Morning Atlanta; Conversations on Atlanta's top 10 radio stations as identified by a ratings company such
as the Arbitron Company; Messages on MARTA buses or billboards; and Newspaper advertisements, articles, or inserts in local newspapers throughout the
District and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The campaign identity, messages, logo, and slogan will be developed near the beginning of the implementation process in association with the CWC. The proposed campaign is based on the recommendation that the CWC identity will be expanded to encompass the WW Plan, as well as the other District Plans. However, messages that specifically address wastewater management issues would also be developed. The messages, logo, and slogan should be tested on focus groups, the current members of the Basin Advisory Councils (BACs) and/or members of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC).
There are five key wastewater management messages on which the District will be placing an emphasis as it educates its stakeholders. The messages will be conveyed to the general public and specific groups as described in later sections of this campaign plan, and will include:
The District places a priority on protecting our water resources through advanced levels of treatment, through best technologies, and the careful placement of effluent discharge;
Wastewater is a valuable resource that needs to be recycled to meet the growing water demands;
Consolidation and creation of large wastewater facilities will allow for more efficient and reliable wastewater treatment;
Education is necessary on management of septic systems to maximize their effectiveness while minimizing the negative impacts on the environment. This needs to be accomplished through proper siting, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of septic systems; and
A continuous sewer system inspection and maintenance effort will substantially reduce spills and overflows to property and streams.
This E&PA Plan recommends a mass media campaign be undertaken in the first year, followed by continued use of alternative media in subsequent years.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-3

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan
Alternative Media
A strong public awareness campaign maximizes the amount of exposure to the interested stakeholders, while remaining cost-effective. While the legislative mandate to reach 75 to 90 percent of the public will require a "blanketing" of information, it is critical to support and balance mass contact with a targeted outreach, to insure that the greatest possible number of people are reached in a manner that will be effective and relatively low-cost.
Successful outreach mechanisms with a proven track record include the following alternative activities:
Newspaper inserts. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Gwinnett Daily Post, and
other local newspapers can be used to advertise with special section inserts, or become a partner and assist with the educational effort for the District's Plans by running periodic inserts in the newspaper. The inserts will detail certain topics such as septic system management. A completely paid section can be created by the District for insert into the paper, or the District can propose potential advertisers or partners and sponsors to help offset the cost of producing the section.
Non-paid publicity: TV interview. District staff and members can give interviews on
local television talk shows regarding the WW Plan. Some possible morning shows include Fox 5's Good Day Atlanta or Channel 46's Good Morning Atlanta. Local evening news shows are also a possibility. Another excellent program for water resource management topics is the Georgia Week in Review on GPTV.
Paid publicity: TV and radio. Recurring messages can be prepared for presentation on
television and radio. Full 60-second radio advertising or morning and afternoon traffic sponsorships are two possibilities. These radio announcements should run on Atlanta's top rated shows.
Promotional Items
Promotional items are a low-cost, effective way to establish recognition of a wastewater awareness program. They are also an excellent tool for reinforcing messages that can be condensed to a few words and are ideal for advertising websites, important telephone numbers, and other short information. Promotional items can be distributed at public gatherings and other events related to this WW Plan. Less expensive items (pens, pencils, magnets) can be purchased in bulk for distribution to the general public. A smaller quantity of more expensive items (T-shirts, hats, mugs) can be purchased and distributed to local officials, BAC members, and interested stakeholders.
Bill inserts and messages. A cost-effective method to reach a wide segment of the public is the use of bill inserts or messages to all water and sewer customers. While the use of bill inserts or messages will meet the targeted 75 to 90 percent of the District's population as required by Senate Bill 130, the information is not solely effective as a communication tool, since BAC polling indicated that many people do not read the bill inserts or messages. However, it is a good supplement to the mass media campaign.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-4

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

Brochures, fact sheets, and other literature. A tri-fold brochure with wastewater messages should be produced by the District staff and distributed throughout the District to all audiences. Existing brochures on septic system maintenance can be complementary to this one. Fact sheets are available on each of the District's three plans and can be distributed to all audiences.

Building partnerships. Community relations, community partnerships, media/PSAs, and word-of-mouth will be allies that will maximize the message, while fostering attitude and behavioral changes. A cost-effective method would be to partner with existing outreach programs such as Project WET and the CWC. Informational materials will be provided to the listed program partners for distribution. Some programs will incorporate wastewater information into their existing materials. Lesson plans will be written and submitted to Environmental Education in Georgia at the DNR for distribution and implementation by Project WET. This information can also be included as part of an information clearinghouse that will be further described later in this section.

Educational videos. A 10-minute video on broad and specific subjects can present information effectively and efficiently to large audiences. Many studies show that information can be communicated quicker, retained longer, and have a more lasting effect, if done through a visual medium.

Facility tours and informational materials at treatment plant grounds. Some local water service providers have tours available at their facilities. Tours can be arranged for school trips or other audiences. Informational materials, such as brochures and fact sheets, will be available for distribution at participating facilities.

Focus groups. The public will be involved in the implementation of the WW Plan, wherever possible. The use of focus groups will facilitate education and public awareness. Focus groups, facilitated by District staff, will be used to survey the general public's acceptance of the District's goals and to give insight into the target audience's existing values, behaviors, and beliefs.

Website pages. The District and participating local governments have websites in place, some with the ability to track "hits." This activity consists of producing information on related technical solutions and issues, and providing that information via web pages for District members. Web pages can document program initiatives, partnerships (particularly with CWC), and outcomes; provide information about the three general wastewater messages, and even provide online education with modules on septic system management.

Interactive CD-ROM or website. An interactive CD-ROM can be produced at a relatively low cost. The interactive CD-ROM should contain content that helps users learn about wastewater management issues, including the newest treatment technologies and septic system education. Clickable maps supported by Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data would allow participants to focus on specific areas within the District. Alternatively, an interactive Website can be developed in lieu of an interactive CD, to allow for changes, updates, and version control.

Portable interactive kiosk. An interactive kiosk provides a way for the District to take wastewater management issues to the public and help to reinforce the connection with the

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-5

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

CWC. The kiosk would be equipped with connections for a laptop computer that could be provided by the entity using the kiosk. The interactive CD-ROM or website would be available for viewing, along with literature, posters, brochures, and other promotional items
The kiosk can be used at events scheduled by local governmental organizations, state agencies, community groups, and others. The kiosk can also be used at focus groups or Speakers Bureau presentations. It can be used at public schools and at public centers, such as libraries and local government offices, or county fairs and festivals.
Posters. Two posters on wastewater issues are recommended, one on wastewater as a resource and new technologies, and another on the relationship of wastewater with water supply and stormwater and the "user." These posters can be distributed as promotional items.
Speaker's package. Continual discussions with the public on the implementation of the WW Plan's recommended solutions will be needed now and in the future. A Speakers Bureau will be an effective use of budgeted funds with the use of local government, District, state agency staff, and water professionals. Speakers with related technical backgrounds can be enlisted throughout the District to speak within their geographic area. This is an effective method of targeting various audiences and communicating the issues and messages on several levels. The cost will be in the preparation and production of materials and presentation tools. The speakers will volunteer their time or be supported by their organizations. The speaker's package will include a presentation in PowerPoint format, the 10-minute video, fact sheets on the District's planning efforts, and brochures on related topics, including treatment technologies, wastewater as a recyclable resource, and consolidation of wastewater facilities.
Corporate outreach program. The District should explore partnerships similar to the Clean Air Campaign, which oversees an employer outreach program that encourages employers to help employees participate in commuting programs, such as carpooling and free rides home. The District should explore a similar partnership arrangement with local firms that allow the CWC to display materials related to the wastewater (i.e., posters and brochures) in their workplace. The employers who agree to display these materials could get a designation or certification from CWC for display.
Element 2 Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups
Identifying and targeting the audience. The District needs to identify and target the audience that will facilitate the success of the E&PA Campaign. The critical audience is comprised of stakeholders, such as local service providers; local governments, water and wastewater utilities and authorities, private companies, elected officials, private business owners (such as developers), County Health Departments, the general public, and a general public subset of homeowners with septic systems.
Identifying and educating the stakeholders as a collective audience helps create a single voice for regional wastewater solutions, while it provides decision-makers with the necessary information to move forward with the implementation of the WW Plan. This will decrease the influence of local politics, while it strengthens the rationale for regional economic vitality and environmental health.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-6

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan
Stakeholder participation in implementationof the WW Plan will facilitate consensus and induce a sense of ownership in the process. This will lay the foundation for behavioral changes and acceptance of a regional identity, two critical components to balancing local needs with regional solutions.
Table 15-1 illustrates the recommended stakeholders that will be targeted for the education and awareness program using the proposed outreach activities:
TABLE 15-1 Communication Activities and Audiences
Target Audience
Activity

General Public Local Service Providers Private Companies Elected Officials Health Department Homeowner s (with septic)
Primary/ Secondary Students

New Programs for Wastewater Management

General public education program

X

Training programs/workshops

X

X

X

X

In-School education program

Leadership program module

X

Recognition program

X

X

New Activities for Education and Public Awareness

Bill inserts and messages

X

Billboard

X

Brochures, fact sheets, and other literature

X

X

X

X

Building partnerships (e.g., Project WET, Clean Water Campaign)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Bus advertisement/wrap

X

Educational videos

X

X

Facility tours and informational materials at treatment plant grounds

X

Focus groups

X

Newspaper inserts (Newspapers in Education)

X

Non-paid publicity: TV interview

X

Paid publicity: TV and radio spots

X

Portable kiosks

X

Posters

X

Speaker's package (Speakers Bureau)

X

X

X

Website pages

X

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

X
X X X X
X X X X 15-7

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

Four activities are proposed to facilitate the delivery of education and outreach to key target groups in Element 2: target group survey, establishment of an information clearinghouse, creation of a key target group database, and workshops. These are discussed as follows:

Target group survey. When distributing information, it is critical to disseminate the right information to the right people at the right time. Therefore, a baseline survey should be conducted among the target groups to identify their needs and how best to meet those needs. Key target groups can include associations, business groups, professional organizations, State agencies, local governments, educational institutions, homeowner associations, and the general public. By working with established groups, the District can communicate more effectively with the members through mailings and special events. This would be an economic choice for saving costs on postage, research, and other items. Based on the survey results, the District can modify message delivery techniques.

Information clearinghouse. The District should establish an information clearinghouse by gathering as much outreach information as possible from other programs. This clearinghouse would act as a library for educational materials and could be catalogued through a database available on the District's website. The District would maintain and update the database as new materials are obtained. Partners in the clearinghouse would be able to check the database, so as not to duplicate efforts.

Workshops. Several agencies and organizations offer training and workshops to the general public, businesses, and industry in a variety of water-related issues, such as P2AD, Adopt-aStream, Riverkeepers, and CWC, Consumer Water Center of American Water Works Association (AWWA), Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) Association County Commissions of Georgia (ACCG), and the Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association (GWPCA).

Key target groups. Key target groups would require more technical training related to wastewater and septic systems specific to their respective businesses. The primary role for the District in delivering training to key target groups is to serve as the coordinating agency. To make this task manageable, it is recommended that the District partner with a limited number of agencies and organizations that offer training.

Specific target groups should include:

Local service providers. Local service providers include local governments, and water and wastewater utilities and authorities. There are more than 40 service providers within the District. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation is important to the successful implementation of the WW Plan. Equitable decisions are imperative as well. Utility employees and elected officials also need training and education on sewer system inspection and maintenance to reduce spills and overflows to property and streams.

Private service companies. Private companies include developers and businesses related to wastewater management, such as companies that design and install on-site wastewater management systems, or septic systems. This audience needs to be educated on the proper siting, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of septic systems. If developers choose to use septic systems, they need to be educated about any regulation or policy changes the District recommends.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-8

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

State agencies. DNR and EPD are responsible for setting and enforcing standards for long-range plans, such as the WW Plan. The Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) provides grants and low-interest water and sewer loans to Georgia's communities. While larger service providers issue their own revenue bonds, smaller providers rely on GEFA loans for capital improvements. This audience needs to be a pro-active partner with the District to facilitate the implementation of the WW Plan.
Elected officials. Elected officials need to be informed of the happenings and critical issues within the District. Because they are influential figures, their constituents will contact them with questions and suggestions. They are also in a position to spread information regarding District activities. Having this group well informed and educated will be an integral part of the public awareness campaign.
County health departments. County health departments are responsible for administering the septic system regulations for installation and maintenance. The WW Plan envisions more intensive management of septic systems through increased inspections, documentation and record keeping by local health departments with assistance from local service providers.
Homeowners with septic systems. A subset of the general public, homeowners with septic systems is an important audience of the WW Plan. They will be encouraged to change their behaviors and attitudes about septic tank management. Education regarding septic system maintenance is an important component for this target group.
Element 3 Primary and Secondary Education
Changing attitudes and behaviors of our future generations to support the initiatives in the District plans will ensure more protection for our water resources. Therefore, a component of the E&PA program needs to be directed towards school-aged children, designed to reach primary and secondary students within the District. While changing behavior takes time, a study by the Center for Watershed Protection shows that behavioral changes are aided by educating children. Schools are also in a unique position to disseminate information to families of school-age children. This is a large audience that can be effectively reached through cooperative efforts with educational institutions. Programs that emphasize the use of interactive materials, handouts sent home with students, and educational modules geared toward long-term behaviors, which can have permanent effects on successive generations.
Existing environmental curricula should be supported, and where possible, District-specific information should be integrated into the curricula of schools throughout the District.
Support Georgia's Project WET (Water Education for Teachers)
The District should support the efforts of Georgia's Project WET to promote environmental education in District Schools by encouraging the use of its programs within the District. District representatives should decide if appropriate lessons are available, or if a wastewater-specific lesson should be submitted for inclusion in the environmental education curricula.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-9

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan
WaterWise Education
The District should investigate the lessons available through the Georgia WaterWise Council to determine if they have appropriate wastewater lessons for grades kindergarten through 12. Currently, 30 public school systems in Georgia use the WaterWise Water Source Book as part of their science curriculum.
Develop Localized Information
To educate and promote clean water to the primary and secondary levels, the District should develop modules for incorporation into school curricula being developed by Project WET, the Environmental Education Alliance for Georgia, Georgia Project for Excellence in Environmental Education, or Georgia WaterWise Council. The modules would include the following:
General information on wastewater collection and treatment systems, including septic tanks.
Information that specifically teaches the latest technologies in wastewater treatment, facts about wastewater reuse, and tips such as not pouring grease down drains and why.
Providing teachers with more opportunities for planning field trips, such as facility tours, and encouraging students to become more aware of where their water comes from and how it is treated and reused.
Providing students with information they can share with parents, who may help reinforce the District's efforts to increase adult awareness of wastewater management issues.
Other Recommended Activities
Business Sponsorships
Partnerships with corporations and business organizations can enhance the success of the District's campaign by lending endorsements, adding credibility, and providing assistance in the form of human and financial resources. The District should pursue additional partnerships with large and medium-size companies that have a substantial presence in the District, and with organizations (such as various the Chambers of Commerce) that can influence policy decisions through their connections with elected officials and business leaders. Business sponsors can assist with promotion, events and staffing. In return for their participation, business sponsors could be granted a special designation (such as being a Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum sponsor, corresponding to their contribution level) and a token of recognition, such as a plaque or having a name added to outreach information. Business sponsors would also be encouraged to display their sponsorship designation prominently in their promotional and advertising materials.
Agency Partnerships
The District should form partnerships with state and other government agencies that are providing education and services that overlap those that correspond with the District's goals such as those presented in Table 15-2.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-10

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan
Other Partnerships
The District should form partnerships with local colleges and universities to enlist their assistance in activities, such as developing and implementing surveys, developing training curriculum, writing fact sheets, and staffing District events.
Additionally, it is recommended that the District continue to work with the BACs in the implementation of the E&PA program. BAC members can participate in focus groups, as well as serve as members of the Speakers Bureau, and assist the District with obtaining support from corporations, agencies, and organizations with which they have relationships.
Many other partnering opportunities exist. Table 15-2 shows a list of possible partners with whom the District could consider working. In addition, Appendix C includes a list of possible sponsoring organizations provided by the Clean Water Campaign Education Coordinator.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-11

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

TABLE 15-2 Existing Water Resource Education Programs in the District

Program Georgia Adopt-A-Stream/Rivers Alive
Gwinnett County Clean & Beautiful

Coordinating Organization Location

Target Region

Atlanta

Cobb, Douglas, Fulton, Clayton, DeKalb,

Rockdale, Gwinnett, and Cherokee counties

Lawrenceville

Gwinnett County

Gwinnett County Adopt-A-StreamBeautiful Lawns/Healthy Streams
Gwinnett County Stormwater Department
City of Griffin Stormwater Department

Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Griffin

Gwinnett County Gwinnett County Griffin

Cobb County Water System

Marietta

Cobb County Adopt-A-Stream

Marietta

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

Atlanta

Sierra Club
Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Atlanta Atlanta

Georgia DNR, Environmental Protection Atlanta Division

Georgia DNR, Pollution Prevention Assistance Division

Atlanta

Georgia DNR, State Water Conservation Savannah Coordinator

Douglasville-Douglas County Water & Douglasville Sewer Authority

Rockdale County Water Resources

Conyers

City of Alpharetta, Georgia

Alpharetta

City of Atlanta Department of Water Atlanta

Evergreen School Program Water Smart: Cobb County - Marietta Water Authority
Fulton County Water Resource Management Program
Clayton County Water Authority
DeKalb County

Roswell Marietta
Atlanta
Morrow Decatur

Project WET/River of Words

Atlanta

Cobb County Cobb County Statewide Statewide Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Douglas County
Rockdale County Alpharetta Atlanta Roswell Cobb County
Fulton County
Clayton County DeKalb County Statewide

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-12

Section 15: Education and Public Awareness Plan

Program Clean Water Campaign

Coordinating Organization Location

Target Region

Atlanta

Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett

counties and the cities of Acworth, Alpharetta,

Atlanta, Austell, College Park, East Point,

Fairburn, Hapeville, Kennesaw, Marietta, Palmetto, Powder Springs, Roswell, Smyrna and Union City

Georgia WaterWise Council Water Source Book The Georgia Conservancy Chattahoochee Nature Center The Trust For Public Land-Atlanta

Marietta Marietta Atlanta Roswell Atlanta

Smart Communities Network

Atlanta

Family and Consumer Sciences Extension-UGA

Athens

UGA River Basin Science and Policy Athens Center

Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association

Marietta

Trout Unlimited

Duluth

Let's Go Fishing

Decatur

Living Wise and Learning to Be Water Modesto, CA Wise

American Water Works Association Denver, CO

State of Georgia Water Conservation Savannah Coordinator

EPA Water Efficiency Program

Washington, D.C.

Terrene Institute

Alexandria, VA

National Institutes for Water Resources NA

The Universities Water Information Network (UWIN)
Water Environment Federation

Carbondale, IL Alexandria, VA

Izaak Walton League, Lake Lanier Chapter
Izaak Walton League, Greater Atlanta Chapter
Earth 911
Elachee Nature-Science Center

Atlanta
Atlanta
Phoenix, AZ Gainesville, GA

Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide National effort implemented in Atlanta National effort implemented in Atlanta Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
National effort implemented in Atlanta Worldwide National
National Statewide
National National National
National
National
Lake Lanier
Atlanta
National effort implemented in Atlanta Statewide

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WW- EDUCATION.DOC

15-13

Section 16
Implementation Actions

The implementation actions for the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (WW Plan) are presented in a matrix of tasks and milestone dates.
Roles

The WW Plan involves participation by citizens and many levels of government for implementation. The broad roles for these are summarized below:
Local Jurisdictions

Own and operate utilities that manage wastewater; Plan and construct infrastructure for wastewater management that implements the WW
Plan (note: projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations contained in the WW Plan);
Participate in the District; Implement programs to improve management of collection systems and septic systems;
and
Lead and guide regional perspectives for wastewater management.

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District

Promote inter-jurisdictional collaboration for wastewater management; Serve as a forum and clearinghouse for regional issues, such water quality protection; Present a regional voice for wastewater management; Provide local jurisdictions support and guidance for implementing the WW Plan; Coordinate public awareness, education, and involvement; and Facilitate meetings of its Board, the TCC, and the BACs.

The EPD

Issue wasteloads and discharge permits in accordance with the District WW Plan; Continue regulatory functions over wastewater management and water quality
protection; and
Support regional planning by encouraging holistic solutions.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-1

Section 16: Implementation Actions
Department of Human Resources
Improve regulation of septic systems.
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
Support the WW Plan through increased funding participation.
Action Items
Tables 16-1 though 16-8 summarize the recommended tasks and present the measurable milestones for implementing the WW Plan. Tasks are identified for the near term (Years 1 to 5) and the long term (2009 to 2030). The long-term tasks are not necessarily specific to the year to be implemented, and these may be impacted by the mandatory updates to the WW Plan to be undertaken every 5 years.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-2

Section 16: Implementation Actions
TABLE 16-1 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Wastewater Capital Improvements (See Section 7)

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Wastewater Management Action No. 1 - Remove the heat load from the Chattahoochee River

Partial removal of heat load by beginning cooling tower operation at the Yates Plant.

GEORGIA POWER

Complete removal of heat load by beginning cooling tower operation at the McDonough Plant.

Wastewater Management Action No. 2 Revise the temperature standard for the Chattahoochee River

Develop study plan to revise standard and protect fish. Arrange funding.

Complete study.

EPD
Revise temperature standard, per procedures.

Wastewater Management Action No. 3 Develop two immediate multi-county wastewater treatment projects

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

(Cobb, Douglas, and Paulding Counties and DeKalb, Rockdale, Henry, Clayton, and Gwinnett Counties)

Form task force

to develop or revise interjurisdictional agreement. Task force prepares action

Negotiate agreements according to action plan.

Perform preplanning and preliminary engineering for improvements.

Perform design and arrange construction funding.

Bid and construct improvements.

plan.

Wastewater Management Action No. 4 - Increase return flow to the Chattahoochee River from DeKalb County

Evaluate preliminary alternatives.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(DeKalb County)

Perform preplanning and preliminary engineering for improvements.

Perform design and arrange construction funding.

Bid and construct improvements.

Wastewater Management Action No. 5 Construct six new wastewater treatment plants

Determine project sponsor. May require task force for multijurisdictional projects.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Perform preplanning and purchase property for plant site.

Perform preliminary engineering and environmental studies.

Perform design engineering and construction funding.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

Bid, construct, and operate new WWTPs.
16-3

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Facilitate.

DISTRICT

Wastewater Management Action No. 6 Expand 39 existing wastewater treatment plants to meet capacity needs

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Continue to make improvements currently underway.

Make improvements in accord with the District WW Plan.

EPD

Issue NPDES permits according to the WW Plan.

Wastewater Management Action No. 7 Upgrade wastewater treatment plants to protect water quality

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Upgrade WWTPs as needed to meet forthcoming standards.
EPD Define water-quality based treatment standards to implement new regulations.

Wastewater Management Action No. 8 Enhance reliability of wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Provide required level of redundancy/reliability.
EPD Define redundancy/reliability requirements.

Wastewater Management Action No. 9 Retire 61 treatment plants

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Decommission plants as existing investments are paid off, according to the WW Plan.

Wastewater Management Action No. 10 Reclaim water for Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties

Develop water reclamation projects.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties)

DISTRICT
Educate public about indirect potable reuse, overview projects, and negotiate with Corps for a change in the storage pricing structure to provide a credit to permitted withdrawers for returning the reclaimed water to the Lake.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-4

Section 16: Implementation Actions

TABLE 16-2 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance (See Section 8)

Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Sewer System Action No. 1 - Conduct a survey and inventory of the sewer system, and prepare system maps

LOCAL UTILITIES

Define mapping protocols and Collect field data, prepare database, and prepare system maps. budget for work.

Update maps.

Sewer System Action No. 2 - Develop computerized Maintenance Management System

LOCAL UTILITIES

Develop computerized maintenance management system.

Use computerized system to schedule system maintenance and management.

Sewer System Action No. 3 - Establish a Flow and Rainfall Monitoring Program

Determine flow and rainfall monitoring locations.

LOCAL UTILITIES

Purchase equipment and initiate program.

Purchase equipment and initiate program. Collect and analyze data.

Sewer System Action No. 4 - Develop a Hydraulic Modeling Program

Investigate modeling software.

LOCAL UTILITIES Use inventory and monitoring data to develop system model.

Sewer System Action No. 5 - Establish a Capacity Certification Program

Develop procedures for certifying available capacity for proposed developments.

LOCAL UTILITIES
Certify availability of capacity for proposed developments.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-5

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Sewer System Action No. 6 - Establish a Sewer System Inspection Program LOCAL UTILITIES
Establish inspection procedures and execute program.

Sewer System Action No. 7 - Establish a Sewer System Maintenance Program

Establish maintenance procedures and implement.

LOCAL UTILITIES

Sewer System Action No. 8 - Develop a Grease Management Program
LOCAL UTILITIES
Develop procedures for grease control and enforcement.

Sewer System Action No. 9 - Enhance the process for rapid reporting and response to sewer system overflows

Review overflow response program. Add procedures to accelerate response time.

LOCAL UTILITIES

Sewer System Action No. 10 - Develop a training program for sewer system inspection and maintenance

Outline training needs for program and employee training.
Identify representative for District sewer forum.

LOCAL UTILITIES Develop training programs.

Execute training and integrate it into standard operating procedures.

Sewer System Action No. 11 - Develop a Sewer System Rehabilitation Program

Prioritize rehabilitation projects, develop schedule and annual budgets, and implement.

LOCAL UTILITIES Continue annual planning.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-6

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Sewer System Action No. 12 - Establish district forum for training and information exchange on system management procedures

LOCAL UTILITIES EPD DISTRICT

Establish committee, define roles and responsibilities.

Review training needs and develop curriculums.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-7

Section 16: Implementation Actions
TABLE 16-3 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Septic System Management (See Section 9)

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Septic System Action No. 1 - Improve siting, design, and construction

COUNTY BOARDS OF HEALTH Develop and enact supplemental requirements to DHR Manual.
Improve oversight of design, siting, and construction.
DISTRICT
Develop inspection guidelines.

Septic System Action No. 2 Improve maintenance requirements

Draft pumping requirements.

Adopt pumping requirements.

Develop maintenance guidelines.

COUNTY BOARDS OF HEALTH DISTRICT

Septic System Action No. 3 Manage septic systems

COUNTY BOARDS OF HEALTH
Create database of septic system locations and maintenance. Track pumping frequency for each septic system and issue maintenance reminder notifications. DHR EPD
Continue to manage septic systems under DHR with increased support from EPD.
COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Develop local plans to determine future sewered and unsewered areas.
Septic System Action No. 4 Enact local policy for private wastewater systems

LOCAL UTILITIES Formulate and enact local policies for private wastewater systems.

Septic System Action No. 5 Establish policies concerning connection to public sewers

Develop policies for connecting to public sewer.

LOCAL UTILITIES

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-8

Section 16: Implementation Actions
TABLE 16-4 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Wastewater Management Planning (See Sections 10 and 11)

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Local Planning Action No. 1 - Develop local wastewater management plans

Review present master plan to determine if it needs revisions.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Revise local wastewater management plan, when needed to support projects.

Local Planning Action No. 2 - Review local plans for consistency with District plans

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

Review local master plans for consistency with District plans.

Perform annual WW Plan review.

DISTRICT

Facilitate inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Report on annual progress of WW Plan. EPD may consult

with the District to check local plans for compliance with the District Plans.

Perform annual Perform annual Perform annual WW Plan review. WW Plan review. WW Plan review.

Perform annual WW Plan review.

Prepare update to District plans (minimum every 5 years).

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-9

Section 16: Implementation Actions
TABLE 16-5 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Streamlined Permitting and Allocations (See Section 12)

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Permitting Action No. 1 Develop a Regional Section 404 Permit for the District

ACOE - SHPO - USFWS - EPA - EPD Note: The implementation schedule for Permitting Action No. 1 will be established in future Plan updates.

Permitting Action No. 2 Streamline EPD permitting for District projects

Consolidate wastewater treatment/operation permit cycle.
Modify permit application guidelines to require consistency with District Planning.
Consolidate reporting. Convene stakeholders to refine
streamline processes and execute Memorandum of Understanding. Develop guidelines for local compliance.

EPD
EPD may consult with the District to check local plans for compliance with the District Plans.

Permitting Action No. 3 Use the WW Plan to assign wasteloads

EPD

Confirm wasteloads based on District WW Plan.

Issue permits according to the WW Plan.

Permitting Action No. 4 Allow flexible permitting for jurisdictions that have multiple discharges within the same water body.

EPD

Consider flexible permitting options for jurisdictions that have multiple discharges within the same water body.

Permitting Action No. 5 Establish criteria to eliminate flow limits from NPDES wastewater discharge permits.

Develop criteria for establishing permit conditions that enable elimination of wastewater flow limits.

EPD

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-10

Section 16: Implementation Actions
TABLE 16-6 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration (See Section 13)

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Governance and Collaboration Action No.1 - Continue to use existing tools

Governance and Collaboration Action No.2 - Develop and share model inter-jurisdictional agreements

Develop model agreements.

DISTRICT

Governance and Collaboration Action No.3 Establish a fair share funding formula framework

DISTRICT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

Develop framework.

Undertake reviews per framework, when requested.

Refine framework as needed.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 4 Clearly establish level of service expectations, commitments and appeals process DISTRICT
As needed, provide a forum to develop level of service benchmarks and appeals process.

Governance and Collaboration Action No. 5 Establish a formal system of dispute resolution

DISTRICT

Develop procedures for dispute resolution.

Employ as needed.

Governance and Collaboration Action No. 6 Actively explore the most appropriate role for the state to play in the

District's long-term water resource issues

DISTRICT

Recruit task force from members to explore State role. Make recommendations to State agencies.

STATE AGENCIES

Enact new State role.
Governance and Collaboration Action No. 7 Amend District WW Plan as necessary to allow local innovation and flexibility
DISTRICT

Develop appeals process.

Employ as needed.

Governance and Collaboration Action No. 8 Publicize and reward successful partnerships

Publicize and reward successful partnerships.

DISTRICT

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-11

TABLE 16-7 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Funding (See Section 14)

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Funding Action No. 1 - Fund capital improvements primarily by local participants

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

Continue use of local funding mechanisms.

Modify GEFA funding capacity, criteria, etc.

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GROUPS DISTRICT Use modified GEFA funding mechanisms.
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS DISTRICT

Research and request federal funds.

Funding Action No. 2 - Increase financing opportunities available through GEFA loan funds

GEFA

Review rules and propose revisions to increase gap funding.

Adopt revised rules to increase gap funding.

Funding Action No. 3 - Increase federal funding through a unified funding appeal from the District for federal

assistance

DISTRICT

Organize funding appeal.

Align Georgia congressional delegation with funding appeal.

Submit funding appeal to Congress.

Funding Action No. 4 - Fund District activities

Choose activities to be accomplished by District.

Fund activities.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS DISTRICT

Funding Action No. 5 - Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships

Evaluate applicability of public-private partnerships for upcoming projects.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Use public-private partnerships as applicable.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-12

Section 16: Implementation Actions
TABLE 16-8 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness (See Section 15)

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Education and Public Awareness Element No. 1 Public Awareness Campaign

DISTRICT, BUSINESS SPONSORS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Mass media campaign.

DISTRICT, BUSINESS SPONSORS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, STATE AGENCIES

Alternative media activities.

Continue activities as necessary.

Promotional items.

Ongoing.

Education and Public Awareness Element No. 2 Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups

DISTRICT, CWC, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENCY PARTNERS, STATE AGENCIES

Identify target audiences.

Workshops, briefings.

Information clearinghouse.

Ongoing.

Education and Public Awareness Element No. 3 Primary and Secondary Education

Develop partnerships for educational opportunities. Coordinate use of educational materials.

DISTRICT Ongoing.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-13

Section 16: Implementation Actions
Implementation Costs
Estimated costs for implementing the WW Plan over the next 30 years have been divided into two categories:
Infrastructure-related costs; and Programmatic costs.
Infrastructure costs include outlays for installation of physical facilities and for their operation and maintenance. Programmatic costs result from carrying out action items not related to the construction or operation of infrastructure.
Infrastructure Costs
The estimated infrastructure costs for providing wastewater management services to the District for the 30-year planning period are presented in Table 16-9 (note: projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations contained in this plan). Needed investment in wastewater collection and treatment systems is estimated at $22 billion accumulated over the next 30 years. In addition, on-going operation and maintenance will require the expenditure of $18 billion over the same period.
These costs show the rough magnitude of investment that District members will need to make in providing wastewater management service over the next 30 years, during which the District population is projected to almost double. The magnitude of these costs is a reason for coordinated planning among District members to ensure that their financial resources are well spent. The WW Plan was developed to facilitate coordinated planning to help in minimizing these costs. The wastewater facilities consolidation effort proposed in the WW Plan has been estimated to potentially save $500 million from these costs over the 30-year planning period.
Because infrastructure investments would be necessary under any future scenario, they should not be viewed as costs that result from the WW Plan.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-14

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Table 16-9 Estimated Costs for District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan

Projected Costs by Time Period2

Item

2001 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Total for 30

($ billion)

($ billion)

($billion)

Years

($ billion)

Infrastructure

Treatment Facilities

$ 1

$ 2

$ 3

$ 6

Collection System

$ 5

$ 5

$ 5

$ 15

Combined Sewer System Projects

$ 1

0

0

$ 1

To be

To be

To be

To be

Major Sewer System Rehabilitation determined by determined by determined by determined by

local utilities local utilities local utilities local utilities

Treatment O&M

$ 2

$ 2

$ 3

$ 7

Collection System O&M Programmatic and Policy Measures1

$ 3 <$ 1

$ 4 <$ 1

$ 4 <$ 1

$ 11 <$ 1

Total

$ 12

$ 13

$ 15

$ 40

1 Estimated set-up costs and annual costs are presented in Table 16-10. Total estimated set-up costs are $10.1

million. Total estimated annual costs are $1.1 million/year. 2 These costs are District-wide estimates derived from costs presented in Alternatives Analysis and
Preliminary Management Strategies, JJG, February 13, 2003 and Recommended Solution Implementation Plan, JJG, March 10, 2003. Where costs will be shared by many local jurisdictions, jurisdiction-specific

costs will vary depending on types of customers (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial), system size and

age, and other factors.

All costs are estimated future amounts in 2003 dollars.

Programmatic Costs

To realize some of the goals of the WW Plan, actions need to be taken by the State, the District, and District members. These actions items, or "programmatic measures," are described throughout this document. The costs for the programmatic measures are presented in Table 1610 and are generally orders-of-magnitude less than the infrastructure-related costs. They are, however, costs that result directly from carrying out WW Plan recommendations. Some of the recommended programmatic measures were selected to facilitate the inter-jurisdictional collaboration needed to realize the potential cost savings of facilities consolidation. Others were selected to improve water quality, streamline regulatory processes, or meet other goals of the WW Plan.

Total costs for programmatic changes resulting from the WW Plan have been estimated at approximately $43 million over the 30-year period ($10.1 million in initial set-up costs and $1.1 million/year in annual costs). While this is an approximation, it indicates that one way to justify the programmatic costs is the savings of $500 million in infrastructure costs.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-15

Section 16: Implementation Actions

TABLE 16-10 Estimate of Programmatic Costs for WW Plan

Section 8 Wastewater Collection System Inspection and Maintenance

Section 7 Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Report Section

Action No. 1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Description
Remove heat load from Chattahoochee River Revise temperature standard for Chattahoochee River

Administering Entity
Georgia Power
District

Develop two immediate multi-county projects Increase return from DeKalb County to Chattahoochee River Construct six new WWTPs

Local Utilities Local Utility
Local Utilities

Expand 39 existing WWTPs Upgrade WWTPs to protect water quality Enhance WWTP and pumping station reliability Retire 61 WWTPs
Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier Conduct sewer system surveys Develop computerized maintenance management Establish flow and rainfall monitoring program Develop a hydraulic modeling program Establish a capacity certification program Establish a sewer system inspection program Establish a sewer system maintenance program Develop a grease management program Enhance rapid reporting and response to sewer overflows Develop training for sewer inspection and maintenance Develop a sewer system rehabilitation program Establish District forum for training and information

Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities District Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities District

Estimated Costs 1

Initial Set-up

Annual

Costs already planned and

budgeted by Georgia Power.

Costs for this action item are

included in the overall District cost

to facilitate and support inter-

jurisdictional agreements. See

costs for Section 13 action items 2

thru 8.

These action items involve

primarily infrastructure costs that

will not be increased by the WW

Plan. The facilities consolidation

recommended as part of the WW

Plan has been estimated to reduce

infrastructure costs by

approximately $500 million over

the planning period by taking

advantage of economies of scale.

These action items are an outline of requirements from existing and anticipated regulations. Most costs will be borne by local jurisdictions. The WW Plan does not add new requirements in this regard.
Costs for the District role are included in the overall District cost to facilitate and support interjurisdictional agreements. See costs for Section 13 action items 2 thru 8.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANDATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-16

Section 10 Local Planning
Recommendations

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Section 13 Governance and Interjurisdictional Collaboration

Section 12 Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations

Section 9 Septic Systems and Decentralized Systems

Report Section

Action No. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
1 2

Description
Improve siting, design, and construction
Improve maintenance requirements Manage septic systems
Enact policies for private and decentralized WWTPs
Establish policies concerning connection to public sewers Develop local wastewater management plans Review local plans for consistency with District WW Plan
Develop Regional 404 Permit. Postponed to future Plan updates. Streamline EPD permitting for District projects

Administering Entity
County Boards of Health County Boards of Health County Boards of Health Local Utilities
Local Utilities
Local Utilities Local Utilities/ District
ACOE
EPD

Estimated Costs 1

Initial Set-up

Annual

$7,000,000

$120,000/yr

-

$750,000/yr

Costs for these action items are included in the overall District Cost to facilitate and support interjurisdictional agreements. See costs for Section 14 action items 2 thru 8. No increase in cost over current administrative costs is anticipated

$140,000

-

3

Use the WW Plan to assign EPD

wasteloads

4

Allow flexible permitting EPD

for jurisdictions that have

multiple discharges within

the same body of water

5

Establish criteria to

EPD

eliminate flow limits in

NPDES permits.

1

Continue to use existing

Local Utilities No increase in cost over current

tools

administrative costs is anticipated

2

Develop model inter-

District

$780,000

$180,000/yr

jurisdictional agreements

3

Establish fair share funding District

formula

4

Establish service

District

expectations and appeals

process

5

Establish formal system of District

dispute resolution

6

Explore state role

District

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN- DRAFT DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-17

Section 16: Implementation Actions

Report Section

Action No. 7
8 1

Description
Amend WW Plan as necessary for innovation and flexibility Publicize and reward successful partnerships
Fund capital improvements

Administering Entity
District
District
Local Utilities

Section 14 Funding

2

Increase financing

GEFA

opportunities through GEFA

3

Appeal for increased federal District

funding

4

Fund District activities

District

5

Evaluate opportunities for District

public-private partnerships

1

Public awareness campaign District

2
3
Total Estimated Costs for Recommended Actions

Outreach and education to District

key target groups

Primary and secondary

District

education

Local Jurisdictions, including County Boards of

Health (total for the District)

District

EPD

TOTAL of Local, District, and State

Estimated Costs 1

Initial Set-up

Annual

No increase in cost over current

administrative costs is anticipated.

No increase in cost over current

administrative costs is anticipated.

Costs for these action items are

included in the overall District cost

to facilitate and support inter-

jurisdictional agreements. See

costs for Section 13 action items 2

thru 8.

$2,200,0002

-

(to be spent

over 2003 to

2006 time

period)

$7,000,000
$2,980,000 $140,000
$10,120,000

$870,000/yr
$180,000/yr $0/yr
$1,050,000/yr

1 These costs are District-wide estimates derived from costs presented in Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Management Strategies, JJG, February 13, 2003 and Recommended Solution Implementation Plan, JJG,
March 10, 2003. Where costs will be shared by local jurisdictions, jurisdiction-specific costs will vary
depending on types of customers (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial), system size and age, and other
factors. 2 This cost is to fulfill the requirements of SB 130 for a District-wide education and public awareness campaign
through 2006. It is anticipated that these costs to local jurisdiction will be ongoing through the 30-year
planning period.

Section 15 Education and
Public Awareness

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN- DRAFT DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WW- IMPLEMENTATION.DOC

16-18

Section 17
Assessment of Progress

One of the minimum plan elements stated in Senate Bill 130 is:
"[E]stablishment of short-term and long-term goals to be accomplished by the plan and measures for the assessment of progress in accomplishing such goals and plan."
While Section 16 identified numerous strategies and actions for implementing the Long-term Wastewater management Plan (WW Plan), the District has determined realistic priorities set on balancing funding, practicality, cost-effectiveness, and staff availability.
The District will be able to assess whether the WW Plan is accomplishing the intended goals by articulating key, measurable objectives for the WW Plan; by identifying corresponding performance measures; and by specifying schedules for what the District hopes to achieve for these indicators. The performance measures also offer tools for the EPD to evaluate the District's progress towards achieving its goals and objectives. Lastly, in large efforts that involve many players, such as those outlined in the WW Plan, there can be a lack of accountability for outcomes. For example, implementation could be hampered by neighboring jurisdictions needing joint facilities at different times. This difference in needs may slow or halt progress on inter-jurisdictional agreements. The performance targets contained in this section will hold the District members accountable towards the implementation of the WW Plan.
Plan Reviews and Updates
Annual review of the WW Plan is required, as stated in Senate Bill 130:
"The District shall review ...management plan(s) and (their) implementation annually to determine whether there is a need to update such plan(s) and shall report to the director the progress of implementation of its goals..."
It is also stated that:
"...the District shall prepare updated ...management plan(s) no less frequently than every five years..."

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WW - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC

17-1

Section 17: Assessment of Progress

The goal is to provide policymakers and the public with answers to questions such as: How is the District growing and changing over time? Are we building the projects, developing the services, and implementing the policies that we said we would?
Ensuring Plan Relevancy
All three of the District's long-term Plans (water, wastewater, and watershed) are designed to provide a big-picture context for specific decisions about local and state plans, policies, regulations, permits, investments, and operations. The District's enabling legislation anticipated the need to monitor conditions and the Plans' progress on an ongoing basis, and to make adjustments as better information or new conditions arise. By design the Plans are more detailed in their early years, and more general in their later years. This has been done in recognition of the limitations of current knowledge about future situations, and the inevitability of change. Recommendations for the first 5 years are reasonably firm, whereas those beyond year 20 are expected to be refined several times before they are implemented. Because of this, it is essential than an updated plan be prepared no less frequently than every five years in order to allow for appropriate adjustments.
Setting Common Expectations
Because District members have never had a big-picture plan against which their local plans were evaluated, there is an understandable level of concern about how the District's Plans will be used, and how they will be modified as the State, the District, and local entities gain experience in a new level of regional collaboration.
The purpose of this section is to establish common expectations about annual District Plan reviews and 5-year Plan updates, specifically:
What will be reviewed regularly to ensure that District Plans are relevant and useful; How to ensure local entities that their needs are being met; How special issues will be addressed; and What actions should trigger a Plan review and/or update.
All stakeholders should know that if they may have a concern about a particular element of a Plan, the District would reconsider that issue. Similarly, they should have confidence that the Plans have been crafted to be adaptable, dynamic, and flexible.
Future Planning Work
As with any effort, the preparation of these Plans has been constrained by time and available resources. As a result, there are issues that, in this round of planning, the District has addressed in general, and in less detail than its members would like. For this reason, the Plans contain recommendations for additional investigation over their life. For example, more detailed population forecasts, refinement of demand forecasts, connections between these Plans and land use decisions, and additional exploration of funding options, are topics the District should pursue the next 5 years. Undoubtedly, other issues will emerge that merit in-depth

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WW - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC

17-2

Section 17: Assessment of Progress

consideration in the future. As with the initial efforts, future planning work should be open and inclusive, involving all District members and stakeholders.
Reviewing District and Other Plans
While Senate Bill 130 is specific in requiring the District to review plans annually and update them a minimum of every 5 years, there are additional items to which the District should monitor and respond. For example, the District will need to evaluate the evolution of the other plans and policies that influence implementation of the District Plan. In the case of local, state and federal plans and policies, District reviews should consider the following questions:
To what extent do these reflect District Plan elements? Do they simply acknowledge District Plan elements, or are they consistent with District Plans?
If there are inconsistencies, are they isolated cases, or do they represent District-wide issues or trends?
Do these identify data or issues that were not considered in District Plans, but should be in considered in updates? If so, how substantive a difference is this likely to make District-wide? How urgent is the need to update District Plans to reflect these data or issues?
Do these identify major new data collection needs? If the data were collected, how would they be analyzed and used? When, and by whom?
Recommended Annual Reviews and Updates
Table 17-1 displays key items for the District to consider in its annual reviews and 5-year updates. It is essential that an updated Plan be prepared no less frequently than every 5 years in order to allow for appropriate adjustments.
Performance Measures
While the District could choose to apply performance measurements to all the specific strategies and tasks identified in the previous section, the monitoring and reporting efforts would be exhaustive and could dilute resources needed for implementation. To that end, it is recommended that only the critical actions be monitored and reported to the District by the local jurisdictions.
Table 17-2 identifies critical actions, performance measures, type of report, and year(s) reported. Some actions and deadlines are mandated by Senate Bill 130, or are key to the WW Plan. Those are distinguished in Table 17-2 as follows:
Bold = Actions and deadlines mandated by law Underline =Actions and deadlines that are critical to the WW Plan
At a later date, the District may choose to monitor and require reporting on additional tasks that are also important, but not currently considered critical to implementation of the WW Plan.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WW - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC

17-3

Section 17: Assessment of Progress

TABLE 17-1 Summary of Plan Elements to Be Reviewed and Updated Regularly by the District

Key to Actions: z = Required ~ = Recommended | = Desirable = Automatic Plan Review Trigger

Plan Elements

Annual Update

Review

Update

Five-Year Update

Review

Update

District Plan Recommendations

Non-Capital

z

|

z

~

Capital (including phasing) Education & Public Awareness Programs Local Conservation Pricing Other Local Water Conservation Programs

z

~

z

~

z

z

z

~

z

~

District Actions

z

z

EPD Actions

|

z

Related MNGWPD and State Plans (Water Supply/

|

Long-term Wastewater/ Stormwater, etc)

z

~

Local Septic System Programs

|

z

z

Local Sewer System Operation and Maintenance

|

Programs

New Population and Demand Forecasts

z

Funding Trends

z

z

z

z

z

Special Triggers for Plan Reviews Note: Any of these actions should trigger an automatic review of their implications for District Plans, and

needed Plan modifications. Additionally, the status of any of these pending actions should be monitored

routinely.

EPD Guidance on ACF and ACT Basins Modified



|

z

z

EPD Permit Action on Water Withdrawal, Reservoir



|

z

z

or Discharge (Issued/Denied/Modified)

Court Rulings on General Standards or Districtspecific cases (e.g. discharges to Lake Lanier)



|

z

z

New RDC or State Population Forecasts Adopted



|

z

z

Legislative Action on District Recommendations



~

z

z

Local Utility Master Plan Update Adopted



|

z

z

Major Policy Action by District Board



|

z

z

Action on Reallocation of Lakes Lanier & Allatoona



|

z

z

Action on Removal of Heat Load from Chattahoochee



|

z

z

River

New Reservoir Permit Actions



|

z

z

Finalization of EPA CMOM Regulations



~

z

z

Major change in DHR regulations on Septic Systems



~

z

z

Major change in EPD Policies or Regulations



~

z

z

Major change in GEFA or Federal Funding Levels or



|

z

z

Policies

Topics to Address for Future Plans

Refined Population Forecasts (and Forecast Methodology)

z

z

Plan's Relationship to Land Use (and Transportation) Policies District and Facility Funding Options District Structure and Membership

~

~

~

~

~

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WW - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC

17-4

Section 17: Assessment of Progress

TABLE 17-2 Summary of Critical Performance Measures

Action

Performance Measures

Type of Report

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Development of local wastewater management plans consistent with District Plan

Development of local plan with required planning elements

Complete/incomplete check list

Assess existing infrastructure data

Complete/incomplete

Sewer system inspection and Identify infrastructure data needs

Complete/incomplete

maintenance

Collect infrastructure data

Annual progress report

Septic system management Public education program

Develop policies for connecting to public sewer

Complete/incomplete

Develop tools and distribute materials Annual progress report

Measure success

Analysis report

COUNTY BOARDS OF HEALTH

Septic systems inspection and maintenance

Issue septic pumping requirements Impose supplemental requirements to DHR Manual Improve oversight of design, siting, and construction Create database of septic system locations and maintenance

Complete/incomplete Complete/incomplete Complete/incomplete Annual progress report

GEFA

Modify GEFA funding capacity, criteria, etc.

Status of GEFA modifications

Annual progress report Complete/incomplete

EPD

Implementation of streamlined

wastewater discharge

Implement recommended elements

permitting

Annual progress report

ACOE

Streamline Section 404 Permit Process

Establish a new Regional Permit

Complete/incomplete

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Remove heat load from Chattahoochee River

Progress report to the EPD

Annual progress report

DISTRICT

Support interjurisdictional agreements

Develop fair share funding formula framework Develop level of service, dispute resolution, and appeals process

Annual progress report Complete/incomplete Annual progress report Complete/incomplete

Year(s) Reported
As needed to support projects Year 2 Year 2 Annually starting in Year 3 Year 2 Each year Each year, after Year 2
Year 1 Year 2
Years 2 5
Years 2 5
Each year Each year after Year 2
Years 1, 2
Year 5
Year 1 and Year 5
Each year Year 2 Each year Year 2

Bold = Actions and deadlines mandated by law; Underline =Actions and deadlines that are critical to the Plan

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WW - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC

17-5

Section 17: Assessment of Progress
Type of Reports
The reporting type depends on the task and performance measure being monitored. The following list identifies the various reporting types:
Complete/incomplete: Responsible entity will state that the performance measure is complete or incomplete.
Analysis Report: Responsible entity will submit a report summarizing analysis of performance measure to determine task progress.
Annual Progress Report: Responsible entity will submit a report stating the actions, progress, and status of the performance measure.
Responsibilities
Implementation monitoring will provide information on the specific steps that the District, EPD, agencies, and local jurisdictions are taking to implement the WW Plan. Local governments, and regional and state agencies, all play important roles in implementing the WW Plan. Tracking implementation activities is a critical aspect of monitoring. Table 17-2 lists the responsible entity for each reporting action.
Coordinating regional, county, and local monitoring efforts will minimize data collection and management, and will avoid duplication of effort. Reports will be prepared annually by the District and will be submitted to the EPD to assess progress in achieving its targets.
Conclusions
While the performance will be reported annually by the responsible entities, the final measure of implementation success will be the demonstrable trends of:
Development of local wastewater plans that are consistent with the WW Plan; Planned indirect potable reuse of reclaimed water; Creation of the database and assembly of information on septic tank location, inspection,
and permitting; Implementation of routine pumping of septic tanks; Collection of better data on infrastructure; Reduced number and volume of SSOs in the District; Heightened public awareness and community support through an effective public
education and awareness program; Availability of adequate funding of infrastructure intended to meet the growth needs of
metropolitan North Georgia; Development and use of streamlined permitting process; and Progress on improving surface water quality.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WW - ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC

17-6

Appendix A
Index

Index to Locations in the Report Addressing Requirements for the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan

Requirement for Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan

Location in Report

Requirements in Senate Bill 130 12-5-583 (b) (1) Identification of anticipated wastewater treatment capacity requirements over the life of the plan. 12-5-583 (b) (2) Recommended future and expansions of existing wastewater treatment facilities.
12-5-583 (b) (3) Measures to maximize efficiency through multijurisdictional approaches to avoid duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs
12-5-583 (b) (4) A timetable for phasing out existing plants if appropriate; upgrading or expanding existing plants; and construction of new plants 12-5-583 (b) (5) An inspection and maintenance program for sewer collection systems with timetables for any necessary upgrades or replacement of substandard segments of such systems 12-5-583 (b) (6) An inspection and maintenance program for septic tanks in critical areas and recommendations for effective management of decentralized wastewater system
12-5-583 (b) (7) Identification of appropriate opportunities for gray-water reuse or the implementation of other technologies to increase wastewater treatment capacity or efficiency
12-5-583 (b) (8) Education and public awareness measures regarding wastewater management
12-5-583 (b) (9) Establishment of short-term and long-term goals to be accomplished by the plan and measures for the assessment of progress in accomplishing such goals and plan
Requirements in EPD's Water Planning Standards for Wastewater Plan

Section 3 Projected Conditions
Appendix B County Level Summaries Section 13 Governance and Interjurisdictional Collaboration and Appendix B County Level Summaries Appendix B County Level Summaries
Section 8 Sewer System Inspection and Maintenance
Section 9 Septic Systems
Section 2 Existing Wastewater Management Conditions and Section 7 Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities Section 15 Education and Public Awareness Sections 16 Implementation Actions and Section 17 Measures for Assessment of Progress

1. The plan shall include items 1-9 in OCGA 12-5-583.
2. The plan shall, at a minimum, be consistent with all applicable federal and state laws and rules.

See above Section 6 Plan Overview

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

A-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX A WW - INDEX.DOC

Appendix A - lndex

Requirement for Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan

Location in Report

3. The plan shall identify various wastewater treatment alternatives, including direct and indirect effluent reuse and opportunities for pollution prevention. The capital and operations costs for the entire District for each alternative shall be identified along with the environmental benefits/impacts of each alternative.
4. The plan shall include a general cost schedule for the selected wastewater treatment option including identification of funding sources and mechanisms.
5. The plan shall include a provision that at least ten percent of treated wastewater within the District shall be directly reused (for potable or nonpotable purposes) by the year 2025.
6. The plan shall be consistent with the watershed management plan and the water supply/water conservation plan.
7. The planning horizon shall be at least twenty years.
8. The plan shall develop and analyze options to minimize future interbasin transfers.

Section 5 Alternative Development and Evaluation
Section 14 Funding
Section 7 Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities Section 1 - Introduction Section 3 Projected Conditions Section 7 Planned Wastewater Treatment Facilities

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

A-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX A WW - INDEX.DOC

Appendix B
County Level Summaries Wastewater Implementation Plan
District-wide Actions for All Jurisdictions
All jurisdictions in the 16-county District will have a direct hand in the implementation and success of the Longterm Wastewater Management Plan. Some actions are common to all jurisdictions. These actions are just as critical as the actions unique to each jurisdiction that are listed on the following pages.
The following actions are recommended for all jurisdictions. Local consistency with these District-wide recommendations will be evaluated by the District and the EPD in permit reviews.
Review present local wastewater management plans to determine if they are consistent with the WW Plan. If revisions are needed, update the local plans as needed to support proposed improvements. See "Local Planning Recommendations" in Section 10 and "Plan Flexibility" in Section 11.
Conduct environmental justice analyses as appropriate, as part of local wastewater management plans. Implement septic system management recommendations as outlined under "Septic Systems and
Decentralized Systems" in Section 9. Implement actions for collection system maintenance and management as detailed under "Wastewater
Collection System Inspection and Maintenance Program" in Section 8. Implement actions for public education and awareness as outlined in Section 15 under "Education and
Public Awareness Plan." Evaluate participation with private firms and public agencies to construct/operate/decommission interim
WWTPs, as appropriate. Support the District in preparation of annual reports to the EPD. Track wastewater flows and adjust treatment plant expansion plans accordingly. Continue to upgrade treatment levels as necessary to meet effluent limitations for water quality protection.
County Lists of Specific Implementation Actions
The remainder of Appendix B details the capital projects specific to each county as well as the non-capital programs, beyond those listed above, that are most pertinent to each county.
Only expansion projects are included in Appendix B. Projects to upgrade the level of treatment will be required, also, but are not shown. The upgrades cannot be scheduled, because the requirements for upgrades come from regulatory actions that are still in progress.
Projects shown in the "By 2005" timeframe are already underway. The new treatment capacity indicates the capacity needed after 2005 when the projects that are underway are completed.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Bartow County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources Bartow County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 36 36 18

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Adairsville North and Cartersville WPCPs and building a new, regional facility in west Bartow County. Many existing smaller facilities must be phased-out. Growth over the years will enlarge the service areas of the major facilities, leading to their expansion and the decommissioning of the existing smaller facilities.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

A planning study should be conducted by Bartow County and other jurisdictions, as needed, to decide among the options for the long-term plan for the Bartow Southeast WWTP:

Option 1 Use the Bartow Southeast WWTP as an interim facility, decommissioning it around 2020, or when the bonds for the facility are retired. The wastewater in the area would be pumped to the City of Cartersville's WWTP for treatment.
Option 2 Develop the Bartow Southeast WWTP as a regional facility to serve the Pumpkinvine and/or Raccoon Creek watersheds in Paulding and Bartow Counties. Paulding County needs to be involved in the planning study for this option.
Option 3 Develop the Bartow Southeast WWTP to serve nearly the entire area of Bartow County south of the Etowah River.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Bartow County.
Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Bartow County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Develop multi-jurisdiction agreements among the county and cities.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Bartow County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

by 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities
Adairsville North WPCP Adairsville South WPCP

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project

Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

No expansions proposed 1.0

Expand

1.0

2.0

No expansions proposed

0.5

Decommission, Pump to Adairsville North WPCP

-

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project

Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

No expansions proposed

2.0

No expansions proposed

2.0

-

-

-

-

Cartersville WPCP2 No expansions proposed

New West Bartow WWTP Emerson Pond WWTP Bartow Southeast WWTP Bartow Two Run WWTP
White WPCP

New facility not constructed by 2005 No expansions proposed
Conduct Planning Study
No expansions proposed Decommission, Flow to Cartersville WPCP

15.0

Expand

5.0

20.0

No expansions proposed

-

New facility not constructed by 2010

-

New

2.0

0.3

Implement selected option

-

Implement selected option

0.1

0.1

No expansions proposed

0.1

Decommission, Flow to New West Bartow WWTP

-

-

20.0

Expand

10.01

32.01

2.0

-

Implement selected option

-

-

-

-

-

Industrial WWTPs No expansions proposed 2.0

No expansions proposed

2.0

No expansions proposed

2.0

No expansions proposed

2.0

Demand

Projections

and

19.0

18 in Bartow

24.1

25 in Bartow

26.0

36 in Bartow

36.0

Total Capacity

(MGD-MMF)

Notes:

(1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local wastewater management planning.

(2) Expansion requirements illustrate Option 1 as described on previous page. However, the long-term option should be based on study.

(3) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Cherokee County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Cherokee County To Cobb County From North Fulton (Etowah Basin) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 25 -1 +3 27 16

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Canton WPCP, Cherokee Fitzgerald Creek WWTP, Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP, and building a new, regional facility in northeast Cherokee County. Existing smaller facilities will be phased-out.

Treatment for wastewater produced in the Etowah Basin portions of Forsyth and Fulton Counties may be provided within Cherokee County to effect regionalization. Another potential regional project is collaboration with communities north of the county that are outside the District. Any treatment capacity provided for communities outside the District would need to be added to the capacity shown in the Plan.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Cherokee County.
Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Cherokee County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Participate in joint planning study with Forsyth County and affected cities to develop a regional approach to wastewater management for the Upper Etowah Basin.
Participate in joint planning study after 2010 with Cobb and Fulton Counties and affected cities to develop a regional approach to wastewater management for the Etowah-basin area of Fulton County.
Develop multi-jurisdiction agreements among Cherokee, Forsyth, and Fulton Counties, as needed, to construct new regional WWTP and major interceptor projects.
Comply with treatment standard for indirect potable reuse for facilities in the Lake Allatoona watershed, when standards are issued by the EPD.

Basin Considerations
Treated flow will be discharged to surface water bodies in the Etowah Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Cherokee County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities
Woodstock WPCP
Cherokee Fitzgerald Creek LAS Cherokee Rose Creek WRF
Canton WPCP

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Expand

1.0

1.5

Expand

1.7

2.0

Expand

1.0

5.0

Expand

2.1

4.0

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Expand

1.0

2.5

Expand

3.0

5.0

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project End of

Project

Capacity Period

Project

Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

No expansions proposed

2.5

Decommission, Flow to Cobb County

-

Expand

5.0

10.0

Expand

2.0

6.0

Expand

3.01,2

22.01,2

Expand

5.01,2

27.01,2

New Cherokee Northeast Etowah WWTP

New facility not constructed by 2005

-

New facility not constructed by 2010

-

New

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

12.5

11 in Cherokee

23.5

17 in Cherokee 2 in Fulton 19 Total

24.5

25 in Cherokee -1 to Cobb 3 in Fulton 27 Total

27.0

Notes:

(1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local wastewater management planning.

(2) Capacity shown is for area within District. It will be larger, if service is provided to areas outside the District through a regional project.

(3) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Clayton County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Clayton County To Atlanta Fulton To DeKalb County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 43 -2 -4 37 4

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Clayton Northeast and/or Shoal Creek WRPs.

Because all the present industrial WWTPs are for the minerals industry, no change is anticipated. New industrial WWTPs may be added.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Clayton County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Clayton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Continue agreements with DeKalb County and City of Atlanta. Participate in multi-jurisdictional arrangements with DeKalb County for capacity in the DeKalb Polebridge
WPCP.

Basin Considerations
The Clayton Northeast WRP will continue to discharge in the Ocmulgee River Basin. The Clayton WB Casey WRP will discharge to the land application/wetlands treatment system, also in the Ocmulgee River Basin. The Clayton Shoal Creek WRP will continue to land apply its effluent, employ urban water reuse, and/or use a wetlands treatment system located in the Flint Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Clayton County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Capacity at

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity

Project

End of

Project Capacity at

Project End of

Project at End of

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity End of Period Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-MMF) Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Facilities

MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

Clayton RL Jackson Decommission, Flow to

WRF

Clayton WB Casey WRF

-

-

-

-

Clayton WB Casey WRF

Expand

8.5

24.0 No expansions proposed 24.0

No expansions proposed 24.0 No expansions proposed 24.0

Clayton Shoal Creek WRF

Expand

2.2

4.4 No expansions proposed

4.4

No expansions proposed

4.4

No expansions proposed 4.4

Clayton Northeast WRF

No expansions proposed

6.0

Expand

4.0

10.0

No expansions proposed 10.0 No expansions proposed 10.0

Demand Projections

36 in Clayton

39 in Clayton

43 in Clayton

and Total Capacity

34.4

-2 to Fulton -2 to DeKalb

38.4

-2 to Fulton -3 to DeKalb

38.4

-2 to Fulton -4 to DeKalb

38.4

(MGD-MMF)

32 Total

34 Total

37 Total

Notes:

(1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Cobb County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Cobb County To North Fulton (Willeo Creek Watershed) From North Fulton (Etowah Basin) From Cherokee County (Woodstock) From Fulton Atlanta (Sandy Springs) From Paulding County (Chattahoochee Basin) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 100 -6 +4 +1 +14 +10 123 24

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF, Cobb South Cobb WRF, and Cobb RL Sutton WRF. Treatment may be provided for wastewater from portions of North Fulton and Cherokee Counties in the Etowah Basin. Treatment may also be provided for wastewater from Paulding County in the Chattahoochee Basin (Sweetwater Creek Watershed). Joint planning studies will determine the best arrangements for treatment of wastewater from North Fulton, Cherokee, and Paulding Counties. Wastewater from the Sandy Springs area in Fulton Atlanta will continue to be treated, and the flow will increase sufficiently, so that the City of Atlanta does not need to expand its WWTPs before 2030.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. The private WWTP will be phased out.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Cobb County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Cobb County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Participate in joint planning study after 2010 with Fulton and Cherokee Counties to develop a regional approach to wastewater management for the portion of Fulton County in the Etowah Basin.
Participate in joint planning study with Douglas and Paulding Counties to develop a regional approach to wastewater management for the portion of Paulding County in the Chattahoochee Basin.
Develop multi-jurisdiction agreements with Fulton and/or Paulding Counties, as needed, to implement regional approach.
Comply with treatment standards for indirect potable reuse for Cobb Noonday WWTP and Cobb Northwest Cobb WWTP, when the standards are issued by EPD.

Basin Considerations
The Cobb Noonday Creek and Cobb Northwest WRFs will continue to discharge to the Etowah Basin, and the Cobb RL Sutton and Cobb South Cobb WRFs will continue to discharge to the Chattahoochee River. Wastewater from within Cobb County will continue to be collected according to natural drainage basin patterns for these two major basins.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-8

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Cobb County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities Cobb Noonday WRF

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Expand

8

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

20

No expansions proposed

20

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

No expansions proposed

Plant Capacity at End of
Period (MGDMMF)
20

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

No expansions proposed

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
201

Cobb Northwest Cobb WRF

No expansions proposed

8

Expand

4

12

No expansions proposed

12

No expansions proposed

12

Cobb RL Sutton WRF Expand

10

50

No expansions proposed

50

Revise Permit

10

60

No expansions proposed

601

Cobb South Cobb WRF

No expansions proposed

40

No expansions proposed

40

No expansions proposed

40

Expand

10

50

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

78 in Cobb

118

10 in Fulton

122

88 Total

100 in Cobb

86 in Cobb

12 in Fulton

11 in Fulton

132

10 in Paulding

142

97 Total

1 in Cherokee

123 Total

Notes:

(1) At Cobb Noonday Creek WRF, additional capacity is installed in advance of the projected need. At Cobb RL Sutton WRF there is 17 MGD of capacity installed in advance of the projected need.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

B-9

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Coweta County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Coweta County To Fayette County (Line Creek Watershed) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 22 -3 19 15

Capital Projects
Additional capacity will be provided by installing a new WWTP in south Coweta County and by expanding the Newnan Wahoo Creek and Newnan Mineral Springs WPCPs and using a new LAS site to manage the effluent from these facilities in excess of the present discharge permits. The new WWTP may be owned by the County, the City of Newnan, another local public utility, or by a newly formed joint authority, as determined in the joint planning study. Wastewater from the Grantville area will be treated in a new, regional facility being planned in Meriwether County. Wastewater from the Line Creek Watershed will be managed through a regional project with Peachtree City.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Coweta County.
Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Coweta County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Undertake a joint planning study comprised of the county and local cities to develop a comprehensive, strategic plan for managing wastewater. The study should determine how to best utilize existing and proposed city and county treatment facilities to serve the whole area.
Develop multi-jurisdiction agreements among the county and cities, as needed. Participate in joint planning study with Fayette County and Peachtree City to develop a regional plan for
managing wastewater in the Line Creek Watershed. Develop multi-jurisdictional agreements between the county, City of Senoia, Fayette County and Peachtree
City, as needed, for regional plan.

Basin Considerations
Some flows in to the Chattahoochee Basin could be land applied after treatment. Surface water discharge can be considered for these flows. Flow from the new South Coweta WWTP will be discharged in the Flint Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-10

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Coweta County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type (MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Coweta Arnco WPCP No expansions proposed

0.1

No expansions proposed

0.1

No expansions proposed 0.1 Decommission, if study

Coweta Sergeant WPCP

determines benefit 2

No expansions proposed

0.1

No expansions proposed

0.1 No expansions proposed 0.1

-

Newnan Mineral Springs WPCP Newnan Wahoo Ck WPCP

No expansions proposed No expansions proposed

0.8 3.0

Expand, new flow to LAS

4.0

7.8

Expand

1.2

9.0

Expand

1.0

10.0

Coweta Shenandoah WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.9

Expand

0.9

Decommission, Flow to 1.8 No expansions proposed 1.8 New Southeast Coweta
WWTP

-

Senoia LAS

No expansions proposed

0.1

Expand

0.4

0.5

No expansions proposed

0.5

Decommission, Flow to Peachtree City facilities

-

New Southeast Coweta WWTP

New facility not constructed by 2005

-

New

2.0

2.0 No expansions proposed 2.0

Expand

5.0

7.0

Grantville Ponds

Expand pond No. 1

0.1

Decommission, flow to

0.3

No expansions proposed

0.3 regional project in

2.0

Meriwether County

No change

2.0

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

16 in Coweta

22 in Coweta

5.3

11 in Coweta

12.6

-2 to Fayette

15.5

-3 to Fayette

19.0

14 Total

19 Total

Notes:

(1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

(2) Benefits of decommissioning these facilities will be investigated by this time period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-11

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

DeKalb County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
DeKalb County To North Fulton County (Ball Mill Creek Watershed) To Fulton Atlanta To Gwinnett County From Gwinnett County From Henry County From Rockdale County From Clayton County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 139 -2 -62 -1 +5 +2 +8 +4 93 73

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided at the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP, which is proposed to be a regional facility serving parts of five counties. Wastewater will be received from Gwinnett, Henry, Clayton, and south Rockdale counties, in addition to the wastewater produced in the Ocmulgee Basin of DeKalb County. Wastewater produced in DeKalb County will continue to be treated by the City of Atlanta at the RM Clayton and Intrenchment Creek WRCs and by Fulton County.

Industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for DeKalb County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to DeKalb County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.
Maintain existing agreements with Fulton County and with the City of Atlanta for treating wastewater at the RM Clayton and Intrenchment Creek WRCs.
Continue/expand agreements to receive wastewater from Clayton, Gwinnett, Henry, and Rockdale Counties.
Basin Considerations
The treated flow from the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP will be discharged to two rivers. Flow should be returned to the Chattahoochee River in an amount approximately equal to the increase above today's water use in the Ocmulgee-basin portion of the county. The remainder will continue to be discharged to the South River. Returning flow to the Chattahoochee River is required, because DeKalb County withdraws all its drinking water from this basin, even though most of the county is in the Ocmulgee Basin. Returning flow to the Chattahoochee River may take the form of a discharge to the river or water reclamation that reduces the county's withdrawal from the river.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-12

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

DeKalb County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project End of

Project at End of

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Facilities

MMF) MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

DeKalb Polebridge WPCP

No expansions proposed

20

Expand

Return flow to

Decommission,

66

86

Chattahoochee -

86

Expand

7

93

DeKalb Snapfinger WPCP

No expansions proposed

36

maintain capacity, or

River

expand

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

120 in DeKalb

-55 to Fulton

56

4 in Gwinnett 2 in Clayton

2 in Rockdale

73 Total

129 in DeKalb

139 in DeKalb

-60 to Fulton

-64 to Fulton

4 in Gwinnett

4 in Gwinnett

86

5 in Rockdale

86

8 in Rockdale

93

3 in Clayton

4 in Clayton

1 Henry

2 in Henry

77 Total

93 Total

Notes:

(1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-13

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Douglas County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources Douglas County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 18 18 13

Capital Projects
Over the next 30 years, wastewater treatment in Douglas County will be consolidated at two facilities. These will be expanded and the other existing facilities will be phased-out, as growth enlarges the service areas of the two major facilities.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Douglas County.
Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Douglas County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Participate in joint planning study with Cobb and Paulding Counties to develop a regional approach to
wastewater management for the portion of Paulding County in the Chattahoochee Basin.
Develop multi-jurisdiction agreement with Paulding County, as needed.
Basin Considerations
Treated flow will be discharged to surface water bodies in the Chattahoochee Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-14

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Douglas County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Capacity

Capacity at

Project

End of

Project End of

Project at End of

Project

End of

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD-

(MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Facilities

MMF)

MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

Douglas Beaver Estates WWTP

No expansions proposed

0.1

Douglas Rebel Trails WWTP Douglasville Southside WWTP

No expansions proposed No expansions proposed

0.0 Decommission, Flow to Douglas South Central
3.2 UWRF

-

-

-

Douglas St. Andrews LAS

No expansions proposed

0.0

Douglas South Central UWRF

No expansions proposed

0.5

Expand

5.5

6.0

Expand

3.0

9.0

Expand

3.0

12.0

Douglasville Northside WWTP

No expansions proposed

Decommission, Flow to 0.6 Douglasville Sweetwater
Creek WWTP

-

-

-

Douglasville

Sweetwater Creek

Expand

1.5

4.5

No expansions proposed

4.5

Expand

1.5

6.0 No expansions proposed

6.0

WWTP

Villa Rica North WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.5

No expansions proposed

Decommission, Flow to 0.5 No expansions proposed 0.5 Douglasville Sweetwater
Creek WWTP

-

Demand Projections

and Total Capacity

9.4

10 in Douglas

11.0

13 in Douglas

15.5

18 in Douglas

18.0

(MGD-MMF)

Notes:

(1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-15

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Fayette County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Fayette County From Coweta County (Line Creek Watershed) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 21 +3 24 14

Capital Projects
Over the next 30 years, wastewater treatment in Fayette County will be consolidated at three existing facilities, two in Peachtree City and one in Fayetteville. The facilities in Peachtree City will transition into regional plants, adding service for the Line Creek watershed of Coweta County. One existing facility in Peachtree City will be phased-out to consolidate treatment at the City's other two facilities.

Because all the present industrial WWTPs are for the minerals industry, no change is anticipated. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Fayette County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Fayette County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.
Evaluate in a joint local wastewater management plan participation between the City of Senoia, Coweta County, cities within Fayette County, and Fayette County for regional treatment and/or conveyance projects.
Develop multi-jurisdictional agreements as needed for the regional projects.

Basin Considerations
Treated flow will be discharged to surface water bodies in the Flint Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-16

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Fayette County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Capacity at

Capacity at

Project End of

Project

End of

Project End of

Project End of

Project

Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD-

(MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD- Type (MGD- (MGD-

Facilities

MMF) MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

Peachtree City Flat Creek WPCP

Decommission, Flow to Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP

-

Decommissioned

-

Decommissioned

-

Decommissioned

-

Peachtree City Line Creek WPCP

No expansions proposed

2.0

No expansions proposed

2.0

Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP

Expand

2.0

4.0

No expansions proposed

4.0

Expand

Expand

8.01

19.01

5.01

24.01

Fayetteville

Whitewater Creek

No expansions proposed

3.8

Expand

1.2

5.0

Expand

Expand

WPCP

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

17 in Fayette

21 in Fayette

9.8

11 in Fayette

11.0

2 in Coweta

19.0

3 in Coweta

24.0

19 Total

24 Total

Notes:

(1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local wastewater management planning.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-17

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Forsyth County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Forsyth County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 46 46 38

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Bethelview Road WPCP and building two new, regional facilitiesone in southeast Forsyth County and the other in the headwaters area of Lake Lanier. The County and the City of Cumming will need to determine a distribution of the new capacity between the facilities and can share capacity at each.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Forsyth County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Forsyth County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Conduct joint planning study comprised of Forsyth County and City of Cumming to develop a comprehensive, strategic plan for managing wastewater.
Develop multi-jurisdiction agreement, if needed, between Forsyth County and City of Cumming for regional development of new WWTPs and conveyance projects and for division of discharge allocation for Lake Lanier.
Make provisions to return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier, the source of the area's drinking water. Comply with treatment standards for indirect potable reuse for facilities discharging to Lake Lanier, when
standards are issued by EPD.
Basin Considerations
By 2030, the Bethelview Road WPCP will become a reclaimed water production facility and return flow to Lake Lanier, the area's source water. A new WWTP in the Lake Lanier headwaters will also return flow to the lake. Treated flow from the New South Forsyth WWTP / Fowler Reuse System will be discharged into the Chattahoochee River.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-18

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Forsyth County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities Bethelview Road WPCP New Forsyth/ Cumming Lake Lanier WWTP New South Forsyth WWTP / Forsyth Co. Reuse System

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Expand

6.0

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
8.0

New facility not constructed by 2005

-

New, No Discharge

1.5

1.5

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

No expansions proposed

New, Discharge to 4.0 Lake Lanier
Expand, Discharge to 4.5
River

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
12.01
6.0

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type (MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Expand

10.01

28.01

Expand, Discharge
to Lake Lanier

18.01

46.01

Expand

Expand

Private WRFs

Expand

0.2

2.4

Expand

0.2

2.6

No expansions proposed 2.6

Decommission

-

Demand Projections

and Total Capacity

11.9

16 in Forsyth

20.6

30 in Forsyth

30.6

46 in Forsyth

46.0

(MGD-MMF)

Notes:

(1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local wastewater management planning, based on growth in respective service areas.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-19

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Fulton County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

North Fulton County Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
North Fulton County To Cherokee County (Etowah Basin) To Cobb County (Etowah Basin) From DeKalb County (Ball Mill Creek Watershed) From Cobb County (Willeo Creek Watershed) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 57 -3 -4 +2 +6 58 34

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Big Creek and/or Johns Creek WRFs. The Cauley Creek WRF will be phased-out. Existing arrangements to receive wastewater from DeKalb and Cobb Counties will be continued. Flow equal to the amount of wastewater produced in the Etowah-Basin area will be discharged to Cherokee and/or Cobb Counties for treatment at their facilities located in this basin. The private WWTP in the County will be phased-out.
Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to North Fulton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Continue existing agreement to receive wastewater from DeKalb and Cobb Counties. Participate in joint planning study with Cherokee and Forsyth Counties and affected cities to develop a
regional approach to wastewater management for the Upper Etowah Basin. Develop multi-jurisdiction agreement, as needed, with Cherokee and/or Cobb Counties for them to receive
wastewater generated in Fulton Etowah Basin. Comply with treatment standards for indirect potable reuse at all WRFs, when the standards are issued by
EPD.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-20

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Atlanta-Fulton Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Atlanta Fulton To Cobb County (Sandy Springs) From DeKalb County From Clayton County From South Fulton County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 165 -14 +62 +2 +5 220 0

Capital Projects
The City of Atlanta will use the current design capacity at its WRCs to treat wastewater flows through 2030. Wastewater may need to be pumped within the city to fully utilize each WRC. It will continue to receive wastewater for treatment from DeKalb, Clayton and South Fulton counties. The amount of flow transferred to Cobb County may need to increase modestly, so that the City of Atlanta does not need to expand its WRCs. The City of Atlanta needs to implement the control program for the combined sewer system. We have not allocated any treatment capacity at the WRCs for the combined sewer flow, because separate treatment facility(ies) are being considered.
Industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added.
Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Atlanta-Fulton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B

Continue existing agreements to receive wastewater from DeKalb, Clayton and South Fulton Counties.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-21

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

South Fulton County Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
South Fulton County To Atlanta Fulton Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 27 -5 22 0

Capital Projects
The Fulton Camp Creek WRF will continue at its current capacity through 2030. Industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. The public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis in fringe areas of the county, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facility.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Atlanta-Fulton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Continue agreements between county and cities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Fulton County.
Basin Considerations for Fulton County
Treated flow from WWTPs will be discharged to the Chattahoochee River. The Atlanta South River WRC will continue to pump its effluent out of the Ocmulgee Basin to the Chattahoochee River. Flow equal to the amount of wastewater produced in the Etowah Basin portion of the county must be discharged in that basin. The City of Atlanta combined sewer overflow and treatment facilities will continue to discharge to the Chattahoochee or Ocmulgee Basin, according to the drainage areas they serve.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-22

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Fulton County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at End of
Period (MGDMMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

MMF) MMF)

Proposed Projects

Plant

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-MMF)

Capacity at End of Period (MGD-MMF)

Fulton Big Creek WRF

No expansions proposed

24

No expansions proposed

24

Expand

19

43

No expansions proposed

43

Fulton Johns Creek WRF

No expansions proposed

7

Expand

15

15 No expansions proposed 15

No expansions proposed

15

Cauley Creek Reuse No expansions proposed 2.5

Expand

2.5

5

No expansions proposed

5

Decommission, Flow to Fulton Johns Creek WRF

-

Fulton Little River WRF

No expansions proposed

1.2

Expand

1.4

2.6

Decommission, Flow to Cherokee/Cobb Counties

-

-

Atlanta Combined Sewer System Improvements

No expansions proposed

-

Install Improvements

-

-

No expansions proposed

-

No expansions proposed

-

Atlanta RM Clayton WRC

Revise Permit

14

110 Revise Permit 12

122 No expansions proposed 122

No expansions proposed

122

Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC

No expansions proposed

40 Revise Permit

4

44 No expansions proposed 44

No expansions proposed

44

Atlanta South River WRC

No expansions proposed

48 Revise Permit

6

54 No expansions proposed 54

No expansions proposed

54

Fulton Camp Creek WRF

Expand

11

24

No expansions proposed

24 No expansions proposed 24

No expansions proposed

241

Fulton Little Bear Creek WRF

No expansions proposed

0.1

Decommission, Flow to Fulton Camp Creek WRF

-

-

-

Palmetto WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.6

Decommission, Flow to Fairburn LAS

-

-

-

Union City WWTP(3)

New

2.0

2

No expansions proposed

2

No expansions proposed

2

Decommission. Flow to Fulton Camp Creek WRF

Fairburn LAS

New

1

1

Expand

1

2

No expansions proposed

2

Decommission, Flow to Fulton Camp Creek WRF

-

213 in Fulton

226 in Fulton

249 in Fulton

Demand Projections

-8 to Cobb

-10 to Cobb

-12 to Cobb

and Total Capacity

260.4

2 in Clayton 2 in Forsyth

292.6

-2 to Cherokee 2 in Clayton

309

-3 to Cherokee 2 in Clayton

302

(MGD-MMF)

55 in DeKalb

60 in DeKalb

64 in DeKalb

264 Total

276 Total

300 Total

Notes:

(1) At Fulton County Camp Creek WRF, additional capacity is installed in advance of the projected need.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

(3) Planning for this facility must be coordinated into the overall county wastewater management plan.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-23

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Gwinnett County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Gwinnett County To DeKalb County From DeKalb County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 151 -5 +1 147 56

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Gwinnett Crooked Creek, Jackson Creek, and Yellow River WRFs. The other facilities will be phased-out, as flows are consolidated to the major plants. Wastewater will continue to be discharged to DeKalb County for treatment at the DeKalb Polebridge Creek WPCP.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Gwinnett County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Gwinnett County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B
.
Continue existing agreements to discharge wastewater to DeKalb Polebridge WPCP. Make provisions to return reclaimed water from the Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC (40 MGD) and, if
required by EPD, the Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF to Lake Lanier. Comply with treatment standards for indirect potable reuse for the Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC and, if
necessary, the Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF, when the standards are issued by the EPD. Participate in a joint study between the City of Buford and Gwinnett County to plan facility
decommissioning.
Basin Considerations
Discharge of reclaimed water to the Yellow River will remain at 22 MGD as is presently permitted.
Reclaimed water produced by Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC (40 MGD) will be returned to Lake Lanier per NPDES permit GA0038130. The reclaimed water that will be produced at the new Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF may be discharged to the Chattahoochee River or Lake Lanier subject to the EPD approvals and permits. The additional 9 MGD at the Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF is to be discharged into the river.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-24

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Gwinnett County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity at

Project

End of

Project End of

Project End of

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD-

(MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type (MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Facilities

MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

Buford Southside WPCP

No expansions proposed

2.0

Expand

1.0

3.0

No expansions proposed

3.0

Decommission, Flow to

Buford Westside WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.3

Expand

0.2

No

0.5

expansions

proposed

Gwinnett Crooked Creek

-

0.5 WRF

Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRC

No expansions proposed

16.0 No expansions proposed 16.0

Expand 4.0

20.0

Expand

5.0

25.0

Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC

Expand

40.0

No

60.0

expansions

proposed

60.0

No expansions proposed

60.0 No expansions proposed 60.0

Gwinnett Sugar Hill LAS

No expansions proposed

Decommission, Flow to 0.5 Gwinnett Crooked Creek
WRF

-

-

-

Gwinnett Beaver

Ruin/Sweetwater Ck No expansions proposed

4.5

WRF

Gwinnett Big Haynes WRF Gwinnett Jacks Creek WRF

No expansions proposed No expansions proposed

Decommission, Flow to 0.5 Gwinnett Yellow River
WRF, Gwinnett Jackson 1.0 Creek WRF

-

-

-

Gwinnett No Business Creek WRF

No expansions proposed

1.0

Gwinnett Yellow River WRF

No expansions proposed

12.0

Expand

10.0

22.0

No expansions proposed

22.0 No expansions proposed 22.0

Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF

No expansions proposed

3.0

No expansions proposed

3.0

2 Expand

37.0

40.0 No expansions proposed 40.0

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

100.8

85 in Gwinnett -4 to DeKalb
81 Total

104.5

120 in Gwinnett -4 to DeKalb 116 Total

145.5

151 in Gwinnett -4 to DeKalb 147 Total

147.0

Notes:

(1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

(2) Discharge will be to the Chattahoochee River or Lake Lanier to be phased in conjunction with EPD.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-25

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Hall County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources Hall County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 39 39 22

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the three major, existing WWTPs within the county. The Lula Pond WPCP and the many existing smaller private and public-agency facilities will be phased-out. Growth over the years will enlarge the service areas of the major facilities, leading to their expansion and the decommissioning of the existing smaller facilities.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Hall County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Hall County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Make provisions to return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier or its tributaries. Continue existing, and establish new agreements between the county and cities. Comply with treatment standards for indirect potable reuse at all WWTPs, when the standards are issued by
the EPD.
Basin Considerations Reclaimed water will be produced and discharged to Lake Lanier or its tributaries.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-26

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Hall County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities Flowery Branch WPCP Gainesville Flat Creek WRF Gainesville Linwood WRF
Lula Pond WPCP

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

No expansions proposed

Expand

1.8

Expand

1.9

Expand

0.3

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
0.4
12.0
5.0
0.4

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

Expand

2.6

3.0

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)

No expansions proposed 12.0

Expand

10.0

30.0

Expand

9.0

39.0

No expansions proposed No expansions proposed

5.0 0.4 No expansions proposed

Decommission, Flow to

0.4 Gainesville Flat Creek

-

WRF

Private WWTPs

Expand

0.7

1.4

Expand

0.6

2.0 Decommission

-

-

Demand Projections

and Total Capacity

19.2

22 in Hall

22.4

30 in Hall

30.4

39 in Hall

39.0

(MGD-MMF)

Notes:

(1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local wastewater management planning.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-27

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Henry County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Henry County To DeKalb County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 33 -2 31 25

Capital Projects
Over the next 30 years, wastewater treatment will be consolidated to three major facilities, which will be expanded to meet the needs. The many existing smaller facilities must be phased-out. Growth over the years will enlarge the service areas of the major facilities, leading to their expansion and the decommissioning of the existing smaller facilities. Wastewater from the northern corner of the county will be discharged to the DeKalb Polebridge WPCP.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Henry County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Henry County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Develop multi-jurisdiction agreement with DeKalb County to receive wastewater from the northern corner of the county at the DeKalb Polebridge Creek WPCP.
Evaluate participation between City of McDonough, and other cities within Henry County for regional development of new WWTPs and conveyance projects.
Provide LAS systems at two of the three WWTPs to be expanded.

Basin Considerations
Henry Indian Creek LAS will continue as no-discharge systems in order to protect the source water for water plant downstream. The Henry Bear Creek LAS will serve all areas of the County in the Flint Basin. The Henry Walnut Creek WRF will discharge treated flow to surface water bodies in the Ocmulgee Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-28

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Henry County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

Facilities

By 2005

Proposed Projects

Plant

Project Type

Capacity at Project End of Capacity Period (MGD- (MGDMMF) MMF)

Hampton WPCP No expansions proposed 0.5

Henry Hampton Industrial Park LAS

Decommission, Flow Henry Bear Creek WRF/LAS

to

-

Henry Bear Creek WRF/LAS

No expansions proposed

0.3

Henry Indian Creek LAS

No expansions proposed

1.5

Henry Camp Creek WPCP

No expansions proposed

1.5

Henry Meadow Creek Acq. WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.0

Henry Springdale Road WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.5

Henry Springdale LAS

No expansions proposed

1.1

Henry

Springdale/Walnut No expansions proposed 0.4

Creek WPCP

Henry Simpson Mill LAS

No expansions proposed

0.2

Henry Walnut Creek WRF

New

4.0

4.0

Locust Grove East Pond

No expansions proposed

0.1

Locust Grove I-75 LAS

No expansions proposed

0.3

Locust Grove

Skyland Mobile No expansions proposed 0.2

Home Park

McDonough

Walnut Creek

No expansions proposed 1.0

WPCP

Stockbridge WPCP No expansions proposed 1.5

2006 to 2010

Proposed Projects

Plant

Project Type

Capacity at Project End of Capacity Period (MGD- (MGDMMF) MMF)

2011 to 2020 Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Expand

1.2

1.7

No expansions proposed

Expand, Discharge

0.7

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed No expansions proposed

-

1.0

No expansions proposed

1.5

Expand

1.5

1.5 Decommission, Flow to 0.0 Henry Walnut Creek WRF

0.5

No expansions proposed

1.1

No expansions proposed

0.4

No expansions proposed

0.2

Decommission, Flow to Henry Indian Creek LAS

4.0

Expand

10.0

Expand

0.4

1.0

No expansions proposed

Expand

1.0

2.0

No expansions proposed

No expansions proposed

1.5

No expansions proposed

Plant Capacity at End of
Period (MGDMMF)

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant

Project Type

Capacity at Project End of Capacity Period (MGD- (MGDMMF) MMF)

Decommission, Flow to

1.7 Henry Bear Creek

-

WRF/LAS

-

-

1.0 No expansions proposed 1.0

3.0

Expand

4.0

7.0

-

-

0.5

1.1

Decommission, Flow to Henry Walnut Creek

-

WRF

0.4

-

-

14.0

Expand

9.0

23.0

1.0

Decommission, Flow to Henry Indian Creek LAS

-

2.0 Decommission, Flow to

Henry Walnut Creek

-

WRF 1.5

Demand Projections
and

23 in Henry

33 in Henry

13.1

13 in Henry

16.4

-1 to DeKalb

26.2

-2 to DeKalb

31.0

Total Capacity

22 Total

31 Total

(MGD-MMF)

Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-29

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Paulding County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Paulding County To Cobb County (Chattahoochee Basin) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 22 -10 12 6

Capital Projects
By 2030, wastewater treatment for the areas in the Etowah and Tallapoosa Basins will be consolidated at the Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek WRF, which be expanded. Wastewater produced in the Chattahoochee Basins area will be discharged to Cobb County, or possibly Douglas County, for treatment. Existing smaller facilities will be phased-out, as growth enlarges the service areas of the major facilities, leading to their expansion.

Because all the present industrial WWTPs are for the minerals industry, no change is anticipated. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Paulding County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Paulding County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Participate in joint planning study with Cobb and Douglas Counties to develop a regional approach to wastewater management for the portion of Paulding County in the Chattahoochee Basin.
Develop multi-jurisdiction agreement with Cobb and/or Douglas Counties to receive wastewater generated in the Paulding Chattahoochee Basin.
Evaluate participation between the City of Dallas, and other cities within Paulding County for regional development of conveyance projects.
Basin Considerations
Treated flow from the Paulding Pumpkinvine WRF will be discharged to surface water bodies in the Etowah Basin, while flow discharged to Cobb or Douglas Counties will eventually be discharged to the Chattahoochee River.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-30

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Paulding County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities Paulding Coppermine LAS

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Expand

0.9

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
1.5

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Expand

1.5

Plant Capacity at End of
Period (MGDMMF)
3.0

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

Expand

1.5

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
4.5

Proposed Projects

Project

Project Capacity

Type

(MGD-

MMF)

Decommission, Flow to

Cobb County

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
-

Dallas North WPCP Expand

0.5

Dallas West WPCP

Expand

1.1

1.0

No expansions proposed

1.0 No expansions proposed 1.0 Decommission, Flow to

Pumpkinvine Creek WRF

-

2.0

No expansions proposed

2.0 No expansions proposed 2.0

Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek WRF

Expand

0.5

1.0

Expand

2.0

3.0

Expand

3.0

6.0

Expand

6.0

12.0

Paulding Upper Sweetwater WRF

New

1.0

1.0

Expand

1.0

2.0

Expand

2.0

4.0

Decommission, Flow to Cobb County1

-

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

22 in Paulding

6.5

6 in Paulding

11.0

12 in Paulding

17.5

-10 to Cobb

12.0

12 Total

Notes:

(1) The benefits of decommissioning facilities will be investigated by a local study.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-31

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Rockdale County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources
Rockdale County To DeKalb County (South Rockdale County) Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 23 -8 15 7

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF. Wastewater produced in south Rockdale will be pumped to the Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF or discharged to a regional treatment facility (see options below). The existing smaller facilities in south Rockdale County must be phased-out.

Some industrial WWTPs may be converted into pretreatment plants, while others could be retained, expanded or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. Private and public-agency WWTPs will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

A joint planning study should be developed to decide between the options for a regional treatment facility to serve south Rockdale County:

Option 1 Participate with DeKalb County and the other three counties using DeKalb Polebridge WPCP as
a regional facility.
Option 2 Develop a regional project with Henry County for using the Henry Walnut Creek WRF. Option 3 Install a new treatment facility in Rockdale County discharging to the South River.

The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Rockdale County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Rockdale County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.

Conduct joint planning study to select a regional option for south Rockdale County. Either maintain existing agreements with DeKalb County or negotiate an agreement with Henry County for
treating a portion of Rockdale County's wastewater.

Basin Considerations
Treated flow will be discharged to surface water bodies in the Ocmulgee Basin.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-32

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Rockdale County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant

Proposed Projects

Plant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity at

Project

End of

Project at End of

Project at End of

Project End of

Project Capacity Period

Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period

Type

(MGD-

(MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD- (MGD-

Type

(MGD-

(MGD-

Facilities

MMF)

MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF)

MMF)

Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF

Expand

2.0

8.0

No expansions proposed 8.0

Expand

3.0

11.0

Expand

4.0

15.0

Decommission, Pump to

Rockdale Almand Branch WWTP

No expansions proposed

1.2

No expansions proposed

1.2

DeKalb Polebridge WPCP/Quigg Branch

-

-

WRF

Rockdale Honey Creek WWTP

No expansions proposed

0.3

Rockdale Lakeridge Estates WWTP

No expansions proposed

0.1

Rockdale Scott Creek WWTP

No expansions proposed

0.2

Decommission, Pump to DeKalb Polebridge WPCP1

-

-

-

Rockdale Snapping Shoals WWTP

No expansions proposed

0.5

Rockdale Stanton Woods WWTP

No expansions proposed

0.1

Demand Projections and
Total Capacity (MGD-MMF)

11 in Rockdale

15 in Rockdale

23 in Rockdale

10.4

-2 to DeKalb

9.2

-5 to DeKalb

11.0

-8 to DeKalb

15.0

9 Total

10 Total

15 Total

Notes:

(1) Option 1 is shown. For Options 2 and 3, see previous page.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-33

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Walton County
Wastewater Implementation Plan - MNGWPD

Summary of Needs
Projected Flows
Wastewater Sources Walton County Total Projected Flow New Treatment Capacity

2030 Projected Flow (MMF MGD) 11 11 6

Capital Projects
New treatment capacity will be provided by expanding the Monroe Jacks Creek WPCP and building a new, regional facility in South Walton County. Smaller facilities will be phased-out, as growth enlarges the service areas of the major facilities, leading to their expansion.

The industrial WWTP may be retained, converted into a pretreatment plant, expanded, or modified. New industrial WWTPs may be added. The private and public-agency WWTP will be phased-out. It may be necessary to add some small public, private, and/or public-agency WWTPs on an interim basis, until growth fills in sufficiently to allow consolidation at the major facilities.

A joint planning study should be developed to decide between the options for a regional treatment facility to serve south Walton County:

Option 1 Develop New South Walton WWTP and coordinate discharge point with drinking water intake
on Alcovy River.
Option 2 Develop a regional project with Newton County (outside the District) for a treatment facility.
The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Walton County.

Non-Capital Programs
The following non-capital programs are specific to Walton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B.
Conduct joint planning study to select a regional option for South Walton County. If needed, negotiate a new agreement with Newton County for the regional treatment facility.

Basin Considerations
Treated flow will be discharged to surface water bodies in the Ocmulgee and Oconee Basins.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-34

Appendix B: Wastewater Implementation Plan

Walton County
Wastewater Implementation Plan MNGWPD

Phasing Plan

By 2005

2006 to 2010

2011 to 2020

2021 to 2030

Facilities Loganville LAS

Proposed Projects

Project Type

Project Capacity (MGD-
MMF)

No expansions proposed

Plant Capacity at
End of Period (MGDMMF)
0.2

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant Capacity at

Proposed Projects

Plant

Project End of

Project End of

Project Capacity at

Project Capacity Period Project Capacity Period Project Capacity End of Period

Type

(MGD- (MGD- Type (MGD- (MGD- Type (MGD- (MGD-MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF) MMF)

MMF)

No expansions proposed

0.2

No expansions proposed

0.2

Decommission, Pump to Loganville WPCP

-

Loganville WPCP No expansions proposed

1.8

No expansions proposed 1.8

Expand

0.2

2.0 No expansions proposed 2.0

Monroe Jacks Creek WPCP

No expansions proposed

3.4

No expansions proposed 3.4

Expand

1.6

5.0 No expansions proposed 5.0

Social Circle Little River WPCP

No expansions proposed

0.4

Expand

0.8

Decommission, Pump to

1.2 New South Walton

-

WWTP

-

New South Walton WWTP1

No expansions proposed

-

New

2.0

2.0

Expand

2.0

4.0 No expansions proposed 4.0

Demand Projections

and Total Capacity

5.8

7 in Walton

8.6

9 in Walton

11.2

11 in Walton

11.0

(MGD-MMF)

Notes:

(1) Option 1 is shown. For Option 2, see previous page.

(2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B - COUNTY BY COUNTY WASTEWATER PLAN.DOC

B-35

Appendix C
Partner Organizations

CWC Target Partnerships/Sponsorships Master List
Kelley O'Brien, CWC Coordinator
Identifying Partners to Collaborate on Efforts
Environmental Organizations American Water Resources Association Elachee Nature Science Center Georgia Conservancy Georgia Ground Water Association Georgia Well Drinkers Association Georgia Lake Management Society Georgia Soil and Water Conservation of Georgia Georgia Environmental Organization (GEO) Georgia Rural Water Association Natural Resources Conservation Society National Wildlife Federation Soil Science Society of Georgia American Water Works Association Trout Unlimited Georgia Sierra Club (Gwinnett Chapter & Metro Atlanta Chapter) GASMA Keep Georgia Beautiful Foundation Georgia Lakes Society, Inc. Oakhurst Community Garden Project, Inc. EeinGeorgia.org ECO-Action Outdoor Activity Center GA Environmental Technology Chattahoochee Cold Water Tailrace Fishery Foundation, Inc Trees Atlanta, Inc. Trust for Public LandChattahoochee River Land Protection Campaign Southface Energy Institute

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-1

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC

Appendix C Partner Organizations

RiversAlive Georgia Canoeing Association Georgians for Responsible Growth Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Georgia Environmental Technology Consortium Georgia Environmental Council Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Lake Lanier Association Chattowah Open Land Trust The Wilderness Society Cochran Mill Nature Center Environmental Defense Georgians for Responsible Growth Save Our Communities The Nature Conservancy Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Georgia Environmental Technology Consortium Georgia Environmental Council

Government Environmental Agencies Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism Georgia Government Finance Officers Association Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association National Weather Service, SE River Forecast Center P2AD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: South Atlantic Division, Mobile, Savannah EPD U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Emergency Management Agency Georgia Emergency Management Agency
Governmental Organizations Association Of County Commissioners Of Georgia PTA- Georgia Congress Georgia Public Library System State of Georgia, Community Affairs GA DOT Georgia Municipal Association Regional Development Centers
Local Governments CCMWA (Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority) Public Utilities GA Tech Extension Service/Water Quality GA Public School System

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-2

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC

GA DOT Chamber of Commerce Metro Atlanta Chamber Cobb County Chamber of Commerce Dekalb County Chamber of Commerce Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce Fulton County Chamber of Commerce Clayton County Chamber of Commerce
Organizations That Volunteer for Environmental Causes Georgia Water Wise Council University of Georgia Extension Service Regional Business Coalition, Inc The Nature Conservancy Georgia Tire Dealers And Retreaders Hands on Atlanta GA SWANA Central Atlanta Progress Atlanta Press Club Midtown Alliance SouthStar Community Development Corporation
County/City Parks and Recreation Departments Clayton County Parks & Recreation Cobb County Parks & Recreation Dekalb County Parks & Recreation Gwinnett County Parks & Recreation Fulton County Parks & Recreation The City of Atlanta Bureau of Parks City of Duluth Parks and Recreation City of Decatur Parks and Recreation City of Marietta Parks and Recreation Atlanta Board of Realtors Greater North Fulton Chamber of Commerce
Associations Georgia Association of Convenience Stores Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association Georgia Retail Association Georgia Soft Drink Association National Association of Industrial and Office Parks Atlanta Women Business Owners American Subcontractors Association Metro Atlanta Auto Dealers Association (MAADA) Southern Aerosol Technical Association (SATA)

Appendix C Partner Organizations

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC

Appendix C Partner Organizations

Local Business Associations For "Target" Partners
Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership Midtown Neighbors' Association North Buckhead Civic Association Inman Park Neighborhood Association Edgewood Heights Neighborhood Association Buckhead Business Association

Specific Names of Civic/Homeowners Associations

Clairmont Heights Civic Association Atlanta Airport/East Point Rotary South Fulton Rotary Buckhead Civitan Club Buckhead Rotary Buckhead Atlanta Kiwanis Northwest Atlanta Kiwanis Young Bucks Ashford-Perimeter Center Kiwanis North Dekalb Rotary Decatur Civitan Dekalb Civitan Club Dekalb Lions Club Druid Hills Civitan Druid Hills Kiwanis Northlake Rotary Metro Dekalb Kiwanis Optimist Club of Downtown Decatur Rotary Club of Decatur South Dekalb Rotary Club Stone Mountain Rotary West Dekalb Rotary Austell/South Cobb Rotary Galleria Kiwanis Vinings Rotary Marietta Rotary Acworth Optimist East Cobb Civitan Club Kennesaw Optimist Kennesaw Town Center Kiwanis Marietta Civitan Club Marietta Kiwanis Club Marietta Metro Rotary Club

Metro Marietta Kiwanis North Cobb Rotary West Cobb Rotary Powder Springs Kiwanis Woodstock Optimist Atlanta Civitan Club Atlanta Kiwanis Midtown Rotary Ansley Atlanta Kiwanis Peachtree Kiwanis Rotary Club of Atlanta West End Rotary Alpharetta Kiwanis Roswell Kiwanis Arborgate Condominium Arden Area Association Buckhead Forest Community Association Chastain Park Civic Association Garden Hills Civic Association Friends of Tuxedo Park Wilmar-Westminster Homeowners Association Moores Mill Civic Association Ponce Coalition Poncey-Highland Neighborhood Association Beacon Hill Homeowners Association Briarwood Hills Homeowner Association Brookcliff Homeowners Association Cambria Hills Homeowners Association Northwest Atlanta Kiwanis Chattahoochee Plantation Community Association

Institutions Georgia State University

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC

Appendix C Partner Organizations

Georgia Technical Institute University of Georgia

Youth Focused Organizations
4-H Boy Scouts Girl Scouts Public Libraries Captain Planet Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Project WET

Partnerships/Sponsorships

Businesses
Georgia Power Home Depot Coca-Cola Lowe's Home Improvement Kroger Publix ACE Hardware McDonalds Chick-Fil-A BP AMOCO QuicKTrip Atlanta Gas Light Georgia Pacific Scientific Atlanta Pike's Nurseries Garden Ridge Ben Carter Properties Cecil B day Investment Company CNM Associates Dallas Medical Investors CNN Center Ventures Cobb Galleria Center First Republic Company Intersouth Properties, Inc. Irt Property Company JDN Structured Finance MD Hodges Enterprises Inc. Office Professionals LTd. Turner Properties Shaheen & Company LP Radnor/Smith Partnership Selig Enterprises Inc.

Tusk Oil Valacal Company Ackerman Development American Land & Energy Corp Barbara J Alexander Reality CGR Advisors Carter & Associates Enterprise Carter & Associates Compass Management & Leasing Cornerstone Hospitality Group Cousins Real Estate Corp Equitable Real Estate Investment Management Gables Reality Ltd. Partnership Intown Properties Jenny Pruitt & Associates Realtors Johns Creek Technology Park/Atlanta Inc. Laing Management Company NPI Property Management Corp Morris and Raper Realtors Roberts Properties Regent Partners Inc. Realmark Holdings Corp Roberts Properties Inc S Noro-U Holdings Inc Sterling Group Success 2000 Reality Group Sunlink Cooperation Wilkinson Group, Inc. Urban Systems Reality Thomas Enterprises Taylor & Mathis Inc.

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-5

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC

Appendix C Partner Organizations

Wilma Inc. Abrams Properties Inc Carter & Associates Enterprises Gables Residential Trust Hanson Properties East Inc. Lecraw Julian & Company Inc. Holder Corporation Wildwood Associates Westerra Windward Llc Sansbury Corporation American Home Equities BellSouth Corporation Roy Ashley & Associates, Inc. Cingular Wireless Earthlink Trec Environmental Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation Southern Company Harold A. Dawson Company, Inc. Thomas Alan Homes, LLC Bank of America, Mid-South Banking Group Northwood Medical Specialists E. Smith Heating & Air Environmental and Land Use Group, Alston and Bird American Plastics Council AT&T Cox Media Beaulieu of America Dart Container Corporation Fibres International Peachtree Residential Properties Pactiv Corporation Simon Property Group

Decatur First Bank First Union Southtrust Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) SunTrust Wachovia Wal-Mart Killearn, Inc. Post Properties, Inc. Williams-Russell and Johnson, Inc. The Draper Group Cushman & Wakefield Southwire Company REMAX AT&T Carter & Associates, LLC Cox Enterprises, Inc. Ernst & Young Ford Motor Company Georgia Natural Gas Highland Homes, Inc. Jacoby Development, Inc. Kimberly Clark Corporation King & Spalding Nortel Networks AGL Resources Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation MARTA SunTrust Bank, Atlanta United Parcel Service Turner Broadcasting ZEP Manufacturing FedEx Target

Theme Parks/Commercial Non-Environmental Attractions
White Water Theme Park Six Flags Stone Mountain Grand Prix American Adventures Lake Lanier Islands

Sports Teams to Partner With Braves

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-6

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC

Hawks Thrashers Falcons Atlanta Beat
Health Endorsement Children's Healthcare Emory Health System Promina

Appendix C Partner Organizations

LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

C-7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003

P:\2317-001\TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WW - PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC