Plans of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District : District-wide watershed management plan

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Watershed Management Planning Process............................................... ES-2 Policy Goals ................................................................................................... ES-3 Integration of Planning Efforts ................................................................... ES-3 Rationale for Watershed Management ................................................................... ES-4 Existing and Future Conditions............................................................................... ES-5 Land Uses....................................................................................................... ES-5 Designated Uses for Streams....................................................................... ES-5 Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts .................... ES-6 Watershed Management Strategies......................................................................... ES-7 Recommended Changes to Ordinances and Policies............................................ ES-8 Ordinances ..................................................................................................... ES-8 Local Policy Recommendations .................................................................. ES-9 State Policy Recommendations ................................................................... ES-9 Education and Public Awareness .......................................................................... ES-11 Public Awareness Plan Approach ............................................................ ES-11 Water Quality Monitoring Plan ............................................................................. ES-12 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................... ES-13 Implementation of Local Stormwater Management Program Activities....................................................................................................... ES-13 TMDL Strategies Implementation ............................................................ ES-13 Source Water Protection Strategies Implementation ............................. ES-14 Land Use Strategies Implementation ....................................................... ES-14 Watershed Improvement Strategies Implementation ........................... ES-14 Evaluation of District-wide WMP Effectiveness ................................................. ES-14

1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1

Watershed Management Planning Process...............................................................1-1

Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils

Participation...................................................................................................... 1-4

Watershed Management Planning Steps......................................................1-4

Policy Goals ......................................................................................................1-5

Document Overview ....................................................................................................1-6

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

I

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

Integration of District Planning Efforts .....................................................................1-7

2

Rationale for Watershed Management ....................................................................2-1

Need for Protecting District Water Resources ..........................................................2-1

Influence of Land Use Change on Watersheds.........................................................2-2

Where Rainfall Goes Before and After Development.................................2-2

Linkages between Hydrology and Watershed Health ...............................2-5

What is Impervious Surface?..........................................................................2-6

Relationship between Total and Effective Impervious Area .....................2-7

Addressing Stormwater Runoff and Maintaining Watershed Health .....2-7

Regulatory Drivers........................................................................................................2-8

Federal Water Protection Programs ..............................................................2-8

State Water Protection Programs.................................................................2-11

Common Themes for Watershed Management......................................................2-12

3

Existing and Future Watershed Conditions............................................................3-1

Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

District Demographics..................................................................................................3-1

District Water Resources..............................................................................................3-1

Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 3-1

Precipitation ...................................................................................................... 3-3

Groundwater ....................................................................................................3-5

Surface Water ...................................................................................................3-5

District-wide Land Use ................................................................................................3-6

Current Land Use.............................................................................................3-6

Future Land Use...............................................................................................3-6

Designated Uses and Impaired Waterbodies............................................................3-8

Source Water Watersheds..........................................................................................3-12

Protected Species.........................................................................................................3-16

Listed Species .................................................................................................3-16

Designated Critical Habitat ..........................................................................3-16

Habitat Conservation Plans..........................................................................3-19

Water Quality Modeling Approach and Methodology.........................................3-20

Existing Conditions Pollutant Load Estimates .......................................................3-21

Future Conditions Pollutant Load Estimates..........................................................3-23

Imperviousness ..............................................................................................3-23

Total Suspended Solids .................................................................................3-25

Total Phosphorus ...........................................................................................3-25

Watershed Descriptions .............................................................................................3-26

Chattahoochee Basin .....................................................................................3-26

Coosa Basin.....................................................................................................3-32

Flint Basin........................................................................................................3-37

Ocmulgee Basin..............................................................................................3-39

Oconee Basin ..................................................................................................3-42

Tallapoosa Basin.............................................................................................3-44

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

II

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

4

Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts ....................4-1

Local Stormwater Management Efforts .....................................................................4-1

Local Watershed Planning Efforts ..............................................................................4-2

Nonpoint Source Control................................................................................4-2

Point Source Elements.....................................................................................4-3

Restoration/Retrofit ........................................................................................4-4

Long-Term Monitoring ...................................................................................4-4

Summary of Findings ......................................................................................4-4

Examples of Innovative Watershed Management/Stormwater Activities ..........4-6

City of Roswell Lakes and Ponds Program..................................................4-6

Clayton County Voluntary Activities ...........................................................4-6

DeKalb County Conservation Subdivision Ordinance ..............................4-7

Gwinnett County Stormwater Monitoring Program ..................................4-7

Cobb County Variable Stream Buffer ...........................................................4-7

Hall County Programs ....................................................................................4-7

5

Watershed Management Strategies ..........................................................................5-1

Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 5-1

Watershed Management Framework ........................................................................5-2

Local Stormwater Management Program Activities................................................5-4

Adopt and Implement Model Ordinances ...................................................5-6

Description of Model Stormwater Ordinances............................................5-7

Implement Stormwater Management Technical Standards and

Design Criteria Manual...................................................................................5-9

Improved Enforcement of Laws/Regulations.............................................5-9

Implement Additional Management Measures.........................................5-11

Transportation Infrastructure Improvements............................................5-14

Local Education and Public Awareness Activities....................................5-14

Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................5-14

Total Maximum Daily Load Strategies ....................................................................5-15

District-wide Implementation Strategies....................................................5-15

Watershed/Waterbody Specific TMDL Implementation ........................5-15

Source Water Protection Strategies ..........................................................................5-20

Geographic Information System Planning Maps ......................................5-20

Local Stormwater Management Program Activities.................................5-20

Part V Planning Criteria................................................................................5-22

Greenspace Acquisition ................................................................................5-22

Pollution Prevention Education...................................................................5-24

Integration with TMDL Plans ......................................................................5-24

Watershed Improvement Strategies.........................................................................5-25

Land Use Based Strategies.........................................................................................5-28

Specific Strategies...........................................................................................5-30

Management Issues by Basin ....................................................................................5-36

Chattahoochee Basin .....................................................................................5-36

Coosa Basin.....................................................................................................5-39

Flint Basin........................................................................................................5-40

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

III

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

Oconee Basin ..................................................................................................5-41 Ocmulgee Basin..............................................................................................5-42 Tallapoosa Basin.............................................................................................5-43 Summary ......................................................................................................................5-43

6

Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and

Ordinances ....................................................................................................................6-1

Review of Adopted Model Stormwater Management Ordinances .......................6-1

Recommended Additional Model Stormwater Management Ordinances...........6-2

Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance.................................................6-2

Stormwater Utility Example Ordinance .......................................................6-3

Stormwater Good Housekeeping Example Ordinance ..............................6-3

Local Policy Recommendations ..................................................................................6-4

Resource Protection .........................................................................................6-4

Strategies for Reducing Impervious Cover ..................................................6-6

Septic System Management Measures..........................................................6-8

State Policy Recommendations ...................................................................................6-9

Interjurisdictional Coordination ....................................................................6-9 Escherichia coli Standards and Guidance.....................................................6-10

Department of Transportation Compliance...............................................6-11

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Enforcement .............................6-11

Fertilizer Nutrient Content ...........................................................................6-12

Stormwater Authority Enabling Legislation..............................................6-12

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Phase II Compliance..............6-12

River Corridor Protection .............................................................................6-13

Funding for Adequate Enforcement ...........................................................6-13

Summary ......................................................................................................................6-13

7

Education and Public Awareness .............................................................................7-1

Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 7-1

Education and Public Awareness Plan Approach ...................................................7-1

Campaign Identity...........................................................................................7-1

Campaign Elements.........................................................................................7-2

Element 1-Public Awareness Campaign...................................................................7-3

Mass Media.......................................................................................................7-3

Other Media......................................................................................................7-4

Promotional Items............................................................................................7-5

Interactive CD-ROM........................................................................................7-5

Bill Inserts/Messages ......................................................................................7-5

Interactive Kiosk ..............................................................................................7-6

Corporate Outreach Program.........................................................................7-6

Element 2-Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups ...................................7-7

Key Target Groups...........................................................................................7-7

Outreach and Education Activities ...............................................................7-9

Element 3-Primary and Secondary Education .......................................................7-12

Support of Georgia's Project WET...............................................................7-12

Support of Watershed Education Task Force ............................................7-12

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

IV

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

Development of Localized Watershed Information..................................7-13 Other Recommended Activities................................................................................7-13
Business Sponsorships ..................................................................................7-13 Sponsorship Sales Video ...............................................................................7-14 Agency Partnerships .....................................................................................7-14 Other Partnerships.........................................................................................7-14

8

Water Quality Monitoring Plan ................................................................................8-1

Purpose and Objectives................................................................................................8-1

Local Government-Based Monitoring........................................................................8-4

Long-Term Ambient Trend Monitoring .......................................................8-4

Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Screening .....................................8-7

Monitoring for Assessing TMDL Implementation and Delisting...........8-11

Biological/Habitat Assessment ...................................................................8-11

Regional/Interjurisdictional Monitoring Activities...............................................8-12

Regional Network/Mainstem Monitoring.................................................8-12

BMP/Restoration Effectiveness Studies .....................................................8-12

Data Transfer and Database Management ..............................................................8-14

Standards and Methodologies ..................................................................................8-14

Long-Term Ambient Trend Automated Sampling Methods...................8-14

Long-Term Ambient Trend Composite Grab Sampling Methods..........8-15

Dry Weather Outfall Screening....................................................................8-16

Monitoring for Assessing TMDL Implementation and Delisting...........8-17

Biological/Habitat Assessment ................................................................................8-17

Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................8-18

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling..........................................................8-18

Fish Sampling .................................................................................................8-19

9

Implementation Plan...................................................................................................9-1

Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 9-1

Watershed Management Responsibilities .................................................................9-2

Local Governments..........................................................................................9-2

The District........................................................................................................9-2

The State of Georgia ........................................................................................9-3

Watershed Management Strategies............................................................................9-3

Implementation Tasks for Local Stormwater Management Program

Activities............................................................................................................ 9-4

TMDL Strategies Implementation Tasks ....................................................9-10

Source Water Protection Strategies Implementation Tasks .....................9-12

Watershed Improvement Strategies Implementation Tasks ...................9-14

Land Use Based Implementation Tasks......................................................9-15

Education and Public Awareness Tasks.....................................................9-16

Water Quality Monitoring Tasks .................................................................9-20

Implementation Costs ................................................................................................9-22

Local Government Costs...............................................................................9-22

District Costs...................................................................................................9-24

State of Georgia Costs ...................................................................................9-25

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

V

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

Implementation Funding ...........................................................................................9-25 Local Stormwater Management Program Activities-Local Government Responsibilities .......................................................................9-26 Local Stormwater Management Program Activities District Responsibilities............................................................................................... 9-27 Restoration and Retrofit Local Responsibilities......................................9-29 Restoration and Retrofit District Responsibilities ..................................9-30
Stormwater Utility Development .............................................................................9-30 Critical Issues..................................................................................................9-32 District Role in Stormwater Utilities ...........................................................9-32 Typical Implementation Steps .....................................................................9-33
10 Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness ......10-1 District-Wide Results..................................................................................................10-2 Evaluation of Hydrologic Conditions.........................................................10-2 Total Suspended Solids .................................................................................10-2 Total Phosphorus ...........................................................................................10-5 Basin-Specific Results .................................................................................................10-5 Upper Metro Chattahoochee Reach ............................................................10-5 Lower Metro Chattahoochee Reach ............................................................10-8 Etowah Subbasin..........................................................................................10-10 Flint Basin......................................................................................................10-10 Ocmulgee Basin............................................................................................10-10 Oconee Basin ................................................................................................10-14 Compliance with SB 130 Establishing the District ...............................................10-14 Compliance with GAEPD Planning Standards ....................................................10-17 Water Quality Standards .........................................................................................10-18 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature ........................................................10-19 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ...............................................................................10-19 Metals ............................................................................................................10-20 Total Phosphorus .........................................................................................10-20
References

Appendices

A Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority

B

Modeling Results

C

Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

D Evaluation of Best Management Practices

E

DeKalb County Stormwater Utility Ordinance

F

Potential Partners for District Education and Public Awareness Program

G Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawals and Discharges

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

VI

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

Tables
3-1 District Population Growth .........................................................................................3-2 3-2 Existing Land Use Distributions by Basin across the District ................................3-6 3-3 Projected Future Land Use Distributions by Basin across the District..................3-8 3-4 Stream Miles for Each Designated Use by Basin ......................................................3-9 3-5 303(d) Listed Streams in the District (2002)...............................................................3-9 3-6 Identified Causes of Violations for Stream Segments within the District .........3-11 3-7 Criteria Violated in Partially Supporting or Not Supporting Stream
Segments ......................................................................................................................3-12 3-8 Summary of Results of Existing SWAPs..................................................................3-14 3-9a Protected Species Known to Occur in Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb,
Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, and Fayette Counties ..................................................3-17 3-9b Protected Species Known to Occur in Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,
Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton Counties .............................................................3-18 3-10 Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Protected Species for Each Basin in the District......3-19
4-1 Watershed Planning Efforts by Local Governments................................................4-2 4-2 Local Watershed Plan Components for Nonpoint Source Control........................4-3 4-3 Local Watershed Plan Components for Point Source Elements.............................4-4 4-4 Local Watershed Plan Components for Restoration and Retrofit..........................4-5 4-5 Local Watershed Plan Components for Long-term Monitoring ............................4-5
5-1 Local Stormwater Management Program Activities................................................5-5 5-2 Application of Local Stormwater Management Program Activities for TMDL
Implementation ...........................................................................................................5-17 5-3 TMDL Implementation Plan Approach...................................................................5-18 5-4 TMDL Implementation Recommendations for Inter-jurisdictional
Watersheds................................................................................................................... 5-19 5-5 Strategies that Address Source Water Protection...................................................5-22 5-6 Specific Source Water Protection Strategies............................................................5-24 5-7 Watershed Improvement Planning Process ............................................................5-27 5-8 Summary of Watershed Management Strategies ...................................................5-43
6-1 Summary of Policy Recommendations....................................................................6-14
7-1 Key Target Groups and Nonpoint Source Pollution Contribution........................7-8 7-2 Recommended Training for Key Target Groups....................................................7-10
8-1 Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Plan Elements and Responsibilities......8-2 8-2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Summary and Comparison with
Requirements ................................................................................................................. 8-3 8-3 Long-Term Ambient Trend Water Quality Sampling Stations Based on
2000 Population Estimates...........................................................................................8-5 8-4 Number of Outfall Screening Sites Based on 2000 Population Estimates.............8-9 8-5 Minimum Sampling Guidelines for Listing and Delisting Streams ....................8-17 8-6 Habitat Assessment Parameters for Riffle/Run and Glide/Pool Systems.........8-18

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

VII

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

9-1 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities ..........................................................9-4
9-2 District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities................................................................................9-8
9-3 Georgia State Agency Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities ..........................................................9-9
9-4 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for TMDL Strategies ......................................................................................................................9-10
9-5 GAEPD Implementation Tasks and Milestones for TMDL Strategies ................9-11 9-6 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Source Water
Protection Strategies ...................................................................................................9-12 9-7 District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Source Water Protection
Strategies ......................................................................................................................9-14 9-8 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Watershed
Improvement Plans.....................................................................................................9-15 9-9 DCA Requirements for Local Comprehensive Plan Updates ..............................9-16 9-10 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and
Public Awareness........................................................................................................9-16 9-11 District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public
Awareness .................................................................................................................... 9-17 9-12 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Environmental
Monitoring ...................................................................................................................9-20 9-13 District Tasks and Milestones for Environmental Monitoring.............................9-21 9-14 Federal Government (USGS) Implementation Tasks and Milestones for
Environmental Monitoring........................................................................................9-21 9-15 Annual Costs for Existing Metro Atlanta County Stormwater Programs ..........9-22 9-16 Annual Unit Cost Summary by Program Element ................................................9-23 9-17 Estimated Annual District Costs for Implementation of District-Wide WMP...9-24 9-18 Elements of Existing Georgia Stormwater Utilities................................................9-31
10-1 Summary of District-Wide WMP Compliance with SB 130.................................................................................................................10-16
10-2 Summary of Compliance with GAEPD Planning Standards .............................10-17 10-3 Locations with Total Phosphorus Annual Standards within the District.........10-22
Figures
1-1 District Study Area .......................................................................................................1-2 1-2 District Study Area and Major River Basins .............................................................1-3 1-3 Watershed Management Planning Process...............................................................1-5 1-4 District Policy Goals .....................................................................................................1-6 1-5 Integration of the Three District Plans .......................................................................1-7
2-1 District Urbanized Areas (1950 to 2000) ....................................................................2-3 2-2 Changes in Runoff and Hydrology due to Development .......................................2-4 2-3 Impact of Changes in Hydrology on Watercourse Erosion and Baseflow
Relationships .................................................................................................................2-6

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

VIII

SEPTEMBER 2003

Contents

3-1 District River Systems ..................................................................................................3-2 3-2 Hydrologic Units...........................................................................................................3-4 3-3 Existing Land Use (1999) .............................................................................................3-7 3-4 Designated Use Status, 2002......................................................................................3-10 3-5 Source Water Watersheds..........................................................................................3-13 3-6 Impervious Area, TSS, and TP Distribution under Existing Conditions ............3-22 3-7 Impervious Area, TSS, and TP Distribution under 2030 Conditions without
District-wide Plan .......................................................................................................3-24 3-8 Chattahoochee River Basin........................................................................................3-27 3-9 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for Upper Metro
Chattahoochee Reach .................................................................................................3-31 3-10 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for Lower Metro
Chattahoochee Reach .................................................................................................3-32 3-11 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Etowah Subbasin .........3-35 3-12 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Oostanaula
Subbasin .......................................................................................................................3-36 3-13 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Coosawattee
Subbasin .......................................................................................................................3-36 3-14 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Flint Basin .....................3-39 3-15 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Ocmulgee Basin ...........3-42 3-16 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Oconee Basin ................3-44 3-17 Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Tallapoosa Basin ..........3-46

5-1 Watershed Management Strategies............................................................................5-3 5-2 Watersheds with TMDL Stream Segments .............................................................5-16 5-3 Source Water Watersheds..........................................................................................5-21 5-4 Substantially Impacted Watersheds.........................................................................5-26

8-1 Potential USGS District Water Quality Monitoring Network ..............................8-13

10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11

Comparison of Impervious Area Distribution under Existing Conditions, Future without Management, and with Implementation of the District-wide WMP .....................................................................................................10-3 Comparison of TSS Distribution under Existing Conditions, Future without Management, and with Implementation of the District-wide WMP...................10-4 Comparison of TP Distribution under Existing Conditions, Future without Management, and with Implementation of the District-wide WMP...................10-6 Modeling Results Summary for Upper Metro Chattahoochee Reach .................10-7 Modeling Results Summary for Lower Metro Chattahoochee Reach.................10-9 Modeling Results Summary for Etowah Subbasin ..............................................10-11 Modeling Results Summary for Flint Basin ..........................................................10-12 Modeling Results Summary for Ocmulgee Basin ................................................10-13 Modeling Results Summary for Upper Oconee Basin.........................................10-15 Areas Contributing to Annual Phosphorus Load Limits ....................................10-21 Total Phosphorus Lake Discharge Limit Comparison for Future Management Conditions..........................................................................................10-22

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

IX

SEPTEMBER 2003

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

CH2M HILL would like to thank the groups and individuals who contributed significant time, expertise, and insights to develop the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP). Their support was essential in development of an implementable plan that met the District's goals. Key participants in this process included the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), the Basin Advisory Councils (BAC), the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, MACTEC Engineering Consulting, Inc., and the District planning staff provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). We would specifically like to thank Rick Brownlow, Steve Haubner, Jill Downs, and Pat Stevens with the ARC. Group Solutions, Inc., was also extremely helpful in facilitating the many TCC and BAC meetings and in capturing the diverse comments and feedback from these groups.
In addition, CH2M HILL would like to thank the members of the Watershed Management Planning team, whose technical support and contributions were critical to the timely completion of the WMP. Contributing firms included:
AQUA TERRA Consultants, and
Corporate Environmental Risk Management.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

X

SEPTEMBER 2003

Acronyms

ACF ACT ARC ATSDR
BAC BMP BOD BOD5
CAFOs cfs CIP CMOM COD CPOM CSO CWA CWC
DCA DHR DO
EIA EPA EPT ESC
FERC FWS
GADNR GAEPD GBP GDOT GEP GGS GIS GNHP GPA

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Atlanta Regional Commission Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Basin Advisory Council Best Management Practice Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Cubic Feet per Second Capital Improvement Plan Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance Chemical Oxygen Demand Coarse Particulate Organic Matter Combined Sewer Overflow Clean Water Act Clean Water Campaign
Department of Community Affairs Department of Human Resources Dissolved Oxygen
Effective Impervious Area U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Environmental Protection Division Georgia Bioassessment Protocol Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Environmental Partnership Georgia Geologic Survey Geographic Information System Georgia Heritage Program Georgia Planning Association

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

Acronyms XI

Acronyms

GRBP GWPCA
HCP Hg HUC HSPF
IAI IBI
LAPA LCI LID
mg/L mL MOA MPN MS4 MZ
NEMO NPDES NTU
O&M O.C.G.A. OMZ
P2AD POTW PSA
QLG
RDC
SB SDS SDWA SECP SIC SOP SPCC SSO SWAPs SWMP

Georgia Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association
Habitat Conservation Plan Mercury Hydrologic Unit Code Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran
Indicator Assemblage Index Index of Biotic Integrity
Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority Livable Centers Initiative Lower Impact Development
Milligram per Liter Milliliter Memorandum of Agreement Most Probable Number Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Management Zone
Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal and Elected Officials National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Operations and Maintenance Official Code of Georgia, Annotated Outer Management Zone
Pollution Prevention Assistance Division Publicly Owned Treatment Works Public Service Announcement
Qualified Local Government
Regional Development Center
Senate Bill Service Delivery Strategy Safe Drinking Water Act Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Standard Industrial Classification Standard Operating Procedures Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Sanitary Sewer Overflows Source Water Assessment Plans Stormwater Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

XII

SEPTEMBER 2003

TCC TDRs TDS TIA TKN TM TMDL TP TRIS TSS
UAA USACE USGS UST
WMP WPCP WRC WRD WRF WWTP

Technical Coordinating Committee Transferable Development Rights Total Dissolved Solids Total Impervious Area Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Technical Memorandum Total Maximum Daily Load Total Phosphorus Toxics Release Inventory System Total Suspended Solids
Use Attainability Analysis Studies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey Underground Storage Tank
Watershed Management Plan Water Pollution Control Plant Water Reclamation Center Wildlife Resources Division Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant

Acronyms

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

XIII

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

Introduction
With limited water resources and a population of nearly 4 million and growing, metropolitan Atlanta faces increasing challenges in managing its vital water resources. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (the District) was established by the Georgia legislature in 2001 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 to be implemented by the local governments in the District. It is comprised of 16 counties, including Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton. These counties lie within the boundaries of six major river basins: Chattahoochee, Coosa (which includes the Etowah subbasin), Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Tallapoosa (see Figure 1-1).
The legislation creating the District mandates the preparation of three long-term plans:
District-wide Watershed Management Plan (District-wide WMP) Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan
This document, the District-wide Watershed Management Plan, provides strategies and recommendations for effective watershed management and the control of stormwater runoff. It also includes the specific tasks and milestones for implementing these recommendations, as well as guidance on funding watershed and stormwater management efforts at the local level.
The overall goal of the District-wide WMP is to meet and maintain water quality standards and designated uses of streams and other waterbodies within the District. This District-wide WMP builds upon the existing watershed and stormwater management planning efforts that have taken place in the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

Watershed Management Planning Process
A step-by-step decision process was used to develop the District-wide WMP. This process enabled the team to maximize use of existing information.
Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils Participation
A cornerstone of the decision process was a series of facilitated meetings with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and six Basin Advisory Councils, or BACs (representing the Chattahoochee, Coosa, Lake Lanier, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Flint basins). The TCC is comprised of local County and City technical staff and served as a technical advisory group to provide information, guidance, and feedback during District-wide WMP preparation. These groups 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.
Watershed Management Planning Steps
The primary steps in the process are illustrated below:

Develop District policy goals

Characterize existing watershed conditions & identify key issues

Develop water quality model to estimate existing & future pollutant loads

Evaluate strategies Best Management Practices, regulatory strategies

Goals were developed in coordination with the wastewater and water supply management teams, to assure consistency in planning.

Available studies were used to evaluate water quality across the District and define key issues to be addressed in the WMP.

A District-wide water quality model assisted in estimating pollution sources and recommended strategies.

Based on the key issues and current / anticipated regulatory requirements, strategies were evaluated for inclusion in the WMP.

Develop watershed management alternatives

Prepare Draft Watershed Management Plan

Prepare Final WMP

Strategy evaluation results were used to prepare watershed management recommendations for the WMP.

Feedback from the TCC and BACs was used to develop the draft plan and associated implementation costs.

The final WMP is the culmination of all previous steps.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary
Policy Goals
The District's Policy Goals, shown in abbreviated form below, served as guideposts for all of the District's planning efforts; using the same set of goals across all plans helped ensure consistency of purpose. Key elements of the watershed management strategy were evaluated with these goals in mind.

District Policy Goals
MMaannaaggeeDDisistrtricictt WWaateterrRReessoouurrcceess

SSuusstataininaabblele EEccoonnoommicic DDeevveeloloppmmeenntt

EEnnhhaannccee WWaateterr QQuuaaliltiyty

EEqquuitiatabblyly ImImpplelemmeenntat ble

DDisistrtribibuutete CCoosststs

M-aebalseures Measures

PPuubblilcic EEdduuccaatitoionn&& AAwwaarreenneessss

Integration of Planning Efforts

Each jurisdiction in the 16-county District planning area faces a multitude of requirements linked to water resources management, ranging from watershed management to infrastructure improvements to water conservation to land use planning and wasteload allocation permitting. Moreover, each jurisdiction's independent activities affect the water resources that are shared with many others.

Effective water resources management calls for consistency in how the District manages its inter-linked water resources. By adopting an integrated approach to planning, the District is looking comprehensively at water supply and water conservation, wastewater management and stormwater management, and watershed protection. This approach lets jurisdictions consider all requirements related to water resources management in a holistic way, helping to avoid duplication of effort and improve the effectiveness of the recommended management measures.

watersshed wastewater
water supply An integrated approach to water resources planning helps ensure consistent management of the District's limited water resources.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary
Rationale for Watershed Management
Growth in the District has contributed to a number of water quality issues:
Development has increased the amount of stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution.
The discharge of treated wastewater effluent to District waterways has increased dramatically.
Approximately 1,100 miles of District waterways do not meet State water quality standards, primarily due to polluted stormwater runoff. Many do not meet their designated uses.
The health of the region's large lakes, including Lakes Lanier, Allatoona, Jackson, and West Point, is threatened.
As its population grows, the District's changing landscape is evident in the loss of tree cover, acres of land cleared, increase in population, and increase in impervious areas. Impervious areas are those where water is prevented from filtering into the ground, such as rooftops and paved areas. The greater the impervious area in a watershed, the higher the volume of stormwater that flows into the watershed's streams and rivers.
These land use changes contribute to significant declines in water quality and stream conditions. They also contribute to flooding and property damage, increases in the cost of water treatment, loss of recreational opportunities and fisheries, and, in general, a reduction in quality of life for the District's residents.
Recent findings indicate that healthy watershed conditions can be sustained if the effective impervious area (EIA) in a watershed is limited to approximately 10 percent, thereby reducing stormwater impacts and mimicking natural conditions. The Districtwide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) identifies measures to address stormwater runoff quantity and quality as development continues within the District.
The need for improved watershed management is also being driven by a number of regulatory requirements: Federal requirements under the Clean Water Act, along with several individual State programs, demand the implementation of watershed management measures. Again, the District has integrated its planning efforts to include consideration of these regulations, so that regulatory compliance is an outcome of actions taken to meet the District's Policy Goals.
Further information is provided in Section 2 Rationale for Watershed Management.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

Existing and Future Conditions

Land Uses
Existing land cover conditions and associated impervious areas vary widely among the District's six river basins, depending on proximity to major activity centers and transportation corridors. While almost 60 percent of the District in 1999 remained undeveloped as either forested/open space lands or agricultural lands, the range among the basins varied from 50 percent in the Chattahoochee and Flint basins to 90 percent in the Tallapoosa basin.
Significant land use changes are anticipated by the year 2030 in the District. Outlying counties are expected to continue experiencing growth. Densities in the interior jurisdictions will increase as well, but much of this growth will consist of infill development including conversion of lowdensity/under-utilized parcels to higher-density residential uses.

Total District Existing Land Use -1999

9%
28%
4% 16%

43%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

Total District Future Land Use -2030

13% 57%

22%
5% 3%

Open Space A gric ultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

Designated Uses for Streams

The Clean Water Act requires that States define designated uses for surface waters within their borders. Georgia has six designated use categories for streams, of which
"Fishing" is the most common in the District. "Recreation/drinking water" is the second largest designated use.

Overall, approximately 1,100 miles of streams within the District do not fully meet their designated use. Stormwater runoff from urban areas and nonpoint sources is the major source of these problems, either causing or contributing to 99 percent of the violations.

Over 1,000 stream miles in the District do not fully support their designated uses (shown in bold lines).

In terms of drinking water sources, studies have revealed that the susceptibility of contamination at water supply intakes depends upon the potential pollutant sources and/or the amounts of effective impervious area in the watershed.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

Four of the intakes were ranked high for susceptibility, due in large part to the high levels of imperviousness. These included intakes on the Chattahoochee River and the upper Flint River in areas with highly urbanized watersheds. The District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) includes recommendations for source water protection that focus on addressing potential pollutant sources.
Detailed information on watershed conditions is described in Section 3 Existing and Future Watershed Conditions.

Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts

Most of the District's 16 counties have performed some type of stormwater management and watershed planning within their jurisdictions. While many local governments have watershed management and/or stormwater programs in place, they vary greatly in the level of service and protection of water quality.

Most of these local plans include recommendations for new development standards to address stormwater pollution. Recommendations for septic tank studies and monitoring are common in areas of lower population density. Other common elements include stormwater planning; stream buffers; increased plan reviews and improved enforcement; greenspace and land acquisition; and public education and support of volunteer programs. Differences among plans primarily reflect the overall land use; plans in urbanized areas focus on existing stormwater issues, while those for less urbanized areas emphasize new development controls.

Approaches for dealing with wastewater treatment facility discharges are watershedspecific, with little overlap. Many plans recommend plant upgrades or infrastructure maintenance. Some incorporate reuse/discharge alternatives. Sewer service expansion appears in the plans of some less developed counties.

Findings based on this review of existing programs, along with feedback from selected County staff, include:

Active public participation and acceptance are required for successful plan implementation, pointing to the need for effective public education.

Existing local ordinances and regulations are not protective enough; variances and loopholes should be reduced or eliminated.

Local government staffing is not adequate to enforce existing requirements. Dedicated staff should be added to implement and enforce the management plans.

Most of the District's 16 counties have performed watershed planning efforts, including watershed assessments and development of guidance documents.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

More information is needed on how to implement plan recommendations. Detailed information should be provided at the county level.

Lack of funding is a hindrance in nearly all counties. Additional funding of watershed protection and stormwater management programs is needed.

These plans and recommendations were reviewed in developing watershed management strategies for the entire 16-county District.
The review and comparison of existing plans is described in Section 4 Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts.

All Watersheds/ Jurisdictions

Implement Local
Stormwater Management
Programs

Watershed Management Strategies
A consistent, comprehensive approach to watershed management will enhance the ability to meet District-wide watershed management goals, help local governments meet regulatory requirements, and ensure that watershed management practices are implemented equitably. To that end, the Districtwide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) includes recommendations for six distinct watershed management strategies:

Watersheds with TMDL
listed waterways

Perform TMDL Implementation
Activities

Source Water Watersheds

Implement Source Water
Protection Activities

Substantially Impacted
Watersheds / Existing EIA
> 10%

Perform Watershed Restoration Activities

Different watershed management strategies are applicable to different watersheds, based on watershed conditions and regulatory requirements.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

Local Stormwater Management Program Activities. These are the day-to-day program activities that local governments implement to address watershed protection and stormwater management. These include maintaining water quality as new development occurs, encouraging stormwater pollution prevention, and improving enforcement of existing ordinances and laws.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategies. These management measures address specific pollution problems in waterways that appear on the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) TMDL list.
Source Water Protection Strategies. These management measures focus on protecting drinking water supply watersheds.
Watershed Improvement Strategies. These strategies address watersheds that already have been impacted substantially by development, identifying needed retrofits and restoration.
Land Use Strategies. These strategies include land use and zoning measures that local governments can use to meet watershed management and protection goals. Specific strategies include initiatives such as greenspace preservation, alternative development patterns, and other innovative land use practices.
Basin-Specific Strategies. Specific management issues are delineated for each major river basin in the District.
These six key strategies are described further in Section 5 Watershed Management Strategies.

Recommended Changes to Ordinances and Policies

The District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) identifies recommendations for changes to local and State laws, regulations, and ordinances that would facilitate implementation of the watershed management strategies.

Ordinances
Local ordinances are critical to watershed management. The District Board adopted five Model Ordinances to help ensure consistency in watershed management practices:
Model Ordinance for Post-Development Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment

District staff developed a set of Model Stormwater Management Ordinances as a guidepost for local jurisdictions to help ensure consistency in watershed management practices.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

Model Floodplain Management/Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Model Conservation Subdivision/Open Space Development Ordinance
Model Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Ordinance
Model Litter Control Ordinance
These Model Ordinances are a key component of the local stormwater management program activities for watershed management. No additional changes to these Model Ordinances were recommended for the District-wide WMP. One additional Model Ordinance is being recommended: a Model Stream Buffer Ordinance. This ordinance includes a recommendation for a 50-foot undisturbed vegetated buffer and a 25-foot additional setback in which impervious cover and septic systems would be prohibited.
Local Policy Recommendations
Three additional measures regarding local policies and potential regulations are recommended:
Resource protection. Vegetation loss and increased impervious surfaces lead to increases in stormwater runoff associated with urbanization and can have severe impacts on streams. Resource protection policies can include tree protection measures, as well as limitations on clearing and grading activities.
Reduction of impervious cover. Policies can be used to reduce impervious area, thereby reducing stormwater peaks volumes. These include standards for maximum roadway widths, maximum parking ratios, and pervious (unpaved) overflow parking.
Septic tank management. These measures are designed to protect critical areas from septic system impacts through inspection and maintenance programs that focus on septic system design, siting, construction, inspection, and maintenance.
State Policy Recommendations
The District-wide WMP addresses six key issues in the State policy arena:
Interjurisdictional Coordination. Coordination between adjacent Counties and Cities is one of the greatest challenges to successful watershed management. The District's local governments and water and sewer authorities must coordinate many of their management activities, especially in watersheds that cross County and City borders.
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Compliance. Major roads comprise a significant amount of the impervious area in the District, and runoff from these roads can greatly affect water quality. The District-wide WMP suggests that GDOT use the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, and implement measures similar to the Model Ordinance for post-development stormwater management. The GDOT will already have to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater requirements, which include stormwater quality controls and best management practices (BMPs) on all projects

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

ES-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Executive Summary

over 1 acre. Implementation of postdevelopment stormwater management measures similar to those being required for local governments in the District will help GDOT meet the new federal stormwater requirements.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act

Enforcement. An audit by the Georgia

State Attorney General in 2001 found

that the resources devoted to enforcing the Erosion and Sedimentation Control

The District-wide WMP suggests that the GDOT comply with the stormwater management criteria

Act are inadequate to comply with the legislation. House Bill (HB) 285 was

outlined in the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual to control impacts of runoff from roadways.

introduced on behalf of GAEPD to

overhaul the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act. This bill would establish a fee

system for new developments, and mandatory training for virtually anyone

involved in land-disturbing activities. Compliance would focus on proper

installation and maintenance of BMPs rather than monitoring, and stop-work orders

would replace monetary penalties for violations. HB 285 passed both chambers, and

is awaiting the Governor's signature.

Fertilizer Nutrient Content. Some of the nutrients found in residential and commercial fertilizers can contribute to water quality problems. Recent studies show that lawn fertilizer can be a significant source of nutrients in stormwater runoff. One strategy to address this issue is to pass State legislation requiring that fertilizer sold in the District be formulated for local conditions to reduce water quality impacts.

Stormwater Authority Enabling Legislation. To address interjurisdictional considerations regarding implementation of stormwater utilities, enabling legislation for county-wide stormwater authorities may be useful. In many cases, local Cities are implementing their own stormwater utilities to assist with funding needed to support implementation of their stormwater programs. Other Cities may rely on the counties to meet stormwater management requirements. Implementing a countywide (or multi-county) stormwater authority may facilitate stormwater utility implementation; creation of such an authority requires enabling legislation.

Funding for Adequate Enforcement. Throughout development of the District-wide WMP, lack of adequate financial resources to support implementation and enforcement of current laws, regulations, and ordinances was one of the most frequently cited limitations.

Model ordinances and policy recommendations are described in Section 6 Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

ES-10

Executive Summary

Education and Public Awareness

Education and public awareness measures are essential to effective stormwater and watershed management, as public behaviors can greatly affect water quality. These measures also help the public understand the need for investments in watershed protection and stormwater infrastructure. The legislation creating the District mandates definition of education and public awareness measures to be undertaken by the District, other State agencies or local governments, public education institutions, and other public or semi-public entities to raise public awareness of stormwater pollution and educate target groups that have influence over stormwater pollution. Recommendations in the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) include strategies for:
Achieving awareness of water resource protection issues among 75 to 90 percent of the District's population by the end of 2006, in accordance with the goal established in Senate Bill (SB) 130.
Educating identified target groups, with an ultimate goal of changing the behavior that leads to the degradation of water quality.
Leveraging education efforts undertaken by other agencies and entities that address these issues.

Public Awareness Plan Approach

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 into the campaign:

Element 1-Public Awareness Campaign: As noted above, SB 130 established a goal for the District to achieve 75 to 90 percent awareness by the general public. To achieve this goal, virtually every household in the District must be reached multiple times with clear, concise messages. This element will use multiple techniques to present awareness information to the target audience.

Element 2-Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups: SB 130 mandates that the District develop programs to educate target groups of individuals who have influence over stormwater pollution. Potential contributors to this pollution have been identified, as well as the groups that have influence over these sources.

Education and public awareness are essential to the success of watershed management practices. For example, local Adopt-A-Stream programs have been very effective.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

ES-11

Executive Summary

Element 3-Primary and Secondary Education: The objective of Element 3 is to train the next generation of watershed stewards school-aged children. It is crucial to train the next generation as early as possible.
The District-wide WMP recommends that the existing Clean Water Campaign be built upon and expanded to educate the public and target groups.
The public awareness plan is described in Section 7 Education and Public Awareness.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan

A Water Quality Monitoring Plan was developed as part of the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP). The monitoring plan will provide for comprehensive, consistent, watershed-based water quality monitoring across the District. This will help to identify water quality impairments and improvements, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the District-wide WMP as it is implemented.

The monitoring plan also is intended to help local governments meet their existing regulatory monitoring requirements, including those of the Phase I NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) stormwater program, GAEPD watershed assessment plans, and the TMDL program. Monitoring responsibilities are summarized below.
Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Plan Elements and Responsibilities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Responsible Entity Local Government

Program Element
Long-Term Ambient Trend Monitoring Dry Weather Illicit Discharge Screening Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program Watershed Assessment Monitoring Monitoring for Assessing TMDL Implementation and Delisting Biological and Habitat Assessments

Regional Interjurisdictional

US Geological Survey (USGS) - Regional Network/Mainstem Monitoring District - BMP/Restoration Project Effectiveness District - Database Development and Management

Note: Local governments may have more stringent monitoring programs approved by GAEPD and included in watershed protection plans required in NDPES permits

More detail on monitoring strategies is provided in Section 8 Water Quality Monitoring Plan.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

ES-12

Executive Summary

Implementation Plan

Successful watershed

management involves taking actions to meet both

WMP Planning Horizon

short-term and long-term

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

goals. The District-wide

Watershed Management Plan (WMP) was developed with a 30-year planning

Years 1-5: Model ordinances Staff development

Years 6-30: Watershed improvement Ongoing watershed management measures

horizon and includes a suite Funding

of strategies and activities to be implemented over time by local governments,

TMDL measures Source water protection measures Interjurisdictional coordination

the District, and GAEPD. The long-term planning

Implementation of the WMP is planned over a 30-year timeframe.

horizon supports an

"adaptive management" approach, allowing time to evaluate options and make optimal

decisions on allocation of limited resources to achieve desired results.

The recommended watershed management strategies will take local governments several years to implement, and will require new additional funding and approaches to interjurisdictional coordination. Some local governments have staff and significant programs already in place for stormwater management; others may need to make substantial additions to existing staffing levels, internal programs, and funding.

Major implementation phases are described below.

Implementation of Local Stormwater Management Program Activities
The local stormwater management program activities will be implemented within the first few years after adoption of the District-wide WMP. Adoption of the Model Ordinances is the first milestone.

TMDL Strategies Implementation

Implementation of local stormwater management program activities will provide a base level of management for many of the nonpoint source pollution sources associated with TMDLs in the District. However, additional management measures are required in watersheds with a TMDL-listed waterbody. TMDL recommendations will be a key priority within the first years of the WMP implementation.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

ES-13

Executive Summary
Source Water Protection Strategies Implementation
The key implementation steps for source water protection, in addition to the local stormwater management program activities, include implementation of the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria for water supply watersheds and public education concerning potential pollution sources.
Land Use Strategies Implementation
Land use strategies will initially be implemented as part of the county comprehensive planning process; updates are due in 2004. Additional land use strategies will be implemented at the local level as new development and zoning changes occur.
Watershed Improvement Strategies Implementation
Preliminary analysis indicates that approximately 20 percent of the watersheds within the District are likely to need restoration based on current levels of development and associated impervious cover. Implementation of watershed retrofit and restoration measures will be costly and require several years of planning, funding, and construction. Recognizing these limitations, the milestones for watershed improvement emphasize detailed initial planning to document and prioritize watershed improvement projects, followed by incremental project implementation over time. Local governments will be evaluated based on their demonstrated progress in planning and implementing watershed improvement projects, and achieving demonstrable improvements in water quality or biotic integrity.
Local governments within the District will be required to implement the relevant provisions of the plans that apply to them. GAEPD will handle the enforcement of the three plans through its water withdrawal, wastewater discharge, and municipal stormwater discharge permits. In addition, any local government not in compliance with the plans will be ineligible for any water-related state grants or loans. GAEPD will work with the District after the plans are adopted to develop specific guidelines for local government compliance with the plans.
Details on the implementation of watershed management strategies are provided in Section 9 Implementation Plan.
Evaluation of District-wide WMP Effectiveness
The recommendations in the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) were evaluated to assess how effective they would be in meeting the District's overall goals for water quality improvement. A water quality model developed for the District was used to evaluate future water quality conditions and pollutant loads. In addition, the Districtwide WMP recommendations were compared to GAEPD's Planning Standards and the District's Policy Goals.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

ES-14

Executive Summary
In summary, the evaluation found that implementation of the District-wide WMP recommendations will result in greater compliance with requirements governing water quality and in achievement of the District's goals for water quality improvement.
The District-wide WMP outlines an ambitious, long-term program. While challenges must be overcome to achieve its successful implementation, the result will be a measurable improvement in quality of life for District residents.
Further information on the evaluation of District-wide WMP recommendations is provided in Section 10 Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

ES-15

SECTION 1
Introduction

With limited water resources and a population of nearly 4 million and growing, metropolitan Atlanta faces increasing challenges in managing its vital water resources. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (the District) was established by the Georgia legislature in 2001 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 to be implemented by the local governments in the District. It is comprised of 16 counties, including Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton (Figure 1-1). These counties lie within the boundaries of six major river basins: Chattahoochee, Coosa (which includes the Etowah subbasin), Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Tallapoosa (see Figure 1-2).
The legislation creating the District mandates the preparation of three long-term plans:
District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan
This document, the District-wide WMP, provides strategies and recommendations for effective watershed management and the control of stormwater runoff. It also includes the specific tasks and milestones for implementing these recommendations, as well as guidance on funding watershed and stormwater management efforts at the local level.
The overall goal of the District-wide WMP is to move towards meeting and maintaining water quality standards and designated uses of streams and other waterbodies within the District. This District-wide WMP builds upon the existing watershed and stormwater management planning efforts that have taken place in the District.
Watershed Management Planning Process
A step-wise decision process was used to develop the District-wide WMP. This approach was designed to facilitate an open process that focused on specific District goals for water resource management and maximized the use of existing information.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

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 Watershed Management Plan

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Chattahoochee Basin

Etowah

Bartow
River

Coosa Basin

Allatoona Lake

Etowah River
Cherokee
Little River

Etowah Subbasin

Forsyth
Big Creek

Chattahoochee River

Lake Sidney Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Yellow River

TaBllaaspionosa

Sweetwater Creek

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Chattahoochee River

Fulton

DeKalb

Clayton

Ocmulgee Basin

South River

Rockdale

Big Haynes Creek

Alcovy River

Hall

North Oconee River

Mulberry River

Oconee Basin
Apalachee River
Walton

Fayette

Henry

Coweta

Flint Basin

Towaliga Creek

Jackson Lake

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

Line Creek

West Point Lake

Legend
Rivers and Streams County Boundaries
District Study Area
Major River Basins Chattahoochee River Coosa River Flint River Ocmulgee River Oconee River Tallapoosa River

5

0N5

10 Miles

Figure 1-2 District Study Area and Major River Basins Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 1: Introduction
Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils Participation
A cornerstone of this decision 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). 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 District-wide WMP. These groups 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.
Watershed Management Planning Steps
The primary steps in the process included:
Development of the District Policy Goals Goals for watershed management were developed in coordination with the wastewater and water supply management teams to assure consistency between water resource planning efforts.
Characterization of Existing Watershed Conditions and Identification of Key Issues Available data and studies were used to evaluate existing water quality conditions across the District and to define the key issues to be addressed in the District-wide WMP.
Development of a Water Quality Model to Estimate Existing and Future Pollutant Loads by Source A District-wide water quality model was developed to assist in estimating the existing and future sources and loads of pollution with and without implementation of the recommended District-wide WMP.
Evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Source Water Implementation Strategies - Based on the watershed issues identified in the characterization and modeling, potential BMPs were evaluated for inclusion in the District-wide WMP. Similarly, TMDL and source water strategies were evaluated to select the most effective overall strategies for meeting watershed management needs within the District.
Development of Watershed Management Alternatives Results of the BMP, TMDL, and source water protection evaluations were used to prepare the recommended watershed management measures for inclusion in the District-wide WMP.
Preparation of the Recommended Watershed Management and Implementation Plan - Feedback from the TCC and BACs on the draft management alternatives was

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 1: Introduction

used to formulate the preliminary recommended District-wide WMP and the tasks and associated costs of implementation.
Preparation of the Draft District-wide Watershed Management Plan The draft District-wide WMP was the culmination of the previous planning steps. This document was submitted for public review and comment. The recommendations were evaluated against the District Policy Goals and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) Planning Standards to assure that the final Districtwide WMP meets the goals for regional watershed management.
The primary steps in the planning process are illustrated in Figure 1-3.

Develop District policy goals

Characterize existing watershed conditions & identify key issues

Develop water quality model to estimate existing & future pollutant loads

Evaluate strategies Best Management Practices, regulatory strategies

Goals were developed in coordination with the wastewater and water supply management teams, to assure consistency in planning.

Available studies were used to evaluate water quality across the District and define key issues to be addressed in the WMP.

A District-wide water quality model assisted in estimating pollution sources and recommended strategies.

Based on the key issues and current / anticipated regulatory requirements, strategies were evaluated for inclusion in the WMP.

Develop watershed management alternatives

Prepare Draft Watershed Management Plan

Prepare Final WMP

Strategy evaluation results Feedback from the TCC and The final WMP is the

were used to prepare watershed management

BACs was used to develop culmination of all the draft plan and associated previous steps.

recommendations for the implementation costs.

WMP.

FIGURE 1-3

Watershed Management Planning Process

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Policy Goals
The District's Policy Goals, shown in abbreviated form in Figure 1-4, served as guideposts for evaluating watershed management alternatives and key elements were evaluated with these goals in mind. The Policy Goals guided the development of all three planning studies (watershed, wastewater, and water supply).

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 1: Introduction

MMaannaaggeeDDisistrtricictt WWaateterrRReessoouurrcceess

SSuusstataininaabblele EEccoonnoommicic DDeevveeloloppmmeenntt

EEnnhhaannccee WWaateterr QQuuaaliltiyty

EEqquuitiatabblyly DDisistrtribibuutete
CCoosststs

ImImpplelemmeenntat ble M-aebalseures
Measures

Document Overview

PPuubblilcic EEdduuccaatitoionn&& AAwwaarreenneessss
FIGURE 1-4
District Policy Goals

As noted above, this document is the recommended District-wide WMP. This document is based on a series of interim reports and technical memorandums (TMs) that were developed during the planning process and reviewed with the TCC and BACs. It includes the recommendations and rationale for each of the WMP components. In addition, the document includes the specific recommended tasks, milestones, and responsibilities (and estimated costs) for implementation of the District-wide WMP.
This document is organized as follows:
Executive Summary Provides an overview of the District-wide WMP.
Section 1, Introduction Provides an overview of the watershed management planning process and the contents of the document.
Section 2, Rationale for Watershed Management Summarizes the primary reasons or rationale for implementation of watershed and stormwater management in the District.
Section 3, Existing and Future Watershed Conditions Summarizes the current conditions across the District, including demographics, land use, designated uses, and hydrologic and water quality conditions. The existing pollutant loads estimated by the water quality model are also summarized by source. In addition, future predicted watershed conditions and pollutant loads, both with and without implementation of the District-wide WMP recommendations, are discussed.
Section 4, Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts Summarizes the existing Federal, State, and local watershed management and planning efforts.
Section 5, Watershed Management Strategies Describes the final recommended watershed management strategies, including the local stormwater management program activities, as well as strategies for TMDLs, source water protection, and watershed improvement. Strategies for land use management are also summarized along with basin-specific recommendations.
Section 6, Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances Summarizes the recommendations for changes that may be required to help facilitate implementation of watershed management in the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 1: Introduction
Section 7, Education and Public Awareness Includes the recommended measures for education and public awareness related directly to water quality and watershed management.
Section 8, Water Quality Monitoring Plan Summarizes the recommended program elements for water quality monitoring.
Section 9, Implementation Plan Includes the specific tasks, milestones, and responsibilities for implementation of the recommended District-wide WMP. Estimated costs and funding alternatives are also described in this section.
Section 10, Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness Summarizes the modeling results for future conditions with implementation of the District-wide WMP.
References Includes the references cited throughout the document. Appendices Provide supporting information
Integration of District Planning Efforts
The other District planning efforts include a wastewater management plan, and a water supply and conservation plan in addition to this District-wide WMP. An overall goal for the District was to integrate the planning efforts to ensure consistency and synergy to the greatest extent.
Throughout development of the three District plans, there were several points of coordination (Figure 1-5).

FIGURE 1-5
Integration of the Three District Plans Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 1: Introduction
Integration of the three planning studies included:
Development and utilization of a common land use database for existing and future conditions.
Inventory of existing water quality conditions, and existing water and wastewater permits within the District.
Evaluation of water quality conditions under various watershed, wastewater, and water supply alternatives. The water quality model developed for the District-wide WMP used to evaluate implications of the various water and wastewater management scenarios on water quality.
Evaluation of on-site septic tank systems on water quality and future wastewater management needs.
Development of public education and awareness recommendations.
Based on these collaborative efforts, the District-wide WMP recommendations reflect the influences of the recommended wastewater and water supply plans. Key benefits or synergies between the District-wide WMP recommendations and the other two plans are summarized below:
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Implementation of the District-wide WMP recommendations will directly benefit wastewater management by improving water quality conditions and the associated assimilative capacity of the streams and waterbodies in the District. For example, implementation of post-development stormwater controls will significantly reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings to the downstream lakes in the District and will allow long-term compliance with the total phosphorus (TP) loading standards. In addition, on-site retention and infiltration of stormwater will help to maintain the baseflow in the headwater streams and rivers, further improving water quality and assimilative capacity during traditional low-flow periods.
Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan The watershed management recommendations address the need for water supply source protection by maintaining or improving overall water quality conditions. While implementation of the local stormwater management program activities will address the primary sources of water quality contamination associated with stormwater runoff, the additional recommendations for source protection and public education and awareness will specifically target some of the key potential sources of water contamination (agricultural practices, industries, and commercial businesses). The recommendations for on-site stormwater retention and filtration will also benefit water supply by maintaining stream baseflows during dry seasons. Implementation of the water supply and conservation recommendations will benefit the watershed management program by reducing the need for additional surface-water withdrawals and helping to maintain minimum flows for water quality.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 2
Rationale for Watershed Management
Need for Protecting District Water Resources
The 16-county area of metropolitan north Georgia relies on surface water sources for more than 98 percent of its water supply. In addition, the region lies at the headwaters of several major river basins and has the smallest contributing watershed area among comparable U.S. metropolitan areas. The major lakes in the District serve as a recreation destination for millions of visitors and generate billions of dollars for the local economy. Additionally, the region's rivers and streams enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors.
Growth within the District has significantly increased demand for water from available surface waters while increasing the amount of wastewater and stormwater pollution that flows into streams, rivers, and lakes. As a result, the District is faced with the following water quality issues:
Over 400 million gallons of treated wastewater effluent are discharged into local waterways in the District each day.
Surface waters and aquatic habitats are degraded by the increase in stormwater runoff due to changes in land use and development.
Over 1,000 miles of rivers and streams in the District fail to meet State water quality standards, primarily due to the effects of polluted stormwater runoff.
Many rivers and streams do not meet their designated uses.
The health of the region's large impoundments, including Lakes Lanier, Allatoona, Jackson, and West Point, is threatened.
This section examines the rationale and need for comprehensive watershed management within the District to address these issues. This section also presents a discussion of how both the physical and regulatory drivers have led to the recommendations in the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP).

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

Influence of Land Use Change on Watersheds
The changing landscape of the District, especially during the 1990s, has been documented by numerous sources using multiple metrics: loss of tree cover, acres cleared, increase in population, and increased imperviousness (Figure 2-1). The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) estimates that approximately 24,000 acres in metro Atlanta were developed annually during the 1990s. The population of the District grew 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, preceded by 33 percent growth between 1980 and 1990. Two counties in the District, Henry and Forsyth, have grown more than 100 percent since the 1990 Census. Five other counties grew over 50 percent during the same period. Even the growth rate of established urban counties, such as DeKalb and Fulton, rose compared to previous decades. DeKalb's increase of 22 percent was almost twice earlier projections and the highest growth rate since the 1960s. Fulton grew faster than at any time since the 1920s, with a population increase of 26 percent.
While such population growth can be beneficial for economic growth, the pace at which the District has grown is presenting new challenges for the region's leaders as the infrastructure struggles to keep up with the additional demands. The increasing population requires more water from available surface waters while increasing the amount of wastewater and stormwater pollutants (point and nonpoint source) that flow into rivers, lakes, and streams. Additionally, when land is developed, the hydrology, or the natural cycle of water, is disrupted and altered. Clearing removes the vegetation that intercepts, slows, and returns rainfall to the air through evaporation and transpiration. Grading flattens hilly terrain and fills in natural depressions that would otherwise slow and provide temporary storage for rainfall. The topsoil and sponge-like layers of humus are scraped and removed and the remaining subsoil is compacted. Rainfall that once seeped into the ground now runs off the surface. The addition of buildings, roadways, parking lots, and other surfaces that are impervious to rainfall further reduces infiltration and increases runoff.
Where Rainfall Goes Before and After Development
Figure 2-2 illustrates how the water balance changes when natural forest cover is replaced by residential and urban development. The example percentages in the drawing highlight the magnitude of the additional volume of water that must be handled by a drainage system after land is cleared. The actual percentages vary from region to region, but the relationships are universal.
On an annual basis, surface runoff from a forested or naturally vegetated watershed is normally expected to be minimal as a proportion of total water volume. Before development, the flow observed in streams (baseflow) results from interflow, or water passing through the vadose zone. After development, flow in streams typically originates as surface runoff. As interflow is replaced by runoff as the most significant component of flow, baseflow is reduced (SMRC, 2002).
As a watershed is cleared for development, surface runoff volume increases in proportion to the percentage of impervious surface area, defined as non-infiltrating surfaces (e.g., concrete, asphalt, rooftops, compacted soils, and exposed rock). Once a pipe system is installed to drain these impervious areas, almost every rainfall results in runoff.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

1950

1970

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin

Hall

Lake

Sidney

Forsyth

Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

Clayton

Ocmulgee Basin
DeKalb
Rockdale

Walton

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin

Hall

Lake

Sidney

Forsyth

Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

Ocmulgee Basin
DeKalb Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta West Point Lake

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry
Jackson Lake
Legend Rivers and Streams District Study Area County Boundaries Urbanized Areas
Urban Area Data Source: Atlanta Regional Commission, 2003.

1990

Coweta West Point Lake

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

2000

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin

Hall

Lake

Sidney

Forsyth

Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

Clayton

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

Ocmulgee Basin
DeKalb Rockdale

Walton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Bartow

Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin

Hall

Lake

Sidney

Forsyth

Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

Clayton

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

Ocmulgee Basin
DeKalb Rockdale

Walton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-urbanfigure.apr, April 16 2003, HDYKE

10 0 N 10 20 Miles

Figure 2-1
District Urbanized Areas (1950 to 2000) Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

FIGURE 2-2
Changes in Runoff and Hydrology due to Development Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management
The cumulative effects of these changes in land use include significant shifts in stormwater quantity and quality. These changes in stormwater runoff characteristics and the resulting effects are observed across the District. The primary impacts include:
Changes in stream flow increased runoff volumes, increased peak discharges, greater runoff velocities, increased flooding, and lower dry weather stream flows.
Changes in stream geometry stream widening and down-cutting, loss of riparian tree cover, sedimentation in the channel, and increased flood elevations.
Degradation of aquatic habitat - degradation of habitat structure, loss of pool-riffle structure, reduced stream base flows, increased temperatures, and reduced abundance and diversity of aquatic biota.
Water quality impacts - reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) and increases in nutrient enrichment, microbial contamination, hydrocarbons (oils and grease), toxic materials (pesticides, metals, organic contaminants), sedimentation, temperature, and trash/debris.
Linkages between Hydrology and Watershed Health
There is a logical link between changes in watershed land use and the cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff on watershed health, whether those impacts are in the form of flooding, streambank erosion, aquatic habitat degradation, or declining water quality. The link is the change in the volume and timing of surface runoff that is created as the result of alteration of the natural landscape. Figure 2-3 illustrates the impact of progressive increases in urbanization on watershed hydrology, in-stream erosion and channel modification, flooding, and baseflow.
Impacts of uncontrolled stormwater runoff also have social and economic impacts on communities (ARC, 2001), including:
Property and Structural Damage associated with Flooding Impairment of Drinking Water Supplies Increased Cost of Water Supply Treatment Loss of Recreational Opportunities Declining Value of Waterfront Property Loss of Fisheries Increased Litigation Reduction in Quality of Life
The overall goal of the District-wide WMP is to address these potential impacts and to meet or exceed water quality standards in all watersheds, including attainment of designated uses for all streams.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

FIGURE 2-3
Impact of Changes in Hydrology on Watercourse Erosion and Baseflow Relationships Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

What is Impervious Surface?
As noted previously, "impervious surface" refers to land cover, both natural and human-made, that does not allow rainfall to soak or infiltrate into the soil. Consequently, precipitation that falls on impervious surfaces either runs off to a pervious area where all or a portion of the runoff infiltrates into the soil, or it continues to flow until conveyed to a ditch, a storm drain network, or a surface receiving water. Impervious cover in a watershed can be organized into two main categories:
Rooftops - Impervious cover created by buildings, homes, garages, stores, warehouses, and other structures with roofs.
Roadways and Parking - Impervious cover created by structures such as roads, highways, driveways, and parking lots.
Generally, the roadways and parking component occupies a larger percentage of land than the rooftops component. A study in the city of Olympia, Washington, revealed that

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management
imperviousness for roadways and parking constituted 63 to 70 percent of the total impervious cover at 11 sites of varying land use, including residential, multifamily, and commercial areas (City of Olympia, 1995).
Relationship between Total and Effective Impervious Area
Impervious cover in a watershed is reported in two basic ways, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2002):
Total Impervious Area (TIA) - Includes all impervious cover in a watershed, including rooftops and transport systems. TIA typically is expressed as a percentage of the total watershed area. It can be calculated by direct measurement or by estimating the percentage based on land use, road density, population density, or other indicators.
Effective Impervious Area (EIA) The portion of total impervious cover that is "directly" connected to the storm drain network (Sutherland, 1995). These surfaces usually include streets (and immediately adjacent paved areas), parking lots, and rooftops that are hydraulically connected to the drainage network (e.g., downspouts that discharge directly to gutters or driveways). EIA also is usually expressed as a percentage of the total watershed area. It is the preferred statistic for use when estimating runoff volumes because it is the portion of the impervious cover that generates direct runoff and that directly impacts receiving streams.
The amount of impervious area and the relationship between TIA and EIA vary with land use. Research in the Puget Sound area revealed that TIA in low-density residential sites averaged about 10 percent, with an EIA of only 4 percent. In commercial and industrial areas, however, TIA averaged about 90 percent, with virtually all of the TIA equaling EIA because of the lack of pervious areas to break up direct connections (Caraco et al., 1998).
Recent scientific findings have indicated that "healthy" watershed conditions, or conditions similar to those found in undeveloped watersheds, can be sustained if EIA is maintained at or below 10 percent (Schueler, 1994; Paul and Meyer, 2001). Beyond this threshold, changes in the hydrology and water balance trigger increased stormwater runoff and watercourse erosion, which in turn degrade and/or eliminate aquatic habitat. Therefore, the District-wide WMP recommends strategies that limit EIA to approximately 10 percent through the use of structural or nonstructural stormwater control measures as development continues within the District.
Addressing Stormwater Runoff and Maintaining Watershed Health
Stormwater management involves both the prevention and mitigation of stormwater runoff impacts through a variety of methods and mechanisms. A key to protecting watershed health is to maintain as close to the natural hydrologic and water quality conditions and water balance as is achievable and practicable. This can be achieved through one or more of the following:

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

Developing land in a way that minimizes its impact on a watershed and reduces both the amount of runoff and pollutants generated
Using the most current and effective erosion and sedimentation control practices during the construction phase of development
Controlling stormwater runoff peaks, volumes, and velocities to prevent both downstream flooding and streambank/channel erosion
Treating post-development stormwater runoff before it is discharged to a waterway
Implementing pollution prevention practices to prevent stormwater from becoming contaminated in the first place
Using various techniques to maintain groundwater recharge
There are a variety of structural, nonstructural, and site design measures which can be used on an individual site for achieving the goal of water quality improvement. In addition, it is important to assess the larger scale of the entire watershed through considerations of land use and planning. The recommended watershed management strategies and model stormwater management ordinances outlined in Section 5 will provide a mechanism for addressing stormwater impacts within District watersheds.
Regulatory Drivers
This section outlines the Federal and State regulatory requirements that provide much of the impetus for implementing the District-wide WMP recommendations.
Federal Water Protection Programs
Clean Water Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1986 are the primary federal regulatory drivers behind protecting and improving water quality in the District. Administration and enforcement of these programs in Georgia are delegated to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) by EPA.
Provisions of the Clean Water Act are administered in the State via the Georgia Water Quality Act and its corresponding Rules and Regulations, revised in December of 2002. The Rules and Regulations provide guidance on water use classifications, surface water intakes, wastewater treatment and discharges, and stormwater permitting.
NPDES Program
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established under the Clean Water Act to control water pollution by regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES program covers several pollutant sources that are regulated by permits issued by the GAEPD. These include:

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) Industrial and Commercial Wastewater Discharges Pretreatment Facilities Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Municipal Storm Sewer Discharges Industrial Stormwater Stormwater Permits for Construction Areas
Each of these programs has a role in protecting water quality and must be considered in a watershed management program. The following is a discussion of the major regulatory requirements for local governments under the NPDES program and implications for watershed and stormwater management.
Municipal Wastewater. Several of the NPDES permit program areas affect how municipalities within the District handle sanitary wastewater flows. Regulations address publicly-owned (municipal) treatment works (POTWs), separate and combined wastewater sewer systems, sludge and biosolids handling, and pretreatment requirements for industrial users discharging into a municipal wastewater system. Typical permits establish discharge levels (e.g., pollutant-specific limits and wasteloads), monitoring requirements, and reporting requirements.
In addition to the Federal requirements, GAEPD requires a watershed assessment and the development of a District-wide WMP for all new or expanded NPDES permits for municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Recognizing that additional wastewater capacity will likely support additional growth, the State is requiring local governments and utilities to address the potential for increased stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution that would result from that growth. Many of the local governments within the District have already completed local watershed assessments and management plans and have begun their implementation (see Section 4).
Municipal Stormwater. Under GAEPD's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit program, local governments in regulated areas are required to establish a comprehensive stormwater management program (SWMP) and to develop a plan and program to control stormwater pollution discharges to waters of the State to the maximum extent practical and to prevent non-stormwater discharges from entering the stormwater system.
This is accomplished through a local program which includes such measures as structural and non-structural stormwater controls, best management practices (BMPs), regular inspections, enforcement activities, stormwater monitoring, and public education efforts. Stormwater management ordinances, erosion and sedimentation control ordinances, development regulations, and other local regulations provide the legal authority necessary to implement the stormwater management programs.
Since 1993, the Phase I permit requirements have applied in the District to all local governments in the five-county Atlanta metro area of Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, including the City of Atlanta. Federal regulations were adopted

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

in 1999 that will extend the NPDES MS4 permit program to the remainder of local governments in the 16-county District within the metropolitan urbanized area. The Phase II rules take a slightly different approach to how the local stormwater management programs are implemented by requiring that the SWMP include the following six elements, termed "minimum control measures:"
1. Public Education and Outreach 2. Public Participation/Involvement 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4. Construction Site Runoff Control 5. Post-Construction Runoff Control 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
A Phase II MS4 local government will be required to identify its selection of management practices and measurable goals for each minimum control measure in the permit application (EPA, 2000).
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the GAEPD is required to develop a list of impaired waters that do not meet water quality standards. The GAEPD must then establish priority rankings for waters on the list and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for listed waters (see Section 3). The TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a specific pollutant of concern that a designated segment of a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. The TMDL also allocates pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint pollutant sources, including stormwater runoff.
As a result of legal action, an accelerated schedule for TMDL development was established for Georgia, with all District basins scheduled for completion by the end of 2003. Under 40 CFR 130.33 (b)(10), the State also is required to submit an implementation plan as part of the TMDL development. These requirements for TMDL implementation are directly linked to control of nonpoint source runoff and a comprehensive watershed management program.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The 1996 amendments to the federal SDWA of 1986 (USC 42 Public Health and Welfare 300f - 300j) brought about significant changes in pollution prevention and protection for public water suppliers, as well as the State and Federal governments. One element of these amendments led EPA to require States to submit a program for development of Source Water Assessment Plans (SWAPs), with a national goal that SWAPs would be completed for watersheds serving the majority of the population by mid-2003. EPA anticipated that the assessment information would lead to the development of source water protection plans.
The benefits of a source water protection plan include:
A more secure and safe drinking water supply Possible reduction in treatment and monitoring costs General cost reduction through pollution prevention

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-10

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management

The GAEPD partnered with the ARC to develop SWAPs for drinking water sources in the Atlanta region. For those areas outside of the ARC planning area but within the District, the local Regional Development Centers (RDCs) and the Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority were contracted to complete the assessments.
State Water Protection Programs
In addition to the federally mandated programs in Georgia, the State has also initiated other programs, described below, that contribute to water resource protection.
Georgia Planning Act
The Georgia Planning Act of 1989 has multiple requirements geared towards the protection of water resources. One component is the set of minimum standards and procedures generally known as the "Environmental Planning Criteria" or "Part V Criteria" (from Part V of House Bill 215, which became the Planning Act). The Act requires local governments to implement regulations consistent with these criteria, which address the following resource areas:
Wetlands Water Supply Watersheds Groundwater Recharge Areas Protected Rivers Protected Mountains
Another component of the Act requires that all local governments in the District prepare a complete update to their comprehensive plans sometime during the period of 20042008. Each county will be required to meet the "advanced planning level criteria" for its plan updates based on population and growth thresholds; this means that they must go beyond the basic planning components and Part V Environmental Planning Criteria to address more complex issues such as greenspace preservation and alternative development patterns. The revised Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning, effective January 1, 2004, also require local governments in the District to incorporate recommendations from the District plans in their comprehensive plans during this update.
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act
Land-disturbing activities, including clearing and grading, are regulated in Georgia by the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act established by the General Assembly in 1975. Persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on more than 1.1 acres are required by the Act to obtain a permit. They are also required to submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan and implement procedures for preventing and/or minimizing erosion and the resultant sedimentation. Additional requirements governing erosion and sedimentation were established in August 2000 under the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities issued by GAEPD in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Under the terms of the permit, persons and firms engaged in landdisturbing activities on 5 or more acres (up to 250 acres) are required to file a Notice of Intent with GAEPD, submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan, implement

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management
erosion and sedimentation control procedures, and conduct monitoring and recordkeeping activities to document the amount of sediment entering the State's waters.
Metropolitan River Protection Act
The Metropolitan River Protection Act, originally enacted in 1973, was established to provide additional resource protection to the Chattahoochee River from Buford Dam south to the downstream boundaries of Fulton and Douglas Counties. The Act establishes a 2,000-foot river corridor on both banks of the Chattahoochee River and its impoundments and requires that the ARC adopt a Chattahoochee Corridor Plan for its protection. To do this, the ARC is authorized to review development proposals for consistency with the Corridor Plan and to issue findings based on these reviews. Under the Act, it is illegal to engage in any land-disturbing activity in the corridor which is not in compliance with or has not been certified under the Chattahoochee Corridor Plan.
Common Themes for Watershed Management
The need for stormwater and watershed management is driven by several common themes:
Stormwater runoff and potential impacts are directly linked to land use change.
Control of stormwater runoff quantity and quality is necessary to minimize property damage, stream degradation, and water quality impacts.
A long-term goal of mimicking natural hydrologic conditions will help address potential impacts from stormwater runoff.
Multiple regulatory requirements have evolved to address the increasing importance of stormwater management and water quality protection and improvement.
Integration of the multiple existing programs and/or requirements will reduce duplication of effort and associated costs, and potentially improve implementation of a comprehensive program for watershed management.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

2-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 3
Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Purpose
This section summarizes existing watershed conditions throughout the District, including an estimation of existing and future pollutant loadings with and without additional watershed management measures, i.e., the recommendations in the Districtwide Watershed Management Plan (WMP). Data from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) and existing watershed assessments are summarized by basin to assess current conditions and provide a foundation for developing management strategies to address water quality problems in the District.
District Demographics
There are 16 counties in the District, including Bartow, Clayton, Cherokee, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton. The District has experienced unprecedented growth and development over the last 20 years as part of the greater Atlanta metropolitan region. Table 3-1 illustrates the population for Georgia, for each county in the District, and for the District as a whole from 1980 to 2000 and the percentage change by decade. While such population growth can be beneficial for economic growth, the pace at which the District has grown is presenting new challenges for the region's leaders in terms of water resources and watershed management.
District Water Resources
Hydrology
The 16-county District area covers portions of six major river basins in north-central Georgia. The District lies at or near the headwaters of most of these basins. The District also straddles the eastern continental divide, and approximately 30 percent of the District drains southeast to the Atlantic Ocean, while the remaining 70 percent drains south and west to the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 3-1).

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-1
District Population Growth Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

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

1980
5,462,989 40,760 51,699 150,357 297,718 39,268 483,024 54,573 29,043 27,958 589,904 166,815 75,649 36,309 26,110 36,570 31,211
2,136,968

1990
6,478,149 55,915 90,204 181,436 447,745 53,853 546,174 71,120 62,415 44,083 648,776 352,910 95,434 58,741 41,611 54,091 38,586
2,843,094

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 3/22/01

2000
8,186,453 76,019 141,903 236,517 607,751 89,215 665,865 92,174 91,263 98,407 816,006 588,448 139,277 119,341 81,678 70,111 60,687
3,974,662

Growth 1980-1990
19% 37% 75% 21% 50% 37% 13% 30% 115% 58% 10% 112% 26% 62% 59% 48% 24% 33%

Growth 1990-2000
26% 36% 57% 30% 36% 66% 22% 30% 46% 123% 26% 67% 46% 103% 96% 30% 57% 40%

FIGURE 3-1
District River Systems Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
The Coosa and Tallapoosa basins are located in the northwest portion of the District and are part of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) river system, which drains through Alabama to Mobile Bay. The Coosa basin includes the Etowah River and Allatoona Lake, the second largest reservoir in the District.
The Chattahoochee River flows through the center of the District and metropolitan area and is the primary source of drinking water for millions of people. The upper portion of the Chattahoochee in the District is impounded by Buford Dam to form Lake Sidney Lanier, the largest and most important reservoir in the metropolitan area. The flow of the Chattahoochee is regulated primarily by Lake Lanier. Immediately southwest of the District on the Chattahoochee River is West Point Lake, the second major reservoir on the river.
The Flint basin headwaters are in the southern portion of the District. Both the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers are part of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin system, which flows to Apalachicola Bay in Florida.
The Ocmulgee and Oconee basins cover the southeastern third of the District. The Ocmulgee basin in the District drains to Jackson Lake, a Georgia Power reservoir located just outside of the District area.
Figure 3-2 shows the location of the 16 counties, the District boundary, major river basins, and hydrologic units. Hydrologic units are watersheds that have been given unique numeric identification or Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This identification system for basins and watersheds is widely used and the results of this District-wide WMP are thus organized so that results may be easily used in other studies. HUCs are assigned such that a shorter code in terms of number of digits represents a larger drainage area. As more digits are added to the HUC, successively smaller components of the larger HUC are identified. As each HUC is unique, these numeric identifications are used in referring to individual hydrologic units. For example, the Coosa basin (031501) is a 6-digit HUC, the Etowah River subbasin of the Coosa basin (03150104) is an 8-digit HUC, the Little River watershed within the Etowah River subbasin (0315010408) is a 10-digit HUC, and Noonday Creek subwatersheds of the Little River watershed (031501040807+) are 12-digit HUCs.
The results and management strategies presented in this District-wide WMP are generally summarized at the 6-digit and 8-digit level; however, analysis was performed down to the 12-digit level for water quality modeling purposes. The hierarchy of HUCs used in this District-wide WMP includes nine 8-digit HUCs: the three Coosa subbasins, the two reaches of the Chattahoochee basin, and the other four major river basins in the District. Within these 8-digit HUCs there are 53 10-digit HUCs and 246 12-digit HUCs in the District. The 12-digit HUCs are listed in Appendix A and illustrated in Figure 3-2.
Precipitation
Average annual precipitation in the District ranges from approximately 49 to over 60 inches. Precipitation is greatest in the northwest counties and generally decreases to the south. Evapotranspiration (the sum of direct evaporation and transpiration by

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Oostanaula Coosawattee

Subbasin

Subbasin

Bartow

Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Forsyth Lake Sidney Lanier Hall

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, April 11 2003, HDYKE

Coweta West Point Lake

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

Legend
Rivers and Streams
District Study Area
County Boundaries
Sub-watersheds (HUC 12) Major River Basins
Chattahoochee River Coosa River Flint River Ocmulgee River Oconee River Tallapoosa River

Figure 3-2
Hydrologic Units Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
plants) generally increases from north to south and ranges from about 32 to 42 inches of water per year. Average annual runoff ranges from 15 to 40 inches, depending on land cover. Although rainfall is distributed throughout the year, typically early spring is the wettest period. Monthly rainfall decreases in mid- to late summer, and fall is the driest season. Late fall, winter, and spring precipitation is predominantly caused by continental frontal systems, while most summer precipitation is a result of convection heating. Heavy, intense rainfall events from thunderstorms are common throughout the summer months. Tropical depressions that normally form during late summer and early fall can also affect the area with several inches of rain during short periods (DCWSD and CH2M HILL, 2001). Drought is common in this region. Droughts may last several years and significantly affect streamflow, water supplies, recreation, power generation, and other water-related resources. A drought recurrence interval of 10 25 years has been identified for the area (USGS, 2000a), and a drought that began in late 1998 continued through fall of 2002.
Groundwater
The District lies almost completely within the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge (Ridge and Valley) geologic provinces. The aquifers in these provinces are in crystalline rocks that crop out in the northern portion of the basin and extend to the Fall Line. The rock is overlain with deposits of weathered, unconsolidated rock debris (regolith) that makes up the available aquifer spaces. These deposits are thickest in valleys, but generally provide insufficient yield (commonly less than 50 gallons per minute) (USGS, 2000b) for uses other than residential. As a result, surface water is the primary source of water supply for the District.
The Georgia Geologic Survey (GGS) Hydrologic Atlas 18 database identifies approximately 84 areas, representing about 15 percent of the District, likely to contain thick soils considered to be an indicator of significant groundwater recharge areas. An additional area of unconfined aquifer is located in the northwest portion of the District. This area, located in Bartow and Paulding Counties, comprises approximately 4 percent of the District (GGS, 1996).
Surface Water
Surface waters are the primary water resource in the District due to the lack of large aquifers in the region. Because of the high clay content of the Piedmont soils, the streams and rivers generally react very rapidly to rainfall events, with swiftly rising water levels and velocities. This behavior, which leads to flooding, is one of the reasons that major reservoirs have been constructed in the area. Drinking water, power generation, navigation, and recreation were also primary motivations. The flow dynamics of streams and rivers are accentuated by the urbanization of the basin, which increases impervious surface area, and hence, stormwater runoff into the streams.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

District-wide Land Use

Current Land Use
The Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC) 1999 LandPro geographic information system (GIS) database served as the primary land cover data source for 13 of the 16 counties in the District: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Rockdale, Forsyth, Paulding, and Coweta (ARC, 1999). Two additional data sources were used to create complete, contiguous land cover information for the District: the 1999 existing land cover developed for the Forsyth County, Hall County, and City of Gainesville Community Watershed Assessment and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) BASINS v.3 (EPA, 2001) data updated using 1999 and 2000 aerial photography from the USGS.
Existing land cover conditions and associated impervious cover vary widely among the river basins depending on proximity to major activity centers and major transportation corridors (Table 3-2, Figure 3-3). While almost 60 percent of the District in 1999 remained undeveloped as either forested/open space lands or agricultural lands, the range among basins varies from 50 percent in the Chattahoochee and Flint basins to 90 percent in the Tallapoosa basin. Residential lands ranging from multi-family to low-density represented approximately 28 percent of the 16-county area.
TABLE 3-2
Existing Land Use Distributions by Basin across the District Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Chattahoochee

Agricultural Lands

12%

Commercial/Industrial

6%

Forest/Open Space

38%

High Density Residential

3%

Medium Density Residential

20%

Low Density Residential

11%

Institutional

2%

Transitional/Mining Lands

2%

Etowah 16% 1% 62% 0% 7% 8% 1% 1%

Transportation and Utilities

1%

1%

Water/Wetlands

5%

2%

Flint 20% 5% 35% 1% 17% 10% 1% 2%
2% 7%

Ocmulgee 14% 6% 36% 2% 24% 10% 1% 3%
1% 3%

Oconee 32% 1% 53% 0% 3% 9% 1% 1%
1% 0%

Tallapoosa 25% 0% 65% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0%
0% 2%

Total 16% 4% 43% 2% 16% 11% 1% 2%
1% 4%

Future Land Use
Significant land use changes are anticipated by the year 2030 in the District. Outlying counties such as Bartow and Walton are expected to continue experiencing residential and commercial/industrial growth varying in density depending on their individual land use plans and major transportation projects. Densities in the interior jurisdictions such as DeKalb County and the City of Atlanta will also most likely increase, but much

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Coosa Basin
Bartow

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Forsyth

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, October 6 2003, HDYKE

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

5

0N5

10 Miles

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Legend Rivers and Streams
District Study Area
County Boundaries
Existing Land Use Agricultural Lands Forest / Open Space Commercial / Industrial Institutional High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Transitional / Extractive Lands Transportation and Utilities Water / Wetlands

Figure 3-3
Existing Land Use (1999) Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

of their growth will result from infill development, including conversion of low density/under-utilized parcels to higher density residential uses.

Future land cover for the District was projected to model the potential impact of future nonpoint sources on water quality (Table 3-3). Existing land cover served as the starting point for the development of the future land cover projections. The following data sources were utilized to project future conditions within the District:

ARC future land use data, developed in 1996 for the 10-county ARC region and based on each County's future land use information at that time.

Current future land cover information from individual counties, as available.
Readily available future land cover data from existing studies within the District, including the Forsyth County, Hall County, and the City of Gainesville Community Watershed Management Plan and the Northern Arc Environmental Impact Statement.
TABLE 3-3
Projected Future Land Use Distributions by Basin across the District Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Agricultural Lands Commercial Conservation Lands Forest/Open Space High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Industrial/Institutional Transitional/Extractive Lands Transportation and Utilities Water/Wetlands

Chattahoochee
3% 9% 7% 10% 4% 26% 29% 5% 0% 1% 5%

Etowah
8% 3% 6% 37% 0% 13% 27% 3% 0% 1% 2%

Flint
7% 8% 7% 9% 2% 19% 34% 5% 0% 2% 7%

Ocmulgee
4% 8% 9% 8% 3% 32% 27% 5% 0% 1% 3%

Oconee
16% 4% 11% 20% 1% 10% 33% 5% 0% 1% 0%

Tallapoosa
8% 2% 0% 34% 0% 7% 46% 2% 0% 0% 2%

Designated Uses and Impaired Waterbodies
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that States develop designated uses for surface waters. In Georgia there are six designated use categories for streams, and a stream may be classified as having more than one designated use. The miles of stream assigned to each designated use in the District are provided in Table 3-4. "Fishing" is the most common designated use in the District, with 92 percent of the stream miles designated "Fishing" only. Approximately 8 percent of the listed stream miles have drinking water as the primary or secondary designated use, while 3 percent, located entirely within the Chattahoochee basin, are designated for both recreation/drinking water uses.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-4
Stream Miles for Each Designated Use by Basina Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Chattahoochee

Drinking Water

8

Drinking Water/Fishing

0

Fishing

627

Fishing/Drinking Water

5

Recreation

7

Recreation/Drinking Water

49

Total

696

Notes: aDoes not include reservoirs

Coosa 0 0
293 19 0 0 312

Flint Ocmulgee Oconee

0

24

0

5

0

0

177 341

65

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

182 378

65

Tallapoosa 2 0 7 0 0 0 10

Total 34 5
1,510 38 7 49
1,643

Percent of Total 2% < 1% 92% 2% < 1% 3%

Section 305(b) of the CWA also requires that States develop and institute biennial monitoring and reporting that describes water quality conditions of State waters and their designated use status (GAEPD, 2002a). This resulting compilation, known as the 305(b) report, provides an assessment of surface-water quality by classifying stream and river segments as supporting, partially supporting, or not supporting designated uses. Streams not supporting their designated use are placed on the list of impaired waters, the 303(d) list. The report addresses both point and nonpoint source pollution issues and provides information on parameters violated, causes of the violations, and actions planned to reduce the problems.
Table 3-5 and Figure 3-4 identify the number of stream segments and miles of stream in each basin within the District that either partially support or do not support their designated uses. Of the 1,100 miles of streams in the District that do not support or only partially support their designated uses, approximately 62 percent do not meet their designated use.

TABLE 3-5
303(d) Listed Streams in the District (2002) Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Chattahoochee Coosa

Number of Stream Segments Listed

97

28

Miles of Streams Not

Supporting Designated

325

90

Use

Miles of Streams Partially

Supporting Designated

168

79

Use

Total Miles Not Fully Supporting Designated Use

492

169

Flint 14 28 50 78

Ocmulgee 50 221 96 317

Oconee Total Miles

17

206

14

678

35

427

49

1,105

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Coosa

Basin

Bartow

Allatoona

Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, October 6 2003, HDYKE

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Fulton

Douglas

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale
Clayton

Walton

West Point Lake

Coweta

5

0N5

10 Miles

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake
Legend Designated Use Status, 2002
Not Supporting Partially Supporting Supporting District Study Area County Boundaries Major River Basins Chattahoochee River Coosa River Flint River Ocmulgee River Oconee River Tallapoosa River

Figure 3-4
Designated Use Status, 2002 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

GAEPD has identified the most likely sources causing violations in particular stream segments, which are summarized by basin in Table 3-6. Urban runoff and nonpoint source runoff are identified as the major sources of violations, either causing or contributing to 99 percent of the violations. In many instances, a combination of sources has been identified as responsible for violations. As a result, in many watersheds combinations of stressors must be addressed to protect or restore water quality.
TABLE 3-6
Identified Causes of Violations for Stream Segments within the District (Units = Linear Miles) Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Cause of Violation Chattahoochee Coosa

Flint Ocmulgee Oconee Total Percent of Total

CSO,UR

2

I1,UR

3

I1,UR,CSO

9

I2

0

I2,NP

0

M,UR

0

NP

113

NP,UR

7

UR

320

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

9

7

0

0

0

7

18

0

0

0

18

0

0

13

0

13

89

11

41

30

285

0

0

0

0

7

55

62

215

19

671

<1% <1%
1% 1%
<1%
1% 26% 1% 61%

UR,CSO UR,I1 UR,I1,I2 UR,I2 UR,M Total

32

0

0

48

0

80

7%

0

0

4

0

0

4

<1%

3

0

0

0

0

3

<1%

3

0

0

0

0

3

<1%

0

0

0

0

0

0

<1%

492

169

78

317

49 1,105

Potential Cause Codes: CSO = Combined Sewer Overflow, I1 = Industrial Facility, I2 = Residual from Industrial Source, MA = Marina, M = Municipal Facility, NP = Nonpoint Sources/Unknown Sources, UR = Urban Runoff/Urban Effects

Table 3-7 identifies the violations that led to classifications of partially supporting or not supporting. Violations of water quality criteria are most common, with failure to meet biotic standards causing or contributing to only 3 percent of the violations.
It should be noted that the watershed assessments conducted by local governments within the District have documented that aquatic communities are commonly impacted. Sedimentation, habitat alteration, and lack of riparian vegetation were documented as the primary causes of reduced biotic integrity. At present, GAEPD has not listed these stream segments as not meeting designated uses. However, GAEPD and the Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) are in the process of developing regional biotic integrity reference metrics by eco-region and plan to re-evaluate biotic communities by major basin within the next few years. Based on the preliminary data collected in watershed assessments, and the anticipated reference criteria being developed by GAEPD and WRD, it is likely that the number of streams listed for biotic integrity violations will increase.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-7
Criteria Violated in Partially Supporting or Not Supporting Stream Segments (Units = Linear Miles) Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Criteria

Chattahoochee Coosa Flint Ocmulgee Oconee Total Percent of Total

Bio

13

CFB

CFB,FC

CFB,FC, FCG

DO

7

DO,FC

FC

393

FC,Bio

7

FC,Cu

6

FC,Cu,Zn

5

FC,DO

2

FC,FCG

40

FCG

7

FCG(Hg)

Habitat

Habitat/Sediment

Sediment

Bio, Habitat

pH

Temp, FC, FCG

9

Tox, Bio

3

Tox, FC

Total

492

6

6

7

10

8

16

2

118

47

274

4 5

22

9

4

9

4 5 21
3

13

169

78

317

24

7

10

8

1

23

2

49

881

7

10

10

2

72

12

9

4

4

4

8

5

21

3

9

3

13

49

1,105

2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 80% 1% 1% 1% <1% 6% 1% 1% <1% 1% <1% 2% <1% 1% <1% 1%

Source: GAEPD, 2002a.
FC = fecal coliform bacteria, Pb = Lead, Cu = Copper, Zn = Zinc, Cd = Cadmium, FCG = Fish Consumption Guidance, Bio = Biota Impacted, DO = Dissolved Oxygen, CFB = Commercial Fishing Ban, Hg = Mercury, Temp = Temperature, Tox = Toxicity Indicated

Source Water Watersheds
Within the District, the majority of the municipal water supply demands are met through surface water sources. The District includes 59 surface water intakes that provide drinking water to approximately 4 million people in the metropolitan Atlanta area. The source water watersheds for these intakes are located within many of the fastest growing counties in the region and have the potential for contamination without additional watershed management measures. Figure 3-5 illustrates the source water watersheds within the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

OSousbtabnaasuinla CoSousbabwaastintee

CBoaossina
Bartow

AllLaatokoena

SEutbobwaashin Cherokee

ChattBaahsoionchee

Forsyth

SLLiadannkieeeyr

Hall

Paulding

Cobb

TaBllaaspionosa ChattBaahsoionchee

Fulton

Douglas

Gwinnett

OBcaosniene

Walton DeKalb
OcBmauslignee Rockdale

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

Coweta
PWLoaekisnett

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Clayton Fayette
BFalisnitn

Henry

JaLcakkseon

Legend
Rivers and Streams District Study Area County Boundaries Small Source Water Watersheds Large Source Water Watersheds

Figure 3-5 Source Water Watersheds
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

To address the potential for impacts to source water, EPA, through amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, required the development of Source Water Assessment Plans (SWAPs) to determine the potential susceptibility of water supply watersheds to contamination. EPA provided guidance on conducting source water assessments, and this guidance was refined for Georgia in the Source Water Assessment Implementation Plan. The GAEPD partnered with the ARC to develop SWAPs for drinking water sources in the Atlanta region, which included 28 metro Atlanta drinking water intakes. For those areas outside of the ARC planning area but within the District, the local Regional Development Centers (RDCs) and the Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority were contracted to complete the assessments. The results of SWAPs completed within the District are summarized in Table 3-8.

TABLE 3-8
Summary of Results of Existing SWAPs Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Watershed SWAPs Conducted by ARC1

Water Supplier

Chattahoochee River Etowah River
Allatoona Creek
Chattahoochee River
Etowah River
Chattahoochee River
Flint River Shoal Creek Pates Creek Big Cotton Indian Creek Little Cotton Indian Creek Chattahoochee River
Bear Creek
Dog River
Sweetwater Creek Flint River Flat Creek Line Creek Horton Creek Whitewater Creek Whitewater Creek

City of Atlanta Water Department Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority Cobb County Marietta Water Authority Cobb County Marietta Water Authority City of Canton Water and Sewer Dept. Atlanta/Fulton Co. Water Resources Commission Clayton County Water Authority Clayton County Water Authority Clayton County Water Authority Clayton County Water Authority Clayton County Water Authority
DeKalb County Department of Public Works Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority City of East Point Public Utilities Fayette County Water System Fayette County Water System Fayette County Water System Fayette County Water System Fayette County Water System City of Fayetteville Dept. of Water

Potential Individual
Source Facilities
1429 210
178
898
382
249
434 9 6
159 81
296
8
57
465 463 73 95
0 82 22

Individual Source
Medium Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium High Low High
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium Medium Medium Medium
Low Medium
High

Ranking

Nonpoint

Overall

Source Susceptibility

High Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High Low Low Medium Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium High
Medium Medium
Low Medium
Low

High Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High Medium
Low Med.- High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium High
Medium Medium
Low Medium Medium

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-14

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-8 (CONTINUED)
Summary of Results of Existing SWAPs Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Watershed

Water Supplier

Potential Individual
Source Facilities

Ranking

Indian Creek

Henry County Water and Sewerage

30

Authority

High

Medium

Med.-High

Long Branch

Henry County Water and Sewerage

2

Low

Low

Low

Authority

Towaliga River

Henry County Water and Sewerage

16

Authority

High

Low

Medium

Walnut Creek

City of McDonough Water Dept.

18

Medium

Medium

Medium

Cedar Creek

City of Palmetto Water Department

6

Low

Low

Low

Big Haynes Creek

Rockdale County Water Resources

33

Low

Low

Low

Big Creek

City of Roswell Department of

270

Public Works

SWAPs Conducted by Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority (LAPA)

Lake Allatoona

Community of Bent Tree

10

Lake Allatoona Lake Allatoona

Community of Big Canoe
City of Cartersville Water Department

2 1035/ 10256

Medium
High2 High 2 Medium

High
High 2 High 2 Medium

Med.-High
High 2 High 2 Medium

Lake Allatoona Lake Allatoona

City of Jasper

28

Medium

Low

Etowah Water and Sewer Authority

275/526

Medium

Low

Medium Medium

Lake Allatoona

U.S. Army Camp Frank D. Merrill

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

SWAPs Conducted in Oconee Basin

Jacks Creek

Monroe Utilities Network

8

Medium

Medium

Medium

Beaverdam Creek

Monroe Utilities Network

Alcovy River

Cities of Covington and Social Circle

Cornish Creek

City of Social Circle and Newton County

N/A

N/A

N/A

Middle Oconee

City of Athens-Clarke County

70

Medium

Medium

Medium

North Oconee

City of Athens-Clarke County

100

Medium

Medium

Medium

Hard Labor Creek

City of Madison

23

Low

Low

Low

Sandy Creek

City of Athens-Clarke County

SWAPs Conducted by Chattahoochee-Flint RDC3

43

Medium

Medium

Medium

Chattahoochee-Flint Basin

Newnan - Sandy Creek Reservoir, Reservoir #1, JT Haynes Reservoir, Line Creek; Coweta White Oak Creek; Senoia Hutchins Creek

SWAPs Conducted by Georgia Mountains RDC4

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lake Lanier Basin

Buford, Cumming, Gainesville, Gwinnett County

N/A

N/A

N/A

1 Point sources are ranked medium or high when the fuel facilities, hazardous materials treatment, handling, or disposal facilities, and chemical industries are the most numerous items on the contaminant list. Nonpoint sources are ranked high for impervious surface > 20%, medium for 10-20%, and low for < 10% 2 LAPA ranked susceptibility for intake as high due to potential for contamination from large number of septic tanks. 3 Chattahoochee-Flint RDC will be submitting the SWAPs to the GAEPD by the end of April 2003. 4 Georgia Mountains RDC will be submitting the SWAPs to the GAEPD by the end of April 2003. 5 Point sources located in the inner management zone (IMZ) within 7 miles of the inner management zone 6 Point sources located in the outer management zone (OMZ) - outside 7 miles from the drinking water intake

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-15

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Results of SWAPs conducted by ARC for the metro Atlanta area indicated that the susceptibility of contamination at water supply intakes ranged from low to high, depending upon the potential pollutant sources and/or the amounts of impervious surface present in the water supply watershed. Four of the intakes were ranked high for susceptibility, due in large part to the high levels of imperviousness. These included intakes on the Chattahoochee River and the upper Flint River in areas with highly urbanized watersheds. Recommendations for source water protection were focused on addressing potential pollutant sources.
Protected Species
Listed Species
Protected species include all species listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service, and those listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual by the State of Georgia. Additional species are listed as being "of concern" in Georgia, indicating that additional information on these species is needed to determine whether they should receive protection.
The Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP) maintains a database of occurrence data on protected species in Georgia, including information on both federal and state protected species and state species of concern. Data from the GNHP database are summarized by county in Tables 3-9a and 3-9b. Many listed species are terrestrial, and water quality degradation typically does not directly affect these species. Table 3-10 lists the number of protected species (by basin) that may be directly affected by degradation of surface waters. This table includes animal species that spend all or part of their life cycle in rivers or streams or depend on streams for a significant portion of their life history and plants that are either aquatic or semi-aquatic and grow within or along the margins of rivers or streams.
Designated Critical Habitat
The FWS also may designate critical habitat for a federally listed species, thereby providing protection for the habitat as well as the species itself. Areas designated as critical habitat must be protected from degradation under the Endangered Species Act.
At present, there is no designated critical habitat within the District for any listed species. However, a portion of the Tallapoosa basin in Paulding County is proposed as designated critical habitat for Federally protected mussels. This portion of Paulding County is part of Designated Critical Habitat Unit 16: Tallapoosa River and Tributary, Cleburne County, Alabama and Haralson and Paulding Counties, Georgia.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-16

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-9a
Protected Species Known to Occur in Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, and Fayette Counties Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Scientific Name
Cyprinella xaenura Percina antesella Haliaeetus leucocephalus Schisandra glabra Isoetes melanospora Cyprinella callitaenia Etheostoma scotti Lioplax cyclostomaformis Etheostoma etowahae Allium speculae Noturus munitus Percina lenticula Noturus nocturnus Hyfrastis canadensis Sedum pusillum Myotis grisescens Medionidus pencillatus Notropis hypsilepis Nestronia umbellula Rhus michauxii Platanthera integrilabia Draba aprica Pleurobema pyriforme Waldsteinia Iobata Amphianthus pusillus Elliptoideus sloatianus Lampsilis subangulata Xyris tennesseensis Jeffersonia diphylla Mycteria americana

Common Name
Altamaha shiner Amber darter Bald eagle Bay star-vine Black-spored quillwort Bluestripe shiner Cherokee darter Cylindrical lioplax Etowah darter Flatrock onion Frecklebelly madtom Freckked darter Freckled madtom Golden seal Granite rock stonecrop Gray bat Gulf moccasinshell mussel Highscale shiner Indian Olive Michaux's sumac Monkey-face Orchid Open-ground whitlowgrass Oval pigtoe mussel Piedmont barren strawberry Pool Sprite, Snorklewort Purple bankclimber mussel Shiny-rayed pocketbook mussel Tennessee yellow-eyed grass Twinleaf Wood stork

Federal Status
T E T N/A E N/A T E E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E E N/A N/A E N/A N/A E N/A T T E E N/A E

State Status
E E E T E T T N/A E T E E E E T E E T T E T E E T T T E E E E

Bartow Cherokee

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

Known from County Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb

X

X

X

X X

X X X X X X
X

Douglas Fayette

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X
X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-17

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-9b
Protected Species Known to Occur in Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton Counties Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Scientific Name
Cyprinella xaenura Percina antesella Haliaeetus leucocephalus Schisandra glabra Isoetes melanospora Cyprinella callitaenia Etheostoma scotti Lioplax cyclostomaformis Etheostoma etowahae Allium speculae Noturus munitus Percina lenticula Noturus nocturnus Hyfrastis canadensis Sedum pusillum Myotis grisescens Medionidus pencillatus Notropis hypsilepis Nestronia umbellula Rhus michauxii Platanthera integrilabia Draba aprica Pleurobema pyriforme Waldsteinia Iobata Amphianthus pusillus Elliptoideus sloatianus Lampsilis subangulata Xyris tennesseensis Jeffersonia diphylla Mycteria americana

Common Name
Altamaha shiner Amber darter Bald eagle Bay star-vine Black-spored quillwort Bluestripe shiner Cherokee darter Cylindrical lioplax Etowah darter Flatrock onion Frecklebelly madtom Freckked darter Freckled madtom Golden seal Granite rock stonecrop Gray bat Gulf moccasinshell mussel Highscale shiner Indian Olive Michaux's sumac Monkey-face Orchid Open-ground whitlowgrass Oval pigtoe mussel Piedmont barren strawberry Pool Sprite, Snorklewort Purple bankclimber mussel Shiny-rayed pocketbook mussel Tennessee yellow-eyed grass Twinleaf Wood stork

Federal Status
T E T N/A E N/A T E E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E E N/A N/A E N/A N/A E N/A T T E E N/A E

State Status
E E E T E T T N/A E T E E E E T E E T T E T E E T T T E E E E

Forsyth Fulton

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Known from County Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rockdale X X X X
X X

Walton X X
X X
X X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-18

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

TABLE 3-10
Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Protected Species for Each Basin in the District Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Basin

Federally

Federally

Endangered Threatened

Number of Species

State Endangered

State Threatened

State Rare or Unusual

State Species of Concern

Coosa

3

1

2

0

1

19

Chattahoochee

2

1

0

2

0

7

Ocmulgee

0

0

0

0

0

3

Oconee

0

0

1

0

0

2

Flint

3

1

0

1

0

11

Tallapoosa

0

0

0

0

0

0

Data From the Georgia Natural Heritage Program Database Aquatic and semi-aquatic species do not include granite outcrop species that are unlikely to be impacted by surface waters.

Unit 16 encompasses 100 miles of river and stream channel in Alabama and Georgia, including that portion of the Tallapoosa River from the confluence of McClendon and Mud Creeks to the Paulding County line. This extensive area of main channel and tributary habitat supports scattered, small numbers of the fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis). There have been site collections of fine-lined pocketbook in the extreme lowest reaches of several small tributaries to the Tallapoosa Unit, including McClendon Creek. Small populations in tributary streams are probably dependent upon the mainstem Tallapoosa River for recruitment. While the populations of the fine-lined pocketbook occur outside the District, the designated critical habitat extends into the District in Paulding County.

The mainstem Oostanaula and Coosawatee Rivers also are proposed as designated critical habitat for mussels, but the portions of these basins within the District are not proposed for this designation.

Habitat Conservation Plans
A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is an agreement between a landowner and the FWS that allows incidental take of a threatened or endangered species in the course of otherwise lawful activities, when the landowner agrees to conservation measures to minimize and mitigate the impact of the taking. An HCP may also be developed by a county or state government to cover certain activities of all landowners within their jurisdiction, and these HCPs may address multiple species.

With financial and technical assistance from the FWS (a $355,634 grant), the University of Georgia, Kennesaw State University, and the Georgia Conservancy are working with local interests to develop a regional HCP for the Etowah River basin. When complete, the regional plan will allow county and municipal development agencies to authorize projects while contributing to the conservation of numerous aquatic species in the Etowah River basin. Development of the regional HCP is part of the planning process to enable future growth in the region while protecting water quality and aquatic species. This region-wide HCP will be the first of its kind in the southeastern United States.

The goal is not to prevent growth, but to ensure that, as development occurs, impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat are minimized to the extent possible. The final HCP will be tailored to meet the needs of various county and city governments within the

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-19

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Etowah basin. Once implemented, the permitting process should become more efficient for development projects, imperiled species will receive better conservation, and taxpayers may save money over the long term.
The goals of the Etowah basin HCP are consistent with those of the District. Governments in other river basins in the District may be able to develop similar HCPs where threatened and endangered aquatic species are present.
Water Quality Modeling Approach and Methodology
A water quality model was included in development of the District-wide WMP to help evaluate nonpoint source and point source pollutant loadings under existing conditions and to evaluate various future management scenarios. Results of the water quality modeling were used to define watershed management programs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings in the District and to identify the most appropriate upgrades of existing infrastructure. The hydrologic simulation program Fortran (HSPF) modeling component within the BASINS modeling platform was used to estimate nonpoint source and point source loadings. This model was selected to develop a standardized approach for estimating nonpoint source loads across the entire District.
The 12-digit HUC was selected as the basis for developing the model. The District consists of 246 12-digit HUCs with an average of 27 square miles per HUC. The 12-digit HUC was selected to allow consistent comparison of modeling results across the entire District while providing results at a reasonably small subwatershed level. Previously developed watershed models were used to the extent possible. More detailed BASINS/ HSPF modeling had been done for some counties (Gwinnett, Fulton, DeKalb), but use of these modeling data would not have allowed equitable comparisons among all counties. The two larger lakes, Lanier and Allatoona, were not modeled. However, earlier studies conducted on Lake Lanier and observed flow and water quality data from the lakes were used as data inputs.
The model allows updates for land cover, water quality, and best management practice (BMP) efficiency data to refine watershed management strategies as more data become available. This approach is consistent with the adaptive management concept promoted by the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences, whereby the management approach is modified as more data become available. The model provided output at the 12-digit HUC level. However, results of the existing conditions model were summarized by each of the major watersheds (8-digit HUCs) for discussion purposes. The analysis of results focused on key parameters, i.e., imperviousness, total suspended solids (TSS), and total phosphorus (TP).
The model was validated by comparing results with data collected from variously sized watersheds covering approximately 16 percent of the District. The comparison indicated that the existing conditions model adequately represents conditions observed in local watersheds. Therefore, the model could be used to evaluate watershed management alternatives and adequately represent conditions across the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-20

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
The water quality model was used to assist in evaluating future watershed management alternatives and in developing the final recommended District-wide WMP. Future conditions water quality modeling included the recommendations developed for the wastewater and the water supply and water conservation planning studies being conducted concurrently by the District.
Pollutant loading that derives from each source within a watershed must be included to model watershed conditions and to formulate an effective management program. Potential sources of pollutants include permitted point sources, septic systems, diffuse nonpoint sources, and instream contributions. For each of the 10-digit HUCs, BASINSHSPF simulated information about nonpoint source, point source, and septic system loads along with pollutant exit loads from the watershed. The instream pollutant contribution was calculated using the following equation:
Instream Load = Pollutant Exit Load Nonpoint Source Load Septic System Load Point Source Load
A positive instream load indicated a net gain for the specific pollutant and a negative instream load indicated a net loss. For example, if the instream contribution of sediment was positive, this indicated that sediment was being scoured from the stream channels, whereas a negative value indicated deposition of sediment in the stream channel.
Existing Conditions Pollutant Load Estimates
Figure 3-6 shows the current level of impervious cover and TSS and TP loads for the 12-digit HUCs in the District. The following conclusions were derived from the existing conditions model results:
The Effective Impervious Area (EIA) in the District ranged from less than 1 percent in undeveloped watersheds to over 20 percent in the Peachtree Creek watershed. Most sediment loads originated from nonpoint sources, although some watersheds had significant instream sediment contributions. Instream channel scour and bank sloughing occurred in watersheds with relatively high EIA. The sediment distribution across the District was highest in the most highly developed watersheds
For most watersheds, nonpoint sources were the major contributor of TP. However, this was not the case in watersheds with major point sources and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Some of the highest TP loads were simulated in the Chattahoochee basin, which includes CSOs and the Big Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The Cartersville Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in the Coosa basin also contributed large TP loads. Septic systems contributed to TP loads in watersheds served entirely by septic systems. Instream TP deposition was simulated in watersheds with instream sediment deposition.
Fecal coliform contributions originated from nonpoint sources, and the watersheds with the highest agricultural land use practices had the highest fecal coliform loads. Septic systems, CSOs, and nonpoint sources also contributed to fecal coliform loads. Instream fecal coliform die-off was simulated in the District watersheds.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-21

SEPTEMBER 2003

Impervious Area

TSS

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Clayton

Coweta West Point Lake

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

Coweta

Percent Impervious

West Point Lake

0-10%

10-15%

15-20%

> 20%

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

Sediment Load (lb/ac/yr) < 300
300 - 425 425 - 550
550 - 700 > 700

TP

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Bartow

Coosa Basin

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Allatoona Lake

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

Legend District Study Area County Boundaries Rivers and Streams
10 0 10 20 Miles
N

West Point Lake

Phosphorus Load (lb/ac/yr)

< 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 5.0

> 5.0

Figure 3-6 Impervious Area, TSS, and TP Distribution under Existing Conditions Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\task14-wmpmultimaps.apr, April 17, 2003, HDYKE

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Generally, instream processes can lead to reductions or increases in pollutants. In less developed areas, pollutants are typically assimilated by instream processes and there is a general reduction in pollutant load. However, in areas where stream scour is high, such as highly developed areas, bank sloughing can be a major source of TSS and a source of TP and fecal coliforms depending on surrounding land uses. The Upper and Lower Metro Chattahoochee subbasins show the greatest pollutant loading from instream processes.
Future Conditions Pollutant Load Estimates
The following is a discussion of potential future conditions and their implications. Four assumptions were used in evaluating future conditions:
County comprehensive land use plans provide the best available information for estimating future land use conditions.
No additional nonpoint source controls will be implemented.
Point sources will implement advanced treatment at the predicted flows required to meet wastewater demands in 2030, from the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a).
Septic system failure rate will be 5 percent.
The results of the evaluation of pollutant loads under future conditions are presented below and illustrated in Figure 3-7. The data for TSS and TP loading rates are presented in Appendix B.
Imperviousness
As noted previously, scientific findings have indicated that "healthy" watershed conditions can be met if the EIA is maintained at or below 10 percent (Schueler, 1994; Paul and Meyer, 2001). Under future conditions without additional watershed management measures, the number of 12-digit HUCs exceeding this criterion increases from 46 to 86 (Figure 3-7).
It is important to note that an impervious level of greater than 10 percent in a 12-digit HUC does not indicate that the entire 12-digit HUC is degraded, just that (1) the HUC is probably significantly impacted and that it has some stream segments that do not fully support their designated uses and/or (2) there are some water quality violations within the 12-digit HUC. In these instances, corrective actions in the form of structural retrofits or stream restoration may only be needed in a portion of the larger 12-digit HUC. Furthermore, there may be subwatersheds within a 12-digit HUC with less than 10 percent impervious cover that are degraded or have localized impervious cover greater than 10 percent and would require restoration or retrofit actions to return conditions to meet designated uses and/or correct water quality violations.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-23

SEPTEMBER 2003

Impervious Area

TSS

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Bartow

Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Percent Impervious

0-10%

10-15%

15-20%

> 20%

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta West Point Lake

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

Sediment Load (lb/ac/yr) < 300
300 - 425 425 - 550
550 - 700 > 700

TP

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb

Gwinnett

Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Oconee Basin
Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

Legend Rivers and Streams District Study Area County Boundaries
10 0 10 20 Miles
N

West Point Lake

Phosphorus Load (lb/ac/yr)

< 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 5.0

> 5.0

Figure 3-7 Impervious Area, TSS, and TP Distribution under 2030 Conditions without District-wide Plan
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\task14-wmpmultimaps.apr, April 17, 2003, HDYKE

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Under future conditions without additional watershed management measures, the EIA levels within the District are highest in the City of Atlanta and the urban corridor immediately surrounding the City. Levels of EIA exceed 20 percent in the Upper Chattahoochee basin in portions of Gwinnett, Fulton, and Cobb Counties. In the Lower Metro Chattahoochee basin, Fulton and Cobb Counties exceeded 20 percent imperviousness. In the upper Flint basin, in Fulton and Clayton Counties, the EIA also exceeded 20 percent. Imperviousness levels also exceeded 20 percent in the upper South River watershed (Ocmulgee basin) in DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties. The watersheds immediately adjacent to these highly developed areas are the next most impervious, at 10 to 15 percent EIA. These include subwatersheds in the Chattahoochee basin in Gwinnett, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Cobb, Cherokee, Clayton, Fayette, Forsyth, Henry, and Hall Counties; in the Flint basin in Clayton and Fayette Counties; and in the Ocmulgee basin in Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Henry Counties. In general, the "outer" suburban counties, such as Bartow, Coweta, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, have EIA levels less than 10 percent. These results are consistent with findings from available watershed assessments that indicated high levels of EIA and impacted biotic communities within the urban areas of the District.
Total Suspended Solids
In developed urban and some rural areas, sediment in streams is a pervasive, ubiquitous pollutant which poses ecological problems, reducing habitat structure, limiting the potential biotic diversity of the area, and in some cases eliminating populations of sensitive and protected species. One of the functions of a stable stream system is to transport sediment from the watershed in a manner that does not aggrade or degrade the stream channel.
The unit area sediment loading rate for the District under existing conditions was simulated as 518 lb/ac/year. This value increased to 676 lb/ac/yr for future conditions without additional watershed management measures.
For future conditions without additional management measures, 122 12-digit HUCs would exceed TSS loadings of greater than 700 lbs/ac/yr throughout the District (Figure 3-6). This is twice as many 12-digit HUCs as under existing conditions. The highest TSS loadings were concentrated in the urban areas and were primarily associated with the highly urbanized watersheds in the Chattahoochee basin and the headwaters of the Flint and Ocmulgee basins. However, there are a number of watersheds with high TSS loading rates in the more suburban and rural areas of the District, probably associated with transitional/extractive land uses along with higher amounts of precipitation.
Total Phosphorus
Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for all life forms and occurs naturally in soils and aquatic systems; phosphate is the most biologically active form of phosphorus. At high concentrations in freshwater systems, however, phosphorus can lead to algal blooms, which can decrease recreational and aesthetic values and deplete levels of oxygen, which is needed by fish and other animals. Sources of phosphorus in urban streams

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-25

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
include effluent from wastewater treatment facilities, animal wastes, fertilizers used on lawns, gardens, and golf courses, failing septic systems, and agricultural fields.
For the existing conditions, the per-acre loading rate for the entire District was simulated as 0.60 lb/ac/yr; however, under future conditions without additional management measures, this number increased to 0.84 lb/ac/yr.
TP loadings for the entire District under future conditions, without implementation of the WMP recommendations, are illustrated on Figure 3-6. Under existing conditions a total of 24 12-digit HUCs exceeded a TP loading of 1 lb/ac/yr. For future conditions without appropriate management measures, the number of HUCs exceeding a loading rate of 1 lb/ac/yr doubled to 54 12-digit HUCs. Some of the highest total loadings (greater than 5 lb/ac/yr) were simulated in the Ocmulgee basin, which includes multiple point sources, CSOs, and highly urbanized land use. Phosphorus loading rates were between 1 and 5 lb/ac/yr for 52 12-digit HUCs. The increased loading rates can be attributed to a combination of increased imperviousness and increased loadings from point sources.
Watershed Descriptions
The District encompasses an area of approximately 5,250 square miles, including portions of the Chattahoochee, Coosa, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Tallapoosa basins. This section provides a description of conditions in each of the major basins in the District, including a discussion of the geography, hydrology, existing and projected land use, existing water quality conditions, and results of current and future conditions modeling.
Chattahoochee Basin
The Chattahoochee River supplies drinking water and serves as the primary receiving water for treated sanitary effluent for over 3 million people in the Atlanta metropolitan area (Figure 3-8). Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA) are major recreational destinations for the region. The lake is one of the most frequently visited federally operated lakes in the nation, and the CRNRA, managed by the National Park Service, consists of 16 parks along the 48-mile stretch of the river between Buford Dam and Interstate 75.
Geography
The Chattahoochee basin headwaters originate in the southeast corner of Union County, northeast of the District. The basin occupies a relatively narrow corridor through the center of the District, averaging about 40 miles wide, starting in the northeast corner and extending to the southwest corner. Counties within the District that are partially drained by the Chattahoochee basin include Cherokee, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, and Paulding. In addition, all of Douglas County is within the Chattahoochee basin. Main tributaries feeding the Chattahoochee as it flows southwest through the District include the Chestatee River and Big, Nancy, Peachtree, Noses,

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-26

SEPTEMBER 2003

ChattRiavheorochee

WLitetlset RFiovrekr

CLERMONT

#S LULA

#S GAINESVILLE

Forsyth

,.- #S 985

Bartow

Allatoona Lake

Cherokee

Big Creek

CUMMING #S

Lake Sidney

OAKWOOD

Lanier

#S

FBLROAWNE#SCRHY

Hall

BUFORD #S

,.-575

ROSWELL

ALPHARETTA
Fulton

,.- LSeUveGl CArReek HILL

#S Ivy

Creek

85

SUWANEE

Paulding

Cobb
,.- MARIETTA 75

#S
/(400

DULUTH

BERKELEY

#S #S

LAKE

Gwinnett

NORCROSS

DORAVILLE

Noses Creek

CHAMBLEE

,. HIRAM

POWDER SPRINGS

SMYRNA

85

,. - ,.- Sweetwater

Creek #S

AUSTELL 20

#S

- ,.- ,.- VRIILCLAADoDg Roivuer gAlDanOnsCeUreewGekaLk#SAeSe#SCVhIaLt#StaLhEooF#S#ScAFhIeueRlCRBtaiovUmen#SRrpNCreek

#S#S PeCarcehetkree #S

285 CLARKSTON

ATLANTA #SDECATUR

#S#S

DeKalb

285 EAST POINT 675

Rockdale

Walton

Bear #S

Creek

PALMET#STO

,.-85

Clayton

Henry

To West Point Lake

Cedar Creek

Wahoo#SC#Sreek

#S

#SNEWNAN

Coweta

MORELAND #S#S#S#S

Fayette

,.-75

Jackson Lake
Legend Municipal Wastewater #S Treatment Plants Interstates Rivers and Streams County Boundaries City Boundaries

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Figure 3-8 Chattahoochee River Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\task14-wmpbasinshots.apr, October 6 2003, HDYKE Mountain Creek

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Sweetwater, and Dog Creeks. The basin includes two 8-digit HUCs, 14 10-digit HUCs, and 80 12-digit HUCs.

Hydrology
The Chattahoochee River has its headwaters in the Blue Ridge Mountains northeast of the District. The flow of the Chattahoochee River through the District is regulated primarily by Buford Dam, a Federal impoundment forming Lake Sidney Lanier, which is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Lake Lanier is the largest reservoir in District and provides the majority of the District's water supply, either through direct withdrawals or downstream releases. A second smaller downstream dam, the Georgia Power Morgan Falls Dam, has limited storage and provides only minor regulation of the river.

Annual flows in the Chattahoochee River at Atlanta range from a low of 888 cubic feet per second (cfs) to a high of 15,100 cfs, with a mean flow of 2,722 cfs. Measurements recorded near Fairburn indicate annual flows ranging from a low of 1,100 cfs to a high of 28,200 cfs, with a mean flow of 3,863 cfs.

The southern District boundary in the Chattahoochee basin is just above West Point

Lake, which is the second major reservoir on the

Chattahoochee and regulates flow below that point. In contrast to the mainstem Chattahoochee River, many tributaries remain

Chattahoochee Basin Existing Land Use -1999

free-flowing. Most tributaries have higher sustained flows

during winter months, and show responses to rainfall events throughout the year. Sharp peaks in the hydrographs of creeks in the more urbanized portions of the District reflect the greater influence of impervious land cover in these areas.

11% 34%

Open Space

38%

Agricultural

Water/Wetlands

Residential

Urban

Rainfall ranges from an average of 60 inches per year in the

5%

12%

northeastern part of the basin to 53 inches in the southwestern

part.

Chattahoochee Basin Future Land Use -2030

Land Use

As of 1999, the Chattahoochee basin is the second most densely developed basin in the District, with 43 percent of its area in developed use. Approximately 8 percent of the basin is developed for commercial or industrial purposes.

15%

17%

Open Space 3%
Agricultural

5%

Water/Wetlands

Residential

Urban

Commercial/industrial land uses are more prevalent below

60%

Buford Dam comprising 50 percent of the Upper Metro

Chattahoochee reach and 60 percent of the Lower Metro

Chattahoochee reach. The most intensely developed areas are clustered along major

transportation corridors (I-75, I-85, I-20, Georgia 400) and in incorporated areas. The

Chattahoochee basin has the highest percentage of high-density residential land in the

District (3 percent of the total area). Medium-density residential land totals 20 percent of

the basin area. These intensely developed areas result in the Chattahoochee basin being

approximately 14 percent impervious, with as much as 20 percent impervious cover in

some subwatersheds.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-28

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Approximately half of the Chattahoochee basin is undeveloped, agricultural, or forested land, the majority of which is clustered in the upper reaches of the basin, above Lake Lanier. This area includes significant poultry, egg, and dairy production, including areas where livestock have direct access to streams.
By 2030, land use patterns in the Chattahoochee basin will have become more widely urban and residential. Agricultural uses will decline by 75 percent and undeveloped lands will decline by 50 percent. Urban land use will increase by 33 percent, while residential uses will almost double.
Existing Water Quality Conditions
Water quality in the Chattahoochee basin generally is lower than that in other basins in the District. The Chattahoochee basin has numerous large point source discharges. Major point source contributors above Peachtree Creek include the Gainesville Lynwood WRF, Gainesville Flat Creek WRF, Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF, F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center, Fulton Johns Creek WRF, Tyson Foods, Fulton Big Creek WRF, and the Clear Creek and Tanyard Creek CSOs. Major point sources below Peachtree Creek are the North Avenue CSO, Atlanta R. M. Clayton Water Reclamation Center (WRC), Cobb. Co. R. L. Sutton WRC, Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC, Atlanta South River WRC, and South Cobb Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Average dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are above the State standard with seasonal variation. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) averages approximately 2.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which should not exert a demand on DO that would be detrimental to the biota. However, spikes in BOD loads may exert temporary and localized pressure on biota. Average turbidity levels are relatively high (frequently exceeding 20 nephelometric turbidity units [NTU]), indicating potential long-term problems. Extreme turbidity values (ranging to 920 NTU) may result from rapidly rising stream levels and high-velocity flows during and following rainfall events due to low infiltration and rapid stormwater runoff. TP values typically are below 0.5 mg/L, but a maximum value of 5.6 mg/L has been recorded in a non-urban watershed that also had the highest recorded turbidity level. This may be indicative of nonpoint (agricultural) source runoff in this watershed. Average fecal coliform bacteria data showed wide variability, with highest values found in urban and rapidly urbanizing portions of the basin. Urban runoff, sewer line problems, and CSOs are probable contributors to the elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. The strongest trend in the Chattahoochee basin is for decreases in TP concentrations over time, primarily due to recent improvements in the discharge water quality from wastewater treatment facilities in the basin (USGS, 2000c).
While wet weather concentrations of pollutants generally are greater than dry weather concentrations, there is a trend of increasing concentration with decreasing stream flow for nitrogen and phosphorus. Relatively constant loads from point sources and/or septic tanks are the likely cause, as those loads make up a larger percentage of the total stream flow under low flow conditions. Data from the GAEPD indicate that water quality in the basin is negatively affected by both point and nonpoint source pollution below Peachtree Creek in Atlanta. Many of the tributaries to the Chattahoochee River located

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-29

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
generally south of Sweetwater Creek (Douglas County) have better water quality than the mainstem (GAEPD, 1997a).
The water quality in Lake Lanier is relatively good. Overall, the lake is mesotrophic, especially in the deeper open water areas. However, long-term EPA data show some increase in eutrophication. Many of the embayments are mesotrophic to eutrophic, and the worst conditions appear to occur in near-field embayments where tributaries enter the lake. Nonpoint source loads account for about 80 to 90 percent of tributary-based nutrient loading to the lake, leading to water quality concerns related to tributary degradation (GAEPD, 1997a).
Current and Future Modeling Results
For the purposes of modeling and discussion in this section, the Chattahoochee basin was divided into two primary segments: the Upper Metro Chattahoochee reach and the Lower Metro Chattahoochee reach. The Upper Metro Chattahoochee includes Lake Lanier and the mainstem and all tributary drainages from below Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek, encompassing portions of Gwinnett, Forsyth, Fulton, DeKalb, and Cobb Counties. The Lower Metro Chattahoochee includes the mainstem and all tributary drainages from Peachtree Creek to the southwestern corner of the District, encompassing portions of Cobb, Fulton, Douglas, Paulding, and Coweta Counties.
Upper Metro Chattahoochee Reach
Current Modeling Results. EIA ranges from less than 1 percent in the Little RiverWahoo Creek watershed to over 20 percent in the Peachtree Creek watershed. EIA in five of the nine watersheds is below 10 percent. For most of the watersheds, instream sediment load contributions are positive, indicating channel scour/bank sloughing. The instream sediment contributions range from 2 percent in the Chestatee River-Lake Lanier watershed to 27 percent in the Chattahoochee River-Lake Lanier watershed. Flows from Lake Lanier result in higher instream sediment loads in the Chattahoochee River-Lake Lanier watershed. The Peachtree Creek watershed, which had the highest EIA, had sediment deposition in stream channels. This is a headwater system, as is a similar 10-digit HUC in the Ocmulgee basin.
In the Upper Metro Chattahoochee reach, point sources contribute significant phosphorus loads to streams, particularly in the Chattahoochee River-Lake Lanier, Chattahoochee River-Suwanee Creek, Big Creek, Chattahoochee River-Sope Creek, and Peachtree Creek watersheds. The Gainesville Lynwood WRF and Gainesville Flat Creek WRF contribute significant TP loads in the Chattahoochee River-Lake Lanier watershed, as do the Gwinnett Crooked Creek WPCP and Fulton Jones Creek WRF in the Chattahoochee River-Suwanee Creek watershed. Tyson Foods contributes point source TP loads in the Big Creek watershed, as does the Fulton Big Creek WRF in the Chattahoochee River-Sope Creek watershed. In the Peachtree Creek watershed, the Tanyard and Clear Creek CSOs are the major point source contributors of phosphorus. Septic systems also provide phosphorus inputs in all of the watersheds.
The primary source of fecal coliform loads is nonpoint runoff. Negligible contributions are received from the point sources, and there is a small contribution from the septic

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-30

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

systems in the Chattahoochee River-Lake Lanier and Chattahoochee River-Suwanee Creek watersheds.
Future Modeling Results. Without additional watershed management measures, future modeling indicates that EIA in the Upper Metro Chattahoochee reach will increase substantially, but that EIA for this portion of the Chattahoochee basin will remain below 10 percent. However, individual HUCs may have a higher EIA. TSS loads will increase by 45 percent, primarily from nonpoint sources. TP loads will increase by less than 10 percent, but the increase will result entirely from nonpoint sources, as point source TP loads will decrease in the future.
Figure 3-9 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Upper Metro Chattahoochee reach.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

10%

5%

0% Existing

Future

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 Existing

Future

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-9
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for Upper Metro Chattahoochee Reach Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Lower Metro Chattahoochee Reach
Current Modeling Results. The EIA in this part of the Chattahoochee basin ranges from less than 1 percent to just over 16 percent. Yellowjacket Creek has the lowest EIA, while the Chattahoochee River-Utoy Creek HUC has the highest. The instream sediment loads range from 9 percent in the New River watershed to 67 percent in the Chattahoochee River-Utoy Creek watershed. In this basin, instream contribution is directly correlated with EIA.
In the Lower Metro Chattahoochee reach, point sources contribute significant phosphorus loads to streams. This is particularly true for the Chattahoochee River-Utoy Creek watershed, which includes discharges from the Atlanta R.M. Clayton WRC, the Cobb Co. R.L. Sutton WRC, and the North Avenue CSO. The Fulton Co. Camp Creek WPCP and the Douglasville WPCP contribute to higher phosphorus loads in the Chattahoochee River-Dog River watershed. In the Chattahoochee River-Centralhatchee Creek watershed, the Newnan Wahoo WPCP contributes significant phosphorus loads. As the land use in the watershed is predominantly commercial, high nonpoint source loads also occur. Fecal coliform loads are from nonpoint sources, with a small contribution from septic systems in the Sweetwater Creek-Harding Lake watershed. The fecal coliform contributions from point sources are negligible.
Future Modeling Results. Future conditions modeling indicates that EIA in the Lower Metro Chattahoochee reach will increase by 40 percent and exceed 10 percent absent any

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-31

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

additional watershed management measures. TSS loading will increase by 30 percent, primarily from nonpoint source loading. TP loads will increase by 10 percent. Nonpoint source loading of TP will account for all of this increase, as point source loading of TP will decline in the future. It should be noted that implementation of the City of Atlanta's CSO restoration program will significantly reduce the total volume of stormwater runoff as well as the anticipated pollutant loads. All of the stormwater collected in the CSO areas will be collected and treated prior to discharge to the Chattahoochee River.
Figure 3-10 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Lower Metro Chattahoochee reach.
Coosa Basin
Geography
The Coosa basin within the District covers about 1,700 square miles, including all of Bartow County, most of Cherokee County, and portions of Forsyth, Fulton, Cobb, and Paulding Counties. The majority of the area in the District that lies within the Coosa basin is within the Etowah River subbasin. Small sections of Bartow and Cherokee

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

15%
10%
5%
0% Existing

Future

900 850 800 750 700 650
Existing

Future

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-10
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for Lower Metro Chattahoochee Reach Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan
Counties drain to either or both (Bartow) the Oostanaula and Coosawattee River subbasins, which ultimately drain directly to the Coosa River. Throughout this document, the terms "Coosa" and "Etowah" basins are often used interchangeably. The basin includes 422 stream miles, mostly designated as "Fishing" streams, with 52 miles also designated as a drinking water source. The Coosa basin is subdivided into three 8-digit HUCs: the Coosawattee River, the Oostanaula River, and the Etowah River. These three 8-digit HUCs are divided into 18 10-digit HUCs and a total of 79 12-digit HUCs. Within the District, the most significant features of the basin are the Etowah River and Lake Allatoona. Small portions of the Coosawattee and Oostanaula basins extend into the northwest corner of the District.

Hydrology
Rainfall ranges from 58 inches to 55 inches per year across the basin. The region is characterized by high runoff values and streams respond rapidly to rainfall events. The portions of the Oostanaula and Coosawattee basins in the District are headwater streams with flows largely dependent on precipitation. The Etowah subbasin above Lake

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-32

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Allatoona includes headwater and larger streams. Below Lake Allatoona, flow in the Etowah River is dependent on releases from the dam and larger downstream tributaries.

Land Use

As of 1999, over half of the Coosa basin remained forested or open space land, while

16 percent was in agricultural uses. Approximately 20 percent of the Coosa basin is

currently either low- or medium-density residential use. Most residential, industrial, and commercial land uses in this

Coosa Basin (Etowah Subbasin) Existing Land Use -1999

basin are clustered around cities. Based on existing land

cover conditions, impervious areas cover approximately 6 percent of the Coosa basin. +
The Etowah subbasin includes 14 10-digit HUCs within the District. The upper northwest portion of this basis has a

4% 16%
2%
16%

Open Space

Agricultural

Water/Wetlands

62%

Residential

Urban

significant amount of extractive land, the upper and middle

portions are dominated by low-density residential, and the

lower part is predominantly agricultural. The Oostanaula River subbasin includes two 10-digit HUCs. Approximately

Coosa Basin (Etowah Subbasin) Future Land Use -2030

70 percent of the land use is agricultural and 20 percent forest/open space, with small residential and industrial areas making up the remainder. The Coosawattee subbasin includes two 10-digit HUCs. This subbasin is predominantly

7% 40%

43%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

2% 8%

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-33

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
agricultural and less than 5 percent of the basin is residential, industrial, or commercial.
EIA in the Etowah subbasin ranges from less than 1 percent to approximately 8 percent. EIA ranges from 1 to 5 percent in the Oostanaula subbasin and is less than 1 percent in the Coosawattee subbasin.
By 2030, land use patterns in the Coosa basin will have changed to substantially more residential. Agricultural uses will decline by 50 percent and undeveloped lands will decline by 30 percent. Urban land uses will nearly double, but remain below 10 percent. Residential land use will increase by approximately 250 percent.
Existing Water Quality Conditions
There are four major point sources in the Etowah subbasin: ConAgra Poultry Co., the Canton WPCP, the Cobb County Noonday Creek WPCP, and the Cartersville WPCP. The Adairsville North WPCP is the only major point source in the Oostanaula subbasin and there are no point sources in the Coosawattee subbasin within the District.
Average DO concentrations are above the State standard and vary with season. The average BOD levels are below 1.5 mg/L and do not exert a demand on DO that would be detrimental to the biota. Turbidity and TP levels are typical for this area and do not indicate long-term problems. Average fecal coliform bacteria data are mostly in the range indicative of clean systems, again with seasonal variation. While the data suggest that the system is in relatively good condition, occasional high values are indicators that degradation of stream systems and biotic integrity is possible (USGS, 2000c). Water quality data have been collected as part of watershed assessments in several component watersheds and as part of the GAEPD Coosa Basin Management Plan (GAEPD, 1998a). These data indicate that the major contributors to stream degradation are sedimentation and streambank erosion resulting from the watershed transitioning from natural forest communities to developed land uses. In Lake Allatoona, increases in TSS, phosphorus loading, bacteria, and heavy metals have resulted from erosion, sedimentation, and urban runoff. Limnological data compiled by GAEPD suggest the lake is becoming increasingly eutrophic (GAEPD, 1998a).
Current and Future Modeling Results
Etowah Subbasin
Current Modeling Results. Instream sediment contributions ranged from 3 percent to 66 percent. The Little River and Butler Creek-Lake Allatoona watersheds had the highest EIA, which resulted in higher instream sediment loads. Lower instream sediment contributions generally reflected minimum EIA, but one case resulted from re-deposition of sediment in stream channels.
For most subwatersheds in the Etowah subbasin, TP loadings resulted from nonpoint sources. However, point sources at the ConAgra Poultry Co., the Cobb County Noonday Creek WPCP, and the Cartersville WPCP contributed significant phosphorus loadings to streams in three watersheds. In the Little River and Butler Creek-Lake Allatoona watersheds, septic systems contributed significant phosphorus loads.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-34

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
The fecal coliform loads originate from nonpoint sources, and in two 10-digit HUCs (Little River and Pumpkinvine Creek) there was significant septic system contribution. The highest fecal loading rate was found in the Little River watershed, which is predominantly agricultural. Instream fecal contributions were consistently negative, indicating a die-off of bacteria in the watershed.
Future Modeling Results. Without additional watershed management measures, EIA and TSS and TP loading will increase in the Etowah subbasin. EIA will increase by 80 percent, although the basin will remain at less than 6 percent EIA. TSS will increase by 33 percent, primarily due to greater contributions from nonpoint sources. TP loads will increase by 60 percent, with both point and nonpoint source loadings increasing.
Figure 3-11 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Etowah subbasin.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Existing

Future

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 Existing

Future

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-11
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Etowah Subbasin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Oostanaula Subbasin
Current Modeling Results. Most of the sediment contribution for this subbasin is from nonpoint sources except in the Lower Oostanaula River, where 43 percent of the sediment is contributed instream. The model results indicate that flows from Oothkalooga Creek provide the energy for channel bottom scour/bank sloughing, resulting in higher sediment contributions within the river channel.
Maximum TP loads are from nonpoint source runoff. Other contributors include point sources and septic systems in the Oothkalooga Creek watershed. Fecal coliform loads are primarily from nonpoint sources, with minor contributions from septic systems. As noted previously, the model predicted instream fecal coliform die-off within the watershed.
Future Modeling Results. EIA in the Oostanaula subbasin is expected to double without additional watershed management measures. However, EIA will remain below 6 percent for the subbasin. TSS loading will increase by 25 percent, primarily due to greater contributions from nonpoint sources. TP loads will increase by 33 percent, due to both point and nonpoint source loadings.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-35

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Figure 3-12 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Oostanaula subbasin.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Existing

Future

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 Existing

Future

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

Coosawattee Subbasin

FIGURE 3-12
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Oostanaula Subbasin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Current Modeling Results. Nonpoint sources contribute significantly to sediment loads; however, 28 percent channel scour/bank sloughing was seen in the Salacoa Creek watershed, while there was a 78 percent deposition of sediment in the Pine Log Creek watershed. This indicates that sediment scoured from the up-stream watershed is deposited in the downstream watershed.

The Coosawattee subbasin is mostly forested and the majority of the TP loads are from nonpoint sources along with contributions from septic systems. The entire subbasin in the District is served by septic systems. Most of the phosphorus that is delivered to the stream channel is sediment-bound and is deposited within channels. Fecal coliform loads are primarily from nonpoint sources and, as noted previously, instream fecal coliform die-off occurred.

Future Modeling Results. EIA in the Oostanaula subbasin is expected to double without additional watershed management measures. However, EIA will increase only to approximately 1 percent for the basin. TSS will increase by 33 percent due to greater contributions from nonpoint sources. TP loads will increase by 40 percent, with nonpoint source loadings causing the increase. Point source TP loads will remain relatively constant in this subbasin.

Figure 3-13 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Coosawattee subbasin.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

2%

1%

0% Existing

Future

400 350 300 250 200 150 100
50 0 Existing

Future

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-13
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Coosawattee Subbasin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-36

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Flint Basin

Geography
The Flint basin originates in Atlanta and drains all of Fayette County and portions of Clayton, Coweta, Douglas, and Henry Counties. Its main tributaries include Line, Morning, White Oak, and Whitewater Creeks. The Flint basin within the District comprises one 8-digit HUC, three 10-digit HUCs, and 18 12-digit HUCs. This basin is located in the southern section of the District and encompasses about 650 square miles of the District.

Hydrology
The Flint basin headwaters are within the District and these headwater areas respond rapidly to rainfall events. There are no reservoirs on the Flint mainstem in the District
but five reservoirs are located in the upper Flint basin. These reservoirs are owned by counties and were developed for drinking water supply. Rainfall averages 52 inches per year.

Land Use

The headwaters of the Flint River originate at

the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport and

the Cities of College Park and Hapeville. As of

1999, this densely developed headwater system

is situated in an area that is approximately

72 percent impervious, while the Flint basin in

the District is approximately 12 percent

impervious. Commercial and industrial land

uses, representing 6 percent of the total basin,

are largely con-

centrated around the

Flint Basin Existing Land Use -1999

airport and nearby cities. Approximately 28 percent of the Flint basin is residential. Medium-density residential land (17 percent) is

10% 28%

Open Space 35%
Agricultural
Water/Wetlands
Residential

generally clustered in the upper reaches of the basin along transportation arteries and in cities. Undeveloped

7%

20%

Urban

land cover categories, such as agricultural and

forested/open space lands, represent 55 percent of the Flint basin in the District.

Flint Basin Future Land Use -2030

By 2030, the amount of land in the Flint basin used for residential purposes will have doubled. Urban land uses will have increased by 50 percent, while lands used for open space and for agriculture will both have decreased by 50 percent.

15% 54%

17% 7% 7%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-37

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Existing Water Quality Conditions
No point source discharges are located in this basin. Water quality data in the Flint River portion of the District indicate generally fair to good conditions. The average DO concentrations were above the State standard of 4 mg/L for warm water species, with seasonal variation. The average BOD levels were below 2.0 mg/L and should not exert a demand on DO that would be detrimental to the biota (USGS, 2000c). Observed spikes in BOD indicate a potential for localized stress on biota due to oxygen depletion. Average turbidity levels were relatively low, indicating no substantial long-term problems or potential stress to aquatic integrity. Maximum turbidity values are likely due to the flashy nature of headwater and tributary systems. Similar to other developed basins in the District, the average fecal coliform bacteria data showed wide variability. The maximum fecal coliform levels at two Flint River stations exceeded 3,000 most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/100 mL). Neither of these stations is downstream of a permitted discharge, indicating that the source of the fecal coliform is natural or possibly from septic systems (CH2M HILL, 2001).
Water quality in the Flint basin reflects the land use characteristics of various locations in the basin. The headwater system below the airport in Clayton County has been substantially impacted by development. The water quality ranges from poor just south of the airport to good further downstream, with some elevated levels of nutrients, metals, fecal coliform, TSS, and turbidity, as well as low levels of DO and pH. State standards were exceeded for a few pH, fecal coliform, DO, and metals (dissolved zinc and lead) measurements (GAEPD, 1997b; CH2M HILL, 2001). Several stream segments in the Flint River watershed do not meet State water quality standards.
Current and Future Modeling Results
Current Modeling Results
The EIA in the Flint basin ranges from 2 percent in the White Oak Creek watershed to over 10 percent in the Flint River-Morning Creek watershed. Most of the TSS loads in this basin originate from nonpoint sources. In the Flint basin, instream sediment deposition ranges from 6 to 7 percent. The source of TP loads is land use practices, with septic systems contributing TP in the Flint River-Morning Creek and Line Creek watersheds. The source of fecal coliform is nonpoint source runoff, with septic systems contributing fecal coliform in the Flint River-Morning Creek watershed.
Future Modeling Results
Without additional watershed management measures, it is predicted that EIA will double in the Flint basin and reach 10 percent. In addition, TSS loads will increase by 35 percent, primarily due to nonpoint sources. TP loads will increase by 60 percent, primarily from greater contributions by point and nonpoint sources.
Figure 3-14 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Flint basin.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-38

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

15%
10%
5%
0% Existing

Future

600 500 400 300 200 100
0 Existing

Future

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-14
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Flint Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Ocmulgee Basin

Geography

The Ocmulgee basin headwaters originate in Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, and the Cities of Atlanta and Decatur, and drain to the southeast. Additional counties within the District that are partially or wholly drained by the Ocmulgee basin include Henry, Rockdale, and Walton. The basin includes half of downtown Atlanta. The Alcovy, South, Towaliga, and Yellow Rivers are the main tributaries draining this portion of the District. This river basin includes one 8-digit HUC, nine 10-digit HUCs, and 43 12-digit HUCs. The Ocmulgee streams and tributaries are designated for "Drinking Water" or "Fishing," with the majority designated for "Fishing."

Hydrology
The average annual rainfall in this basin is 51 inches. There are seven reservoirs in the Ocmulgee basin within the District. Counties or municipalities own six of these and one is a private lake. While not within the District, Jackson Lake is notable for being the main impoundment downstream from metropolitan Atlanta in this basin. As such, it can be significantly impacted by the upstream watershed. Jackson Lake covers 4,570 acres of surface area and stores 107,000 acre-feet at normal pool.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-39

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Land Use
As of 1999, approximately half of the total area is undeveloped, agricultural, or forested lands with approximately 45 percent of the area in some type of developed use. The basin has 14 percent impervious area. Most of the remaining undeveloped land within the District is located in the Alcovy River watershed in Gwinnett and Walton Counties, as well as southern Rockdale and Henry Counties. Most of the developed land in the Ocmulgee basin is concentrated in the headwaters of the South River, Yellow River, and Indian Creek. The basin has the highest percentage of residential use in the District (36 percent of the total area). Medium-density residential landuse is the most prevalent developed land use category, representing 24 percent of the basin in the District. Commercial and industrial land uses represent 7 percent of the total basin area, clustered in the headwaters of the South River and along major transportation corridors. Transition to a more intense land use is occurring in 3 percent of the basin.

Ocmulgee Basin Existing Land Use -1999

11%

36%

36%

3% 14%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

Ocmulgee Basin Future Land Use -2030

15% 61%

17% 4% 3%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

By 2030, land use patterns in the Ocmulgee basin will have changed, especially with increases in land used for residential purposes. Agricultural uses will decline by 70 percent, and undeveloped land will decline by 50 percent. Urban land uses will increase by 33 percent, and residential land uses by 70 percent.

Existing Water Quality Conditions
Water quality in the Ocmulgee basin is somewhat degraded. The major point source contributors are Clayton Northeast WRF, Custer Avenue CSOs, Intrenchment Creek CSO, DeKalb Snapfinger Creek WPCP, Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF, Gwinnett Yellow River WRF, and Gwinnett Jacks Creek WRF.
Average DO concentrations were almost always above the State standard of 5 mg/L, but minimum values were frequently below the standard. The average BOD levels were generally below 2.0 mg/L and should not exert a demand on DO that would be detrimental to the biota. However, spikes in BOD values may exert localized pressure on biota. Average turbidity levels are relatively high, indicating potential long-term problems and stressors to aquatic integrity. The average concentrations of TP were not exceptionally high and do not indicate a water quality concern from this nutrient (USGS, 2000c). As in other developed basins, the average fecal coliform bacteria data show wide variability. Wildlife, urban runoff, sewer line problems, and CSOs are probable contributors to elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. Fecal coliform bacteria levels were responsible for most designated use violations in the Ocmulgee basin (CH2M HILL, JJ&G, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc. and R&D Environmental, Inc., 2000). Concentrations were highly variable but elevated at most sites, particularly during rainfall events. Both point source and nonpoint source pollutants affect water quality and aquatic integrity in the basin.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-40

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
One of the potential sources of high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus is CSO discharge.
Current and Future Modeling Results
Current Modeling Results
Portions of the basin are highly developed, with EIA ranging from 2 percent in the Tussahaw Creek watershed to 15 percent in the Upper Yellow River watershed. However, EIA in six of the nine 10-digit HUCs was under 5 percent. Instream sediment contributions range from a deposition of 56 percent to a channel scour/bank sloughing of 14 percent. High scour occurs in the Upper South River watershed, which had an EIA of over 12 percent. Even though Upper Yellow River had the highest EIA, this did not lead to channel scour because it is the headwater watershed. Watersheds with lower EIA percentages, such as the Lower Yellow River and Upper Towaliga River, had sediment deposition in the stream channels.
Significant point sources and CSO outfalls are located in this basin. Custer Avenue and Intrenchment Creek CSOs, along with the DeKalb Snapfinger WPCP, contribute significant phosphorus loads in the Upper South River watershed. Significant phosphorus loads are also contributed in the Indian Creek watershed by the Clayton County Northeast WRF and Gwinnett Jackson Creek WRF and in the Upper Yellow River watershed by the Gwinnett Beaver Ruin and Gwinnett Yellow River WRFs. Septic systems also provide significant phosphorus loads in seven watersheds. As observed in other basins, phosphorus deposition co-occurred with sediment deposition.
Generally, fecal coliform loads were from nonpoint sources. Significant fecal coliform loads in the Upper South River watershed were contributed by the Custer and Intrenchment Creek CSOs, along with the DeKalb Snapfinger WPCP. Septic systems also provided fecal contributions in three watersheds: Upper South River, Indian Creek, and Upper Yellow River.
Future Modeling Results
Without additional watershed management measures, future modeling predicts that EIA in the Ocmulgee basin will increase by 70 percent and exceed 10 percent across the basin. TSS loadings will increase by 40 percent, primarily from nonpoint sources. TP loading will double, with most of the increase coming from increased point source loads. Nonpoint source loads will increase slightly in the future. It should be noted that implementation of the City of Atlanta's CSO restoration program will significantly reduce the total volume of stormwater runoff as well as the anticipated pollutant loads into the headwaters of the Ocmulgee basin. All of the stormwater collected in the CSO areas will be collected and treated prior to discharge to the South River.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-41

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Figure 3-15 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Ocmulgee basin.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

15%
10%
5%
0% Existing

Future

Oconee Basin

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 Existing

Future

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-15
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Ocmulgee Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Geography
The Oconee basin headwaters originate in Gwinnett, Hall, and Walton Counties and encompass about 600 square miles within the District. The 103 miles of Oconee streams in the District are designated for "Fishing." The upper Oconee basin includes one 8-digit HUC and includes a total of seven 10-digit HUCs and 23 12-digit HUCs. Two headwater tributaries--the North Oconee River and the Middle Oconee River--originate at the northern end of the Oconee basin, draining the eastern edges of Hall and Gwinnett Counties. The Appalachee River and its tributaries drain the eastern portion of Walton County, while the Little River drains the southern tip of the county. All these streams flow south and east out of the District.
Hydrology
Average annual rainfall ranges from 49 to 54 inches across this basin within the District. Streams within the basin typically are headwater streams that respond rapidly to rainfall events. No significant impoundments currently exist within the portion of this basin within the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-42

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Land Use
As of 1999, the Oconee basin is the least developed portion of the District, with 84 percent of the area remaining agricultural or forested/open space land. The basin has the lowest impervious cover in the District, 4 percent. It has the highest percentage of agricultural lands (32 percent). Approximately 14 percent of the Oconee basin is developed for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes.

Oconee Basin Existing Land Use -1999

3% 12% 0%
32%

53%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

In 2030, land use patterns in the Oconee basin will have changed to more urban and residential. Agricultural uses will decline by 50 percent and undeveloped lands will decline by 40 percent. Both urban and residential uses will increase by approximately 300 percent in this basin. These large increases in urban and residential use in the basin are an indicator of how little land in the basin is used for these purposes at present.

Oconee Basin Future Land Use -2030

9% 31%

44%

16% 0%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

Existing Water Quality Conditions

Overall, the surface-water quality in the Oconee basin is good. The Monroe Jacks Creek WWTP is the major point source in the basin. However, surface-water quality problems due to nonpoint source pollution such as agricultural and stormwater runoff are concerns. The contaminant of most concern is turbidity due to erosion and sediment runoff. Concentrations of metals in excess of water quality standards have been detected in the Oconee River beyond District boundaries. The standard for fecal coliform bacteria has been exceeded in the mainstem and tributaries throughout the basin. These exceedances are attributed to a combination of urban runoff, septic systems, sanitary sewer overflows, rural nonpoint sources, and animal wastes (GAEPD, 1998b).

Current and Future Modeling Results
Current Modeling Results
The EIA in this watershed ranges from 1 percent in the Upper North Oconee River and Shoulderbone Creek watersheds to 4 percent in the Mulberry River watershed. Nonpoint sources, especially agricultural land uses, contribute most of the sediment load in this watershed. In this basin only the Upper Little River had a positive instream sediment load, indicative of channel scour/bank sloughing. For the remaining 10-digit HUCs, sediment deposition ranged from 25 to 79 percent. This indicates lower EIA and correspondingly lower instream velocities and peak channel flow, allowing sediment to deposit in the stream channels.
Deposition of TP was concurrent with TSS deposition. Most of the phosphorus load was from nonpoint sources and a small portion was from septic systems. The Lower Appalachee River watershed, where the Monroe Jacks Creek WWTP is located, contributed significant amounts of point source phosphorus loadings to the stream. Fecal

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-43

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
coliform die-off was observed in each of the watersheds and most of the fecal coliform load was from agricultural land use practices.
Future Modeling Results
EIA in the Oconee basin will increase threefold in the future if additional watershed management measures are not enacted. EIA across the basin would remain below 5 percent. TSS loads will increase by 25 percent, primarily due to greater contributions from nonpoint sources. TP loads will increase by 30 percent, primarily from nonpoint source loads.
Figure 3-16 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Oconee basin.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Existing

Future

Tallapoosa Basin
Geography

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 Existing

Future

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-16
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Oconee Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

A small portion of Paulding County in the southwest corner of the District is drained by the headwaters of the Tallapoosa River, which encompasses about 70 square miles of the District.
Hydrology
The Tallapoosa basin includes only one 10-digit HUC within the District. Most land use is either agricultural or forested, and no point sources are located in the basin. Average annual rainfall is about 55 inches. There are no impoundments in the Tallapoosa basin within the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-44

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions

Land Use
Within the District, as of 1999, the Tallapoosa basin is mostly agricultural and forest, with a high concentration of poultry operations. EIA in the District portion of the basin is less than 0.5 percent.
By the year 2030, land use patterns in the Tallapoosa basin will have undergone a dramatic shift. Lands in agricultural use will decline by 70 percent, and undeveloped land will decline by 50 percent. Most of this land will be converted to residential use, which will increase by 650 percent. Urban use will increase, but will remain a minor component of the basin's land use.

Tallapoosa Basin Existing Land Use -1999

8% 0% 2%
25%
65%

Open Space Agricultural Water/Wetlands Residential Urban

Tallapoosa Basin Future Land Use -2030
3%

Existing Water Quality Conditions

34%

Open Space Agricultural

Water quality in the Tallapoosa basin was found to be 53%
generally good by GAEPD, but outside the District

Water/Wetlands

Residential

8%

Urban

portions of the mainstem and some tributaries are

2%

threatened by nonpoint source pollution and altered

hydrology. There are no point sources in this basin within the District. TP concentrations

are relatively low in this basin, reflecting the low population and low level of

development in the basin. DO concentrations in the Tallapoosa basin are generally

above both the State instantaneous minimum of 4.0 mg/L and the State daily average

minimum of 5.0 mg/L. Pollutants are generally associated with pockets of urban

development and include nutrients, metals, and bacteria. In addition, altered hydrology

in the watershed due to the conversion of forest to other uses has contributed to erosion

and sediment loading. All streams in the Tallapoosa basin within the District meet their

designated "Fishing" use (GAEPD, 1998c).

Current and Future Modeling Results
Current Modeling Results
Within the District, the Tallapoosa basin is mostly agricultural and forest, with an EIA of less than 0.5 percent. Most of the TSS load originates from nonpoint sources. Instream sediment contribution is negligible in the Tallapoosa basin. The source of TP loads is land use practices. The source of fecal coliform is nonpoint source runoff.
Future Modeling Results
Without additional watershed management measures, EIA in the Tallapoosa basin will increase by 700 percent, although EIA across the basin would remain below 5 percent. TSS loads will increase by 66 percent and TP loads by 100 percent, primarily from nonpoint sources.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-45

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 3: Existing and Future Watershed Conditions
Figure 3-17 contrasts current and future modeling results for the Tallapoosa basin.

% Imperviousness TSS (lb/ac/yr) TP (lb/ac/yr)

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Existing

Future

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Existing

Future

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing

Future

PS+Septic NPS

FIGURE 3-17
Current and Future Pollutant Loads by Source for the Tallapoosa Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

3-46

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 4
Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts
Local Stormwater Management Efforts
The level of existing stormwater management efforts and programs varies greatly across the District, depending on the density of development, population and current regulatory requirements. Most communities in the District currently address drainage issues and have implemented stormwater design and detention requirements to prevent flooding.
Since 1993, the Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit requirements have applied all local governments in Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett Counties, including the City of Atlanta. Under the Phase I municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) program, Cities and Counties have undertaken a number of stormwater program activities including:
Mapping of stormwater outfalls Implementation of best management practices to control stormwater pollution
discharges to the maximum extent practical Procedures and ordinances to identify, remove and prevent illicit discharges and
illegal connections to municipal storm sewer systems Municipal good housekeeping practices Water quality monitoring Outreach and public education efforts
Several Cities and Counties have implemented programs to address stormwater runoff quality and nonpoint source control, as discussed on the next page.
Most of the local governments in the remainder of the District were required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Phase II NPDES MS4 program in March 2003 and are currently developing stormwater programs and plans to address the Phase II MS4 stormwater permit requirements.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 4: Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts

Local Watershed Planning Efforts

Most District Counties have assessed all or some of the watersheds within their boundaries. Eight have completed or are finishing local watershed plans or assessments. Five have partial plans covering one or more watersheds. Three have not yet developed plans. The status of planning efforts is shown in Table 4-1. Virtually all local watershed management programs share common elements, though distinct differences exist. The common elements typically include new development guidelines, proper enforcement of existing requirements, and recommended modifications to ordinances and zoning. The plans also include sediment and erosion control and stream protection measures.
TABLE 4-1
Watershed Planning Efforts by Local Governments Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

County
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette City of Gainesville Forsyth City of Cumming Fulton City of Atlanta City of Roswell City of Alpharetta Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Peachtree City

Plan Complete or in Progress X X
X
X X X X
X X
X X

Partial Plan
X X X X X X X X

No Plan X X
X

Differences among plans are related primarily to regional differences and the amount of detail. Plans for more urbanized areas tend to focus more on issues related to greater populations and increased amounts of impervious surface along with other stormwater issues, such as combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The plans for less urbanized areas tend to have a greater emphasis on management of new development.

Nonpoint Source Control
All complete and partial plans include some type of recommendation for new development standards to address nonpoint source pollution. Table 4-2 summarizes the nonpoint source components included in the local watershed plans in the District. Some approaches are more performance-based with specific total suspended solids (TSS) limits (e.g., Clayton, Fayette, and Henry), and others are more regulatory or incentivebased with erosion control requirements (e.g., Cherokee, Douglas, DeKalb, Rockdale,

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 4: Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts

and Walton). Most local watershed management plans encourage conservation subdivision ordinances. Various stormwater and watershed protection ordinances have been passed in Forsyth, Cherokee, Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Cobb Counties and are under development in Fulton and Douglas Counties. Recommendations for septic tank studies and monitoring are common in Counties with areas of lower population density (e.g., Clayton, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, north Fulton, and Hall). Other common elements include stormwater planning; stream buffers; increased plan reviews, and better enforcement of stormwater, sediment, and erosion control requirements; greenspace and land acquisition; and public education and support of volunteer programs.
TABLE 4-2
Local Watershed Plan Components for Nonpoint Source Control Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Jurisdiction
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette City of Gainesville Forsyth City of Cumming Fulton City of Atlanta City of Roswell City of Alpharetta Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Peachtree City Lake Allatoona

Sediment/Erosion

Zoning or

Control or Stream Management Regulatory

Protection

and Planning Modifications

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Education
X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X
X X X X

Stormwater Septic Tank Controls Program

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

Point Source Elements

Point source elements for dealing with discharges from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in plans are primarily watershed-specific with little overlap. Many plans have provisions describing plant upgrades or infrastructure maintenance. Table 4-3 summarizes the point source components included in the local watershed plans in the District. Some programs (e.g., DeKalb County and Peachtree City) incorporate reuse/discharge alternatives. Expanding sewer service to new and existing developments appears in the plans of some less developed Counties (e.g., Douglas, Hall).

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 4: Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts

TABLE 4-3
Local Watershed Plan Components for Point Source Elements Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Jurisdiction Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette City of Gainesville Forsyth City of Cumming Fulton City of Atlanta City of Roswell City of Alpharetta Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Peachtree City Lake Allatoona

Planning, Monitoring

Upgrade/Expand

or Studies

Plant Upgrades Infrastructure Re-Use Program

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Restoration/Retrofit
Most plans identify restoration and retrofit efforts (Table 4-4). Maintaining and upgrading stormwater control retention and detention ponds and performing stream restoration appear in nearly all the plans that include restoration elements. The emphasis on restoration is greater in the more developed areas (e.g., DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties, and City of Atlanta).
Long-Term Monitoring
All of the local plans evaluated include water quality monitoring (Table 4-5) as a recommendation. The number of stations, constituents, and frequency of sampling vary depending on the goals of the various plans. Biological monitoring also is a common element, although sampling frequency varies.
Summary of Findings
Findings based on this review of existing programs, along with feedback from selected County staff, include:
Existing ordinances are not protective enough. Too many variances and loopholes exist and should be reduced or eliminated.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 4: Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts

TABLE 4-4
Local Watershed Plan Components for Restoration and Retrofit Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Jurisdiction
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette City of Gainesville Forsyth City of Cumming Fulton City of Atlanta City of Roswell City of Alpharetta Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Peachtree City Lake Allatoona

BMP Installation or Conversion Stream Restoration

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Planning or Other
X
X X X X X X

TABLE 4-5
Local Watershed Plan Components for Long-term Monitoring Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Jurisdiction
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette City of Gainesville Forsyth City of Cumming Fulton City of Atlanta City of Roswell City of Alpharetta Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Peachtree City Lake Allatoona

Water Quality
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X

Habitat/ Channel Stream-

Other Studies/

Biological

Morphology

Walks Monitoring or Modeling

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 4: Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts

Local government staff is not adequate to enforce existing requirements. Dedicated staff should be added to implement and enforce the management plans.
More information is needed on how to implement the recommendations in the plans.
Implementation of many of the plan recommendations will require active public participation and general public acceptance. Therefore, effective public education activities should be emphasized.
Lack of funding is a hindrance for nearly all local governments. External assistance with funding of plans will be necessary.
Examples of Innovative Watershed Management/Stormwater Activities
A number of Counties and Cities have developed innovative programs to protect and improve water quality. A few of these programs are described below.
City of Roswell Lakes and Ponds Program
The City of Roswell has a Lakes and Ponds Partnership Ordinance which provides for public-private partnerships to dredge and retrofit existing privately-owned ponds and lakes within the City for stormwater management purposes. The program allows citizens to reclaim lakes by paying a portion, up to 50 percent, of the cost for silt removal and the addition of inlet/outlet structures. It also enables the City to reduce sediment loads and better manage stormwater volume, allowing it to maintain the load limits in its stormwater discharge permit.
The program applies to lakes greater than 100 acres in size, those that have a design storage of at least 20 acre-feet of water, and those that are an essential part of the City's municipal stormwater management drainage system. In addition to the retrofit program, the City provides annual seminars to educate property owners on sources of siltation and how to reduce it.
Clayton County Voluntary Activities
Clayton County's Code of Ordinances requires that all developments contribute less than 65 pounds of TSS/acre/year. A computer spreadsheet-based review tool known as the WISE model calculates the TSS runoff from development based on the amount of impervious surface and the amount of various types of pervious surface. The WISE model allows for flexibility in the modifications that may be necessary for a development to comply with the ordinance. The model provides incentives for some of the requirements, for example, wider stream buffers beyond the 25-foot requirement and greenspace protection.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 4: Existing Management Programs and Watershed Planning Efforts
DeKalb County Conservation Subdivision Ordinance
DeKalb County's Conservation Subdivision Ordinance requires that new conservation subdivision developments have public sewer service, be greater than 10 acres, and set aside at least 20 percent of the land as greenspace. This approach is consistent with the County goal of setting aside 22 percent of the County as greenspace over the next 50 years. This is one of the first programs in the District to actively promote alternative subdivision designs that will minimize stormwater runoff. The County has integrated greenspace preservation with its stormwater management program.
Gwinnett County Stormwater Monitoring Program
Gwinnett County has developed a Stormwater Management Program that includes a comprehensive water quality monitoring system. One component of the system is the establishment of long-term water quality monitoring stations.
The County has 12 long-term trend monitoring stations to monitor the effectiveness of the program in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Wet weather samples are collected along with continuous flow and rainfall data. Because the United States Geological Survey (USGS) assists with the operation of the program, the equipment is linked via satellite to the USGS web site, ga.usgs.gov, and the data on the site are continuously updated.
Cobb County Variable Stream Buffer
In 1999 Cobb County amended its Stream Buffer Ordinance to double the State-required 25-foot buffer to a minimum of 50 feet. The size of the stream buffer, where landdisturbing activities are prohibited, varies depending on the size of the watershed. It can increase in width to 50, 75, or 100 feet, depending on the size of the drainage area.
Large streams, such as portions of Nickajack Creek, have a 200-foot buffer. A restrictive covenant on the buffer is required to ensure permanent protection. This innovative stream buffer requirement provides greater water quality, stream, and floodplain protection than the minimum stream setback requirements of the State.
Hall County Programs
Hall County implemented a detailed Watershed Protection Ordinance that encompasses a county-wide watershed protection program and a comprehensive soil erosion and sedimentation control program. In addition, the County combined the public works and development reviews for new projects to better coordinate water quality protection. These measures were implemented to develop a comprehensive stormwater management system in the County.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

4-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 5
Watershed Management Strategies

Purpose
This section outlines the strategies for addressing the watershed and water quality problems facing the District. In combination with the recommended policies and changes to laws, regulations, and ordinances described in Section 6, these strategies provide the basis for a comprehensive and integrated regional effort.
The development of these strategies takes into account the following key findings discussed in previous sections:
The metropolitan Atlanta area has grown significantly in the last 20 years and is predicted to continue to grow significantly over the next 30 years.
Changes in land use associated with this growth will result in significant impacts on stream flows and flood frequencies, stream geometry and habitat, and water quality conditions without watershed management measures.
The District has more than 1,000 miles of stream segments that are not meeting water quality standards and require development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Local governments will be required to address these TMDLs and water quality standards to enhance continued sustainable economic growth.
Local governments have to meet a number of other Federal and State regulations dealing with stormwater runoff and the resulting nonpoint source pollutant loads.
Source water supply watersheds within the District are located within some of the highest growth areas and have high susceptibility to potential contamination. Additional source water protection is needed to assure safe and sustainable water supplies in the future.
Previous water quality investigations and watershed assessments within the District have found that streams in more developed watersheds are commonly impacted by changes in hydrology from increased impervious area, loss of riparian buffers, and excessive sedimentation. Nonpoint source pollutant loadings dominated the total pollutant loadings in most watersheds.
While many local governments have watershed management and/or stormwater programs in place, they vary greatly in the level of service and protection of water quality.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
The overall goal of the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) is to move towards meeting and maintaining water quality standards and designated uses in the streams and waterbodies with the District. A consistent and comprehensive approach to watershed management will enhance the ability to meet the overall goals for watershed management in the District, assist local governments with meeting local regulatory requirements for water quality protection or improvement, and ensure that watershed management can be implemented equitably by all the local governments in the District.
This section provides a summary of the recommended overall watershed management framework and specific watershed management strategies, followed by a detailed overview of each component, including local stormwater management program activities, TMDL and source protection strategies, watershed improvement strategies, land use strategies, and basin-specific recommendations. Section 6 identifies policies and recommendations for changes to state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances that would help facilitate implementation of these strategies. The steps for implementation of these watershed management recommendations are summarized in Section 9 and an evaluation of the effectiveness of this District-wide WMP is presented in Section 10.
Watershed Management Framework
The District's watershed management framework includes six distinct strategies:
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities These are the day-to-day program activities that local governments implement to address watershed protection and stormwater management. These include maintaining water quality as new development occurs, encouraging stormwater pollution prevention, and improving enforcement of existing ordinances and laws.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategies These management measures address specific pollution problems in waterways that appear on the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) TMDL list.
Source Water Protection Strategies These management measures focus on protecting drinking water supply watersheds.
Watershed Improvement Strategies These strategies address watersheds that already have been impacted substantially by development, identifying needed retrofits and restoration.
Land Use Strategies These strategies include land use and zoning measures that local governments can use to meet watershed management and protection goals. Specific strategies include initiatives such as greenspace preservation, alternative development patterns, and other innovative land use practices.
Basin-Specific Strategies Specific management issues are delineated for each major river basin within the District
In addition to the framework above, four levels of watershed management activities have been used to classify watersheds and subwatersheds within the District (Figure 5-1):

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

All Watersheds /
Jurisdictions

Implement Local
Stormwater Management
Programs

Watersheds with TMDL
listed
waterways

Perform TMDL Implementation
Activities

Source Water Watersheds

Implement Source Water
Protection
Activities

Still Not Supporting Designated Use or Meeting
Water Quality Goals?

Substantially Impacted
Watersheds/ Existing EIA
> 10%

Perform Watershed Restoration
Activities

Conduct Use
Attainability
Studies

FIGURE 5-1 Watershed Management Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
All Watersheds: Within all District watersheds, local governments will be required to implement the District's Model Stormwater Management Ordinances and the additional local stormwater management program activities recommended in this District-wide WMP.
TMDL Watersheds: Within all watersheds with TMDL-listed waterways, the emphasis must be on implementation of TMDLs to ensure that these areas meet water quality standards and are removed from the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. The program should ensure that these streams maintain water quality conditions in the future to remain off the list. Many of the elements that will be included in TMDL Implementation Plans are part of the District-wide WMP and other required actions. These elements will be enacted and contribute to water quality improvement/protection prior to implementation of the TMDL Implementation Plans.
Source Water Supply Watersheds: Watersheds that drain to a drinking water supply source will also require specific attention and implementation of actions over and above the standard local stormwater management program activities to protect water supplies.
Substantially Impacted Watersheds: In substantially impacted watersheds where existing levels of development and associated impervious area can result in conditions that do not meet water quality standards and designated uses, watershed improvement plans containing watershed improvement measures will be required. These watersheds (approximately 20 percent of watersheds in the District) currently have high levels of development and associated impervious area, where effective impervious area (EIA) exceeds 10 percent of the watershed. In addition to the activities outlined above, local governments will be required to develop a watershed improvement plan for these watersheds that identifies problems and outlines the retrofit and/or restoration activities needed to meet water quality standards and/or designated use in impacted subwatersheds. Retrofit and restoration projects will be implemented over the next 30 years. Substantially impacted watersheds may be defined at the 12-digit HUC level or at a smaller subwatershed level. There may be smaller subwatersheds within a 12-digit HUC that currently are not designated as substantially impacted that will require retrofit or restoration activities in order to meet water quality standards and/or designated uses.
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities
The first watershed management strategy is the day-to-day program activities that local governments implement to address watershed protection and stormwater management. These measures will provide the coordinated framework to achieve the goals of watershed protection and improvement while satisfying multiple regulatory requirements. Local governments in the District have a large responsibility for addressing stormwater management, since land use, development, and infrastructure decisions are typically made at the city and county level.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Most local governments within the District already address stormwater and drainage issues to some extent. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program, local governments are required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program to address water quality.
The recommended local stormwater management program activities (Table 5-1) are designed to help District communities meet their MS4 requirements and comprehensively address the goals of water quality and biotic integrity protection or improvement, ensure that waters meet designated uses, protect public safety and property, and mitigate the impacts of future land use changes.
TABLE 5-1
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan
Adopt and Implement Model Ordinances
Post-Development Stormwater Management Floodplain Management Conservation Subdivision/Open Space Development Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Litter Control Stream Buffer
Implement Stormwater Management Technical Standards and Design Criteria Manual Improved Enforcement of Laws/Regulations
Establish Judicial Process Erosion and Sediment Control
Training/Certification Programs Inspection Programs
Implement Additional Management Measures
Stormwater Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Drainage System Maintenance Structures Maintenance and Tracking Street Sweeping System Inventory and Mapping Industrial Permit Monitoring Compliance Tracking
Septic Systems Animal Control*
Pet Waste Livestock/Agriculture Pollution Prevention and Recycling Household Hazardous Waste Collection * Recycling* Requirements for Commercial BMPs Municipal Good Housekeeping BMPs Commercial/industrial Inspection Program
Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
Develop the required management plan per NPDES Phase II requirements Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Post-Construction Stormwater Management Roadway and Right-of-Way Maintenance for Pollution Prevention Capital Improvement Program for Retrofits
Local Education and Public Awareness Activities Water Quality Monitoring
*Voluntary
For local governments with existing stormwater or watershed management programs, some or all of the recommended local stormwater management program activities may already exist at some level in local programs, while for those governments with limited

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

or no existing stormwater management programs some or all of these measures would need to be implemented. The following sections provide an overview of the recommended local stormwater management program activities.
Adopt and Implement Model Ordinances
Local ordinances are the primary mechanism for achieving many stormwater and nonpoint source pollution control program objectives and are a fundamental component of the District-wide WMP. They can include provisions for stormwater management requirements that address water quantity and quality for development activities, prohibition of non-stormwater discharges to municipal/county storm sewers, and other nonpoint source pollution prevention measures. Senate Bill 130 (SB 130) and GAEPD Planning Standards provide for the immediate development of a suite of Model Stormwater Management Ordinances for the District in addition to the review task under the District-wide WMP. The District Planning staff assembled and prepared the following draft Model Ordinances for this purpose:
Model Ordinance for Post-Development Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment
Model Floodplain Management/Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances
Model Conservation Subdivision/Open Space Development Ordinance
Model Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Ordinance
Model Litter Control Ordinance
In addition to the ordinances above, the Model Stream Buffer Ordinance (Appendix C) is recommended as an additional ordinance that will be required. This Model Stream Buffer Ordinance and additional optional Model Ordinances are discussed further in Section 6.
The Official Code of Georgia, Annotated (O.C.G.A.) 12-5-570 specifically requires that the local governments implement the Model Ordinances developed by the District or similar ordinances that are at least as effective.
The District Planning staff, in coordination with GAEPD, developed the following schedule for the adoption of the Model Ordinances by the local governments.
Those jurisdictions that are currently covered under a Phase I NPDES MS4 stormwater permit are required to implement the Model Ordinances by April 3, 2004.
Those jurisdictions that are covered under the Phase II NPDES MS4 stormwater permit program are required to implement the Model Ordinances by April 3, 2005.
All other jurisdictions not covered under Phase I or Phase II of the NPDES MS4 stormwater permit program will be required to implement the Model Ordinances by April 3, 2006.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
There are two mechanisms for enforcement:
Any local government that fails to adopt substantially the applicable Model Stormwater Ordinance or something at least as effective as said ordinance shall be ineligible for State grants or loans for stormwater related projects determined by the Director of GAEPD to be inconsistent with the ordinances. O.C.G.A. 125-582(e)(4); and
GAEPD's permitting authority - Once the Model Ordinances are incorporated into the District-wide WMP, GAEPD will use its permitting authority to ensure that the plan and ordinances are implemented. O.C.G.A. 12-5-582(e)(2-3)
Description of Model Stormwater Ordinances
The following sections provide brief descriptions of each ordinance and are followed by a summary discussion on whether revisions are warranted.
Model Ordinance for Post-Development Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment
This Model Ordinance addresses post-development (after completion of construction) stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment in a community. The ordinance requires a post-development stormwater management plan for land development activities that identifies how the development will address stormwater runoff quality and quantity impacts resulting from the permanent alteration of the character and hydrology of the land surface and nonpoint source pollution from land use activities. The ordinance also outlines the water quantity and quality performance criteria for managing stormwater runoff and specifies local requirements for the use of structural stormwater controls and nonstructural practices to provide protection for public health and safety, public and private property and infrastructure, and the environment. The ordinance includes provisions for ongoing long-term inspection and maintenance of stormwater control facilities that are installed. The majority of technical criteria and standards are adopted by reference through the use of a local stormwater management design manual.
Model Floodplain Management/Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances
Floodplain management involves the designation of flood-prone areas and the management of their uses. It is also intended to minimize modifications to streams, reduce flood hazards, and protect the beneficial uses of floodplains-including water quality protection. As such, floodplain management can be included as a subset of the larger consideration of surface water and stormwater management.
Floodplain regulations and development restrictions can greatly reduce future flooding impacts, preserve greenspace and habitat, and protect their function in safely conveying floodwaters and protecting water quality. The Model Ordinance is intended to help communities integrate floodplain management with stormwater management during the land development process.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Model Conservation Subdivision/Open Space Development Ordinance
The Model Ordinance provides for conservation subdivisions in residential zones to preserve open space and greenspace for watershed protection; it also provides for nonstructural management of stormwater runoff. Conservation subdivisions would be appropriate in zoning districts designated by the local government. Under the Model Ordinance, conservation subdivisions must have a minimum restricted open space that encompasses at least 40 percent of the gross tract area. The number of lots that may be developed on the remaining property is determined through a calculation method or by preparing a yield plan that identifies the maximum number of lots for the property based on a conventional subdivision design. The ordinance outlines how the open space may be used and identifies ownership and management requirements for the open space. The ordinance specifies that a legal instrument for permanent protection of the open space must be enacted for each conservation subdivision.
Model Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Ordinance
An illicit discharge is defined as any discharge to a storm drainage system or surface water that is not composed entirely of stormwater runoff, except for discharges allowed under an NPDES permit or waters used for fire fighting operations. This Model Ordinance provides communities with the authority to address illicit discharges and establishes enforcement actions for those properties found to be in noncompliance or that refuse to allow access to their facilities.
Model Litter Control Ordinance
Litter often enters streams, rivers, and lakes and contributes to water quality degradation. Litter Control Ordinances provide a prohibition against littering and an enforcement mechanism with appropriate penalties for violations. This ordinance is modeled on the "Georgia Litter Control Law" (O.C.G.A. 16-7-40 et. seq.) and contains additions to ensure that local governments in the District address the impacts of trash and debris on water resources. Adoption of this litter ordinance, or other ordinances at least as protective, is specifically authorized by O.C.G.A. 16-7-48.
Model Stream Buffer Ordinance
A stream buffer is defined as a natural or enhanced vegetated area, including trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation in which no land-disturbing activities are allowed. The Model Stream Buffer Ordinance was developed to create consistent buffer zones along the streams of the District for the protection of water resources and to minimize land development along these buffers. It outlines minimum buffer requirements for rivers and streams, including minimum widths for the vegetative buffer and impervious surface setbacks. The Model Ordinance also recommends approval and enforcement procedures, as well as addressing existing regulations and the option for adopting buffers stricter than the minimums. This ordinance is discussed further in Section 6.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Implement Stormwater Management Technical Standards and Design Criteria Manual
In 2001, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) completed development of the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, a comprehensive resource for the management of stormwater issues in the state. It reflects a collaborative effort between the ARC, the GAEPD, and 35 cities and counties across Georgia. The goal of the manual is to provide an effective tool for local governments and the development community to reduce both stormwater quality and quantity impacts, and protect downstream areas and receiving waters. The manual is organized into two volumes:
Volume I Stormwater Policy Guidebook Volume II Technical Manual
Volume I provides guidance for local jurisdictions on the basic principles of effective urban stormwater management. Volume II is designed to be used by local developers, engineers, and plan reviewers; it provides minimum standards for stormwater management for new development and redevelopment. Implementing the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual or an equivalent in each District local government would provide a firm foundation for the success of the District-wide WMP.
An evaluation of potential additional best management practices (BMPs) was completed during development of the District-wide WMP. This evaluation focused on identifying the most appropriate BMPs for the primary parameters of concern within the District. The recommendations in the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual formed the basis of this investigation. Appendix D provides a summary of this BMP evaluation and the list of recommended BMPs by parameter. This review highlighted the lack of recent research on BMP effectiveness in the Piedmont region of Georgia and the need for additional studies within the District. Local governments are encouraged to adopt a standard training and certification program for site designers and engineers to assure that the standards and criteria in the manual are properly incorporated into future development projects.
Improved Enforcement of Laws/Regulations
Lack of adequate financial resources to support implementation and enforcement of current laws, regulations, and ordinances was one of the limitations most frequently cited by the Basin Advisory Councils (BACs) and GAEPD, as well as other studies.
Local Environmental Judiciary
It is likely that citations and citizen complaints regarding violations of Water Quality Ordinances will result. Local governments need an official judicial mechanism to handle these complaints. It is recommended that all local governments create an Environmental Magistrate to handle these cases.
Gwinnett and Fulton Counties have established judicial review for environmental issues. In each county, environmental courts were established without need for additional funding. The Fulton County Environmental Court was established in 1997

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
and serves unincorporated Fulton County. Prior to the establishment of the Environmental Court, Traffic Court heard all environmental cases. In Fulton County, the Environmental Court meets weekly for one-half day, and the heaviest caseload has been 117 cases in a month. The Gwinnett County Recorder's Court hears cases in the Environmental Division. Gwinnett County added a third judgeship to the Recorder's Court in 2002 to increase flexibility in handling code ordinance violations separately from traffic violations, both of which are under the jurisdiction of the Recorder's Court. The Gwinnett Environmental Division cases are arraigned on Thursday afternoons and trials are held on Fridays. Typically, 35 to 50 citations are scheduled for arraignment and 5 cases are scheduled for trial each week. These two counties may serve as models for the remainder of the District for establishing an environmental judiciary.
The judicial authority should be established along with specified penalties for violations. Once the judiciary is established, it is recommended that legal organizations offer specific environmental training sessions and workshops for Environmental Magistrates. Training would cover both legal and technical aspects of watershed management to better allow magistrates to make decisions when hearing a complaint. Training courses and workshops for magistrates would be similar to those currently offered for professionals and inspection officials.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Enforcement
Guidance on construction site sediment and erosion control practices can be found in the fifth edition of the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia developed by the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The state Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act requires local governments to adopt a local Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Ordinance and the BMP criteria, standards, and specifications for general land-disturbing activities outlined in the manual.
An audit by the Georgia State Attorney General in 2001 found that the current resources devoted to enforcement of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act are inadequate to meet the intent of the legislation. The audit noted that the Act is only effective if local governments (certified by GAEPD to issue land-disturbing activities permits) have the resources and political will to inspect project sites on a routine basis and take enforcement action as necessary when violations are found. In those cities and counties (certified as issuing authorities) that do not conduct routine inspections or take enforcement action as necessary, the State's waters are not protected from ongoing sedimentation. Analysis of reviews conducted by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission found that some local governments were doing a good job of managing their erosion and sedimentation control programs while others were allowing construction projects to operate without the required erosion and sedimentation controls.
Amendments to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act enacted during the 2003 legislative session will allow local governments to issue immediate stop work orders. In addition, by the end of 2006, all persons involved in land disturbance will be required to meet education and training certification requirements. These amendments are discussed more fully in Section 6. GAEPD should coordinate with local governments to maximize the effectiveness of these efforts.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-10

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Training/Certification Programs. Many of the local governments in the District have started training and certification programs for developers and contractors in their areas. These programs should be implemented across the District to ensure that all landdisturbing activities are conducted with appropriate techniques and utilize appropriate BMPs for stormwater control. Local government training/certification should be consistent with GAEPD programs.
Inspection Programs. To maintain the effectiveness of construction site stormwater controls, regular inspection of control measures is essential. The effectiveness of construction site inspection depends on the knowledge of the inspectors and the resources available for site inspection. All jurisdictions in the District should develop and implement construction stormwater inspection programs and have inspectors complete suitable training for effective site inspection.
Implement Additional Management Measures
Stormwater Operations and Maintenance
An essential component of the local stormwater management program activities is the ongoing operation and maintenance of the stormwater drainage, control, and conveyance systems. Failure to provide effective maintenance can reduce both the hydraulic capacity and the pollutant removal efficiency of stormwater controls and conveyance systems.
Operations and maintenance activities can include cleaning and maintenance of catch basins, drainage swales, open channels, storm sewer pipes, and stormwater ponds and other structural controls. Street sweeping and certain other pollution reduction activities such as illicit discharge identification and removal also fall under operations and maintenance activities. Ideally, a local program should address operations and maintenance concerns proactively instead of reacting to problems that occur such as flooding or water quality degradation.
A clear assignment of stormwater inspection and maintenance responsibilities, whether they be accomplished by the local government, land owners, private concerns, or a combination of these, is essential to ensuring that stormwater management systems function as they were intended. All jurisdictions in the District should perform the following activities:
Define the maintenance responsibility and level of service for the local government (i.e., the parts of the stormwater system and the types of the services that the local government will be responsible for)
Perform an inventory of the local stormwater system (including facility and conveyance locations, elevations, outfalls, contributing drainage, receiving drainage, control structures, material types, vegetative species and any other pertinent information necessary to defining the kind of maintenance required for the facility or conveyance)
Develop a schedule for periodic inspections and maintenance of stormwater facilities

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Develop an emergency response strategy
Develop policies for private stormwater facilities and the necessary legal framework to ensure compliance
Septic Systems
Areas that are not serviced by sanitary sewer systems rely on onsite or septic systems for wastewater treatment. In areas where substantial residential development on septic systems is present, improper operation or failure of multiple individual systems can constitute a significant threat to water quality. It is important to ensure that all septic systems are properly sited, designed, operated, and maintained to reduce the risk of environmental harm in critical areas. Local governments in the District are encouraged to adopt the following recommendations for septic system programs, which were developed in the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a):
Use existing State Department of Human Resources (DHR) regulations with modifications for design, siting, and construction
Require pumping of septic tanks every 5 years
Establish a minimum lot size requirement for placement of septic systems
Provide public education about septic systems O&M
Establish a database of the location and maintenance of septic systems
Recommendations for additional regulations and ordinances for installation, maintenance, and inspection of septic systems and a recommended schedule for implementing such ordinances can be found in the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a).
Animal Control
Pet Waste (Voluntary). When pet waste is not properly disposed of, it can wash into nearby waterbodies or can be carried by runoff into storm drains. Since storm drains do not connect to treatment facilities, but rather drain directly into lakes and streams, untreated animal feces can become a significant source of runoff pollution. It is recommended that multi-family dwellings and high-density mixed-use developments be encouraged to participate in a voluntary program to install animal waste stations or "pet posts" for their residents. These stations provide plastic bags and instructions for disposing of pet wastes.
Pet-specific park areas are one way to involve neighborhood residents and community organizations to ensure that owners are picking up after their pets and properly disposing of the waste. It is recommended that new parks also have pet posts. As opportunities arise, existing recreational areas should be retrofitted with these structures.
Livestock/Agriculture (Voluntary). The primary function of an animal waste management system is to improve water quality by providing facilities for the storage and handling of livestock and poultry waste to minimize pollution and to provide information to producers about the value of keeping livestock out of streams. Collection

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
and proper treatment of animal wastes can significantly reduce nutrient and bacterial runoff associated with confined or concentrated livestock feeding areas and cattle and chicken processing facilities. As potential animal waste issues are identified through monitoring programs, producers should be encouraged to work with the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to address these issues. It is recommended that those local governments that have a significant level of agriculture/livestock operations encourage interaction among farmers/operators and the local NRCS office to maintain effective and current BMPs for farming activities and livestock waste management.
Pollution Prevention
Household Hazardous Waste Collection (Voluntary). A variety of hazardous and potentially harmful chemicals and materials are improperly used and disposed of by residential homeowners. Materials such as paints and thinners, cleaning products, wood preservatives, driveway sealants, and a variety of other miscellaneous household chemicals can enter stormwater if improperly used, stored, or disposed of. Many household waste items pose potential water quality threats if disposed of improperly. Local governments should provide accessible recycling programs for hazardous/toxic household waste to assure proper disposal of these items. Many local governments may lack the necessary resources to develop and implement a household hazardous materials recycling program. Therefore, local governments are encouraged to work with the Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) to develop and implement these programs.
As an example, antifreeze can be recycled. Used antifreeze still protects against freezing and boilover; however, the corrosion inhibitors may be depleted during use and should be replaced in the recycling process. To collect antifreeze for recycling, the antifreeze should be placed in a clean, closed container; citizens can contact 1-800-CLEANUP or www.1800cleanup.org on the Internet for information on sites that will accept it. The recycling loop can be closed by purchasing recycled antifreeze when possible.
Commercial/Industrial Pollution Prevention. Proper site management and good housekeeping practices for commercial operations help to prevent inadvertent water quality degradation from improper runoff or accidental contamination. Local governments should adopt programs to encourage commercial operations to establish and maintain appropriate site BMPs to address these potential threats.
Municipal Good Housekeeping BMPs. Local government operations may also create potential water quality threats. Governmental operations have many similarities with commercial operations and local governments should ensure that their own operations are not contributing to water quality degradation. To achieve this, appropriate site management, landscaping, and vehicle maintenance and operation are necessary.
Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program
Implementation of a commercial/industrial site inspection program allows local governments to identify whether systems are operating properly or if there are illicit or illegal discharges to local stormwater systems. When inspection programs are combined

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-13

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
with effective enforcement measures, local governments can be confident that no additional illicit commercial or industrial discharges are present. This program is further discussed in Section 8.
Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
Water quality issues resulting from the impervious surfaces associated with major roads and highways across the District were noted during the Characterization and Modeling tasks of the District-wide WMP development. In addition, members of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and BACs expressed concern over the exemptions given to the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) under many of the State laws relating to water quality protection. Water quality impacts partially attributed to road construction, operation, and maintenance include erosion, sedimentation, increased stormwater volume, and increased concentrations of pollutants in the stormwater. While a watershed is impacted by the combined contributions of various land use activities, constituents specific to transportation runoff include: particulates, chromium, copper, cadmium, lead, nickel, nitrogen and phosphorus, zinc, manganese, petroleum hydrocarbons, and rubber (USDOT: FHA, 1996).
Historically, GDOT's stormwater management strategies have focused on controlling the volume of runoff and have not taken water quality directly into consideration. In order for many of the streams in the District to meet their water quality goals and designated uses, GAEPD will need to work with GDOT to address two issues:
Integration of water quality considerations into the BMP selection and design process during new road construction
Retrofitting of existing roads to address water quality
GDOT's primary regulatory authority for water quality issues is found in the Georgia Water Quality Control Act and Phase II of the MS4 NPDES permit system, both enforced by GAEPD. GAEPD plans to initiate the permit process with GDOT in 2003, with the goal of having a completed permit in early 2004.
Local Education and Public Awareness Activities
The education and public awareness program is a major component of local government responsibility. It is discussed in Section 7.
Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring is necessary to determine whether actions pursued under the District-wide WMP are successful in achieving desired and mandated water quality goals. A detailed Water Quality Monitoring Plan to be implemented by all jurisdictions in the District is provided in Section 8.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-14

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Total Maximum Daily Load Strategies
A ruling by Judge Schoob in 1996 and the subsequent consent decree (Sierra Club et al., Plaintiffs vs. John Hankerson et al., Defendants, March 1996) required the State of Georgia to meet an accelerated schedule for developing and implementing TMDLs. There are many stream segments within District boundaries that currently do not meet their designated uses and that require TMDLs and TMDL plans (Figure 5-2). This requirement provided much of the impetus for the creation of the District and the regional water supply, wastewater, and watershed management plans. Consequently, the recommended approach focuses on meeting TMDLs across the District through a complete, comprehensive program.
District-wide Implementation Strategies
The TMDL issues within the District watersheds are associated primarily with urban runoff and nonpoint source pollution. Implementation of the recommended local stormwater management program activities for watershed management will reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings associated with fecal coliform bacteria, metals, toxins, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature violations. Stormwater management structural and nonstructural controls required in Model Post-development Stormwater Ordinances will further reduce the impacts on stream channels and associated biotic communities from sedimentation and erosion. Proposed environmental monitoring will support adaptive management and continued assessment of TMDL implementation by local governments.
Watersheds with TMDLs have been recommended for primary emphasis in the initial watershed improvement plan process described later in this section. Implementation of the local stormwater management program activities and watershed improvement strategies will address existing hydrologic stresses on instream habitat and downstream flooding and provide additional stormwater treatment and water quality improvement. These measures will assist in meeting TMDLs for multiple parameters including fecal coliforms, DO, temperature, biota/habitat, and sedimentation (Table 5-2), but some stream segments will require a more intensive approach.
Watershed/Waterbody Specific TMDL Implementation
GAEPD is required to develop segment-specific TMDL implementation plans. The agency has contracted with several of the Regional Development Councils (RDCs) to develop these plans. For consistency, application of a step-wise approach to development of watershed-specific TMDL implementation plans is proposed (Table 5-3).
One of the key impediments to TMDL implementation is limited inter-jurisdictional cooperation and ill-defined responsibilities. Many TMDL-listed streams have watersheds that cross county and city boundaries and implementation of effective TMDL strategies will require improved coordination among local governments on management programs. The RDCs are using their experience in working with local governments to try to establish these responsibilities and the associated agreements for TMDL implementation. Recommendations for TMDL implementation are summarized in Table 5-4.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-15

SEPTEMBER 2003

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Coosa Bartow Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, April 17 2003, HDYKE

West Point Lake

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Legend Rivers and Streams County Boundaries District Study Area TMDL Watersheds
Figure 5-2 Watersheds with TMDL Stream Segments Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

TABLE 5-2
Application of Local Stormwater Management Program Activities for TMDL Implementation Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Local Stormwater Management Program Fecal

Activities

Coliforms

Adopt and Implement Model Ordinances

Post-Development Stormwater Management

X

Floodplain Management

X

Conservation Subdivision/Open Space

X

Development

Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection

X

Litter Control

Stream Buffers

X

Implement Stormwater Management

X

Technical Standards and Design Criteria

Manual

Improved Enforcement of Laws/Regulations

Establish Judicial Process Erosion and Sediment Control
Training/Certification Programs Inspection Programs

Implement Additional Management Measures

Stormwater Operation and Maintenance

X

Drainage System Maintenance

X

Structures Maintenance and Tracking

X

Street Sweeping

System Inventory and Mapping

X

Industrial Permit Monitoring

Compliance Tracking

Septic Systems

X

Animal Control

Pet Waste

X

Livestock/Agriculture

X

Pollution Prevention and Recycling

Household Hazardous Waste Collection

Recycling

Requirements for Commercial BMPs

Municipal Good Housekeeping BMPs

Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program

X

Environmental Monitoring Plan

X

Transportation Infrastructure Improvements

Develop Required Management Plan per NPDES Phase II Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Post-Construction Stormwater Management Roadway and Right-of-Way Maintenance for Pollution Prevention Capital Improvement Plan for Retrofits

Local Education and Public Awareness

X

Activities

Water Quality Monitoring

X

Primary TMDL Parameters DO Temperature Metals

Biota/Habitat/ Sediment

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-17

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

TABLE 5-3
TMDL Implementation Plan Approach Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implementation Steps
Review Parameter Violation
Identify Stakeholders
Identify Education/ Outreach Activities Identify Pollutant Sources
Management Measures, Responsible Parties, and Measurable Milestones
Identify Potential Funding Sources

Fecal Coliforms
Review monitoring data documenting violation. You may wish to conduct additional monitoring for both fecal coliform bacteria & Escherichia coli. a
Delineate Segment to determine land area affecting the listed segment. Solicit input from government agencies, watershed groups, local businesses, schools, churches and other citizens located in that specific watershed. Involve Stakeholders in the plan development process.
Consult with local government technical staff and public groups to determine current or planned activities.
Review existing data on potential sources (land use, sewer lines, septic systems, and livestock areas). Solicit input from stakeholder groups to determine potential sources. Education of stakeholder groups on this topic will be needed so that stakeholders know what types of actions could be causing the violation.
Review current ordinances and programs to determine what programs benefit the specific violation. Identify the party responsible for enforcement or implementation of each management measure. Identify measurable milestones for each management measure.
Identify the source(s) used to fund current management measures and list potential funding sources for proposed management measures.

DO/ Temperature Review monitoring data documenting violation.
Same
Same
Review existing data on potential causes of DO reduction. Conduct stream walks to identify illicit discharges. Review historical data on DO violations.
Same
Same

Metals Review monitoring data documenting violation.
Same
Same
Review existing data on potential sources of metals. Review data from the MS4 program for industrial sites. Evaluate potential "hot spots" to determine if they are related to nonpoint or point source pollution.
Same
Same

Biota/Habitat/Sediment Review monitoring data documenting violation.
Same
Same
Review existing data on existing land use and recent changes in the watershed. Determine imperviousness and level of hydrologic controls. Evaluate existing sedimentation and erosion control programs.
Same
Same

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-18

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

TABLE 5-3 (CONTINUED)
TMDL Implementation Plan Approach Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implementation Steps

Fecal Coliforms

DO/Temperature

Monitoring Plan Comments

List any monitoring plans approved or proposed. This should include monitoring being done by GAEPD as a part of the TMDL program.
Clarify any issues or history regarding the listed stream segment watershed.

Same Same

Notes: aAll new monitoring should follow GAEPD protocols.

Metals Same
Same

Biota/Habitat/Sediment Same
Same

TABLE 5-4
TMDL Implementation Recommendations for Inter-jurisdictional Watersheds Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Jurisdictional Issue

Mechanism for Enforcement and Implementation

Watershed crosses County and City (within the county) boundaries, where the county provides water or sewer service to the City (or vice versa)

Requirements included in NPDES and Stormwater Permits
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the County and City requiring the City to implement the same TMDL strategies as the County.a

Watershed crosses multiple counties (and City) boundaries

Requirements included in NPDES and/or Stormwater Permits
Development of watershed committees or groups including members from each entity to facilitate implementation.

Enforceable agreements among jurisdictions identifying responsibilities.

a These may include land use restrictions, stormwater controls, or other management alternatives.

Responsible Entity
County and City
Individual Counties and Cities

The requirements in the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 305 (b) and 303(d), for identification and implementation of TMDLs are permanent and will result in periodic updates to the list of impaired waters. Therefore, an adaptive management approach to TMDL implementation is needed. Development and implementation of long-term monitoring programs and analysis of data will be required to assure that TMDLs are met, water quality is improved, and stream segments are removed from the 303(d) list and remain off the list. In this approach, periodic review of status and monitoring results will be used to evaluate TMDL implementation plans and determine whether program modifications are required to facilitate long-term TMDL compliance.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-19

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Source Water Protection Strategies
Because of limited groundwater resources in the District (see Section 3), the vast majority of public drinking water supplies comes from surface waters. Source water watersheds are indicated on Figure 5-3. Public drinking water sources that have degraded water are more costly to process and pose human health threats. Therefore, watersheds that serve as sources for municipal drinking water supplies must be protected. O.C.G.A provides the legal authority for protecting water supply watersheds. Code Section 12-2-8 (b) authorizes the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) to develop minimum standards and procedures for protection of mountains, river corridors, watersheds to be used for public water supply, the purity of groundwater, and wetlands; these standards have been prepared and are commonly known as the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria. Code Section 50-8.7.1(b) (2) directs the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to incorporate the Environmental Planning Criteria into the minimum standards and procedures local governments must use in developing, preparing, and implementing their comprehensive plans. However, reservoirs under control of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are exempt from the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria.
Each local government should identify whether there are significant groundwater recharge areas under its control. Land use planning and watershed protection measures should be evaluated to determine whether appropriate protection is afforded these areas. Should any threats to groundwater be identified, local governments should implement measures at least as protective as the GADNR minimum standards.
Geographic Information System Planning Maps
Effective source water protection will require integration of future planning with source water protection. Local governments should develop planning maps based on a geographic information system consistent throughout the District. These maps and the associated databases can be used for tracking development and water quality issues in source water watersheds as well as to plan for the future.
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities
Stormwater runoff includes a wide range of contaminants and constitutes a threat to water supply watersheds. The approach to providing source water protection is therefore included within the framework of this District-wide WMP. The recommended source water protection strategies include the local stormwater management program activities coupled with pollution source-specific strategies in water supply watersheds. Strategies identified in Table 5-5 address many of the widespread threats to water quality in water supply watersheds.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-20

SEPTEMBER 2003

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Coosa Bartow Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, April 17 2003, HDYKE

West Point Lake

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Legend Rivers and Streams County Boundaries District Study Area Source Water Watersheds
Figure 5-3 Source Water Watersheds Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

TABLE 5-5
Strategies that Address Source Water Protection Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Strategy Implementation of Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Implementation of Part V Environmental Planning Criteria
Development and Distribution of Education Materials for specific pollution sources or facilities Greenspace Acquisition Enhanced Review and Enforcement of Existing Regulatory Programs

Responsible Entity All Counties/Cities
Individual counties and cities containing water supply watersheds Coordinated by District Distributed by local water suppliers and counties Local governments GAEPD, Local governments

Part V Planning Criteria
The primary implementation responsibility for local governments regarding source water protection is adherence to the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria. The criteria for water supply watersheds (DNR Rule 391-3-16.01) apply to all governments located in a water supply watershed and specify that local governments shall identify water supply watersheds and adopt water supply watershed protection plans as part of their planning process. The Part V Environmental Planning Criteria should be applied to all water supply watersheds within a jurisdiction, regardless of whether they utilize that area for their own water supply. However, these criteria do not apply to reservoirs controlled by the USACE, which are exempt by statute.
The Part V Environmental Planning Criteria specify different minimum criteria for large and small water supply watersheds. Large water supply watersheds have 100 square miles or more of land within the drainage basin upstream of a water supply intake. Small water supply watersheds have less than 100 square miles upstream of water supply intake, and have more stringent protections.
Greenspace Acquisition
Local governments should continue to work towards acquiring land through the Greenspace Program in source water watersheds. Acquiring undeveloped land in source water areas helps limit the total imperviousness of an area and reduces the risks associated with nonpoint source pollutant loadings. Redefining the criteria of the Greenspace Program to allow protection of source water as a high priority for land acquisition will also facilitate program implementation.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-22

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Part V Environmental Planning Criteria for Water Supply Protection (DNR Rule 391-3-16.01)

The minimum criteria for large water supply watersheds specify that for perennial streams that are tributary to the water supply and within a 7-mile radius of the reservoir boundary:
1. A buffer shall be maintained for a distance of 100 feet on both sides of the stream as measured from the stream banks.
2. No impervious surface shall be constructed within a 150-foot setback area on both sides of the stream as measured from the stream banks.
3. Septic tanks and septic tank drainfields are prohibited in the setback area of 2. above.

Additionally, new facilities within 7 miles of the water supply intake or water supply reservoir that handle hazardous materials of the types and amounts determined by the DNR shall perform their operations on impermeable surfaces having spill and leak collection systems as prescribed by the DNR.

For small water supply watersheds the minimum criteria are:

1. For perennial streams that are tributary to the water supply and within a 7-mile radius

of the reservoir boundary:

i.

A buffer shall be maintained for a distance of 100 feet on both sides of the stream

as measured from the stream banks.

ii. No impervious surface shall be constructed within a 150-foot setback area on

both sides of the stream as measured from the stream banks.

iii. Septic tanks and septic tank drainfields are prohibited in the setback area of ii.

above.

2. For perennial streams that are tributary to the water supply and beyond a 7-mile radius

of the reservoir boundary:

i.

A buffer shall be maintained for a distance of 50 feet on both sides of the stream

as measured from the stream banks.

ii. No impervious surface shall be constructed within a 75-foot setback area on both

sides of the stream as measured from the stream banks.

iii. Septic tanks and septic tank drainfields are prohibited in the setback area of ii.

above.

Additionally:

1. New sanitary landfills must have synthetic liners and leachate collection systems.

2. New hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities are prohibited.

3. The total impervious surface area of the entire watershed shall be limited to 25 percent or existing use, whichever is greater.

4. New facilities that handle hazardous materials of the types and amounts determined by the DNR shall perform their operations on impermeable surfaces having spill and leak collection systems as prescribed by the DNR.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-23

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Pollution Prevention Education
Local governments will be responsible for the distribution of pollution prevention education materials developed by the District. These materials may be new items that identify the need for source water watershed protection, or may be existing materials, such as the Source Water Protection Bulletins created by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The goal is to educate operators of potential pollutant-specific sources (primarily businesses and industries) within source water watersheds.

Integration with TMDL Plans

A number of challenges exist in developing source water protection strategies, some of which overlap with recommendations for TMDL implementation. To minimize costs, source water protection strategies should be combined, to the extent possible, with existing and proposed watershed protection and management programs. The additional recommendations, specific for source water protection, are summarized in Table 5-6.

TABLE 5-6
Specific Source Water Protection Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Source
Sedimentation and Erosion

Existing Programs/Regulations
State Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, NPDES Stormwater Permit for Construction

Recommended Strategies
Additional enforcement at the county/city level. Applicable BMPs include: silt fencing, sedimentation ponds, mulching, etc.

Impervious surfaces

Limited nonpoint source control and watershed management programs at the county level.

Implementation of District Model Ordinances and design manuals, increased public awareness Applicable BMPs include: infiltration trenches, retention/detention ponds, grassed swales, etc.

Oil and Gas Pipelines

Interstate oil and gas pipelines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the US Department of Transportation (USDOT). Intrastate pipelines are regulated by GDOT.

District will coordinate with water suppliers to distribute education materials to businesses and industries.

Railroads

Transportation of potential hazardous materials on railroad corridors is regulated by USDOT

District will coordinate with water suppliers to distribute education materials to businesses and industries.

State and Local Arterial Roads

Transportation of potential hazardous materials on surface roads is regulated by USDOT

Restrict access to roads near water sources by hazardous materials carriers. District will coordinate with water suppliers to distribute education materials to businesses and industries.

Septic Systems

Septic systems are approved by the local public health departments. In most cases, septic systems are not regulated.

The recommended strategies for septic systems are provided in the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a).

Lift Stations and Sewer Line Crossings

Under EPA Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) regulations, local utilities are required to increase O&M reviews on sewer collection systems and lift stations

Local utilities should prioritize CMOM efforts in water supply watersheds. Applicable BMPs include: frequent inspections and testing, backup power facilities.

Large Industries Using Hazardous Wastes

Industries that handle hazardous wastes are regulated by GAEPD and EPA. Spill contingency plans required. Facilities with 1,320 gallons of oil storage must have an SPCC plan (Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan). Contaminant storage facilities must have secondary contaminant and Phase I Stormwater permits that require nonpoint source BMPs on-site.

District will prepare awareness and education material. Applicable BMPs include: training on housekeeping and maintenance, on-site retention/detention for stormwater.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-24

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

TABLE 5-6 (CONTINUED)
Specific Source Water Protection Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Source
Hazardous Waste Facilities (Auto Repair and Dry Cleaners)

Existing Programs/Regulations
Auto repair facilities and dry cleaners are regulated by GAEPD and are required to properly store and dispose of hazardous wastes.

Recommended Strategies
Recommend State legislative action for mandatory collection/recycling of used motor oil/ antifreeze by county and city solid waste departments, and requiring that any retailer that sells or changes motor oil/ antifreeze accept used motor oil/antifreeze from the general public. District will prepare awareness and education material promoting return business to merchants that recycle. Applicable BMPs include: controlled handling and storage, spill control plans.

Fuel Facilities Underground storage tanks (USTs) are regulated by EPA and GAEPD.

District will prepare awareness and education materials. Applicable BMPs include: installation of oil/water separators, tank leakage testing, spill control plans.

Watershed Improvement Strategies
Watersheds have been shown to exhibit degradation of water quality and aquatic habitats when the effective impervious area (EIA) exceeds 10 percent. Under these conditions, runoff volumes and flow rates are greatly increased following precipitation events. Surface waters are subjected to greater erosive forces, resulting in physical alterations to stream habitat, including channel incision and bank erosion. Physical and chemical components of runoff can be deposited in sediments and alter water chemistry. Within the District, watersheds with EIA greater than 10 percent have been designated as "substantially impacted watersheds." Without implementation of measures to address the stormwater runoff from these substantially impacted watersheds, stream conditions will continue to worsen and water quality goals will not be achieved.
It is important to note that an impervious level of greater than 10 percent in a 12-digit HUC does not indicate that the entire 12-digit HUC is degraded, just that (1) the HUC is probably significantly impacted and that it has some stream segments that do not fully support their designated uses and/or (2) there are some water quality violations within the 12-digit HUC. In these instances, corrective actions in the form of structural retrofits or stream restoration may only be needed in a portion of the larger 12-digit HUC. Furthermore, there may be subwatersheds within a 12-digit HUC with less than 10 percent impervious cover that are degraded or have localized impervious cover greater than 10 percent and would require retrofit or restoration actions to return conditions to meet designated uses and/or correct water quality violations.
In substantially impacted watersheds (Figure 5-4), watershed improvement plans containing measures to improve watershed conditions will be required. These watershed improvement plans will identify causes of degradation and specify the watershed retrofits or restoration needed to meet water quality goals and/or return these areas to desired conditions in subwatersheds where problems are identified. Construction of additional BMPs for hydrologic and water quality controls may be included and local governments may be encouraged to purchase and restore greenspace along impacted waters.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-25

SEPTEMBER 2003

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Coosa Bartow Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin

Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, April 17 2003, HDYKE

West Point Lake

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Legend Rivers and Streams County Boundaries District Study Area Substantially Impacted Watersheds
Figure 5-4 Substantially Impacted Watersheds Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Potential watershed improvement strategies may include:
Retrofit Measures Structural retrofits of existing stormwater management facilities (such as detention/retention ponds, constructed wetlands, conveyance systems, and other facilities) to provide water quality treatment and/or improved hydrologic function. These also include the retrofit of an entire drainage area through the retrofit of existing facilities or the construction of new water quality treatment and/or hydrologic stormwater management controls.
Restoration Measures Restoration of degraded waters including streambanks, aquatic habitats, riparian corridors, and small lakes and reservoirs to improve water quality and biotic integrity, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. These may include the construction of new water quality treatment and/or hydrologic stormwater management controls.

This component of the District-wide WMP has a long implementation horizon due to the relatively high costs of restoration and the need for additional study to define specific requirements on a subwatershed level. In addition, these highly urbanized areas that redevelop will benefit from local stormwater management program activities that require the implementation of post-development stormwater management controls.

To focus watershed restoration efforts, local governments should follow a systematic process for evaluating impacted watersheds to identify the restoration measures that will be most effective in improving watersheds to meet water quality standards. This process should recognize that retrofits and restoration activities should be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner with an emphasis on bio-engineering approaches that simulate natural conditions. A recommended process for developing and implementing watershed improvement plans is outlined in Table 5-7. It should be noted that general stormwater infrastructure inventories in a community can and should be coordinated with watershed improvement plan development and schedules.
TABLE 5-7
Watershed Improvement Planning Process Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Task Inventory Existing Systems
Evaluate Retrofit and Restoration Alternatives
Develop Watershed Improvement Plan
Implement Watershed Improvement Plan Re-evaluate Program

Description
Identify and map drainage systems Identify existing BMPs and those that may be retrofitted Identify existing flooding and erosion problem areas Identify impacted areas requiring immediate action Develop conceptual plans Evaluate effectiveness and implementation constraints Prioritize retrofit or restoration alternatives Look for opportunities for multipurpose projects to share funding burden Plan for improvements to drainage systems and stream reaches Develop implementation schedule Develop cost estimates for all planned projects Initiate improvement projects Monitor performance
Prepare annual reports Conduct use attainability analyses in areas that will clearly not meet goals

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-27

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
An adaptive management approach to watershed management and restoration is needed to address the specific watershed restoration needs. It is recommended that the District coordinate pilot/demonstration projects and monitor their effectiveness to assist local governments in identifying the most cost-effective methods for improving impacted watersheds. Adjustments to local watershed improvement plans will be made regularly as new information is collected, data on restoration technologies become available, and new technologies emerge.
It should be noted that the City of Atlanta's planned combined sewer overflow (CSO) restoration program will effectively address many of the recommendations for watershed improvement strategies including reductions in stormwater volume and hydrologic changes and the associated pollutant loadings. All of the stormwater generated within the CSO areas within the Chattahoochee and Ocmulgee basins within the City will be collected and treated before discharge.
The ultimate goal of the watershed improvement plans is to restore streams to meet designated uses. In some of the existing developed areas, it may not be possible to restore streams to the designated use of "Fishing." In these watersheds, use attainability analysis studies (UAA) may be conducted to refine the existing designated uses to a more appropriate designation. These studies should not be initiated until watershed improvement plans have been developed for the impacted watersheds and it is determined that attainment of the existing designated use is not possible. A change in the designated use of a waterbody is allowed under the CWA (40 CFR 131.10(g)) if one or more of the following conditions are met:
Naturally occurring pollution prevents use attainment, Flow conditions prevent attainment, Human-caused pollution prevents attainment and cannot be remedied, Dams or other channel modifications prevent attainment, Physical habitat conditions prevent attainment, and Cost of attainment would cause unreasonable social and economic impact.
Land Use Based Strategies
While the State can impose laws for the protection of natural resources and other vital areas, local governments in Georgia, as a "home rule" State, have the sole authority to regulate zoning and land use decisions within their borders. Because of the direct relationship between land use development and watershed impacts, local governments must take the lead and play a primary role in watershed protection and restoration related to stormwater management.
Local governments have a wide variety of tools available to proactively address stormwater management while still meeting the needs and desires of their constituencies. The challenge is to apply land use planning tools to protect water quality, habitat, and property while at the same time accommodating land development and population growth. The current focus in watershed management is on the integration of land use planning with stormwater management.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-28

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
The following principles should be kept in mind for the successful integration of stormwater management and land use planning:
Residential development can have the greatest overall impact - Residential development often has the greatest cumulative impact on stormwater management because it covers the greatest land area.
Greater population = greater impact - The higher the population accommodated in a watershed, the higher the likely water quantity and water quality impacts.
Same population, greater density = less impact - The greater the density of residential land use in a watershed for a given population, and the more remaining vegetated greenspace, the lower the likely stormwater impact.
Maintain EIA below 10 percent - Stormwater impacts increase dramatically when land use leads to EIA greater than 10 percent. The objective of the BMPs is to reduce the EIA, and to meet designated targets for rainfall capture and runoff control.
Stormwater controls are needed for residential densities that exceed 1 unit per 2 acres - Residential developments with lots smaller than 2 acres will most likely exceed the 10 percent impervious area trigger (BC, 2002)
Industrial/commercial = greatest impervious area Commercial and industrial developments, although often a small portion of a watershed, can have the highest concentrations of impervious areas that need mitigation.
Forestry/agricultural areas may require mitigating BMPs While low-density land uses such as agriculture or forestry often have impervious area less than 10 percent, they can still have a major impact on watershed hydrology due to the consequences of clearing and ditching.
The impacts of impervious area are cumulative An existing development that is not creating a problem may contribute to a future problem as adjacent infill development occurs.
Compact communities are the most desirable for watershed management Compact, dense, pedestrian-oriented development with effective stormwater BMPs is balanced by the majority of the watershed remaining undeveloped.
The health of the District watersheds depends on the health of individual development sites and subwatersheds. The smaller the watershed or drainage area, the greater impact land use changes can have on water quality and aquatic integrity. This is particularly applicable to the District, where many of the most urban areas are located on small headwater streams. At the same time, many of the existing urban and suburban areas in the District were developed without stormwater management, and have experienced the related property and ecological impacts. Local governments in these areas are facing extraordinary costs and difficulties to reduce the impacts of this historical development. This section provides land use strategies to address watershed management at both the watershed/local government level and the site-specific level.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-29

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Specific Strategies
There are a number of land use strategies that can be used to achieve water quality goals. This section describes land use approaches to watershed protection, including innovative development practices and alternative site design strategies that can reduce EIA for a wide range of land uses and minimize the creation of EIA and other land cover changes that are detrimental to downstream areas, such as clearing of natural vegetation and compaction of soils. These practices also preserve natural features that are key to maintaining healthy aquatic ecosystems, such as riparian forests and wetlands.
Local Comprehensive Plan Updates
The Georgia Planning Act of 1989 and the Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning (DCA, 2003) govern local planning practices in Georgia. The minimum elements of each comprehensive plan include population, economic development, natural and cultural resources, community facilities, transportation, housing, land use, and intergovernmental coordination. In addition to these traditional elements, each county within the District will be required to meet the "advanced planning level criteria" for their plan updates based on population and growth thresholds set by Chapter 110-12-1 of the Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning, effective January 1, 2004. This means that they must go beyond the basic planning components and Part V Environmental Planning Criteria to address the more complex issues presented by the suburban and urban environment such as greenspace preservation and alternative development patterns. Also, the following requirement is new to the 2004 minimum standards:
"Water Planning Districts. The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District ... focused on maintaining a reliable supply of water and ensuring the quality of this water to the regions served by these state initiatives. Local governments, through their land use, economic development and environmental management practices, will also play an important role in the success in achieving these goals. To better coordinate these state/local activities, local governments located in any state designated water planning district must, within their comprehensive plans, identify relevant state water supply and water quality protection policies and goals and ensure consistency of local comprehensive plans with the water planning district policies and goals."
All local governments in Georgia are required by the DCA to prepare a complete update to their comprehensive plans sometime during the period of 2004-2008. All municipalities in a county are subject to the same update deadline as their county government, thereby facilitating the coordinated planning process. In order to retain their "Qualified Local Government" (QLG) status, which is important for receiving State grant monies, counties and cities are expected to complete their plan update process by this date. This process includes submittal of the plan update, review/revision, approval by the DCA, and adoption by the local government.
Local governments in the District should therefore make use of this round of comprehensive plan updates to continue integrating watershed management and planning strategies (such as low-impact development [LID] practices, source water protection, and TMDL implementation) with the traditional components of a compre-

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-30

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
hensive plan. In completing comprehensive plan updates, local governments should review this District-wide WMP and coordinate their comprehensive plan updates accordingly. Wherever possible, local governments should direct capital facility spending to support areas that need to be redeveloped and minimize encroachment into source watersheds. The local governments should consider these issues during updates to comprehensive plans and during the regular updates of capital facilities plans.
Department of Community Affairs Part V Environmental Planning Criteria. One component of the Georgia Planning Act is the "Environmental Planning Criteria" or "Part V Criteria" (from Part V of House Bill 215, which became the Planning Act). To maintain QLG status for certain State grants, loans, and permits, local governments must implement regulations consistent with these criteria, which address the following resource areas:
Wetlands, Water supply watersheds, Groundwater recharge areas, Protected rivers, and Protected mountains.
Many local governments in the District have recently updated their comprehensive plans to be consistent with the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria as well as the State Greenspace Program criteria. For the local governments that have not integrated these criteria into their local planning documents, it is recommended that they do so. This process is a major step towards planning for the protection of water resources and meeting Part V criteria and required education and public outreach activities. This information can serve as the basis for moving forward and, when combined with input from local residents, can serve to guide future development towards areas that will support sustainable growth.
Land Use and Zoning Maps. Land use and zoning maps are essential policy tools that help guide development decisions by local government staff and leaders based on the future vision of the community. In order to effectively protect local water resources, it is recommended that local governments review and update their map products to reflect priorities such as source water protection and existing "hot spots" that cannot currently support additional development.
If the current land use and zoning maps are not consistent with management objectives, development may need to be shifted to other watersheds or subwatersheds. One way to accomplish this goal is by upgrading the zoning in watersheds that are designated to accommodate growth, while "down-zoning" those watersheds that exceed the management goals. The effect is to shift development away from the streams and other water resources that would be most impacted by development.
Adoption of Overlay Districts
An overlay district can be used to establish alternative land development requirements within a specific geographic area requiring special attention, such as additional source water or watershed protection elements. Overlays are usually superimposed over con-

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-31

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

ventional zoning districts and consist of a map defining the extent of the overlay and a text description of the specific measures that apply (DCA, 2003). Overlays are frequently used as stand-alone regulations to manage development in particular areas of a community. Many local governments in the District, such as Douglas, Hall, and Gwinnett Counties, have adopted ordinances with the specific intent of water quality protection; it is recommended that other local governments also consider their use where appropriate.
Low-Impact Development and Stormwater Better Site Design Practices
Since land use planning is a local responsibility in Georgia, each entity in the District is empowered to develop in a manner that satisfies the demands of its citizens. To assist the entities in achieving water quality goals at the same time, the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual and Land Development Provisions to Protect Georgia Water Quality (Nichols/UGA, 1997) have identified the following LID practices. Recent studies of residential developments actually implementing LID practices in Washington State reveal that such practices can reduce the EIA from the 23 to 30 percent range to the 0 to 7 percent range.
The following are examples of stormwater better site design practices:
Conservation of Natural Features and Resources
Preserve Undisturbed Natural Areas Preserve Riparian Buffers Avoid Floodplains Avoid Steep Slopes Minimize Siting on Erodible Soils
Lower-Impact Site Design Techniques
Use Hydrology as a Guideline for Design Locate Development in Less Sensitive Areas Reduce Limits of Clearing and Grading Utilize Open Space Development Consider Creative Development Design
Reduction of Impervious Cover
Reduce Roadway Lengths and Widths Reduce Building Footprints Reduce the Parking Footprint Reduce Setbacks and Frontages Use Fewer or Alternative Cul-de-Sacs Create Parking Lot Stormwater "Islands" Maximize Pervious Surfaces
Utilization of Natural Features for Stormwater Management
Use Buffers and Undisturbed Areas Use Natural Drainageways Instead of Storm Sewers Use Vegetated Swale Instead of Curb and Gutter

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-32

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

A full discussion of these practices is provided in The Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, Volume 2: Technical Handbook. Use of these practices allows development to mimic natural runoff and infiltration characteristics through reduction in impervious area and retention of natural pervious areas. Site design practices that reduce total impervious areas also reduce vegetation clearing and soil compaction (total site disturbance is reduced). It is recommended that local governments review their development codes and development review process and integrate these practices whenever feasible.
Use of natural vegetation features and low-impact areas for stormwater management will serve as long-term water quality protection measures only if these areas are protected in perpetuity through a mechanism such as a conservation easement or deed restriction.

Environmentally Sensitive Large Lot Subdivisions
An alternative to higher densities with extensive stormwater controls is to plan for very low-density development. This land use strategy can preserve a more rural character and provide adequate pervious area to allow stormwater generated by the developed portion of the lot to be infiltrated on-site. This option is also suitable for the more rural portions of the District where local governments do not plan to provide sewer service and must depend on on-site septic systems. The Georgia Stormwater Management Manual also recommends use of stormwater credits to encourage developers to utilize the more natural approach. The environmental site design techniques outlined in the manual and described below are applied to low and very low-density residential development (e.g., 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres [du/ac] or lower). While a developer does not have as many units per acre under this strategy, more expensive, structural stormwater controls to address water quality volume may not be necessary.
The pertinent guidance is summarized as follows:
For Single Lot Development:
Total site impervious cover (including roadways/driveway) must be less than 15 percent
Lot size must be at least 2 acres
Rooftop runoff must be disconnected in accordance with the manual
Grass channels (rather than curb and gutter) must be used to convey runoff.
For Multiple Lots:
Total impervious cover footprint (including streets) must be less than 15 percent of the area.
Lot areas must be at least 2 acres, unless clustering is implemented. Open space developments should have a minimum of 25 percent of the site protected as natural conservation areas and must be at least a half-acre average individual lot size.
Grass channels (rather than curb and gutter) should be used to convey runoff.
Overland flow filtration/infiltration zones should be established.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-33

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Redevelopment of Existing Developed Areas
As noted in the discussion of watershed improvement strategies, the most efficient way to improve water quality in significantly impacted watersheds is a combination of public stormwater management projects and private redevelopment. Local governments should consider programs that encourage and support redevelopment.
Conservation Design
Another option that builds on the LID practices outlined above is conservation design. This land use strategy seeks to focus the most intense development on a site away from natural features such as waterways and steep slopes. It usually allows for higher density on one portion of the site while the rest of the site is set aside as greenspace or a conservation easement. Conservation design can be a win/win situation for all parties involved; when done correctly, these projects can protect natural resources, allow for reasonable use of the property, minimize infrastructure costs, and provide additional recreational opportunities for residents. Many District local governments are already using this approach by adopting Conservation Subdivision Ordinances that allow developers more flexibility than traditional zoning regulations. The District has adopted a Model Conservation Subdivision Ordinance that will assist other local governments in implementing this approach.
Land Acquisition/Greenspace Protection
Another land use strategy that can meet multiple objectives for District residents is the outright acquisition of land and protection of it in perpetuity as greenspace. The Georgia Greenspace Program has been a driving force behind greenspace protection and has prompted the development of greenway and open space master plans by many of the District entities. During the creation of the Georgia Greenspace Program in 2000, greenspace was defined by Senate Bill 399 (codified as O.C.G.A. 36-22-1 et al.) as:
the permanent protection of land and water, including agricultural and forestry land whose development rights have been severed from the property, that is in its undeveloped, natural state or has been developed only to the extent consistent with, or is restored to be consistent with, one or more of the following goals:
1. water quality protection for rivers, streams, and lakes;
2. flood protection;
3. wetlands protection;
4. reduction of erosion through protection of steep slopes, areas with erodible soils, and stream banks;
5. protection of riparian buffers and other areas such as marsh hammocks that serve as natural habitat and corridors for native plants and animal species;
6. scenic protection;

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-34

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
7. protection of archaeological and historic resources; provision of recreation in the form of boating, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, running, jogging, biking, walking, skating, birding, riding horses, observing or photographing nature, picnicking, playing nonorganized sports, or engaging in free play; and connection of existing or planned areas contributing to the goals set out in this paragraph.
All of the counties in the District participate in the Georgia Greenspace Program, which has a goal of preserving 20 percent of the land in each county. It is recommended that all local governments participate in the Greenspace Program and that the local greenspace plans and programs be coordinated with the District-wide WMP. Many of the entities in the District are expanding on the scope of the State-sponsored Greenway Program by passing bond referendums to provide additional resources for acquisition. Due to the multiple benefits provided by greenspace, it is recommended that local governments continue to identify additional funding sources and to work towards implementation of their greenspace plans.
Transfer of Development Rights
Another strategy for guiding growth away from sensitive watershed protection areas is the use of "transferable development rights" (TDRs). TDRs do not involve monetary compensation but instead allow for higher-density development on one parcel in exchange for no development or very low-density development on another parcel. The American Planning Association has identified the following elements as essential for a successful TDR program:
There should be a clear and valid public purpose for applying a TDR program to an area.
Both the sending area and the receiving area should be designated clearly. The designation of sending and receiving areas should be consistent with the local comprehensive plan.
The development rights which the sending parcel has transferred should be clearly recorded as a conservation easement against the sending parcel and in favor of the local government.
It should be noted that the transfer of development rights may occur separately from the exercise of those development rights on a receiving parcel.
The TDR legislation for Georgia, passed in 1998 (O.C.G.A. 36-66A), authorizes counties and municipalities to employ TDRs to protect natural land, open space, recreational land, farmland, and "land that has unique aesthetic, architectural, or historic value." All transfers must be preceded by a notice and a hearing and must have the consent of the owners of both the sending parcel and the receiving parcel (O.C.G.A 36-66A-2) This public notice requirement is one of the impediments to TDRs being successfully implemented by local governments in Georgia.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-35

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

An effort to amend the statute so that TDRs can take place without individual public hearings on each transfer was passed in 2001, but it was limited to "consolidated" governments. Cities and counties generally have not been willing to establish TDR programs because of this requirement for individual public hearings regarding each transfer. It is recommended that the State legislature adopt a more flexible statute that eliminates the individual public hearing requirement. This would make TDRs an easier tool for local governments to use for the protection of greenspace, environmentally sensitive areas, farmland, and historic properties (GPA, 2003).
Management Issues by Basin
Each major river basin with the District has specific issues based on hydrologic conditions, existing water quality, historical and existing land use, transportation corridors, wastewater discharges, and surface water withdrawals, that will affect implementation of the recommended watershed management strategies. This section provides a brief summary of the key issues and general recommended solutions for each basin. In many cases, the recommended solutions will be similar among basins because the existing major issues are very similar. Where differences exist, basin-specific recommendations have been emphasized.
Chattahoochee Basin
The Chattahoochee basin can be divided into three primary subbasins for discussion of basinspecific recommendations: The Lake Lanier, the Upper Metro Chattahoochee, and the Lower Metro Chattahoochee.
Lake Lanier Subbasin
The Lake Lanier subbasin includes that portion of the Chattahoochee basin within the District and upstream of Buford Dam. The Lake Lanier subbasin includes portions of Hall and Forsyth Counties and a small section of Gwinnett County.
Primary Management Issues:
The lake is one of the primary potable water supply sources for the District.
Many of the major tributaries are impaired and have listed TMDLs, primarily fecal coliform bacteria.
There are multiple wastewater discharges to the subbasin.
Pollutant loadings to the basin are dominated by nonpoint sources.
Land use is shifting from agricultural/rural to urban and residential.
Portions of the basin have significant animal production facilities (poultry) and grazing operations.
The Flat Creek subwatershed is degraded as a result of stormwater impacts from prior development within the City of Gainesville. This watershed is likely to require retrofits/restoration.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-36

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Recommended Solutions:
Implement the recommended source water protection measures in the subwatersheds draining to the lake.
Finalize and implement TMDL plans for each stream.
Implement the recommended local stormwater management program activities to reduce nonpoint source loadings.
Implement public education programs focused on agriculture practices in the basin.
Implement the wastewater allocations for the lake.
Develop and implement a watershed improvement plan for Flat Creek.
Upper Metro Chattahoochee Subbasin
The Upper Metro Chattahoochee subbasin includes that portion of the Chattahoochee basin within the District and downstream of Buford Dam and upstream of the confluence with Peachtree Creek. The Upper Metro Chattahoochee subbasin includes portions of Forsyth, Gwinnett, Fulton, Cherokee, Cobb, and DeKalb Counties. Primary Management Issues:
There are two significant source water withdrawals in this segment of the basin.
The Chattahoochee River below the lake is designated as a secondary trout stream.
Many of the tributaries and the mainstem of the river are listed as impaired and have TMDLs (primarily fecal coliform bacteria and metals).
Land use is primarily urban with major areas of active development (transitional land uses), and nonpoint source loadings associated with runoff from these land uses are significant.
Development with inadequate stormwater controls has led to increased stormwater runoff, resulting in stream scouring, sedimentation, and erosion problems.
Recommended Solutions:
Active source water protection measures will be needed to address potential sources of contamination from existing and new development.
TMDL implementation will be focused on the primary parameters of concern-metals and fecal coliform bacteria. Emphasis should be placed on the existing sanitary sewer overflow problems in the segment of the Chattahoochee basin (Nancy Creek watershed).
Improved enforcement of ESC Ordinances will reduce impacts from construction and development activities. In addition, implementation of the Post-Development Stormwater Control Ordinance will reduce the hydrologic and water quality problems associated with the continued development.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-37

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Watershed improvement plans will be developed as early as possible to address existing inadequate stormwater controls and stream degradation.
Lower Metro Chattahoochee Subbasin
The Lower Metro Chattahoochee subbasin includes that portion of the Chattahoochee basin within the District and downstream of the confluence with Peachtree Creek. The Lower Metro Chattahoochee subbasin includes portions of Fulton, Cobb, Douglas, Paulding, and Coweta Counties and a small section of Clayton County.
Primary Management Issues:
Existing CSOs and wastewater treatment plant discharges have resulted in elevated point source pollutant loadings.
Chronic sanitary sewer overflows have resulted in exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria standards and elevated pollutant loadings.
Many of the tributaries and the mainstem of the river are listed as impaired and have TMDLs (primarily fecal coliform bacteria and metals).
Land use is primarily urban, with major areas of active development (transitional land uses), and nonpoint source loadings associated with runoff from these land uses are significant.
Existing development with inadequate stormwater controls in this basin has resulted in elevated levels of stormwater runoff and the associated instream scouring, sedimentation, and erosion problems, as well as elevated nonpoint source pollutant loadings.
Elevated temperatures are present and are associated with existing wastewater and power plant discharges.
Recommended Solutions:
Conduct improvements in CSO discharges and sanitary sewer overflows. The approved City of Atlanta programs for CSO upgrades will address these issues. Runoff from 7,400 acres will be treated with a removal efficiency of greater than 85 percent for TSS.
Focus TMDL implementation on the primary parameters of concernincluding metals and fecal coliform bacteria. Emphasis should be placed on the existing sanitary sewer overflow problems in all subbasins.
Improve enforcement of ESC Ordinances to reduce impacts from construction and development activities. In addition, implementation of the Post-Development Stormwater Control Ordinance will reduce the hydrologic and water quality problems associated with continued development.
Develop watershed improvement plans for several subwatersheds in this basin to address the existing stream degradation and insufficient stormwater control.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-38

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Coosa Basin
The Coosa basin within the District consists of the drainage area upstream of Lake Allatoona, including portions of Forsyth and Cherokee Counties and portions of Bartow, Cobb, and Paulding Counties below the lake and small areas within the Oostanaula and Coosawatee subbasins. For the purposes of this discussion, the Coosa basin is subdivided into the Upper Etowah subbasin and the Lower Etowah subbasin. The small portions of the Oostanaula and Coosawatee subbasins in the northwestern corner of the District are not discussed.
Upper Etowah Subbasin
The Upper Etowah subbasin includes that portion of the Etowah drainage upstream of Allatoona Dam and within the District. The Upper Etowah subbasin includes portions of Cherokee, Cobb, Fulton, Forsyth, and Bartow Counties.
Primary Management Issues:
The subwatersheds in Forsyth, Cherokee, and Cobb Counties are developing rapidly.
Lake Allatoona is the primary water source for Cobb, Cherokee, and Paulding Counties.
The mainstem of the river and several tributaries have TMDL listings, primarily fecal coliform bacteria.
Sedimentation and erosion are the dominant causes of stream degradation in the tributaries.
The dominant form of wastewater management outside of the incorporated areas is on-site septic systems.
Lake Allatoona is showing signs of increasing eutrophication with exceedances of the chlorophyll standards at multiple locations, primarily in the embayments. Nonpoint source runoff has been identified as the primary source of pollutant loadings.
High levels of development with inadequate stormwater controls in the Little River and Noonday Creek watersheds have resulted in elevated levels of stormwater runoff and the associated instream scouring, sedimentation, and erosion problems, as well as elevated nonpoint source pollutant loadings.
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are a major concern in this subbasin. Development of the region-wide Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Etowah basin is ongoing.
Recommended Solutions:
Implement post-development stormwater controls to address nonpoint source runoff from rapid new development.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-39

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Implement the recommended source water protection measures in the subwatersheds leading to the lake.
Implement improved septic tank siting and maintenance requirements (see Section 6).
Develop and implement watershed improvement plans for the existing highly developed subwatersheds.
Implementation of WMP measures will be compatible with and complement the HCP under development by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and local governments in the Etowah basin.
Lower Etowah Subbasin
The Lower Etowah subbasin includes that portion of the Etowah drainage downstream of Allatoona Dam and within the District. The Lower Etowah subbasin includes portions of Cobb, Paulding, and Bartow Counties. Primary Management Issues:
Portions of the mainstem of the river below the dam are listed for fish consumption advisories TMDL, and the tributaries have fecal coliform TMDLs.
Increased development activity in Paulding and Bartow Counties is changing existing land use from rural to more urban and residential land uses.
Limited areas of sedimentation and erosion problems have been identified. Poor forestry harvesting practices and construction activity were identified as the primary causes.
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are a major concern in this subbasin. Development of the region-wide HCP for the Etowah basin is ongoing.
Recommended Solutions:
Implement post-development stormwater controls to address the nonpoint source runoff from rapid new development.
Improve enforcement of sedimentation and erosion requirements for forestry activities and new construction.
Implementation of WMP measures will be compatible with and complement the HCP under development by the FWS and local governments in the Etowah basin.
Flint Basin
The Flint basin includes that portion of the Flint drainage from its headwaters to the downstream edge of the District. The Flint basin includes portions of Clayton, Fayette, and Coweta Counties.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-40

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Primary Management Issues:
The headwaters of the Flint basin are highly impervious due to the presence of Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport and extensive urban development.
Multiple potable water supply withdrawals are located in this basin.
TMDLs in the upper Flint are associated with low DO and fecal coliform bacteria. Recommended Solutions:
Implement the recommended source water protection measures and Part V Environmental Criteria (setbacks).
Implement post-development stormwater controls to address nonpoint source runoff as development continues.
Develop watershed improvement plans in several subwatersheds to identify and address causes of water quality problems. Clayton County will need to continue to coordinate with the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport to address hydrologic and water quality controls at the airport.
Oconee Basin
The Oconee basin within the District includes portions of Hall, Gwinnett, and Walton Counties. Most this basin remains relatively rural. Primary Management Issues:
TMDL issues are limited to the headwaters where fecal coliform bacteria exceedances have been identified. A limited area of impairment for aquatic habitat was also identified.
Sedimentation and erosion from previous and existing land use practices (agriculture, grazing) and new construction were the primary sources of degradation.
Land use is expected to shift from open and agricultural lands to more urban and residential.
Recommended Solutions:
Implement post-development stormwater controls to address nonpoint source runoff as new development occurs.
Improve enforcement of existing sedimentation and erosion control requirements.
Implement effective public education program focused on the agricultural community to encourage water quality protection.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-41

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies
Ocmulgee Basin
The Ocmulgee basin includes portions of Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties in the headwaters, and portions of Walton, Rockdale, and Henry Counties in the lower segments of the basin within the District. Primary Management Issues:
This basin drains to Lake Jackson, which is experiencing eutrophication problems under existing land use and pollutant loads.
Fecal coliform bacteria is the primary TMDL issue in the basin, with limited listings for biotic community impacts, toxicity, and fish consumption guidelines.
CSO discharges in the headwaters of the South River are a significant source of pollutant loadings.
There are multiple wastewater discharges into the headwaters, including Big Haynes Creek, the Yellow River, and the South River.
Prior urban development with inadequate stormwater controls has resulted in high levels of imperviousness and elevated nonpoint source pollutant loadings and hydrologic changes.
Extensive land use changes are anticipated with shifts from open space to residential land uses.
Recommended Solutions:
Perform improvements in CSO discharges and sanitary sewer overflows. The approved City of Atlanta programs for CSO upgrades will address these issues. Runoff from 4,800 acres will be treated with a removal efficiency of greater than 85 percent for TSS.
Focus TMDL implementation on fecal coliform bacteria. Emphasis should be placed on the existing sanitary sewer overflow problems in all subbasins.
Continue improvements in wastewater treatment processes to reduce nutrient loadings
Implement Post-Development Stormwater Control Ordinance to reduce the hydrologic and water quality problems associated with continued development.
Develop and implement watershed improvement plans in the existing highly developed watersheds in the headwaters of the basin.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-42

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

Tallapoosa Basin
The Tallapoosa basin consists of a small portion of Paulding County in the southwest corner of the District. Primary Management Issues:
Significant changes in land use are anticipated over the planning period from open space and agricultural land uses to more residential land uses.
Sedimentation and erosion and hydrologic changes have been documented as causes of stream degradation.
Recommended Solutions:
Implement the local stormwater management program activities, especially the postdevelopment stormwater controls, to reduce the impacts from new development.
Improve enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control requirements.

Summary

Implementation of the watershed management strategies identified above will help move watersheds in the District toward achievement of water quality goals. Table 5-8 provides a summary of the recommended additional policies and identifies the entity or entities responsible for advancing each policy recommendation. A discussion of the implementation tasks associated with implementing the watershed management strategies is provided in Section 9.
TABLE 5-8
Summary of Watershed Management Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Watershed Management Recommendation
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Model Stormwater Ordinances Post-Development Stormwater Management Floodplain Management Conservation Subdivision/Open Space Development Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Litter Control Stream Buffer Implement Stormwater Management Technical Standards and Design Criteria Manual Improved Enforcement of Laws/Regulations Establish Judicial Process Erosion and Sediment Control Training/Certification Programs Inspection Programs

Local

State

Government District Agency

X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-43

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 5: Watershed Management Strategies

TABLE 5-8 (CONTINUED)
Summary of Watershed Management Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Watershed Management Recommendation
Implement Additional Management Measures
Stormwater Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Drainage System Maintenance
Structures Maintenance and Tracking
Street Sweeping
System Inventory and Mapping
Industrial Permit Monitoring
Compliance Tracking
Septic Systems
Animal Control
Pet Waste
Livestock/Agriculture
Pollution Prevention and Recycling
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Recycling
Requirements for Commercial BMPs
Municipal Good Housekeeping BMPs
Commercial/industrial Inspection Program Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
Construction Erosion and Sediment Control
Post-Construction Stormwater Management
Roadway and Right-of-Way Maintenance for Pollution Prevention
Capital Improvement Program for Retrofits Education and Public Awareness Activities Water Quality Monitoring Total Maximum Daily Load Strategies District-wide Implementation Strategies Watershed/Waterbody Specific Implementation Strategies Source Water Protection Strategies Geographic Information System Planning Maps Part V Planning Criteria Greenspace Acquisition Pollution Prevention Education Integration with TMDL Plans Watershed Improvement Strategies Land Use Based Strategies Local Comprehensive Plan Updates
Department of Community Affairs Part V Planning Criteria Land use Zoning Maps Adoption of Overlay Districts Low-impact Development/Better Stormwater Site Design Practices Environmentally Sensitive Large Lot Subdivisions Conservation Design Land Acquisition/Greenspace Protection Transfer of Development Rights

Local Government
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X

District
X X

State Agency
X X X
X X X X X X
X X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

5-44

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 6
Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

This section identifies recommendations for changes to state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances that would help facilitate implementation of the Districtwide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and result in improved water quality and watershed integrity.

Review of Adopted Model Stormwater Management Ordinances
Local ordinances are an important implementation vehicle for achieving the objectives of stormwater and nonpoint source pollution control programs. They can include provisions for stormwater management requirements (both water quantity and quality) for development activities, prohibition of non-stormwater discharges to municipal/county storm sewers, and other nonpoint source pollution prevention measures. Senate Bill (SB) 130 and Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) Planning Standards provide for the immediate development of a suite of Model Stormwater Management Ordinances for the District in addition to the review task under the District-wide WMP. The District Planning staff prepared the following draft model ordinances for this purpose:
Model Ordinance for Post-Development Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment
Model Floodplain Management/Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Model Conservation Subdivision/Open Space Development Ordinance
Model Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Ordinance
Model Litter Control Ordinance
The Draft Model Stormwater Management Ordinances were presented to the District Board at their May 2, 2002, meeting and released for a formal public comment period. The District Board adopted the final versions of the Model Ordinances on October 3, 2002. Local governments in the District will be expected to adopt these models or alternatives that are at least as effective. Based on the recommendations for watershed management discussed in Section 5, there is no need for modifications to the model ordinances at this time.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
The most critical ordinance for watershed protection will be the Post-Development Stormwater Management Ordinance, as it will address on-site hydrologic and water quality controls as new development and redevelopment occur. In addition, as redevelopment occurs, this ordinance will require implementation of stormwater controls. This aspect of the ordinance will, over time, address the need for watershed improvements in many of the existing highly developed areas within the District. As required in this ordinance, new developments will have to apply the criteria for stormwater management and design included in the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual. The anticipated pollutant efficiencies associated with the manual were incorporated into the evaluation of the District-wide WMP.
Recommended Additional Model Stormwater Management Ordinances
Based upon the review of the District Model Stormwater Management Ordinances, the Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance prepared by the District Planning staff is recommended as part of the District-wide WMP and for inclusion into the Local Stormwater Program Management Activities. In addition, two optional example model ordinances for local governments are described below: a stormwater good housekeeping ordinance and a stormwater utility ordinance.
Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance
The preservation of stream buffers, when applied with other protection measures throughout a watershed, can help protect streams and preserve water quality. Buffers can provide a filter for pollutants, help slow runoff (which in turn reduces erosion and sedimentation), help stabilize stream banks, preserve vegetation, and provide both aquatic and land habitat.
A draft Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance was prepared and reviewed as part of the development of the Model Stormwater Ordinances in 2002. However, the District Board postponed adoption of the Model Buffer Ordinance pending further discussion and resolution of outstanding issues as part of the development of the District-wide WMP.
In early 2003, the District Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) expressed strong support for District staff to continue developing and presenting alternatives for a proposed buffer width and a proposed definition of "stream," the two unresolved issues concerning the draft ordinance. The TCC chose the alternative of a 50-foot undisturbed streamside buffer and an additional 25-foot impervious surface setback. For the definition of "stream," the TCC expressed a preference for the "rebuttable presumption" currently being used by Gwinnett and Hall Counties, which establishes a drainage basin size (20 to 25 acres) above which it was presumed a stream is present unless evidence is provided to the contrary.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

The recommended model ordinance has the following key points:
It requires a 50-foot undisturbed streamside buffer and an adjacent 25-foot impervious surface setback, for a total of 75 feet, on all streams.
It defines a stream as beginning at:
- The location of a spring, seep, or groundwater outflow that sustains stream flow; or
- A point in the stream channel with a drainage area of 25 acres or more; or
- Where evidence indicates the presence of a stream in a drainage area of other than 25 acres, the (local government permitting authority) may require field studies to verify the existence of a stream.
It provides for exemptions for transportation and utility crossings, paralleling sewer lines up to 25 feet from a stream bank, footpaths, public access to the water, and other uses that need to be in the buffer.
It provides variance procedures for properties platted prior to ordinance adoption and for other hardships.
It provides violation procedures and penalties.
The Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance is included in Appendix C.
All local governments in the District must adopt a Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance by April 3, 2005. Adopted stream buffer protection ordinances must be at least as protective as the Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance.
Stormwater Utility Example Ordinance
Local governments in the District are increasingly looking to stormwater utilities to fund stormwater maintenance and improvement projects. The process used to establish a stormwater utility and specific recommendations on their implementation are discussed in Section 9. Under a stormwater utility, stormwater infrastructure and programs are considered a public service or utility similar to wastewater and water programs that are funded on a similar basis. Stormwater fees are assessed on users of the system based on average conditions for groups of customers. Typically, fees are based on some measure of a property's impervious area, with rates assessed on equivalent dwelling unit or unit area. Implementation of a stormwater utility fee will require that local governments establish an ordinance giving them the authority to collect the new services fee. Appendix E provides the DeKalb County ordinance as an example for other local governments in the District should they decide to pursue implementing a utility.
Stormwater Good Housekeeping Example Ordinance
The District will develop a Model Stormwater Good Housekeeping Example Ordinance during the first years of implementation of the District-wide WMP. After this Model Ordinance is developed, local governments must implement the Model Ordinance or another ordinance that is at least as effective.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

Local Policy Recommendations
During the process of developing the District Model Stormwater Ordinances, a number of other topics and measures were discussed. The sections below represent topics that were reviewed and discussed with both the TCC and the Basin Advisory Councils (BACs). This discussion provides additional detail on each topic and potential strategies for addressing issues across the District. Each of the local governments in the District influences the character of new development in slightly different ways. The land use based strategies discussed in Section 5 provide a variety of methods for integrating these resource protection practices into future developments.
Resource Protection
The loss of vegetation results in increases in impervious surface and increases in stormwater runoff associated with urbanization. Such losses can also have severe impacts on streams, including scouring, bank collapse, increased erosion and sedimentation, loss of habitat, and reduced water quality.
It is recommended that local governments in the District consider the following policies and measures for tree protection:
Tree Protection
Trees serve many important functions, such as reducing erosion, securing water supplies, improving air quality, removing water quality pollutants, sequestering carbon, cooling urban areas, and conserving energy (TreesAtlanta, 2003). The unprecedented growth experienced by communities in the District over the past 20 years has resulted in a significant loss of tree cover and its associated benefits. This has prompted many of the governing entities in the District to adopt some type of tree protection ordinance. However, for effective stormwater management, the use of conservation design as well as better site design practices that limit clearing and grading can be equally effective in protecting tree cover and natural hydrologic conditions to the fullest extent possible.
Jurisdictions should consider the following policies and measures to implement a tree protection strategy for watershed protection:
Focus on planning for "tree save" areas at the earliest stages of the development process, not as an afterthought. A tree plan should be submitted at the same time as the development plan.
Require planting of shade trees in parking lots and along streets to the maximum extent possible. Parking lots contribute greatly to the "heat island effect" and should be planted with shade trees to offset this problem. These shade trees should be used in concert with best management practices (BMPs) such as infiltration trenches and pervious paving blocks to "disconnect" as much impervious area as possible.
Protect trees from unnecessary damage during construction, either from direct physical injury or from compaction of soil around tree roots.
Require sufficient replanting when trees must be cut down.
Require that trees along public streets be pruned in a healthy and aesthetic manner.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

While tree protection ordinances are an effective way to encourage the development community to ensure that watersheds are developed in a sustainable manner. The two primary long-term drivers for tree protection are public opinion and the value of forested land for water quality protection. This strategy is consistent with the Georgia stormwater management manual technical standards and design criteria. The strategies outlined in the education and public awareness section (Section 7) will be essential to help focus the public on the benefits of tree protection. Additionally, training efforts by District staff after the adoption of the District-wide WMP will help educate developers about the water quality benefits of conserving trees during the development process.
Clearing and/or Grading Limitations
Clearing and grading are regulated in Georgia by the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act established by the General Assembly in 1975. As noted in Section 2, persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on more than 1.1 acres are required by the Act to obtain a permit. They are also required to implement procedures for preventing and/or minimizing erosion and the resultant sedimentation. Additional requirements governing erosion and sedimentation were established in August 2000 by the General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities issued by GAEPD in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. Under the terms of the permit, persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on 5 or more acres (up to 250 acres) are required to file a Notice of Intent with GAEPD, implement erosion and sedimentation control procedures, and conduct monitoring and record-keeping activities to document the amount of sediment entering the State's waters.
In 1993, the Georgia General Assembly created the original "Dirt Committee" to study the impacts of sedimentation on Georgia's waterways. "Dirt 2", the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Technical Study Committee, was established in 1996. Dirt 2 identified the following three strategies for improving erosion and sedimentation control in Georgia:
Thoughtful integration of erosion control into a construction project,
Thoughtful design of a coherent system of controls by qualified design professionals, and
Monitoring the system to assure performance in protecting water quality.
In addition to the work done by Dirt 2, an audit by the Georgia State Attorney General in 2001 found that the current process and resources devoted to the enforcement of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act are insufficient to meet the intent of the Act. House Bill (HB) 285, discussed below under "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Enforcement," was passed during the 2003 legislative session and will provide additional resources for enforcement. However, the audit also noted that developers should be required to meet certain minimum standards to receive a permit. These minimum standards could include training on alternative site development methods. For example, terracing and contour strips can help in reducing erosion and sediment production, thus decreasing the transport of sediment and related pollutants to receiving waters. An alternative approach is the phasing of development so a tract is not entirely cleared until construction is ready to begin.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

Forestry Activities
Forestry activities typically involve reduction in vegetative cover and potential exposure of significant areas of cleared soils. Without proper BMPs, there is potential for substantial erosion and sedimentation. Forestry practices are exempt from the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act and local regulation. Forestry land management practices, as identified in that Act, are not subject to the requirements of the Act. In addition, the Georgia Timber Act exempts forestry practices from local regulation, so long as they are not incidental to other uses and are on land zoned for forestry, agricultural, or silvicultural purposes.
Local governments should identify all areas zoned or classified as forestry or agriculture in their land use plans. Additionally, local governments should develop and implement a process for tracking forestry activities and encourage local forestry practices to comply with the Georgia Forestry Manual and the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act. To comply with the Act, local governments should require applicants for land disturbance permits or zoning variances to document that the property was not cleared under forestry exemption within 3 years of the date of application.
Strategies for Reducing Impervious Cover
These strategies address a variety of policies that can be established to reduce the amount of surface area directly connected to the storm drainage system by minimizing or eliminating traditional curb and gutter systems. Lower imperviousness leads to reduced stormwater volume and velocity.
Disconnecting impervious areas involves a variety of practices designed to limit the amount of stormwater runoff that is directly connected to the storm drainage system. Practices for reducing the connection between the impervious areas include replacing street curb and gutter systems with grassed swales and pervious street shoulders, and redirecting runoff from impervious surfaces such as rooftops, driveways, and parking lots to flow over vegetated areas before entering a storm sewer system. It is recommended that local governments revisit their land development codes and ordinances and integrate strategies for reducing impervious cover whenever possible.
Cool Communities is a new national program sponsored by the Department of Energy and the EPA to promote the reduction of heat island effects in urban areas. The recommended measures for reduction of urban heat effects are complementary to many efforts to prevent degradation of water quality, such as reduced impervious surfaces and greater tree cover in urban landscapes. The Cool Communities initiative offers local governments another opportunity to coordinate planning efforts and maximize resource use.
Establishment of Maximum Roadway Widths
This practice involves promoting the use of narrower streets to reduce the amount of impervious cover created by new residential development, and in turn, reduce the stormwater runoff and associated pollutant loads. Currently, many communities require wide residential streets that are 32, 36, and even 40 feet wide. These wide streets provide two parking lanes and two moving lanes, but provide much more parking than is

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
actually necessary. In many residential settings, streets can be as narrow as 22 to 26 feet wide without sacrificing emergency access, on-street parking, or vehicular and pedestrian safety. Even narrower access streets or shared driveways can be used when only a few homes need to be served. Developers, however, often have little flexibility to design narrower streets, as most communities require wide residential streets as a standard element of their local road and zoning standards. Revisions to current local road standards are often needed to promote more widespread use of narrower residential streets (SMRC, 2003).
Since streets constitute the largest share of impervious cover in residential developments (about 40 to 50 percent), a shift to narrower streets could result in a 5 to 20 percent overall reduction in impervious area for a typical residential subdivision (Schueler, 1995). In spite of these potential benefits, there are a number of real and perceived barriers to wider acceptance of narrower streets at the local level. Also, advocates for narrower streets will need to respond to the concerns of many local agencies and the general public. Typical concerns relate to:
Inadequate On-street Parking Car and Pedestrian Safety Emergency Access Large Vehicles Utility Corridors
Maximum Parking Ratios
Parking can represent a large portion of the total impervious surface associated with many commercial and industrial developments. While adequate parking can be essential to the success of an enterprise, often too much parking is developed for the number of customers or employees, creating unnecessary impervious surface. This provision is intended to require that no more parking be installed than actually needed for specific land uses.
Pervious Overflow Parking
Many businesses such as large shopping centers and concert venues often have to accommodate large numbers of vehicles during short, infrequent special events such as holiday shopping and popular concerts. One option is to use an alternative parking surface, such as porous pavers, that allow at least some infiltration. Porous pavers are typically hollow structural units made of concrete that are filled with pervious materials such as sand or grass turf. Porous paver systems provide water quality benefits in addition to groundwater recharge and a reduction in stormwater volume. Porous paver systems can reduce the effective impervious area on a site.
Higher maintenance requirements to ensure proper functioning is one of the drawbacks of installing pervious surfaces. Modular porous pavers are typically placed on a gravel (stone aggregate) base course. Runoff infiltrates through the porous paver surface into the gravel base course, which acts as a storage reservoir as it exfiltrates to the underlying soil. The infiltration rate of the soils in the subgrade must be adequate to support drawdown of the entire runoff capture volume within 24 to 48 hours.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
Septic System Management Measures
The recommendations for septic system maintenance were developed under the Longterm Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a). Implementation of these recommendations is considered part of the Local Stormwater Program Management Activities of the District-wide WMP, as they directly address nonpoint source pollutant loadings.
These measures are designed to protect critical areas from septic system impacts through development of inspection and maintenance programs focusing on:
Design, siting, and construction of septic systems Inspection of septic systems Maintenance and proper operation of septic systems Monitoring and documenting contamination of surface waters by septic systems
Local governments can use existing State Department of Human Resources (DHR) regulations for design, siting, and construction with modifications, some of which are described below The Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a) should be consulted for additional detail on these measures.
Require Pumping of Septic Tanks Every 5 Years
The most effective method for extending the life of a septic system and ensuring its proper operation is to pump out the settled solids from the septic tank before excessive amounts accumulate. Pumping tanks every 5 years is the accepted general recommendation for system maintenance.
Establish a Minimum Lot Size Requirement for Placement of Septic Systems
If a lot is too small and there is no access to public sewer, the property would have to be abandoned if the system fails. A half-acre lot size is the minimum, both physically and technically, possible to provide for construction of a home or building, installation of a tank and absorption field, and provision for a second absorption field as a future replacement should the first one fail.
Provide Public Education About Septic System Operation and Maintenance
Most septic system owners are unaware of proper operation and maintenance procedures and generally do not even think about their septic system until a major failure has occurred. A public education campaign and development of an informational website can be used to increase the awareness of issues related to septic systems and generate interest in performing proper maintenance.
Establish a Database of the Location and Maintenance of Septic Systems
This database would contain information on septic system locations, septage pumping, and repairs. This information would allow identification of septic systems causing quality problems in surface waters and allow tracking of septic tank maintenance requirements.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

State Policy Recommendations
Interjurisdictional Coordination
Interjurisdictional coordination between adjacent Counties and Cities is one of the major challenges to the successful implementation of the District-wide WMP strategies. The County governments or water and sewer authorities in the District, which are largely responsible for implementation, will have to coordinate many of their management activities, especially in watersheds that overlap jurisdictional boundaries (County and City borders). Coordination will be particularly important for implementation of the TMDL plans, source water protection, and watershed improvement strategies.
Strategies for facilitating better interjurisdictional coordination within the District were developed with input from:
Georgia Department of Community Affairs Association of County Commissioners of Georgia Georgia Municipal Association GAEPD District Planning Staff Members of the TCC and BACs
It should be noted that in spite of the diverse group of participants included in the development of these strategies, interjurisdictional coordination continues to be a challenging topic. The following sections describe existing and emerging strategies for facilitating coordination. It is assumed that a mix of these strategies will be necessary. Some traditional methods such as memorandums of agreement are not discussed due to the amount of existing information already available on their application and because of general skepticism on the part of the TCC regarding their successful implementation.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Chapter 110-12-5 of the Georgia Planning Act calls on governments to mediate or otherwise resolve certain interjurisdictional conflicts. If the entities are unable to reach agreement themselves, the Act authorizes the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to establish procedures and guidelines for the mediation process and maintain a list of mediators to be made available to local governments and Regional Development Centers (RDCs).
Four types of intergovernmental conflicts are subject to mediation under the Georgia Planning Act and the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act:
(a) Conflicts related to preparation or implementation of local, multi-jurisdictional, and/or regional comprehensive plans
(b) Conflicts related to preparation or implementation of local, multi-jurisdictional, and/or regional solid waste management plans
(c) Actions or conflicts related to regionally important resources
(d) Actions or conflicts related to developments of regional impact

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
Local governments are encouraged to participate in good faith mediation or risk losing their Qualified Local Government (QLG) certification, which would result in that entity being ineligible to receive certain state funds. Under the Act, RDCs are charged with reviewing local comprehensive plans for regional consistency and for reviewing actions that could affect Regionally Important Resources. During this process, the RDCs are in a position to identify potential interjurisdictional conflicts at an early stage. The Planning Act requires the RDCs to notify the entities of any conflict between plans and encourages the RDCs to provide assistance in resolving the conflict.
Use of GAEPD NPDES Permits
Permits administered by GAEPD (NPDES discharge and stormwater, and water supply withdrawal) are primary mechanisms for requiring interjurisdictional coordination. Documentation illustrating an entity's interjurisdictional coordination should be required as part of its Annual Reporting requirements, with GAEPD having the ultimate responsibility for enforcement.
Service Delivery Act, HB 489 Approach
Another option discussed by the TCC is an approach similar to HB 489 (The Service Delivery Law), which was adopted to help facilitate efficient delivery of local government services. One of the benefits of this approach is that it provides for a mandatory arbitration process should the two entities not reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Passed during the 1997 legislative session, HB 489 requires each County and the Cities within the County to adopt a Service Delivery Strategy (SDS).
The intent of HB 489 is for local governments to review the services they provide and identify overlaps or gaps in service. The SDS should identify a rational approach to allocating delivery and funding of these services among the various local governments and authorities in each County. The legislation also directs local governments to review their land use plans in order to minimize conflicts between the City and County plans. There is potential to either amend this law to specifically address stormwater and watershed protection or to model new legislation after HB 489.
If a County and its Cities cannot reach agreement on the SDS, the law requires that they attempt to resolve their differences through some method of alternative dispute resolution. In the case of HB 489, "alternative dispute resolution" refers to mediation, whereby a neutral third party is used to help find a resolution. If alternative dispute resolution is unsuccessful, the neutral party is required to prepare a report and provide it to each local government within the County. The report will be considered a public record (DCA, 2003).
Escherichia coli Standards and Guidance
Georgia EPD is drafting a new standard based on Escherichia coli. This change is being made because studies have shown a stronger relationship between the presence of E. coli and the occurrence of human illness than between the presence of fecal coliform bacteria and human illness. This standard would provide an appropriate measure of the potential health risk related to exposure to human-related waste products and should be

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-10

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
implemented by GAEPD as soon as the E. coli standards and analysis methods have been finalized.
Since most TMDLs within the District (76 percent) are for fecal coliforms, the primary focus for TMDL implementation will be on fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, local governments, as part of the environmental monitoring plan, should implement the appropriate E. coli sampling in conjunction with fecal coliform sampling when the new standard is implemented. The local TMDL implementation plans should be revised accordingly as the standard is implemented.
Department of Transportation Compliance
Water quality issues resulting from the significant amount of impervious surface associated with major roads across the District were noted during the Characterization and Modeling tasks of the District-wide WMP. In addition, members of both the TCC and BACs expressed concern over the exemption given to the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) from having to apply for a land disturbance permit (O.C.G.A. Section 12-7-17(a) (9)). The primary regulatory authority for GDOT stormwater activities is the Georgia Water Quality Control Act and Phase II of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit system, both enforced by GAEPD. GDOT will be required to meet the six minimum measures that local governments must address. The MS4 program will require GDOT to revise its road design standards to ensure that postconstruction stormwater controls and BMPs are installed. The District recommends that GDOT develop technical standards and criteria for stormwater management on GDOT projects that meet the same design criteria for stormwater management included in the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual and the District Model Ordinance for PostDevelopment Stormwater Management.
It is also recommended that GAEPD include retrofit schedule development in its MS4 permit requirements for GDOT. Retrofit requirements for GDOT projects should focus primarily on on-site retrofits for drainage areas directly connected to GDOT rights-ofway. GDOT should coordinate with local governments within the District on individual watershed improvement projects.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Enforcement
The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, Section 2-6-27 of the Official Code of Georgia, was amended during the 2003 legislature in the form of House Bill (HB) 285. The goal of these amendments is to better protect Georgia's streams and rivers from erosion and sedimentation through increased financial resources, additional certification/training and the potential to use stop work orders to encourage compliance. Effective July 1, 2003, highlights of HB 285 are as follows:
By December 31, 2003 Establish a fee system (not to exceed $80/acre) to offset costs of statewide implementation;
By December 31, 2003 Establish requirements and standards for certification and procedures for decertification of a local issuing authority;

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

Failure to comply shall result in an immediate stop work order which shall be effective until necessary corrective actions or mitigation has occurred;
After December 31, 2006, all persons involved shall meet education and training certification requirements, dependent on their level of involvement with the process; and,
Establishment of a 16-member panel to study the controls implemented as part of the Act; the turbidity standards in place in the state; and any standards or indicators other than turbidity that might be more appropriate to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these controls.
Fertilizer Nutrient Content
The composition and concentration of certain nutrients in residential and commercial fertilizers can contribute to elevated amounts of these nutrients in stormwater runoff due to the amount of connected imperviousness and the high clay content of local soils. Recent studies show that lawn fertilizer can be a significant source of nutrients in stormwater runoff. One strategy to address this issue is to pass state legislation requiring fertilizer sold within the District to be formulated for local conditions.
Within the District, existing information on soil conditions may be adequate to identify the appropriate nutrient content for lawn fertilizers. In that case, legislation should be introduced recommending a specific nutrient content for all fertilizer sold within the District. It is recommended that additional research be completed by the District during the implementation of the District-wide WMP to determine specific recommendations for legislation.
Stormwater Authority Enabling Legislation
To address the interjurisdictional considerations regarding implementation of stormwater utilities, enabling legislation for County-wide stormwater authorities may be useful. In many cases, local Cities (e.g., the Cities of Conyers, Decatur, and Gainesville) are implementing their own stormwater utilities to assist with funding needed to support implementation of their stormwater programs. Others may rely on the Counties to meet their stormwater management requirements. Implementation of a County-wide (or multi-County) stormwater authority may help facilitate stormwater utility implementation. Creation of a stormwater authority requires enabling legislation.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Phase II Compliance
The majority of jurisdictions within the District fall under either the MS4 Phase I or II programs and are required to have a comprehensive stormwater management program in place as per EPA guidance. However, a few of the local governments within the District currently are not included in the MS4 program. It is recommended, to meet the goals for water quality management in the District, that the entire area of all jurisdictions within the District be required to be included in the MS4 program. The recommendations in the District-wide WMP assume that all of the areas within the District are included under the MS4 program to ensure consistency in implementation of the

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
recommended watershed management strategies. The GAEPD should designate all areas of jurisdictions in the District as MS4 communities.
River Corridor Protection
The Chattahoochee River corridor receives protection under the Metropolitan River Protection Act. At present, other rivers in the District do not receive similar protection. Consideration should be given to special protection for other rivers in the District.
Funding for Adequate Enforcement
Lack of adequate financial resources to support implementation and enforcement of current laws, regulations, and ordinances was one of the most frequently cited comments from the BACs and GAEPD. The problem is also often cited in other studies across the nation. For example, a review of Georgia's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program by the State Auditor in 2001 noted that the current provisions of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act and the NPDES General Stormwater Permit could be effective if they were fully implemented. However, they are only effective if local governments (certified by GAEPD to issue land-disturbing action permits) have the resources and political will to inspect project sites on a routine basis and take enforcement action as necessary when violations are found. In those Cities and Counties (certified as issuing authorities) that do not conduct routine inspections or take enforcement action as necessary, the state's waters are not protected from ongoing sedimentation.
Analysis of reviews conducted by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission found that some local governments were doing a good job of managing their erosion and sedimentation control programs, while others were allowing construction projects to operate without the required erosion and sedimentation controls.
Local governments should review their budgets and programs and develop a funding mechanism to ensure adequate implementation of the District-wide WMP requirements.
Summary
Implementation of the policy recommendations identified above will help move watersheds in the District toward achievement of water quality goals. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the recommended additional policies and identifies the entity or entities responsible for advancing each policy recommendation. A discussion of the tasks associated with implementing the policy recommendations is provided in Section 9. The adopted model stormwater ordinances were discussed in Section 5 and are not included in this table.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-13

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 6: Recommended Policies and Changes to Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

TABLE 6-1
Summary of Policy Recommendations Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Policy Recommendation Recommended Additional Stormwater Management Ordinances
Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance Stormwater Utility Ordinance Stormwater Good Housekeeping Ordinance Resource Protection Tree Protection Clearing Grading Limitations Reducing Directly Connected Impervious Cover Maximum Roadway Widths Maximum Parking Ratios Pervious Overflow Parking Septic System Management Measures Interjurisdictional Coordination Escherichia coli Standards and Guidance Department of Transportation Compliance Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Enforcement Fertilizer Nutrient Content Stormwater Authority Enabling Legislation MS4 Phase II Compliance Funding for Adequate Enforcement

Local Government
X X X
X X X X X X X X
X
X

District X X
X X X

State Agency
X X X X X X X X

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

6-14

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 7
Education and Public Awareness

Purpose
The legislation creating the District mandates the development of a Watershed Management Plan (WMP) that includes measures for stormwater management and source water protection for the District. Senate Bill (SB) 130 further directs that the WMP outline education and public awareness measures to be taken by the District, other State agencies or local governments, public education institutions, and other public or semipublic entities to raise public awareness of nonpoint source pollution and educate target groups that have some level of influence over this form of pollution. Recommendations in the WMP are to include strategies for:
Achieving awareness of water resource protection issues among 75 to 90 percent of the District's population by the end of 2006.
Educating identified target groups, with an ultimate goal of changing the behavior that leads to the degradation of water quality.
Leveraging education efforts undertaken by other agencies and entities that address these issues.
Many local governments in the District are in the process of obtaining their Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits. Both the Phase I and Phase II NPDES stormwater regulations require communities to develop and implement public education and outreach programs as a condition of their permits. In addition, permittees are encouraged to educate and involve the public throughout the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) strategies. This Education and Public Awareness Plan has been developed with these requirements in mind, so that local governments' involvement in implementing the plan can be counted toward meeting their permit obligations.
Education and Public Awareness Plan Approach
Campaign Identity
One of the primary criteria of this planning effort is that it "shall build upon and be coordinated with existing watershed planning efforts undertaken by local governments and other entities in the District area" (Official Code of Georgia, Annotated [O.C.G.A] 12-5-570). Currently, there is already a collaborative public education initiative, the

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
Clean Water Campaign (CWC), that brings together local, state, and federal government agencies, environmental and community groups, and corporate partners who all share the common vision of protecting water quality in metro Atlanta. The CWC has already had a high degree of visibility and success in informing the public about stormwater and watershed issues and the role that every person plays in protecting water quality. The CWC is therefore the logical vehicle for an expanded watershed protection awareness effort. It is recommended that the District-wide WMP build upon and expand the efforts and existing partnerships of the CWC to educate the public and target groups about stormwater and watershed problems and solutions. The remainder of this chapter discusses the recommendations and components for the education and public awareness efforts.
Campaign Elements
Involving the public in watershed protection efforts is crucial because it promotes broader public support, helps create an ethic of stewardship and community service, and enables the public to make informed choices about resource management. Changes in basic behavior and practices are necessary to achieve maximum, 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. Three elements have been incorporated in the campaign:
Element 1-Public Awareness Campaign: SB-130 established a goal for the District to achieve 75 to 90 percent awareness by the general public. To achieve this goal, virtually every household in the District must be reached multiple times with clear, concise messages. This element will use multiple techniques to present awareness information to the target audience.
Element 2-Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups: SB-130 mandates that the District develop programs to educate target groups of individuals who have some level of influence over nonpoint source pollution. Potential contributors to this pollution have been identified, as well as the groups that have the greatest influence over these sources.
Element 3-Primary and Secondary Education: The objective of Element 3 is to train the next generation of watershed stewards, i.e., school-aged children. It is crucial to train the next generation of watershed stewards as early as possible.
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 the various recommendations are also described. The limited resources available for education and public awareness can be used more efficiently by developing strong partnerships with nonprofit environmental education organizations where these organizations are working on outreach projects similar to those proposed in this plan. The Implementation Plan (Section 9) identifies the tasks and implementation responsibilities.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness

Element 1-Public Awareness Campaign
A mass media campaign would yield the greatest success in the shortest timeframe for achieving the goal of reaching 75 to 90 percent of the general public. Research indicates that the most influential methods of conveying messages to citizens include (in order of most to least effective) local or public television, televised public service announcements (PSAs), local newspaper, the Internet, and radio (Schueler and Holland, 2000). Mass media options, with the exception of the Internet, can be very costly. Therefore, strategies that can be undertaken in combination with a mass media approach are recommended to help the District achieve its outreach goal at substantially lower cost. All public awareness materials should be prepared in English and Spanish, (as well as other languages, as appropriate) and should incorporate clear visual messages for the benefit of those who do not speak and/or read either language. In addition, materials targeting service-oriented businesses (such as restaurants and dry cleaners) should be provided in Korean.
Mass Media
The recommended mass media strategy includes commercials and PSAs airing on both television and radio, along with local transit advertising and billboards. It is recommended that the services of a professional creative and media consultant be retained to develop effective media elements for the campaign.
A mass media campaign typically begins with the development of a slogan, logo, identity, and messages. As discussed above, the proposed campaign is based on the recommendation that the CWC identity will be expanded to encompass watershed problems and solutions. Messages that address watershed management and source water protection would be needed to augment existing CWC stormwater protection messages. A series of messages would be developed and subsequently evaluated using a focus group, which could be made up of Basin Advisory Council (BAC) members. The following are potential themes that could be used to develop watershed management messages:
Watershed stewardship: taking responsibility for watershed protection.
Watershed management and protection strategies today protect future generations ("clean water for our children/grandchildren").
Thoughtful and sustained growth benefits both the economy and the environment; these goals do not have to compete with each other.
Learning about our watersheds/rivers/streams/ecosystem, etc., better enables us to protect them.
It is important to understand the connections between you and the environment (i.e., "Yards to streets to storms to streams").
We all live downstream.
Research into similar campaigns (Clean Air Campaign, CWC, Atlanta Stream Clean-up) and discussions with two independent media consultants suggest that a properly

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness

executed mass media campaign could cost from $1 to $1.5 million in the first year and $500,000 to $750,000 in the subsequent years through 2006 to attain the 75 to 90 percent awareness goal.
Other Media
Website: An interactive website, actively promoted, can be an inexpensive way to foster awareness and education. The District and the CWC have established websites. The public awareness campaign should direct users to the CWC site, which would be expanded to include information on watershed management, stormwater management, source water protection, wastewater management, water supply, and conservation. The site's home page would offer an overview of water resource protection and would lead users through the site to dedicated pages that describe each topic in greater detail. Site design should incorporate animation and interactivity (screensavers, games, calendars, etc.) where appropriate, to engage both young and mature users, and should link to other watershed protection and environmental/ regulatory sites, such as those of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD).
Press Relations: The local media have already given a substantial amount of coverage to water issues. Press releases should be issued to local print media (including smaller community newspapers and those targeted to minority communities). Also, interviews with District spokespersons should be pitched to local morning TV news shows and radio community interest shows. Newspapers to be targeted include all general circulation papers and specialty papers (such as Creative Loafing).
The media consultant will be responsible for identifying and selecting media outlets to ensure adequate coverage. Local governments in the District can also help identify local and community print media. Press releases should be issued to announce any significant topics or initiatives of the District, local government members, and activities involved in implementing Elements 2 and 3.
Television/Radio Weather Partnership: Weather reports are among the highest-rated segments of television and radio news programs, making this a very effective method of reaching adults. Watershed information can be conveyed through weather reporting. An excellent example of this concept is NBC4 in the VA/DC/MD area (http://watershed.interactive-environment.com/main/ index.php) which, through a partnership between NBC4, StormCenter Communications, Inc., EPA, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS), provides real-time water quality information, weekly environmental news stories related to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 3-D flights over real-time satellite imagery, and "fun watershed quizzes" on its website. The chief meteorologist for NBC4 broadcasts the website address and discusses watershed issues during his broadcasts.
The CWC has established a relationship with WSB-TV meteorologist Glenn Burns and should consider expanding this strategy to the major AM radio stations (which

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness

draw a larger audience for weather reports than FM music stations). The District should also provide content to the stations' websites.
Promotional Items
Promotional items are a low-cost, effective way to establish recognition of a watershed program. They are also an excellent tool for reinforcing messages that can be condensed to a few words and are ideal for advertising websites, telephone hotlines, and other program features. Some of the recommendations in this Education and Public Awareness (E&PA) Plan involve public gatherings, and it is recommended that promotional items be developed for distribution to participants in those events. Less expensive items (pens, pencils, erasers, magnets, posters, bumper stickers, posters, pet waste removal bags, composting bins, litter collection tools, etc.) can be purchased in bulk for distribution to the general public. A smaller quantity of more durable items (t-shirts and coffee mugs) could be imprinted and distributed to VIPs (elected officials, BAC members, Business Partners, etc.) at special events. The District should select the items based on an established budget, provide the artwork to a vendor, determine the quantity of items needed for District-sponsored events, and apportion costs among the local governments. The District can also function as a central ordering point for the items, if the local governments and Business Partners want additional quantities for their own events.
Interactive CD-ROM
CD-ROMs are an increasingly popular medium for promotion, information, and education and are relatively inexpensive to reproduce. Typically, content production costs begin at about $2,500 plus about $0.80 each for reproduction of 2,500 CDs (unit price decreases as quantities increase). Much of the content can be drawn from the District website. The CD-ROM should be interactive with content that helps users learn about watershed protection and specific characteristics of District watersheds. Clickable maps supported by Geographic Information System (GIS) data would allow participants to focus on a specific area and learn watershed characteristics of the selected area.
Copies of the interactive CD-ROM could be distributed to local governments, environmental groups, schools, the Chamber of Commerce (for insertion in new business welcome packets), GAEPD, Adopt-a-Stream groups, BAC members, businesses, libraries, stores, restaurants, and other public places. Visitors to the website should be able to order copies online; the District could charge a modest fee to help offset the cost of duplication and shipping. CD-ROMs on pollution prevention and best management practices (BMPs) could also be developed for specific industries, or topics such as landscaping and auto care.
Bill Inserts/Messages
The District should develop a series of short, informative messages to appear on bills or on the outside of the mailing envelope. Through this method, virtually every household in the District would be reached, and the District or the local governments would incur no additional costs. Messages printed directly onto bills have a higher likelihood of being read than bill stuffers, but may only be scanned by recipients looking to see if the

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
message has financial implications. There are limitations to what can be placed on a bill-a set number of characters, type size, and style. However, carefully worded messages that always begin with the same slogan or words, and appearing repeatedly, will have a higher absorption rate.
Interactive Kiosk
An interactive information kiosk provides a way for the District to take watershed protection measures to the public and help to reinforce the identity of the CWC. Local governments, environmental organizations, state agencies, community groups, Business and Agency Partners and others can use kiosks at scheduled events and venues throughout the District. It is recommended that a minimum of four kiosks be developed. Each kiosk would be equipped with connections for a laptop computer, which can be provided by the entity that is using the kiosk, and literature display racks. The interactive CD-ROM would be available for viewing; posters, literature and promotional information developed by the District, CWC, other agencies, and local governments would be displayed.
Hamline University's Center for Global Environmental Excellence in Minnesota is currently seeking partnerships to develop kiosks for watershed protection efforts around the country and is working locally with the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper. The District should evaluate the kiosk development offered by Hamline as well as other vendors. The mobile kiosks should be colorful and inviting, and the information should be displayed in creative ways that encourage interaction. Appealing designs can boost participation dramatically. For example, managers of the Johns Hopkins University "Lilac Tent" reproductive health outreach program credit much of its success to the conspicuous design of its information center-a mobile purple tent-because it piqued the curiosity of passersby. The outreach program ultimately reached 495,362 people in rural Bolivia and, by the end of the 3-year campaign, 90 percent of the audience demonstrated literacy in matters of reproductive health.
Corporate Outreach Program
The Clean Air Campaign oversees an employer outreach program that encourages employer participation in commute options programs. Through this program, the Clean Air Campaign is able to access the e-mail systems of many private employers to relay information on air quality indices and to encourage employees to commute to work. The Clean Air Campaign has nearly 300 employer partners participating in this outreach program. The District should explore a similar partnership arrangement with local firms that allows the CWC to display watershed protection materials (posters and brochures, for example) in the workplace. Employers who agree to display materials would be designated "Clean Water Partners" (or similar designation) and would receive a token of recognition (plaque, sticker, etc.) and permission to display their "Clean Water Partner" designation on their firm's website and in firm literature.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
Element 2-Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups
Key Target Groups
Potential sources of nonpoint source pollution have been identified to aid the District in directing awareness information to key targets who have influence over these sources. Table 7-1 identifies the key target groups for Element 2, types of nonpoint source pollution each source contributes, and associated activities that education and outreach should focus on to promote awareness. Other groups or activities may be added to the list through the process of coordinating outreach and education efforts.
Several kinds of education and outreach activities are recommended to produce the needed changes in behavior among key target groups. Coordination with existing programs is of paramount importance to avoid duplication of effort. Also, no matter how many groups are targeted with outreach and education initiatives, a clear understanding that these efforts fall under a single umbrella, i.e., the CWC, must be maintained. Coordinating Element 2 education and outreach activities with Element 1 awareness activities will reinforce the public perception that the District is engaged in a single, unified effort.
Two activities are proposed to facilitate the delivery of education and outreach to key target groups in Element 2: a target group communication survey and establishment of an Information Clearinghouse. These are discussed before the actual recommendations, as they are preparatory activities.
Target Group Communication Survey
A survey of existing education and awareness materials confirms that there is no shortage of information available for conveying watershed protection strategies to the public. Much of it is general in nature, but there also is substantial technical, and industry-, issue- and watershed-specific information. Within the District, industryspecific advisory groups should be established to provide technical input and industry perspective in identifying and developing materials for their industry. These groups would be involved in developing specific BMPs and fostering acceptance of behavior changes within their industry.
To address the challenge of distributing the right information to the right people at the right time, a needs survey should be conducted among target groups to identify their

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness

TABLE 7-1
Key Target Groups and Nonpoint Source Pollution Contribution Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Group
General public, including homeowners, renters, parents and students, car owners, car maintainers, pet owners, septic tank owners County health departments
Builders and developers, construction crews (private and government)
Landscapers and gardeners
Farmers, agricultural land owners
Mining operations
Utilities with rights-of-way Automotive shop, fleet, and salvage yard owners/property managers Industries that produce, store, or dispose of toxic or polluting chemicals
Septic system owners
Restaurant and food service workers Commercial car washes Dry cleaners Mobile cleaners
Painters
Oil and gas pipeline companies, railroads
Local utilities, large industries using hazardous wastes
Municipal elected officials
Judiciary
NA = not applicable

Nonpoint Source Pollution Contributed
Litter, Household hazardous waste, Nutrients, Fecal coliform bacteria
N/A Responsible for oversight of septic systems Sediment, Chemicals and other toxic substances following accidental spills, Streambank and channel erosion because of inadequate controls during construction and increased area of impervious surface, Loss of buffer vegetation, Construction waste, Portable toilet leaks, fuel/oil Nutrients from fertilizer, Pesticides, yard waste, Herbicides, Loss of buffer vegetation Sediment, Bank erosion from livestock activity, Animal feces, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides, Vegetative matter, Trace metals Sedimentation, Bank erosion, Loss of buffer vegetation, Habitat alteration, Runoff and leachate Herbicide from vegetation control Cleaners, solvents, machine fuels, other toxic substances, storage of materials
Chemicals, cleaners, solvents, machine fuels and other toxic substances from daily operations; Potential for accidental spills of toxic substances, storage of materials Fecal coliform bacteria, Organic material, Nutrients Fats, oils, and grease, Litter, cleaners
Cleaners, wash water Cleaners, solvents, other toxic substances Cleaners, solvents, wash water, other toxic substances Paints, solvents, wash water, other toxic substances Oil, machine fuels, other toxic substances used in daily operations or storage and transfer; Potential for accidental spills of toxic substances Oil, cleaners, solvents, machine fuels, other toxic substances used in daily storage and transfer operations; Potential for accidental spills of toxic substances N/A Responsible for policies (e.g., land use decisions) that affect nonpoint source pollution control NA Responsible for enforcement of nonpoint source pollution control laws and regulations.

Target Activity/Education Focus
Waste disposal, Garbage, solid waste, Household chemicals/ hazardous waste, Lawn/landscape practices, Car washing, Car maintenance, Pet waste management, Septic system maintenance Septic system maintenance, inspection, enforcement of regulations Construction BMPs, Streambank and riparian corridor protection, Postdevelopment stormwater management BMPs, waste management
Landscape/turf management, yard waste management
Streambank and riparian corridor protection, Agricultural practices (grazing, waste disposal)
Industry BMPs
Pesticide use, storage, and disposal Vehicle maintenance and repair, Proper disposal, recycling of waste achieving nonexposure to runoff Waste and byproduct disposal achieving non-exposure to runoff
Maintenance, including sludge disposal
Waste and grease disposal
Wash water containment/disposal Disposal of hazardous and/or toxic fluids Disposal of hazardous and/or toxic fluids and wash water Disposal of hazardous and/or toxic fluids and wash water Storage and Transportation of hazardous materials
Waste byproduct and disposal, Operation of lift and pump stations, Disposal of hazardous and/or toxic waste, achieving non-exposure to runoff Policy-making and its effects on watersheds and water quality
Educate magistrates on water quality issues

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
information needs and the best methods of delivering information to them. The survey may include associations and other business organizations to which key target group members belong. A benefit of working through the associations is that they may allow the District to communicate with their members through association mailings and events. This could result in significant reductions in postage and other costs. Based on survey results, recommendations for other message delivery techniques should be developed.
The District also should survey agencies such as the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD), GAEPD, Department of Community Affairs, and other agencies that regularly communicate with local businesses, to learn about opportunities for the District to "piggyback" communication with the key target groups via inserts into agency mailings.
Information Clearinghouse
The District should establish an Information Clearinghouse by obtaining educational and outreach materials from other programs and institutions. In addition, the District should establish a library for storage of educational materials and provide a catalog database through the website. The District would maintain and update the library and database as new materials are developed or discovered. The Information Clearinghouse would support outreach and education efforts by providing a centralized source of materials that can be reproduced and distributed. The clearinghouse would help avoid duplication of effort and ensure access to the current versions of all materials to be used in the campaign.
Outreach and Education Activities
Speakers Bureau
The District should establish a speakers bureau composed of individuals who can represent the District's point of view before a variety of groups. The District should also prepare a presentation that provides an overview of the District's mission and the WMP. The presentation should be a "call to cooperation" that clearly outlines the need for cooperation from the public, local governments, key target groups, and others who affect nonpoint source pollution. The speakers bureau would include staff from the District, local governments, and Agency Partners. Members would make presentations at statewide and regional conferences, local and regional business association meetings, community group meetings, educational group meetings, and events sponsored by local environmental organizations.
Key Target Group Training
Table 7-2 specifies the types of training recommended for the key target groups and the recommended partnering organization.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness

TABLE 7-2 Recommended Training for Key Target Groups
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Group
Homeowners, renters, parents and students, educators County health departments Builders and developers, Construction crews (private and government) Landscapers and gardeners
Farmers, agricultural land owners
Mining operations Automotive shop, fleet, and salvage yard owners/ property managers Industries that produce or dispose of toxic chemicals, including manufacturers, healthcare institutions, etc. Septic system owners
Restaurant and food service workers Commercial car washes Dry cleaners Mobile cleaners Painters Oil and gas pipeline companies, Railroads Local utilities, large industries using hazardous wastes Municipal elected officials

Partner/Training Provider
GWPCA, P2AD, Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Georgia Tech
P2AD, State Health Department Center for Watershed Protection Local government, soil and water construction district P2AD, Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association, Southface Energy EPA (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program), P2AD co-operative extensions services EPA (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program), P2AD, GA Environmental Partnership (GEP) NRCS, co-operative extension services P2AD, GEP GEP
P2AD, GEP, Resource: EPA's "Organizational Guide to Pollution Prevention"
County Health Department's EPA (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program), P2AD P2AD GEP GEP GEP GEP GEP GEP
NEMO, District GWPCA

Workshops
Several agencies and organizations offer training to the general public, businesses, and industry on nonpoint source pollution and pollution prevention. P2AD, Adopt-aStream, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, CWC, and other environmental organizations offer training in communities and to civic groups. More technical training is offered by organizations such as P2AD, the Georgia Tech Research Institute and Economic Development Institute, the University of Georgia (UGA) Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, the Agricultural Extension Service, Greenprints, Southface, the Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association (GWPCA), and others. Training workshop topics range from general nonpoint source pollution reduction and pollution prevention to highly sector-specific topics.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-10

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
Key target groups would require more in-depth training related to nonpoint source pollution and pollution prevention specific to their business or industry practices. 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. Training needs can be divided into three areas: technical training that is industry sector-specific; nonpoint source pollution reduction training related to land use and land-disturbing activities; and general nonpoint source pollution and watershed management training.
Industry Sector-Specific Training
P2AD, the Georgia Tech Economic Development Institute and the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at UGA have formed the Georgia Environmental Partnership (GEP), which offers technical, industry sector-specific workshops, along with assistance to organizations seeking to establish or improve pollution prevention programs. The District should partner with GEP to develop (where needed) and deliver training to industries on the key target group list (see Table 7-1). The District should provide supplementary information for the training curriculum that is District- and watershed-specific, including watershed maps, biological and habitat facts, location of source water supplies, TMDL status of local streams, types and sources of pollution found in specific stream reaches, location of municipal and industrial discharges, and other information to "localize" the training to the areas where target groups operate.
The District should also work with GEP to establish a certification and recognition program for companies that participate in the training, volunteer for pollution prevention and operational assessments, and implement operational changes recommended by the District and GEP.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Training Related to Land Use Activities
NEMO-Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal and Elected Officials-is a national education program to help local officials and citizens learn about nonpoint source pollution. NEMO training focuses on the impact of land use policies on water quality and includes strategies for better planning, site design, and BMPs. It is recommended that the District partner with the GWPCA to initiate a NEMO program to train elected officials, local governments, and the development and construction industries.
The NEMO curriculum should be supplemented with information that is District- and watershed-specific, including watershed maps, biological and habitat facts, location of source water supplies, TMDL status of local streams, types and sources of pollution found in specific stream reaches, location of municipal and industrial discharges, and other information to "localize" the training to the areas where target groups operate.
General Nonpoint Source Pollution and Watershed Management Training
The CWC works with P2AD and other agencies to conduct training workshops for the general public on nonpoint source pollution reduction related to specific areas such as household hazardous waste and septic systems. The District should support the

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness

continuation of these workshops. The District should also provide these workshops with the watershed-specific content developed for the other training programs.
Local government public education staff and college students could help develop curriculum for the training workshops. District staff should contribute District- and watershed-specific content for the training, including watershed maps, biological and habitat facts, location of source water supplies, TMDL status of local streams, types and sources of pollution found in specific stream reaches, location of municipal and industrial discharges, and other information as needed to tie information to the areas where target groups work and reside.
Brochures and Other Literature
The CWC is developing fact sheets, brochures, and other literature and providing the templates for local governments to reproduce for their citizens. These include residential brochures to show how everyday domestic activities affect stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution and industry-specific brochures that inform businesses about how their activities affect water quality and contribute to this pollution-and how they can lessen those impacts. The District should support the continuation of these efforts and should develop watershed- and District-specific information to help localize the information in the brochures and other materials. The District should also develop brochures describing the target group workshops, NEMO program, and other activities to be used in promoting key target group participation in the activities.
Element 3-Primary and Secondary Education
The objective of Element 3 is to train the next generation of watershed stewards, i.e., school-aged children. Although research suggests that educating children on water resource protection may not be as effective in changing adult behavior as once believed (Schueler and Holland, 2000), it is still crucial to train the next generation of watershed stewards as early as possible.
Existing environmental curricula should be supported and, where possible, Districtspecific information should be integrated into the curricula of schools throughout the District.
Support of Georgia's Project WET
The District should support the efforts of Georgia's Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) to promote environmental education in District schools. District representatives should meet with the local Project WET coordinators to determine funding and other assistance needs.
Support of Watershed Education Task Force
The District should support the efforts of environmental education professionals to form a Watershed Education Task Force (also including teachers and school administrators) whose mission would be to lobby the legislature and local school boards to make environmental science a mandatory component of science and social studies at the primary

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
and secondary school levels. In addition, this Task Force can assist the District with organizing success measurement activities that involve other groups (schoolchildren, Adopt-a-Stream groups, etc.).
Development of Localized Watershed Information
To encourage watershed stewardship at 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, the Georgia Watershed Education Campaign, and the Georgia Project for Excellence in Environmental Education. These modules would:
Include information that is specific to District watersheds and water quality issues.
Provide teachers with more opportunities for planning field trips and becoming involved in and encouraging students to participate in community service activities.
Provide students with specific information they can share with parents, which may help to reinforce other District efforts to increase adults' awareness of nonpoint source pollution and water quality protection issues.
Other Recommended Activities
Business Sponsorships
Partnerships with corporations and business organizations can enhance the success of the District's campaign by endorsing, adding credibility, and providing assistance in the form of human and financial resources. The Clean Water Campaign (CWC) already has some corporate partners and sponsors. 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 the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce that can influence policy decisions through their connections with elected officials and business leaders throughout metro Atlanta.
Business Sponsors can assist with promotion, sponsorship of events, and staffing ("loaned executives" programs). In return for their participation, Business Sponsors would be granted a special designation (for example, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum Sponsorship designation, corresponding to a contribution level expressed in dollars or hours) and a token of recognition, such as the plaque or sticker discussed under "Corporate Outreach Program" above. Business Sponsors would also be encouraged to display their sponsorship designation prominently in their promotional and advertising materials.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-13

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 7: Education and Public Awareness
Sponsorship Sales Video
To encourage sponsorships, the District should develop a short (5- to 8-minute) "sales" video, which would discuss nonpoint source pollution, include District watershedspecific information (characteristics, challenges, etc.), provide an overview of the District's mission, describe the sponsorship levels, and discuss the benefits of the sponsorship. The video could also serve as an informational and educational piece to introduce key target groups and school administrators to the District water resource protection program.
Agency Partnerships
The District should form partnerships with state and other government agencies that are providing education and services that overlap those recommended for the District. For example, in Element 2, some key target groups are already being targeted for P2AD and UGA Agricultural Extension workshops. The District should partner with these organizations, referring participants to their workshops (CWC is already doing this), and working with them to develop workshops for groups that may not currently be targeted. Agency Partners would agree to absorb the costs for their participation.
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.
In addition, it is recommended that the District continue working with the BACs in the implementation of the E&PA Plan. BAC members can serve as focus groups, evaluating materials developed to support the E&PA program, as well as serve as members of the Speakers Bureau. In addition, BAC members could assist the District with obtaining support from corporations, other agencies, and organizations with whom they have relationships.
Many other opportunities for partnerships exist. A list of possible partnering or sponsoring organizations provided by the CWC Education Coordinator is included as Appendix F.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

7-14

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 8
Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the monitoring plan and associated standards and methodologies is to provide for comprehensive and consistent watershed-based water quality monitoring across the District that can assist in identifying water quality impairments and improvements, and can be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP). The recommendations included in this plan also are intended to help local governments meet their existing regulatory monitoring requirements, including those of the Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) stormwater program, Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) watershed assessment plans, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Specific objectives of this monitoring include:
Documenting Water Quality Improvements and Effectiveness of the Watershed Management Program -- The goal of the District-wide WMP is to maintain or improve water quality and watershed conditions within and downstream of the District. The monitoring will be designed to allow managers to determine the extent to which the recommended management strategies are helping to meet this goal. The Long-Term Ambient Trend Monitoring aspect of this District-wide WMP is designed to collect the data needed to document stream improvements and any pollutant reduction that can be attributed to the watershed management program.
Identifying Streams Requiring Further Action - A number of streams within the District have been identified in the Characterization Report (CH2M HILL, 2002) as not meeting their designated use. Continuous monitoring is needed on a local scale to determine whether other stream segments may need further site-specific actions or resolution of problems found before further action is taken. In addition, verification sampling will need to be done to confirm that each of the segments on the 303(d) list was included appropriately. TMDLs currently exist throughout the District, primarily for fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen (DO), and metals.
The following sections summarize the proposed water quality monitoring plan elements. Table 8-1 provides an overview of the monitoring plan elements and responsibilities.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

TABLE 8-1
Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Plan Elements and Responsibilities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Responsible Entity

Program Element

Frequency

Methodology/Approach 5

Local Government

Long-Term Ambient Trend Monitoring

Six flow-weighted composite. 1 baseflow and 3 wet weather samples collected during both the summer (MayOctober) and winter (NovemberApril) seasons.

1 Automated sampling -Composite hydrograph sampling triggered by data loggers
2 EWI/EDI1 composite-grab sampling
3 Clean metal Method 1669

Dry Weather Illicit Discharge Annual Inspections Screening

Rotate sites as necessary based on data collected through water quality sampling

Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program

Annual Inspections

Inspect a minimum of 5% of relevant industries/commercial operations each year

Watershed Assessment Monitoring

New source or expansion of water treatment and/or wastewater treatment facility discharge.

Water quality and biological monitoring watershed approach

Monitoring for Assessing TMDL Implementation and Delisting

As specified in the TMDL Implementation Plan

Sample for 303(d)/305(b) listed constituents

Biological and Habitat Assessments

Every 5 Years on a rotating basis

GAEPD/Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) methodology

Regional Interjurisdictional

US Geological

Regional Network/Mainstem

Survey (USGS)3 Monitoring

1. Approximately Monthly2 2. Continuous

2. Real-time flow and water quality gages

District

Rain-Event-Driven

Best Management Practice (BMP)/Restoration Project Effectiveness

Project-Dependent

Composite hydrograph sampling triggered by data loggers at realtime gages
Project-Dependent4, conducted by academic institutions

Database Development and Management

Continuous

See discussion below under "Data Transfer and Database Management"

1 EWI/EDI Equal Width Integrated and Equal Depth Integrated 2 Sampling focused on wet weather events and, therefore, may not be conducted monthly. A total of approximately 12 events should be sampled over a year. 3 The USGS monitoring gages and sampling will be funded by GAEPD. 4 Project-specific plans will be prepared to evaluate effectiveness of new BMPs or restoration projects. 5 A summary of the Standards and Methodologies for the methodology/approach is provided below under "Standards and Methodologies."

The intent of this plan is to consolidate as many of the current monitoring requirements as possible into a larger, comprehensive program that could provide consistency in methodology and effort across the District, while meeting the goal noted above.
Implementation of the recommended Water Quality Monitoring Plan would meet the requirements for evaluation of the effectiveness of the overall District-wide WMP for the District as well as the MS4 program requirements for stormwater outfall sampling (Table 8-2). The long-term ambient trend and wet weather monitoring would also

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

TABLE 8-2
Water Quality Monitoring Plan Summary and Comparison with Requirements Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Program Element

District-wide WMP
Effectiveness

Local Government-Based Monitoring

Long-Term Ambient Trend Monitoring

X

Dry Weather Illicit Discharge Screening

X

Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program

Watershed Assessment Monitoring

X

Monitoring for Assessing TMDL

X

Implementaton and Delisting Streams

Biological/Habitat Assessment

X

Regional/Interjurisdictional Monitoring Activities

Monitoring Requirements

MS4

TMDL

Program 1 Implementation

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

Long-Term Ambient Trend Analysis X
X

Regional Network/Mainstem

X

Monitoring

BMP Practice/Restoration Project

X

Effectiveness

Database Development and

X

Management

1NPDES Phase I MS4s

X X
X

address the TMDL implementation monitoring requirements and the need for data to evaluate long-term trends in water quality. It should be noted that many of the local governments in the District may have long-term ambient monitoring programs that are required by existing NPDES permits and that these plans may require a greater level of effort (either in the number of sampling stations or sampling events) than the recommendations included in the District-wide WMP.
The water quality monitoring plan is directed at streams and rivers within the District. The Corps of Engineers, USGS and GAEPD are responsible for Water Quality Monitoring in lakes in the District and the surrounding region. The District should obtain the lake monitoring data for all major lakes in the District and immediately downstream of the District and include the data in the District-wide water quality monitoring database. This would include Lake Lanier, Lake Allatoona, Lake Oconee, Lake Jackson and West Point Lake.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Local Government-Based Monitoring

Long-Term Ambient Trend Monitoring
Monitoring for long-term ambient trends in water quality provides a means of demonstrating progress toward water quality goals. As the District-wide WMP is implemented, changes in water quality will result. Local governments will be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program through long-term changes in water quality. These data also can be used to develop future actions to better address changing conditions within the District.
Long-term monitoring will be performed at permanent sampling locations throughout the District. Samples may be collected by using either automated sampling devices or EWI/EDI grab sampling at a given location. The number of samples collected and the parameters evaluated will be the same regardless of the method used.
Sampling Stations
Permanent sampling locations should be chosen to ensure that data which are representative of conditions in a stream reach will be obtained. Efforts should be made to sample representative, homogeneous water columns that are comparable over time. Strategic station location can also serve to monitor long-term ambient trends in waters affected or unaffected by human activities. Using data from these stations, information can be obtained on changes in water quality due to phenomena such as atmospheric deposition, point source discharges, and nonpoint source impacts. Long-term monitoring also helps identify violations of water quality standards and provides background information for permit writers. To promote consistency in sampling across the District, the following guidelines are recommended for siting long-term water quality stations:
Major streams should be monitored near the entry to or exit from important land use areas and jurisdictional boundaries. Additional stations should be established at critical stream reaches where water quality is known or suspected to change.
Existing sites should be used (where appropriate) to preserve the "historical record" and facilitate trend evaluation.
Ambient station locations should be evenly distributed throughout District ecoregions to make the data more useful in assessing broad trends such as those associated with atmospheric deposition. (Ecoregion boundaries delineate areas with similar land use, physiography, potential natural vegetation, and soils).
There is no minimum watershed size for water quality monitoring. However, stations for biological sampling should be located in perennial streams unless the biotic community data are adjusted for comparison with perennial stream data and GAEPD reference criteria. Maximum watershed size may be limited to 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs).
Monitoring sites and equipment should be reasonably accessible from nearby roads, but should not be influenced by unnatural physical conditions associated with a crossing such as large pools or road runoff.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Monitoring location siting should take into consideration proximity to point source discharges (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, NPDES permits, Toxics Release Inventory System [TRIS] sites, etc.); comparability of physical habitats; water supply intakes; solid waste facilities (landfills); land application system sites; and sewer and septic service areas.

The suggested number of permanent sampling stations installed is based on a county population rate of 1 station per 50,000 persons. Table 8-3 lists the number of possible sampling stations that each county will be responsible for based on 2000 population estimates. The number of sampling stations ranges from a minimum of 2 for several counties to a maximum of 17 in Fulton County. It should be noted that many of the counties in the District have already submitted monitoring plans to the GAEPD as part of their NPDES permitting process for existing or new wastewater discharges. In several cases, these county-developed monitoring plans for compliance with watershed protection planning requirements include a higher number of sampling stations. Local governments will be expected to establish the number of stations previously approved by GAEPD. Also, the minimum number of stations will be increased as the population changes in a given county. The sampling plans will be revised every 5 years to coincide with the recommended 5-year schedule for updates to the District-wide WMP.

TABLE 8-3
Long-Term Ambient Trend Water Quality Sampling Stations Based on 2000 Population Estimates

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

County

2000 Population

Number of Stations

Bartow

76,019

2

Cherokee

141,903

3

Clayton

236,517

5

Cobb

607,751

13

Coweta

89,215

2

DeKalb

665,865

14

Douglas

92,174

2

Fayette

91,263

2

Forsyth

98,407

2

Fulton

816,006

17

Gwinnett

588,448

12

Hall

139,277

3

Henry

119,341

3

Paulding

81,678

2

Rockdale

70,111

2

Walton

60,687

2

Automated Sampling Methods
Automated sampling methods are designed to collect a flow-weighted sample from a fixed location in the stream. The use of automated samplers is suggested for larger streams that cannot be safely accessed, especially during storm flows. However, they may also be installed on smaller streams if there is enough flow during a typical storm event to trigger the device. Prior to sampling, a stage discharge relationship must be developed at each station (see Standards and Methodologies section). To provide

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

consistency in sampling within the District boundaries, the following guidelines, summarized from the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Phase I program (ARC, 2000), will be used for long-term ambient water quality sampling:
Flow-weighted composite water samples will be collected six times per year for wet weather events. Three of these samples are to be collected in the summer (MayOctober) season and three in the winter (November-April) season. The samples are to be collected over the storm hydrograph. Representative wet weather events require a minimum precipitation of 0.3 inch. Additionally, a minimum period of 72 hours is required between each wet weather event sampled to ensure that the events are discrete and the water quality parameters are associated with the event sampled.
Baseflow samples will be collected twice per year during dry weather. One of these samples is to be collected in the summer (May-October) season and one in the winter (November-April) season. Dry weather sampling cannot occur until 72 hours following a wet weather event that produces less than 0.1 inch of precipitation. Dry weather baseflow sampling is to be conducted by either manually operating the composite sampler or collecting a grab sample at the sampling station.
Grab samples for fecal coliform analysis will be collected 16 times per year. Four samples are to be collected over a 30-day period (at intervals not less than 24 hours) during each of the following quarters: May-July, August-October, NovemberJanuary, and February-April. Each set of four samples will be used to calculate a geometric mean, per State guidelines.
Samples are to be analyzed for dissolved and total recoverable metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) and will be collected during both wet and dry events. Two of these samples (one wet and one dry) will be collected and analyzed using US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clean sampling techniques (Method 1669, Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels). Although use of automated samplers does not strictly comply with the "clean sampling" procedures in the EPA methods, water quality samples collected with automated samplers should be analyzed using the "clean metals" analytical procedures to assure the most accurate estimate of actual metals concentrations. For wet weather, the dissolved metal fraction may be calculated using total recoverable metals, total suspended solids (TSS), and hardness measurements.
EWI/EDI Grab Sample Collection Methods
The Equal Width-Integrated and Equal Depth-Integrated (EWI and EDI) grab sampling methods are used to collect discharge-weighted, depth-integrated, isokinetic samples. The procedures for collecting EWI and EDI samples are described in Edwards and Glysson (1998). When either method is used, the resulting samples contain a dischargeweighed concentration and provide a better representation of the total loading of a given parameter across a stream or river. This information is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of the watershed management program and for developing and implementing TMDLs. The grab sampling methods are suggested for small and medium streams and where samples during flooding can be collected without danger of injury.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Measurement of stream flow during sampling events is important for estimating total pollutant loadings for that stream or tributary. Therefore, a stage-discharge rating curve should be developed at each station and flow should be recorded when water quality samples are taken. In addition, sampling should be conducted on the rising limb of the hydrograph and as close to the peak as possible to more accurately estimate pollutant loadings during wet weather events.
To provide consistency in sampling within the District boundaries, the following guidelines (which are consistent with the automated sampling procedures above) are recommended for long-term ambient water quality sampling:
Water samples will be collected six times per year for wet weather events, using the EWI/EDI methods. Three of these samples will be collected in the summer (MayOctober) season and three in the winter (November-April) season. The samples are to be collected over the storm hydrograph. Representative wet weather events require a minimum precipitation of 0.3 inch. Additionally, a minimum period of 72 hours is required between each wet weather event sampled to ensure that the events are discrete and the water quality parameters are associated with the event sampled.
Baseflow samples will be collected twice per year during dry weather. One of these samples is to be collected in the summer (May-October) season and one in the winter (November-April) season. Dry weather sampling cannot occur until 72 hours following a wet weather event that produces less than 0.1 inch of precipitation. Dry weather baseflow sampling is to be conducted by either manually operating the composite sampler or collecting a grab sample at the sampling station.
Grab samples for fecal coliform analysis will be collected 16 times per year. Four samples are to be collected over a 30-day period (at intervals not less than 24 hours) during each of the following quarters: May-July, August-October, NovemberJanuary, and February-April. Each set of four samples will be used to calculate a geometric mean, per State guidelines.
Samples are to be analyzed for dissolved and total recoverable metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) and will be collected during both wet and dry events. Two of these samples (one wet and one dry) will be collected and analyzed using EPA clean sampling techniques (Method 1669, Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels). For wet weather, the dissolved metal fraction may be calculated using total recoverable metals, TSS, and hardness measurements.
Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Screening
Screening for and identification of illicit discharges are designed to identify potential sources of water quality impairment. All local governments will be required to perform screening of stormwater outfalls in their jurisdiction to look for dry weather flows and illicit discharges and to conduct inspections of commercial and industrial sites to determine if appropriate stormwater controls are in place and those controls are operating as intended. These activities are designed to help meet the local government requirements under the Phase I and II NPDES MS4 stormwater programs.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Illicit discharges enter receiving waters through illegal dumping and/or illicit connections. Illegal dumping occurs when unauthorized pollutants are disposed of through existing legal connections to the MS4s. This activity can be direct (e.g., dumping into drains, ditches, or an open waterway) or indirect (e.g., storing pollutants in areas where leaking containers flow into the MS4). Illicit connections, on the other hand, are physical connections that allow unauthorized discharges to drain directly into the MS4 (e.g., connections between storm drains and sanitary sewers).
Identification of illicit discharges is designed to meet Phase I and II NPDES requirements and identify potential sources of stream impairments. Two alternative approaches may be used for this screening: either dry weather outfall screening or streamwalk surveys.
Dry Weather Outfall Screening
Samples for outfall screening should be collected from the outfalls on the updated list of prioritized outfalls once a year. The local governments should select these locations based on the potential for illicit discharges. The samples should be collected once a year during dry weather flow conditions. Dry weather flow conditions are defined as flow conditions having a rainfall of less than 0.1 inch per day for at least 72 hours. This criterion will ensure that no flows are sampled that may have resulted from wet weather events. The ARC guidelines should be followed to prioritize stormwater outfalls within a jurisdiction for dry weather screening of potential illicit connections.
The number of outfall screening sites is based on a county population rate of 1 site per 5,000 persons. Table 8-4 lists the number of outfalls that should be examined annually in each county based on 2000 population estimates. Using this population criterion, the number of annual outfall inspection sites ranges from a minimum of 13 in Walton County to a maximum of 164 in Fulton County. Inspections will take place quarterly, and to provide comprehensive screening of outfalls, sites will be rotated on an annual basis. This approach to outfall dry weather screening investigations is designed to be responsive to current and future conditions. Samples should be collected from the outfalls on the updated list of prioritized outfalls once a year. The local governments should select these locations based on the potential for illicit discharges. The samples should be collected once a year during dry weather flow conditions. Dry weather flow conditions are defined as flow conditions having a rainfall of less than 0.1 inch per day for at least 72 hours. This criterion will ensure that no flows are sampled that may have resulted from wet weather events.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

TABLE 8-4
Number of Outfall Screening Sites Based on 2000 Population Estimates Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

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

2000 Population
76,019 141,903 236,517 607,751 89,215 665,865 92,174 91,263 98,407 816,006 588,448 139,277 119,341 81,678 70,111 60,687

Number of Screening Sites
16 29 48 122 18 134 19 19 20 164 118 28 24 17 15 13

Not all dry weather flows to MS4s are due to an illicit discharge. The following examples of normal MS4 flows were identified from Phase I studies:

Water line flushing Rising groundwater Lawn watering Discharges from foundation drains Landscape irrigation Discharges from footing drains Irrigation water Water from crawl spaces Diverted stream flows Air conditioning condensate Springs Individual residential car washing Discharges from potable water sources De-chlorinated swimming pool discharges Street wash water Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration Uncontaminated pumped groundwater Riparian habitat and wetland flows

Therefore, the discharge must be checked to determine if it poses a potential for degradation of water quality and/or is a potential violation of water quality standards.

To provide consistency in sampling within the District boundaries, the ARC Phase I sampling guidelines are recommended for illicit discharge sampling (ARC, 2000). There are three components of the recommended dry weather monitoring:

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Field screening observations Field screening analytical monitoring Laboratory analytical monitoring
Field screening observations include site descriptions and a series of qualitative (mainly visual) observations of physical and biological conditions at the site. Field screening monitoring includes measurement of several in-situ water quality parameters and flow. The analytical monitoring component involves the collection of samples for a more extensive laboratory analysis of primarily pollutants and bacteriological water quality parameters. The presence of abnormal conditions in any of the three dry weather monitoring components is justification for initiating a more detailed pollutant source identification investigation. See Standards and Methodologies below for a list of parameters and sampling methods for each component.
Streamwalk Surveys
As an alternative to the dry weather outfall screening described above, the counties may initiate Streamwalk surveys that involve an annual pedestrian reconnaissance of 10 percent of the stream miles in a jurisdiction. The streamwalk will be conducted during dry weather (at least 72 hours since last rainfall event) or base flow conditions. During the annual streamwalk, an inventory of all the pipes, outfalls, and ditches will be compiled. Field screening observations include a site description and a series of qualitative (mainly visual) observations of physical and biological conditions at the site.
If a dry weather discharge is located, field screening monitoring would by initiated including the measurement of in-situ water quality parameters such as DO, temperature, pH, and conductivity. The analytical monitoring component involves the collection of samples for a more extensive laboratory analysis of primarily pollution-causing and bacteriological water quality parameters. The presence of abnormal conditions in any of the three dry weather monitoring components is justification for initiating a more detailed pollutant source identification investigation. See Standards and Methodologies below for a list of parameters and sampling methods for each component.
Commercial/Industrial Inspections
Discharges from industry and business may come from a variety of sources, including process wastewater, wash waters, and sanitary wastewater. Facilities that receive NPDES stormwater permits are usually required to include documentation that the stormwater collection system has been tested or evaluated for the presence of nonstormwater discharges. To ensure that only stormwater is being discharged into the storm drain system from a commercial/industrial site, counties will institute a process that includes site inspections and follow-up sampling as necessary. At least 5 percent of relevant businesses or Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes will be inspected annually. The visual inspection will include locating industrial discharges to the MS4 or local waters using visual observation and pipeline schematics. If deemed necessary, field testing, sample collection, and laboratory analysis of any flows can be performed. The process of identifying, testing, and eliminating industrial/business illicit connections will be documented, including recording the location of the connection, the date of testing, and the method used to remove the connection.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-10

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Monitoring for Assessing TMDL Implementation and Delisting
The Clean Water Act requires that each state establish TMDLs for the pollutants of concern (33 USC 1313), in accordance with a priority ranking, for impaired waterbodies as listed on the 303(d) list. Specifically, for waterbodies on the 303(d) list, states, territories, and authorized tribes must develop TMDLs that will achieve water quality standards, allowing for seasonal variations and an appropriate margin of safety.
The Water Quality Monitoring Plan is an important component of the overall TMDL process because it provides the information necessary to make adjustments to the overall assessment and numeric targets and to assess progress towards attainment of the desired future conditions as expressed by the numeric targets. Sampling protocols and frequency of sampling will vary depending on the pollutant and watershed conditions. The objectives of TMDL monitoring include:
Determine compliance with regulations. Identify how much higher the actual loads are than the target loads (sometimes referred to as "tolerable loads").
Identify the sources of major loadings, if the waterbody is not in compliance.
Determine if BMPs are needed and if existing BMPs are working to bring the waterbody back into compliance
The GAEPD has developed sampling protocols for listing and delisting streams that will be followed to assure consistency and quality of the data used in evaluating compliance with State water quality standards (GAEPD, 2002b). See Standards and Methodologies below for a summary of these protocols. Stream segment-specific implementation plans are being developed by GAEPD with assistance from the Regional Development Centers (RDCs) and local stakeholders. Local governments are involved in developing these implementation plans and will be responsible for initiating final recommended water quality sampling. In addition, local governments are responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the recommended TMDL implementation plans and determining when the water quality standards are achieved.
Biological/Habitat Assessment
The approach to biological monitoring is to collect and evaluate biological data using standard metrics that are appropriate for Georgia streams to identify trends in the integrity of the stream and watershed. In counties that have conducted biological and habitat assessments as part of watershed assessment studies, this sampling will be a continuation of those programs in support of their watershed assessment requirements. In counties that have not conducted a watershed assessment, these studies can be used in meeting future watershed assessment requirements.
Sampling will be performed on a rotation basis in all county watersheds over a 5-year period. A minimum of one station per 12-digit HUC will be identified within each county. Sampling at these stations should be rotated each year so that all of the stations would be assessed within 5 years.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Selected stations should be evaluated for the following to detect trends in biotic integrity and assess the streams' status relative to the "Fishing" use designation:
Habitat Benthic Macroinvertebrates Fish
Biological monitoring and analysis for benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat will follow Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) as specified in the Georgia Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (GRBP) (GAEPD, 2002c). Fish sampling and analysis will follow GADNR SOP for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish Communities in the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia (GAEPD, 2000). See Standards and Methodologies below.
Regional/Interjurisdictional Monitoring Activities
Beyond the water quality monitoring activities undertaken by the local governments, regional monitoring efforts--particularly on interjurisdictional waters and mainstem rivers--are important to the regional assessment of the District-wide WMP. In addition, there is currently a need for more information on the effectiveness of various BMPs and restoration methods that research studies can provide. Given the nature of these activities, it is recommended that they be carried out through District coordination. The details of each are described below.
Regional Network/Mainstem Monitoring
A regional network of real-time flow and water quality stations on interjurisdictional waters and main-stem rivers would help provide key information on continuous water quality conditions within and downstream of the District. It is recommended that the USGS supplement the existing network of ambient monitoring stations that it operates and maintains. The USGS has evaluated the existing monitoring stations and has recommended 23 new or modified stations (see Figure 8-1). The additional stations may be phased in as funding permits. These locations are preliminary, and meetings of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), GAEPD, and USGS will be set up to prioritize and site new station locations, as well as to develop an interim strategy for funding the regional network.
BMP/Restoration Effectiveness Studies
Currently only a limited amount of data exist on the effectiveness of various stormwater controls, BMPs, and restoration measures within the District. There is a consensus that additional studies of various BMPs and restoration projects are needed to help refine design criteria and recommend the most effective practices for use in the District. It is recommended that the District coordinate these studies and projects, which would be undertaken by academic institutions or contractors with grant funding.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

%

#S%

#S%

Oostanaula Subbasin
#S

Coosawattee Subbasin

Chattahoochee Basin

Etowah Subbasin

#S
Forsyth

Hall

%

Coosa

#S Bartow Basin

%
Cherokee

Lake Sidney Lanier

%

Allatoona

Lake

#S

#S% #S

#S
Paulding

% %
#S

% %
% %

Oconee

%

Basin

% %

Cobb

Gwinnett

%

TaBllaaspionosa

%

#S

#S

%

Chattahoochee

Basin

Douglas

#S%

#S

#S%

%

%

%

Fulton
#SClayton

%

%%

DeKalb
#S

%
Rockdale

%

Walton
#S
#S%

% %

West Point Lake %

Coweta
#S

Fayette
Flint % Basin
%
%
#S

Ocmulgee Basin #S
Henry
#S
Jackson Lake
%
Legend % Existing USGS Stormwater Gages
#S Potential USGS Regional Stations
District Study Area County Boundaries Designated Use Status, 2002 Not Supporting Partially Supporting Supporting

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, October 6 2003, HDYKE

5

0 N5

10 Miles

Figure 8-1 Potential USGS District Water Quality Monitoring Network Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Data Transfer and Database Management
Data management and reporting is an integral part of any monitoring program. To efficiently utilize available data, it is essential that a framework be in place that facilitates data storage, retrieval, and analysis. One component of the District-wide Water Quality Monitoring Plan will focus on managing long-term monitoring data.
It is recommended that field data collected during the program be stored in a database usable by all entities. The data submittal should be spreadsheet-based and compatible with software available to the majority of local governments. The data collection sheets should be electronically transferable to allow ease of incorporation into the District-wide database maintained by the District.
Also as part of the District-wide WMP, the project team is developing a database that will serve as a warehouse for data collected as part of the District study. This database will also serve as the repository for the long-term environmental data being collected by the local municipalities. Standard protocols will be set up that will allow District staff to import the data received from the local municipalities into the master database. Analysts will then be able to access this database for evaluating trends within the District watersheds.
Standards and Methodologies
Long-Term Ambient Trend Automated Sampling Methods
The long-term ambient trend water quality monitoring approach involves collecting flow-weighted composite samples at in-stream stations using automated sampling devices. During wet weather conditions, automated sampling facilitates the collection of samples for water quality analysis under difficult conditions or when sampling may be dangerous during high flows. The standards and methodologies for automated sampling include the following:
A stage-discharge relationship will be established at each permanent station for the collection of flow-weighted composite samples.
Representative wet weather events require a minimum precipitation of 0.3 inch. Additionally, a minimum time of 72 hours is required between each wet weather event sampled. Dry weather sampling cannot take place until after 72 hours with less than 0.1 inch of precipitation after a wet weather event.
Samples collected during both wet and dry weather will be analyzed for the following parameters: 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) chemical oxygen demand (COD), TSS, total dissolved solids (TDS), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (total oxidized nitrogen), hardness, total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus.
Samples to be analyzed for dissolved and total recoverable metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) will be collected during both wet and dry events. Two of

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-14

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
these samples (one wet and one dry) will be collected and analyzed using EPA clean sampling techniques (Method 1669, Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels). For wet weather, the dissolved metal fraction may be calculated using total recoverable metals, TSS, and hardness measurements.
Grab samples for fecal coliform analysis will be collected 16 times per year. Four samples are to be collected over a 30-day period (at intervals not less than 24 hours) during each of the following quarters: May-July, August-October, NovemberJanuary, and February-April. Each set of four samples will be used to calculate a geometric mean, per State guidelines.
The standard methods and parameters monitored for automated sampling are consistent with those of the ARC water quality trend detection and stormwater Phase I elements (ARC, 2000).
Long-Term Ambient Trend Composite Grab Sampling Methods
EWI/EDI Grab Sample Collection Methods
Composite grab sampling may be used as an alternative to automated sampling or as a component of wet and dry weather sampling. It involves collecting a depth-integrated grab sample using either an Equal Width Integrated and Equal Depth Integrated (EWI or EDI) sampling method. The EWI and EDI methods provide a composite sample that represents the discharge-weighted concentrations of the stream cross section being sampled. The procedures for collecting EWI and EDI samples are described in Edwards and Glysson (1998). Rather than calibrating a stage-discharge relationship, an isokinetic, depth-integrated, discharge-weighted sample is collected. The standards and methodologies for automated sampling include the following:
Representative wet weather events require a minimum precipitation of 0.3 inch. Additionally, a minimum time of 72 hours is required between each wet weather event sampled. Dry weather sampling cannot take place until after 72 hours with less than 0.1 inch of precipitation after a wet weather event.
Samples collected during both wet and dry weather will be analyzed for the following parameters: 5-day BOD5 COD, TSS, TDS, TKN, nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (total oxidized nitrogen), hardness, total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus.
Samples to be analyzed for dissolved and total recoverable metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) will be collected during both wet and dry events. Two of these samples (one wet and one dry) will be collected and analyzed using EPA clean sampling techniques (Method 1669, Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels). For wet weather, the dissolved metal fraction may be calculated using total recoverable metals, TSS, and hardness measurements.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-15

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Fecal Grab Sampling Methods
Grab samples for fecal coliform analysis will be collected 16 times per year. Four samples are to be collected over a 30-day period (at intervals not less than 24 hours) during each of the following quarters: May-July, August-October, November-January, and February-April. Each set of four samples will be used to calculate a geometric mean, per State guidelines.
Dry Weather Outfall Screening
Screening for illicit discharges will be conducted at outfall locations during dry weather conditions to ensure that only illicit flows are observed. Screening of outfalls should include:
Checking the observed discharge for color, turbidity, oil sheen, and odor
Measuring the pH, temperature, and conductivity of the discharge
Sampling any discharge for total chlorine, total copper, total phenol, and detergents/surfactants
Collecting grab samples for fecal coliform
The standards and methodologies for dry weather outfall screening will follow ARC guidelines (ARC, 2000). This program component is a central element in the regional stormwater monitoring program and was part of the 1992 Long-term Stormwater Monitoring Program. The key modification to this element includes the addition of fecal coliform sampling from outfalls with dry weather discharges that show indications of contamination. Additional summary guidance on data analysis for this program element is also presented below to assist the jurisdictions in evaluating results and determining when to initiate further action.
The ARC monitoring report provides the protocols for performing the dry weather outfall screenings (e.g., using the field test kits, taking grab samples, preservation requirements). Affordable, compact, easy-to-use field test kits with appropriate reagents, test strips/test discs, and monitoring equipment should be used for measuring the following parameters:
Chlorine Copper Phenols Surfactants (detergents)
Samples for laboratory analysis should include the screening parameters listed above and fecal coliform. If a dry weather flow has an odor, high conductivity (>300 micromhos per centimeter [mho/cm]), and/or surfactants (detergents), it is mandatory to collect a sample for fecal coliform testing. Fecal coliform is an indicator of fecal bacteria from warm-blooded animals. Its presence in high numbers often indicates contamination with sanitary waste, although high levels of pet waste may also produce similar results.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-16

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Monitoring for Assessing TMDL Implementation and Delisting

TMDL monitoring methods will follow GAEPD requirements for listing and delisting streams in the 303(d) program (GAEPD, 2002b). Stations established on 303(d) listed streams will be sampled monthly for the parameters on the 303(d) list. However, sampling for delisting streams may be case-specific. The sampling approach that the GAEPD is using includes 1 year of sampling for the parameters of concern. Table 8-5 presents the minimum sampling guidelines for listing and delisting streams.

TABLE 8-5
Minimum Sampling Guidelines for Listing and Delisting Streams Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Criterion
DO pH Temperature Bacteria
Metals (including Mercury)
Organic Chemicals (including Pesticides) Flow/Precipitation

Type of Sample
Instantaneous Field Reading
Instantaneous Field Reading
Instantaneous Field Reading of Water Temperature Grab
Grab using Clean Sampling Techniques Note: Samples may be analyzed for dissolved or total recoverable metals. If dissolved is used, total recoverable must also be analyzed and reported. TSS and hardness must also be analyzed and reported for every sample Grab
If stream gage is in the vicinity of the sampling location, a gage height must be reported. Flow conditions at the time of sampling and recent precipitation measurements from the US Weather Service should be reported.

No. of Samples
20 measurements within a 12-month period (1-2 measurements per month) 20 measurements within a 12-month period (1-2 measurements per month) 20 measurements within a 12-month period(1-2 measurements per month) 16 Samples (4 samples collected within a 30-day period over 4 calendar quarters to calculate 4 geometric means). Note: The 30-day sampling period should not overlap the months of April/May and October/ November due to changes in the instream water quality standards for bacteria 2 samples (collected during one winter season and one summer season)
2 Samples (collected during one winter season and one summer season) Noted for each sampling event.

Biological/Habitat Assessment
Biological monitoring will follow standardized bioassessment protocols developed by the GADNR (2002) and the EPA (Plafkin et al., 1989 and Barbour et al., 2000). The bioassessment methods will consist of the following tasks:
GADNR habitat assessment
Benthic macroinvertebrate collection and Georgia Bioassessment Protocol (GBP) community assessment
Fish collection and RBP V (Index of Biotic Integrity [IBI]) community assessment
In-situ water quality measurements

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-17

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan

The sampling team will consist of at least two aquatic biologists familiar with the sampling techniques promulgated by GADNR in the Draft SOP (GADNR, 2002) and EPA RBP (Plafkin et al., 1989 and Barbour et al., 2000). At least one individual familiar with the site and sampling procedures will be present during each trip. Throughout the study, standardized sampling techniques will be used to collect benthic macroinvertebrates and fish at the sampling stations. The upstream and downstream limits of the sampling stations will be marked with flagging tape and the downstream limit will be permanently marked with a tree tag. The sampling reach will be divided into four equal-size quadrants and each will be photographed. All field activities and sampling events will be recorded on prepared field sheets.

Habitat Assessment

Habitat assessments will be conducted following the draft SOP (GADNR, 2002). These procedures include an evaluation of the immediate watershed, substrates, stream width, and general water quality conditions for riffle/run and glide/pool prevalent systems. The process involves rating each of 10 parameters included on the habitat assessment SOP field data sheets (Table 8-6).

TABLE 8-6
Habitat Assessment Parameters for Riffle/Run and Glide/Pool Systems Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Riffle/Run System
Instream Cover (fish) Epifaunal Substrates (benthic) Embeddedness Channel Alteration Sediment Deposition Frequency of Riffles Channel Flow Status Bank Vegetative Protection Bank Stability Riparian Vegetative Zone

Glide/Pool System
Bottom Substrate/Available Cover Pool Substrate Characterization Pool Variability Channel Alteration Sediment Deposition Channel Sinuosity Channel Flow Status Bank Vegetative Protection Bank Stability Riparian Vegetative Zone

Approximately 200 meters of stream will be walked to evaluate habitat quality at each station. For QA/QC purposes, two qualified team members will individually perform the assessment and the results will be averaged. If the total habitat scores deviate by 30 or more points from each other, the team members will review their assessments together and reach a consensus.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Benthic macroinvertebrates will be sampled at the monitoring stations and reference stations using qualitative techniques described in the draft SOP (GADNR, 2002)
Sampling will be conducted over a 100- to 150-meter reach using the eight standard qualitative sampling techniques described by Plafkin et al. (1989) Barbour et al. (2000), and Davis and Simon (1995). These include:

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-18

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Riffle kick net samples Undercut bank sweep net samples Coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM)/leaf pack samples Rock and/or log wash samples Sand kick net samples Aquatic vegetation sweeps Visual collections
To maintain uniform collection, the equipment used, collection methods, site length (or area), and unit effort will be comparable among stations. The major habitat types (undercut banks, rocks, vegetation, sand, riffles, runs, and pools) at each site, as well as the proportion of each habitat type sampled, will be recorded on the field sheets and will be comparable for each station. Samples will be preserved and sent to the laboratory for enumeration and identification.
Benthic data will be analyzed based on assessment metrics, metric evaluation criteria, and scores for the Georgia Piedmont region. The metrics include community, population, and functional parameters such as:
Taxa Richness Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Index Indicator Assemblage Index (IAI) Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon North Carolina Biotic Index Percent Shredders Total Habitat Score
Fish Sampling
Fish sampling will be conducted at monitoring stations and reference stations in accordance with RBP V (Plafkin et al., 1989 and Barbour et al., 2000) and the SOPs for conducting biomonitoring on fish communities in the Piedmont ecoregion of Georgia (GADNR, 2000).
Representative habitats, including riffles, runs, and pools, will be sampled in study reaches varying in length from 100 to 150 meters, or longer, depending on stream size and the distribution of habitats. GADNR (2000) recommends sampling reaches equal to 35 times the mean standard width to decrease variability in IBI scores. The principal sampling method will be electrofishing, supplemented by seining. The unit sampling effort (i.e., backpack electroshocking minutes and time spent seining) will be comparable among stations. Two seining methods will be used: kick sets and downstream hauls.
Fish will be identified and enumerated in the field to the greatest extent practical, with some voucher specimens being preserved in 10 percent formalin for laboratory confirmation of species identifications. Other specimens will be released alive at the collection site. A data sheet that includes size, weight, and external anomalies of the species collected will be completed at each station, along with detailed notes on habitat and surrounding watershed conditions.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-19

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 8: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Fish data will be analyzed based on assessment metrics, metric evaluation criteria, and IBI scores for the Georgia Piedmont region. Fish evaluation metrics (Karr et al., 1986; Plafkin et al., 1989) are generally region-specific and may include: Species Richness and Composition:
Number of native fish species,
Number of native benthic species using silt-free substrates (darters, sculpins, madtoms, Alabama hogsucker, and jumprock species),
Number of sunfish species (excludes bass and crappie),
Number of native minnow (cyprinid) species,
Number of sensitive species, and
Proportion as tolerant species (green sunfish, mosquitofish, golden shiner, and creek chub).
Trophic Composition:
Proportion as omnivores, Proportion as insectivorous minnows (cyprinids), and Proportion as top carnivores (piscivores). Fish Abundance and Condition:
Catch per unit sampling effort (no./hr.), excluding the tolerant species, Proportion as gravel/crevice spawning (lithophillis) species, and Proportion with disease/anomalies.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

8-20

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 9
Implementation Plan

Purpose
The District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) includes a suite of strategies and activities to be implemented over time by local governments, the District, and Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD). This section outlines the recommended tasks and measurable milestones for implementation of the various components of the District-wide WMP. Implementation of the full set of recommendations will address the District's goals for water quality and biotic integrity protection and improvement, flood management, source water protection, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation, and education and public awareness. The long-term planning horizon of the District-wide WMP supports an adaptive management approach that allows time to evaluate options and make optimal decisions on allocation of limited resources to achieve desired results.
Tasks are identified for the near term (1 to 5 years) and the long term (beyond 5 years). Following each discussion of tasks, a table is provided that identifies specific activities to be completed in Years 1 through 5 and also identifies tasks that will occur following Year 5, but not necessarily the specific year in which these later tasks will occur. It is essential that an updated WMP be prepared no less frequently than every 5 years in order to adjust the plan as needed and to identify specific tasks for the following 5-year interval. The information in these tables provides a schedule, on a yearly basis, for implementation of tasks and can serve as a checklist of achievements resulting from District-wide WMP implementation.
Accurate and concise reporting is integral to implementation of the District-wide WMP. Local governments, the District, and GAEPD must be able to track plan implementation and evaluate the extent to which water quality goals are being achieved. Local governments and the District must submit accurate and thorough annual reports to GAEPD that include information on the implementation of the District-wide WMP activities and provide a mechanism to track progress and assess progress towards implementation of the recommended strategies for future watershed management.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
Watershed Management Responsibilities
Responsibilities for implementation of the District-wide WMP are divided among the local governments (counties and cities), the District, and the State of Georgia.
Local Governments
Local governments will be responsible for implementing most of the recommendations due to the direct connection between stormwater management, land use planning decisions, and infrastructure development and maintenance. Specific responsibilities include:
Implementation of the Local Stormwater Management Program Activities including implementation of the Model Ordinances for stormwater management, additional management measures, adoption of stormwater management technical criteria, and local Education and Public Awareness activities.
Development and Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plans Required in watersheds with TMDL-listed waterways to meet TMDL requirements.
Implementation of Source Water Protection Strategies Required in all watersheds (within a local government's jurisdiction) that are water supply sources.
Development and Implementation of Watershed Improvement Plans Required in those 20 percent of the 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) in the District that are substantially impacted due to existing development. These watersheds will require the development of watershed improvement plans, as well as restoration and/or retrofit to meet water quality standards.
This plan recognizes that projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations contained in this plan.
The District
The District, or a similar regional entity, will assist with coordination and support for implementation of the following activities identified in O.C.G.A. 12-5-582:
Training and Coordination for Implementation of the Model Ordinances developed by the District.
Coordination, Training, and Database Management Support to local governments for the environmental monitoring plan.
Development and Implementation Support for Education and Public Awareness as required by the law establishing the District.
Annual Reviews review the District-wide WMP and its implementation annually to determine whether there is a need to update such plan and to report on progress.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
The State of Georgia
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD)
The GAEPD will continue to be responsible for overall District-wide WMP implementation and management of water quality compliance. As required by Senate Bill (SB) 130, GAEPD has responsibility for:
Incorporation of WMP Requirements in Permits for local governments to be granted permits for wastewater discharges, surface-water withdrawals, or stormwater discharges.
Annual Reviews of Compliance to determine the extent to which local governments have met the prescribed milestones in the District-wide WMP. GAEPD will work with the District after the plans are adopted to develop specific guidelines for local government compliance with the District-wide WMP.
Enforcement of the District-wide WMP - through the water withdrawal, wastewater discharge, and municipal stormwater discharge permits.
Assistance in Development of Additional Programs/Regulations for watershed management and nonpoint source pollutant load reductions.
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
Implementation of Stormwater Management Strategies Develop and implement post-development stormwater design criteria and management measures and best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater runoff quality and quantity for transportation projects consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under Phase II, using the guidance set forth in the District Model Stormwater Management Ordinances and the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual.
Coordination with Local Watershed Improvement Plans Coordinate with local governments on watershed improvement projects to provide support where possible.
Watershed Management Strategies
Watershed management strategies include the policies and measures whereby the local governments, the District, and the state will move toward achievement of water quality goals. Watershed management strategies include local stormwater management activities, tasks for addressing TMDL issues, methods for protecting source water areas, watershed improvement tasks, education and public awareness tasks, and water quality monitoring. The entities responsible for implementing the watershed management tasks discussed below were identified in Table 5-8 and Table 6-1. The specific tasks, responsible entities, and milestones are discussed below.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Implementation Tasks for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities
The recommended local stormwater management program activities form a comprehensive program for local governments that addresses the goals of water quality and watershed protection while meeting multiple existing regulatory requirements.
Local stormwater management program activities will be implemented by all jurisdictions in the District and are intended to protect water quality and biotic integrity, ensure that waters meet designated uses, and mitigate the impacts of future land use changes within these watersheds. Additional watershed protection and management measures will need to be implemented in source water supply watersheds and watersheds that have TMDLs or do not meet designated uses as identified later in this section.
The majority of the local stormwater management program activities will be implemented by cities and counties within the District; however, there are a number of related program activities that will be coordinated by the District and GAEPD. In addition, transportation infrastructure activities on State roads and highways will be the responsibility of GDOT. The tasks and milestones for implementing these activities are listed in Table 9-1 for local governments, Table 9-2 for the District, and Table 9-3 for GAEPD and GDOT.

TABLE 9-1
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implement Post-Development Stormwater Ordinance

Year 1 2004 Adopt Ordinancea

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Adopt Stormwater Management Technical Standards and Design Criteriaa

Revise Development (Site Plan) Review Process and Procedures

Develop and Implement Construction Inspection Program

Implement Construction Program in Each Year

Develop and Implement LongTerm Compliance Tracking/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program for New Stormwater Management Facilities

Implement Long-Term Compliance Tracking / O&M Program for New Stormwater Management Facilities

Implement Floodplain Management Ordinance

Year 1 2004 Adopt Ordinancea

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Develop Floodplain Maps; complete mapping on 10% of Streams

Develop Floodplain Maps; complete mapping on 10% of Streams

Develop Floodplain Maps; complete mapping on 10% of Streams

Develop Floodplain Maps; complete mapping on 10% of Streams

Continue to Develop Floodplain Maps on 10% of Streams per Year;

a NPDES MS4 Phase I Municipal Stormwater Program communities will be required to adopt these ordinances in April 2004. Phase II communities will be required to adopt these ordinances by April 2005. All other jurisdictions will be required to adopt these ordinances by April 2006.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-1 (CONTINUED)
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implement Floodplain Management Ordinance (Continued)

Year 1 2004

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Regulate using Future Floodplain Mapping as it is Available

Develop Floodplain Review Process

Implement New Flood Protection Requirements

Implement Illicit Discharge / Illegal Connection Ordinance

Year 1 2004 Adopt Ordinancea

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Develop enforcement process and procedures

Document Violations and Enforcement Actions for Annual Report

Implement Conservation Subdivision Ordinance

Year 1 2004 Adopt Ordinancea

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Implement Ordinance Provisions

Implement Litter Ordinance

Year 1 2004 Adopt Ordinancea

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Develop Enforcement Process and Procedures

Document Compliance, Violations, and Enforcement Actions for Annual Report

Year 1 2004
Adopt Ordinancea
Develop Review and Enforcement Process and Procedures

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Document Compliance, Violations, and Enforcement Actions for Annual Report Implement Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Year 1 2004

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Adopt Ordinance within 18 months of adoption of District-
wide WMP by District Boardb

Develop Review and Enforcement Process and Procedures

Document Compliance, Violations, and Enforcement Actions for Annual Report

Implement Stormwater Good Housekeeping Ordinance

Year 1 2004

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Adopt Ordinance

Develop Review

Document Compliance, Violations, and

and Enforcement

Enforcement Actions for Annual Report ,

Process and

Procedures

a NPDES MS4 Phase I Municipal Stormwater Program communities will be required to adopt these ordinances in April 2004. Phase II

communities will be required to adopt these ordinances by April 2005. All other jurisdictions will be required to adopt these ordinances by April

2006.

b All local government in the District will be required to adopt a Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance by April 2005.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-1 (CONTINUED)
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Establish Judicial Process

Year 1 2004 Evaluate existing judiciary to determine whether new or existing staff can handle environmental case load
Year 1 2004

Year 2 2005
Establish judicial authority to hear environmental cases and penalties for violations

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Environmental magistrate tries cases and assesses penalties, as appropriate

Notify public of new court and start date
Magistrates attend environmental training as continuing education, as necessary

Participate in District Training for Local Staff

Year 2 2005 Untrained staff complete District training seminars

Year 3 2006 Untrained staff complete District training seminars

Year 4 2007 Untrained staff complete Districtwide training

Year 5 2008 Untrained staff complete District training seminars

2009 - 2030 Untrained staff complete District training seminars each year

Implement Developer/Contractor Training/Certification Program

Develop Certification Program

Implement Certification Program

Implement Operation and Maintenance Programs for Stormwater Facilities (Drainage Systems and Structures)

Year 1 2004
Develop and Implement Long-Term Tracking / O&M Program for Existing Stormwater Management Facilities; Inventory and Map 10% of Jurisdiction Develop and Implement Stormwater O&M Plan including Emergency Response and General Routine and Remedial Maintenance

Year 2 2005
Inventory and Map 10% of Jurisdiction

Develop capital improvements and repair strategies

Year 3 2006
Inventory and Map 10% of Jurisdiction

Year 4 2007
Inventory and Map 10% of Jurisdiction

Year 5 2008
Inventory and Map 10% of Jurisdiction

Implement Stormwater O&M Plan in each year
Track and Document Stormwater O&M Activities in each year Implement repair of damaged/failing systems in each year

Implement Permit Monitoring and Compliance Tracking

2009 - 2030 Continue mapping 10% per year until done; revise previously mapped areas as changes occur
Implement repair of damaged/failing systems in each year as needed; develop and implement Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for retrofits

Year 1 2004

Year 2 2005

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

2009 - 2030

Develop Process for monitoring issued permits and Tracking Compliance with Permits

Implement permit monitoring

Implement Compliance tracking

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-1 (CONTINUED)
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Year 1 2004
Year 1 2004 Establish Requirement that any New Public Recreational Area have Pet Posts

Year 2 2005 Prepare Annual Report for Previous Year; provide water quality monitoring data to District; submit report to District and GAEPD.
Year 2 2005

Prepare Annual Report

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Prepare Annual Report for Previous Year; provide water quality monitoring data to District; submit report to District and GAEPD.

Prepare Annual Report for Previous Year; provide water quality monitoring data to District; submit report to District and GAEPD.

Implement Animal Control Measures

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008 Prepare Annual Report for Previous Year; provide water quality monitoring data to District; submit report to District and GAEPD.
Year 5 2008

Install Pet Posts in New Recreational Areas as They are Constructed

2009 2030 Prepare Annual Report for Previous Year; provide water quality monitoring data to District; submit report to District and GAEPD.
2009 2030

Identify Existing Recreational Area Where Pet Posts Should be Added
Year 1 2004
Establish Annual Household Hazardous Waste Recycling Program
Establish Municipal Good Housekeeping Practices for Landscaping, Site Management, and Vehicle Maintenance

Install Pet Posts in Existing Recreational Area as Resources are Available

Year 2 2005

Implement Pollution Prevention Program

Year 3 2006

Year 4 2007

Year 5 2008

Implement Annual Household Hazardous Waste Recycling Program

2009 2030

Implement Municipal Good Housekeeping Program

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-7

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-2
District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Recommend Additional Programs / Measures

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement Septic Tank Maintenance Recommendations according to Schedule in Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a)

Develop technical committee to determine appropriate lawn fertilizer phosphorus content recommendations

Conduct field testing to Recommend to State

support

legislature new

recommendations,

legislation to regulate

revise

phosphorus content in

recommendations if lawn fertilizer and

necessary

phased approach to

implementation.

Work with GAEPD after the Plans are adopted to develop specific guidelines for local
government compliance with the District-wide Watershed Management Plan
Develop Stormwater Good Housekeeping Model Ordinance

District TCC to develop appropriate guidelines for local stormwater operations and maintenance activities.

Examine additional infiltration stormwater control alternative and incentives during 5year update of plan

Facilitate Stormwater Authority Authorizing Legislation

Develop and Undertake District-Wide Training of Local Staff

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Develop Basic

Develop Basic Training Develop Basic Training Develop Basic Training Develop Basic Training Continue to offer

Training Courses and Courses and Refresher Courses and Refresher Courses and Refresher Courses and Refresher training courses every

Refresher Courses Courses for

Courses for

Courses for

Courses for

year

for Development Plan Development Plan

Development Plan

Development Plan

Development Plan

Review, SECP

Review, SECP

Review, SECP

Review, SECP

Review, SECP

inspection,

inspection,

inspection,

inspection,

inspection,

Environmental

Environmental

Environmental

Environmental

Environmental

Monitoring, and

Monitoring, and

Monitoring, and

Monitoring, and

Monitoring, and

Watershed Protection Watershed Protection Watershed Protection Watershed Protection Watershed Protection

Tool

Tool

Tool

Tool

Tool

Facilitate Communication and Data Management

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Facilitate communication and information flow among District local governments, state

agencies, and other entities

Develop database for

Maintain database of water quality monitoring data collected by local governments, USGS, and District.

water quality

monitoring data.

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Revise District-wide WMP

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008
Revise plan to reflect regulatory changes, actions implemented, and data collected

2009-2030
Continue to revise plan every 5 years.

Prepare Annual Report

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Prepare Annual Report Prepare Annual Report Prepare Annual Report Prepare Annual Report Prepare Annual Report

for Previous Year;

for Previous Year;

for Previous Year;

for Previous Year;

for Previous Year;

submit report to local submit report to local submit report to local submit report to local submit report to local

governments and

governments and

governments and

governments and

governments and

GAEPD.

GAEPD.

GAEPD.

GAEPD.

GAEPD.

SECP = Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-3
Georgia State Agency Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Stormwater Management Program Activities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

GAEPD Tasks

Develop New Regulations and Guidance

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Finalize new Escherichia coli
standards and
guidance

Implement new E. coli standards and guidance

Establish Program to Improve Enforcement of Ordinances, Regulations, and Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities

Work with District after the plans are adopted to develop specific guidelines for local government compliance with the District-wide WMP
Review 20% of Existing (pre-Districtwide WMP) NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits for consistency with the District-wide WMP

Review 20% of Existing (pre-Districtwide WMP) NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits for consistency with the District-wide WMP

Review 20% of Existing (pre-Districtwide WMP) NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits for consistency with the District-wide WMP

Review 20% of Existing (pre-Districtwide WMP) NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits for consistency with the District-wide WMP

Review 20% of Existing (pre-Districtwide WMP) NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits for consistency with the District-wide WMP

Require modification of existing NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits that are not consistent with District-wide WMP

Require modification of existing NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits that are not consistent with District-wide WMP

Require modification of existing NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits that are not consistent with District-wide WMP

Require modification of existing NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits that are not consistent with District-wide WMP

Require modification of existing NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits that are not consistent with District-wide WMP

Require modification of existing NPDES wastewater and stormwater discharge permits that are not consistent with District-wide WMP

Develop rules requiring all local governments to comply with MS4 Phase II NPDES permit requirements

Enact rules requiring all local governments to comply with MS4 Phase II NPDES permit requirements

GDOT Tasks

Address Transportation Infrastructure

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Develop the required management plan per NPDES Phase II requirements

Revise Construction Design Standards to be Consistent with Stormwater Ordinances and Technical Design Manual Criteria

Implement revised Construction Design Standards Throughout the District

Implement revised Construction Design Standards Throughout the District

Implement revised Construction Design Standards Throughout the District

Implement revised Construction Design Standards Throughout the District

Implement revised Construction Design Standards Throughout the District

Revise PostConstruction Stormwater Management Standards to be Consistent with District Policy.

Implement Revised Post-Construction Stormwater Management Standards Throughout the District.

Implement Revised Post-Construction Stormwater Management Standards Throughout the District.

Implement Revised Post-Construction Stormwater Management Standards Throughout the District.

Implement Revised Post-Construction Stormwater Management Standards Throughout the District.

Implement Revised Post-Construction Stormwater Management Standards Throughout the District.

Develop Roadway and Right-of-Way Maintenance Procedures that Enhance Pollution Prevention.

Implement Pollution Prevention Maintenance Procedures Throughout the District.

Implement Pollution Prevention Maintenance Procedures Throughout the District.

Implement Pollution Prevention Maintenance Procedures Throughout the District.

Implement Pollution Prevention Maintenance Procedures Throughout the District.

Implement Pollution Prevention Maintenance Procedures Throughout the District.

Develop CIP to retrofit Implement retrofit

identified priority

CIP in identified

areas

priority areas

Implement retrofit CIP in identified priority areas

Implement retrofit CIP Implement retrofit

in identified priority CIP in identified

areas

priority areas

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-9

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TMDL Strategies Implementation Tasks
Implementation of the local stormwater management program activities (outlined above) will provide a base level of management for many nonpoint pollution sources. However, additional management measures are required in watersheds with a TMDLlisted water body.
Currently, several Regional Development Centers (RDCs) are assisting local governments and GAEPD in developing specific TMDL implementation plans. Local governments should follow the recommended process, in conjunction with GAEPD and the RDCs, to refine the TMDL implementation plan for each listed stream segment. A key element of these plans will be coordination with other local governments in watersheds that cross-jurisdictional boundaries.
The specific tasks and milestones for implementing the TMDL measures are summarized in Table 9-4 for local governments and Table 9-5 for GAEPD.
TABLE 9-4
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for TMDL Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Confirm Parameter Violation

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Confirm violation in all TMDL-listed stream segments

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Reassess all TMDL-segments based on new E. coli standards

Identify Sources

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Review existing data on potential sources and confirmation data

Develop TMDL Plans

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement TMDL Plans for all listed stream segments in the Oconee and Ocmulgee basins

With GAEPD and other regional entities, complete development of TMDL Plan for all listed stream segments in the Chattahoochee and Flint basins

Implement TMDL Plans for all listed stream segments in the Chattahoochee and Flint basins Revise any TMDL plans where new E. coli standards indicate revision is warranted

With GAEPD and other regional entities, develop TMDL Implementation Plans for all listed stream segments in Coosa and Tallapoosa Basins

Implement TMDL Plans for all listed stream segments in the Coosa and Tallapoosa Basins after plans are complete

Implement Plans

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement all TMDL Plans

Inter-jurisdictional Agreements

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Identify watersheds

Develop inter-jurisdictional agreements

requiring inter-jurisdictional

cooperation

Implement inter-jurisdictional agreements

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-10

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-4 (CONTINUED)
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for TMDL Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Monitor TMDL Effectiveness

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement Environmental Monitoring Program

Continue Environmental Monitoring Program & submit annual reports

Continue Environmental Monitoring Program & submit annual reports

Continue Environmental Monitoring Program & submit annual reports

Continue Environmental Monitoring Program & submit annual reports

Environmental monitoring continues until segments are removed from 303(d) List

Re-evaluate TMDL Implementation Strategies

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Examine data and re-evaluate TMDL program as part of 5-year revision of plan

Re-evaluate program every 5-years.

Note: Implementation of local stormwater management program activities will address many TMDL implementation requirements. See Local Stormwater Management Program Activities .

TABLE 9-5
GAEPD Implementation Tasks and Milestones for TMDL Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Develop TMDL Plans

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

With local governments and other regional entities, complete development of TMDL Plan for all listed stream segments in the Chattahoochee and Flint basins

Complete TMDL development in the
Coosa and Tallapoosa basins

With local governments and other regional entities, develop TMDL Implementation Plans for all listed stream segments in Coosa and Tallapoosa Basins

Year 1- 2004 Reassess 303(d) List; include assessment based on revised E. coli standards
Year 1- 2004

Refine 303(d) List

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Update/revise 305(b) Reassess 303(d)

report

List

Update/revise 305(b) report and reassess 303(d) list

Continue to reassess lists and revise standards as required by regulations

Incorporate TMDL Implementation into Permits

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Review NPDES wastewater and stormwater permits, and require modification of those that are not consistent with TMDL Plans and new E. coli standards

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-11

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Source Water Protection Strategies Implementation Tasks
The recommendations for source water protection include the local stormwater management program activities that will be applied District-wide as well as sourcespecific management tasks in water supply watersheds. Local stormwater management program activities include:
Implementation of the District Model Stormwater Management Ordinances to address nonpoint source loadings
Implementation of the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria to establish the minimum setbacks, impervious surface limits, and septic tank/drainfield limits
Improved enforcement of existing regulations
Acquisition and preservation of land, and education and awareness measures focused on pollutant-specific sources
Several implementation tasks associated with source water protection involve other aspects of the plan, especially the local stormwater management program activities, which will provide significant reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loadings. Local governments have much of the responsibility for implementing source water protection, including implementation of the Part V Environmental Planning Criteria, land acquisition, and public education concerning potential pollution sources. The recommended specific tasks and milestones for local government implementation of the source water protection tasks are summarized in Table 9-6. District tasks for source water protection are identified in Table 9-7.
TABLE 9-6
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Source Water Protection Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Year 1- 2004
Implement setbacks and buffers on stream in small and large water supply source watersheds. Develop planning and geographic information system (GIS) maps
Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Implement Part V Criteria

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009 2030

Enforce setback and buffer restrictions in small and large source water supply watersheds.

Utilize planning process to maintain impervious cover limits in small water supply source watersheds

Year 2-2005

Inter-jurisdictional Agreements

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009 2030

Identify watersheds requiring interjurisdictional cooperation

Develop binding, enforceable interjurisdictional agreements

Implement inter-jurisdictional agreements

Integrate Source Water Protection with Greenspace Program

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009 2030

Integrate Source Water Protection with State Greenspace Program

Identify parcels where acquisition of land would augment source water protection

Coordinate land acquisition and preservation with State Greenspace Program

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-12

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-6 (CONTINUED)
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Source Water Protection Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implement Source Water Protection Strategies Among Potential Polluters

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009 2030

Identify businesses and industries that are potential polluters in source water protection areas

Evaluate new businesses and industries in source water protection areas to determine whether they are potential polluters

Distribute educational materials to businesses and industries identified as potential polluters

Distribute educational materials to any new businesses or industries identified as potential polluters as they are identified.

Identify transportation routes near water sources and businesses/industries that may use these transportation routes

Evaluate new businesses and industries for potential to use transportation routes near water sources

Distribute educational materials to businesses and industries that may use transport routes near source waters

Distribute educational materials to any new businesses that may use transport routes near source waters

Identify businesses and industries that use or store hazardous materials

Evaluate new businesses and industries to determine whether they would use or store hazardous materials

Distribute educational materials to businesses and industries that may use or store hazardous materials

Distribute educational materials to any new businesses that may use or store hazardous materials

Identify businesses and industries that store fuel in underground storage tanks

Evaluate new businesses and industries to determine whether they would store fuels in underground storage tanks

Distribute educational materials to businesses and industries that stores fuel in underground storage tanks

Distribute educational materials to any new businesses that stores fuel in underground storage tanks

Note: Implementation of local stormwater management program activities will address many source water protection requirements. See Local Stormwater Management Program Activities. Setback and buffer requirements for small and large water supply source watersheds are provided in Section 4.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-13

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-7
District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Source Water Protection Strategies Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Develop Education Materials

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009 2030

Prepare education materials addressing BMPs for large industries that use hazardous wastes
Prepare education and awareness materials that promote return business to facilities that recycle hazardous materials used in their operations
Prepare education materials addressing BMPs for businesses and industries that store fuel in underground storage tanks

Evaluate education materials and update as necessary
Evaluate education materials and update as necessary

Distribute Education Materials

Evaluate education materials and update as necessary

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009 2030

Coordinate with water suppliers to provide educational material to pipeline companies and railroads that operate in source water protection areas.
Coordinate with water suppliers to provide educational material to businesses and industries that may transport hazardous materials on roads in source water protection areas.

Watershed Improvement Strategies Implementation Tasks
In substantially impacted watersheds where existing levels of development and associated impervious area can result in conditions that do not meet water quality standards and designated uses, watershed improvement plans containing watershed improvement measures will be required.
Development and implementation of watershed improvement plans will help restore the physical, chemical, and biological quality, and improve the aquatic integrity of streams not meeting State standards. Watershed restoration and retrofits will also support future NPDES permitting activities. During the first 2 years of plan implementation, the District and local governments will work with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) to develop specific guidance on Watershed Improvement Plan project implementation. Local governments will implement most watershed improvement programs with oversight from the State and District. These tasks and milestones are listed in Table 9-8.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-14

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-8
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Watershed Improvement Plans Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Initiate Watershed Improvement Plan Planning

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Work with District and Technical Coordinating Committee to develop specific guidance on watershed improvement plan implementation
Develop schedule for watershed improvement plan development based on watershed priorities

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Inventory Existing Systems

Year 5-2008

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

Inventory existing systems in 1st priority watershed

Inventory existing systems in 2nd priority watershed

Inventory existing systems in 3rd priority watershed

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Evaluate Retrofit and Restoration Alternatives

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030
2009-2030 Continue inventorying systems until all impacted watersheds are completed
2009-2030

Year 1- 2004 Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005 Year 2-2005

Evaluate Retrofit and Restoration Alternatives based on inventory data in 1st priority watershed

Evaluate Retrofit and Restoration Alternatives based on inventory data in 2nd priority watershed

Continue evaluating alternatives as watersheds are inventoried.

Develop Watershed Improvement Plans

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Develop watershed improvement plan for 1st Priority Watershed
Implement Watershed Improvements

Develop watershed improvement plan for 2nd priority watershed

Continue developing watershed improvement plans at one/year until all watersheds are addressed

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement watershed improvement plan projects consistent with specific guidance
until water quality objectives are met.

Land Use Based Implementation Tasks
There are a variety of ways for local governments in the District to move forward with the land use strategies presented in Section 5. Each city and county will have a unique approach and combination of strategies to successfully implement land use planning that considers the protection of water resources. Each local government will also need an additional level of inter-jurisdictional coordination to plan for watersheds that cross political boundaries, particularly for source water protection and TMDL plans.
All local governments are required by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to prepare a complete update to their comprehensive plans sometime during the period of 2004-2008. Table 9-9 indicates the upcoming deadlines for local government land use plan updates in the District. All municipalities in a county are subject to the same update deadline as their county government, thereby facilitating the coordinated planning process. It is recommended that these required comprehensive plan updates be made consistent with the District-wide WMP and address inter-jurisdictional coordina-

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-15

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

tion. Additionally, local governments should review their future land use and zoning maps for consistency with the District-wide WMP and to identify opportunities to utilize some of the land use-based strategies described in Section 5.
TABLE 9-9
DCA Requirements for Local Comprehensive Plan Updates Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

2004 Forsyth
Hall Clayton Douglas

2005 DeKalb Fulton

2006 Cobb Coweta

2007 Bartow Paulding Walton Fayette Cherokee

2008 Gwinnett
Henry Rockdale

Source: http://www.dca.state.ga.us/planning/coordinated.html

Education and Public Awareness Tasks
Implementation of an Education and Public Awareness campaign is focused on years 2004-2006, to meet the SB 130 goals within the specified timeframe. Tasks to be implemented during this period are identified in Table 9-10 for local governments and in Table 9-11 for the District.

TABLE 9-10
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Implement Public Awareness Media Campaign

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Include campaign messages in all public outreach materials; and distribute supporting materials at public meetings and events; assist District in publicizing website, CD-ROM
Provide names and contact numbers of local media outlets to District
Schedule and conduct Speakers Bureau presentations

Establish Information Clearinghouse

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Provide information and educational materials to District for cataloguing

Provide any new materials developed to District for addition to clearinghouse

Provide feedback to District on effectiveness of materials; customize and update materials as needed

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-16

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-10 (CONTINUED)
Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implement Targeted Outreach and Education Programs

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Complete

Prepare and conduct workshops, presentations and demonstration projects to increase awareness of target groups.

identification of target

groups

Support District and Participate in Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal and Elected Officials (NEMO) Program: identify target groups, distribute materials

Support District and Participate in Speakers Bureau: identify target groups, make presentations

Support District and Participate in Homeowner and Commercial/Industrial Workshops.

Distribute educational materials to target groups.

TABLE 9-11
District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implement Public Awareness Media Campaign

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Bring creative consultant on staff (loaned executive) to begin developing message points; develop and place initial series of PSAs and press releases to announce expansion of Clean Water Campaign (CWC) and publicize other District initiatives and activities

Implement paid mass media campaign (purchase air time; place PSAs; purchase advertisements, issue press releases, etc.)

Evaluate goal achievement, determine need for extended mass media campaign

Create and place initial series of PSAs and press releases about expanded CWC and planned activities; provide bill insert copy to local governments

Develop new PSAs bimonthly to address key messages; issue press releases to announce significant events and activities

Develop and Present Proposal for Partnership with Radio Weather Broadcaster; provide watershed information and nonpoint source pollution content to TV weather broadcast partner

Continue to provide watershed information and nonpoint source pollution content to TV/Radio broadcast partners for broadcast and website

Develop and Implement Interactive Website

Update Interactive Website

Develop and Distribute Interactive CD-ROM

Distribute Interactive CD-ROM

Develop promotional items and provide art and specifications to local governments

Distribute promotional items at events

Develop Clean Water Partners Program and begin to recruit local businesses to participate

Recruit local businesses to participate in Clean Water Partners program

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-17

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-11 (CONTINUED)
District Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Year 1-2004 Develop library of information and education materials
Year 1-2004 Identify target groups

Establish Information Clearinghouse

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Maintain information clearinghouse as a resource to support local education and outreach programs

Develop and Implement Targeted Education Program

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Assess effectiveness of target group outreach and continue identification of target groups

Work with Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association (GWPCA) to develop NEMO program

Implement NEMO program

Develop Speakers Bureau and make Presentations

Make Presentations throughout the District

Develop plan and industryspecific materials to support program

Coordinate implementation of targeted outreach and education campaign: provide educational materials, contribute to pollution prevention and industry workshops and demonstration projects.

Develop and implement industry-specific training courses

Implement industry-specific training courses.

Support Watershed Education Taskforce

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Support and Encourage environmental education professionals formation of a Watershed Education Task Force to promote watershed education in schools and the State Legislature

Develop Localized Watershed Information to Support Teaching of Watershed Education

Year 1-2004

Year 2-2005

Support Protect WET

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Support Georgia's Project WET, other identified watershed education programs

During the first 6 months of 2004, District staff should be implementing recommendations that do not require outside resources, as well as establishing the partnerships with other entities that will support future activities. Activities in the first 6 months of 2004 include:
Developing key message points and slogans
Extracting watershed- and District-specific information from the District-wide WMP for incorporation into the communication and training documents that will be developed (e.g., utility bill messages, public service announcements [PSAs], fact sheets, brochures, Speakers Bureau presentation)
Developing media campaign and creating interactive CD-ROM and website pages
Selecting and producing promotional items and providing artwork and specifications to local governments
Producing the interactive CD-ROM
Developing the portable information kiosks
Reviewing potential sponsors list, developing strategy and script for the approach to potential sponsors

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-18

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
Developing the Clean Water Partner Program (defining incentives and benefits, partnership levels, etc.)
Establishing the Information Clearinghouse
Preparing baseline target group communication survey
Defining Education and Public Awareness preparatory tasks for local governments and making formal requests for information and assistance (names for key target group database, schedules for bill inserts/messages, names of local media outlets, material for the Information Clearinghouse, etc.)
Chartering the Watershed Education Task Force
Developing calendar of events, including kiosk display and Speakers Bureau opportunities
In the second 6 months of 2004, the District should continue seeking opportunities to publicize activities and goals. The District should also focus on establishing corporate sponsorships and encouraging local employers to participate in the Clean Water Partner Program. In addition, the District should work with agency and educational partners to develop supplemental environmental science curricula, with a goal of having the curricula in place for the fall 2005 school year. This will provide adequate lead time to work with school administration and faculty to secure their understanding and support.
Training and outreach to key target groups should begin in January 2005. Therefore, in the second half of 2004, the District should work with Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) and the Agency and University Partners (such as those listed below) to develop the workshop training materials and begin to schedule training workshops with key target groups (working through the associations wherever possible to streamline the coordination process):
Georgia Environmental Partnership (GEP) GWPCA Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) Georgia Tech University of Georgia (UGA)

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-19

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Water Quality Monitoring Tasks
The District-wide water quality monitoring plan allows water quality goals to be tracked through measurable changes in water quality parameters. Tasks in the water quality monitoring plan to be implemented by local governments are identified in Table 9-12, District tasks are identified in Table 9-13, and USGS tasks are identified in Table 9-14.

TABLE 9-12 Local Government Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Environmental Monitoring Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Implement Environmental Monitoring

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement biota and habitat sampling on 20% of stations in jurisdiction. All stations to be sampled every 5 years.

Implement biota and habitat sampling on 20% of stations in jurisdiction. All stations to be sampled every 5 years.

Implement biota and habitat sampling on 20% of stations in jurisdiction. All stations to be sampled every 5 years.

Implement biota and habitat sampling on 20% of stations in jurisdiction. All stations to be sampled every 5 years.

Implement biota and habitat sampling on 20% of stations in jurisdiction. All stations to be sampled every 5 years.

Continue biota and habitat sampling on 20% of stations in jurisdiction per year to complete all stations every 5 years

Implement long-term ambient monitoring plan to collect 6 wet weather, 2 baseflow, and 3-4 fecal coliform (fecal) geometric means from all stations in District

Implement long-term ambient monitoring plan to collect 6 wet weather, 2 baseflow, and 3-4 fecal geometric means from all stations in District

Implement long-term ambient monitoring plan to collect 6 wet weather, 2 baseflow, and 3-4 fecal geometric means from all stations in District

Implement long-term ambient monitoring plan to collect 6 wet weather, 2 baseflow, and 3-4 fecal geometric means from all stations in District

Implement long-term ambient monitoring plan to collect 6 wet weather, 2 baseflow, and 3-4 fecal geometric means from all stations in District

Implement long-term ambient monitoring plan to collect 6 wet weather, 2 baseflow, and 3-4 fecal geometric means from all stations in District

Implement Commercial/industri al Inspections at the number of sites specified in the Monitoring Plan prioritized based on Data Collected for Water Quality Monitoring

Implement Commercial/industri al Inspections at the number of sites specified in the Monitoring Plan prioritized based on Data Collected for Water Quality Monitoring

Implement Commercial/industri al Inspections at the number of sites specified in the Monitoring Plan prioritized based on Data Collected for Water Quality Monitoring

Implement Commercial/industri al Inspections at the number of sites specified in the Monitoring Plan prioritized based on Data Collected for Water Quality Monitoring

Annually Implement Commercial/industri al Inspections at the number of sites specified in the Monitoring Plan prioritized based on Data Collected for Water Quality Monitoring

Annually implement Dry Weather Illicit Discharge Screening on number of sites specified in the Monitoring Plan OR
Annually implement pedestrian streamwalk program on 33% of stream miles in jurisdiction per year, to complete all stream miles every 3 years

Implement TMDL monitoring following GAEPD protocols on all streams with TMDL Implementation Plans

Implement Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program to Evaluate Facility Operation and Good Housekeeping

Year 1- 2004

Provide data to District; submit annual reports
Year 2-2005

Provide data to District; submit annual reports

Provide data to District; submit annual reports

Revise Monitoring Plans

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Provide data to District; submit annual reports
Year 5-2008

Provide data to District; submit annual reports
2009-2030

Revise local monitoring plans to be consistent with District-wide WMP

Examine data and re-evaluate Environmental Monitoring program as part of 5-year revision of plan

Re-evaluate program every 5years.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-20

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

TABLE 9-13 District Tasks and Milestones for Environmental Monitoring Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Year 1- 2004
Establish database and data transfer protocols
Meet with GAEPD, TCC, and USGS to develop funding strategy & identify additional locations
Year 1- 2004

Implement District-Wide Water Quality Database

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Update and maintain database as local government and USGS stream and river data from previous year are added

Update and maintain database as USCOE, USGS, and GAEPD lake data from previous year are added Establish new stations, contingent on funding availability.
Continue meetings with GAEPD, TCC, and USGS until stations have been established at all additional locations.

Implement BMP/Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring

Year 2-2005

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

Establish agreement with regional research entities and develop funding mechanisms

Implement 2 BMP Effectiveness pilot Projects

Implement 2 BMP Effectiveness pilot Projects

Evaluate effectiveness of inplace BMP pilot projects

Evaluate effectiveness of inplace BMP pilot projects

Evaluate effectiveness of inplace BMP pilot projects

2009-2030
Assess whether additional pilot projects are needed, revise program
Evaluate effectiveness of inplace BMP pilot projects

TABLE 9-14 Federal Government (USGS) Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Environmental Monitoring Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Year 1- 2004

Year 2-2005

Implement Environmental Monitoring

Year 3-2006

Year 4-2007

Year 5-2008

2009-2030

Implement regional water quality monitoring at all available regional stations and maintain all existing stations

Locate/install/ upgrade additional regional monitoring stations as funding allows

Submit data for

Submit data for

Submit data for

Submit data for

Submit data for

previous year to web- previous year to

previous year to

previous year to

previous year to

based database

web-based database web-based database web-based database web-based database

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-21

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Implementation Costs
Implementation of the District-wide WMP will entail additional costs which local governments, the District, and the State will need to include in future budgets. The majority of these costs would already be required under existing regulatory requirements. Actual costs for implementation of the District-wide WMP will vary significantly among entities within the District due to the variability in existing programs, levels of development and associated watershed impacts, and existing funding programs.

Local Government Costs
Unit costs for each element of the District-wide WMP were estimated through a combination of technical literature reviews and experience with similar program elements. These estimates were refined based on information about actual expenditures obtained by surveying six Metro Atlanta counties with existing programs: Cobb, Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Rockdale (Table 9-15). Each county surveyed currently administers its stormwater program in its own manner and to different extents, so ranges of values are presented. Some elements are conducted with County staff and others are contracted out to other organizations. Projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations contained in this plan.

TABLE 9-15
Annual Costs for Existing Metro Atlanta County Stormwater Programs1 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Existing Stormwater Program Costs

Minimum

Maximum

Per Capita

$ 7.71

$ 46.00

Per Household

$ 22.17

$ 133.80

1Counties surveyed included Cobb, Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, Rockdale.

Annual unit cost estimates for plan implementation are provided in Table 9-16. These unit costs are based on the following assumptions and conditions:
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses were assumed to consist of minor projects conducted in-house under the general operating budget.
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were assumed to consist of relatively large capital projects that are not funded by the general operating budget. Funding is generally requested separately through an annual capital improvements budget.
Environmental Monitoring costs generally include programs associated with NPDES stormwater permitting and watershed protection programs.
Administrative costs were estimated based on the fraction of resources and time staff spend on stormwater-related work.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-22

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Watershed Improvement Plan development includes field assessments of existing conditions of best management practices (BMPs) and streams, pollutant load modeling, cost estimates for retrofits and restoration, and prioritization of projects. Watershed improvement plan implementation costs assume that levels of water quality and quantity controls specified in the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual are met.
Based on this information, two estimates (high and low) were developed for each of the recommended watershed management tasks. Costs were estimated per plan reviews, per acre, or per capita (population).

TABLE 9-16
Annual Unit Cost Summary by Program Element Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Local Stormwater Management Program Activities
Model Ordinances Post-Development SW Mgmt1,3
Future Flood Plain Mapping2, 3
Other SW Code Enforcement1,3 Erosion/Sedimentation Control1,3 O&M Program2,3 CIP Program1,2,3 Watershed/Stormwater Master Planning1,3
Public Education Regional/District2 Local efforts1,3
Environmental Monitoring2,3 Administration1,3 Watershed Improvement Plans Plan Development3 Plan Implementation3
New Residential BMPs4 New Commercial BMPs4
BMP Retrofits5
Stream Restoration5

Unit
per plan review per acre per capita
per plan review per capita per capita per acre
per capita per capita per capita per capita
per acre of watershed
per acre of pond per acre of pond per acre of pond per foot stream

Low Unit Cost High Unit Cost

$ 500 $ 8.00 $ 0.25 $ 50 $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $ 2.25
$ 0.50 $ 0.25 $ 0.75 $ 1.00
$ 4.00
$10,000 $40,000 $35,000
$250

$2,000 $ 16.00 $ 1.50 $4,000 $ 18.00 $ 50.00 $ 12.00
$ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 5.00 $ 6.00
$ 15.00
$15,000 $50,000 $150,000
$350

Sources of Data: 1 Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Surveyed five Metro Atlanta Counties 2 City of Tampa, FL, 15-year cost history; City/County Columbus GA:, 5-year cost history; Billings, MT., 10-year cost history; APWA Manual No. 91 " Water Quality: Urban Runoff Solutions", 1991; MACTEC review of municipal/county clients, and other stormwater and Public Works programs for NPDES Phase II and Program master planning, utility establishment. 3 CH2M HILL, Inc. Surveyed one Metro Atlanta County, other information based on experience with similar projects 4 New BMPs were assumed to be constructed at the same time as new developments. 5 Retrofit and restoration costs include engineering, permitting, construction easements, retrofit construction, and maintenance.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-23

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Using these estimates, local governments can estimate their expected costs depending on their existing population and level of development activity. A detailed evaluation of the counties' existing stormwater programs, local citizens' needs and required levels of service, age of existing infrastructure, and watershed improvement needs will have to be performed to determine the actual costs for each entity.

District Costs
The annual estimated costs for the District responsibilities are summarized in Table 9-17. These costs include:
Continued administration and coordination of District activities
Development and maintenance of the water quality monitoring database
Training on the water quality monitoring program, site design and BMP implementation, and the watershed protection tool
Coordination and development of BMP effectiveness and watershed improvement studies
Development and coordination of the education and public awareness activities
As discussed in Section 7, costs for the education and public awareness campaign will be highest in the first year and will decrease in subsequent years. The cost estimate in Table 9-17 is for the first year. In subsequent years this line item could decrease by as much as $500,000.

TABLE 9-17
Estimated Annual District Costs for Implementation of District-Wide WMP Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Program Element District Program Administration
Training Sessions Education and Public Awareness

Description

Estimated Costs

Includes portions of a Principal Planner, Public Involvement Planner II, Stormwater Education Coordinator, Chief of Environmental Planning, and Administrative Assistant; and a Stormwater Engineer, and Senior Planner (database).

Salaries
Fringe and Overhead
Misc. Operating Expenses
Sub-Total
Includes training sessions on application of the watershed management requirements, including design and implementation of BMPs, environmental monitoring and data transfer.

$250,000 $350,000 $50,000 $650,000 $200,000

Includes the media campaign, brochures, and related education materials
Total Estimated Annual Costs

$2,085,800 $2,935,800

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-24

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

State of Georgia Costs
GAEPD's involvement in the TMDL program is currently limited to (1) periodically revising the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters and (2) incorporating TMDL implementation, where appropriate and supported by regulations, in issuance of NPDES wastewater and stormwater permits. GAEPD anticipates these activities will be accomplished with existing staff, and that no additional funding will be required.
In addition, GAEPD's TMDL Implementation Program staff will continue to work with the RDCs, local governments, and stakeholders by providing assistance in implementation of TMDL plans. This assistance is currently limited to (1) assisting RDCs and other qualified entities in obtaining grants from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop TMDL implementation plans, (2) helping coordinate TMDL-related activities among the RDCs, local governments, and stakeholders, and (3) assisting RDCs, local governments, and stakeholders in development of public education programs related to the TMDL process. Implementing TMDLs at the local level, with GAEPD's assistance as described above, is more efficient and cost-effective than placing the entire burden of TMDL implementation on GAEPD alone. Therefore, no additional costs have been estimated for GAEPD's role in TMDL implementation with the District.
Many of the TCC and BAC members participating in the development of the WMP have indicated that additional funding is needed to ensure that GAEPD has adequate staff to review and enforce existing regulations. However, GAEPD was not able to estimate the number of staff and associated additional funding that would be needed to address these concerns.
The GDOT will need to evaluate the costs associated with changing their design criteria (to include post-construction stormwater controls) for new highways. An increase in design and construction costs can be expected. The District and GAEPD will coordinate with GDOT during the District-wide WMP review to develop an estimate of the potential cost implications for new highway design and construction.
Implementation Funding
Successful implementation of the District-wide WMP hinges on the ability to fund the recommended activities. All local governments should develop a stable funding mechanism that will provide for complete implementation of the District-wide WMP. Local stormwater management program activities will primarily be implemented by local governments and may be most efficiently funded and administered through local stormwater utilities. A variety of funding options for District-wide WMP implementation were reviewed and a stormwater utility structure was the preferred approach, primarily because it provides a dedicated funding source for stormwater program implementation.
Two major types of stormwater utilities have proven successful: regional and local. A regional utility structure may facilitate distribution of cost responsibilities over a broad population and, therefore, reduce the burden on already-developed areas. Local utility funding of watershed retrofit and restoration may facilitate targeted program efforts and

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-25

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
assign revenue responsibility directly to contributing areas of concern. Under either financing structure, long-term financial planning and effective re-development planning can be used to manage the impacts on local governments and their rate-payers.
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities -Local Government Responsibilities
For the majority of watersheds in the District, implementation of the local stormwater management program activities identified in Table 9-1 will require supplemental funding. These tasks include compliance with stormwater management requirements already in effect under NPDES permits and a range of administrative and regulatory measures.
In Georgia, general revenues from property taxes are typically the main funding source for local stormwater management activities. However, the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual identifies a number of alternative funding methods for stormwater management programs, including the sale of bonds, development impact fees, the formation of local improvement districts, and the creation of stormwater user fee systems (ARC, 2001). In a given area, one method may be preferred because of its potential to generate revenue, its overall suitability, or its public acceptance. These alternative funding approaches are discussed below:
1. General Fund General appropriations are the traditional way to fund most government programs and services. The principal advantage of this approach is that it represents a stable funding source from local taxes. The disadvantage is that stormwater activities must compete with other local programs for limited funds.
2. General Obligation Bonds Debt financing of capital and O&M costs can be accomplished by issuing general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or a combination of the two. This approach would require voter approval in a referendum and would be subject to local administrative policy regarding debt ceilings. Typically, stormwater project debt has been financed through issuance of 15-year term bonds.
3. Development Impact Fees Under this approach, developers of new projects are assessed a development impact fee within a proposed watershed system service area. The assessment is determined not by the benefits received but by the impacts requiring new facilities and/or increased service levels. Development impact fees may be assessed as a permit or plan review fee. These are generally one-time fees with revenues used specifically to finance new stormwater facilities or other system components. Although these fees are paid by developers, this type of funding typically is passed on to the property owner through higher costs.
4. Special Assessments/Tax Districts This approach is best suited for situations where a specific area directly benefits from capital improvements, land acquisition, special studies, and/or extraordinary maintenance of stormwater systems. It establishes a "user pays" approach where only those who benefit from the systems pay for them. Special districts function as quasi-municipal corporations created by law, with several funding options available: special taxes on property, development

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-26

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
fees, user fees, and debt financing. Creation of special assessment districts requires voter approval.
5. User Fees / Stormwater Utilities This approach provides a stable and dedicated revenue source for stormwater management. User fees are an alternative to increased taxes or impact fees for the support of local program O&M. User fees also may be used to fund other stormwater program activities. In a stormwater user fee system, stormwater infrastructure and programs are considered a public service or utility similar to wastewater and water programs that are funded on a similar basis. Stormwater fees are assessed on users of the system based on average conditions for groups of customers. Typically, fees are based on some measure of a property's impervious area, with rates assessed on equivalent dwelling unit or unit area.
Operation of a stormwater utility is similar to that of water or sewer districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund. Stormwater utilities have existed for a number of years in several states, but are relatively new to Georgia. A stormwater utility can provide a vehicle for consolidating and coordinating activities and responsibilities; generating funding that is adequate, stable, equitable, and dedicated; and developing programs that are comprehensive, cohesive, and consistent
With all of these alternatives, local government retains full control over both the mechanisms for securing additional funding and the uses of proceeds (within the general boundaries of compliance with the District-wide WMP). Accordingly, the organizational implications are largely restricted to ensuring financial stewardship of funds generated through the above-listed mechanisms and providing for an effective stormwater management program. Local governments will need to assess funding requirements and establish a stable funding source to enforce ordinances and implement the District-wide WMP.
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities District Responsibilities
The District-wide WMP will require implementation of a number of additional local stormwater management program activities that may be most cost-effectively administered and coordinated on a District basis. These tasks could include updating Model Ordinances, distributing guidance on new laws and regulations, and conducting education and public awareness efforts. From a practical perspective, a comprehensive and consistent water quality monitoring program will also require District administration. These District-wide local stormwater management program activities may be funded under several mechanisms (including the establishment of a separate District stormwater fee).

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-27

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
Resources for Land Use Management and Planning
The many challenges facing local governments in Georgia have prompted the creation of a variety of initiatives to promote greenspace preservation, alternative development patterns, and other innovative land use practices. This section describes some of the resources available to facilitate land use planning in the District.
State of Georgia Greenspace Program. As discussed in Section 5, every county in the District participates in the Georgia Greenspace Program. This program is an excellent resource for planning the acquisition of land for water quality protection at the local level. Greenspace Program involvement may be used for obtaining lands for buffers and other critical areas to protect local waters. The Georgia General Assembly created the Georgia Greenspace Program during the 2000 legislative session by enacting Senate Bill (SB) 399 (codified as Official Code of Georgia, Annotated [O.C.G.A.] Sec. 36-22-1 et seq.). The program is administered by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) and a five-member Georgia Greenspace Commission, which review and approve community greenspace programs submitted by eligible counties. All of the entities within the District are eligible to qualify for the 2003 program monies but must submit revised or new program documentation.
The program promotes the voluntary adoption of policies and rules that enable participants to preserve at least 20 percent of the county's land area as connected and open greenspace, which can be used for informal recreation and natural resource protection. The permanent protection of such lands enhances a community's quality of life and its economic competitiveness. It should therefore be considered part of the necessary infrastructure for a community's development, as are roads, water supply, and wastewater management. As such, the program provides a mechanism for local governments to incorporate greenspace into their long-term planning for development.
State of Georgia Quality Growth Grant Program. Until recently, the State of Georgia has not provided many incentives to encourage implementation of quality growth best practices that have been very successful in other parts of the country. However, on October 1st,2002, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) launched the Quality Growth Grant Program. This $250,000 grant program is tailored to fund implementation of quality growth activities by local governments across the state.
All Georgia municipalities, counties, and consolidated governments are eligible to apply for Quality Growth Grants. There will be two funding rounds each year, with annual application deadlines of May 15 and November 15. Grants may be requested for any amount between $5,000 and $40,000, but a project must be particularly innovative to be funded above $25,000. Recipient governments are expected to match the grant amount with cash and in-kind services.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-28

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
The following are examples of the types of activities that are eligible for assistance:
Projects directly promoting growth management concepts, infill housing, brownfield redevelopment, or similar projects that discourage urban sprawl.
Preparation of local ordinances, regulations, or inter-governmental agreements promoting growth preparedness, sustainable development, and other quality growth strategies.
Public education on quality growth topics.
Programs to preserve community heritage, sense of place, and regional identity.
Alternative/multi-modal transportation facilities.
Preservation of critical environmental resources, wildlife habitat, prime farmland, or sensitive ecosystems.
ARC Livable Communities Program. To foster greater livability in these activity and employment centers in the District, the ARC developed the Livable Centers Initiative (LCI). LCI provides seed money to communities that are working to enhance livability and mobility for their residents. In May of 1999, ARC adopted policies in the 25-year Regional Transportation Plan that provide $1 million per year for 5 years for LCI planning grants to regional communities. ARC also has $350 million available for implementation of the more innovative ideas generated from these plans.
Although LCI studies show an impressive range of ideas and ways to achieve livability, all demonstrate the fundamental concepts of:
Connecting homes, shops, and offices Enhanced streetscaping and sidewalks Emphasizing the pedestrian Improving access to transit and other transportation options Expanding housing options
The LCI Study Implementation program was established in 2003 to provide limited financial assistance to help communities that have completed an LCI study implement their plan. A total of 16 applications requesting $378,500 from an available $83,000 were received by the ARC. Five proposals were selected to cover the costs of preliminary market analysis, development of a commercial overlay district, and additional housing studies.
Restoration and Retrofit Local Responsibilities
The more acute funding challenges are for the 20 percent of the District's 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds that may require some degree of restoration and retrofit to achieve water quality improvements. While local jurisdictions may draw from the same funding sources, financing these improvements will likely require longrange financial planning.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-29

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
In some cases, debt financing may be an attractive mechanism to distribute costs over time. Additionally, in watersheds where retrofit or restoration improvements will cross jurisdictional boundaries, local governments may elect to share project financing. These local restoration projects may be funded through multiple sources including: stormwater utilities, grants, mitigation banks, or other federal funding such as the Section 206 program under the Water Resource Development Act. In most cases, local governments will need to utilize a combination of these funding options over time to implement the recommendations for watershed improvement.
Restoration and Retrofit District Responsibilities
In addition to local stormwater management program activities, the District will also likely need to assume responsibility for limited retrofit and restoration activities. These requirements will largely be confined to research and evaluation efforts through demonstration projects. As with funding of local stormwater management program activities , funding for these activities would be coordinated with the District Board. A review of funding needs for these demonstration projects will be completed with support and direction from the TCC.
Stormwater Utility Development
With new or expanded responsibilities, Cities and Counties face growing costs to provide traditional services and additional costs related to new services. Traditional funding sources, such as general fund allocations, Federal and State grants, and special purpose sales taxes cannot keep up with the new funding demands. Increasingly, Cities and Counties are turning to Stormwater Utility Fees to provide consistent and stable funding for municipal stormwater services. For example, over 100 cities and counties in Florida have implemented stormwater utility programs to fund their enhanced services. In Georgia, three communities, Griffin, City of Decatur, and Columbia County, have implemented stormwater utility fees. DeKalb County and City of Conyers have adopted stormwater utility ordinances and are moving forward with implementation of their initial customer billings.
A stormwater utility user fee system is the most appropriate source of new revenue for the following reasons:
Equity Stormwater fees are based on planned stormwater management program expenditures; and fees are calculated using billing determinants related to customers' stormwater contributions to the local government's stormwater conveyance system.
Dedication -- As a utility, all revenue collected under the stormwater user fee system will be allocated directly to stormwater programs. An annual audit and financial assessment will ensure that fees continue to be related to actual costs incurred, and that expenditures are aligned to the mission of the utility.
Continuity The stormwater utility user fee system will ensure that funding for future years will be in place for the local government to address its current and

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-30

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

future stormwater management challenges. Stormwater utility programs have proven effective at meeting the funding needs for stormwater management throughout the United States and in Georgia.
Legality - When based on a rigorous utility rate study and detailed evaluation of billing determinants, stormwater utility user fees have withstood legal challenges in many cities and counties. The State of Georgia, through the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) recognizes the authority and duty of local governments to operate the stormwater system as a utility and allows for the collection of fees from customers who use that system.
Under a stormwater utility program, property owners pay a stormwater fee based on the changes they have made to the character (volume, rate, and pollutant content) of stormwater that runs off their property. Each customer pays a fee in proportion to the relative burden that the customer places on the stormwater system. Most stormwater utility fees are based on the amount of impervious ground cover and typical household fees range from $3 to 5 per month. Businesses would pay proportionately more based on their relative size and/or amount of impervious cover. While the structure of individual programs will vary, the elements of three existing stormwater utility programs in Georgia are summarized in Table 9-18.

TABLE 9-18
Elements of Existing Georgia Stormwater Utilities Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Griffin

Decatur

Columbia County

Implementation Date Service Area
Typical Residential Fee Billing System
Credits Offered
Annual Revenue

1998 City Limits
$2.95/month City Utilities
For detention; water quality to be added soon $1.2 million

June 2000 City Limits
$5/month User Fee on annual City tax statement For detention
$0.8 million

October 2000 Developed, eastern part of the County $3/month Separate quarterly billings
For detention
$1.2 million

DeKalb County January 2004 Entire County, excluding Decatur and Atlanta
$4 per month User Fee on annual tax statement
For detention and water quality
>$10 million

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-31

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan

Critical Issues
As the stormwater management program transitions from a general service supported by City or County General Fund tax revenues to a functional utility supported by user fees, the governing body must address these critical issues:
Development of a compelling argument for the need for the stormwater service, including health and safety issues, regulatory requirements, and community quality of life.
Execution of inter-jurisdictional agreements where Cities, Counties, or Authorities have NPDES permit compliance requirements or other reasons to provide stormwater service across jurisdictional boundaries. These agreements document the roles and responsibilities of each entity within that service area.
Documentation of the costs associated with providing the level of service, including specific plans for revenue allocation to maintain and repair capital projects.
Accountability concerning how stormwater revenues will be spent and how expenditures will be prioritized.
A firm legal basis for the stormwater fee structure that relates the fee imposed on each property to the direct burden that property places on the stormwater system.
A sound education and public awareness program to develop community understanding and support needed to empower elected officials to implement the program.
Development of a customer interface to manage the data associated with the individual fees and to facilitate responses to customer queries.
Under a stormwater utility, stormwater infrastructure and programs are considered a public service or utility similar to wastewater and water programs that are funded on a similar basis. Stormwater fees are assessed on users of the system based on average conditions for groups of customers. Typically, fees are based on some measure of a property's impervious area, with rates assessed on equivalent dwelling unit or unit area. Implementation of a stormwater utility fee will require that local governments establish an ordinance giving them the authority to collect the new services fee. Appendix E provides the DeKalb County ordinance as an example for other local governments in the District should they decide to pursue implementing a utility.
District Role in Stormwater Utilities
Regional consistency is an important element of stormwater utility development. The District has attempted to provide consistency in the approach Cities and Counties will take to address water, wastewater, and watershed protection issues. Similarly, the District could be helpful in stormwater utility implementation by taking the following actions:
Define consistent levels of service, so equitable service is provided in all parts of the District.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-32

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
Develop guidelines for enforceable inter-jurisdictional agreements that define the roles, responsibilities, and financial stakes various entities will have in a successful stormwater management program.
Develop guidelines, Model Ordinances, and other templates for consistent implementation of stormwater utility structures.
Develop supporting databases. Establish operating policies.
Typical Implementation Steps
Implementation of a stormwater utility program typically includes two phases:
Phase 1 Funding Study
Define the services to be provided by the utility, including operations, management, and capital projects.
Evaluate organizational and management needs. Estimate the costs of providing these services. Balance the projected program services and costs with the revenue estimated from a
reasonable fee. Identify policy issues and develop options and recommendations for key decisions. Begin a public education program to educate citizens, businesses, and elected
officials on the need for the program and the program characteristics. Evaluate billing and collection options for the fee. Evaluate the available information for developing a customer database and
calculating stormwater fees. Develop an implementation strategy. A Phase 1 study typically takes 6 to 12 months and includes a Phase 1 summary report that provides: Anticipated costs of the stormwater program. Planned rate structure for calculating fees. Implementation strategy to develop the initial billing data and manage the billing
and collections. Financial plan comparing revenue and expenditures over the initial years.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-33

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 9: Implementation Plan
Phase 2 Implementation
Complete cost-of-service analysis. Develop necessary ordinance. Develop stormwater utility customer database. Populate database with stormwater class of each customer and the fee to be
imposed. Continue public education program. Finalize policies on exemptions, credits, appeals, and other operating factors. Perform strategic financial planning, including a cash flow analysis. Implement a customer service program to manage inquiries or challenges about fees. Implement billing and collection system. Develop data management protocols for updates and revisions to the customer
database. Phase 2 implementation can take 1 to 2 years. At the conclusion of Phase 2, a community is prepared to implement the stormwater utility and offer an enhanced level of service.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

9-34

SEPTEMBER 2003

SECTION 10
Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

This section summarizes the evaluation of the District-wide Watershed Management Plan (WMP) recommendations for meeting the overall goals for water quality improvement. The BASINS water quality model developed for the District was used to evaluate future water quality conditions and pollutant loads. In addition, the District-wide WMP recommendations were compared to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) Planning Standards and the District Policy Goals.
The evaluation of future water quality conditions and pollutant loads was based on implementation of all the components of the District-wide WMP, as well as the scenarios from the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a) and the Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (JJG, 2003b) in 2030. Specific components and assumptions in the analysis included:
For the watershed management strategies:
Local Stormwater Management Program Activities The modeling analysis assumed that all new development and redevelopment projects will implement post-development stormwater management to meet the goal of 80 percent total suspended solids (TSS) reduction and the hydrologic response of an effective impervious area (EIA) of 10 percent on these sites.
Watershed Improvement Strategies The modeling analysis assumed that significantly impacted watersheds (with EIA greater than 10 percent) will implement watershed retrofit and restoration measures in problem areas. This would also result in a 50 percent TSS reduction.
For Point Sources, loads generated by the final scenario in the District Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (JJG, 2003a) were applied in the District water quality model. The facilities and associated loads by 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) are summarized in Appendix G.
For Water Supply, the withdrawals from the final scenario in the District Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (JJG, 2003b) were applied in the model.
For combined sewer overflows (CSOs), loads generated by the City of Atlanta's CSO remedial measures study, which consisted of partially separating the combined sewer service area, were applied in the District model.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

10-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness
District-Wide Results
Evaluation of Hydrologic Conditions
As noted previously in this document, one of the major goals of the District-wide WMP is to implement stormwater controls that mimic the watershed response of an EIA of 10 percent in the future to maintain water quality, reduce hydrologic impacts, and maintain biotic integrity. Figure 10-1 illustrates the predicted changes in imperviousness between existing conditions, future conditions without the implementation of additional watershed management measures (i.e., the District-wide WMP recommendations), and future conditions with implementation of such measures.
Implementation of the local stormwater management program activities and watershed improvement strategies would significantly reduce the number of watersheds exceeding 10 percent EIA in the future. Only 9 of the 259 12-digit HUCs would exceed 10 percent EIA in the future with additional watershed management measures, whereas without such measures, a total of 41 HUCs would exceed 10 percent EIA. This is a 78 percent reduction in highly impervious watersheds through implementation of the District-wide WMP recommendations. Furthermore, the plan would result in a 52 percent reduction in the number of existing highly impervious watersheds, primarily through the watershed improvement strategies.
It should be noted that much of the reduction in EIA in the District would be achieved through direct watershed restoration or as redevelopment occurs and post-development stormwater controls are implemented. Implementation of the strategies for new development, to reduce EIA and associated stormwater problems, would help assure that continued growth within the District does not result in EIA exceeding the 10 percent goal.
Total Suspended Solids
TSS is a good indicator of total nonpoint source pollutant loadings, as many of the key pollutants of concern (i.e., nutrients and metals) are directly related to TSS loadings. Figure 10-2 illustrates the estimated TSS loadings under existing conditions, future conditions without additional watershed management measures, and future conditions with such measures.
The estimates of TSS loadings with the recommended management measures would result in only 10 12-digit HUCs exceeding 700 lbs/ac/yr as opposed to 122 HUCs without such management measures. This is a 90 percent reduction in the number of HUCs with TSS loads greater than 700 lbs/ac/yr from future conditions without the recommended watershed management measures. Most importantly, the District average TSS loading rate would be reduced from 518 lbs/ac/yr under existing conditions and 676 lb/ac/yr in the future without additional watershed management measures to 406 lbs/ac/year with implementation of such measures. This results in an overall 40 percent District-wide reduction in TSS loadings between future conditions without additional watershed management measures and conditions with such measures in place. It should be noted that the primary source of TSS loadings is nonpoint source

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

10-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Existing Conditions

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Future Without Management

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\task14-wmpmultimaps.apr, April 22, 2003, HDYKE

Management Plan

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Legend Percent Impervious
0-10% 10-15% 15-20% > 20%
10 0 10 20 Miles
N

Figure 10-1 Comparison of Impervious Area Distribution under Existing Conditions, Future without Management, and with Implementation of the District-wide WMP Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Existing Conditions

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Future Without Management

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Bartow

Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\task14-wmpmultimaps.apr, April 18, 2003, HDYKE

Management Plan

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Legend Sediment Load (lb/ac/yr)
< 300 300 - 425 425 - 550 550 - 700 > 700
10 0 10 20 Miles
N

Figure 10-2 Comparison of TSS Distribution under Existing Conditions, Future without
Management, and with Implementation of the District-wide WMP Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

runoff and that point sources do not contribute a significant sediment load within the District due the generally high levels of wastewater treatment.
Total Phosphorus
Total phosphorus (TP) is one of the primary nutrients of concern within the District due to the potential for eutrophication of downstream lakes. Figure 10-3 provides a summary of the estimated TP loads for existing conditions, future conditions without additional watershed management measures, and future conditions with such measures in place.
Under existing conditions, the estimated TP load is 0.6 lbs/ac/yr and would increase in the future without additional watershed management measures to 0.85 lbs/ac/yr. With implementation of such measures, including the recommended wastewater treatment levels, the future TP load would be 0.5 lbs/ac/yr, which is a 40 percent reduction compared to future conditions without additional watershed management measures. The District-wide WMP recommendations would result in a 25 percent reduction from nonpoint source contributions compared to future conditions without additional management measures. Due to the recommended improvements in wastewater treatment levels within the District, implementation of the wastewater management plan would lead to more than an 85 percent reduction in TP loads from point sources in five basins (Oconee, Ocmulgee, Flint, Coosa, and Oostanaula) and no change in loadings in three basins (Upper Chattahoochee, Coosawattee, and Tallapoosa). However, there would be a 12 percent increase in the Lower Metro Chattahoohee reach, primarily due growth in this portion of the District. The level of growth would lead to greater increases in TP loading, but updated or new treatment facilities (Douglas South Central and new West Coweta Wastewater Treatment Plants [WWTPs]) will limit the projected increase.
Basin-Specific Results
For each of the six major basins in the District, three conditions were examined in the modeling analysis:
Existing conditions
Future conditions without implementation of the additional measures described in the watershed, wastewater, and water supply management plans
Future conditions with the additional measures described in the watershed, wastewater, and water supply management plans
For conciseness, in the following discussion the terms "without future management" and "with future management" are used to describe the second and third bullet items, respectively, above. Detailed results by 10-digit HUC are presented in Appendix B.
Upper Metro Chattahoochee Reach
The modeling results are summarized in Figure 10-4. More detailed results for each 10-digit HUC within the Upper Chattahoochee reach are provided in Appendix B.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

10-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

Existing Conditions

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin

Bartow

Coosa Basin

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Allatoona Lake

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Future Without Management

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Paulding

Cobb

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb

Gwinnett

Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Oconee Basin
Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

[BOOMER] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\task14-wmpmultimaps.apr, April 22, 2003, HDYKE

Management Plan

Oostanaula Subbasin
Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin
Allatoona Lake

Etowah Subbasin Cherokee

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin
Hall

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

Jackson Lake

West Point Lake

Legend Phosphorus Load (lb/ac/yr)
< 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 5.0 > 5.0
10 0 10 20 Miles
N

Figure 10-3 Comparison of TP Distribution under Existing Conditions, Future without
Management, and with Implementation of the District-wide WMP Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

EIA (%)

TSS (lbs/ac/yr)

14.0%

Effective Impervious Area

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

Percent of Total (%)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Urban

Land Use Distribution

Existing Residential

Future

Agriculture

Forest

Total Suspendid Solids

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing Conditions

Total Phosphorus
Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

TP (lbs/ac/yr)

FIGURE 10-4 Modeling Results Summary for Upper Metro Chattahoochee Reach Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

Under current conditions, the forested and agricultural land uses comprise more than 50 percent of this watershed. In 2030, these land uses would be reduced to 30 percent of the area. This would result in a significant increase in impervious area without future management. However, with future management, including implementation of the postdevelopment stormwater controls and watershed improvement strategies in the plan, the total EIA would be reduced to less than the existing conditions.
TSS, without future management, would increase significantly. However, with future management, TSS loading rates would be lower than currently estimated within this watershed. This reduction can be directly attributed to the recommended best management practices (BMPs) and watershed restoration activities. The majority of the TSS loadings are associated with nonpoint source runoff, with minimal contributions from point sources due to enhanced treatment technology.
Similar observations can be made for TP loadings. Without future management, including implementation of the wastewater management plan, the TP loading rate would increase by approximately 15 percent. However, with future management, the TP loading rate would be reduced by approximately 14 percent compared to existing conditions. Nonpoint source runoff would still contribute the majority of the TP loadings within this watershed in the future. The effects of the new wastewater treatment technologies (with the higher levels of nutrient removals) would result in an 18 percent point source contribution to the overall TP loads in the future. This is lower than the 25 percent contribution for point sources under existing conditions.
In summary, the combination of watershed and wastewater management activities would result in a significant reduction (approximately 18 percent from existing conditions) in the total TP loadings in the future.
Lower Metro Chattahoochee Reach
The modeling results are summarized in Figure 10-5. More detailed results for each 10-digit HUC within the Lower Metro Chattahoochee reach are provided in Appendix B.
In the future, land use will shift significantly from forested and agricultural (about 70 percent under existing conditions to less than 40 percent) to residential land uses. This change would result in a 75 percent in EIA without future management. With such management, however, EIA would be only 5 percent (an increase of only 16 percent), which is well within the target of less than 10 percent EIA required to maintain a healthy watershed.
This trend is mirrored in the TSS loadings for this watershed, with an increase in loading rate of 36 percent without future management. However, with future management, there would be a decrease from existing conditions of 17 percent. This reduction would be attributable to application of stormwater controls on new development as it occurs.
For TP, the loading rate would increase (13 percent) without future management. However, with such management, the TP loadings would actually decrease. Again, this reduction in TP loadings, despite increases in development and wastewater needs, would be due to the application of BMPs and the additional nutrient removals in the upgraded treatment facilities.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

10-8

SEPTEMBER 2003

EIA (%)

TSS (lbs/ac/yr)

Effective Impervious Area
9.0%

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

Percent of Total (%)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Urban

Land Use Distribution

Existing Residential

Future

Agriculture

Forest

Total Suspendid Solids

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing Conditions

Total Phosphorus
Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

TP (lbs/ac/yr)

FIGURE 10-5 Modeling Results Summary for Lower Metro Chattahoochee Reach Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness
Etowah Subbasin
The modeling results are summarized in Figure 10-6. More detailed results for each 10-digit HUC within the Etowah subbasin are provided in Appendix B.
This subbasin is currently only about 20 percent developed and, therefore, the EIA is relatively low (about 3 percent). However, the land use will shift from about 60 percent open space to only about 45 percent, resulting in an increase in EIA of 86 percent without future management. This increase in EIA would be reduced to only a 36 percent increase with future management. While this is still a significant increase, the total EIA for the watershed would remain relatively low and well within the target of 10 percent.
TSS loadings would increase by 40 percent without future management; however, with future management, there would be a 13 percent decrease from existing conditions. As noted for the other basins, nonpoint source contributions make up most of the TSS loadings.
Similar trends are estimated for TP, i.e., a 47 percent increase in loadings without future management and a 28 percent decrease with future management. With implementation of the higher wastewater treatment controls and other recommendations of the Districtwide plans, point sources would contribute only 10 percent of the total TP loads in the future compared to about 40 percent without the plans.
Flint Basin
The modeling results are summarized in Figure 10-7. More detailed results for each 10-digit HUC within the Flint basin are provided in Appendix B.
The trends in land use changes within the Flint basin are similar to those predicted for the other basins, with decreases in open space (forested and agricultural land uses) and significant increases in residential land use. With management, future impervious levels would be maintained at about 10 percent overall. However, there are portions of this basin, particularly in the headwaters below Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, that are highly impervious and would require significant retrofit to meet the watershed management goals.
Loadings for TSS would increase about 30 percent without future management; however, the TSS loadings would decrease by 12 percent with future management. Significant watershed improvement (retrofit and restoration) would be required to meet this goal, especially in the more developed headwaters.
Total phosphorus loadings would increase approximately 70 percent without future management. Much of the reduction in total loadings would result from the improved treatment technologies.
Ocmulgee Basin
The modeling results are summarized in Figure 10-8. More detailed results for each 10-digit HUC within the Ocmulgee basin are provided in Appendix B.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-10

EIA (%)

TSS (lbs/ac/yr)

Effective Impervious Area
6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

Percent of Total (%)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Urban

Land Use Distribution

Existing Residential

Future

Agriculture

Forest

Total Suspendid Solids

Point Source Non Point Source

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing Conditions

Total Phosphorus
Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

TP (lbs/ac/yr)

FIGURE 10-6 Modeling Results Summary for Etowah Subbasin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

EIA (%)

TSS (lbs/ac/yr)

12.0%

Effective Impervious Area

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

Percent of Total (%)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Urban

Land Use Distribution

Existing Residential

Future

Agriculture

Forest

Total Suspendid Solids

Point Source Non Point Source

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing Conditions

Total Phosphorus
Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

TP (lbs/ac/yr)

FIGURE 10-7 Modeling Results Summary for Flint Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

EIA (%)

TSS (lbs/ac/yr)

12.0%

Effective Impervious Area

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

Percent of Total (%)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Urban

Land Use Distribution

Existing Residential

Future

Agriculture

Forest

Total Suspendid Solids

Point Source Non Point Source

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Existing Conditions

Total Phosphorus
Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

TP (lbs/ac/yr)

FIGURE 10-8 Modeling Results Summary for Ocmulgee Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness
The headwaters of the Ocmulgee (the Yellow River and South River in particular) are relatively highly developed (in portions of DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties). However, there is still significant land available for development, with approximately 45 percent of the land in forested and agricultural land uses. This could decrease to less than 35 percent in the future.
The TSS loadings in this basin would increase 25 percent without future management, but would decrease by 28 percent with future management. Much of this decrease would be associated with the watershed improvement plans for the South River watershed.
Due to the anticipated growth and increases in wastewater needs in this basin, the TP loading rates would increase by approximately 80 percent without future management.
With such management, on the other hand, TP loadings would decrease by 18 percent. Much of this reduction would come from improvements in nutrient removals at the treatment facilities.
Oconee Basin
The modeling results are summarized in Figure 10-9. More detailed results for each 10-digit HUC within the Oconee basin are provided in Appendix B.
Most of the upper Oconee basin within the District is relatively undeveloped, i.e., approximately 90 percent of the existing land use is agricultural and forested. This land use is likely to decrease to about 65 percent of the basin in the future, primarily due to increases in residential land use. Without future management, the amount of EIA would more than double from 1.6 to 4.6 percent basin-wide. Future management, however, would result in an increase of EIA to only 3 percent.
TSS loadings would increase by 35 percent without future management but would decrease by 16 percent with future management. Most of the reduction would be provided by implementation of BMPs as new development is constructed.
The rate of TP loading would also increase significantly, an estimated 33 percent increase over existing conditions, without future management. However, with future management, TP loadings would decrease by 7 percent. Similar to other basins, the wastewater management plan and the associated higher nutrient removals would provide much of the TP loading reductions.
Compliance with SB 130 Establishing the District
The State legislature included specific requirements in Senate Bill (SB) 130 for each of the three plans (watershed management, wastewater, and water supply/conservation). For the District-wide WMP, the key requirements and elements that address these requirements are summarized in Table 10-1. As the table shows, the District-wide WMP addresses each of the requirements outlined in the law.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-14

EIA (%)

TSS (lbs/ac/yr)

Effective Impervious Area
5.0%

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0% Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

Percent of Total (%)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Urban

Land Use Distribution

Existing Residential

Future

Agriculture

Forest

Total Suspendid Solids

Point Source Non Point Source

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Existing Conditions

Future without Management

Future Management Plan

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Existing Conditions

Total Phosphorus
Future without Management

Point Source Non Point Source
Future Management Plan

TP (lbs/ac/yr)

FIGURE 10-9 Modeling Results Summary for Upper Oconee Basin Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

TABLE 10-1
Summary of District-Wide WMP Compliance with SB 130 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

SB 130 Requirement Standards and Methodologies for monitoring water quality and organizing an inventory of collected data
Descriptions of current pollutant loads by source where identifiable
Forecasts of potential future pollutant load increases
Identification of streams or bodies of water within the applicable watershed having or requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); provisions for incorporating into implementation plans for TMDLs; and provisions to ensure that watershed plans conform to requirements for implementation plans for streams requiring TMDLs
Establishment of priorities for protecting watershed resources and for obtaining pollutant load reductions or preventing future pollutant load increases; or both, and an explanation of the rationale for such priorities.
Identification of specific effective control programs and strategies including specific regulatory or voluntary actions to meet water quality standards, including any pollutant load reductions mandated by TMDL implementation plans; and identification of specific public or private entities responsible for carrying out such programs, including control programs that may require coordination among multiple jurisdictions.
The model ordinances for effective stormwater management and any recommended additions or modification to such model ordinances to provide additional measures to improve stormwater runoff quality, including without limitation, requirements to retrofit or modify existing developments in order to improve stormwater quality.
Recommended changes to state or local laws, regulations, or ordinances necessary to implement the plans
A timetable for implementation of the necessary elements of the plans for each jurisdiction including description of annual, measurable milestones for determining whether identified measures are being implemented
Estimates of costs and identification of potential sources of funding necessary for implementation of the plans
Education and public awareness measures regarding watershed protection

District-wide WMP Compliance
The Water Quality Monitoring Plan includes the recommendations for standards and methods (Section 8).
Pollutant loads by source are identified in the discussion of existing and future watershed conditions (Section 3 and Appendix B)
Pollutant loads by source are identified in the discussion of existing and future watershed conditions (Section 3 and Appendix B)
TMDL-listed streams and waterbodies are summarized in the section on existing and future watershed conditions (Section 3). Recommendations for TMDL strategies and requirements for TMDL implementation are included in watershed management strategies (Section 5) and the implementation plan (Section 9).
Priorities and rationale for watershed management are addressed in the watershed management strategies (Section 5). Appendix A includes a list of priorities by 12-digit HUC.
Specific strategies are included in Section 5 along with the steps for implementation by entity (Section 9). Interjurisdictional cooperation is addressed in the management strategies and the review of new policies, laws, and ordinances (Section 6).
The model ordinances are reviewed in Section 6 along with recommendations for new policies, laws and ordinances.
Watershed retrofits are addressed by the watershed improvement strategies (Section 5).
Recommendations for changes to or new laws, regulations, and ordinances are addressed in Section 6.
The implementation timetable and responsibilities by entity are included in the implementation plan (Section 9).
Estimated costs for implementation of the plan are included in Section 9.
Specific recommendations for education and public awareness measures related to watershed management are included in Section 7.

Establishment of short- and long-term goals to be accomplished by the plan and measures for the assessment of progress in accomplishing such goals

Short- and long-term goals for watershed management are addressed in the implementation plan (Section 9).

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-16

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

Compliance with GAEPD Planning Standards

The GAEPD was required in SB 130 (Official Code of Georgia, Annotated [O.C.G.A.] 12-5-582) to develop planning standards that the District should follow in developing the three plans (watershed, wastewater, and water supply/conservation). These planning standards include the items listed in Table 10-1 and the additional requirements listed in Table 10-2. Elements of the District-wide WMP that achieve compliance with the requirements of the GAEPD planning standards are summarized in Table 10-2. Overall, the recommendations in the District-wide WMP would meet the GAEPD planning standards.

TABLE 10-2
Summary of Compliance with GAEPD Planning Standards Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

GAEPD Planing Standards

District-wide WMP Compliance

The plan shall be in compliance with items 112 of SB130 (O.C.G.A. 12-5-582)

See Table 10-1.

The plan shall, at a minimum, be consistent with all applicable federal and state laws and rules

The key federal law is the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the District-wide WMP will help to maintain water quality and improve watersheds not meeting standards (see below), and meet requirements for MS4 stormwater permitting.

The key state laws and regulations include:

The Georgia Water Quality Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-170) and Rules for Water Quality Control (391-3-6) District-wide WMP will maintain water quality and improve watersheds to meet standards (see below)

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act (O.C.G.A 127-1) and Rules for Erosion and Sedimentation Control (391-3-7) requirements for compliance with erosion and sedimentation control are included (Section 5).

The Georgia Planning Act (O.C.G.A 12-2-8) and Environmental Planning Criteria (391-3-16) recommendation for source water protection (Section 5) address the planning criteria.

The plan shall be implementable. Specific activities should be cost effective as they relate to the identifiable measurable goals. These activities should be practical in design and should be site-specific and effective in the watershed in which they occur. Testing of BMP projects should be included in the implementation schedule.

Recommended management measures meet multiple requirements (TMDLs, source protection, and Phase I & II MS4 requirements), utilize existing BMP technology and design criteria, leverage existing programs for stormwater management, minimize reorganization of existing local government departments, and establish minimum goals to be applied equally across the District.
The long-term monitoring program (Section 8) includes recommendations for BMP testing and monitoring to evaluate effectiveness and to identify more applicable BMPs.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-17

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

TABLE 10-2 (CONTINUED)
Summary of Compliance with GAEPD Planning Standards Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

GAEPD Planing Standards

District-wide WMP Compliance

The plan shall be consistent with or more protective than the Part V Criteria rules developed pursuant to the Comprehensive Planning Act.

The source water protection strategies include the requirement for implementation of the Part V Criteria in all water supply watersheds. The District-wide WMP provides for additional watershed management measures that supplement the Part V Criteria.

The plan shall include an evaluation of all provisions contained in the "Land Development Provisions to Protect Georgia Water Quality", October 1997 and shall incorporate those provisions selected by the District Board.

The land development provisions were evaluated in development of the District-wide WMP (Section 6).

The plan shall be consistent with the water supply/water conservation and the wastewater plans

The District-wide WMP has been coordinated with the other plans. Recommendations in the District-wide WMP will support the wastewater and water supply plans by:

improving stream base flows, through better on-site stormwater retention

significantly reducing nonpoint source pollutant loadings and improving assimilative capacity of District streams (see below)

improving existing impacted stream segments and associated watersheds

providing greater protection of source water watersheds.

The plan shall have a planning horizon of at least twenty years

The District-wide WMP has been developed based on a 30-year planning period. Implementation, including the recommended watershed improvements, will require up to 30 years to accomplish.

The plan shall address the local governments' need for a watershed strategy and will project the overall health of the watershed post development. It will link ordinances, zoning, impervious surface limits, green space, and demonstrate how these actions will protect the overall health of the watershed.

The District-wide WMP provides the common framework for watershed management to be implemented by all local governments within the District (Section 5). Recommendations include requirements for postdevelopment stormwater controls which limit EIA for new development.

Water Quality Standards
The primary concern for implementation of the District-wide WMP is the extent to which the overall program, including the wastewater and water supply plans, will meet water quality standards. Numeric water quality standards exist for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, fecal coliform bacteria, and metals. In addition, GAEPD has developed standards for annual TP loadings to major reservoirs (Allatoona, Lanier, Jackson, and West Point). The evaluation of compliance with water quality standards is focused on the annual TP loadings to the reservoirs, as this nutrient has been identified as one of the

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-18

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness
primary concerns associated with both nonpoint and point source loadings. Furthermore, the evaluation of TP loadings at the downstream tributaries entering these reservoirs provides a District-wide measure of the effectiveness of the District-wide WMP.
The benefits of the District-wide WMP recommendations for compliance with the DO, temperature, fecal coliform, and metals water quality criteria are also briefly discussed below.
Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature
DO levels are primarily influenced by water temperature, organic loadings, and reaeration. The primary recommendations in the District-wide WMP are designed to minimize impervious area and reduce overall pollutant loadings. During warmer months, water flowing over impervious surfaces is often 1012F warmer than water that passes through fields and forests. Higher water temperatures increase the metabolic rates of stream-dwelling plants and animals, so that an organism living in warmer water needs more oxygen than the same species in cold water. Unfortunately, warmer water cannot hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Implementation of the local stormwater management program activities (including post development stormwater controls) will reduce or mitigate the effects of impervious cover and result in decreased stream temperatures, which will improve the DO concentrations in the streams. The recommended stream buffer requirement will also provide additional instream cooling by maintaining tree cover and associated shading. In addition, these stormwater controls will reduce the potential organic pollutants that consume DO. Implementation of the watershed improvement strategies will mitigate the existing elevated levels of impervious cover and DO conditions.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Most of the TMDLs listed for the streams within the District are related to violations of the fecal coliform standard. Whereas GAEPD is moving to an E. coli standard in the future, continued monitoring and compliance with the existing fecal coliform standards during the transition period will be important.
Sources of fecal coliform bacteria vary by land use type and include sewer line leaks, illicit discharges, failing septic tanks, domestic pet wastes, livestock, and wildlife. Watershed management recommendations for public education, septic tank maintenance, stream walks, and illicit discharge monitoring will all reduce the potential for fecal coliform bacteria contamination. In addition, implementation of post-development stormwater controls on new development will also provide additional removals of fecal coliform bacteria from stormwater runoff. Waterfowl management on stormwater ponds will also help to reduce fecal bacteria loadings from wildlife. These watershed management measures, combined with the wastewater management plan recommendations for improved sewer system maintenance, will greatly improve compliance with the bacteria standards.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-19

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness
Metals
Metals such as lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, and mercury are found in stormwater and may contribute to exceedances of the State standards. A limited number of metals violations have been documented in the District (see Section 3). Potential sources of metals in stormwater include leaks, spills, or accidents at commercial and industrial sites, use of household products such as paints, cleaners, or wood preservatives in residential areas, and brake linings, exhaust, and worn tires along transportation corridors. Recommendations for local stormwater management program activities including public education, the post-development stormwater controls, pollution prevention, commercial/industrial inspections, illicit discharge monitoring, and post-construction stormwater controls on new transportation projects will address these potential sources of metals in stormwater runoff. Implementation of the recommended watershed improvement strategies will further reduce the potential for metals associated with runoff from highly developed urban areas. This combination of watershed management measures will greatly improve future compliance with the State standards for metals.
Total Phosphorus
There are a total of 10 locations entirely contained within the District with TP annual standards (Figure 10-10):
Chattahoochee River (above West Point Lake) - at US Route 27 near Franklin
Lake Lanier - Flat Creek on at McEver Road near Gainesville
Lake Jackson - Yellow River at Route 212 near Stewart - South River at Shoal Road near Snapping Shoals - Tussahaw Creek near Jackson - Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge Road near Stewart
Lake Allatoona - Etowah River at Canton - Little River at Route 5 near Woodstock - Noonday Creek at Route 92 near Woodstock - Shoal Creek at Route 108 near Waleska
There are other TP standard locations in the Lake Lanier and Lake Jackson watersheds that could not be evaluated in this study because the entire watersheds are not contained within the District and, therefore, were not included in the water quality model.
The annual TP loads vary significantly depending on the tributary and are summarized in Table 10-3.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-20

Oostanaula Subbasin

Coosawattee Subbasin
Bartow Coosa Basin

Etowah

L

Subbasin

S#

I

S#

Cherokee

Allatoona Lake

J
S#
K S#

Paulding

Cobb

Chattahoochee Basin

Forsyth

Lake Sidney Lanier

Hall
D
S#

Gwinnett

Oconee Basin

[BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, April 18 2003, HDYKE

TaBllaaspionosa

Chattahoochee Basin
Douglas

Fulton

DeKalb
Ocmulgee Basin Rockdale

Walton

A
S# West Point Lake

Coweta

5

0N 5

10 Miles

Clayton

Fayette
Flint Basin

Henry

S#ES#B S# H
FJackson
S# Lake
Legend
District Study Area
S# Annual Phosphorus Load Locations Rivers and Streams County Boundaries
Annual Phosphorus Contributing Areas A - Chattahoochee River at US 27 B - Yellow River at GA 212 D - Flat Creek at McEver Rd E - South River at Island Shoals F - Tussahaw Creek at Fincherville Rd H - Alcovy River at Newton Factory Bridge I - Etowah River at SR 5 / 140 J - Little River at SR 5 K - Noonday Creek at N Rope Mill Rd L - Shoal Creek at Fincher Rd

Figure 10-10 Areas Contributing to Annual Phosphorus Load Limits Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness

TABLE 10-3
Locations with Total Phosphorus Annual Standards within the District Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Location Name
Chattahoochee River at Route 27 at Franklin Flat Creek at McEver Road Near Gainesville Yellow River at Route 212 Near Stewart South R at Island Shoal Road Near Snapping Shoals Tussahaw Creek Near Jackson Alcovy R, Newton Factory Bridge Road Near Stewart Etowah River at Canton Little River at Route 5 Near Woodstock Noonday Creek Route 92 Near Woodstock Shoal Creek at Route 108 Near Waleska

GAEPD Limit (lbs)
1,400,000 14,400
116,000 179,000
7,000 55,000 340,000 42,000 38,000
9,200

The results from the water quality modeling of future conditions applying the watershed management, wastewater, and water supply plans (assumptions described above in this section) were evaluated. The approach used was similar to the one used by GAEPD in development and assessment of the annual TP standards. Results of this evaluation are presented in Figure 10-11.

Total Phosphorus (lbs)

10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1

Future Management Plan GA EPD Limit

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AT US RT 27 AT
FRANKLIN, GA. FLAT CREEK AT MCEVER ROAD NEAR GAINESVILLE, GA. YELLOW RIVER AT ST
RT 212 NEAR STEWART, GA. SOUTH R AT IS SHOAL RD NR SNAPPING SHOALS, GA. TUSSAHAW CREEK NEAR JACKSON, GA. ALCOVY R, NEWTON FACTORY BRDG RD NR STEWART, GA. ETOWAH RIVER AT
CANTON, GA LITTLE RIVER (SR 5) NEAR WOODSTOCK,
GA. NOONDAY CREEK (SR
92) NEAR WOODSTOCK, GA
SHOAL CREEK AT SR108 NEAR
WALESKA, GA.

FIGURE 10-11
Total Phosphorus Lake Discharge Limit Comparison for Future Management Conditions Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-22

Section 10: Evaluation of District-wide Watershed Management Plan Effectiveness
Implementation of the watershed, wastewater, and water supply plans would facilitate compliance with the TP standards at all 10 of the locations within the District. At three of the locations, Flat Creek, Yellow River, and Tussahaw Creek, TP loadings would approach but not exceed the standard in the year 2030. This analysis suggests that in the watersheds above the Chattahoochee River at Route 27, Alcovy River near Stewart, Etowah at Canton, and Shoal Creek near Waleska locations, the TP loadings would be well below the annual standards.
This evaluation, combined with the District-wide assessment of changes in imperviousness, TSS, and TP loadings described earlier in this section, indicates that implementation of the three plans would facilitate compliance with water quality standards and satisfy the overall goals for watershed improvement.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

10-23

References

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), 2000. Atlanta Region NPDES MS4 Phase I Standard Operating Procedures for Stormwater Monitoring 2000.
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 1999. LandPro GIS database. Atlanta Regional Information System.
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2001. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual Volume 1: Stormwater Policy Guidebook.
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D., Snyder and J. B. Stribling. 2000. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, EPA/841-B-99-002.
British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection and CH2M Hill Canada Ltd (BC). 2002. Stormwater Planning: A Guidebook for British Columbia.
Caraco, D., R. Claytor, P. Hinkle, H.Y. Kwon, T. Schueler, C. Swann, S Vysotsky, and J. Zielinski. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicot City, MD.
CH2M HILL, 2001. Watershed Assessment and Management Plan. Watershed Assessment Blalock Reservoir and J.W. Smith Reservoir Watershed. For Clayton County Water Authority.
CH2M HILL, 2002. Watershed Characterization Report. Prepared for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District.
CH2M HILL, JJ & G Inc., Tetra Tech Inc., and R&D Environmental Inc. 2000. Gwinnett County Watershed Assessment and Modeling: Ocmulgee/Oconee Basins Impacts Assessment.
City of Olympia Washington, 1995. City of Olympia Impervious Surface Study.
Davis, W. S., and T. P. Simon. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 1995.
DeKalb County Water & Sewer Division (DCWSD) and CH2M HILL. 2001. South River Watershed Assessment and Management Plan.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

1

SEPTEMBER 2003

References
Edwards T. K. and G. D. Glysson. 1998. Field Methods for Measurement of Fluvial Sediment Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey. Book 3, Applications of Hydraulics.
EPA, 2000. Storm Water Phase II Final Rule, An Overview. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 833-F-00-001.
EPA, 2001. Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) version 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 2002. Source Water Protection: Best Management Practices and Other Measures for Protecting Drinking Water Supplies. US Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Academy.
GAEPD, 1997a. Chattahoochee River Basin Management Plan 1997. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
GAEPD, 1997b. Flint River Basin Management Plan 1997. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
GAEPD, 1998a. Coosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
GAEPD, 1998b. Oconee River Basin Management Plan 1998. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
GAEPD, 1998c. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
GAEPD, 2000. Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish communities in the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Resource division Fisheries Section.
GAEPD, 2002a. Final Georgia 305b/303d list. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division.
GAEPD, 2002b, Guidance on Submitting Water Quality Data for Use by the Georgia Environmental Protections Division in 305(b)/303(d) list Assessments. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division.
GAEPD, 2002c. Standard Operation Procedures Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Water Protection Branch.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA). 2003. Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning (Effective January 1, 2004).
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR), 2000. Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish Communities in the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR), 2002. Draft Standard Operating Procedures for Stream Biological Monitoring.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

2

SEPTEMBER 2003

References
Georgia Geologic Survey (GGS). 1996. Hydrologic Atlas 18 database.
Georgia Planning Association, 2003. http://www.georgiaplanning.org/ planning_zonning_14.htm. Accessed by H. Dyke.
Jordan Jones and Goulding (JJG). 2003a, Draft Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan. Prepared for Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Jordan Jones and Goulding (JJG). 2003b, Draft District Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan. Prepared for Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters, a Method and its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5.
Nichols, David. University of Georgia. Land Development Provisions to Protect Water Quality in Georgia. October 1997.
Paul, M.J. and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System.32:333-365.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, EPA/440/4-89/001.
Schueler, Thomas R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Prot. Tech. 1:100-11.
Schueler, Thomas R.1995. Environmental Land Planning Series: Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
Schueler, Thomas R. and Heather K. Holland, eds. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Article 127, "On Watershed Protection"
Stormwater Manager's Resource Center (SMRC), 2002. Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. www.stormwatercenter.net
Stormwater Manager's Resource Center (SMRC), 2003. Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. www.stormwatercenter.net
Sutherland, R. 1995. Street Sweeper Pick-up Performance. Kurahashi and Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA
TreesAtlanta. Benefits of Trees. http://www.treesatlanta.org/beneftis.html. Accessed by H. Dyke, February 2003
US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 1996. Stormwater Best Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

3

SEPTEMBER 2003

References
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/uubmp2.htm. Accessed by H. Dyke, February 2003. USGS, 2000a. Droughts in Georgia. United States Geological Survey USGS, 2000b. Description of ACT Basin. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/basin10.html. United States Geological Survey. USGS, 2000c. Surface water quality data. www.usgs.gov. United States Geological Survey.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Appendix A Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority

APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Associated County/City

Watershed

Chattahoochee

Hall

Chattahoochee River-Mossy Creek

Hall

Mud Creek

Hall, Clermont, Lula Hall, Gainesville

Chattahoochee River-Flat Creek Lake Lanier-Chattahoochee River

Hall

Wahoo Creek-Lake Lanier

Hall

West Fork Little River

Hall, Clermont Hall, Gainesville

East Fork Little River Lake Lanier-Wahoo Creek

Hall

Chestatee River-Yellow Creek

Hall, Forsyth

Lake Lanier-Chestatee River

Hall

Latham Creek

Forsyth

Taylor Creek

Hall, Forsyth Hall, Gainesville

Lake Lanier-Bolling Bridge Ada Creek

Forsyth, Hall

Twomile Creek

Hall, Gainesville, Oakwood

Flat Creek

Hall, Flowery Branch, Oakwood Flowery Branch

Forsyth

Fourmile Creek

Forsyth

Sixmile Creek

Forsyth Forsyth, Cumming

Young Deer Creek Bald Ridge Creek

Hall, Gwinnett, Buford

Big Creek

Forsyth, Gwinnett, Buford, Sugar

Hill

James Creek

Forsyth, Gwinnett, Suwanee,

Sugar Hill

Level Creek

Gwinnett, Buford, Suwanee

Ivy Creek

Gwinnett, Hall, Buford, Rest

Haven, Suwanee, Sugar Hill

Suwannee Creek

Fulton, Gwinnett, Berkeley Lake,

Duluth

Cauley Creek

Forsyth, Fulton
Fulton, Gwinnett, Roswell, Norcross Cherokee, Forsyth, Cumming

Johns Creek
Crooked Creek Big Creek-Bentley Creek

Forsyth, Fulton, Alpharetta

Big Creek-Bagley Creek

Fulton, Alpharetta, Roswell Fulton, Alpharetta, Roswell

Big Creek-Long Indian Creek Big Creek-Foe Killer Creek

Cobb, Fulton, Roswell

Chattahoochee River-Marsh Creek

Cobb, Fulton, Roswell Cobb, Marietta

Willeo Creek Chattahoochee River-Sope Creek

Cobb, Marietta, Smyrna

Rottenwood Creek

Chattahoochee River-Long Island

Fulton, Cobb, Atlanta

Creek

Cobb, Fulton, Atlanta, Smyrna Chattahoochee River-Interstate 75

DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, Atlanta,

Chamblee, Doraville, Norcross North Fork Peachtree Creek

DeKalb, Fulton, Atlanta, Avondale

Estates, Clarkston, Decatur

Upper South Fork Peachtree Creek

DeKalb, Fulton, Atlanta,

Chamblee, Doraville

Nancy Creek-Peachtree Creek

DeKalb, Fulton, Atlanta

Peachtree Creek

Cobb, Fulton, Smyrna, Atlanta Cobb, Smyrna Fulton, Atlanta, East Point

Chattahoochee River-Proctor Creek Nickajack Creek Utoy Creek

Cobb, Douglas, Fulton, Atlanta Chattahoochee River-Wilson Creek

HUC-12 #
31300010302 31300010303 31300010304 31300010305 31300010401 31300010402 31300010403 31300010404 31300010701 31300010702 31300010703 31300010704 31300010705 31300010801 31300010802 31300010803 31300010804 31300010805 31300010806 31300010807 31300010808 31300010809
31300010901
31300010902 31300010903
31300010904
31300010905 31300010906
31300010907 31300011001 31300011002 31300011003 31300011004 31300011101 31300011102 31300011103 31300011104
31300011105 31300011106
31300011201
31300011202
31300011203 31300011204 31300020101 31300020102 31300020103 31300020104

TMDL Watershed
Present

Source Water Watershed Present

Existing EIA > 10%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL

A-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Associated County/City

Watershed

HUC-12 #

Douglas, Paulding, Villa Rica Paulding, Cobb, Hiram, Dallas

Sweetwater Creek-upperChattahoochee River Mill Creek-Sweetwater Creek

31300020201 31300020202

Cobb, Douglas, Paulding, Austell, Sweetwater Creek-middle-

Douglasville, Lithia Springs

Chattahoochee River

Cobb, Paulding, Austell, Power

Springs, Hiram

Powder Springs Creek

Cobb, Marietta

Noses Creek-upper

31300020203
31300020204 31300020205

Cobb, Austell, Power Springs Cobb, Austell, Marietta Cobb, Douglas, Austell, Douglasville, Lithia Springs

Noses Creek-lower Olley Creek Sweetwater Creek-lowerChattahoochee River

31300020206 31300020207
31300020208

Douglas, Fulton
Clayton, Fulton, College Park, Atlanta, East Point Fulton, Fairburn, Union City

Chattahoochee River-Tuggle Creek 31300020301

Camp Creek-Chattahoochee River Deep Creek

31300020302 31300020303

Douglas, Douglasville

Anneewakee Creek

31300020304

Fulton Douglas, Douglasville

Pea Creek Bear Creek-Chattahoochee River

31300020305 31300020306

Coweta, Fulton, Fairburn, Palmetto Douglas, Villa Rica Douglas, Douglasville

Chattahoochee River-Bear Creek Dog Creek-upper Dog Creek-lower

31300020307 31300020308 31300020309

Douglas

Wolf Creek

31300020310

Coweta, Douglas, Fulton Coweta, Whitesburg

Chattahoochee River-Hurricane Creek 31300020312 Chattahoochee River-Acorn Creek 31300020401

Fulton, Coweta, Palmetto

Cedar Creek-Chattahoochee River 31300020402

Coweta, Newnan

Wahoo Creek-Chattahoochee River 31300020403

Coweta

Chattahoochee River-Pink Creek

31300020408

Coweta, Corinth, Grantville, Moreland Coweta, Newnan Coweta, Newnan

New River-upper Mountain Creek Sandy Creek

31300020501 31300020502 31300020503

Coweta

Caney Creek

31300020504

Coweta, Grantville, Moreland Coweta, Grantville

Yellowjacket Creek-upper
Yellowjacket Creek-middle Totals

31300020701 31300020702

Percent of Total for Chattahoochee Basin

Coosa

Cherokee

Salacoa Creek-Little Creek

31501020601

Bartow, Cherokee

Salacoa Creek-Ninetynine Branch 31501020602

Bartow, Cherokee

Pine Log Creek-upper

31501020701

Bartow

Little Pine Log Creek

31501020702

Bartow

Cedar Creek-Pine Log Creek

31501020703

Bartow Bartow, Adairsville

Pine Log Creek-middle Oothkalooga Creek-upper

31501020704 31501030201

Bartow, Adairsville

Oothkalooga Creek-middle

31501030202

Cherokee, Forsyth

Etowah River-Hightower Road

31501040301

Cherokee

Yellow Creek

31501040302

Forsyth

Brewton Creek

31501040303

Forsyth

Squattingdown Creek

31501040304

Cherokee, Forsyth

Hurricane Creek

31501040305

Cherokee, Forsyth Cherokee, Nelson Cherokee, Nelson, Ball Ground

Etowah River-Conn Creek Long Swamp Creek-East Branch Long Swamp Creek-Fourmile Creek

31501040306 31501040403 31501040404

Cherokee

Sharp Mountain Creek-upper

31501040502

Cherokee

Rock Creek

31501040503

Cherokee

Soap Creek

31501040504

TMDL Watershed
Present

Source Water Watershed Present

Existing EIA > 10%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes
Yes Yes

60 78%

52 68%

24 32%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

A-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Associated County/City

Watershed

HUC-12 #

Cherokee, Nelson Cherokee, Ball Ground Cherokee, Ball Ground

Sharp Mountain Creek-middle Sharp Mountain Creek-lower Etowah River-Smithwick Creek

31501040505 31501040506 31501040601

Cherokee Cherokee, Canton Cherokee, Canton Cherokee, Canton Cherokee, Waleska Cherokee, Waleska

Etowah River-Edward Creek Etowah River-Hickory Log Creek Canton Creek Etowah River-Jug Creek Shoal Creek-upper McCanless Creek

31501040602 31501040603 31501040604 31501040605 31501040701 31501040702

Cherokee

Lost Town Creek

31501040703

Bartow, Cherokee

Shoal Creek-lower

31501040704

Cherokee, Fulton

Little River-upper

31501040801

Cherokee, Forsyth, Fulton
Cherokee, Fulton, Alpharetta, Roswell

Chicken Creek Little River-middle

31501040802 31501040803

Cherokee, Cobb, Fulton, Mountain Park, Woodstock,

Roswell

Little Creek-lower

31501040804

Cherokee, Holly Springs Cherokee, Cobb, Woodstock Cobb, Kennesaw, Marietta

Mill Creek-Little River Rubes Creek Noonday Creek-upper

31501040805 31501040806 31501040807

Cherokee, Cobb, Woodstock,

Marietta

Noonday Creek-lower

Cherokee, Canton, Holly Springs,

Woodstock

Lake Allatoona-Little River

31501040808 31501040809

Cobb, Paulding

Allatoona Creek

31501040901

Cobb, Acworth, Kennesaw

Proctor Creek

Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Acworth Clark Creek

Bartow, Cobb, Emerson, Acworth Lake Allatoona-Bethany Bridge

31501040902 31501040903 31501040904

Cherokee, Canton

Lake Allatoona-Etowah River

31501041001

Bartow, Cherokee

Stamp Creek

31501041002

Bartow

McKaskey Creek

31501041003

Bartow, Cherokee

Illinois Creek

31501041004

Pumpkinvine Creek-Little Pumpkinvine

Paulding Paulding, Dallas

Creek Pumpkinvine Creek-Weaver Creek

31501041101 31501041102

Paulding, Dallas

Pumpkinvine Creek-Lawrence Creek 31501041103

Cobb, Paulding

Little Pumpkinvine Creek

31501041104

Bartow, Cobb, Paulding, Emerson Pumpkinvine Creek-Westbrook Creek 31501041105

Paulding, Braswell

Raccoon Creek-upper

31501041201

Paulding, Braswell

Raccoon Creek-middle

31501041202

Bartow, Paulding
Bartow, Paulding, Cartersville, Emerson

Raccoon Creek-lower Etowah River-Ward Creek

31501041203 31501041301

Bartow, Cartersville Bartow, Cartersville, White Bartow, Paulding, Cartersville, Euharlee

Nancy Creek-Pettit Creek Pettit Creek
Richland Creek

31501041302 31501041303
31501041304

Paulding

Simpson Creek

31501041402

Bartow, Taylorsville
Bartow, Paulding, Braswell, Taylorsville

Euharlee Creek-Aragon City Euharlee Creek-Hills Creek

31501041405 31501041406

Bartow, Paulding, Euharlee

Euharlee Creek-Jones Branch

31501041407

Bartow, Euharlee

Ashpole Creek

31501041501

Bartow

Two Run Creek-upper

31501041502

Bartow

Clear Creek

31501041503

Bartow, Kingston Bartow, Kingston

Two Run Creek-lower Connesena Creek

31501041504 31501041505

TMDL Watershed
Present
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes

Source Water Watershed Present
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Existing EIA > 10%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

A-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Associated County/City

Watershed

Bartow, Euharlee

Etowah River-Macedonia Slough

Bartow

Etowah River-Reynolds Bend

Bartow

Toms Creek

Bartow

Spring Creek

Totals

Percent of Total for Coosa Basin

Flint

Clayton, Fulton, Atlanta, College

Park, East Point, Forest Park,

Hapeville, Jonesboro, Lake City,

Morrow, Riverdale

Flint River-Jester Creek

Clayton, Fayette, Fulton, College

Park, Riverdale

Camp Creek-Flint River

Fayette, Fulton, College Park, Fayetteville, Union City

Morning Creek

Clayton, Fayette, Henry, Fayetteville, Woolsey, Lovejoy Flint River-Murphy Creek

Clayton, Fayette, Henry, Hampton, Lovejoy

Bear Creek-Flint River

Fayette, Woolsey, Brooks

Flint River-Horton Creek

Coweta, Fayette, Fulton, Fairburn, Palmetto, Peachtree City, Tyrone Line Creek-upper

Coweta, Peachtree City

Shoal Creek

Coweta, Fayette, Peachtree City,

Tyrone

Line Creek-middle

Fayette, Fulton, Fairburn, Fayetteville, Union City

Whitewater Creek-upper

Coweta, Fayette, Brooks, Peachtree City, Fayetteville

Whitewater Creek-lower

Coweta, Fayette, Brooks,

Haralson, Senoia, Sharpsburg,

Turin

Line Creek-lower

Coweta, Newnan

White Oak Creek-Headwaters

Coweta, Newnan, Sharpsburg,

Turin

White Oak Creek-Pine Creek

White Oak Creek-Little White Oak

Coweta, Moreland

Creek

Coweta

Bear Creek-White Oak Creek

Coweta, Haralson, Turin

Little White Oak Creek

Coweta, Haralson

White Oak Creek-Shoals Creek

Totals

Percent of Total for Flint Basin

Ocmulgee Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, Atlanta, Forest Park, East Point, Hapeville South River-headwaters

DeKalb, Fulton, Atlanta, Decatur South River-Sugar Creek

Clayton, DeKalb, Henry, Atlanta,

Forest Park, Decatur, Avondale

Estates

South River-Cobb Creek

DeKalb, Avondale Estates, Clarkston, Pine Lake, Stone

Mountain

Snapfinger Creek

Clayton, DeKalb, Henry,

Rockdale, Lithonia

South River-Pole Bridge Creek

DeKalb, Rockdale, Lithonia

Honey Creek

DeKalb, Henry, Rockdale

South River-Camp Creek

Clayton, Henry, Forest Park, Lake

City, Morrow, Stockbridge

Big Cotton Indian Creek-upper

HUC-12 #
31501041506 31501041601 31501041602 31501041603
31300050101 31300050102 31300050103 31300050104 31300050105 31300050106 31300050201 31300050202 31300050203 31300050204 31300050205
31300050206 31300050301 31300050302 31300050303 31300050304 31300050305 31300050306
30701030101 30701030102
30701030103
30701030104 30701030105 30701030106 30701030107 30701030201

TMDL Watershed
Present
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes 33 46%

Source Water Watershed Present
39 54%

Existing EIA > 10%
3 4%

Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
9 50% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

12 67%

2 11%
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

A-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Associated County/City

Watershed

HUC-12 #

Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, Stockbridge
Clayton, Henry, Jonesboro, Lovejoy, Stockbridge

Big Cotton Indian Creek-middle Little Cotton Indian Creek

30701030202 30701030203

Henry, Stockbridge

Big Cotton Indian Creek-lower

30701030204

Henry Clayton, Henry, Lovejoy

South River-Honey Creek Walnut Creek-upper-South River

30701030301 30701030302

Henry, McDonough Rockdale, Conyers

Walnut Creek-lower-South River Snapping Shoals Creek

30701030303 30701030304

Henry

South River-Mackey Creek

30701030305

Gwinnett, Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross Gwinnett, Duluth DeKalb, Gwinnett, Lilburn

Beaver Ruin Creek

30701030401

Sweetwater Creek-upper-Yellow River 30701030402

Sweetwater Creek-lower-Yellow River 30701030403

Gwinnett, Lawrenceville,

Suwanee

Yellow River-Suwanee Creek

Gwinnett, Lawrenceville, Snellville Yellow River-Pew Creek

DeKalb, Gwinnett, Lilburn,

Snellville

Yellow River-Garner Creek

30701030404 30701030405
30701030406

DeKalb, Gwinnett, Stone Mountain
DeKalb, Gwinnett, Rockdale, Lithonia, Snellville
Rockdale, Conyers

Yellow River-Stone Mountain Creek 30701030407

Yellow River-No Business Creek Yellow River-Carr Branch

30701030501 30701030502

Gwinnett, Walton, Grayson, Loganville, Snellville

Big Haynes Creek-upper

30701030503

Gwinnett, Walton, Rockdale, Loganville

Little Haynes Creek

30701030504

Gwinnett, Walton, Rockdale

Big Haynes Creek-lower

30701030505

Rockdale

Yellow River-Dried Indian Creek

Walton, Walnut Grove

Gum Creek

Gwinnett, Dacula, Lawrenceville Alcovy River-Shoal Creek

30701030601 30701030602 30701030701

Gwinnett, Grayson, Lawrenceville Alcovy River-Palm Creek

Gwinnett, Walton, Grayson

Bay Creek

Gwinnett, Walton, Between

Alcovy River-Beaverdam Creek

30701030702 30701030703 30701030704

Walton, Monroe

Alcovy River-Mountain Creek

30701030705

Gwinnett, Walton, Loganville, Jersey, Between
Walton, Social Circle

Big Flat Creek Alcovy River-Stroud Creek

30701030706 30701030707

Walton, Jersey, Walnut Grove Cornish Creek

30701030708

Henry, McDonough Henry, Locust Grove

Tussahaw Creek-upper Tussahaw Creek-middle

30701030901 30701030902

Henry, Hampton

Towaliga River-Thompson Creek

30701031101

Henry Henry, Locust Grove

Towaliga River-Troublesome Creek 30701031102

Indian Creek

30701031103

Totals

Percent of Total for Ocmulgee Basin

Oconee

Hall

Pond Fork-upper

30701010101

Hall, Gainesville

Middle Oconee River-Allen Creek

30701010103

Hall, Gainesville, Oakwood

Walnut Creek-upper-Middle Oconee

River

30701010104

Walnut Creek-lower-Middle Oconee

Hall Hall, Gwinnett, Oakwood

River Mulberry River-Mulberry Creek

30701010105 30701010201

Hall, Gwinnett

Mulberry River-Duncan Creek

30701010202

Gwinnett, Auburn

Little Mulberry River

30701010203

Hall, Gainesville, Lula

North Oconee River-Cedar Creek

30701010401

TMDL Watershed
Present

Source Water Watershed Present

Existing EIA > 10%

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes
28 65%

Yes
Yes
Yes 19 44%

13 30%

Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

A-5

SEPTEMBER 2003

APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Unit Codes by Basin and Management Priority Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Source

TMDL

Water

Watershed Watershed

Associated County/City

Watershed

HUC-12 #

Present

Present

North Oconee River-Buffington Mill

Hall

Creek

30701010402

Yes

Hall, Gillsville

Candler Creek

30701010403

Gwinnett, Auburn, Dacula

Apalachee River-Drowning Creek

30701010801

Yes

Gwinnett, Walton, Auburn

Apalachee River-Williamson Creek 30701010802

Yes

Walton

Marbury Creek

30701010803

Yes

Walton

Apalachee River-Wildcat Creek

30701010804

Yes

Walton

Apalachee River-Shoal Creek

30701010805

Yes

Walton, North High Shoals

Apalachee River-Lane Creek

30701010901

Yes

Walton, Good Hope, Monroe

Jacks Creek-upper

30701010903

Walton, Good Hope

Jacks Creek-lower

30701010904

Walton, Monroe, Social Circle Hard Labor Creek-Reedy Creek

30701011301

Yes

Walton, Social Circle

Hard Labor Creek-Rocky Creek

30701011302

Yes

Walton, Good Hope

Big Sandy Creek-upper

30701011304

Walton, Social Circle

Little River-Nelson Creek

30701011401

Yes

Totals

11

4

Percent of Total for Oconee Basin

48%

17%

Tallapoosa

Paulding

Tallapoosa River-Mud Creek

31501080101

Paulding

Brooks Creek

31501080102

Paulding

Tallapoosa River-Water Mill Creek 31501080103

Totals

0

0

Percent of Total for Tallapoosa Basin

0%

0%

1The number of priority criteria exceeded by HUC, the higher the number the greater the priority for management.

Existing EIA > 10%
0% 0 0%

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN--FINAL

A-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Appendix B Modeling Results

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE

Total Area (ac)

664,529

Choose Parameter

T ot al P hosp hor us

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4
Existing
0.2

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt

Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

14.0% 12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt

Mgmt Plan

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus
1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Fu tu re 3

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) chamosck
chalittr chachesr
chalanil chasuwck chabigck chasopck chapeack
0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Imperviousness

Effective Impervious Area (%) chamosck
chalittr chachesr
chalanil chasuwck chabigck chasopck chapeack
0 0 0 0 0 0

12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE

Total Area (ac)

664,529

Choose Parameter

T ot al S uspe nde d S olid s

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

900

800

Mgmt

Plan

700

600

500

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

400

300

200

Existing

100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

14.0% 12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt

Mgmt Plan

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids
700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Fu tu re 3

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) chamosck
chalittr chachesr
chalanil chasuwck chabigck chasopck chapeack
0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Imperviousness

Effective Impervious Area (%) chamosck
chalittr chachesr
chalanil chasuwck chabigck chasopck chapeack
0 0 0 0 0 0

12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

LOWER METRO CHATTAHOOCHEE

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

Total Area (ac)

766,365 Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus
2.5 2
1.5 1
0.5 0

Future 3

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) chautock chasweck chadogr chacenck chanewr chayelck
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Imperviousness

Effective Impervious Area (%) chautock chasweck chadogr chacenck chanewr chayelck
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

LOWER METRO CHATTAHOOCHEE

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

Total Area (ac)

766,365 Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids
Source Load Distribution

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

Mgmt Plan

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

Existing

0%

50%

100%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids
700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Future 3

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) chautock chasweck chadogr chacenck chanewr chayelck
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Imperviousness

Effective Impervious Area (%) chautock chasweck chadogr chacenck chanewr chayelck
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Effective Impervious Area (%) etosetck etoloswc etoshmtc etocanck etoshock
etolittr etobutck
etoallal etopumck
etoracck etopetck etoeuhck eto2runc etosprck

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) etosetck etoloswc etoshmtc etocanck etoshock
etolittr etobutck
etoallal etopumck
etoracck etopetck etoeuhck eto2runc etosprck
Land Use Distribution

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

ETOWAH

Total Area (ac)

960,903 Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus

Future 3

1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) etosetck etoloswc etoshmtc etocanck etoshock
etolittr etobutck
etoallal etopumck
etoracck etopetck etoeuhck eto2runc etosprck

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) etosetck etoloswc etoshmtc etocanck etoshock
etolittr etobutck
etoallal etopumck
etoracck etopetck etoeuhck eto2runc etosprck
Land Use Distribution

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

ETOWAH

Total Area (ac)

960,903 Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

700

Mgmt

600

Plan

500

400

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

300

200
Existing
100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids

Future 3

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) coosalck coopiloc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) coosalck coopiloc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

COOSAWATTEE

Total Area (ac)

96,502

Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus

Future 3

1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) coosalck coopiloc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) coosalck coopiloc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

COOSAWATTEE

Total Area (ac)

96,502

Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

700

Mgmt

600

Plan

500

400

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

300

200
Existing
100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids

Future 3

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) oosooock oosloosr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) oosooock oosloosr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

OOSTANAULA

Total Area (ac)

45,203

Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus

Future 3

1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) oosooock oosloosr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) oosooock oosloosr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

OOSTANAULA

Total Area (ac)

45,203

Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

Mgmt Plan

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

Existing

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids

Future 3

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) flimornck
flilinck fliwoack
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) flimornck
flilinck fliwoack
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

FLINT

Total Area (ac)

413,561 Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus

Future 3

1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) flimornck
flilinck fliwoack
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) flimornck
flilinck fliwoack
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

FLINT

Total Area (ac)

413,561 Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

700

Mgmt

600

Plan

500

400

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

300

200
Existing
100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids

Future 3

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) ocmsouur ocmindck ocmsoulr ocmyelur ocmyelmr
ocmyellr ocmalcur ocmtussr ocmtowur
0 0 0 0 0

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) ocmsouur ocmindck ocmsoulr ocmyelur ocmyelmr
ocmyellr ocmalcur ocmtussr ocmtowur
0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

OCMULGEE

Total Area (ac)

864,403 Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus

Future 3

1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) ocmsouur ocmindck ocmsoulr ocmyelur ocmyelmr
ocmyellr ocmalcur ocmtussr ocmtowur
0 0 0 0 0

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) ocmsouur ocmindck ocmsoulr ocmyelur ocmyelmr
ocmyellr ocmalcur ocmtussr ocmtowur
0 0 0 0 0
Land Use Distribution

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

OCMULGEE

Total Area (ac)

864,403 Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

700

Mgmt

600

Plan

500

400

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

300

200
Existing
100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids

Future 3

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) ocomidur ocomulbr oconorur ocoappur ocoapplr ocoshock
ocolitur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) ocomidur ocomulbr oconorur ocoappur ocoapplr ocoshock
ocolitur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Distribution

Total Phosphorus (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

UPPER OCONEE

Total Area (ac)

394,502 Choose Parameter

Total Phosphorus

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Phosphorus

Source Load Distribution

1.2

Mgmt

1

Plan

0.8

Future

NP

0.6

w/o Mgmt

PS

0.4

0.2

Existing

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Phosphorus

Future 3

1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Effective Impervious Area (%) ocomidur ocomulbr oconorur ocoappur ocoapplr ocoshock
ocolitur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) ocomidur ocomulbr oconorur ocoappur ocoapplr ocoshock
ocolitur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Distribution

Total Suspended Solids (lbs/ac/yr) Imperviousness (%)

UPPER OCONEE

Total Area (ac)

394,502 Choose Parameter

Total Suspended Solids

Alternatives Analysis Results for Total Suspended Solids

Source Load Distribution

700

Mgmt

600

Plan

500

400

Future

NP

w/o Mgmt

PS

300

200
Existing
100

0

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

0%

50%

100%

Huc10 Results for Total Suspended Solids

Future 3

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Imperviousness
12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Land Use and Imperviousness
Goal

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Existing

Future w/o Mgmt Mgmt Plan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Urban Res Ag For

Existing

Future

Appendix C Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

MODEL STREAM BUFFER PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Description:
This model ordinance provides a framework for local governments to develop buffer zones for streams, as well as the requirements that minimize land development within those buffers. It is the purpose of these buffer zone requirements to protect and stabilize stream banks, protect water quality and preserve aquatic and riparian habitat.
Note: Italicized text with this symbol should be interpreted as comments,
instructions, or information to assist the local government in tailoring the ordinance. This text would not appear in a final adopted ordinance.
Table of Contents
Section 1. Title Section 2. Findings and Purposes Section 3. Definitions Section 4. Applicability Section 5. Land Development Requirements Section 6. Compatibility with Other Buffer Regulations and Requirements Section 7. Additional Information Requirements for Development on Buffer
Zone Properties Section 8. Responsibility Section 9. Inspection Section 10. Violations, Enforcement and Penalties Section 11. Administrative Appeal and Judicial Review Section 12. Severability

1

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

Section 1. Title
This ordinance shall be known as the "(Local Jurisdiction) Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance."
Section 2. Findings and Purposes
2.1. Findings Whereas, the (name of governing body) of (local jurisdiction) finds that buffers adjacent to streams provide numerous benefits including:
(1) Protecting, restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of streams and their water resources
(2) Removing pollutants delivered in urban stormwater (3) Reducing erosion and controlling sedimentation (4) Protecting and stabilizing stream banks (5) Providing for infiltration of stormwater runoff (6) Maintaining base flow of streams (7) Contributing organic matter that is a source of food and energy for the
aquatic ecosystem (8) Providing tree canopy to shade streams and promote desirable aquatic
habitat (9) Providing riparian wildlife habitat (10) Furnishing scenic value and recreational opportunity
(11) Providing opportunities for the protection and restoration of greenspace
2.2. Purposes It is the purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the public health, safety, environment and general welfare; to minimize public and private losses due to erosion, siltation and water pollution; and to maintain stream water quality by provisions designed to:
(1) Create buffer zones along the streams of (local jurisdiction) for the protection of water resources; and,
(2) Minimize land development within such buffers by establishing buffer zone requirements and by requiring authorization for any such activities.

2

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

Section 3. Definitions
"Buffer" means, with respect to a stream, a natural or enhanced vegetated area (established by Section 5.1.1 below), lying adjacent to the stream. "Impervious Cover" means any manmade paved, hardened or structural surface regardless of material. Impervious cover includes but is not limited to rooftops, buildings, streets, roads, decks, swimming pools and any concrete or asphalt. "Land Development" means any land change, including but not limited to clearing, grubbing, stripping, removal of vegetation, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, construction, paving and any other installation of impervious cover. "Land Development Activity" means those actions or activities which comprise, facilitate or result in land development. "Land Disturbance" means any land or vegetation change, including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, stripping, removal of vegetation, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, that do not involve construction, paving or any other installation of impervious cover. "Land Disturbance Activity" means those actions or activities which comprise, facilitate or result in land disturbance. "Floodplain" means any land area susceptible to flooding, which would have at least a one percent probability of flooding occurrence in any calendar year based on the basin being fully developed as shown on the current land use plan; i.e., the regulatory flood. "Parcel" means any plot, lot or acreage shown as a unit on the latest county tax assessment records. "Permit" means the permit issued by the (local permitting authority) required for undertaking any land development activity "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, city, county or other political subdivision of the State, any interstate body or any other legal entity. "Protection Area, or Stream Protection Area" means, with respect to a stream, the combined areas of all required buffers and setbacks applicable to such stream. "Riparian" means belonging or related to the bank of a river, stream, lake, pond or impoundment. "Setback" means, with respect to a stream, the area established by Section 5.1.2 extending beyond any buffer applicable to the stream. "Stream" means any stream, beginning at:
1. The location of a spring, seep, or groundwater outflow that sustains streamflow; or
2. A point in the stream channel with a drainage area of 25 acres or more; or
3. Where evidence indicates the presence of a stream in a drainage area of other than 25 acres, the (local permitting authority) may require field studies to verify the existence of a stream.

3

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

As a long-term goal, the local jurisdiction can also map its perennial and intermittent
streams through field work, prioritizing basins and developing information as time, staffing and budgets permit. "Stream Bank" means the sloping land that contains the stream channel and the normal flows of the stream. "Stream Channel" means the portion of a watercourse that contains the base flow of the stream. "Watershed" means the land area that drains into a particular stream.

Section 4. Applicability
This ordinance shall apply to all land development activity on property containing a stream protection area as defined in Section 3 of this ordinance. These requirements are in addition to, and do not replace or supersede, any other applicable buffer requirements established under state law and approval or exemption from these requirements do not constitute approval or exemption from buffer requirements established under state law or from other applicable local, state or federal regulations.

4.1. Grandfather Provisions This ordinance shall not apply to the following activities:

(1) Work consisting of the repair or maintenance of any lawful use of land that is zoned and approved for such use on or before the effective date of this ordinance.

(2) Existing development and on-going land disturbance activities including but not limited to existing agriculture, silviculture, landscaping, gardening and lawn maintenance, except that new development or land disturbance activities on such properties will be subject to all applicable buffer requirements.

(3) Any land development activity that is under construction, fully approved for development, scheduled for permit approval or has been submitted for approval as of the effective date of this ordinance.

(4) Land development activity that has not been submitted for approval, but that is part of a larger master development plan, such as for an office park or other phased development that has been previously approved within two years of the effective date of this ordinance.

4.2. Exemptions The following specific activities are exempt from this ordinance. Exemption of these activities does not constitute an exemption for any other activity proposed on a property.

(1) Activities for the purpose of building one of the following:

-

a stream crossing by a driveway, transportation route or utility line;

-

public water supply intake or public wastewater outfall structures;

4

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

-

intrusions necessary to provide access to a property;

-

public access facilities that must be on the water including boat ramps,

docks, foot trails leading directly to the river, fishing platforms and

overlooks;

-

unpaved foot trails and paths;

-

activities to restore and enhance stream bank stability, vegetation, water

quality and/or aquatic habitat, so long as native vegetation and

bioengineering techniques are used.

(2) Public sewer line easements paralleling the creek, except that all easements (permanent and construction) and land disturbance should be at least 25 feet from the top of the bank. This includes such impervious cover as is necessary for the operation and maintenance of the utility, including but not limited to manholes, vents and valve structures. This exemption shall not be construed as allowing the construction of roads, bike paths or other transportation routes in such easements, regardless of paving material, except for access for the uses specifically cited in Item 4.2.(1), above.

(3) Land development activities within a right-of-way existing at the time this ordinance takes effect or approved under the terms of this ordinance.

(4) Within an easement of any utility existing at the time this ordinance takes effect or approved under the terms of this ordinance, land disturbance activities and such impervious cover as is necessary for the operation and maintenance of the utility, including but not limited to manholes, vents and valve structures.

(5) Emergency work necessary to preserve life or property. However, when emergency work is performed under this section, the person performing it shall report such work to the (review and permitting authority) on the next business day after commencement of the work. Within 10 days thereafter, the person shall apply for a permit and perform such work within such time period as may be determined by the (review and permitting authority) to be reasonably necessary to correct any impairment such emergency work may have caused to the water conveyance capacity, stability or water quality of the protection area.

(6) Forestry and silviculture activities on land that is zoned for forestry, silvicultural or agricultural uses and are not incidental to other land development activity. If such activity results in land disturbance in the buffer that would otherwise be prohibited, then no other land disturbing activity other than normal forest management practices will be allowed on the entire property for three years after the end of the activities that intruded on the buffer.
Unless specifically provided for in a State law, local governments generally do not
have permitting or enforcement authority over State and Federal departments, agencies and authorities. Local governments need to address these issues in the context of their overall permitting and enforcement regulations and provide for reporting observed

5

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

problems, first to the agency performing the activity, then, if no corrective action results, to Georgia EPD.
After the effective date of this ordinance, it shall apply to new subdividing and platting activities.
Any land development activity within a buffer established hereunder or any impervious cover within a setback established hereunder is prohibited unless a variance is granted pursuant to Section 5.2 below.
Section 5. Land Development Requirements
5.1. Buffer and Setback Requirements All land development activity subject to this ordinance shall meet the following requirements:
(1) An undisturbed natural vegetative buffer shall be maintained for 50 feet, measured horizontally, on both banks (as applicable) of the stream as measured from the top of the stream bank.
The top of the bank is often a clearer landmark than the edge of the water or
the end of vegetation, particularly on intermittent streams. The land forming the bank is also considered part of the buffer for purposes of this ordinance.
(2) An additional setback shall be maintained for 25 feet, measured horizontally, beyond the undisturbed natural vegetative buffer, in which all impervious cover shall be prohibited. Grading, filling and earthmoving shall be minimized within the setback.
Any buffer and setback widths that may be listed are intended as minimums.
Local governments are encouraged to adopt wider buffers and setbacks as necessary. A local government has many options in developing wider buffers. One method would be to increase the width as the stream drainage basin increases in size, as Cobb County does. Another method is to offer incentives for voluntary wider buffers. For example, Clayton County allows developers to offset proposed land development with deeper buffers as an alternative to using other stormwater controls.
(3) No septic tanks or septic tank drain fields shall be permitted within the buffer or the setback.
5.2. Variance Procedures Variances from the above buffer and setback requirements may be granted in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Where a parcel was platted prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and its shape, topography or other existing physical condition prevents land development consistent with this ordinance, and the (review and permitting authority) finds

6

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

and determines that the requirements of this ordinance prohibit the otherwise lawful use of the property by the owner, the (appeals board) of (local jurisdiction) may grant a variance from the buffer and setback requirements hereunder, provided such variance require mitigation measures to offset the effects of any proposed land development on the parcel.
(2) Except as provided above, the (appeals board) of (local jurisdiction) shall grant no variance from any provision of this ordinance without first conducting a public hearing on the application for variance and authorizing the granting of the variance by an affirmative vote of the (appeals board). The (local jurisdiction) shall give public notice of each such public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within (local jurisdiction). The (local jurisdiction) shall require that the applicant post a sign giving notice of the proposed variance and the public hearing. The sign shall be of a size and posted in such a location on the property as to be clearly visible from the primary adjacent road right-of-way.
Variances will be considered only in the following cases: a. When a property's shape, topography or other physical conditions existing
at the time of the adoption of this ordinance prevents land development unless a buffer variance is granted. b. Unusual circumstances when strict adherence to the minimal buffer requirements in the ordinance would create an extreme hardship.
Variances will not be considered when, following adoption of this ordinance, actions of any property owner of a given property have created conditions of a hardship on that property.
(3) At a minimum, a variance request shall include the following information: a. A site map that includes locations of all streams, wetlands, floodplain boundaries and other natural features, as determined by field survey; b. A description of the shape, size, topography, slope, soils, vegetation and other physical characteristics of the property; c. A detailed site plan that shows the locations of all existing and proposed structures and other impervious cover, the limits of all existing and proposed land disturbance, both inside and outside the buffer and setback. The exact area of the buffer to be affected shall be accurately and clearly indicated; d. Documentation of unusual hardship should the buffer be maintained; e. At least one alternative plan, which does not include a buffer or setback intrusion, or an explanation of why such a site plan is not possible; f. A calculation of the total area and length of the proposed intrusion; g. A stormwater management site plan, if applicable; and, h. Proposed mitigation, if any, for the intrusion. If no mitigation is proposed, the request must include an explanation of why none is being proposed.

7

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

(4) The following factors will be considered in determining whether to issue a variance: a. The shape, size, topography, slope, soils, vegetation and other physical characteristics of the property; b. The locations of all streams on the property, including along property boundaries; c. The location and extent of the proposed buffer or setback intrusion; and, d. Whether alternative designs are possible which require less intrusion or no intrusion; e. The long-term and construction water-quality impacts of the proposed variance; f. Whether issuance of the variance is at least as protective of natural resources and the environment.

Section 6. Compatibility with Other Buffer Regulations and Requirements
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance should be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule, regulation or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall be considered to take precedence.
Examples of existing legislation and regulations include:
Metropolitan River Protection Act and Chattahoochee Corridor Plan Requires a 50-foot undisturbed vegetative buffer and 150-foot impervious surface setback on the Chattahoochee and its impoundments and a 35-foot undisturbed vegetative buffer (all measured from the edge of the water) on perennial tributary streams in a Corridor extending 2000 feet from either bank of the river and its impoundments. The Corridor extends from Buford Dam to the downstream limits of the Atlanta region (Douglas and Fulton Counties). Streams in the basin of the Corridor are required to be protected by buffers, but no required width is specified. (Georgia Code 12-5-440 et seq.)
DNR Part 5 Criteria for Small (under 100 square miles) Water Supply Watersheds Authorized under Part V of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989, these criteria require 100-foot undisturbed buffers and 150-foot setbacks on all perennial streams within 7 miles upstream of a public water supply reservoir or public water supply intake. Beyond 7 miles, the required buffer is 50 feet and the required setback is 75 feet. Equivalent protection measures can be adopted with approval from Georgia DCA and DNR.

8

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

DNR Part 5 Criteria for River Protection Authorized under the 1991 Mountains and River Corridors Protection Act of 1991, these criteria require a 100-foot buffer along rivers with average annual flows of greater than 400 cfs (excepting the portion of the Chattahoochee referenced above). The buffer is measured from the top of the stream bank.
These examples are partial descriptions of more extensive regulations as of July, 2002. They represent only three of the stricter regulations that already exist.
While the requirements of this ordinance are intended to apply to all streams in (local
jurisdiction), special conditions may exist that require greater protection. Nothing in this ordinance should be construed as preventing the establishment of wider and/or more restrictive buffers and setbacks as required under any other existing or future legislation. In addition, nothing in this ordinance should be construed as preventing the establishment of wider buffers for purposes of protecting greenspace, preserving habitat or other goals that may not be specifically mandated by legislation.
Section 7. Additional Information Requirements for Development on Buffer Zone Properties
Any permit applications for property requiring buffers and setbacks hereunder must include the following:
(1) A site plan showing: a. The location of all streams on the property; b. Limits of required stream buffers and setbacks on the property; c. Buffer zone topography with contour lines at no greater than five (5)-foot contour intervals; d. Delineation of forested and open areas in the buffer zone; and, e. Detailed plans of all proposed land development in the buffer and of all proposed impervious cover within the setback;
(2) A description of all proposed land development within the buffer and setback; and,
(3) Any other documentation that the (review and permitting authority) may reasonably deem necessary for review of the application and to insure that the buffer zone ordinance is addressed in the approval process.
All buffer and setback areas must be recorded on the final plat of the property following plan approval.
Section 8. Responsibility
Neither the issuance of a development permit nor compliance with the conditions thereof, nor with the provisions of this ordinance shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of

9

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

any permit hereunder serve to impose any liability upon (local jurisdiction), its officers or employees, for injury or damage to persons or property.
Section 9. Inspection
The (review and permitting authority) may cause inspections of the work in the buffer or setback to be made periodically during the course thereof and shall make a final inspection following completion of the work. The permittee shall assist the (review and permitting authority) in making such inspections. The (local jurisdiction) shall have the authority to conduct such investigations as it may reasonably deem necessary to carry out its duties as prescribed in this ordinance, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable time upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the sites of any land development activities within the protection area.
No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative or agent who requests entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such representative while in the process of carrying out official duties.

Section 10. Violations, Enforcement and Penalties
Any action or inaction which violates the provisions of this ordinance or the requirements of an approved site plan or permit may be subject to the enforcement actions outlined in this Section. Any such action or inaction which is continuous with respect to time is deemed to be a public nuisance and may be abated by injunctive or other equitable relief. The imposition of any of the penalties described below shall not prevent such equitable relief.
10.1. Notice of Violation If the (review and permitting authority) determines that an applicant or other responsible person has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of a permit, an approved site plan or the provisions of this ordinance, it shall issue a written notice of violation to such applicant or other responsible person. Where a person is engaged in activity covered by this ordinance without having first secured the appropriate permit therefor, the notice of violation shall be served on the owner or the responsible person in charge of the activity being conducted on the site.
The notice of violation shall contain:
(1) The name and address of the owner or the applicant or the responsible person;
(2) The address or other description of the site upon which the violation is occurring;
(3) A statement specifying the nature of the violation;

10

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

(4) A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the action or inaction into compliance with the permit, the approved site plan or this ordinance and the date for the completion of such remedial action;
(5) A statement of the penalty or penalties that may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed; and,
(6) A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the (review and permitting authority) by filing a written notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after the notice of violation (except that in the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hours notice shall be sufficient).
10.2. Penalties In the event the remedial measures described in the notice of violation have not been completed by the date set forth for such completion in the notice of violation, any one or more of the following actions or penalties may be taken or assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation was directed. Before taking any of the following actions or imposing any of the following penalties, the (review and permitting authority) shall first notify the applicant or other responsible person in writing of its intended action, and shall provide a reasonable opportunity, of not less than ten days (except that in the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hours notice shall be sufficient) to cure such violation. In the event the applicant or other responsible person fails to cure such violation after such notice and cure period, the (review and permitting authority) may take any one or more of the following actions or impose any one or more of the following penalties.
(1) Stop Work Order - The (review and permitting authority) may issue a stop work order which shall be served on the applicant or other responsible person. The stop work order shall remain in effect until the applicant or other responsible person has taken the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or has otherwise cured the violation or violations described therein, provided the stop work order may be withdrawn or modified to enable the applicant or other responsible person to take necessary remedial measures to cure such violation or violations.
(2) Withhold Certificate of Occupancy - The (review and permitting authority) may refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy for the building or other improvements constructed or being constructed on the site until the applicant or other responsible person has taken the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or has otherwise cured the violations described therein.
(3) Suspension, Revocation or Modification of Permit - The (review and permitting authority) may suspend, revoke or modify the permit authorizing the land development project. A suspended, revoked or modified permit may be reinstated after the applicant or other responsible person has taken the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or has otherwise cured the violations described therein, provided such permit may be reinstated (upon such conditions

11

District Model Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance

Adopted 9/25/03

as the (review and permitting authority) may deem necessary) to enable the applicant or other responsible person to take the necessary remedial measures to cure such violations.
(4) Civil Penalties - In the event the applicant or other responsible person fails to take the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or otherwise fails to cure the violations described therein within ten days (or such greater period as the (review and permitting authority) shall deem appropriate) (except that in the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hours notice shall be sufficient) after the (review and permitting authority) has taken one or more of the actions described above, the (review and permitting authority) may impose a penalty not to exceed $1,000 (depending on the severity of the violation) for each day the violation remains unremedied after receipt of the notice of violation.
(5) Criminal Penalties - For intentional and flagrant violations of this ordinance, the (review and permitting authority) may issue a citation to the applicant or other responsible person, requiring such person to appear in (appropriate municipal, magistrate or recorders) court to answer charges for such violation. Upon conviction, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for 60 days or both. Each act of violation and each day upon which any violation shall occur shall constitute a separate offense.
Section 11. Administrative Appeal and Judicial Review
11.1 Administrative Appeal Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of (review and permitting authority), may appeal in writing within ___ days after the issuance of such decision or order to the (designated official) of (local jurisdiction) and shall be entitled to a hearing before the (designated appeals body) of (local jurisdiction) within __ days of receipt of the written appeal.
11.2. Judicial Review Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of (review and permitting authority), after exhausting all administrative remedies, shall have the right to appeal de novo to the __ court of (appropriate jurisdiction).

Section 12. Severability
If any article, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect or invalidate the remaining portions of this ordinance.

12

Appendix D Evaluation of Best Management Practices

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

D-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Appendix D -Evaluation of Best Management Practices

The programmatic measures will require implementation of BMPs for stormwater control. Storm water management objectives have evolved over the past decades beyond the historic conveyance improvements and flood control strategies to the current guidance to manage the frequent storms and the pollutant loads. This has provided significant benefits in watershed protection. However, in an attempt to mimic the hydrologic response of a forested watershed (10 percent effective impervious area [EIA]), additional effort must be expended to manage storm water closer to the source and manage the overall volume of runoff. EIA refers to the impervious areas that are directly connected to storm water conveyance systems, such as stream channels and storm sewers, with no opportunity for infiltration. In a watershed context, the most effective BMP strategies must strive to:
Detain runoff from larger storms to provide peak attenuation and restore the travel time of the undeveloped watershed.
Convey the extreme events safely through the drainage system without increasing the flood risk to downstream properties.
BMPs were rated on the basis of their ability to meet the three criteria described above. In developing BMP strategies to protect District watersheds, the priorities for management include:
Eliminate sources of degradation wherever practicable.
Manage the runoff as close to the source as possible.
Provide larger-scale structural BMPs where water quality and quantity impacts are unavoidable.
Provide for the safe passage of flood waters through the stream systems.
On a local scale, BMP strategies will be developed to meet the watershed protection objective of reducing water quality violations and impairment of streams that prevent them from supporting their designated uses. The ultimate goal of the BMP strategies is to represent, as well as possible, the runoff characteristics of forested land, including flow velocity, volume, flow rate, and pollutant loads.
Programmatic measures recommend use of BMPs to achieve water quality goals through control of non-point source runoff. BMPs include a wide-variety of structural and nonstructural measures and can be categorized into five broad groups:
Pollution Prevention (or source control) BMPs are practices designed to eliminate the source of watershed impairment. Public education on managing pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers is a good example of a pollution prevention BMP.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

D-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Nonstructural BMPs are practices designed to reduce the impairment caused by site development (or other sources) through alternative, more natural designs. Examples of nonstructural BMPs include better site design and stream buffers.
Regulatory or Policy BMPs include ordinances or other regulations whereby a property owner must comply with certain requirements. Regulatory BMPs may include specifying the use of any of the other four categories of BMP. Examples include zoning regulations, limits on imperviousness, and requirements to inspect and maintain septic systems.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) BMPs include practices designed to minimize the watershed degradation associated with some other activity. Inspection and maintenance of stormwater ponds and cleaning catch basins are examples of O&M BMPs.
Structural BMPs are utilized to capture and treat storm water that is already contaminated. Structural BMPs, such as extended detention wet ponds, infiltration trenches, or streambank restoration, are most appropriate where prevention or nonstructural alternatives are infeasible.
The effectiveness of a BMP depends on the relative contribution of specific sources to the total degradation and the most effective BMP or strategy may vary according to local conditions. The general effectiveness of each BMP was ranked for each parameter/source on a scale of 0 (no noticeable control) to 5 (significant control, greater than 80 percent reduction in degradation), based on literature research and local experience. Figure 1 provides descriptions and summarizes the predicted effectiveness of 61 BMPs applied to 36 sources of impairment.
BMPs were evaluated in comparison to the overall District Policy Goals. For comparison purposes, the BMPs were grouped into the five categories discussed above and scored. Scores were developed based on a review of available literature, professional judgement, and feedback from the TCC and BACs. Scores range from 0 to 10, with larger values indicating higher benefits of a given BMP category. The scores for each category of BMP as they relate to the Policy Goals are summarized in Table 1.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

D-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

Figure 1: BMP Effectiveness for a Given Parameter and Source

Levels of Effectiveness: Estimated, using

removal efficiency only. Technical feasibility

not incorporated.

0

Not Applicable

1

Low

3

Medium

5

High

IMPAIRMENT PARAMETERS SOURCE NUMBER:
SOURCE/CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT>>>>

Toxins (pesticides,

Metals (Cu, Zn,

herbicides, and

Pathogens

Nutrients

Hydrology

Pb, and Hg)

surfactants)

Biotic Integrity

Sediment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36

Overall BMP Rating Sewer Leaks SSO's CSO's Septic Tank and Drainfields Wildlife Pets Illicit Connections Livestock Standing Water Improper Fertilizer Application Poor Housekeeping Urban Runoff Increased Flood Volume Increased Duration of ChannelForming Flows Increased Flow Rates (flooding) Increased Flow Velocities Conveyance System Improvements Illegal Discharges Accidental Spills Poor Housekeeping Urban Runoff Illegal Discharges Accidental Spills Poor Housekeeping Urban Runoff Misapplication of Pesticides and Herbicides Loss of Habitat due to Sediment Loss of Habitat due to Hydrology Loss of Habitat due to Buffer Encroachment Thermal Pollution Legacy of Sediment in Channels from Decades of Agriculture and Silviculture Washoff from Stable Developed Areas Washoff from Construction Areas Channel Bed and Bank Erosion Active Agriculture or Grazing Active Silviculture and Logging Minor Land-Disturbing Activities Relative Cost

Prevention or Source Control BMPs

Improved Public Education (including "prevent

10.1 and test standing water" mosquito programs)

1

1 1 5 1 534 5 5 1

2

0

0

0

0

0

5 33 3 533 3

3

1

1 11

0

7.4 Disconnect impervious areas

0

0 1 0 0 000 1 1 1

3

3

3

1

3

0

0 01 3 001 3

0

3

3 05

0

2.5 Household hazard waste collection

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5 33 0 533 0

0

0

0 00

0

Encourage native vegetation especially in

2.4 riparian buffers

1

1 1 1 1 200 0 5 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

1

0

0 00

0

1.5 Encourage low-phosphorus fertilizers

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 3 3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

Improve application instructions for use of

1.0 household pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 3 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 001 0

1

0

0 00

0

0.7 Encourage vehicle-use reduction

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 2 000 2

0

0

0 00

0

Nonstructural BMPs

Reduce total impervious areas such as roadway

lengths, widths, footprints of buildings, parking

11.0 footprint

0

0 0 0 0 100 1 1 1

3

5

5

5

3

0

0 11 3 011 3

1

5

5 55

0

10.9 Natural area and greenspace conservation

0

0 0 1 1 101 0 3 1

3

3

3

3

1

3

0 11 3 011 3

1

3

3 53

0

7.6 Revegetation of open space and buffers

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 1 1

1

3

1

3

0

0

0 11 3 011 3

1

3

3 53

0

4.1 Site grading to reduce runoff and erosion

0

0 0 0 0 003 0 1 0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0 00 1 010 1

1

3

3 00

0

3.9 Shoreline revegetation

0

0 0 0 1 000 1 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

4

4 43

0

Vegetation strips adjacent to ponds to block

1.8 glide paths of waterfowl

0

0 0 0 3 000 0 0 0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 3 000 3

0

0

0 00

0

Mitigation of high temperature runoff thourgh

1.0 vegetative filters

0

0 0 0 0 000 1 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 05

0

0.4 Provide park areas where pet waste is controlled 0

0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

Regulatory or Policy BMPs

Require Low Impact Development for new

11.1 construction

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 1 0

1

5

5

5

5

5

0 01 3 001 3

1

3

3 53

0

Zoning to protect riparian and other sensitive

areas, or other regulations to reduce intensity of

4.9 development

0

0 0 3 0 000 0 3 0

3

3

3

3

3

1

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

Tighter regulations and inspections for material

4.8 handling

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 5

1

0

0

0

0

0

3 55 1 355 1

1

0

0 00

0

Compliance with general stormwater permit for

4.3 industrial activity

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 5

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 35 1 335 1

3

0

0 00

0

3.2 Regulation of lawn care services

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 5 0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 11 1 133 0

5

0

0 00

0

Tighter regulations and inspections for

3.2 construction sites

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 11 1 011 1

1

5

1 10

0

2.9 Ordinances for treatment of car wash water

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 03 3 003 3

0

0

0 00

0

1.7 Restrict residential car washing

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 01 3 001 3

0

0

0 00

0

Require routine internal inspection and cleaning

1.4 of septic system

0

0 0 5 0 000 0 0 0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 1

0

0

0 00

0

0.6 Ordinances for animal waste collection

0

0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

Operation & Maintenance BMPs

Complaint hotline and investigation for

8.5 community to report environmental problems

1

1 0 1 0 343 3 2 1

3

0

0

0

1

0

3 13 1 313 1

3

1

1 11

1

Routine inspection and maintenance of existing

8.4 BMPs

0

0 0 0 3 333 0 3 3

3

3

0

3

0

0

1 11 3 111 3

1

3

3 00

0

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

1

1 110

3

1

3

0 300

1

1

0

0 000

0

1

2

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

1

0 300

3

1

3

3 133

3

1

1

3 130

3

1

0

1 150

1

2

0

0 501

0

2

0

0 000

0

2

0

0 000

0

2

0

0 000

0

2

3

3 300

5

1

0

0 030

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

1

0 000

0

1

0

5 100

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

0

0 000

0

1

1

3 133

3

3

3

0 111

1

3

Overall BMP Rating Sewer Leaks SSO's CSO's Septic Tank and Drainfields Wildlife Pets Illicit Connections Livestock Standing Water Improper Fertilizer Application Poor Housekeeping Urban Runoff Increased Flood Volume Increased Duration of ChannelForming Flows Increased Flow Rates (flooding) Increased Flow Velocities Conveyance System Improvements Illegal Discharges Accidental Spills Poor Housekeeping Urban Runoff Illegal Discharges Accidental Spills Poor Housekeeping Urban Runoff Misapplication of Pesticides and Herbicides Loss of Habitat due to Sediment Loss of Habitat due to Hydrology Loss of Habitat due to Buffer Encroachment Thermal Pollution Legacy of Sediment in Channels from Decades of Agriculture and Silviculture Washoff from Stable Developed Areas Washoff from Construction Areas Channel Bed and Bank Erosion Active Agriculture or Grazing Active Silviculture and Logging Minor Land-Disturbing Activities Relative Cost

Figure 1: BMP Effectiveness for a Given Parameter and Source

Levels of Effectiveness: Estimated, using

removal efficiency only. Technical feasibility

not incorporated.

0

Not Applicable

1

Low

3

Medium

5

High

IMPAIRMENT PARAMETERS SOURCE NUMBER:
SOURCE/CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT>>>>

Toxins (pesticides,

Metals (Cu, Zn,

herbicides, and

Pathogens

Nutrients

Hydrology

Pb, and Hg)

surfactants)

Biotic Integrity

Sediment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36

Identification and elimination of non-stormwater

6.1 discharges

3

3 0 1 0 050 0 2 2

3

0

0

0

0

0

5 12 3 502 3

2

0

0 00

0

Trend monitoring, source detection and

5.4 elimination

3

3 0 4 0 040 0 0 3

3

0

0

0

0

0

3 13 3 313 3

1

0

0 00

0

5.1 Catch basin cleaning

0

0 0 0 0 000 3 1 1

1

0

0

0

3

0

1 13 3 113 3

1

1

0 00

0

4.5 Storm Drain Flushing

0

0 3 1 0 000 0 1 1

3

0

0

0

3

1

1 13 3 113 3

1

0

0 00

0

4.5 Street Cleaning

0

0 1 0 0 000 0 0 1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 33 4 033 4

1

1

0 00

0

2.1 External sewer line inspections and repair

4

1 1 0 0 000 0 0 1

3

0

0

0

0

0

1 01 0 101 0

0

0

0 00

0

1.7 Spill response,control and prevention programs

1

1 1 0 0 000 0 0 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 50 0 050 0

0

0

0 00

0

1.0 Sewer Lateral Inspection and Repair

3

1 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 3

0

0

0 00

0

Routine Internal Inspection and Cleaning of

0.9 Sewer Lines

4

4 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

0.9 I/I Studies and Detection of Repair Needs

4

4 0 0 0 000 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

Structural BMPs

15.5 Extended detention wet pond

1

1 1 3 3 313 3 5 5

5

4

4

4

3

3

1 13 4 113 4

3

4

3 00

0

14.1 Stormwater pond (wet)

1

1 1 3 3 313 3 4 4

4

3

4

4

3

3

1 13 4 113 4

3

4

3 00

0

14.0 Constructed Treatment Wetlands

2

3 3 3 3 223 1 3 1

5

5

5

5

3

3

1 12 3 112 3

3

3

3 00

1

11.8 Bioretention

1

3 3 3 1 201 3 3 2

5

2

2

2

1

3

3 13 5 333 5

3

1

1 00

0

11.6 Extended dry detention

1

0 0 1 0 000 0 3 3

3

5

5

5

3

3

0 01 2 001 2

2

4

4 00

0

10.2 Riparian Buffers

0

0 0 0 0 003 0 3 1

3

3

1

3

0

3

0 11 3 011 3

1

3

3 53

0

9.3 Natural Wetland Systems

0

0 1 0 1 303 1 1 1

1

5

5

5

1

4

1 11 1 111 1

1

3

3 30

0

8.4 Retrofit and enhance existing BMPs

0

0 0 0 1 111 1 3 1

5

1

0

3

0

0

1 11 5 111 5

3

3

3 00

0

8.4 Enhanced Swales (wet and dry)

1

1 0 1 1 101 0 3 0

3

1

1

1

1

3

1 11 5 111 3

5

1

1 01

0

8.0 Vegetative filter strips

1

1 0 3 1 103 0 3 1

0

3

3

3

1

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

1

3 43

0

7.8 Specialized Agricultural BMPs

0

0 0 0 4 004 3 3 3

0

1

1

0

0

0

1 11 0 033 0

0

3

1 33

3

7.5 Filtering Practices (sand filters, ...)

1

0 0 3 0 000 3 3 3

1

3

3

3

0

0

1 11 3 111 3

0

3

1 01

0

7.5 Check dams, runoff diversions

0

1 1 0 1 000 1 0 0

0

3

3

3

0

3

0 00 3 000 3

1

3

3 00

1

7.3 Construction site BMPs

0

0 0 0 0 000 1 0 0

0

5

4

3

3

3

0 00 0 000 0

0

5

2

00

4

6.9 Capture 'clean' stormwater for reuse

0

0 3 0 0 000 1 1 1

2

3

3

1

0

1

1 13 3 113 3

1

0

3 00

0

6.9 Rooftop runoff management

0

0 0 0 0 000 1 0 0

3

5

5

2

3

1

0 00 3 000 3

0

0

1 05

0

6.6 Hydrodynamic controls and devices

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 3 3

3

0

0

0

0

0

3 33 3 033 3

3

2

0 00

0

5.6 Stream bank restoration

0

0 0 0 3 003 1 0 0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

5

3 50

5

5.5 Chemical Treatment to enhance existing BMPs

0

0 0 3 0 000 1 3 3

3

0

0

0

0

0

2 22 2 222 3

2

0

0 00

0

5.5 Infiltration trench and dry well

0

0 0 0 0 000 0 5 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 33 3 003 3

3

3

0 00

0

5.0 Dry detention

1

0 0 1 0 000 0 1 1

1

0

0

5

3

3

0 01 1 001 1

1

1

3 00

0

2.4 Pervious pavement

0

0 0 0 0 000 2 0 0

1

3

3

1

1

1

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

1.3 Connection of septic systems to sanitary sewers

0

0 0 5 0 000 0 0 0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

1.3 Atlanta's program for CSO's

0

0 5 0 0 000 0 0 0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0 00 0 000 0

0

0

0 00

0

1

0 100

1

3

0

0 000

0

3

3

3 000

3

3

0

0 000

1

3

1

1 000

4

3

0

0 000

0

3

0

0 000

0

3

0

0 000

0

3

0

0 000

0

3

0

0 000

0

3

5

5 200

5

5

4

4 200

4

5

3

1 441

1

5

3

3 110

5

5

5

5 300

5

5

3

3 133

3

3

0

0 501

0

3

5

0 111

3

3

3

3 310

5

3

3

1 333

0

3

0

0 550

0

5

3

1 010

1

5

5

3 511

3

3

4

5 300

0

3

3

1 300

3

5

3

0 100

3

5

3

3 000

3

5

0

0 531

0

5

5

0 000

0

5

3

0 330

0

5

1

1 100

1

5

1

0 000

0

5

0

0 000

0

5

0

0 000

0

5

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN-FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

TABLE 1
Ranking of BMPs Related to District Policy Goals1 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Watershed Management Plan

Policy Goal

Pollution Prevention

Nonstructural

Support Economic Development

7/52

8/2

Improve Water Quality

10/10

10/10

Equitable Distribution of

10/10

8/2

Benefits/Costs

Implementability

10/8

8/0

Promote Public Education

10/10

8/5

1 Scale of 0-10, the higher the score the greater the benefit 2Applicability for new development/existing development

Regulatory 5/5
9/9 5/5
8/2 8/8

O&M 5/8
8/8 10/2
10/10 8/8

Structural 9/9
8/8 10/2
10/7 5/2

Overall, pollution prevention and nonstructural BMPs were ranked highest for new development based on feedback from the TCC. Pollution prevention and O&M BMPs scored highest for existing development. Scores for all new development BMP categories were higher than existing development scores in almost every category. Similar trends are evident in overall BAC rankings.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

D-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Appendix E DeKalb County Stormwater Utility Ordinance

Appendix F- Potential Partners for District Education and Public Awareness Program

Potential Partnering Organizations, Agencies and Entities
Water-Related and Environmental Organizations
American Water Resources Association (AWRA) American Water Works Association (AWWA) Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association (GW&PCA) Georgia Association of Stormwater Management Agencies (GASMA) Georgia Water Wise Council Georgia Conservancy The Nature Conservancy Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Georgians for Responsible Growth Southface Energy Institute Keep Georgia Beautiful Trout Unlimited Georgia Sierra Club RiversAlive Chattahoochee Cold Water Tailrace Fishery Foundation Georgia Canoeing Association Georgia Ground Water Association Georgia Well Drinkers Association Georgia Lake Management Society Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Georgia Environmental Organization (GEO) Georgia Rural Water Association Natural Resources Conservation Society National Wildlife Federation Soil Science Society of Georgia EeinGeorgia.org ECO-Action Chattahoochee Nature Center Outdoor Activity Center Elachee Nature Science Center Oakhurst Community Garden Project Trees Atlanta, Inc. Trust for Public Land Lake Lanier Association Chattowah Open Land Trust The Wilderness Society Cochran Mill Nature Center Environmental Defense Save Our Communities Hands on Atlanta Georgia Environmental Technology Consortium Georgia Environmental Council

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

F-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Government Agencies
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA -- Region 4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Weather Service, SE River Forecast Center Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Governmental Associations
Association Of County Commissioners Of Georgia (ACCG) Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) Regional Development Centers
Higher Education
Georgia Tech Georgia State University University of Georgia UGA Cooperative Extension Service
Chambers 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 Greater North Fulton Chamber of Commerce South Fulton Chamber of Commerce Clayton County Chamber of Commerce
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 City of Atlanta Bureau of Parks

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

F-2

SEPTEMBER 2003

Business Associations
Regional Business Coalition Georgia Association of Convenience Stores Georgia Green Industry Association Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association Georgia Retail Association Georgia Soft Drink Association Georgia Urban Agriculture Coalition Georgia Tire Dealers and Retreaders Georgia SWANA Atlanta Board of Realtors National Association of Industrial and Office Parks Atlanta Women Business Owners American Subcontractors Association Metro Atlanta Auto Dealers Association (MAADA) Georgia Composting Association Southern Aerosol Technical Association (SATA)

Specific Civic/Neighborhood/Homeowners Associations

Central Atlanta Progress Midtown Alliance Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership Midtown Neighbors' Association North Buckhead Civic Association Inman Park Neighborhood Association Edgewood Heights Neighborhood Association Buckhead Business AssociationClairmont 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

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

F-3

SEPTEMBER 2003

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
Youth Focused Organizations
4-H Boy Scouts Girl Scouts Georgia Public Library Service Captain Planet Foundation Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Project WET

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 SouthStar Community Development Corporation

Potential Business & Corporate 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 Pikes Family 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.

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

F-4

SEPTEMBER 2003

Tusk Oil Valacal Company Ackerman Development American Land & Energy Corp Barbara J Alexander Reality CGR Advisors 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 Laing Management Company NPI Property Management Corp Morris and Raper Realtors Roberts Properties Regent Partners Inc. Realmark Holdings Corp Roberts Properties Inc Sterling Group Success 2000 Reality Group Sunlink Cooperation Wilkinson Group, Inc. Urban Systems Reality Thomas Enterprises Taylor & Mathis Inc. 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
DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL SEPTEMBER 2003

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 SunTrust Wachovia Wal-Mart Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) 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
F-5

United Parcel Service (UPS) Turner Broadcasting ZEP Manufacturing FedEx Target Children's Healthcare Emory Health System Promina
Theme Parks / Commercial Attractions
White Water Theme Park Six Flags Stone Mountain Grand Prix American Adventures Lake Lanier Islands
Sports Teams
Atlanta Braves Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Thrashers Atlanta Falcons Atlanta Beat

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

F-6

SEPTEMBER 2003

Appendix G Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawals and Discharges

DISTRICT-WIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN- FINAL

G-1

SEPTEMBER 2003

Chattahoochee Basin
Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawal and Discharges

Water Body Lake Lanier Lake Lanier

HUC 031300010801 031300010801

County Hall Hall

Plant
Riverside and Lakeside WTPs Gainesville Linwood WRF

2030

2030 Discharge

Withdrawals AA (MGD)

AA (MGD)

-42

TP (lbs/mo)

8.0

264

Lake Lanier

031300010803

Hall

Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

17.6

580

Lake Lanier

031300010804

Hall

Flowery Branch WPCP

Lake Lanier Lake Lanier

031300010806

Forsyth New Forsyth/Cumming

031300010807

Forsyth

Forsyth and Cumming WTPs

-46

Lake Lanier

031300010809

Gwinnett Lanier/Shoal Creek WTPs

-155

Lake Lanier

031300010809

Gwinnett

Gwinnett F. Wayne Hill WRC

Lake Lanier

031300010809

Gwinnett Gwinnett Yellow River WRF

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300010902

Forsyth

New Forsyth Southeast WRF

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300010905

North Fulton Atlanta/Fulton Co. WTP

-95

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300010907

Gwinnett

Gwinnett Crooked Creek WRF

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300010907

North Fulton Fulton Johns Creek WRF

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300010907

DeKalb WTP

-128

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300011102

North Fulton Fulton Big Creek WRF

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300011101

Cobb

CCMWA Quarles WTP

-54

Upper Chattahoochee River

031300011106

Fulton/ Atlanta

Hemphill/Chattahoochee WTPs

-127

Chattahoochee River 031300020101 Fulton/ Atlanta Atlanta RM Clayton WRC

5.6

185

14.4

475

32.0

1,055

12.0

396

16.0

528

36.0

1,187

18.4

607

26.4

871

97.6

3,219

Chattahoochee River 031300020101

Cobb

Cobb RL Sutton WRF

48.0

1,583

Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River

031300020103 Fulton/ Atlanta Atlanta South River WRC

031300020103

DeKalb DeKalb Polebridge WPCP

031300020103 Fulton/ Atlanta Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC

43.2

1,425

24.0

791

35.2

1,161

Chattahoochee River 031300020104

Cobb

Cobb South Cobb WRF

32.0

1,055

Sweetwater Creek

031300020208 Fulton/ Atlanta East Point WTP

-8

Chattahoochee River 031300020301 South Fulton Fulton Camp Creek WRF

Chattahoochee River 031300020301

Douglas

Douglas Sweetwater Creek WWTP

Bear Creek

031300020304

Douglas Bear Creek WTP

Chattahoochee River 031300020306

Douglas

Douglas South Central UWRF

Dog River

031300020309

Douglas Bear Creek WTP

-23

19.2

633

4.8

158

9.6

317

Chattahoochee River 031300020401

Coweta New West Coweta WWTP

Cedar Creek Reservoir

031300020402

Coweta Coweta Brown WTP

-6

- - -

-

Coweta Send to Meriwether County

8.0

264

1.6

TSS (lbs/mo)

Fecals (#/mo)

BOD (lbs/mo)

10,147 22,323 7,103 18,265

2.12E+11 4.65E+11 1.48E+11 3.81E+11

5,885 12,948 4,120 10,593

40,588 15,221 20,294

8.46E+11 3.17E+11 4.23E+11

23,541 8,828 11,771

45,662 23,338

9.52E+11 4.87E+11

26,484 13,536

33,485 6.98E+11 19,421

123,793 2.58E+12 60,882 1.27E+12 54,794 1.14E+12 30,441 6.35E+11 44,647 9.31E+11 40,588 8.46E+11

71,800 35,312 31,780 17,656 25,895 23,541

24,353 6,088

5.08E+11 1.27E+11

14,125 3,531

12,176 2.54E+11 7,062

10,147 2.12E+11 5,885

NH3-N

DO

(lbs/mo) (mg/L)

1,015

7

2,232

7

710

7

1,826

7

4,059

7

1,522

7

2,029

7

4,566

7

2,334

7

3,349

7

12,379

7

6,088

7

5,479

7

3,044

7

4,465

7

4,059

7

2,435

7

609

7

1,218

7

1,015

7

Etowah Basin Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawal and Discharges

Water Body

HUC

County

Lewis Spring

031501030201 Bartow

Oothkalooge Creek 031501030202 Bartow

Etowah River

031501040601 Cherokee

Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River

031501040601 Cherokee 031501040603 Cherokee 031501040605 Cherokee

Noonday Creek

031501040808 Cobb

Lake Allatoona

031501040809 Cherokee

Etowah River Lake Allatoona Lake Allatoona

031501040902 Paulding 031501040904 Cobb 031501040904 Bartow

Lake Allatoona Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River

031501041004 031501041303 031501041303 031501041506

Cobb Bartow Bartow Bartow

Lewis Spring

031501030201 Bartow

Oothkalooge Creek 031501030202 Bartow

Etowah River

031501040601 Cherokee

Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River

031501040601 Cherokee 031501040603 Cherokee 031501040605 Cherokee

Noonday Creek

031501040808 Cobb

Lake Allatoona

031501040809 Cherokee

Etowah River Lake Allatoona Lake Allatoona

031501040902 Paulding 031501040904 Cobb 031501040904 Bartow

Lake Allatoona Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River

031501041004 031501041303 031501041303 031501041506

Cobb Bartow Bartow Bartow

Lewis Spring

031501030201 Bartow

Oothkalooge Creek 031501030202 Bartow

Etowah River

031501040601 Cherokee

Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River

031501040601 Cherokee 031501040603 Cherokee 031501040605 Cherokee

Noonday Creek

031501040808 Cobb

Lake Allatoona

031501040809 Cherokee

Etowah River Lake Allatoona Lake Allatoona

031501040902 Paulding 031501040904 Cobb 031501040904 Bartow

Lake Allatoona Etowah River Etowah River Etowah River

031501041004 031501041303 031501041303 031501041506

Cobb Bartow Bartow Bartow

Plant

2030 Withdrawals
AA (MGD)

Adairsville Lewis Spring WTP

-3

Adairsville North WPCP

Etowah River WTP

-17

New Northeast Etowah Facility

Canton WTP

-34

Canton WPCP

Cobb Noonday Creek WWTP

Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek Reuse Regional Wyckoff WTP Cartersville Walker WTP

-120 -40

Cobb Northwest Cobb WWTP Cartersville WPCP Industrial WWTPs New West Bartow

Adairsville Lewis Spring WTP

-3

Adairsville North WPCP

Etowah River WTP

-17

New Northeast Etowah Facility

Canton WTP

-34

Canton WPCP

Cobb Noonday Creek WWTP

Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek Reuse Regional Wyckoff WTP Cartersville Walker WTP

-120 -40

Cobb Northwest Cobb WWTP Cartersville WPCP Industrial WWTPs New West Bartow

Adairsville Lewis Spring WTP

-3

Adairsville North WPCP

Etowah River WTP

-17

New Northeast Etowah Facility

Canton WTP

-34

Canton WPCP

Cobb Noonday Creek WWTP

Cherokee Rose Creek WWTP Paulding Pumpkinvine Creek Reuse Regional Wyckoff WTP Cartersville Walker WTP

-120 -40

Cobb Northwest Cobb WWTP Cartersville WPCP Industrial WWTPs New West Bartow

2030 Discharge AA (MGD)
2.4
7.2 4.8 16 13.6 6.4
9.6 21.6 1.6 3.2
2.4
7.2 4.8 16 13.6 6.4
9.6 21.6 1.6 3.2
2.4
7.2 4.8 16 13.6 6.4
9.6 21.6 1.6 3.2

TP (lbs/mo)

TSS Fecals BOD (lbs/mo) (#/mo) (lbs/mo)

NH3-N (lbs/mo)

DO (mg/L)

79

3044 6.35E+10 1766

304

7

237

9132 1.9E+11 5297

913

7

158

6088 1.27E+11 3531

609

7

528

20294 4.23E+11 11771

2029

7

448

17250 3.6E+11 10005

1725

7

211

8118 1.69E+11 4708

812

7

317

12176 2.54E+11 7062

1218

7

712

27397 5.71E+11 15890

2740

7

53

2029 4.23E+10 1177

203

7

106

4059 8.46E+10 2354

406

7

609

6088 5.52E+11 6088

1218

6

1826

18265 1.66E+12 18265

3653

6

1218

12176 1.1E+12 12176

2435

6

4059

40588 3.68E+12 40588

8118

6

3450

34500 3.13E+12 34500

6900

6

1624

16235 1.47E+12 16235

3247

6

2435

24353 2.21E+12 24353

4871

6

5479

54794 4.97E+12 54794

10959

6

406

4059 3.68E+11 4059

812

6

812

8118 7.36E+11 8118

1624

6

3653

18265 5.52E+11 18265

12176

2

10959

54794 1.66E+12 54794

36529

2

7306

36529 1.1E+12 36529

24353

2

24353

121764 3.68E+12 121764

81176

2

20700

103499 3.13E+12 103499

69000

2

9741

48706 1.47E+12 48706

32470

2

14612

73058 2.21E+12 73058

48706

2

32876

164381 4.97E+12 164381 109588

2

2435

12176 3.68E+11 12176

8118

2

4871

24353 7.36E+11 24353

16235

2

Flint Basin
Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawal and Discharges

Water Body
Flint River Flint River Flint River Bear Creek Line Creek

HUC

County Plant

2030 Withdrawals
AA (MGD)

2030 Discharge AA (MGD)

TP (lbs/mo)

031300050104 Clayton Clayton JW Smith WTP

-12

031300050104

Clayton

Clayton Shoal Creek WRP LAS (to Land)

3.2

031300050104 Fayette South Fayette WTP

-8

031300050105

Henry

Henry Bear Creek LAS (to Land)

0.8

031300050201 Coweta Newnan Norred WTP

-8

Line Creek

031300050203 Fayette Fayette Crosstown WTP

-20

Line Creek Whitewater Creek

031300050203 031300050204

Fayette

Peachtree City Rockaway WPCP

Fayette

Fayetteville Whitewater Creek WPCP

Line Creek

031300050206 Coweta New South Fayette WWTP

8

264

4.8

158

4.0

132

White Oak Creek 031300050301 Coweta Newnan Norred WTP

White Oak Creek 031300050303 Coweta New South Coweta WWTP

5.6

185

TSS (lbs/mo)

Fecals (#/mo)

BOD

NH3-N

DO

(lbs/mo) (lbs/mo) (mg/L)

10147 2.11554E+11 5885

1015

7

6,088

1.27E+11

3,531

609

7

5,074

1.06E+11

2,943

507

7

7,103

1.48E+11

4,120

710

7

Ocumlgee Basin
Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawal and Discharges

Water Body
South River Cotton Indian Creek Blalock Reservoir Wetlands treatment Little Cotton Indian Creek Walnut Creek Walnut Creek Yellow River Yellow River

HUC
030701030105 030701030201 030701030203 030701030203 030701030204 030701030303 030701030303 030701030406 030701030502

County
DeKalb Clayton Clayton Clayton Clayton

Plant
DeKalb Polebridge WPCP Clayton Northeast WRP Clayton Freeman Road WTP Clayton W.B. Casey WRP Clayton W.J. Hopper WTP

2030 Withdrawals
AA (MGD)
-10
-20

Henry McDonough WTP

-2

Henry Gwinnett

New Henry Walnut Creek WRF Gwinnett Yellow River WRF

Rockdale Quigg Branch WRF

2030 Discharge AA (MGD)
42.4 8.8
19.2
15.2 17.6 12.0

Big Haynes Creek

030701030505 Rockdale Big Haynes WTP

-25

Alcovy River

030701030704 Walton Monroe WTP

-5

Big Flat Creek

030701030706 Walton Loganville WPCP

1.6

Big Flat Creek

030701030706 Walton New South Walton

3.2

Lake Varner

030701030708

Walton

New Newton/Walton WTP

-5

Tussahaw Reservoir 030701030902 Henry New Tussahaw WTP

-16

Towaliga River

030701031103 Henry Henry Towaliga WTP

-18

Towaliga River Trib 030701031103

Henry

Henry Indian Creek LAS (to Land)

5.6

TP

TSS

(lbs/mo) (lbs/mo)

Fecals (#/mo)

BOD

NH3-N

DO

(lbs/mo) (lbs/mo) (mg/L)

1,398

53,779 1.12E+12 31,192

5,378

7

290

11,162 2.33E+11 6,474

1,116

7

633

24,353 5.08E+11 14,125

2,435

7

501

19279 4.0195E+11 11182

1928

7

580

22,323 4.65E+11 12,948

2,232

7

396

15,221 3.17E+11 8,828

1,522

7

53

2,029 4.23E+10 1,177

203

7

106

4059 8.4622E+10 2354

406

7

Oconee Basin
Wastewater and Water Supply Solution Withdrawal and Discharges

Water Body

HUC

County Plant

Cedar Creek

030701010402

Jacks Creek Trib 030701010903

Hard Labor Creek Reservoir

030701011302

Hall Walton Walton

New Hall Cedar Creek
WTP Monroe Jacks Creek
WPCP New Hard Labor Creek
WTP

2030 Withdrawals
AA (MGD) -7
-9

2030 Discharge AA (MGD)
4.0

TP

TSS

Fecals BOD

(lbs/mo) (lbs/mo) (#/mo) (lbs/mo)

132

5,074 1.06E+11 2,943

NH3-N (lbs/mo)
507

DO (mg/L)
7