WBG041311142140ATL

Printed on Recycled Paper

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... ES-1

Section 1. 1.1
1.2
1.3

Introduction ...................................................................................1-1 The Significance of Water Resources in Georgia ............................1-3
State and Regional Water Planning Process ...................................1-3
CNG Regional Water Planning Council Vision and Goals................1-4

Section 2. 2.1
2.2

Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region.............................2-1 History, Climate and Physiography..................................................2-1 2.1.1 Local Governments..............................................................2-2 2.1.2 Watersheds and Water Bodies ............................................2-5 2.1.3 Groundwater Aquifers ..........................................................2-6 Characteristics of the Region...........................................................2-9 2.2.1 Population............................................................................2-9 2.2.2 Employment.........................................................................2-9 2.2.3 Land Cover ..........................................................................2-9 2.2.4 Local Policy Context ..........................................................2-13

Section 3. 3.1 3.2
3.3

Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region...............3-1 Major Water Use in Region .............................................................3-1 Resource Assessments...................................................................3-4 3.2.1 Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) .....................3-4 3.2.2 Surface Water Availability ....................................................3-6 3.2.3 Groundwater Quantity..........................................................3-8 Ecosystem Conditions and In-Stream Use ......................................3-8 3.3.1 Water Use Classifications (Designated Uses) ......................3-8 3.3.2 Monitored and Impaired Waters ......................................... 3-12 3.3.3 Conservation Areas ...........................................................3-12 3.3.4 Fisheries Resources ..........................................................3-13

Section 4. 4.1
4.2
4.3 4.4 4.5

Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs.................................4-1 Municipal Forecasts ........................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Municipal Water Demand Forecasts ....................................4-2 4.1.2 Municipal Wastewater Flow Forecasts .................................4-5 Industrial Forecasts .........................................................................4-8 4.2.1 Industrial Water Demand Forecasts.....................................4-9 4.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Flow Forecasts................................4-10 Agricultural Forecasts....................................................................4-11 Water for Thermoelectric Power Forecasts....................................4-12 Total Water Demand Forecasts.....................................................4-13

Section 5. 5.1
5.2

Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs..5-1 Groundwater Availability Comparisons ............................................5-1
Surface Water Availability Comparisons ..........................................5-2

June 2017

i

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Table of Contents

5.3 5.4 5.5 Section 6. 6.1 6.2
Section 7. 7.1 7.2
7.3 7.4
7.5 Section 8.
8.1 8.2 8.3 Section 9.

Surface Water Quality Comparisons (Assimilative Capacity) ...........5-7 Future Treatment Capacity Comparison........................................5-13 Summary of Potential Water Resource Gaps or Shortages ...........5-16
Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals ............................6-1 Identifying Water Management Practices ........................................6-1 6.1.1 Review of Existing Plans and Practices ...............................6-1 Selected Water Management Practices for the Region....................6-2 6.2.1 Water Conservation Management Practices ........................6-2 6.2.2 Water Supply Management Practices ..................................6-6 6.2.3 Wastewater Management Practices.....................................6-9 6.2.4 Water Quality Management Practices ................................6-12
Implementing Water Management Practices ...............................7-1 Implementation Status.....................................................................7-1 Implementation Schedule and Roles of Responsible Parties ...........7-3 7.2.1 Implementation of Water Conservation Management
Practices .............................................................................. 7-3 7.2.2 Implementation of Water Supply Management
Practices ............................................................................ 7-10 7.2.3 Implementation of Wastewater Management Practices......7-15 7.2.4 Implementation of Water Quality Management
Practices ............................................................................ 7-20 Fiscal Implications of Selected Water Management Practices .......7-31 Alignment with Other Plans ...........................................................7-37 7.4.1 Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) Basin Master Water
Control Manual ..................................................................7-37 7.4.2 Etowah Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) .............7-37 7.4.3 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Plans .................................................................................7-38 7.4.4 Other Regional Planning Considerations ........................... 7-38 Recommendations to the State .....................................................7-41
Monitoring and Reporting Progress ............................................8-1 Benchmarks ....................................................................................8-1 Regional Water Plan Updates .........................................................8-3 Plan Amendments ...........................................................................8-3
Bibliography ..................................................................................9-1

Appendix A Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

ii

June 2017

Table of Contents

Tables
ES-1: Goals for the Regional Water Plan...........................................................ES-2
ES-2: Summary of Potential Gaps, Needs, or Shortages by CNG County ......... ES-6
ES-3: Overview of the Regional Water Plan.............................................................8
2-1: CNG Counties and Municipalities................................................................2-2
2-2: River Basin Characteristics within Region...................................................2-6
2-3: 2011 Land Cover Distribution....................................................................2-10
2-4: CNG Counties by RC................................................................................2-13
3-1: Special Stream Classifications ....................................................................3-9
4-1: Population Projections by County provided by Office of Planning and Budgeta ......................................................................................................4-2
4-2: Municipal Water Demand Forecasts by County (AAD-MGD)a.....................4-3
4-3: Municipal Wastewater Flow Forecasts by County (AAF-MGD)a..................4-7
4-4: Agricultural Water Demand Forecasts by County (AAD-MGD) for the 75th Percentile Scenario ...........................................................................4-12
5-1: Future Surface Water Potential Gaps in 2050 by Node ...............................5-4
5-2: Characteristics of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps .................5-5
5-3: Permitted Municipal Water Withdrawal Limits versus Forecasted Municipal Water Demands (MGD) ..............................................................5-6
5-4: Permitted Municipal Wastewater Discharge Limits versus Forecasted Municipal Wastewater Flows (MGD) .........................................................5-14
5-5: Number of Permits, Permitted Agricultural Acreage and 2050 Forecasted Agricultural Water Demand (MGD) .........................................5-15
5-6: Summary of Potential Gaps, Needs, or Shortages by CNG County ..........5-17
6-1(a): Water Conservation Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region ...............................................................................6-4
6-1(b): Water Supply Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region .........................................................................................6-7
6-1(c): Wastewater Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region .......................................................................................6-10
6-1(d): Water Quality Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region .......................................................................................6-13
Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices ...............................................................................7-4

June 2017

iii

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Table of Contents

7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices .........7-10 7-1(c): Implementation Schedule for Wastewater Management Practices............7-16 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices .........7-21 7-2: Cost Estimates for the Water Conservation Management Practices
Implementation Responsibilities................................................................7-31 7-3: Cost Estimates for the Water Supply Management Practice
Implementation Responsibilities................................................................7-33 7-4: Cost Estimates for the Wastewater Management Practice
Implementation Responsibilities................................................................7-34 7-5: Cost Estimates for the Water Quality Management Practice
Implementation Responsibilities (Continued) ............................................7-35 7-6: Recommendations to the State .................................................................7-42 8-1: Resource Benchmarks for Management Practices......................................8-2
Figures ES-1: Location Map of Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region................ES-1 ES-2: Water Demand Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (ADD-MGD) ........................ES-4 ES 3: Wastewater Flow Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (AAF-MGD) .....................ES-4 1-1: Georgia Regional Water Planning Councils ................................................1-2 1-2: State Water Planning Process ....................................................................1-4 2-1: Counties and Cities in the CNG Region ......................................................2-3 2-2: Groundwater Aquifers .................................................................................2-8 2-3: 2011 Land Cover in the CNG Region........................................................2-11 3-1: 2010 Water Supply by Source Type............................................................3-3 3-2: 2010 Surface Water withdrawal by Category ..............................................3-3 3-3: 2010 Groundwater Withdrawal by Category................................................3-3 3-4: 2010 Wastewater Treatment by Category...................................................3-3 3-5: Local Drainage Areas and Planning Nodes in the CNG Region ..................3-7 3-6: Impaired Waters in the CNG Region .........................................................3-15 3-7: Conservation Areas and GADNR High Priority Waters (As Delineated
in the State Wildlife Plan) in the CNG Region ...........................................3-17 3-8: Southeastern Imperiled Priority Watersheds .............................................3-19 3-9: Georgia Imperiled Priority Watersheds......................................................3-19

iv

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Table of Contents
4-1: Municipal Water Demand Forecast (AAD-MGD) .........................................4-5 4-2: Municipal Wastewater Flow Forecast (AAF-MGD) ......................................4-8 4-3: Industrial Water Demand Forecast (AAD-MGD)........................................4-10 4-4: Industrial Wastewater Flow Forecast (AAF-MGD).....................................4-11 4-5: Water Demand Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (AAD-MGD) .........................4-14 4-6: Total Water Demand Forecast (AAD-MGD) ..............................................4-14 4-7: Wastewater Flow Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (AAF-MGD) ......................4-15 4-8: Total Wastewater Flow Forecast (AAF-MGD) ...........................................4-15 5-1: Surface Water Modeling Nodes ..................................................................5-3 5-2: Permitted Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) ............................5-8 5-3: Growing Season Median Phosphorus Concentration Coosa River at
Georgia-Alabama State Line .....................................................................5-12 5-4: Coosa Watershed Tributary Phosphorus Loading (lb/yr) ........................5-12 5-5: Coosa Watershed Tributary Nitrogen Loading (lb/yr) .............................5-13 6-1: Water Conservation Guidance Process Flow Diagram................................6-3

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

v

Table of Contents
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

vi

June 2017

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAD-MGD AAF-MGD ACCG ACF ACT AE ASR AT
BMP
cfs CNG
F DCA DCH DO
ED EIS EPA ES
FERC FOG
GADNR GAEPD GAP GAWP GEFA GEMA GGCSA GGIA GMA gpcd gpf gpm GRWA GSWCC GWh
HCP HUC
I/I

annual average demand in million gallons per day annual average flow in million gallons per day Association of County Commissioners of Georgia Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Adverse Effects aquifer storage and recovery Alternative Technologies
best management practice
cubic feet per second Coosa-North Georgia
degrees Fahrenheit Department of Community Affairs Department of Community Health dissolved oxygen
Economic Development environmental impact statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Educate Stakeholders
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fats, oils, and grease
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Environmental Protection Division Gap Analysis Program Georgia Association of Water Professionals Georgia Environmental Finance Authority Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Golf Course Superintendents Association Georgia Green Industry Association Georgia Municipal Association gallons per capita per day gallons per flush gallons per minute Georgia Rural Water Association Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission gigawatts per hour
Habitat Conservation Plan hydrologic unit code
inflow and infiltration

June 2017

vii

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ITP

Incidental Take Permits

LAS

land application system

lbs

pounds

lb/yr

pounds per year

LDA

Local Drainage Area

MGD mg/L MS4 MSL

million gallons per day milligrams per liter Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System mean sea level

NESPAL NLCD NNC NPDES NRCS NWGRC

National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory National Land Cover Database Numerical Nutrient Criteria National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Natural Resources Conservation Service Northwest Georgia Regional Water Planning Council

O&M O.C.G.A. OPB

operation and maintenance Official Code of Georgia Annotated Governor's Office of Planning and Budget

Partnership PCB PVEPC

North Georgia Regional Watershed Partnership polychlorinated biphenyl Part V Environmental Planning Criteria

RC

Regional Commission

SB SOP SPLCP SSO SWMP

Senate Bill standard operating procedure Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning sanitary sewer system overflow Stormwater Management Program

TMDL TVA

total maximum daily load Tennessee Valley Authority

USACE USFWS USGS

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geologic Survey

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

viii

June 2017

Acronyms and Abbreviations

WC WCIP WQ WRD WS WTP WW

water conservation Water Conservation Implementation Plan water quality Wildlife Resources Division water supply water treatment plant wastewater

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

x

June 2017

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation, courtesy, and contributions of the following members of the Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Planning Council.

Name Brooke Anderson Donald Anderson, Jr.
David Ashburn Irwin Bagwell Jerry Barnes Wayne Bennett John Bennett
Mike Berg Greg Bowman
Jim Conley Keith Coffey James Donald Cope Jerry Crawford Jamie Doss W. David Gattis James Irby, Jr. Haynes Johnson Anne Kaiser Ronnie Kilgo Larry Lykins
Edwin Nix Tom O'Bryant Lamar Paris Jimmy Petty Frank Riley, Jr. Sandie Sparks Alvin Worley Representative Katie Dempsey Senator Charlie Bethel

City Dawsonville
Cornelia LaFayette Cave Springs
Jasper Dawsonville
Rome Dawsonville
Calhoun Blairsville Ringgold
Dalton Calhoun
Rome Ringgold Cornelia Jasper
Rome Rome Ellijay Cleveland Cleveland Blairsville Crandall Hiawassee Ellijay Ringgold (Ex-Officio) (Ex-Officio)

County Dawson Habersham Walker
Floyd Pickens Dawson
Floyd Dawson Gordon
Union Catoosa Whitfield Gordon
Floyd Catoosa Habersham Pickens
Floyd Floyd Gilmer White White Union Murray Towns Gilmer Catoosa Floyd Whitfield

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

xi

Acknowledgements
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

xii

June 2017

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
This Regional Water Plan lays out a roadmap for implementing specific measures designed to ensure wise use and management of the Coosa-North Georgia (CNG) Region's water over the next 50 years. It focuses on four areas:
Water Conservation--Responsible use of a public resource
Water Supply--Optimal management of water supplies and systems
Wastewater--Reliable means for wastewater treatment and reuse
Water Quality--Environmental improvements through reduced pollution
This Plan assesses the Region's current and future water and wastewater needs, and describes 41 management practices that can be implemented through collaboration between local, regional, and state entities. It also presents realistic and measurable benchmarks to track short-term and long-term progress toward implementing these management practices.

Introduction

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), with oversight from the

Georgia Water Council, developed the first Comprehensive State-wide Water

Management Plan (State Water Plan), which was adopted by the Georgia General

Assembly in January 2008. The State Water Plan included a provision to create 10

water planning regions across the state, each guided by a regional water planning

council. (An eleventh region and council, covering the Atlanta metro area, already existed). Part of the mission of each council was to create a Regional Water Plan, and

Figure ES-1: Location Map of Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

the original plan was adopted by GAEPD in

September 2011.

The Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Planning Council (the Council) prepared this Regional Water Plan for the CNG Region, which includes 18 counties and 52 municipalities. See Figure ES-1. The Region contains portions of the Coosa, Conasauga, Coosawattee, Etowah, and Oostanaula River Basins, and includes various groundwater aquifer systems, particularly the Crystalline rock and Paleozoic rock aquifer systems.

June 2017

ES-1

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Executive Summary

Process
The Council is comprised of 29 individuals who represent a cross-section of public and private stakeholders within the Region's 18 counties: Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Dawson, Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, Habersham, Lumpkin, Murray, Pickens, Polk, Towns, Union, Walker, White, and Whitfield. The Council adopted the following vision and goals (Table ES-1) to guide the development of this Regional Water Plan:

Vision: Enhance the potential and quality of life for all communities through sustainable use of water resources in the region and state with partnerships among a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

Table ES-1: Goals for the Regional Water Plan

Number

Goal

1

Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated need for local communities.

2

Minimize adverse effects to local communities and adjacent regions, and, when

possible, enhance natural systems.

3

Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize

existing water and wastewater infrastructure.

4

Promote alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect

water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the Region.

5

Promote properly managed wastewater discharges.

6

Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources,

including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

7

Identify practices that reduce nonpoint source pollution and control stormwater to

protect and enhance water quality and ecosystems in lakes and streams,

particularly those in priority watersheds and listed streams.

8

Develop an ongoing adaptive management approach to measure, share, and

evaluate water use data and information.

A series of nine full council meetings were held to develop the original (2011) Regional Water Plan over a 24-month period. The meetings included representation from state agency staff, local government and utility staff, and interested stakeholders. Additional subcommittee meetings were held to address specific topics including the water and wastewater per capita demands and the selection of management practices. Results and recommendations from subcommittee meetings were discussed and approved during full council meetings.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

ES-2

June 2017

Executive Summary
Five-Year Plan Update
As defined in the water planning act approved by the Georgia General Assembly in 2008, the Regional Water Plans are required to be updated on a 5-year cycle. This document is the product of the first update to the original 2011 plan for the CNG water planning region. In general, the plan update process followed essentially the same overall planning process outlined in Figure 1-2, with some variances in specific steps to accommodate the schedule or available funding. Variances in the planning steps are outlined in the respective sections of the document, including water and wastewater demand forecasts (Section 4) and resource assessment modeling (Sections 3 and 5).
Water and Wastewater Demands
As shown in Figure ES-2, major water uses, based on 2015 water withdrawal totals, are for energy generation (68 percent), municipal water supply (17 percent), industrial use (13 percent), and agricultural use (2 percent). Virtually all of the water withdrawn for energy generation is used for cooling and then returned to its original source. Thus, consumptive water use for this purpose is negligible.
Energy water demands are expected to decrease throughout the planning horizon (i.e., through 2050); however, energy use will remain the largest demand in the Region in 2050, comprising 61 percent of the total. Other uses forecast for 2050 include municipal water supply (18 percent), industrial use (19 percent), and agricultural use (2 percent). Agricultural water demands are expected to remain relatively constant between 2015 and 2050. Municipal and industrial water demands are projected to increase steadily from approximately 189 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2015 to 247 MGD in 2050. The updated 2050 water forecasts are lower than the original plan estimates (247 versus 334 MGD) primarily due to the updated population projections, which indicate a lower overall population in 2050 for the Region than estimated for the original plan.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

ES-3

Executive Summary

Figure ES-2: Water Demand Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (AAD-MGD)

Municipal Industrial Energy Agricultural

Municipal Industrial Energy Agricultural

15 MGD
2% 108 MGD
17%

15 MGD
2% 122 MGD
18%

440 MGD 68%

81 MGD 13%

405 MGD 61%

125 MGD 19%

TToottaall==663424 MMDGGD

2015 Total=668 MGD

2050

Notes: Includes Municipal, Industrial, Energy, and Agriculture (Irrigation, Nursery, Golf, and Livestock). Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017).

Figure ES-2: Water Demand Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (ADD
Figure ES-3 shows the results of the wastewater flow forecast for 2015 and 2050 by sector. Water returns from thermoelectric energy production make up 70 and 62 percent of the total in 2015 and 2050, respectively. However, these flows are generally for permitted cooling water returns and do not represent future needs for wastewater treatment. The total wastewater flow for municipal and industrial uses is projected to be 246 MGD in 2050.

Figure ES-3: Wastewater Flow Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (AAF-MGD)

Municipal Industrial Energy

Municipal Industrial Energy

440 MGD 70%

118 MGD 18%
74 MGD 12%

405 MGD 62%

135 MGD 21%
111 MGD 17%

TToottaall==663321 MMDGGD

2015 Total=651 MGD

2050

Notes: Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017).

Figure ES 3: Wastewater Flow Forecast for 2015 and

ES-4

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Executive Summary
Major Findings
The GAEPD developed Resource Assessments of the State's river basins and aquifers that examine three resource conditions:
Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)--The capacity of Georgia's surface waters to accommodate pollutants without unacceptable degradation of water quality, i.e., without exceeding State water quality standards or harming aquatic life.
Surface Water Quantity--The ability of surface water resources to meet current municipal, industrial, agricultural, and thermoelectric power water needs, as well as the needs of in-stream and downstream users.
Groundwater Quantity--The sustainable yield or volume of water that can be withdrawn without causing adverse effects in prioritized groundwater resources.
The Resource Assessments also identify potential shortcomings in these resources and classify them as "gaps." A potential gap means that the existing or future conditions (2050) exceed the Resource Assessment metric, e.g., if the estimated sustainable yield of a specific groundwater aquifer is exceeded, then a potential "gap" exists in groundwater availability in that area.
In addition, an analysis of existing permitted capacity (for water and wastewater facilities) versus future demands was conducted to identify potential water infrastructure "needs" and any potential wastewater infrastructure "shortages." A need or shortage means that the current permitted capacity of water or wastewater treatment facilities, respectively, is less than the future forecast demands, e.g., a potential "need" would occur if the permitted capacity of a water treatment plant in 2050 is less than the forecast demand for that year.
Table ES-2 summarizes the potential gaps, needs, and/or shortages identified for each county within the Region. The water quality gap analysis includes a summary of the miles of stream segments in each county that are not meeting water quality standards and are on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. Based on the Resource Assessments, there were limited gaps in meeting future water availability in Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, and Walker Counties in 2050. There were estimated gaps in meeting assimilative capacity in the future that will require improvements in wastewater treatment and nonpoint source controls, primarily for nutrient removal. Needs and shortages in permitted water and wastewater capacity, respectively, also occur by 2050 and will require development of additional treatment facilities. However, these needs are now limited to improvements in municipal facilities in Dawson and Towns Counties and wastewater facilities in Habersham County.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

ES-5

Executive Summary

Table ES-2: Summary of Potential Gaps, Needs, or Shortages by CNG County

County

Surface Water Availability Gaps

Municipal Water Needs

Municipal Wastewater Shortages

Agricultural Water
Shortages

Water Quality Assimilative Capacity
Gapsa

Miles and (Segments)
of 303(d) Reachesb

Source

Table 5-1 Table 5-2

Table 5-4

Table 5-5

Figure 5-2

Section 3.3.2 and 5.3

Catoosa

Yes

69 (14)

Chattooga

Yes

Yes

56 (10)

Dade

Yes

Yes

Yes

21 (3)

Dawson

Yes

51 (7)

Fannin

49 (10)

Floyd

Yes

175 (24)

Gilmer

74 (18)

Gordon

Yes

94 (17)

Habersham

Yes

42 (5)

Lumpkin

61 (10)

Murray

Yes

65 (10)

Pickens

54 (12)

Polk

Yes

18 (2)

Towns

Yes

42 (11)

Union

89 (23)

Walker

Yes

50 (9)

White

25 (5)

Whitfield

Yes

37 (10)

Total

4

2

1

1

3

1072 (200)

Notes:
"Yes" indicates that there is a potential gap or need/shortage in the indicated county.
"Gap" is defined as a condition where the existing or future water withdrawal or return conditions exceed the Resource Assessment metric within a portion of the county.
"Need" and "Shortage" are defined as a condition where the current permitted capacity of water and wastewater treatment facilities, respectively, is less than the future forecast demands. a Gaps in assimilative capacity are for streams modeled to have "Limited," "At Capacity," or "No Capacity Remaining" status. b Includes only 303(d) reaches that are fully within each respective county. An additional 397 miles over 41 stream reaches are shared between two or more CNG counties.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

ES-6

June 2017

Executive Summary

Recommended Management Practices
The State Water Plan defines Management Practices as reasonable methods, considering available technology and economic factors, for managing water demand, water supply, return of water to water sources, and prevention and control of pollution of the waters of the State. The Council ultimately selected 41 management practices within the following categories: Water Conservation (11 management practices), Water Supply (8 management practices), Wastewater (8 management practices), and Water Quality (14 management practices). In counties with no identified potential gaps/needs/shortages within a particular category, the management practices were selected to align with the Region's visions and goals.
Due to the diversity of land use and anticipated growth across the basin, the Council recognized that a "one size fits all" approach to management practices was not appropriate. Therefore, the Council developed a diverse set of management practices that may be applied to address more localized sub-regional water supply, wastewater, or water quality issues. For this plan update, the Council recommended more specific language on several management practices to emphasize the need to move forward with implementation. The language changed from "consider" implementation of a practice to "implement" the practice.
For this plan update, the Council reviewed the original management practices and provided recommendations on modifications based on feedback from stakeholders (Council members, local governments, and utilities) during a series of meetings facilitated by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission in 2015. These recommendations were revisited during the update process after the resource assessments were completed to ensure that the final recommendations addressed any new potential "gaps" in water availability or water quality. Based on the new resource assessment information, the potential "gaps" that were identified in the original planning process remained essentially the same. Therefore, the primary changes to the management practices were identified to clarify or enhance existing management practices based on local government implementation experience or to add management practices to address specific Council recommendations.
The Council also re-evaluated the short-term and long-term actions for implementing all management practices and identified the parties responsible for implementation. The bulk of implementation actions will continue to be the responsibility of local governments and utilities, and their respective Regional Commissions; however, extensive support for short-term activities, in particular, will be needed from State entities, such as the GAEPD. Cost estimates are presented that specify the capital or programmatic costs and funding sources and options for each management practice. These cost estimates were not revised during this plan update but the cost estimates for the new management practices were provided based on the same cost guidance used in the original study. In addition, the Council compiled a list of recommendations to the State for actions that will support implementation of the Plan. The Council also established measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased benchmarks for implementing this Regional Water Plan. For example, the Council still recommends that progress in implementation of the short-term actions be measured using an annual

June 2017

ES-7

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Executive Summary

survey, and improvements in water quality monitoring results be measured using the GAEPD water quality database.

Overview of Plan Sections
Table ES-3 presents an overview of the Sections of this Regional Water Plan.

Table ES-3: Overview of the Regional Water Plan

Section

Title

Overview

1

Introduction

Introduction of Regional Water Planning process and the Council

2

Coosa-North Georgia Water Characteristics of the Region, including geography and

Planning Region

watersheds, aquifers, population, and land cover

3

Water Resources of the

Major water uses and baseline water resource

Coosa-North Georgia Region capacities

4

Forecasting Future Water

Resource Needs

Municipal, industrial, agricultural, and energy water use forecasts through 2050

5

Comparison of Water

Resource Capacities and

Future Needs

Groundwater and surface water (quantity and quality) comparisons and identification of potential future gaps, needs, or shortages

6

Addressing Water Needs and Identified Management Practices to address future

Regional Goals

goals, shortfalls, needs, and potential gaps

7

Implementing Water

Management Practices

Management Practice implementation schedules, roles of responsible parties, cost estimates, and Recommendations to the State

8

Monitoring and Reporting

Progress

Benchmarks and measurement tools to track progress toward meeting goals and addressing shortfalls

9

Bibliography

Supporting and referenced materials list

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

ES-8

June 2017

1. Introduction

Section 1. Introduction

Section Summary

Georgia is developing Regional

The 2004 Comprehensive State-wide Water Water Plans for 10 planning

Management Planning Act mandated the regions across the state to define

development of a state-wide water plan that supports a far-reaching vision for water resource management: "Georgia manages water

sustainable practices to meet regional water resource needs through 2050.

resources in a sustainable manner to support the

state's economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens" (Official Code of Georgia Annotated [O.C.G.A.] 12-5-522(a)).
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), with oversight from the Georgia Water Council, was charged with developing the first Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan (State Water Plan), which was adopted by the Georgia General Assembly in January 2008.
The State Water Plan included a provision to

The Coosa-North Georgia Council developed a vision to "enhance the potential and quality of life for all communities through sustain-able use of water resources in the region and state with partnerships among a broad spectrum of stakeholders" and adopted the eight goals listed in Section 1.3.

create 10 water planning regions across the

state, each guided by a regional water planning council. The Governor, Lieutenant

Governor, and Speaker of the House appoint members of the regional water planning

councils. Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of these regions relative to Georgia's river

basins and counties. The preexisting Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning

District (Metro District) was established in May 2001.

The original 10 regional water development and conservation plans (Regional Water Plans) were developed and adopted by GAEPD in 2011. This Regional Water Plan prepared for the Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region (the Region) by the Coosa-North Georgia (CNG) Regional Water Planning Council (the Council) defined the regionally appropriate water management practices to be employed in the CNG Region.

This document is an update to the 2011 Regional Water Plan for the CNG Region and is based on updated regional water demand forecasts, updated resource assessment modeling, and the evaluation of potential future gaps in surface water availability and water quality. This updated plan also includes the revised management practices recommended by the CNG Council to either address future water resource management needs or to refine or clarify management practices for the local governments and utilities in the CNG Region.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

1-1

1. Introduction
Figure 1-1: Georgia Regional Water Planning Councils

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2009. 1-2

June 2017

1. Introduction

Each regional water plan recommends sustainable management practices designed to meet each region's needs through the year 2050, while coordinating with the regional water plans of adjoining regional water planning councils for consistency across the state. As such, this CNG Regional Water Plan contains the following sections:
Section 2 provides in an overview of the Region's population, municipalities and land use.
Section 3 describes the Region's existing water resources and unique characteristics.
Section 4 forecasts the Region's future water resources needs.
Section 5 compares the Region's future needs with existing capacities to identify potential water resource issues, particularly any potential water gaps or shortages.
Section 6 reviews existing local and regional plans as part of an effort to select management practices to address potential gaps and shortages, while still meeting goals for the Region.
Section 7 establishes a roadmap for implementing the selected management practices.
Section 8 establishes benchmarks for measuring and reporting progress toward implementation.
1.1 The Significance of Water Resources in Georgia
Of all Georgia's natural resources, none is more important to the future of the state than water. The wise use and management of water is critical to support the state's economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. Georgia has abundant water resources, with 14 major river systems and multiple groundwater aquifer systems. But, while water in Georgia is abundant, it is not an unlimited resource and must be carefully and sustainably managed to meet long-term water needs. This CNG Regional Water Plan moves the Region toward managing its water resources in a proactive, sustainable manner.
1.2 State and Regional Water Planning Process
The State Water Plan established the 10 regional water planning councils illustrated in Figure 1-1, including the CNG Council, and provided a framework for regional planning. The original regional water plans were prepared following the consensusbased planning process outlined in Figure 1-2, which requires the input of regional water planning councils, local governments, and the public. For this plan update, a similar approach was followed including a review of the original vision and goals, updates to the water and wastewater demands, updates to the resource assessments, and a re-evaluation of potential future gaps. Similar to the original plan development, GAEPD is overseeing the planning process and, along with partner agencies,

June 2017

1-3

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

1. Introduction
providing support to the councils. The primary role of each council is to develop an updated Regional Water Plan and submit it to GAEPD for approval. The CNG Council has coordinated its efforts with councils adjacent to the CNG Region, including the Lower Flint-Ochlockonee, Middle Chattahoochee, Metropolitan North Georgia, Savannah-Upper Ogeechee, and Upper Flint councils. Specific roles and responsibilities for regional water planning councils are outlined in a Memorandum of Agreement between each council, GAEPD, and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Figure 1-2: State Water Planning Process

Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2009.
1.3 CNG Regional Water Planning Council Vision and Goals
The Council created a vision and a set of goals to guide water management in the Region. The vision and goals guided the evaluation and selection of management practices that will best meet the Region's needs, as illustrated in Figure 1-2. The Council adopted the following vision: Enhance the potential and quality of life for all communities through sustainable use of water resources in the region and state with partnerships among a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

1-4

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

1. Introduction
The Council adopted the following goals, which include both water quantity and quality management objectives:
Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated need for local communities.
Minimize adverse effects to local communities and adjacent regions, and, when possible, enhance natural systems.
Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.
Promote alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the Region.
Promote properly managed wastewater discharges.
Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.
Identify practices that reduce nonpoint source pollution and control stormwater to protect and enhance water quality and ecosystems in lakes and streams, particularly those in priority watersheds and listed streams.
Develop an ongoing adaptive management approach to measure, share, and evaluate water use data and information.
These goals will lead the CNG Region toward sustainable growth in the future while maintaining its existing excellent quality of life. The CNG Council recognizes that the fish, wildlife, streams, rivers, and lakes in the Coosa, Chattahoochee, and Tennessee watersheds are vitally important to the people living in this Region and the entire state. These resources provide numerous people with the opportunity to fish, hunt, and otherwise enjoy areas of unspoiled green space. This public use and the existing natural resources provide significant economic benefits to the Region with minimal outlay of public funds or services. The high quality of the water resources within the Region allows, in many cases, water utilities to operate at lower costs than in areas with more heavily impacted water quality. As a result, the Council places a very high priority on the protection, maintenance, enhancement, and restoration of the natural resources located within the Region.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

1-5

1. Introduction
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

1-6

June 2017

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

Section 2. Coosa-North

Section Summary

Georgia Water Planning The 5,500-square-mile Region

Region

includes 18 counties and contains portions of the Savannah,

The CNG Region encompasses the northern Chattahoochee, Tennessee, and

extent of the State of Georgia, with portions Coosa River Basins. Local

bordering South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. The Region covers 5,500 square miles and includes 18 counties and 52 municipalities (see Figure 2-1). Its population was an estimated 759,880 in 2015 and is projected to reach 892,207 in 2050 (Georgia Office of Planning and Budget,

governments in the Region are supported by two regional planning entities: the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission and the Georgia Mountains Regional Commission.

2015). Figure 2-1 illustrates that the Region has a large amount of land dedicated for conservation purposes; approximately 20 percent is conserved as part of the National Forest or as part of a State Forest, Wildlife Management Area, or Historic Area.

The total population of the Region was estimated at 759,880 in 2015 and is projected to grow to nearly 900,000 in 2050. Approximately 68 percent of the total region was

2.1 History, Climate and Physiography
The CNG Region has an extensive history of Native American habitation.

forested based on 2011 data, 11 percent was developed/urban, 13 percent was being used for pasture or row crops, and the remaining area was a mixture of

The Region is characterized by a moist and wetlands, grasslands, and barren

temperate climate with mean annual land. precipitation ranging from 52 to 64 inches.

Rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, but a distinct dry season usually

occurs from mid-summer to late fall. Winter is the wettest season and March the

wettest month, on average (Robinson et al., 1996).

The Coosa River Basin Management Plan describes in detail the physiography, geology, and soils in the Region (GAEPD, 1998). The Region encompasses parts of four distinct physiographic provinces: the Cumberland Plateau, the Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, and the Piedmont. Only a small segment of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province lies in Georgia, encompassing Cloudland Canyon State Park in Dade County (Chowns, 2006). As a result, the Region's geography is diverse.

The Cumberland Plateau province is dominated by relatively flat plateaus, ranging in altitude from 1,500 to 1,800 feet above mean sea level (MSL), that are bounded by narrow, northeast-southwest-trending linear valleys. In contrast, the Valley and Ridge and the Piedmont provinces range from approximately 600 to 1,600 feet above MSL, while the Blue Ridge province is dominated by mountains as high as about 4,100 feet above MSL. The Valley and Ridge province extends northeast to southwest through the western portion of the region, connecting portions of Georgia and Tennessee with

June 2017

2-1

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

eastern Alabama. This province consists of numerous northeast-to-southwesttrending ridges with associated valleys; it historically has been the source of mining activity with some farming in the valley floors. The Blue Ridge province includes most of the eastern portion of the Region and is dominated by mountains with fast-flowing streams, rapids, and steep slopes in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. Additionally, the southeastern borders of Habersham and Polk Counties straddle the Piedmont province, which is characterized by low hills and narrow valleys.

2.1.1 Local Governments
The Region includes 18 counties and 52 municipalities, as illustrated in Figure 2-1 and listed in Table 2-1; these local governments are responsible for land use and zoning decisions that affect water resources management. While many local governments are also responsible for planning, operating, and managing water and wastewater infrastructure, in some cases local or regional water authorities, or private companies, manage local infrastructure separately from local governments, as described in Section 4.

Table 2-1: CNG Counties and Municipalities

County

Municipalities

Catoosa County

Ringgolda, Fort Oglethorpe

Chattooga County Dade County Dawson County Fannin County Floyd County Gilmer County

Lyerly, Menlo, Summervillea, Trion Trentona Dawsonvillea Blue Ridgea, McCaysville, Morganton Cave Spring, Romea Ellijaya, East Ellijay

Gordon County Habersham County
Lumpkin County Murray County Pickens County Polk County Towns County Union County Walker County
White County Whitfield County
a Indicates County Seat

Calhouna, Fairmount, Plainville, Ranger, Resaca Alto, Baldwin, Clarkesvillea, Cornelia, Demorest, Mount Airy, Tallulah Falls Dahlonegaa Chatswortha, Eton Jaspera, Nelson, Talking Rock Aragon, Braswell, Cedartowna, Rockmart, Taylorsville Hiawasseea, Young Harris Blairsvillea LaFayettea, Chickamauga, Fort Oglethorpe, Lookout Mountain, Rossville Clevelanda, Helen Cohutta, Daltona, Tunnel Hill, Varnell

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2-2

June 2017

Figure 2-1: Counties and Cities in the CNG Region

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Source: Conservation Lands, Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory (NARSAL), Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (UGA), 2015. River Basins, GAEPD, Watershed Protection Branch, Drinking Water Compliance Program, 2003.

June 2017

2-3

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2-4

June 2017

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
2.1.2 Watersheds and Water Bodies
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has divided and sub-divided the U.S. into successively smaller hydrologic units, which are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system (USGS, 2011). Within the Region, there are portions of five river basins: Savannah, Chattahoochee, Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Tennessee, as shown in Figure 2-1 and summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 provides the 8-digit HUCs for the river basins, and the area and proportion of the Region each HUC represents. The vast majority, almost 99 percent, of the Region drains to the Chattahoochee, Coosa, or Tennessee River Basins. Section 3 describes the Region's water use classifications and impaired waters.
The headwaters of the Chattahoochee River originate in the southeastern corner of the Region and drain approximately 12 percent of the total Region, including portions of Dawson, Lumpkin, White, and Habersham Counties. Major tributaries of the upper Chattahoochee River include the Chestatee River and Soque River. These waterways drain southwest to Lake Lanier, a multi-purpose reservoir constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), located primarily within the Metro District.
As shown in Table 2-2, the Coosa River Basin encompasses 60 percent of the Region and includes the following major rivers: Conasauga, Coosawattee, Etowah, and Oostanaula. The largest water body is 3,200-acre Carters Lake on the Coosawattee River in Gilmer, Gordon, and Murray Counties. Major tributaries to Carters Lake include Talking Rock Creek, Cartecay River, Ellijay River, and Mountaintown Creek. Carters Lake is operated by the USACE and, unlike many reservoirs, has no private docks or development along its 62 miles of shoreline (USACE, 2011a). The Coosa River at the Alabama/Georgia state line in Floyd County also starts to form the upper impoundment of Lake Weiss, an Alabama Power reservoir.
Approximately 26 percent of the Region drains north to tributaries of the Tennessee River. In the northeastern portion of the Region, these tributaries include the Hiwassee River (Chatuge Lake), Nottely River (Nottely Lake), and the Ocoee River (Blue Ridge Lake). In the northwestern corner of the state and Region, Lookout Creek, West Chickamauga Creek, Peavine Creek, Little Chickamauga Creek, East Chickamauga Creek, and Tiger Creek drain portions of Dade, Walker, Catoosa, and Whitfield Counties to the north into Tennessee and ultimately to the Tennessee River (see Figure 2-1).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

2-5

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

Table 2-2: River Basin Characteristics within Region

River Basin

Watershed Name

HUC-8 Code

Square Miles in Region

Savannah

Tugaloo

03060102

46

Savannah

Broad

03060104

18

Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee 03130001

676

Coosa

Conasauga

03150101

600

Coosa

Coosawattee

03150102

758

Coosa

Oostanaula

03150103

523

Coosa

Etowah

03150104

677

Coosa

Upper Coosa

03150105

742

Tallapoosa

Upper Tallapoosa

03150108

9

Tennessee

Middle Tennessee 06020001

598

Chickamauga

Tennessee

Hiwassee

06020002

425

Tennessee

Ocoee

06020003

418

Tennessee

Guntersville Lake

06030001

12

Total Region

5,502

Source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Basins at 1:24,000 scale, http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/dnr_basins_metadata.html.

Percent of Region 1%
Less than 1% 12% 11% 14% 10% 12% 13%
Less than 1% 11%
8% 8% Less than 1%

2.1.3 Groundwater Aquifers
The Region includes portions of two principal aquifer systems: the Crystalline rock and Paleozoic rock. See Figure 2-2. The eastern half of the Region includes Crystalline rock aquifer systems of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces. The aquifer systems in the Crystalline rock aquifer occur in metamorphic and igneous rocks where secondary porosity and permeability has developed as a function of differential weathering along discontinuities. Enlargement of discontinuities, such as joints, faults, compositional layering/bedding, and foliation/cleavage, provides discreet pathways for groundwater storage and flow. The intersection and interconnection of these features creates localized aquifer systems within the bedrock that are dependent on many variables of each rock unit. Although these aquifer systems do not typically provide significant quantities of groundwater over the Region, local topographic and geologic conditions are conducive to development of discreet aquifer systems with sufficient sustainable yield to supplement water supply. These aquifer systems are typically local in extent, and the yield and groundwater chemistry can be affected by localized water use and climate. However, these aquifer systems, if properly managed, provide drought resistant sources of water to supplement surface water supplies.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2-6

June 2017

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
The western half of the Region includes Paleozoic rock aquifers within the Valley and Ridge physiographic province. The principal aquifer systems in the Valley and Ridge occur in the carbonate sedimentary rocks where chemical weathering via solutioning has enlarged discontinuities (such as joints, faults, compositional layering and/or bedding planes) within the rock mass. Groundwater in these aquifer systems generally occurs under confined and semi-confined conditions, with recharge principally generated from precipitation and surface water percolating downward through the overburden into the underlying carbonate rocks and leakage from other aquifer systems. Karst topography commonly develops in valley floors underlain by carbonate rocks in this physiographic province, especially where the cover of residuum and/or alluvium is thin. Fluctuation of the groundwater table resulting from natural (e.g., drought) or anthropogenic (e.g., pumping) processes can accelerate the development of karstic features such as sinkholes, swallets, and sinking streams. While solution-enlarged discontinuities form conduits that can yield several thousand gallons of water per minute (gpm), the water may have high levels of calcium and bicarbonate; in addition, well yields outside these conduits are low (10 gpm or less). Within the Coosa River Basin, wells in these karst aquifers yield an average of 350 to 700 gpm (GAEPD, 1998), with some well yields in Gordon County exceeding 2,000 gpm (GAEPD, 2005).
The water system is dynamic, with groundwater and surface water interacting with each other differently depending on geologic and climatic conditions; for example, groundwater may provide a large percentage of stream baseflow during extended dry periods. The USGS has estimated that approximately 60 percent of the average annual flow in the Coosa River is supplied by groundwater (Robinson et al, 1996). However, in the Crystalline rock aquifers, well yields are typically less than 1 cubic feet per second (cfs) and have minor, if any, impact on measured baseflow (Williams, 2004; Williams et al., 2005).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

2-7

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
Figure 2-2: Groundwater Aquifers

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Source: GAEPD, 2009. 2-8

June 2017

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
2.2 Characteristics of the Region
The characteristics of the region are briefly discussed in the following subsections.
2.2.1 Population The total population of the 18-county Region was estimated at 759,880 in 2015 (Georgia Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). Floyd and Whitfield Counties are the two most populated counties in the Region, with 96,639 and 104,496 residents, respectively. Walker, Catoosa, and Gordon Counties have populations between 50,000 and 70,000; however, the remaining 13 counties have populations below 50,000. The five most populous counties represent just over half, 52 percent, of the total population in the region.
2.2.2 Employment Employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate that the Region is largely dominated by the textile manufacturing sector, mainly the carpet industry, followed by the food sector. The estimated total employment for the Region was 314,956 in 2015, a 23 percent increase from the 255,238 jobs estimated in 2005 (BLS, 2015).
The principal components of the manufacturing sector are textiles and apparel; paper and allied products; chemicals; transportation equipment; stone, clay, and glass products; food products; furniture; and lumber and wood products. Most of the manufacturing facilities are located in modern industrial parks and/or in proximity to water and the surface transportation network. The CNG Region has 10 of Georgia's higher learning institutions that contribute significantly to the economy of the communities where they are located.
2.2.3 Land Cover Table 2-3 and Figure 2-3 illustrate land cover distribution across the major river basins in the Region in 2011. Table 2-3 summarizes acres by major river basin, including upstream and downstream areas outside of the Region, e.g., in Tennessee.
According to the 2011 USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD), approximately 68 percent of the total Region was forested in 2011, with almost half, 49 percent, as deciduous forests. Eleven percent of the land was considered developed (open, low, medium, and high intensity), while another 13 percent was being used for pasture or row crops. This land cover information provides a relatively complete and consistent source for characterizing land cover conditions, and therefore potential nonpoint pollutant sources across the Region. The data show that the majority of the low and high intensity urban lands are clustered around the incorporated areas in the western third of the Region, while agricultural corridors are found in the western valleys. With the exception of limited pockets of urban land around Blairsville and Dahlonega, most of the lands to the northeast of the Region are forested.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

2-9

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

Table 2-3: 2011 Land Cover Distribution

Land Cover Category

Coosa Basin (Acres)

Upper Chattahoochee Basin (Acres)

Open Water

15,366

3,462

Developed, Open Space

157,760

36,782

Developed, Low Intensity

46,564

8,890

Developed, Medium Intensity 15,631

2,945

Developed, High Intensity

8,062

1,069

Barren Land

3,372

1,392

Deciduous Forest

902,262

256,457

Evergreen Forest

292,486

32,803

Mixed Forest

193,826

12,798

Shrub/Scrub

99,230

3,935

Grassland/Herbaceous

65,192

19,927

Pasture/Hay

263,249

52,559

Cultivated Crops

35,977

28

Woody Wetlands

12,063

520

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

1,701

12

Total

2,112,742

433,579

Source: USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2011.

Tennessee Basin (Acres) 9,553 71,632 17,806 4,701 1,496 1,420 536,948 69,372 64,114 19,236 15,919 99,603 4,983 2,425
243
919,450

Total Acres
28,381 266,174 73,260 23,277 10,627
6,184 1,695,667 394,661 270,738 122,401 101,038 415,411
40,988 15,008
1,956
3,465,771

Percent of Total
0.82% 7.68% 2.11% 0.67% 0.31% 0.18% 48.93% 11.39% 7.81% 3.53% 2.92% 11.99% 1.18% 0.43%
0.06%
100%

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2-10

June 2017

Figure 2-3: 2011 Land Cover in the CNG Region

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Source: Coosa-North Georgia Land Use Trends, 2011 Land Cover, USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD). June 2017

2-11

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2-12

June 2017

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region

2.2.4 Local Policy Context
The CNG Region includes portions of two regional planning entities: the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (RC) and the Georgia Mountains RC (Table 2-4). Table 2-4 indicates the other counties that fall within these two RCs as well as those counties' corresponding Water Planning Region. Georgia's 12 RCs are quasigovernmental regional planning organizations, created and managed under Georgia law by their member local governments to serve regions that share similar economic, physical, and social characteristics. The RCs, working with the DCA, assist communities with a variety of planning issues, including local government planning, economic development, sustainable growth planning, and grant preparation and administration. The RCs also review local comprehensive land use plans and can help coordinate the connections between growth and water planning.

Table 2-4: CNG Counties by RC

RC

CNG Counties

Other Counties in this RC / Water Planning Region

Northwest Georgia

Dade, Walker, Catoosa, Chattooga, Gordon, Floyd, Polk, Whitfield, Murray, Gilmer, Pickens, Fannin

Haralson / Middle Chattahoochee Paulding and Bartow/Metro District

Georgia

Dawson, Lumpkin, Union, Towns,

Mountains White, Habersham

Source: DCA, 2009.

Forsyth and Hall / Metro District,
Hart, Franklin, Banks, Stephens, Rabun/Savannah Upper Ogeechee

Local governments develop ordinances, policies, and plans to meet the requirements of State regulations. For example, communities with existing stormwater permits within the Region have developed local requirements for erosion and sediment control, postconstruction runoff, and other programs required by the Federal and State stormwater programs. Local government and utility plans considered during the development of this Regional Water Plan are summarized in the Summary of Local Plans supplemental document available on the CNG website. There are also multiple regional water resource planning efforts ongoing within the Region, such as the Lake Allatoona Upper Etowah Partnership and the Northwest Georgia Regional Water Resources Partnership.
Section 7.3 provides a summary of the other water resource planning efforts in the Region.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

2-13

2. Coosa-North Georgia Water Planning Region
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2-14

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

Section 3. Water Resources

Section Summary

of the Coosa-North Georgia
Region
Water uses in the CNG Region are summarized in this section based on data developed by the USGS regarding water use in 2010 by county (USGS, 2016). The USGS examined both primary water users and water sources. This section incorporates this information and provides an overview of the Resource Assessments of current conditions for surface water and groundwater availability, and surface water assimilative capacity (water quality).

Approximately 94 percent of the CNG Region's water is supplied by surface waters, with the other 6 percent coming from groundwater.
Resource Assessments for current conditions indicated that 31 miles of the Region's waterways have limited assimilative capacity remaining, i.e., the ability to receive wastewater discharges and still

3.1 Major Water Use in Region

meet water quality standards for dissolved oxygen.

For planning purposes, water "withdrawal" is defined as the removal of water from a water source for a specific use. Depending on the kind of use, a portion of the withdrawn water is not returned to a water source as a measurable discharge. Water consumption (or consumptive use) is the difference between the amount of water withdrawn from a water source and the amount returned.
Current water withdrawal information for this Region was compiled for the development of the water use forecasts for four major categories:

Resource Assessments for current conditions also indicated that under current conditions two of the six modeled nodes in the Tennessee Study Basin are predicted to have potential water availability gaps 5 to 6 percent of the time. The Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Basin included five nodes, and only one node had a potential

Municipal--water withdrawn by public and gap in water availability

private water suppliers and delivered for a 2 percent of the time. Flows at

variety of uses (such as residential, commercial, each of the nodes with gaps are

and light industrial).

unregulated (i.e., no reservoirs

are located upstream).

Industrial--water withdrawn for fabrication,

processing, washing, and cooling at facilities that manufacture products, including

steel, chemical and allied products, paper, and mining. These industries utilize the

largest amount of water among industrial classifications in Georgia.

Energy--water withdrawn to generate electricity, mainly for cooling purposes at thermoelectric plants. Water returns after use may vary depending on the cooling technology used by each plant.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

3-1

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
Agriculture--water withdrawn for crop irrigation, accounted for more than 95 percent of Georgia's irrigated land. Estimates of water use for animal agriculture, horticultural nurseries and greenhouses, as well as golf courses, are also included in this category.
As shown in Figure 3-1, in 2010 surface water continues to be the predominant source of water in the Region. Surface water and groundwater withdrawals that supplied the four major water use categories totaled approximately 605 million gallons per day (MGD) on an annual average.
Figure 3-2 shows the surface water withdrawals by major water withdrawal category. Thermoelectric energy production was, by far, the largest water withdrawal category (76 percent), followed by municipal use (13 percent). Although the majority of the water withdrawn in this region is used for energy production, nearly 100 percent return is expected for this use, because the cooling technology used by the only thermoelectric facility permitted within the Region (Plant Hammond, Floyd County) has a negligible water consumption rate.
Figure 3-3 shows groundwater withdrawals by major water withdrawal category. The leading use for groundwater withdrawal is municipal (81 percent), followed by industrial (12 percent). The two groundwater supply sources for the Region are the Crystalline rock and Paleozoic rock aquifers; however, Crystalline rock aquifers are a minor source due to geologic limitations.
Figure 3-4 summarizes wastewater treatment categories for the Region, and shows that the leading method for treating wastewater in 2010 was treatment facilities with point source discharges1. In addition, a significant amount of the municipal wastewater generated in the Region was treated by private onsite treatment systems (58 MGD), such as septic tanks, in areas where public collection systems are unavailable. In 2015, the GAEPD listed 138 municipal and industrial discharge permits in the Region comprised of 123 point source facilities, 1 subsurface systems, and 14 land application systems (LASs).
Throughout the planning process, existing agricultural water use, onsite sewage treatment, subsurface systems, and LASs were considered to be consumptive. Although water returns to its source from these applications, it was assumed in the Resource Assessments to not be returned within a time frame that allows for it to offset the impact of related withdrawals. Additional study of this issue in future updates of this Regional Water Plan and related resource assessments will more accurately represent the percent of this water that should be considered as a return flow.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

1 Note that the point discharge flows include returns from Plant Hammond.
3-2

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

Figure 3-1: Figure 3-2: Figure 3-3: Figure 3-4:

2010 Water Supply by Source Type 2010 Surface Water withdrawal by Category 2010 Groundwater Withdrawal by Category 2010 Wastewater Treatment by Category

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

3-3

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

3.2 Resource Assessments
GAEPD developed three Resource Assessments: (1) surface water quality, also known as assimilative capacity, (2) surface water availability, also known as surface water quantity, and (3) groundwater availability. These Resource Assessments analyzed the capacity of streams and aquifers to meet demands for water supply and wastewater discharge without causing unacceptable local or regional impacts according to metrics established by GAEPD. The Resource Assessments were completed on a resource basis (river basins and aquifers), but are summarized here as they relate to the CNG Region. Full details of each Resource Assessment are presented on the GAEPD Water Planning website. Section 5 of this Regional Water Plan compares the Resource Assessments to water demand and wastewater flow forecasts.
In the context of the Resource Assessments, a potential "gap" is defined as a condition where the current or future use of water has been identified as potentially causing unacceptable impacts based on an exceedance of the Resource Assessment metric. For example, if the estimated sustainable yield of a specific groundwater aquifer is exceeded, then there would be a potential "gap" in groundwater availablity in that area. Similarly, if an existing water quality standard for nutrient loadings to a lake is projected to be exceeded, then there would be a water quality "gap" for that location. By contrast, a potential "need" or a potential "shortage" (discussed in Section 5) is defined as a condition where the current permitted capacity of water or wastewater treatment facilities, respectively, is less than the future forecast demands. For example, a potential "shortage" would occur if the permitted capacity of a water treatment plant in 2020 is 10 MGD and the forecast demand is 20 MGD. These potential gaps, needs, or shortages are addressed through water quantity and water quality management practices in Section 7.
3.2.1 Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)
The assimilative capacity Resource Assessment estimated the capacity of Georgia's surface waters to accommodate pollutants without unacceptable degradation of water quality. The term assimilative capacity refers to the ability of a water body to naturally absorb pollutants via chemical and biological processes without harming aquatic life or humans who come in contact with the water. A water body can be overloaded and violations of water quality standards may result. Water quality standards define the uses of a water body and set pollutant limits to protect those uses. The Assimilative Capacity Resource Assessment evaluated the capacity of surface waters to process pollutants without violating water quality standards.
The assimilative capacity results focus on dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients (specifically total nitrogen and total phosphorus), and chlorophyll-a (the green pigment found in algae that serves as an indicator of lake water quality). Fish and other aquatic organisms need oxygen to survive, and the DO standards have been established to protect aquatic life. Although nutrients support food production for aquatic organisms, high concentrations of nutrients can result in algal blooms, negatively affecting DO concentrations that may result in fish kills and potentially impacting taste and odor in water supplies. The Assimilative Capacity Resource Assessment included an

3-4

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

evaluation of the impact of current wastewater and stormwater (including nonpoint source pollutants from all land uses) discharges, combined with current withdrawals, land use, and meteorological conditions, on DO, nutrients, and chlorophyll-a.
The Region includes both trout streams and warm water fishery streams that have daily average DO standards of 6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 5 mg/L, respectively. DO was modeled for each of the Region's major rivers. For this update, DO was modeled for 465 miles of streams in the Region.The results indicated 392 river miles with "Very Good" assimilative capacity (1.0 mg/L of available DO), 42 river miles with "Good" or "Moderate" capacity (>0.2 to 1.0 mg/L of available DO), and 31 river miles rated "Limited" or "None/Exceeded" (0.2 mg/L of available DO) capacity.
Lake Allatoona must meet the State standards outlined in Chapter 391-3-6-.03(17)(d) including chlorophyll-a, pH, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, fecal coliform, DO, and temperature. The standards for chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus vary by lake location. GAEPD has developed a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for Lake Allatoona in response to water quality problems caused by high nutrient levels (GAEPD, 2013). Based on direction from GAEPD, for the Etowah River Arm to Lake Allatoona, a 14 percent reduction in total nitrogen loads (in pounds per day [lbs/day]) and a 20 percent reduction in total phosphorus loads (lbs/day) are required to meet the TMDL. For the Allatoona Creek Arm to Lake Allatoona, a 40 percent reduction in total nitrogen loads (lbs/day) and a 41 percent reduction in total phosphorus loads (lbs/day) are required to meet the TMDL. The TMDL recommends compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits and requirements, adoption of Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation practices for agriculture, and application of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) appropriate to reduce nonpoint sources.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a TMDL for total phosphorus for Lake Weiss in Alabama that allocates a 30 percent aggregate pollutant load reduction to upstream Georgia sources from the Coosa River and Chattooga River at the Georgia/Alabama state line (EPA, 2008). Chapter 391-3-6-.03(14) of Georgia's Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control specify that the Coosa River support recreational water uses at the state line, while the Chattooga River is targeted to support fishing. Updated modeling of the Coosa River indicated that the aggregate pollutant load reductions in total phosphorus would not be met under current loading conditions in both wet and dry years. However, recent (2016) data showed that total phosphorus levels have been consistently at or below 0.06 mg/L at the state line. In 2011, GAEPD began implementing a total phosphorus strategy in permits in the Coosa basin and since that time, there has been a reduction in the total phosphorus levels at the state line.
GAEPD has developed a final TMDL for two portions of Carters Lake (Coosawattee River Embayment and Woodring Branch) in response to water quality issues caused by high nutrient loadings, which have resulted in exceedances of the chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus standards (GAEPD, 2016). The combined loading reductions for both portions of Carters Lake called for a 7 percent reduction in total nitrogen loads (lbs/day) and a 58 percent reduction in total phosphorus loads (lbs/day) to meet the

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

3-5

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
TMDL. The TMDL recommends compliance with NPDES permit limits and requirements, adoption of NRCS conservation practices, and appliction of stormwater BMPs appropriate to reduce nonpoint sources.
GAEPD is developing a TMDL for Lake Lanier due to exceedances of the chlorophyll-a critera. Currently, GAEPD has modeled preliminary nutrient reductions to meet the TMDL; however, the TMDL has not been completed. GAEPD has indicated that nonpoint source reductions for urban and agricultural land uses will be required, as well as future reductions in point source loadings to meet the required overall nutrient load reductions to achieve the chlorophyll-a standard.
3.2.2 Surface Water Availability The surface water availability Resource Assessment estimated the flow response at various planning nodes within the Region based on current municipal, industrial, agricultural, and thermal power water consumptive uses within the basins above the planning nodes. The flow responses at the planning nodes were evaluated to determine the frequency with which the resulting stream flows fell below the flow regime established by stream flow metrics based on a policy developed by the Board of Natural Resources, and the magnitude of those deviations. The stream flow metrics are based on state policy, existing Federal policy, or existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license requirements. The modeled flow was compared with the flow regime; where the modeled stream flow was less than the flow regime, a potential "gap" was identified. The potential gaps were analyzed in terms of both magnitude (i.e., the amount by which the modeled stream flow fell below the flow regime) and duration (i.e., the number of days the stream flow fell below the flow regime).
Figure 3-5 illustrates the local drainage areas and planning nodes used in developing the surface water availability Resource Assessments. Planning nodes are stream gages at selected points along streams in a watershed. These gaging stations are used to evaluate the impact of cumulative upstream consumptive uses of water (i.e., withdrawals minus returns) and authorized reservoir operations on stream flows.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3-6

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
Figure 3-5: Local Drainage Areas and Planning Nodes in the CNG Region

Source: GAEPD, 2009
The Region is part of three hydrologic modeling areas: the Tennessee Study Basin, the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) Study Basin, and the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Study Basin. The Tennessee Study Basin included six modeling nodes, or points where in-stream flow was estimated (see Figure 3-5). Two of these nodes were predicted to have potential gaps 5 percent (Chickamauga) and 6 percent (New England) of the time (2 to 6 cfs under current conditions; flows at both nodes are unregulated, i.e., no reservoirs are located upstream). The ACT Basin included five nodes, and only one that is unregulated (Gaylesville) was predicted to have a potential gap 2 percent of the time (average of 3 cfs) under current conditions. Although potential gaps were predicted in the ACF Basin, no gaps were predicted in the Chattahoochee portion of the CNG Region. The potential gaps indicate that the modeled natural streamflow is insufficient to meet the in-stream and off-stream uses at all times.

June 2017

3-7

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
3.2.3 Groundwater Quantity
The groundwater availability Resource Assessment estimates the sustainable yield for prioritized groundwater resources based on existing data. GAEPD prioritized the aquifers based on the aquifer characteristics, evidence of negative effects, anticipated negative impacts, and other considerations.
No new analysis of groundwater availability was conducted as part of the Regional Water Plan update process. Two prioritized aquifer systems were evaluated in the Region in 2010 during the original Regional Water Plan process: the Crystalline rock and the Paleozoic rock. The Crystalline rock aquifer system lies within the Chattahoochee and Tennessee River watersheds; the Paleozoic rock aquifer system lies within the Etowah and Oostanaula River watersheds.
As part of the 2010 analysis, GAEPD developed a numerical groundwater model to estimate sustainable yield for a study basin selected within the Paleozoic rock aquifer system; a water budget approach developed for a basin within the Crystalline rock aquifer system was used to estimate sustainable yield in this part of the CNG Region. No groundwater sustainable yield issues were identified within the Region based on current demands and conditions. Although most wells produce less than 200 gpm in the Crystalline rock aquifers, in local geologically unique settings, several wells exist with production rates between 200 and 500 gpm (Georgia Geologic Survey, 2006). Furthermore, within the Paleozoic rock aquifers, carbonate aquifers can produce over 2,000 gpm with little or no impact to the local water table.
Typical water quality issues known to be associated with the Crystalline rock aquifer systems include elevated iron/manganese levels and local concentration of radionuclides. Water quality issues known to be associated with the Paleozoic rock aquifers include turbidity, pH, hardness, and iron.
3.3 Ecosystem Conditions and In-Stream Use
This section includes information on stream classifications, impaired waters, priority watersheds, and fish and wildlife.
3.3.1 Water Use Classifications (Designated Uses) In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, GAEPD classifies each of the State's surface waters according to its uses. At a minimum, all waters are classified as fishable and swimmable. Water quality standards or criteria have been developed for each water use classification to assist GAEPD with making water use regulatory decisions; Table 3-1 summarizes the streams in the Region that are classified by the State for uses other than fishing and swimming as referenced in Chapter 391-3-6-.03(14) of Georgia's Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control.
Jacks River and the headwaters of the Conasauga River are designated as Wild and Scenic for which no alteration of natural water quality from any source is allowed. Portions of 54 other waterways in the Region are designated as Recreation or Drinking Water, which also have additional water quality criteria. In addition to a water's

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3-8

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

designated use, standards apply to two levels of trout stream designations: "Primary," which support self-sustaining populations of wild trout, and "Secondary," which provide habitat suitable for stocking trout. Eleven of the Region's 18 counties contain a primary or secondary trout steam. There is to be no elevation of natural stream temperatures for a primary trout stream. A secondary trout stream must have no temperature elevation exceeding 2 degrees Fahrenheit (F) of natural stream temperatures.

Table 3-1: Special Stream Classifications

Basin

Stream

Reach

Classification

Chattahoochee Bear Creek

Headwaters to confluence with Chattahoochee River

Drinking Water

Chattahoochee Blue Creek

Headwaters to Yellowjacket Creek

Drinking Water

Chattahoochee Camp Creek

Headwaters to confluence with Hazel Creek Drinking Water

Chattahoochee

Chattahoochee River

Headwaters to confluence with Soque River

Recreation

Chattahoochee Chattahoochee River Soque River to White Creek Chattahoochee Chattahoochee River White Creek to Mud Creek

Recreation and Drinking Water
Recreation

Chattahoochee

Chattahoochee River/Lake Lanier

Mud Creek to Buford Dam

Recreation and Drinking Water

Chattahoochee Hazel Creek

Law Creek to Camp Creek

Drinking Water

Chattahoochee Smith Creek

Unicoi Lake, Unicoi State Park Beach

Recreation

Chattahoochee Soque River

Deep Creek to Sutton Mill Creek

Drinking Water

Chattahoochee Turner Creek

Headwaters to confluence with Tesnatee Creek

Drinking Water

Chattahoochee Yahoola Creek

Coosa Coosa

Beech Creek Blackwell Creek

Bryant Creek to confluence with Chestatee River
Headwaters to Dry Creek (including Possum Trot Reservoir)
Headwaters to Cox Lake Dam

Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water

Coosa

Cartecay River

Clear Creek to confluence with Ellijay River Drinking Water

Coosa

Chestnut Cove Creek

Headwaters to and including Lake Tamarack

Drinking Water

Coosa

Coahulla Creek

Bates Branch to Mill Creek

Drinking Water

Coosa

Conasauga River

Waters within the Cohutta Wilderness Area

Wild and Scenic

Coosa Coosa

Conasauga River Coosa River

Headwaters to Forest Service Road 17 At the Alabama State Line

Outstanding Natural Resource Water
Recreation

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

3-9

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

Table 3-1: Special Stream Classifications

Basin

Stream

Reach

(Continued)

Coosa

Coosawattee River

Mineral Springs Branch to confluence with Conasauga River

Coosa

Coosawattee River/Carters Lake

Confluence with Mountaintown Creek to Carters Dam

Coosa

Dry Creek

Headwaters to confluence with Duck Creek

Coosa

Duck Creek

Confluence with Dry Creek to Dickson Creek

Coosa

Ellijay River

Briar Creek to confluence with Cartecay River

Coosa

Etowah River

Headwaters to Montgomery Creek

Coosa

Etowah River

Lily Creek to Mill Creek

Coosa

Etowah River

Long Swamp Creek to Canton Creek

Coosa

Etowah River

Allatoona Dam to Ward Creek

Coosa

Etowah River

Dykes Creek to Silver Creek

Coosa

Etowah River/Lake Allatoona

Georgia Highway 20 to Allatoona Dam

Coosa

Euharlee Creek

Parham Springs Creek to Fish Creek

Coosa

Headwaters of Gold Mine Branch

Fort Mountain Lake, Fort Mountain State Park Beach

Coosa

Holly Creek

Dill Creek to Chicken Creek

Coosa

Jacks Creek

Waters within the Cohutta Wilderness Area

Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa

Long Swamp Creek Mill Creek Oostanaula River Oostanaula River Pettit Creek Raccoon Creek Tributaries to Heath Creek

Lake Tamarack Dam to Cox Creek
Hurricane Creek to confluence with Conasauga River
Confluence of Conasauga and Coosawattee Rivers to Oothkalooga Creek
Confluence with Woodward Creek to Coosa River
Headwaters to confluence with Disharoon Creek (including Lake Pettit)
Headwaters to confluence with Chattooga River
Rocky Mountain Public Fishing Lakes, Rocky Mountain Public Fishing Area

Classification
Drinking Water Recreation and Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water
Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water Recreation and Drinking Water Drinking Water
Recreation
Drinking Water Wild and Scenic Drinking Water Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Recreation

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3-10

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

Table 3-1: Special Stream Classifications

Basin (Continued)
Coosa

Stream

Reach

Classification

Tributary of Dakwa Lake

Headwaters to confluence with Turniptown Creek (including Dakwa Lake)

Drinking Water

Coosa

Woodward Creek

Headwaters to confluence with Oostanaula River

Drinking Water

Tennessee Tennessee

Black's Creek Hiawassee River

Headwaters to confluence with Little Tennessee River
Headwaters to Lake Chatuge

Drinking Water Recreation

Tennessee

Hiawassee River/Lake Chatuge

Lake Chatuge to Georgia - North Carolina State Line

Recreation and Drinking Water

Tennessee Tennessee

Lookout Creek Mud Creek

Confluence with Turner Branch to confluence with Sitton Gulch Creek
Headwaters to confluence with Little Tennessee River

Drinking Water Drinking Water

Tennessee

Nottely River

Headwaters to confluence with Fortenberry Creek

Recreation

Tennessee

Nottely River

Lake Nottely Dam to Georgia North Carolina State Line

Recreation

Tennessee

Nottely River/Lake Nottely

Confluence with Fortenberry Creek to Lake Nottely Dam

Recreation and Drinking Water

Tennessee

South Chickamauga Creek

Confluence of Tiger Creek with East Chickamauga Creek to confluence with Little Chickamauga Creek

Drinking Water

Tennessee

Toccoa River

Lake Blue Ridge Dam to Georgia Tennessee State Line

Recreation and Drinking Water

Tennessee

Toccoa River/Lake Blue Ridge

Headwaters to Lake Blue Ridge Dam

Recreation

Tennessee

Tributary to Crawfish Spring Lake

Headwaters to confluence with Coke Oven Branch (including Crawfish Spring Lake) to West Chickamauga Creek

Drinking Water

Tennessee

Wolf Creek

Lake Trahlyta, Vogel State Park Beach

Recreation

Source: GAEPD Rule 391-3-6-.03 Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards, August 2016.
aAll waters classified to support recreational contact; these waters are used for activities such as water skiing, boating, swimming where risk of contact is greater than in most waters. bNo alteration of natural water quality allowed; no wastewater and stormwater discharges permitted.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

3-11

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
3.3.2 Monitored and Impaired Waters
GAEPD publishes a list of streams that do not meet the water quality standards associated with each designated use category. GAEPD monitors streams throughout the State and publishes the list, known as the 303(d) list, every other year. Of the 2,624 stream miles assessed in the CNG Region, 56 percent were not supporting their designated use, or 1,469 miles representing 241 individual stream segments. Most of these waters were rated as impaired based on biological monitoring (i.e., fish or macroinvertebrate data indicated reduced organism numbers or diversity) and/or high levels of fecal coliform. Fecal coliform bacteria are an indicator of the presence of human waste; high levels indicate potential health risks in waters used for swimming and other recreational activities. Figure 3-6 shows the locations of the impaired stream segments within the Region based on the 2014 listings, the most recent year for which mapping data were available.
Lakes also are monitored as part of the 303(d) process and are listed as "not supporting" their uses if sampling results indicate they do not meet State water quality standards. Carters Lake, designated for Recreation, in Gilmer County, was not supporting recreational use due to a violation of the chlorophyll-a standard caused by nonpoint source pollution.
The EPA accepted as final the GAEPD's 2014 303(d) list, which includes the following general changes from the 2010 list for waterbodies within the Region (GAEPD, 2014):
Six stream reaches were changed from "Not Supporting" to "Supporting" their designated use (or "de-listed") between the 2010 List and 2014 List. The most common impairments that were resolved were fecal coliform (4) followed by Bio (Fish) (2).
Twelve stream reaches were changed from "Supporting" to "Not Supporting" their designated use (or "listed") between the 2010 List and 2014 List. The most common impairments that were responsible were Bio (Fish) (8) followed by fecal coliform (4).
Additional water quality impairments were added to six stream that were already listed as Not Supporting their designated use between 2010 and 2014, including impairments for DO (3) and fecal coliform (3).
Water quality impairments also were removed from eight stream reaches; however, these streams continue to Not Support their designate use due to other water quality factors.
3.3.3 Conservation Areas
Georgia Department of Natural Resources' (GADNR's) Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) identifies waters and watersheds it believes should be given high conservation priority to protect important populations of high priority species and to protect or restore representative aquatic systems throughout Georgia (GADNR, 2015). The entire list of

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3-12

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
high priority waters is available at the WRD website.2 Figure 3-7 shows the high priority waters within the CNG Region.
The streams included on the final priority list are those that are a high priority for restoration, preservation, or other conservation activity; streams that were too degraded were not included in the final list. The streams on the list contain anadromous fish (fish that return to the river where they were born to breed), include rare natural systems, or represent the least disturbed aquatic systems within the Region. Although the individual stream reaches were the basis for the selection process, Figure 3-7 identifies the entire watershed as a high priority watershed since protecting the entire watershed is the only way to protect these high priority waters.
The Georgia Conservation Lands Database, a product of the Georgia Gap Analysis Program (GAP), was compiled to aid a state-wide evaluation of how the distribution of lands managed to protect biodiversity compares with potential natural vertebrate systems in the State. The Region contains more than 948,000 acres of protected land managed for conservation purposes, representing 27 percent of the Region's total area. Of the total, 576,000 acres are located in the Chattahoochee National Forest.
The rivers within the CNG Region include some of the most pristine streams and unique aquatic habitats in Georgia, and as a result, this area includes several rare, threatened, and endangered aquatic species. These include 2 State threatened amphibians, 1 State and Federally listed turtle, 7 federally listed fish, 38 State rare or State threatened or endangered fish species, 8 State threatened or endangered crayfish species, 7 federally listed mussels, and 12 State threatened or endangered mussel species and 1 State and Federally listed aquatic snail. The Georgia Nongame Conservation Section maintains an active list of these imperiled species and can be contacted for more information.3
3.3.4 Fisheries Resources
The Coosa and Tennessee River Basins are nationally recognized for its aquatic biological diversity (fish, mussel, and crayfish). In 2016, the Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (Elkins, et al., 2016) was published, which summarizes the most threatened HUC 8 watersheds within the southeast region. Figure 3-8 shows that multiple watersheds within the CNG Region are among the highest priority in the study, including the Etowah River and the Conasauga River Basins, which were listed in the top 10 for the Study. More specifically for Georgia, the study identified six HUC 8 watersheds within the Top 10 priority watersheds for the entire State (Figure 3-9), including, in descending order: Conasauga, Etowah, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga, Coosawattee, Upper Coosa, and Oostanaula.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

2 http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1377 3 http://www.georgiawildlife.org/conservation/species-of-concern?cat=6

June 2017

3-13

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3-14

June 2017

Figure 3-6: Impaired Waters in the CNG Region

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Source: GAEPD, Watershed Protection Branch, 305(b)/303(d) List, 2014. June 2017

3-15

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
(This page intentionally left blank)
3-16

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
Figure 3-7: Conservation Areas and GADNR High Priority Waters (As Delineated in the State Wildlife Plan) in the CNG Region

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

Source: High Priority Streams and Watersheds, GADNR Nongame Conservation Section, http://www.georgiawildlife.come/node/1377 June 2017

3-17

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
(This page intentionally left blank)
3-18

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region

Figure 3-8: Southeastern Imperiled Priority Watersheds

Figure 3-9: Georgia Imperiled Priority Watersheds

Source: Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Source: Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Sport fishing is very popular in the CNG Region's rivers, lakes, and streams. Important recreational gamefish include striped bass, hybrid bass, and smallmouth bass. In addition, hybrid bass from the Region are used to stock rivers, lakes, and streams throughout Georgia. Other important game species include spotted bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, redeye bass, black crappie, blue catfish, channel catfish, walleye, bluegill, and red ear sunfish. Future changes in water use or water quality could affect all of these fisheries and the economic benefits provided by these resources.
Each year, trout fishing is enjoyed in Georgia by over 100,000 anglers on approximately 4,000 miles of trout streams (almost entirely in the CNG Region), and generates more than $172,000,000 in economic benefits. Due partially to naturally low productivity in some of these streams, GADNR WRD and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) stock over 1.1 million trout annually in Georgia streams and impose special regulations on some streams to help meet demands for trout fishing.

June 2017

3-19

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3. Water Resources of the Coosa-North Georgia Region
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

3-20

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Section 4. Forecasting

Section Summary

Future Water Resource
Needs
Water demand and wastewater flow forecasts and the Resource Assessments described in Section 3 form the foundation for water planning in the CNG Region and serve as the basis for the selection of the management practices discussed in Section 7.
This section presents the regional water demand and wastewater flow forecasts for 2015 and for 10-year intervals from 2020 through 2050 for the four major water use categories: municipal, industrial, agricultural, and energy. Forecasting for each sector is explained in this section as well as some of the differences between forecasting done for the 2011 plan and updated forecasting done for this Plan. These forecasts will continue to be refined and updated as part of the continuing regional water planning process.

Total water demand in the CNG Region for municipal, industrial, agriculture, and energy use is expected to increase from 644 MGD in 2015 to 668 MGD in 2050. Similarly, wastewater flows are expected to increase from 631 MGD in 2015 to 651 MGD in 2050.
Energy generation is forecast to continue to make up the largest portion of future water withdrawals; however, the majority of this water is not consumptive, i.e., it is returned to its source. Agricultural water demands also are expected to remain relatively constant, while municipal and industrial water demands are projected to increase from 189 MGD in 2015 to 247 MGD in 2050.

The supplemental document available on the CNG website details the agricultural, municipal, industrial, and energy sector forecasts: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum. The document titled Update of the GA Energy Needs & Generating Facilities also is available on the GAEPD Water Planning website.

4.1 Municipal Forecasts
Municipal water demand and wastewater flow forecasts include water supplied to residences, commercial businesses, small industries, institutions, and military bases. The municipal forecasts are based on county population projections developed by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) in accordance with State law (O.C.G.A. 45-12-171) and are summarized in Table 4-1.
The population in the Region is projected to increase from 759,880 in 2015 to 892,207 in 2050, a growth rate of 17 percent over this 35-year period.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

4-1

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Table 4-1: Population Projections by County provided by Office of Planning and Budgeta

County

2015

2020

2030

2040

Difference % Increase 2050 (2015 - 2050) (2015 2050)

Catoosa

66,522 69,484 74,878 79,250 83,210

16,688

25%

Chattooga 25,171 25,224 24,926 24,017 22,941

-2,230

-9%

Dade

16,542 16,575 16,353 15,892 15,393

-1,149

-7%

Dawson

23,551 25,736 30,251 34,934 40,003

16,452

70%

Fannin

23,926 24,272 24,349 23,656 22,952

-975

-4%

Floyd

96,639 98,546 101,509 103,214 104,392

7,753

8%

Gilmer

28,925 29,754 31,094 32,172 33,749

4,824

17%

Gordon

56,865 59,527 63,966 67,045 69,290

12,425

22%

Habersham 44,193 46,535 51,898 57,837 64,860

20,667

47%

Lumpkin

31,701 33,655 37,267 40,577 44,201

12,501

39%

Murray

39,554 40,152 40,353 39,019 36,739

-2,815

-7%

Pickens

30,218 31,781 34,610 37,109 40,028

9,810

32%

Polk

41,781 43,176 45,166 46,136 46,579

4,799

11%

Towns

10,968 11,496 12,931 14,917 17,747

6,779

62%

Union

21,854 22,575 23,724 24,361 25,377

3,524

16%

Walker

68,730 69,933 71,200 70,777 69,562

833

1%

White

28,246 29,390 31,593 33,515 35,839

7,593

27%

Whitfield

104,496 108,222 114,277 117,828 119,343 14,847

14%

Total

759,880 786,034 830,343 862,256 892,207

132,327

17%

Notes: a Population projections provided by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (2015) include 2010 census results. Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017

4.1.1 Municipal Water Demand Forecasts
Regional municipal water demand forecasts are calculated by multiplying the estimated per person (capita) water use for each county by its population. Typically, per capita water use rates differ for public water systems and self-supplied private wells; therefore, the demands are calculated separately and then added together for each county. A plumbing code adjustment also was applied to account for water conservation legislation that was adopted in 2010 as well as existing plumbing codes. The publicly-supplied and self-supplied water demands were calculated separately for each Water Planning Region.
The original per capita numbers used in the 2011 Plan were based on data published in the 2005 USGS publication, and then adjusted to account for wholesale and large industrial sales. The references and assumptions used to develop the prior per capita

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4-2

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

projections for each county are summarized in the Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (July 1, 2010). The prior per capita numbers were used as the basis for the updated forecasting efforts. GAEPD developed an adjustment factor to be applied to the prior per capita numbers before the forecasting was performed. Adjustments made to the per capita water demand for the current projections are described below.

To obtain the per capita water demand by county for the updated forecasts, GAEPD reviewed actual withdrawal data and calculated adjustment factors for each county's per capita water demand as follows:

1. A per capita value for each year, 2010 through 2014, was developed using actual withdrawal data and reported population-served data for each county.

2. The percent rate of change was calculated for each year interval (2010 to 2011, 2011 to 2012, 2012 to 2013, 2013 to 2014), and the average of those four values was calculated as the per capita adjustment factor.

3. The adjustment factor for each county was then applied to the prior per capita water demand value. This updated per capita value was used to obtain water demand forecasts through 2050.

4. The ratio of public-supplied to self-supplied water use in each county as well as the self-supplied value of 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) were maintained from the prior planning effort.

Table 4-2 summarizes municipal water demand forecasts by county for the Region over the planning period.

Table 4-2: Municipal Water Demand Forecasts by County (AAD-MGD)a

County Catoosa Chattooga Dade Dawson Fannin Floyd Gilmer Gordon Habersham Lumpkin Murray

2015 7.2 3.8 2.0 3.1 2.8 12.9 3.0 7.8 5.9 3.2 4.2

2020 7.4 3.8 2.0 3.5 2.8 13.0 3.1 8.1 6.4 3.5 4.2

2030 7.8 3.7 2.0 4.3 2.7 13.1 3.2 8.6 7.5 4.0 4.2

2040 8.1 3.5 1.9 5.1 2.6 13.0 3.2 8.9 8.7 4.5 3.9

2050 8.3 3.3 1.8 5.9 2.5 12.9 3.3 9.0 10.0 5.0 3.5

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

4-3

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Table 4-2: Municipal Water Demand Forecasts by County (AAD-MGD)a

County

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

(CONTINUED)

Pickens

3.9

4.1

4.4

4.7

5.0

Polk

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.0

6.9

Towns

1.5

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.3

Union

2.6

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.8

Walker

10.0

10.0

10.0

9.8

9.4

White

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

Whitfield

23.9

24.6

25.7

26.2

26.2

Total

107.7

110.9

116.2

119.4

122.1

Notes: aMunicipal water demand forecasts include publicly-supplied and self-supplied demands from surface water and groundwater sources. Major publicly supplied industries are not included.
Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017).

Additional details regarding development of the municipal water demand forecasts, including the per capita rate and plumbing code adjustment for each county, are provided in the supplemental document titled the Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum, which is available on the CNG website.
The demand for municipal water is forecasted to increase from 108 MGD in 2015 to 122 MGD in 2050 in the CNG Region. Based on existing uses, approximately 77 percent of forecasted future water demand will be obtained from surface water sources and 23 percent from groundwater sources; the latter includes private wells (self-supply). Figure 4-1 shows the municipal demand forecasts for the Region; the demands do not include major publicly supplied industries, which are included in the industrial forecast.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4-4

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
Figure 4-1: Municipal Water Demand Forecast (AAD-MGD)

4.1.2 Municipal Wastewater Flow Forecasts
Municipal wastewater flow forecasts were developed to determine the amount of treated wastewater generated and returned to the watershed. For the prior municipal wastewater forecast prepared for the 2011 plan, the municipal water demand served as the basis for estimating the municipal wastewater flows for each county with a portion of the water demand assumed to be indoor use that entered the wastewater system. While self-supplied water demand was assumed to go to a septic system, public-supplied water in each county had a portion going to septic and a portion to centralized treatment.
Inflow and infiltration (I&I) is a term used to describe the entrance of groundwater and stormwater into centralized sanitary sewer systems. Inflow is stormwater that enters the sanitary sewer systems at points of direct connection to the system while infiltration is groundwater that enters sanitary sewer systems through cracks and/or leaks in the sanitary sewer lines. In the prior forecast, a percentage based on literature review was added to the wastewater generation forecast. Finally, centralized flow estimates were allocated between point discharge (NPDES) and LASs.
For the updated forecast, GAEPD used currently permitted wastewater treatment plant reported discharge flow data and OPB population projections to estimate future wastewater generation, allocations, and expansions. GAEPD utilized 2014 historical (annual average) discharge data to forecast future wastewater flows by county.

June 2017

4-5

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
The percent change between the base year (2015) population projections and the population projections for each planning year (2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050) was applied to the historical wastewater discharge totals for each county from 2014 to estimate total county discharge flows for each planning year. In addition, the following approach was used for the municipal wastewater forecast update:
1. The percent of county total wastewater flow that was septic during the prior forecast was retained. For some counties, this percentage changes over time as more of the county joins the centralized sewer systems. The change over time was estimated and approved by the Georgia Water Council members during the prior planning process.
2. For the update, the percent change between the prior (2001) and updated (2015) population projections for each planning year through 2050 was applied to the prior septic flow forecasts to obtain an updated septic flow projection by county.
3. Wastewater forecasts were proportionally allocated per facility for each county using the historical discharge data. Forecasts were then manually adjusted based on knowledge of new facilities and the decommissioning of old facilities. Facility type for centralized discharge was broken down into three categories: point discharge, LAS, and general subsurface permits.
4. It was assumed that there will be no expanded capacity in LAS facilities during the planning period.
5. Because the updated wastewater forecasts were generated using historical discharge information, it was assumed I&I was inherently accounted for in the projections.
6. Historical data also was used to allocate wastewater quantities by Local Drainage Area (LDA) so that quantity, disposal type, and LDA location could be forecasted. Forecasts for centralized wastewater discharge projections were aggregated based on 2014 flow percentages. Septic system flows were aggregated by node based on watershed/land area percentages within each county.
Table 4-3 summarizes municipal wastewater flows forecasts for the CNG Region over the planning period.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4-6

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Table 4-3: Municipal Wastewater Flow Forecasts by County (AAF-MGD)a

County

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Catoosa

5.9

6.1

6.4

6.6

6.8

Chattooga

7.8

7.8

7.7

7.4

7.0

Dade

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

Dawson

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

Fannin

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.1

Floyd

15.2

15.5

15.9

16.1

16.2

Gilmer

4.1

4.2

4.4

4.5

4.7

Gordon

11.4

12.0

12.8

13.3

13.6

Habersham

7.4

8.0

9.3

10.6

12.1

Lumpkin

2.7

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.4

Murray

4.2

4.4

4.5

4.4

4.2

Pickens

2.6

2.7

3.0

3.2

3.4

Polk

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.5

6.5

Towns

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.7

1.9

Union

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.2

Walker

8.8

8.9

8.9

8.7

8.5

White

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.4

Whitfield

30.0

31.1

32.7

33.5

33.8

Total

117.7

121.7

127.8

131.6

134.6

Notes: aMunicipal wastewater flows do not include major industrial sources that treat their water in municipal facilities. Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017).

Treated wastewater may undergo one of four disposal methods: point source discharge, LAS, subsurface, or septic systems. For forecasting purposes, the current mix of discharge to point source facilities versus LASs was held proportionate to current conditions, and adjustments were made based on feedback provided by local water systems or utilities.
Further details regarding development of the municipal wastewater forecasts and county-specific results are presented in the supplemental document titled Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum, which is available on the CNG website. Figure 4-2 shows the municipal wastewater flow forecasts by disposal type.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

4-7

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
Figure 4-2: Municipal Wastewater Flow Forecast (AAF-MGD)

The demand for municipal wastewater treatment is forecasted to increase from 118 MGD in 2015 to 135 MGD in 2050 in the Region. Of either amount, 16 percent will be treated by LASs, 34 percent by systems with point source discharges and less than 1 percent by subsurface systems. Septic systems currently treat approximately 50 percent of the municipal wastewater generated in the Region. The percentage of wastewater treated via septic systems is expected to remain relatively steady in the future for counties with lower population density.
4.2 Industrial Forecasts
Industrial water demand and wastewater flow forecasts anticipate future needs among industries that were identified as major water users through 2050. Industries require water for use in their production processes, sanitation, and cooling, as well as for employee use and consumption. The industrial forecasts presented in this section are based upon the rate of growth in employment for specific industrial sectors, the rate of growth in units of production for specific industrial sectors, or other relevant information and data provided by specific industrial water users. The industrial demands forecasted in this section include major industrial water users and wastewater generators, many of which supply their own water and/or treat their own wastewater. Many industrial users with very small demands are serviced by municipal water and wastewater systems; those demands are included in the municipal forecast.

4-8

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
4.2.1 Industrial Water Demand Forecasts
Industrial water and wastewater forecasts were not updated since 2011 because the employment projections that formed a basis for these forecasts were not updated. Industrial water demand forecasts were previously calculated using information and data specific to each major water-using industry. For industries where information was available on water use per unit of production, water forecasts were based on production. For industries where product-based forecasts were not available, industryspecific workforce projections were assumed to reflect the anticipated growth in water use within the industry. The University of Georgia (UGA) produced industry-specific workforce projections, which were used to calculate future water needs for the major water-using industries within the Region. A summary of the employment projections is included in the supplemental document titled Coosa-North Georgia RegionWater and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017), which is available at the CNG website. The employment projections for the Region indicate that overall employment among major industrial water-using industries is forecasted to increase over the 2015-2050 planning horizon.
For the Region, a decrease in employment is forecasted for the textile and apparel industries, in keeping with trends over the past several decades. For the carpet industry; however, this does not appear to be the case, and employment is not a good indicator of water use. Therefore, in calculating the forecasts, water demands for these industries were not reduced to reflect the decrease in employment because their water use has shown to be independent of employment projections and still provide conservative results. The carpet and paper industries will continue to be the most significant water-using industries for this region. Both industries use surface water; typically the textile industry, particularly the carpet industry, obtains its supply primarily from municipal suppliers, whereas the paper industry has its own permits for withdrawals.
Industrial demand for water is forecasted to increase from 81 MGD in 2015 to 125 MGD in 2050 in the Region. Based on current proportions, in the future approximately 89 percent will come from surface water and 11 percent from groundwater sources. The results of the industrial water demand forecast for the Region are provided in the supplemental document titled Coosa-North Georgia RegionWater and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017), which is available at the CNG website. Figure 4-3 shows the steady increase of industrial water demand through the planning period.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

4-9

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
Figure 4-3: Industrial Water Demand Forecast (AAD-MGD)

4.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Flow Forecasts
Industrial wastewater flow forecasts were calculated for each sector by multiplying the industrial water demand forecast by the ratio of wastewater generated to water used for that particular industrial sector. Wastewater to water ratios per industry were derived through a state-wide analysis of multiple years of actual annual average water return and withdrawal data for permitted users and information provided by industrial stakeholder groups within a region or industry, as appropriate.
Figure 4-4 shows the industrial wastewater flow forecast, which is projected to increase from 74 MGD in 2015 to 111 MGD in 2050 in the Region. According to current proportions, in the future approximately 2 percent will be treated by LASs and 98 percent will be treated by systems with point source discharges. The results of the forecasting exercise for industrial wastewater flows are provided in the supplemental document titled Municipal and Industrial Coosa-North Georgia RegionWater and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017), which is available at the CNG website.

4-10

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
Figure 4-4: Industrial Wastewater Flow Forecast (AAF-MGD)

4.3 Agricultural Forecasts
Agricultural water use includes irrigation for both crop production and non-crop agricultural water users. The future irrigation needs for crop production were developed by UGA's National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL). Based on the acres irrigated for each crop, these forecasts provide a range of irrigation water use under dry, medium, and wet climate conditions. Current non-crop (including non-permitted) agricultural water uses, such as water use for nurseries/greenhouses, golf courses, and livestock production, have been compiled by respective industry associations; however, water forecasts for future noncrop agricultural use were not developed for this first round of regional water planning because of the lack of available data. For this planning effort, the non-crop water uses are assumed to remain at current levels throughout the planning period. The bulk of agricultural water needs are located in Floyd and Gordon Counties. Table 4-4 summarizes agricultural water demands for the Region over the planning period. A more detailed description of the agricultural forecasts is provided in the supplemental document titled Coosa-North Georgia RegionWater and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017), which is provided at the CNG website. The agricultural forecast also considered a study conducted on agricultural water demands prepared by TetraTech for the Northwest Georgia Regional Watershed Partnership (TetraTech, 2015).

June 2017

4-11

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Table 4-4: Agricultural Water Demand Forecasts by County (AAD-MGD) for the 75th Percentile Scenario

Crop Demand

Non-Crop Demand

County

Irrigation 2015

Irrigation 2050

Nursery 2015-2050

Golf 20152050

Livestock 2015-2050

Catoosa

0.156

0.18

0.126

0.558

0.187

Chattooga

-----

-----

0.06

-----

0.24

Dade

-----

-----

0.03

-----

0.16

Dawson

0.09

0.1

0.03

0.27

0.22

Fannin

0.15

0.19

0.03

-----

0.09

Floyd

0.9

0.86

0.13

0.3

0.68

Gilmer

-----

-----

0.11

0.45

0.81

Gordon

1.26

1.28

0.06

0.2

0.99

Habersham

0.3

0.33

0.31

0.4

0.57

Lumpkin

0.08

0.1

0.13

-----

0.15

Murray

0.13

0.12

0.32

-----

0.32

Pickens

-----

-----

0.01

0.13

0.25

Polk

-----

-----

0.08

-----

0.26

Towns

-----

-----

0.01

0.2

0.09

Union

0.03

0.03

0.23

0.41

0.06

Walker

-----

-----

0.11

-----

0.52

White

-----

-----

0.01

-----

0.33

Whitfield

-----

-----

0.1

0.71

0.43

Total

3.10

3.19

1.89

3.63

6.36

Notes: Forecasted Agricultural Water Demand based on the 75th percentile scenario (in MGD). This demand is comprised of crop irrigation, golf courses, livestock watering, and nurseries. The crop irrigation is the only demand with a forecasted value.
It should be noted that the water demand for chicken processing facilities is included in the industrial forecast.
----- indicates information not available.

4.4 Water for Thermoelectric Power Forecasts
Forecasts for future water needs for thermoelectric power production were developed by GAEPD and an ad-hoc group representing Georgia's power industry. Future energy needs are based on projected population. For this plan update, energy water demands were estimated based on updated population projections and the relationship between population and energy demand that was previously calculated. The prior population projections were released in 2008. These projections were developed prior to the recession and prior to the 2010 Census. Statewide, the 2010 Census showed that the

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4-12

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
2010 population was generally less than had been projected in the 2008 projections. The updated 2015 population projections, developed after the recession, show a more modest future growth rate.
A baseline and high demand scenario were estimated using the updated population projections. The same regression relationship between historical power generation and population was used to generate the updated estimates of power need. The CNG Region has one coal-fired power plant, Plant Hammond, with a once-through cooling tower system. Water withdrawals at this plant are expected to decrease from 440 MGD in 2015 to 405 MGD in 2050.
Once-through cooling systems use water to cool the condenser water. River or lake water is passed through a heat exchanger to condense steam, exiting condenser water is pumped back through the cycle, and the cooling water is returned to its source. Water consumption at the power plant is minimal, if not zero, because the cooling water does not directly contact the air. Although the consumptive water use is minimal, the amount of water withdrawn from the river or lake is significant because the water is only used for a short time before being returned to the source.
The process of generating the forecasted water demands and wastewater returns for thermoelectric power generation is documented in the supplemental document titled, Update of GA Energy Needs & Generating Facilities (2016).
Two other facilities in the Region generate power, but do not have the same impact on water resources as do thermoelectric generating facilities. First, there is a 1,240-megawatt combined cycle electrical generating plant that utilizes natural gas and steam, currently owned by KGEN. This plant uses 100 percent treated wastewater from Dalton Utilities. The other facility is Oglethorpe Power's Rocky Mountain pumpedstorage hydroelectric generation facility with a capacity of 1,046 megawatts. Neither of these facilities was included in the energy sector water demand forecast.
4.5 Total Water Demand Forecasts
As a general rule, the total water demands and wastewater flows for the Region are expected to have a modest increase. Compared to the forecast reflected in the 2011 Plan, total water demands forecasted for 2050 decreased approximately 300 MGD. The majority of the decrease occurred in the energy sector followed by the municipal sector. As stated above, the industrial sector forecast was not updated because employment projections were not available at this time; therefore, the industrial projections have not changed from those presented in the 2011 Plan. Wastewater flows show a similar trend as the water demands.
In the Region, energy generation makes up the largest portion (70 percent in 2015) of water withdrawals, as shown in Figure 4-5. Although energy water demands are expected to decrease throughout the planning horizon but remain the largest demands in the Region in 2050, consumptive use is expected to have minimum impact on the Region's water resources. Agricultural water demands also are expected to remain relatively constant, while municipal and industrial water demands are projected to

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

4-13

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

increase steadily from approximately 189 MGD in 2015 to 247 MGD in 2050 (Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-5: Water Demand Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (
Figure 4-5: Water Demand Forecast for 2015 and 2050 (AAD-MGD)

Municipal Industrial Energy Agricultural

Municipal Industrial Energy Agricultural

15 MGD
2% 108 MGD
17%

15 MGD
2% 122 MGD
18%

440 MGD 68%

81 MGD 13%

405 MGD 61%

125 MGD 19%

TToottaall==663424 MMDGGD

2015 Total=668 MGD

2050

Notes: Includes Municipal, Industrial, Energy, and Agriculture (Irrigation, Nursery, Golf, and Livestock). Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017).

Figure 4-6 shows the total water demand forecast by source. The main water source for this region is surface water, a large portion of which is used as cooling water for thermoelectric power generation.

Figure 4-6: Total Water Demand
Figure 4-6: Total Water Demand Forecast (AAD-MGD)
800

700 39
600

42 41 41

500

40

400

300

605

602

626

554

489

200

100

0 2015

2020

2030

Surface Water Groundwater

2040

2050

Notes: Includes Municipal, Industrial, Energy, and Agriculture (Irrigation, Nursery, Golf, and Livestock). Source: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA
Coosa North Georgia Water Demand (MGD)

4-14

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
Figure 4-7 shows the total wastewater flow forecast by sector (energy, municipal, and industrial) for the Region in 2015 and 2050. Energy demands make up 70 percent of the total in 2015; however, these demands are generally for permitted cooling water returns and do not represent future needs for wastewater treatment.
Figure 4-7: Wastewater Flow Forecast for 2015 and
The total wastewater flow forecast for municipal and industrial uses are projected to be 246 MGD in 2050. Wastewater demands by treatment and disposal type (point discharge, LAS, or onsite septic) are illustrated for 2015 through 2050 in Figure 4-8. Removing the thermal power (energy) discharges from the total, direct discharges of municipal and industrial wastewater will make up 63 percent, LAS 10 percent, subsurface systems 0.03 percent, and septic systems 27 percent of the future wastewater flow forecast.
Figure 4-8: Total Wastewater Flow Forecast (

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

4-15

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4-16

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Section 5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Section Summary
Future assessment results for the groundwater aquifers indicate there is adequate yield to meet future demands from the modeled portion of the Paleozoic rock aquifers.

This section compares the water demand A potential gap in water supply, in

and wastewater flow forecasts (Section 4), both duration and volume, is

along with the Resource Assessments observed at nodes such as Gaylesville

(Section 3), providing the basis for selecting (3 percent of the time under 2050

management practices (Section 6) in the conditions over the period of record;

CNG Region. Areas where future demands average gap is 5.8 MGD), New

are predicted to exceed the capacity of the England (6 percent and 1.3 MGD),

resource for groundwater, surface water and Chickamauga (5 percent and 4

availability, or surface water quality MGD).

(assimilative capacity) have a potential gap, need, or shortage that will be addressed through the management practices described in Section 6. This section summarizes the potential gaps, needs, or shortages, also referred to as water resource management issues, for the Region.

Available assimilative capacity is good, but future nutrient loadings will need to be reduced from point and nonpoint sources to meet existing standards at the Georgia border on the Coosa River, and in Carters Lake, Lake Lanier and Lake

Allatoona.

5.1 Groundwater Availability Comparisons

Potential water or wastewater infrastructure needs were met in all

Groundwater sources within the Region counties

except

Dawson,

include (1) the Crystalline rock aquifer Habersham, and Towns Counties.

systems in the eastern half of the basin,

including Towns, Habersham, Lumpkin, Dawson, Union, Fannin, Gilmer, White, and

Pickens Counties, and portions of Murray, Polk, and Gordon Counties; and (2) the

Paleozoic rock aquifer systems in the western half of the basin, including Floyd,

Chattooga, Walker, Catoosa, and Whitfield Counties, and portions of Polk, Murray,

Gordon, and Dade Counties.

The Resource Assessment for groundwater sustainability in the Crystalline rock aquifers, based on a water budget approach and described further in Section 3.2, was developed for the Chattahoochee River-Chickamauga Creek and Soque River Basins, which cover 315 square miles in portions of Habersham, Towns, Union, and White Counties of the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The Resource Assessment for sustainable yield in the Paleozoic rock aquifers covered an area in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province that included portions of Floyd, Polk, Bartow, and Paulding Counties. This area was selected based on the large spatial extent of carbonate rocks of the Knox Group, a geologic formation known to contain prolific

June 2017

5-1

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
karstic aquifer systems. For information on the groundwater Resource Assessment, see the Water Planning website.
An initial assessment of future groundwater availability was conducted for the original planning process (2010) that included the Paleozoic rock aquifers, but not the Crystalline rock aquifers, by comparing forecast groundwater demands with currently modeled ranges of aquifer sustainable yields for the years 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. This analysis was not updated for the current plan update process; therefore, the following analysis is based on the original groundwater evaluation. Each comparison included:
Range of sustainable yield in MGD
Forecasted agricultural groundwater demands for normal and dry years (defined as the 50th and 75th percentile irrigation requirements in MGD)
Forecasted municipal, industrial, and self-supplied groundwater demands
The results indicated that there is an estimated 28 to 70 MGD sustainable yield to meet future demands (based on the original projections) from the modeled portion of the Paleozoic rock aquifers. The existing groundwater Resource Assessment (see Section 3.2) for the Crystalline rock aquifers indicates that there is additional groundwater available within this system. It is more difficult, however, to find sufficient water-bearing fractures in the Crystalline rock aquifers to develop the entire estimated sustainable yield. To take advantage of these resources, additional analysis, careful geologic mapping, and well siting by experienced geologists will be necessary.
5.2 Surface Water Availability Comparisons
The comparisons of surface water availability are based on the results of the surface water availability Resource Assessment described in Section 3.2 and the projected surface water demands in 2050. For modeling purposes, the CNG Region was divided into the following local drainage areas, which drain to the planning nodes illustrated in Figure 5-1:
"New England" and "Chickamauga" planning nodes in the northwest portion of the region draining the Tennessee River Basin
"Copperhill," "Nottely Dam," and "Chatuge Dam" planning nodes in the northeast portion of the region draining the Tennessee River Basin
"Kingston," "Rome," and "Gaylesville" planning nodes in the southwest portion of the region draining the Coosa River Basin

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-2

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
Figure 5-1: Surface Water Modeling Nodes

Source: GAEPD, 2009.
The surface water quantity Resource Assessment described in Section 3.2 is based on the ability to meet and sustain a flow regime according to stream flow metrics selected as an indicator of potential impacts on instream uses such as assimilative capacity of pollution and habitat for aquatic life. In unregulated portions of the basin, the flow regime is defined by the State's Interim Instream Flow Protection Policy, which calls for the protection of monthly 7Q10 or natural inflow, whichever is lower. (The 7Q10 flow is the 7-day, consecutive low flow with a 10-year return frequency; the lowest stream flow for 7 consecutive days that would be expected to occur once in 10 years.) In the ACT Basin, this applies to the Gaylesville Node. In the regulated portion of the basins, the flow regime is limited to locations where an explicit flow requirement is specified by the USACE, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), or FERC. In the ACT Basin, this applies to the Kingston and Rome (Coosa) Nodes. The Resource Assessment results provide an estimate of whether a potential gap in stream flow or storage exists with future demands to indicate potential future shortages by planning node.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of the future (2050) demands by regulated or unregulated planning node and indicates whether there is a potential gap in flow or storage in the future based on the updated modeling.

June 2017

5-3

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Table 5-1: Future Surface Water Potential Gaps in 2050 by Node

Unregulated Nodes

Counties

Length of Potential Gap (% of
Time Target Average Long-term Flow not Potential Average Flow
Met) Gap (MGD) (MGD)

Maximum Potential Gap
(MGD)

Gaylesville

Chattooga,

3

5.8

424

14.2

Walker

New England

Dade

6

1.3

162

1.9

Chickamauga Catoosa,

5

4

450

6

Walker

Regulated Nodes

Counties

Demand Gap
(MGD)

At-site Flow Requirement Shortage (MGD)

Minimum Reservoir Conservation Storage Remaining (acre-feet)

Minimum Percentage Conservation
Storage Remaining
(%)

Copperhill

Fannin

0

0

15,453 at

11% at

Blue Ridge

Blue Ridge

Chatuge Dam

Towns

0

0

21,180 at

17% at

Chatuge

Chatuge

Nottely Dam

Union

0

0

10,790 at

9% at Nottely

Nottely

Kingston

Dawson,

0

Pickens

0

96,530 at

34% at

Allatoona

Allatoona

Rome

Catoosa,

0

Fannin,

Floyd,

Gilmer,

Gordon,

Murray,

Pickens,

Polk

0

91,668 at

65% at

Carters

Carters

96,530 at Allatoona

34% at Allatoona

Source: GAEPD, 2017. aRule-based flow regime; i.e., seasonal and conditional requirements prescribed by system operating rules.

Corresponding
Flow Regime (MGD)
51.7
7.8 83
BasinWide Flow Requirement Potential Gap (MGD) N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A1
N/Aa

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

A potential gap, in both duration and volume, is observed at nodes such as Gaylesville (3 percent of the time under 2050 conditions over the period of record; average gap is 5.8 MGD), New England (6 percent and 1.3 MGD), and Chickamauga (5 percent and 4 MGD). These potential gaps may result from water consumption during dry periods

5-4

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

of the year and increased demand in the future, but the potential gaps also incorporate periods of drought. The quantification and frequency of the modeled potential gaps are provided in Table 5-2. It is important to note that the majority of the modeled potential gaps at the Gaylesville, New England, and Chickamauga nodes were shorter in duration (1- to 7-day and 8- to 14-day potential gaps events). The more infrequent and severe potential gaps are indicative of drought conditions and will most likely be addressed through drought management measures implemented by GAEPD and users in the Region.

Table 5-2: Characteristics of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps

Gap Event Duration

Number of Potential Gap
Events (% of Total Gap
Events)a

Total Potential Gap Days
(% of Total Days)b

Average Daily Flow Deficit per
Event (cfs)

Average Cumulative Flow Deficit per Event (cfsd)

Gaylesville Node

1-7 days 111 (78.7%)

268

(1.0%)

7 (4.5 MGD)

18 (12 MG)

8-14 days 15 (10.6%)

153

(0.6%)

6 (3.9 MGD)

64 (41 MG)

15-30 days 10

(7.1%)

193

(0.7%)

11 (7.1 MGD)

216 (140 MG)

>30 days

5

(3.5%)

223

(0.8%)

8 (5.2 MGD)

421 (272 MG)

Totals

141 (100.0%) 837

(3.1%)

New England Node

1-7 days 158 (71.5%)

447

(1.6%)

2 (1.3 MGD)

5 (3 MG)

8-14 days 28 (12.7%)

275

(1.0%)

2 (1.3 MGD)

24 (16 MG)

15-30 days 23 (10.4%)

466

(1.7%)

2 (1.3 MGD)

49 (32 MG)

>30 days 12

(5.4%)

502

(1.8%)

3 (1.9 MGD)

113 (73 MG)

Totals

221 (100.0%) 1,690 (6.2%)

Chickamauga Node

1-7 days 175 (77.1%)

509

(1.9%)

4.8 (3.1 MGD)

15.6 (10 MG)

8-14 days 26 (11.5%)

280

(1.0%)

5.9 (3.8 MGD)

64.1 (42 MG)

15-30 days 19

(8.4%)

375

(1.4%)

6.8 (4.4 MGD)

132.2 (86 MG)

>30 days

7

(3.1%)

328

(1.2%)

6.8 (4.4 MGD)

333.8 (216 MG)

Totals

227 (100.0%) 1,492 (5.4%)

aThe total number of modeled gap events is presented for each duration range, as well as the percentage in that duration range to the total number of all modeled gap events.
bThe total number of days within the modeling period (1939-2013) in which a potential gap occurred is presented, as well as the percentage of that total to the total number of days analyzed in the modeling period.

Reservoir storage modeled in the Tennessee Basin shows substantially reduced available capacity. These reduced capacities were primarily based on updated storage information from the TVA and model improvements rather than additional consumptive use. For the Coosa River Basin, the updated future Resource Assessment modeling

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

5-5

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

indicates there are no longer potential gaps in the downstream flow regime based on the future 2050 demands at the Kingston and Rome nodes (Table 5-1). Additionally, the minimum conservation storage remaining in Lake Allatoona and Carters Lake changed because of updated USACE reservoir operations as well as changes in future demands.

During the development of the original plan in 2011, Georgia was engaged in challenges from the adjacent states of Alabama and Florida regarding the use of water in the ACF and ACT River Basins. Over the last 5 years, the USACE has completed the required water control manuals for Lakes Allatoona and Lanier, which detail the operational approach that will be followed to meet all of the original purposes of the two federal reservoirs. The resource assessment incorporates the operational approaches detailed in the updated water control manuals.

In addition to the re-evaluation of the potential gaps in water availability in 2050 in the CNG Region, the existing permitted water withdrawals (surface and groundwater) and future demands were compared to identify potential needs, shortages, or surpluses in available facilities or infrastructure. Needs in permitted water availability were met in all counties except Dawson and Towns (Table 5-3). It should be noted that need estimates were calculated by comparing the permitted monthly average withdrawal limit with the forecast annual average demands. Therefore, these estimates are only an indicator of potential future needs in permitted capacity and indicate areas where continued localized facility planning will be needed.

Table 5-3: Permitted Municipal Water Withdrawal Limits versus Forecasted Municipal Water Demands (MGD)

County

Permitted Municipal
Water Withdrawal Limitsa,b,e

2015 Forecasted Municipal
Water Demanda,c

2050 Forecasted Municipal
Water Demanda,c

Potential 2050
Needa,d

Additional Capacity Available in
2050a,d

Catoosa f

9.80

6.43

7.47

None

2.33

Chattooga

4.87

3.56

3.04

None

1.83

Dade

4.23

2.05

1.77

None

2.47

Dawson g

4.12

2.60

5.76

(1.65)

None

Fannin

2.53

1.93

1.77

None

0.76

Floyd h

23.15

12.83

12.83

None

10.32

Gilmer i

4.45

1.84

2.06

None

2.39

Gordon j

30.80

6.79

7.87

None

22.93

Habersham

10.25

4.61

9.39

None

0.86

Lumpkin

6.80

1.47

3.43

None

3.37

Murray k

9.56

2.81

2.30

None

7.27

Pickens l

7.24

3.36

4.56

None

2.68

Polk

9.79

6.23

6.56

None

3.23

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-6

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Table 5-3: Permitted Municipal Water Withdrawal Limits versus Forecasted Municipal Water Demands (MGD)

County

Permitted Municipal
Water Withdrawal Limitsa,b,e

2015 Forecasted Municipal
Water Demanda,c

2050 Forecasted Municipal
Water Demanda,c

Potential 2050
Needa,d

Additional Capacity Available in
2050a,d

(CONTINUED)

Towns

2.00

1.42

2.18

(0.18)

None

Union

3.43

2.00

2.22

None

1.21

Walker m

18.74

9.93

9.38

None

9.37

White

3.04

2.22

2.70

None

0.34

Whitfield n

56.30

23.81

26.16

None

30.14

aWater withdrawal values include surface water and groundwater withdrawals and purchases from outside the County. The purchases from outside each county are detailed below, as applicable. The purchases from outside each county were discussed with each water provider during Round 1(2005), and remained unchanged for Round 2.
bSurface water and groundwater permitted withdrawal limits are based on the current Monthly Average Limit (in MGD) of each permit. Purchases from outside the county reflect the Average Annual Demand for 2005 (in MGD).
cForecasted Municipal Water Demands include water demands from major industrial sectors when supplied by municipal sources, but they do not include self-supplied water demands. Forecasted Municipal Water Demands were calculated applying the new plumbing code (1.28 gallons per flush [gpf] toilets) mandated by the Water Stewardship Act passed in 2010. Values are based on Annual Average Demand (in MGD).
dBased on differences between Permitted Withdrawal Limit and 2050 Forecasted Demand (in MGD). Values are estimates for future needs or additional capacity available.
eIncludes the municipal withdrawal permit holders listed in the GAEPD database for each county.
fIn 2005, Catoosa County purchased approximately 1.80 MGD from Tennessee and municipal sources supplied approximately 0.23 MGD to major industries.
gIn 2005, Dawson County purchased 0.24 MGD from Pickens County, 0.30 MGD from Forsyth County, and 0.08 MGD from Cherokee County.
hIn 2005, Floyd County purchased 0.65 MGD from Bartow County and municipal sources supplied approximately 2.15 MGD to major industries.
iIn 2005, municipal sources supplied approximately 1.50 MGD to major industries.
jIn 2005, Municipal sources supplied approximately 4.54 MGD to major industries.
kIn 2005, Murray County purchased 0.50 MGD from Gordon County.
lIn 2005, Pickens County purchased 0.50 MGD from Gordon County and 0.21 MGD from Cherokee County.
mIn 2005, Walker County purchased 0.08 MGD from Catoosa County.
nIn 2005, Whitfield County purchased 2.00 MGD from Tennessee and municipal sources supplied approximately 17.2 MGD to major industries.
Sources: Forecasted water demands and GAEPD approved permit database.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5.3 Surface Water Quality Comparisons (Assimilative Capacity)
The assimilative capacity of a watershed is the amount of a given pollutant that can be discharged to the watershed while maintaining water quality standards. The evaluation of water quality was based on modeling both DO conditions and nutrient loadings, as described in Section 3.2. Instream DO conditions were modeled in the

June 2017

5-7

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
original 2011 Plan and in this update for streams and tributaries currently receiving major NPDES treated wastewater discharges with 0.1 MGD or greater permitted flows at critical instream low flow conditions. For purposes of this modeling effort and the identification of potential gaps, wastewater flows for municipal and industrial facilities were assumed to be the current permitted treatment capacity and limits unless planned facility expansions were identified in existing permits.
Overall, the current permitted assimilative capacity in the major tributaries in the Region remains moderate to very good (Figure 5-2). There are specific stream segments that would exceed or be at their assimilative capacity for pollutants that deplete oxygen based on permitted conditions and the predicted DO levels. These waterbodies include segments in the Chattooga River (in Chattooga County), Alpine Creek, Coahulla Creek, Kenyon Creek, Ketchum Branch, Salacoa Creek, Holly Creek, Brasstown Creek, Polecat Branch, and Lookout Creek.
Figure 5-2: Permitted Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-8

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Figure 5-2: Permitted Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)
(CONTINUED)

1

2

3

4

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

5-9

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Figure 5-2: Permitted Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)

(CONTINUED)

6

5

7

8

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-10

Note: The results shown are based on municipal and industrial facilities at their full permitted levels. Very good: 1 mg/L available DO (that is, above DO standards) Good: < 1.0 and 0.5 mg/L available DO Moderate: < 0.5 and 0.2 mg/L available DO Limited: < 0.2 and 0 mg/L available DO No assimilative capacity: < 0 mg/L available DO Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2017.

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
Additional data need to be collected to verify the modeling results before making any permitting decisions. GAEPD could modify the permits for facilities in the stream segments that are predicted to exceed or be at their assimilative capacity for DO to protect water quality. Additional or higher levels of wastewater treatment may be required in these reaches to improve DO levels and accommodate additional wastewater inputs, except for Coahulla Creek. There are no NPDES facilities discharging to the "exceeded" segment of Coahulla Creek.
Watershed-based modeling to evaluate nutrient loadings under 2050 conditions also was completed for those watersheds contributing to the Coosa River at the GeorgiaAlabama state line and Lake Allatoona on the Etowah River. There is a total phosphorus TMDL target of 0.06 mg/L for the Coosa River at the Georgia-Alabama state line. Figure 5-3 illustrates the modeling results for an 11-year period (including the rainfall conditions for 2001-2012) for total phosphorus concentrations at the state line based on current and future point and nonpoint source loadings. These results show that under current and future conditions, the total phosphorus TMDL target of 0.06 mg/L would not be met during most years (Figure 5-3). This suggests that there is a potential gap in meeting the nutrient (total phosphorus) target at the state line, even with the proposed total phosphorus limitations in place. However, recent monitoring data from 2016 indicates that total phosphorus levels at the state line have consistently been at or below the 0.06 mg/L target.
Under the modeled future conditions in the Coosa watershed, the nutrient contributions in pounds per year (lb/yr) during dry years are approximately 60 percent point sources and 40 percent nonpoint sources (Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5). In a wet year, on the other hand, nonpoint sources contribute roughly 70 percent of the total loadings.
In addition, GAEPD is considering new water quality numerical nutrient criteria (NNC) for streams that likely will require additional reductions in nutrient loadings to maintain or meet the new standards.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

5-11

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
Figure 5-3: Growing Season Median Phosphorus Concentration Coosa River at Georgia-Alabama State Line

Note: 2050 model results assume future permit limits of 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus for major point sources (1.0 MGD and above) and 8.34 lbs/day total phosphorus for minor point sources.
Figure 5-4: Coosa Watershed Tributary Phosphorus Loading (lb/yr)

Note: Based on 2050 demands. 5-12

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
Figure 5-5: Coosa Watershed Tributary Nitrogen Loading (lb/yr)

Note: Based on 2050 demands.
As described in Section 3.2.1, Lake Allatoona has different chlorophyll-a standards depending on the location within the lake. The TMDL includes significant nonpoint source reductions: an 85 percent reduction in urban nutrient loads, a 40 percent reduction in agricultural nutrient loads, and a 50 percent reduction in failing septic tanks (GAEPD, 2013). As part of the Plan update, additional modeling was completed over an 11-year period (2001 through 2011) to capture a range of annual rainfall conditions. The results of this modeling indicate that the proposed TMDL reductions will result in compliance with the chlorophyll-a standards in the Little River Arm, Etowah River Arm, Mid Lake, and Dam Pool modeling locations. The model indicates that the Allatoona Creek location of the lake would not meet the chlorophyll-a standard with the TMDL reduction in place. However, the Allatoona Creek tributary is located outside of the CNG Region and would not be influenced by management practices implemented by local governments within the CNG Region.
5.4 Future Treatment Capacity Comparison
Based on a comparison of the future wastewater capacity needs with existing permitted capacity, municipal facilities in Habersham County would not meet 2050 demands with their currently permitted facilities, with a 0.61 MGD shortage (see Table 5-4). This suggests that additional wastewater facility expansions or development of new facilities will be required to meet the projected future wastewater demands in that County.
It should be noted that the shortage or surplus estimates were calculated by comparing the current permitted maximum monthly average discharge with the forecasted annual average wastewater flow. Therefore, these estimates are only an indicator of potential future shortages/surpluses in permitted treatment capacity and indicate areas where continued localized facility planning will be needed.

June 2017

5-13

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Table 5-4: Permitted Municipal Wastewater Discharge Limits versus Forecasted Municipal Wastewater Flows (MGD)

County

Permitted Municipal Wastewater Discharge
Limita,b

2015 Forecasted Municipal Wastewater
Flowsa,c

2050 Forecasted Municipal Wastewater
Flowsa,c

Potential 2050
Needa,d

Additional Capacity Available in
2050a,d

Catoosae

-

-

-

None

-

Chattooga

7.17

6.33

5.8

None

1.37

Dade

0.95

0.37

0.34

None

0.61

Dawson

2.36

0.47

0.89

None

1.46

Fannin

1.26

0.68

0.66

None

0.60

Floydf

20.22

11.54

12.52

None

7.70

Gilmerg

4.00

1.73

2.06

None

1.94

Gordonh

16.32

5.36

6.64

None

9.68

Habersham

5.08

3.3

5.69

(-0.61)

None

Lumpkin

1.73

0.66

1.55

None

0.18

Murray

3.01

1.24

1.39

None

1.62

Pickens

1.24

0.63

0.92

None

0.33

Polk

6.67

3.34

3.77

None

2.90

Towns

1.13

0.36

0.59

None

0.10

Union

0.66

0.31

0.37

None

0.29

Walkerj

7.03

3.02

3.07

None

3.97

White

1.4

0.65

0.84

None

0.56

Whitfieldj Total

40.52 120.31

17.54 57.53

20.18 67.28

None NAk

20.34 NAk

aIncludes centralized systems such as point source discharges, LASs and subsurface systems, but not septic systems. bPermitted Discharge Limits based on the Maximum Monthly Average Permit Limit (in MGD) of each permit. cForecasted Municipal Wastewater Flows include flow from industries that are served by municipal facilities. Values based on Annual Average Flow (in MGD). dBased on difference between Permitted Treatment Limit and 2050 Forecasted Flows (in MGD). Red values in parentheses are shortages and values in black are surpluses. eCatoosa County is estimated to provide 0.21 MGD of treatment capacity to textile industries (2010). Wastewater from Catoosa County is treated at the Moccasin Bend Plant in Chattanooga, TN. fFloyd County is estimated to provide 2.28 MGD of treatment capacity to textile and automotive industries (2010). gGilmer County is estimated to provide 1.36 MGD of treatment capacity to food and textile industries (2010). hGordon County is estimated to provide 4.14 MGD of treatment capacity to textile industries (2010). iWalker County is estimated to provide 0.48 MGD of treatment capacity to textile industries (2010). The Moccasin Bend Plant in Chattanooga, TN, serves portions of Walker County. jWhitfield County is estimated to provide 16.13 MGD of treatment capacity to textile industries (2010). kNA means Not Applicable
Sources: Forecasted wastewater flows and GAEPD approved permit database.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-14

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Table 5-5 lists the number of agricultural permits, the permitted agricultural acreage per crop, and the 2050 forecasted agricultural water demand. The 2050 agricultural water demands will be refined in the future when more information regarding usage becomes available.

Table 5-5: Number of Permits, Permitted Agricultural Acreage and 2050 Forecasted Agricultural Water Demand (MGD)

County

Number of Permitsa

Permitted Agricultural Acreagea

2050 Forecasted
Agricultural Water Demandb,c

Catoosa

10

945

1.05

Chattooga

5

285

0.30

Dade

0

0

0.19

Dawson

8

343

0.62

Fannin

21

559

0.31

Floyd

43

4,487

1.97

Gilmer

9

816

1.37

Gordon

18

2,602

2.52

Habersham

20

1,497

1.61

Lumpkin

19

1,033

0.38

Murray

16

1,760

0.76

Pickens

4

185

0.39

Polk

8

395

0.34

Towns

1

90

0.31

Union

18

548

0.74

Walker

5

200

0.63

White

7

234

0.33

Whitfield

15

1,611

1.24

Total

227

17,590

15.06

Notes: The first two columns (number of permits and permitted acreage) have not been verified.
aIncludes surface and ground water permits greater than 100,000 gallons/day. Permits listed include crop irrigation, golf courses, livestock watering, and nurseries. Note that permits issued before the early 1990s do not list acreage.
b2050 Forecasted Agricultural Water Demand based on P75 scenario (in MGD). This demand is comprised of crop irrigation, golf courses, livestock watering, and nurseries. Note that the crop irrigation is the only demand that has a forecasted value. The other demands were not forecasted, so the current values for those demands are used for 2050 forecast.
cPeak demand could exceed 19.14 MGD during the growing season and under critical drought conditions.
Sources: Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017) and TetraTech, 2015.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

5-15

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
5.5 Summary of Potential Water Resource Gaps or Shortages
Table 5-6 summarizes the potential water resource gaps or infrastructure needs/shortages. The basis for each potential gap or need/shortage is noted and further explanation is provided in the source of the gap or need/shortage. In addition to the watershed-based nutrient modeling for those watersheds contributing to the Coosa River at the Georgia-Alabama boundary and Lake Allatoona on the Etowah River, the water quality 303(d) issues column also integrates the widespread 303(d) stream listings in the CNG Region (see Section 3.3.2). The most common water quality violations within the Region, in descending order, were due to impaired fish communities, high fecal coliform concentrations, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and impaired benthic macroinvertebrate communities.
Infrastructure shortages may have multiple solutions such as municipal facility expansions and/or the construction of new local or regional facilities. The intent of this document is to provide a global overview of the Region, but not to replace or undermine local capital improvement planning.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-16

June 2017

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs

Table 5-6: Summary of Potential Gaps, Needs, or Shortages by CNG County

County

Surface Water Availability Potential Gaps

Municipal Water
Potential Needs

Municipal Wastewater
Potential Shortages

Agricultural Water
Potential Shortages

Water Quality Assimilative
Capacity Potential
Gapsa

Miles and (Segments)
of 303(d) Reachesb

Source

Table 5-1

Table 5-3 Table 5-4

Table 5-5

Figure 5-2

Section 3.3.2 and 5.3

Catoosa

Yes

69 (14)

Chattooga

Yes

Yes

56 (10)

Dade

Yes

Yes

Yes

21 (3)

Dawson

Yes

51 (7)

Fannin

49 (10)

Floyd

Yes

175 (24)

Gilmer

74 (18)

Gordon

Yes

94 (17)

Habersham

Yes

42 (5)

Lumpkin

61 (10)

Murray

Yes

65 (10)

Pickens

54 (12)

Polk

Yes

18 (2)

Towns

Yes

42 (11)

Union

89 (23)

Walker

Yes

50 (9)

White

25 (5)

Whitfield

Yes

37 (10)

Total

4

2

1

1

3

1072 (200)

Notes:
"Yes" indicates that there is a potential gap or need/shortage in the indicated county.
A potential "gap" is defined as a condition where the existing or future water withdrawal or return conditions are predicted to exceed the Resource Assessment metric within a portion of the county.
A potential "need" and "shortage" are defined as a condition where the current permitted capacity of water and wastewater treatment facilities, respectively, is less than the future forecast demands. a Potential gaps in assimilative capacity are for streams modeled to have "Limited", "At Capacity", or "No Capacity Remaining" b Includes only 303(d) reaches that are fully within each respective county. An additional 397 miles, or over 41 stream reaches, are shared between two or more CNG counties.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

5-17

5. Comparison of Water Resource Capacities and Future Needs
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

5-18

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Section 6. Addressing

Section Summary

Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practices were selected to meet the Council's vision and goals and to address

This section presents the management practices selected by the CNG Water Planning Council to address the potential resource gaps, needs, or

the potential resource gaps and shortages identified and described in Section 5.

shortages identified and described in Section 5, and/or to meet the Council's vision (Enhance the potential and quality of life for all communities through sustainable use of water resources in the Region and State with partnerships among a broad

In 2011, a prioritization and ranking process was used by the Regional Water Planning Council that resulted in the

spectrum of stakeholders) and the goals for the selection of 14 Water

Region described in Section 1.3.

Conservation, 8 Water Supply,

8 Wastewater, and 12 Water

6.1 Identifying Water Management Quality Management Practices.

Practices
Section 5 identifies the CNG Region's likely resource gaps, needs, and shortages, based on a comparison of the Resource Assessments and

In 2017, the Council revised the

management practices to

combine several of the Water

Conservation

measures

forecasted demands, and demonstrates the need for Region- and resource-specific management practices. In cases where potential gaps, needs,

(11 total) and to add 2 Water Quality measures (14 total).

and shortages appear unlikely, the management

practices were selected to meet the needs specified by the Council (facility and

infrastructure needs and practices, programmatic practices, etc.) that are aligned with

the Region's vision and goals. In selecting the management practices, the Council

considered its vision and goals, and the practices identified in existing plans and

coordinated management practice selection with local governments, water providers,

and neighboring councils that share the water resources.

6.1.1 Review of Existing Plans and Practices
For the initial Regional Water Plan adopted in 2011, the Council conducted a comprehensive review of existing local and regional water management plans and relevant related documents to frame management practice selection. Where possible, management practices already planned for use or successfully in use in the Region formed the basis for the management practices selected by the Council. A summary of the local and regional plans reviewed is provided as a supplemental document on the CNG website.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-1

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
6.2 Selected Water Management Practices for the Region
Management practices are grouped by primary water resource area addressed, such as Water Quality or Water Conservation. They are generally listed in order of the total benefit ranking assigned by the Council. The prioritization and ranking process performed for the initial Regional Water Plan in 2011 is described in the supplemental document titled Summary of Management Practice Process, which is available at the CNG website.
For this current update to the Regional Water Plan, the Council conducted a review and assessment of the existing management practices that were adopted in 2011. Management practices were revised to provide clarity or in an effort to improve effectiveness based on the Council's experience in the Region. Additionally, new management practices were incorporated and adopted in this updated Plan.
6.2.1 Water Conservation Management Practices The State will need to practice water conservation in order to meet its long-term water needs. Conservation also helps ensure responsible use of a public resource.
Water conservation is a priority management practice in Section 7, Policy 3 of the State Water Plan and the State Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP). The latter, published in March 2010, identified water conservation goals, bench marks, and BMPs for the State's diverse water users (GAEPD, 2010b). The WCIP framed the following conservation tiers for each Council to use during management practice selection:
Tier 1: Basic water conservation activities and practices that are currently required by statute or will soon be required in GAEPD's upcoming amended rules.
Tier 2: Basic water conservation activities and practices that will be addressed in upcoming amended rules but not required of all permit applicants.
Tier 3: Basic water conservation practices (for all water use sectors) that will not be addressed in current or upcoming amended rules.
Tier 4: "Beyond basic" water conservation practices to be considered if a gap exists between current or future water supplies and demands for the region.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-2

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Figure 6-1 illustrates the process used to consider the tiers during selection of the CNG Water Conservation Management Practices, listed in Table 6-1(a). Three of the Council's goals specifically address water conservation or the optimization of water infrastructure:

Goal #3: Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.

Figure 6-1: Water Conservation Guidance Process Flow Diagram

Goal #4: Promote alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the CNG Region.

Goal #6: Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

The 11 water conservation management practices listed in Table 6-1(a) meet the goals noted above and address potential gaps at the Gaylesville, New England, and Chickamauga nodes, and in localized areas in the Tennessee Basin headwater communities; these potential gaps are discussed further in Section 5 and summarized in Table 5-6.

Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2009.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-3

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(a): Water Conservation Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

Develop and implement local public education programs.

Perform public education and outreach activities.

Perform public participation and involvement activities.

Develop a residential water audit program.

Distribute residential water audit guidelines.

WC-1. Implement

Encourage voluntary residential water audits.

education and public awareness programs



Consider purchasing and distributing highefficiency retrofit kits to residential users.

Encourage the use of landscaping practices that

minimize water usage and prevent runoff, such as

native vegetation that requires less water than

nonnative vegetation.

Encourage use of trained irrigation specialists who understand irrigation application timing, levels of water needed by vegetation, as well as technologies and installation practices that increase water use efficiency of irrigation systems.

Supports ES, ED, WQ, and
WS goalsa

WC-2. Develop water conservation goals

Set region-wide goals to encourage reductions in water usage by consumers.

Supports ES, WQ, and WS
goalsa

WC-3. Stewardship Act Practices
WC-4. Consider retrofitting to 1.28gpf (high-efficiency) toilets and highefficiency urinals in government buildings

Assess and reduce water system leakage
Adopt Stewardship Act outdoor watering restrictions
Install high-efficiency cooling towers in new construction
Adopt new agricultural permit requirements
Develop a list of eligible government buildings.
Develop a retrofit schedule and program. Retrofit fixtures according to the schedule and
program developed. Promote use of tax incentives to encourage
retrofits.

Supports AT, ES, ED, WQ, and WS goalsa
Supports ES, AT, and WS
goalsa

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-4

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(a): Water Conservation Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

WC-5. Encourage non-potable reuse

Identify areas with potential for reuse applications.
Promote irrigation with high quality treated effluent in areas such as golf courses, parks, and residences. Encourage industries to use reclaimed water for processes such as cooling when feasible.

Supports ES, ED, WQ, and
WS goalsa

WC-6. Encourage conservation pricing for residential and irrigation sprinkler systems

Implement conservation pricing for residential customers to provide economic incentive for people to use less water in the region. Activities to implement include:
Eliminate declining block rate structures. Perform a rate and revenue analysis. Use irrigation meter pricing (non-punitive). Ensure adequate billing system functionality. Review and update pricing.

Supports ES, WQ, and WS
goalsa

WC-7. Encourage installation of rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems
WC-8. Encourage agricultural irrigation efficiency improvements
WC-9. Encourage development of golf course-specific water conservation plans

This does not apply to agricultural uses.
Encourage installation or retrofitting of irrigation systems that automatically shut off during rain events or moist soil conditions.
Update building inspection checklists.
Continue implementation of the Mobile Irrigation Lab Program to provide free irrigation system performance audits.
Encourage agricultural irrigation users to improve water efficiency of the irrigation systems.
Implement the GAEPD standard water conservation plan template for self-supplied golf courses.
Consider adoption of provisions from the Georgia Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP).

Supports ES, WQ, and WS
goalsa.
Supports ES, ED, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa
Supports ES, ED, WQ, and
WS goalsa

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-5

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(a): Water Conservation Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

Inventory all permitted and non-permitted

WC-10. Encourage

agricultural irrigation water users.

metering of permitted and nonpermitted

Install flow meters on agricultural irrigation systems.

agricultural irrigation Report metered water usage from agricultural

water use

irrigation on at least an annual basis, or as

prescribed by GAEPD.

Supports ES, ED, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa

WC-11. Encourage

the energy

Reduce withdrawals at energy production

production industry

facilities, and maximize returns to the water

to conserve water at

supply.

facilities

Supports ES, ED, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa

aGoals were given the following acronyms during the management practice ranking and selection process:
WS: Water Supply/Quantity Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated needs of local communities.
WQ: Water Quality Protect and enhance water quality and ecosystems in lakes and streams, particularly those in priority listed watersheds.
AT: Alternative Technologies Promote alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the CNG Region.
ED: Economic Development Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.
AE: Adverse Effects Minimize adverse effects to local communities and adjacent regions, and when possible, enhance natural systems.
ES: Educate Stakeholders Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

6.2.2 Water Supply Management Practices
Management practices that supplement water supply are an important part of addressing the potential water resource gaps for the Region, as summarized in Table 5-6. Of the 18 counties in the Region, 2 are to projected to have future needs in their water supply infrastructure, as described in Section 5.2. Potential gaps due to increased future demands, in both duration and volume, also were observed at the Gaylesville, New England, and Chickamauga nodes in 2050, primarily affecting Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade and Walker Counties. Table 6-1(b) outlines the 8 Water Supply Management Practices targeted for implementation in the Region to address these potential gaps and needs. Three of the Council's goals specifically address water supplies or the optimization of water infrastructure:
Goal #1: Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated need for local communities.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-6

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Goal #3: Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.

Goal #4: Promote alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the Region.

Table 6-1(b): Water Supply Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)
WS-1. Encourage development of water master plans
WS-2. Identify and map planned, existing, or offline reservoirs, and consider expansion of existing reservoirs, as needed

Description of Activities
Create and utilize a local water master plan with a 30-year planning horizon that includes, as appropriate: Evaluate potential for partnerships in meeting future
water supply needs, including sources such as the Tennessee River, which receives a significant flow originating in Georgia.
Evaluate cost-benefits of various water resources options and use Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan approach to assess relationships between water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy.
Adopt a written emergency water supply plan and assess the need for interconnections to meet reliability targets.
Support and participate in continued updates of the Redundancy and Emergency Interconnectivity study.
Evaluate potential to purchase from other water systems for the short term.
Update local water master plan as needed. Identify new North Georgia Water Resources
Partnership members to increase regional participation in plan development and implementation.
Evaluate potential expansion of existing facilities.
Evaluate potential for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) impoundments to serve as water supply sources, as applicable.

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)
Supports ED, WQ, and WS
goalsa
Supports ES, ED, WQ, and WS goalsa.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-7

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(b): Water Supply Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

WS-3. Consider construction of new reservoirs to meet multiple purposes

Regional water planning councils or local entities and GAEPD identify the safe yield of current sources.
Identify where gap(s) between available supply and demand will occur.
Begin process to permit new water supplies for both off-stream (water supply) and in-stream (water quality protection) purposes.

Supports ES, ED, WS goalsa

Evaluate potential for groundwater (often as

WS-4. Consider

supplemental supply).

development of new Permit/implement as needed and practicable.

groundwater wells Evaluate feasibility of aquifer storage and recovery

(ASR).

Supports WQ and WS goalsa

WS-5. Encourage Return highly treated wastewater to water supply

indirect potable reuse

reservoirs and/or streams.

Supports WQ and WS goalsa.

Evaluate when and where new WTPs are needed to

WS-6. Consider

meet demands.

construction of new Begin process to permit new WTPs.

water treatment

Continue to assess existing and proposed

plants (WTPs) or

interconnections for redundancy and regional water

expansion of existing

supply potential to supply increased demand in the

WTPs

future, by supporting the continued Redundancy and

Emergency Interconnectivity study

Supports AT,
WQ, and WS goalsa

WS-7. Encourage water system asset management

Create water system maps of all infrastructure in electronic format.
Link water system maps with asset inventory and characteristic data for maintenance and management.
Develop a water system rehabilitation and replacement program (asset management program).
Coordinate asset management and leak detection programs.
Implement based on local government and utility needs.
Establish and implement inspection and maintenance program.
Review existing staff certifications and secure additional training as needed.
Prioritize rehabilitation projects and develop schedules and budgets.

Supports ED, WQ, and WS
goalsa

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-8

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(b): Water Supply Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

Implement rehabilitation program and document rehabilitation projects.
Conduct annual planning and budgeting.

Identify water supply watersheds.

WS-8. Encourage source water protection

Recommend adoption of Environmental Planning Criteria.
Coordinate with local governments on watershed protection.

Supports ES, ED,
WQ and WS goalsa

Emphasize "non-intrusive" environmental criteria and alternative ways to protect watersheds.

aGoals were given the following acronyms during the management practice ranking and selection process:
WS: Water Supply/Quantity Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated needs of local communities.
WQ: Water Quality Protect and enhance water quality and ecosystems in lakes and streams, particularly those in priority listed watersheds.
AT: Alternative Technologies Use alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the CNG Region.
ED: Economic Development Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.
AE: Adverse Effects Minimize adverse effects to local communities and adjacent regions, and when possible, enhance natural systems.
ES: Educate Stakeholders Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

6.2.3 Wastewater Management Practices
The surface water quality Resource Assessments described in Section 5.3 were performed to measure the assimilative capacity, or the ability of Georgia's surface waters to absorb pollutants from treated wastewater and stormwater without unacceptable degradation of water quality. The Resource Assessments also highlighted the need for nutrient load reductions to Lake Allatoona, Carters Lake, and Lake Weiss to address expected future water quality issues. Table 5-4 and Table 5-6 summarize the Resource Assessment results and potential wastewater infrastructure shortages. One of the 18 counties in the Region has a projected wastewater infrastructure capacity shortage (Table 5-4). Table 5-6 also notes the two counties (which do not necessarily correspond with the WW infrastructure shortage county) with potential gaps in wastewater demand and in the assimilative capacity of surface waters. Table 5-6 also lists that all counties in the Region contain 303(d) listed impaired stream segments. These counties should consider implementation of the Wastewater Management Practices listed in Table 6-1(c) and a more rigorous

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-9

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

implementation of the Water Quality Management Practices described in Section 6.2.4 to improve the quality of surface waters.

Two of the Council's goals specifically address wastewater infrastructure:

Goal #3: Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.

Goal #5: Promote properly managed wastewater discharges.

Table 6-1(c): Wastewater Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

WW-1. Consider

development of local

wastewater



treatment master plans to evaluate



wastewater

treatment and



disposal options to

meet future

demands

Evaluate future wastewater capacity needs.
Identify and evaluate options to treat and dispose of wastewater.
Consider opportunities for reuse (indirect potable, non-potable, etc.).

Supports ES, ED,
WQ, and WS goalsa

WW-2. Consider

development and implementation of a Develop and implement local public education programs. Supports ES, ED,

local wastewater

Perform public education and outreach activities.

WQ, and WS

education and public awareness

Perform public participation and involvement activities.

goalsa

program

WW-3. Promote septic system management

Conduct an analysis of existing septic systems, including identifying systems on plats and implementing a tracking system.

When upgrading or designing a wastewater treatment facility, develop a plan and acceptable parameters for septage disposal to include future septic system areas, local requirements, critical areas, and overall septage disposal needs.

Supports ES and WQ goalsa

Develop short- and long-term policies for transitioning unsewered areas to sewered areas.

Conduct additional management of septic systems in those critical areas.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-10

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(c): Wastewater Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

Implement a septic system homeowner education program and provide information, including pumping history, at closings.
Enforce actions for failed septic systems to encourage upgrades.

WW-4. Provide sewer system inventory and mapping

Create wastewater system maps in electronic format of all infrastructure.
Consider linking wastewater system maps with asset inventory and characteristic data for maintenance and management.
Use mapping to prioritize capital improvements and operation and maintenance (O&M), as well as during emergency response.
Upon completion of mapping, keep current via ongoing updates as conditions change.

Supports ES, ED, and WQ goalsa

WW-5. Consider implementation of sewer system inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation program

Implement based on local government and utility needs.
Establish and implement inspection and maintenance program.
Review existing staff certifications and secure additional training as needed.
Prioritize rehabilitation projects and develop schedules and budgets.
Implement rehabilitation program.
Conduct annual planning and budgeting.
Document rehabilitation projects.

Supports ES, ED, and WQ goalsa

WW-6. Develop a capacity certification program

Implement based on local entity needs.
Maintain a flow and rainfall monitoring program.
Maintain a hydraulic model or use manual calculation approach.
Determine system capacity and maintain procedures for certifying available capacity.
Certify availability of capacity for proposed developments.

Supports ES, ED, and WQ goalsa

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-11

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(c): Wastewater Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management
Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

WW-7. Implement a grease management program

Implement based on local entity needs.

Develop procedures for grease control and enforcement. Supports ES, ED,

Implement fats, oils, and grease (FOG) and disposable

and WQ goalsa

wipes education efforts.

WW-8. Develop a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) emergency response program

Implement based on local entity needs.
Review overflow response program.
Add Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure proper response to overflows.

Supports ES, ED, and WQ goalsa

aGoals were given the following acronyms during the management practice ranking and selection process:
WS: Water Supply/Quantity Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated needs of local communities.
WQ: Water Quality Protect and enhance water quality and ecosystems in lakes and streams, particularly those in priority listed watersheds.
AT: Alternative Technologies Use alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the CNG Region.
ED: Economic Development Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.
AE: Adverse Effects Minimize adverse effects to local communities and adjacent regions, and when possible, enhance natural systems.
ES: Educate Stakeholders Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

6.2.4 Water Quality Management Practices
While significant progress has been made in managing pollution from point sources, Georgia's future growth will continue to be accompanied by conversion of land cover, more intensive land uses, and significant increases in the volume of pollutants discharged to waters from both point and nonpoint sources. Table 5-6 notes the CNG counties with assimilative capacity water quality issues and illustrates that the entire Region needs to focus on implementing Water Quality Management Practices to address the 303(d) listings in each county and the nutrient load reductions needed for those watersheds contributing to the Coosa River, Lake Allatoona, Weiss Lake, and Carters Lake. Implementation of the Water Quality Management Practices noted in Table 6-1(d) builds on the existing TMDL and stormwater management activities already being performed by the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) or NPDES permittees within the Region. As of 2017, the current MS4 counties are Catoosa, Dawson, Floyd, Murray, Walker, and Whitfield Counties.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-12

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Two of the Council's goals specifically address water quality:

Goal #4: Promote alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the CNG Region.

Goal #6: Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

Table 6-1(d): Water Quality Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

WQ-1. Encourage implementation of nutrient management programs

Apply fertilizer at rates that are used by plants to
avoid excessive nutrient runoff.
Use cropland management practices such as
conservation tillage, cover crops, field buffers, riparian forested buffers, land conversion (crop to forest), strip cropping, and nutrient management.
Use practices to reduce runoff carrying pollutants
from animal waste; include practices to store/cover and compost manure.
Recommend developing a pollutant tracking
mechanism.

Supports ES, WQ, and WS
goalsa

Use BMPs to minimize runoff from silviculture

operations such as streamside management zones,

WQ-2. Promote

mechanical site preparation, and main haul roads

use of forestry best

(as adopted and enforced by the Georgia Forestry Supports ES, AT,

management

Commission).

and WQ goalsa

practices

Investigate mechanisms for tracking erosion from

forestry practices such as a notification program for

land clearing/harvesting activities.

WQ-3. Encourage local government participation in erosion and sediment control

Continue to implement existing construction NPDES
Program.

Revisit practices to reduce runoff from construction
sites when a given threshold of land is disturbed, if needed.
Consider the implementation of guidelines in the
Georgia Backroads Program.

Supports ES, ED,
AT, and WQ goalsa

Draft sample erosion and sediment control ordinances to be made publicly available by the CNG Council and Regional Commissions.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-13

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(d): Water Quality Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

WQ-4. Consider development of post-development stormwater management and site design practices

Manage runoff from new development and
redevelopment areas so that post-development runoff volume is no greater than pre-development runoff volume.
Encourage site design practices that minimize
environmental impacts, such as conservation subdivisions.

Supports ES, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa

Draft sample conservation subdivision ordinances to be made publicly available by the CNG Council and Regional Commissions.

WQ-5. Encourage

pollution prevention/good housekeeping practices for local operations and

Local governments develop practices to prevent
pollutant runoff from their land.
Identify illicit discharges to stormwater system and
develop a program to eliminate them.

implementation of Stencil manhole covers and sewer grates with words

an illicit discharge

to the effect, "Drains to stream. Do not dump

detection and

contaminants."

elimination program

Supports ES,
WQ, and WS goalsa

WQ-6. Encourage implementation of local stormwater education and public awareness program

Develop a program to educate public about
measures they can take to minimize their impacts (nonpoint source) on water resources.
Develop and implement local public education
programs.
Perform public education and outreach activities.
Perform public participation and involvement
activities.

Supports ES, ED,
WQ, and WS goalsa

WQ-7. Encourage consideration of regional BMPs such as regional ponds and natural protection systems

Encourage local governments to work together to
develop regional BMP plans.



Construct regional BMP facilities such as stormwater ponds and greenway networks for buffer restoration and protection.

Supports ED, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa

Existing stormwater BMPs will be made publicly

available to the region by the Regional Commissions

and the Council.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-14

June 2017

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(d): Water Quality Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

WQ-8. Encourage stream buffer protection measures and stream restoration

Preserve and develop vegetated (often forested)
corridors along streams to filter pollutants.
Existing BMPs will be made publicly available to the
region by the Regional Commissions and the Council.

Supports ES, ED,
WQ and WS goalsa

Adopt site plan review practices to prohibit or

minimize development in the floodplain.

WQ-9. Encourage floodplain management/flood damage prevention



Develop updated flood maps based on land use and refer to maps during the development review process.

Supports ES, AT,
WQ, and WS goalsa

practices

Draft Model flood plain ordinances and make

available through the Regional Commissions and

the Council.

WQ-10. Continue implementation of comprehensive land use planning and environmental planning criteria

Develop plans to recommend development in
certain areas and discourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, including protecting open space along riparian corridors, wetlands, and groundwater recharge areas to protect water resources.
Include protection of endangered species, wetlands,
aquifer recharge areas, and drinking water supplies.

Supports ED,
WQ, and WS goalsa

WQ-11. Support TMDL implementation

Evaluate existing impaired waters, investigate potential pollutant sources, and participate in the TMDL development and implementation planning process.
Choose waterways to monitor, and seek funding for impairment mitigation.

Supports ES, WQ, and WS
goalsa

WQ-12. Consider water quality credit trading

Evaluate the feasibility of point-to-point trading and
nonpointto-point trading.

Supports ES, ED, and WQ goals1.

WQ-13. Sampling and Testing of 303(d) Listed Streams

Perform regular sampling and laboratory testing in the Region's 303(d) impaired waters in an effort to remove them from the list.

Supports ES, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

6-15

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1(d): Water Quality Management Practices Selected for the CNG Water Planning Region

Action Needed (Management Practice)

Description of Activities

Relationship of Action or Issue
to Goals (Section 1.3)

(CONTINUED)

WQ-14. Support Non-Traditional NPDES Permitting

Evaluate the potential for non-traditional NPDES permitting to support nutrient reduction.
Identify and support opportunities for new non-traditional NPDES permitting.

Supports ES, AT, WQ, and WS goalsa

aGoals were given the following acronyms during the management practice ranking and selection process:
WS: Water Supply/Quantity Plan for appropriate levels of water storage, water sources, and long-term supply to meet anticipated needs of local communities.
WQ: Water Quality Protect and enhance water quality and ecosystems in lakes and streams, particularly those in priority listed watersheds.
AT: Alternative Technologies Use alternative technologies that conserve, return, and recycle water; protect water quality; and ensure adequate capacity for water storage within the CNG Region.
ED: Economic Development Ensure that management practices support economic development and optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure.
AE: Adverse Effects Minimize adverse effects to local communities and adjacent regions, and when possible, enhance natural systems.
ES: Educate Stakeholders Educate stakeholders in the Region on the importance of water resources, including water conservation, efficiency, and pollution prevention.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6-16

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Section 7. Implementing

Section Summary

Water Management Practices

The Council has developed a roadmap for implementing the Management Practices identified

in Section 6.

This section presents the CNG Regional Water Planning Council's roadmap for implementing the water management practices identified in Section 6. Updates to the implementation schedule reflect the changes in the recommended management practices and feedback from the Council on the original schedule of activities. The Regional Water Plan will be primarily implemented by the various water users in the CNG Region along with the other responsible parties described below.
The Regional Water Plan is used to:

This section identifies the short-

term (2013-2016) and long-term

(beyond 2017) actions and the

applicable

corresponding

responsible parties. The

responsibility for most of the

implementation actions falls to

local governments and utilities,

and their corresponding Regional

Commissions;

however,

extensive support for short-term

activities, in particular, will be

Guide permitting decisions by GAEPD.

needed from various State

entities.

Guide the awarding of Section 319(h)

Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant funds from GAEPD.

Guide the awarding of State grants and loans for water-related projects.

7.1 Implementation Status
In 2015, the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC) assisted the CNG Regional Water Planning Council in development of a progress report to document the status of implementation activities across the Region and to evaluate potential changes to the management practices (Section 6) and the implementation schedule (Section 7) (NWGRC, 2015). Over the first 5 years of plan implementation, members of the CNG Council participated in monthly meetings with the North Georgia Water Resources Partnership (Partnership) to discuss implementation status of the ongoing technical studies funded by the Partnership and grants from GAEPD. Although not "official" Council meetings, these meetings served as opportunities to coordinate between local governments within the Region on key technical issues related to plan implementation.
The primary studies that have been either funded by the Partnership or GAEPD grants since 2011 include the following:
Nutrient Trading Nutrient Trading in the Coosa Basin: A Feasibility Study was completed by Brown and Caldwell in August 2013 and was funded by an EPA 319 (h) grant. The study evaluated the issues associated with setting up a point to nonpoint source nutrient trading framework. The study was conducted in an effort

June 2017

7-1

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
to reduce total phosphorus loads by 30 percent in the Coosa River, measured at the Georgia/Alabama state line, as required by the EPA's Lake Weiss TMDL for Nutrient Impairment (2008).
Redundancy and Emergency Interconnectivity Study The Redundancy and Emergency Interconnectivity Study was completed by Jacobs and Amec Foster Wheeler in April 2015 and was funded by a Regional Water Plan Seed Grant from GAEPD. The study evaluated the feasibility for using municipal water system interconnections for emergency water supply.
Water Transmission Grid Study The Water Transmission Grid Study was completed by Jacobs and Amec Foster Wheeler in April 2015 and was funded by a Regional Water Plan Seed Grant from GAEPD. This is a long-term planning study that evaluates the potential for developing a regional water transmission grid across multiple municipalities to meet future water demand beyond the year 2050. The document's high level plan for meeting water supply needs is intended to encourage water systems and stakeholders to consider regional implications when making local decisions.
North Georgia Agricultural Water Use Study The North Georgia Agricultural Water Use Study was completed by TetraTech in June 2015 and was funded by a Regional Water Plan Seed Grant from GAEPD. The study determines the amounts of agricultural water use in the CNG Region. Agricultural acreage and irrigation withdrawal data were used to estimate water use. These data came from a variety of sources, including the UGA Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, the Natural Resources Spatial Analyst Laboratory, and GAEPD, among others. Water use was estimated for commercial crops, poultry, and livestock.
Soque River Nutrient Management Study The Partnership, NWGRC, Cities of Cornelia and Clarksville, and the Soque River Watershed Association are collaborating on a nutrient study to identify nutrient sources in the watershed and potential strategies for nutrient loading reductions in the future. Findings from this study will be used to improve water quality management practices around the Region in the future.
In 2014, the Partnership entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP) to allow for collaboration and development of educational and resource materials to facilitate implementation of the Regional Water Plan. Through this partnership, the following resource documents were identified, and can be accessed through the GAWP website, www.gawp.org.
Best Practice Master Planning Guidance and Resource Document
A Guide to Asset Management for Small Water Systems
Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for Small Local Governments

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-2

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Between April and September 2015, the NWGRC held a series of three council meetings to review implementation status of the original plan and to evaluate potential changes to the recommended management practices.
7.2 Implementation Schedule and Roles of Responsible Parties
Tables 7-1(a) through 7-1(d) identify the short- and long-term actions needed to implement the management practices detailed in Tables 6-1(a) through 6-1(d) and the corresponding responsible parties for each series of actions. The Council has defined short-term as occurring between 2018 and 2022 and long-term as year 2022 and beyond. It is assumed that all long-term activities would occur after the next 5-year Regional Water Plan update, allowing the Council to revisit these actions using an adaptive management approach. Based on Council feedback, the RCs will take the lead role in coordinating and assisting local governments and utilities in implementing the management practices.
While the bulk of implementation actions noted in this section fall to local governments and utilities and their corresponding RCs, support for implementation will be needed from State entities such as GAEPD, DCA, Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH), Division of Public Health, Environmental Health Section, and Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA). This Regional Water Plan also assumes continued support from the Council in some capacity beyond its current 3-year appointment. Support from other organizations, such as the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG), Georgia Green Industry (GGIA), Georgia Municipal Association (GMA), Georgia Rural Water Association (GRWA), and Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP) also will be needed to implement the management practices in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In the CNG region, the Partnership has been a key partner in providing technical support for implementation of the regional water plan and will continue to serve in this role in the future.
Tables 7-1(a) through 7-1(d) indicate the permit category of the responsible parties for each management practice including the following mechanisms for tracking implementation, with GAEPD responsible for enforcement:
Energy, Municipal, Golf Course and Agricultural Water Withdrawal and Drinking Water
Municipal Wastewater Discharge
Municipal and Construction Stormwater
Safe Dams Program
7.2.1 Implementation of Water Conservation Management Practices Table 7-1(a) lists implementation details for the 11 Water Conservation Management Practices selected by the Council. The list includes a wide variety of practices, such as: (1) practices that are required by state law (WC-3, Stewardship Act practices),

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-3

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

(2) practices that are beneficial for all communities (WC-1, Implement education and public awareness programs), and (3) practices that may be appropriate for some communities but not others (WC-5, Encourage non-potable reuse). Each community will need to continue to evaluate the practices to determine which are appropriate for implementation in their community, and are encouraged to adopt all management practices or other equally effective measures. Communities with Resource Assessment gaps or infrastructure needs or shortages will continue to be encouraged to implement these management practices to address their gaps, needs, or shortages. All communities will continue to be required to report on their implementation activities to the Council and to the GAEPD to help determine the effectiveness of the Regional Water Plan. Finally, it is important to seek out opportunities for implementation across state lines with partners to address impairments and improvements to inter-state waters.

The industrial sector continually strides to implement water conservation practices that increase productivity while decreasing water use. Particularly in the CNG Region, the carpet industry has significantly reduced water usage per unit of carpet manufactured due to industry process improvements, increased efficiencies, and conservations efforts (GTMA, 2009).

Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

Review existing

Administer

education

survey to

WC-1. Implement education and public

Municipal Water Withdrawal, Drinking Water and

programs and build on readily available examples from within Georgia to develop either a region-wide public education program or template for local implementation.



gauge effectiveness of program after implementation of short-term actions.

Short-term Actions: GAEPD and councils working with the RCs noted in Section 2.2 with support from organizations such as

Revise

the ACCG, GMA,

Education and GRWA, and GAWP.

Public

Local governments

awareness

Municipal Implement the

Awareness

noted in Section 2.1.1.

programs

Stormwater

Education and

Program

Long-term Actions:

Public Awareness Program including retrofit kits, residential water audits, and efficient

during 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, to

WC-2. Develop water conservation goals
GAEPD and councils working with the RCs.

landscaping and

improve

irrigation practices.

effectiveness.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-4

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

Identify achievable,

WC-2. Develop water conservation goals

Municipal Water Withdrawal and Drinking Water



measurable goals (and benchmarks)



based on those in

the WCIP to help

local governments

evaluate progress

and success in

reducing water supply gaps through

conservation.

Develop ways to track progress in meeting conservation goals and reporting

Administer

survey to gauge

effectiveness of

program after implementation of short-term actions.
Revise program during 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if

GAEPD and councils working with the RCs noted in Section 2.2 with support from organizations such as the ACCG, GMA, GRWA, and GAWP.

necessary, to

improve

effectiveness.

progress.

WC-3. Stewardship Act Practices

Municipal Water Withdrawal and Agricultural Water Withdrawal

Assess and reduce water system leakage:
Follow the Water Supply Efficiency Rule (391-3-33) for submitting water loss audits.
Adopt outdoor watering restrictions in compliance with the Drought Rule (391-3-30).

Assess and reduce water system leakage:
Administer survey to identify water saved by identifying and repairing leaks.
Continue annual assessments.
Implement outdoor watering restrictions and drought rule requirements.
Continue to implement ordinance and educate public.

Assess and reduce water system leakage:
Short-term Actions: Local governments and utilities coordinated by the RCs noted in Section 2.3 with support from organizations such as GRWA and GAWP.
Long-term Actions: Local governments and utilities, GAEPD, and councils working with the RCs. Adopt outdoor watering restrictions: Local governments and utilities.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-5

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

Develop a list of

eligible government

buildings, including

Short-term Actions:

the number and age

Georgia Building

WC-4.

of current fixtures.

Authority and GEFA,

Consider retrofitting to 1.28-gpf (high efficiency) toilets and high efficiency urinals in government buildings

Municipal Water Withdrawal



Identify potential funding sources for government retrofits.
Develop preliminary cost estimates, prioritize buildings for retrofit, and develop schedule.

which, pursuant to

Senate Bill 194, have

Administer

responsibility for

survey to track overseeing State Energy

number of

Performance Contracts

fixtures installed that include water

and replaced. conservation measures.

Long-term Actions:

Retrofit fixtures

GAEPD and councils

according to

working with the RCs.

schedule as funding

allows.

WC-5. Encourage non-potable reuse


Municipal Wastewater and Municipal Water Withdrawal


Identify areas with potential for reuse application such as golf courses and parks. Identify industries that may use reclaimed water.
Consider applying for State Revolving Fund low-interest loans from GEFA, which can fund priority green projects, including water reuse and recycling programs.
Develop implementation costs and assess feasibility of providing nonpotable reuse water.

Encourage

industries to use

reclaimed water

for processes, Industry, local

such as cooling, governments, and

when

utilities.

technically and

economically

feasible.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-6

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

Review existing rate

WC-6.

structure and

Encourage

perform a rate study,

conservation pricing for residential and irrigation

Municipal Water Withdrawal



if needed, to



eliminate declining

block rate structure.

Implement

Revise rate study and rate structure, as needed.

Local governments and utilities.

sprinkler

conservation-

systems

oriented rate

structure.

WC-7. Encourage installation of rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems

Evaluate

requiring

switches in

water-limited

Develop regional

areas and

guidelines /

revise

educational

guidelines

materials for local

during 5-year

implementation.

Regional

Municipal Encourage voluntary

Water

installation or

Withdrawal

retrofitting to utilize

irrigation systems

that automatically

Water Plan update, if necessary, to improve effectiveness.

shut off during rain Develop

events or moist soil

maintenance

conditions.

program to

ensure long-

term

effectiveness

of sensors.

Short-term Actions: GAEPD and councils working with DCA and the RCs with support from organizations such as the ACCG, GMA, and GAWP. Local governments and utilities.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD and councils working with the RCs.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-7

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

Continue

implementation of

the Georgia Soil

and Water

Conservation

Commission

(GSWCC) Mobile Evaluate

WC-8. Encourage agricultural irrigation efficiency improvements

Agricultural Water Withdrawal



Irrigation Laboratory Program to provide free irrigation system performance audits and then offer financial incentives to install watersaving technologies, based on audit efficiency results.
Implement with the support of the

requiring irrigation efficiency improvements in water-limited areas.
Revise guidelines during 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, to improve

UGA College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences and the Cooperative Extension Service.
Short-term Actions: GAEPD Agriculture Water Permitting Unit and councils working with GSWCC.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD, councils, and GSWCC.

GSWCC.

effectiveness.

Integrate message

into Public

Education and

Awareness

Program (see

WC-1).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-8

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(a): Implementation Schedule for Water Conservation Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

Educate Golf

WC-9. Encourage development of golf coursespecific water conservation plans

Golf Course Water Withdrawal



Course Superintendents



about availability of

GAEPD standard

water conservation

plan template for

self-supplied golf

courses (WC-1).

Identify incentives

or recognition



program to

encourage

development of golf

course-specific

water conservation

plans.

Implement recognition

Administer

survey to

gauge

effectiveness of

program after implementation of short-term actions.
Revise guidelines during 5-year Regional Water Plan

Short-term Actions: Georgia Golf Course Superintendents Association (GGCSA) and GAEPD.
Long-term Actions: GGCSA with GAEPD and councils.

update, if

necessary, to

improve

effectiveness.

program.

Inventory existing

permitted and non-

WC-10.

permitted

Evaluate

Encourage

agricultural

metering of permitted and non-permitted agricultural

Agricultural Water Withdrawal



irrigation water users.
Prioritize meter installation.

effectiveness of metering program.
Revise program

irrigation water use

Report water usage annually, or as

during 5-year updates.

prescribed by

GAEPD.

Short-term Actions: Agricultural Water Users and GAEPD.
Long-term Actions: Agricultural Water Users with GAEPD and councils.

WC-11.
Encourage energy production industry to conserve water at facilities

Energy Water Withdrawal



Evaluate and prioritize opportunities for water conservation at energy production facilities.



Implement prioritized opportunities for water savings.

Short-term Actions: Energy Companies and GAEPD.
Long-term Actions: Energy Companies with GAEPD and councils.

aAssumes continued support from the CNG Council in some capacity beyond its current 3-year appointment.

June 2017

7-9

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

7.2.2 Implementation of Water Supply Management Practices
Table 7-1(b) lists implementation details for the eight Water Supply Management Practices selected by the Council. The list includes a wide variety of practices, such as practices that are beneficial for all communities (WS-1, Encourage development of water master plans) and practices that may be appropriate for some communities but not others (WS-2, Consider expansion of existing reservoirs). Each community will need to continue to evaluate the management practices to determine which are appropriate for implementation in their community. Communities with Resource Assessment gaps or infrastructure needs or shortages are strongly encouraged to implement these management practices to address their gaps, needs, or shortages. All communities will need to report on their implementation activities to the Council and to the GAEPD to help determine the effectiveness of the plan.

Table 7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

Develop or revise local water master plan to:

Include a 40-year planning horizon.

Include an emergency water plan.

WS-1. Encourage development of water master plans

Municipal Water Withdrawal

Assess need for

interconnections



and their reliability targets.
Implement local water master plan.
Identify new North



Revise local water master plan based on 5-year Regional Water Plan update.

Local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD.

Georgia Water

Resources

Partnership

members to

increase regional

participation in

plan development

and

implementation.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-10

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WS-2. Identify and map planned, existing, or offline reservoirs, and consider expansion of existing reservoirs, as needed.

Municipal Water Withdrawal and Safe Dams Program

In areas with

potential future

gaps, identify map

and evaluate

potential for cost-

effectively

retrofitting existing

reservoirs to

provide additional

storage, and

interconnection

including retrofit of

NRCS

Short-term Actions:



impoundments for water supply use,



as applicable.

Identify potential

funding sources



and cost-share

partners for retrofits

and potential

expansion of

existing reservoirs;

include in

interconnectivity

studies.

Begin process of expanding existing reservoirs.
Integrate plans for reservoir startup and expansions in 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, and interconnectivity studies.

GAEPD and councils working with DCA and the RCs with support from the NRCS. GEFA, local governments and utilities.
Long-term Actions:
Local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD and the

In areas with

CNG council.

potential future

gaps, identify and

map planned,

existing, or offline

reservoirs; evaluate

potential for

bringing offline or

planned reservoirs

online to provide

additional storage

and

interconnection.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-11

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WS-3. Consider construction of new reservoirs to meet multiple purposes

Municipal Water Withdrawal



Identify sitespecific needs for new water supply reservoirs over next 40 years via local water master planning process and Regional Water Plan.



Continue permitting process for new water supplies and construct as needed and as funding allows.
Revise local water master plan based

Local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD.

Begin permitting process for new water supplies.

on 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary.

WS-4. Consider development of new groundwater wells

As part of local

water master

planning process,

identify site-

Industrial

specific needs for

Water

new groundwater

Withdrawal

wells over next

and Municipal

40 years.

Water

Begin permitting

Withdrawal

process for new

wells and

construct as

needed and as

funding allows.

Continue

permitting process

for new wells and

construct as

needed and as

Industry, local

funding allows.

governments and

Revise local water utilities with support

master plan based from GAEPD.

on 5-year Regional

Water Plan

update, if

necessary.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-12

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WS-5. Encourage indirect potable reuse

Encourage indirect

potable reuse by

identifying

opportunities to

augment water

supplies with highly

Municipal

treated wastewater Revise local water Local governments

Wastewater

via local water

master plan based and utilities with

and Municipal

master planning

on 5-year Regional support from

Water

process.

Water Plan update, GAEPD and

Withdrawal

Identify incentives

if necessary.

GEFA.

to encourage

indirect potable

reuse.

Implement via local water master plan.

Evaluate need for

new/expanded

WTPs as part of

local water supply Complete

planning process.

permitting process,

WS-6. Consider construction of new WTPs or expansion of existing WTPs

Industrial Water Withdrawal and Municipal Water Withdrawal



If needed, begin

permitting process

for the WTPs.

Continue to



assess the existing

and proposed

obtain funding and construct WTPs, as necessary.
Revise local water master plan and Regional Water

Industry, local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD and GEFA.

interconnection for

Plan to reflect

redundancy and

infrastructure

regional water

changes.

supply potential to

supply increased

demand.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-13

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WS-7. Encourage water system asset management

Municipal Water Withdrawal

Develop a water system asset management program, if one does not already exist.

Begin or continue

mapping of water

system assets in

electronic format. Continue asset

Develop targeted asset replacement/ rehabilitation

management and leak detection programs.

program to prevent Revise programs

catastrophic

based on 5-year

failures.

Regional Water

Continue mapping of water system

Plan update, if necessary.

assets.

Coordinate asset management and leak detection programs.

Incorporate data from utility surveys.

Local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-14

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(b): Implementation Schedule for Water Supply Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WS-8. Encourage source water protection

Municipal Water Withdrawal

Continue

implementation of

Chapter 391-3-16,

Rules for

Environmental

Planning Criteria,

which provide

criteria for water supply watersheds



and for protection

of groundwater

Implement source water protection plans.

Local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD and DCA.

recharge areas.

Update water supply reservoir protection plans or source water protection plans, as needed.

aAssumes continued support from the CNG Council in some capacity beyond its current 3-year appointment.

7.2.3 Implementation of Wastewater Management Practices
Table 7-1(c) lists implementation details for the 8 Wastewater Management Practices selected by the Council. The list includes a wide variety of practices, such as practices that are beneficial for all communities (WW-1, Consider development of local wastewater master plans to evaluate wastewater treatment and disposal options to meet future demands) and practices that may be appropriate for some communities but not others (WW-6, Consider developing a capacity certification program). Each community will need to continue to evaluate the practices to determine which are appropriate for implementation in their community. Communities with Resource Assessment gaps or infrastructure needs or shortages are strongly encouraged to implement these management practices to address their gaps, needs, or shortages. All communities will need to report on their implementation activities to the Council and to the GAEPD to help determine the effectiveness of the plan.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-15

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(c): Implementation Schedule for Wastewater Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

WW-1. Consider development of local wastewater master plans to evaluate wastewater treatment and disposal options to meet future demands.

Municipal Wastewater

Consider

developing (or

revising) local

wastewater master

plan that: evaluates

local, future

wastewater

capacity needs; identifies and evaluates options to treat and dispose of wastewater; and considers opportunities for



Revise local wastewater master plan based on 5-year Regional Water Plan update.

reuse (indirect

potable, non-

potable, etc.).

If needed, implement local wastewater master plan.

Local governments and utilities with support from GAEPD.

WW-2. Consider development and implementation of a local wastewater education and public awareness program

Municipal Wastewater

Develop template materials for local wastewater education from readily available sources.
Adapt template materials for local use and distribute with water bills and septic tank applications as funding allows.

Administer survey

to gauge effectiveness of program after implementation of short-term actions.

Short-term Actions: RCs with support from DCH. Local governments and utilities and local public health

Revise guidelines departments.

during 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, to improve

Long-term Actions:
RCs with support from GAEPD and CNG Council.

effectiveness.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-16

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(c): Implementation Schedule for Wastewater Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

As part of local wastewater planning efforts:

Develop policies for transitioning to sewer in areas where feasible.

WW-3. Promote septic system management

Municipal Wastewater

Identify grant funds

or other sources to

develop and

Administer survey

implement Septic

to gauge

Short-term Actions:

System

effectiveness of Local governments

Homeowner

program after

and utilities with

Education program.

implementation of support from DCA

Implement policies for transitioning to

short-term actions.

and the RCs and GEFA.

sewer in areas

Revise guidelines Long-term Actions:

where feasible.

during 5-year

GAEPD and

Integrate Septic System Homeowner Education component into

Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, to improve effectiveness.

councils working with State and Local Public Health Department.

Public Education

and Awareness

Program (see

WC-1).

Enforce actions for failed septic systems to encourage upgrades.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-17

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(c): Implementation Schedule for Wastewater Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WW-4. Provide sewer system inventory and mapping

Municipal Wastewater

Develop electronic sewer system mapping strategy and identify potential funding sources.

As funding allows:

Short-term Actions:

- Generate

Local governments

sewer inventory

and utilities with

and perform condition assessment.
- Create sewer



Update sewer system inventory map as needed.

support from GEFA, GRWA, and GAWP.
Long-term Actions:

system map for

Local governments

emergency

and utilities with

response and

GAEPD.

planning

purposes.

- Consider linking sewer system maps with asset inventory.

WW-5. Consider implementation of sewer system inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation program

Municipal Wastewater

Develop local inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation program.

Review existing

Implement

staff certifications

rehabilitation

and identify needed

program.

training.

Conduct annual

Prioritize

planning and

rehabilitation

budgeting.

projects and

Document

develop schedule

rehabilitation

and budget for

projects.

implementation.

Secure funding for training and implement training program.

Short-term Actions: Local governments and utilities with support from GRWA, GAWP, and GEFA.
Long-term Actions: Local governments and utilities.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-18

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(c): Implementation Schedule for Wastewater Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WW-6. Develop a capacity certification program

Municipal Wastewater

Develop a capacity

certification program as part of local wastewater master planning efforts.

Determine system capacity and maintain procedures for certifying

Implement capacity

available

certification

capacity.

Short-term Actions: Local governments and utilities with support from GAWP and GRWA.

program by monitoring flow and rainfall and use resulting data to develop a local



Certify availability of capacity for proposed developments.

Long-term Actions: Local governments and utilities.

hydraulic model.

WW-7. Implement a grease management program

Municipal Wastewater

Develop regional

Grease

Management

Program guidelines

or templates for

local government

and utility

Short-term Actions:

implementation.

Revise guidelines RCs with support

Implement local

during 5-year

from GRWA and

Grease

Regional Water GAWP. Local

Management

Plan update, if

governments and

Program.

necessary, to

utilities.

Integrate fats, oils, and greases (FOG) and disposable

improve effectiveness.

Long-term Actions: GAEPD and councils.

wipes reduction

message into

Public Education

and Awareness

Program

(see WC-1).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-19

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(c): Implementation Schedule for Wastewater Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible
Parties

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional
Water Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WW-8. Develop a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) emergency response program

Municipal Wastewater

Develop regional



SSO emergency

response guidelines

or templates for

local government

and utility



implementation.

Provide local staff with appropriate SSO emergency response training.

Review SOPs as part of 5-year wastewater master plan update.

Short-term Actions: RCs with support from GAEPD, GRWA. and GAWP. Local governments and utilities with support from GRWA and GAWP.
Long-term Actions:

Implement SSO

Local governments

emergency

and utilities.

response

guidelines.

aAssumes continued support from the CNG Council in some capacity beyond its current 3-year appointment.

7.2.4 Implementation of Water Quality Management Practices
Table 7-1(d) lists implementation details for the 14 Water Quality Management Practices selected by the Council. The list includes a wide variety of practices, such as: (1) practices that are required by state law (WQ-3, Encourage local government participation in erosion and sediment control), (2) practices that are beneficial for all communities (WQ-6, Encourage implementation of local stormwater education and public awareness program) and (3) practices that may be appropriate for some communities but not others (WQ-12, Consider water quality credit trading). Each community will need to evaluate the management practices to determine which are appropriate for implementation in their community. Communities with Resource Assessment gaps or infrastructure needs or shortages are strongly encouraged to implement these management practices to address their gaps, needs, or shortages. All communities will need to report on their implementation activities to the Council and to the GAEPD to help determine the effectiveness of the plan.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-20

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

WQ-1. Encourage implementation of nutrient management programs

Agricultural Water Withdrawal

Identify incentives to

encourage local

implementation of

nutrient



management guidelines.
Implement program based on nutrient management guidelines with support of GSWCC.
Integrate message into Public Education and Awareness Program (see WC-1).



Review implementation progress results during 5-year Regional Water Plan update to evaluate whether changes to guidelines are needed.

Short-term Actions: GAEPD working with GSWCC and NRCS Resource Conservation and Development. Agricultural Water Users and Council.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD, councils, GSWCC, and NRCS.

Consider developing pollutant tracking mechanisms.

WQ-2 Promote use of forestry best management practices

None



Continue to implement measures and practices outlined in Georgia Forestry Commission BMP manual.
Identify potential measures for tracking major forestry/land clearing operations and erosion.



Review

implementation Short-term Actions:

and compliance Private foresters

during 5-year and the Georgia

Regional Water Forestry

Plan update to Commission.

evaluate whether Long-term Actions:

changes to

GAEPD, RCs, and

Georgia Forestry the Georgia

Commission

Forestry

BMP manual are Commission.

needed.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-21

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-3. Encourage local government participation in erosion and sediment control

Construction Stormwater

Continue to

implement existing

Construction NPDES Assess erosion

Program.

and

Encourage local government participation in erosion and sediment control as Local Issuing Authority.
Encourage implementation of sedimentation and erosion control ordinances.

sedimentation compliance and enforcement in conjunction with Resource Assessment results during 5-year Regional Water Plan update to evaluate whether changes to

Short-term Actions: GAEPD, NRCS, GSWCC and local governments, utilities and RCs.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD and councils.

Integrate

existing

construction erosion

Construction

and sedimentation

NPDES

component into

Program are

Public Education and

needed.

Awareness Program

(see WC-1).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-22

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-4. Consider development of postdevelopment stormwater management and site design practices

Municipal Stormwater

Consider

implementation of

guidelines and

model ordinance,

building on existing

examples from within Consider

Georgia, to maintain

adopting model



pre- and postdevelopment runoff volume consistently across CNG Region.
Identify site design practices which minimize environmental impacts while still being cost-effective.
Utilize existing



ordinance and establishing development review process.
If adopted, implement educational materials and a training program for local developers.

Short-term Actions: DCA and RCs with support from organizations such as the ACCG, GMA, GRWA, Metro District, and GAWP.
Local governments with support from their corresponding

educational materials and training program for local government staff and developers to assist with postdevelopment

Revise guidelines during 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, to

RC.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD and councils working with the RCs.

stormwater control

improve

review process.

effectiveness.

Integrate message

into Public Education

and Awareness

Program (see

WC-1).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-23

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-5. Encourage pollution prevention/ good housekeeping practices for local operations and implementatio n of an illicit discharge detection and elimination program

Municipal Stormwater

Continue to implement current components of Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) if already an MS4 community.

Develop regional,

minimum guidelines

for pollution

Implement

prevention/good

pollution

housekeeping for

prevention/

local operations and illicit discharge detection and elimination programs for local governments not operating under MS4 NPDES permit.
Develop educational materials and training program for non-MS4 local government staff

good housekeeping for local operations and illicit discharge detection and elimination programs for local governments not operating under MS4 NPDES permit.

Short-term Actions: Local governments and RCs with support from GAWP. RCs with support from GAWP and GEFA.
Long-term Actions: Local governments.

based on existing

materials.

Initiate storm drain stenciling.

Identify incentives and potential funding sources to encourage local implementation.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-24

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-6. Encourage implementatio n of local stormwater education and public awareness program

Municipal Stormwater

Continue to implement current components of SWMP if already an MS4 community.

Develop regional,

minimum guidelines

for local education

and public

awareness programs

building on existing programs from within Georgia, for local governments not operating under MS4 NPDES permit.

Administer survey to gauge effectiveness of program after implementation of short-term

Short-term Actions: Local Governments, DCA

Provide example

actions.

and RCs with

materials on the RC Revise

websites.

Education and

Identify incentives

Public

and potential funding

Awareness

support from GEFA and GADNR Sustainability Division.

sources to

Program during Long-term Actions:

encourage local

5-year Regional GAEPD and

implementation.

Water Plan

councils working

Continue to implement current components of SWMP if already an

update, if necessary, to improve effectiveness.

with RCs.

MS4 community.

Implement stormwater component as part of Public Education and Awareness Program (see WC-1) for local governments not operating under MS4 NPDES permit.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-25

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-7. Encourage consideration of regional BMPs such as regional ponds and natural protection systems

Municipal Stormwater

Establish

mechanism to

evaluate and

consider

implementation of

regional BMPs such

as stormwater

ponds, stream buffer

protection and

restoration.

Permit and

Identify incentives and potential funding sources to

construct regional BMP facilities.

encourage local

Implement

participation in

regional BMP

regional planning.

plan(s).

Develop regional BMP plans including construction, and O&M plan(s).

Identify potential BMP retrofits projects as examples.

Short-term Actions: Local governments and RCs. GEFA and GADNR Sustainability Division.
Long-term Action: Local governments and RCs.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-26

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-8. Encourage stream buffer protection measures and stream restoration

MS4

Develop regional

recommendations

and consider

adoption of a stream

buffer ordinance that

goes beyond current

minimum State

standards.



Consider stream



restoration as

funding allows.

Identify incentives and potential funding sources to encourage local implementation.

Revise guidelines during 5-year Regional Water Plan update, if necessary, to improve effectiveness.

Short-term Actions: Local governments and RCs.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD and councils working with the RCs.

Integrate messages about the importance of stream buffer protection into Public Education and Awareness Program (see WC-1).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-27

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-9. Encourage floodplain management/ flood damage prevention practices

MS4

Integrate

message into

Public

Education and

Evaluate use of

Awareness

Metro District model

Program (see

flood damage

WC-1).

prevention

Consider



ordinance.
Develop educational materials emphasizing the importance of preventing flood damage.
Identify incentives



adoption of flood damage prevention ordinance.
Revise development review process, if needed.

Short-term Actions: GAEPD and GEMA. RCs with support from GEFA.
Long-term Actions: RCs and local governments.

and potential funding Revise

sources to

guidelines

encourage local

during 5-year

implementation.

Regional Water

Plan update, if

necessary, to

improve

effectiveness.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-28

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-10. Continue implementation of comprehensive land use planning and environmental planning criteria

MS4

Continue implementation of Comprehensive Plan and Part V Environmental Planning Criteria (PVEPC).

Assess need for

revisions to Chapter

110-12-1, Standards

and Procedures for

Local

Comprehensive Planning (SPLCP), and the PVEPC to facilitate implementation of the State Water Plan water management



Continue implementation of current [State Water Plan and PVEPC.

Short-term Actions: Local governments, DCA, and local governments.
Long-term Actions: Local governments.

practices.

Integrate any needed revisions into local comprehensive plans during the next, regular 10-year update or 5-year updates to the ShortTerm Work Program portion of the Community Agenda.

WQ-11. Support TMDL Implementation

Municipal Wastewater and Municipal Stormwater

Continue to follow TMDL implementation plans and to participate in GAEPD updates.
Identify impaired streams and initiate monitoring.

Update TMDL

implementation plans, as needed, based on water quality and biological monitoring data as well as Resource Assessment

Short-term Actions: GAEPD, industry, local governments and utilities.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD and councils working with the RCs.

results.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-29

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1(d): Implementation Schedule for Water Quality Management Practices

Management Practice

Permit Category of Responsible Parties and Other States

Short-term Implementation
Actions: 2018 to 2022

Long-term Actions: 2022+, i.e., after 5-year Regional Water
Plan Update

Responsible Partiesa

(CONTINUED)

WQ-12. Consider water quality credit trading

Perform feasibility

study to assess the

development of a

regulatory

framework, including

the need for

legislation, and

guidelines for water

Municipal

quality credit trading

Wastewater,

in Georgia.

Industrial Wastewater, Municipal Stormwater, and Industrial Stormwater



Propose legislative changes to allow for water quality credit trading, if needed.
Consider implementation

framework and

initiate pilot study.

Pending the

results of

the

feasibility Short-term Actions:

and pilot

State legislature,

studies,

GAEPD, industry,

implement local governments

water

and utilities.

quality

Long-term Actions:

credit

GAEPD.

trading

program

state-wide.

Utilize results of pilot study to implement broader water quality trading program state-wide.

WQ-13. Sampling and Testing of 303(d) Listed Streams

Municipal



Wastewater,

Municipal Stormwater,



and Industrial

Stormwater

Develop sampling plans for 303(d) listed streams.
Initiative sampling to remove streams from list of impaired waters.

Re-evaluate

needs for Short-term Actions:

continued GAEPD, local

sampling governments and

and/or

utilities.

watershed Long-term Actions:

improve- GAEPD

ments.

WQ-14. Support NonTraditional NPDES Permitting

Evaluate non-

Municipal

traditional

Wastewater,

approaches for

Municipal

nutrient reductions in

Stormwater,

NDPES permits.

and Industrial Develop guidance

Stormwater

for NPDES

permitting.



Review effectiveness of alternative permitting approaches .

Short-term Actions: GAEPD, local governments and utilities.
Long-term Actions: GAEPD.

aAssumes continued support from the CNG Council in some capacity beyond its current 3-year appointment.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-30

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

7.3 Fiscal Implications of Selected Water Management Practices
This section outlines the general planning level costs and potential funding sources and options for implementation of the management practices selected by the CNG Council. The planning level cost information shown in the following tables are based upon cost guidance prepared by EPD in April 2011 ("GAEPD Cost Guidance"). Neither the guidance nor the cost estimates shown in the following tables have been updated. Accordingly, the values shown below should only be used as a general guide. Specific costs should be further evaluated and updated before being relied upon.

Table 7-2: Cost Estimates for the Water Conservation Management Practices Implementation Responsibilities

Management Practice

Capital / Programmatic
Costs

Funding Sources and Options

Notes and Sources

WC-1. Implement education and public awareness programs

$0.10-2.25/capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance E-2

WC-2. Develop water
conservation goals

$0-0.50/capita

WC-3. Stewardship Act Practices

See WC-STEW below

State, Local, Utilities
See WC-STEW below

GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy management practices
See WC-STEW below

WC-3 (STEW). Assess and reduce water system leakage

$0-0.50/capita

Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy Management Practices

WC-3 (STEW). Adopt Stewardship outdoor watering restrictions

$0-0.50 /capita

WC-3 (STEW). Adopt new agricultural permit requirements

$0-0.50/capita

Local, Utilities Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy Management Practices
GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy Management Practices

WC-3 (STEW). Install high-efficiency cooling towers in new construction

$0-0.50/capita Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy Management Practices

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-31

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-2: Cost Estimates for the Water Conservation Management Practices Implementation Responsibilities

Management Practice

Capital / Programmatic
Costs

Funding Sources and Options

Notes and Sources

(CONTINUED)

WC-4. Consider retrofitting 1.28-gpf (highefficiency) toilets and high-efficiency urinals in government buildings

$150-$450/fixture

State, Local, Utilities

Does not include cost to install

WC-5. Encourage nonpotable reuse

$0-0.50/capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-9

WC-6. Encourage conservation pricing for residential and irrigation sprinkler systems)

$0-500/MG

Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WD-5

WC-7. Encourage installation of rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems

$25-1,000/MG

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WD-2

WC-8. Encourage agricultural irrigation efficiency improvements

$2,000-4,000/MG State

GAEPD Cost Guidance WD-3

WC-9. Encourage development of golf course-specific water conservation plans

$500-2,000/MG Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WD-7

WC-10. Encourage metering of permitted and non-permitted agricultural irrigation water use

$600-2,500/well plus $200 annual
maintenance

State

GAEPD Cost Guidance Table 4

WC-11. Encourage the energy production industry to conserve water at facilities

Energy companies

Costs will be facility specific

Source: Supplemental Guidance for Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison (EPD, April 2011).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-32

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-3: Cost Estimates for the Water Supply Management Practice Implementation Responsibilities

Management Practice
WS-1. Encourage development of water master plans.

Capital / Programmatic
Costs
$1,000-2,000/MG

Funding Sources and
Options
Utilities

Notes and Sources
GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy Management Practices

WS-2. Identify and map planned, existing, or offline reservoirs; and consider expansion of existing reservoirs, as needed

$300,000-700,000/ State, Local,

MG

Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WS-2

WS-3. Consider construction of new reservoirs to meet multiple purposes

$300,000-800,000/ State, Local,

MG

Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WS-1

WS-4. Consider development of new groundwater wells

$40,000-300,000/MG

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WS-3

WS-5. Encourage indirect potable reuse

$0-0.50/capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-9

WS-6. Consider construction of new WTPs or expansion of existing WTPs

$1.5 million-8 million/ State, Local,

MG

Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WT-1 and WT-2

WS-7. Encourage water system asset management

$1,000-3,000/MG Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WD-4

WS-8. Encourage source water protection

$0-0.50/capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-2

Source: Supplemental Guidance for Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison (GAEPD, April 2011).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-33

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-4: Cost Estimates for the Wastewater Management Practice Implementation Responsibilities

Management Practice

Capital /

Funding Sources

Programmatic Costs

and Options

Notes and Sources

WW-1. Consider development of local wastewater master plans to evaluate wastewater treatment and disposal options to meet future demands

$1,000-2,000/MG Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance various Ordinance and Policy Management Practices

WW-2. Consider development and implementation of a local wastewater education and public awareness program

$0-0.50/capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-10

WW-3. Promote septic system management

$0-0.50 /capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-9

WW-4. Provide sewer system inventory and mapping

$0.50 per linear foot Utilities

Rough order of magnitude supplied by local GIS/GPS contractor.

WW-5. Consider implementation of sewer system inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation program

$0-1 million/MGD

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WW-6

WW-6. Develop a capacity certification program

$0-1 million/MGD

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WW-6

WW-7. Implement a grease management program

$0.10-2.25/capita

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance E-2

WW-8. Develop a sanitary sewer system overflow (SSO) emergency response program

$0-1 million/MGD

State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance WW-6

Source: Supplemental Guidance for Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison (GAEPD, April 2011).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-34

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-5: Cost Estimates for the Water Quality Management Practice Implementation Responsibilities (Continued)

Management Practice

Capital / Programmatic
Costs

Funding Sources and Options

Notes and Sources

WQ-1. Encourage implementation of nutrient management programs

$5,000-7,000/farm State

NRCS, 2003

WQ-2 Promote use of forestry management practices

$5-100/acre

State

Costs vary by region, slope, and practice

WQ-3. Encourage local government participation in erosion and sediment control

$1-3/capita

State, Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance E-1

WQ-4. Consider development of postdevelopment stormwater management and site design practices

$0-0.50/capita

State, Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-1; cost to develop ordinance which would probably be similar to developing educational materials; costs do not include staff to review stormwater plans or any increased development costs

WQ-5. Encourage pollution prevention/good housekeeping practices for local operations and implementation of a illicit discharge detection and elimination program

$1.50-3.00/capita State, Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-8

WQ-6. Encourage implementation of local stormwater education and public awareness program

$0.10-2.50/capita State, Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance E-1

WQ-7. Encourage consideration of regional BMPs such as regional ponds and natural protection systems

$35,000-$75,000/ acre of pond

State, Local

(Cubbage et al., Undated)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-35

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-5: Cost Estimates for the Water Quality Management Practice Implementation Responsibilities (Continued)

Management Practice

Capital / Programmatic
Costs

Funding Sources and Options

Notes and Sources

(CONTINUED)

WQ-8. Encourage stream buffer protection measures

$0-0.50/capita

and stream restoration

Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-7

WQ-9. Encourage floodplain management/ flood damage prevention practices

$0-0.50/capita

Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-7

WQ-10. Continue implementation of comprehensive land use planning and environmental planning criteria

$0-0.50/capita

State, Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance OP-7 and OP-9

WQ-11. Support TMDL Implementation

$0-2/capita

Federal, State, Local, Utilities

GAEPD Cost Guidance for Education; assume would be similar level of effort and would vary depending on the complexity and cost of TMDL implementation

WQ-12. Consider water quality credit trading

$0-0.50 /capita

Federal, State

GAEPD Cost Guidance for Ordinance and Policy; includes only feasibility and not actual trading program

WQ-13. Sampling and Testing of 303(d) Listed Streams

$4,000-8,000/station State, Local

GAEPD Cost Guidance Table 4

WQ-14. Support NonTraditional NPDES Permitting

State, Local

GAEPD costs linked to NPDES permit review process

Source: Supplemental Guidance for Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison (GAEPD, April 2011).

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-36

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
7.4 Alignment with Other Plans
As discussed in Section 6, during the original plan development a review of regional and local plans served as the basis for the development of the Region's selected management practices. As a result, this Regional Water Plan is generally aligned and consistent with these efforts; however, the following sections describe ongoing efforts and/or differences that are worth noting and revisiting during future Regional Water Plan updates.
7.4.1 Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) Basin Master Water Control Manual
The ACT Basin Master Water Control Manual is composed of a series of documents, a Master Water Control Manual and 9 individual reservoir manuals. Water control manuals describe the specific operations of the federal reservoir including storage and release schedules to meet the authorized uses of the project. The USACE approved the environmental impact statement (EIS) and the water control manuals for the ACT basin on May 4, 2015. The updated water control manuals detail adjustments to reservoir operations to meet the authorized purposes based on various factors and conditions.4
In development of the updated resource assessments for the CNG Region, the modeling team updated the hydrologic model used for the surface water availability resource assessment analysis in the basin to incorporate the new water control manuals and the updated operational protocols. However, no major changes in the surface water availability resource assessment results were identified based on the updated modeling.
7.4.2 Etowah Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) In response to the number of imperiled aquatic species found in the Etowah watershed, the USFWS initiated development of the Etowah Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)5. The draft Etowah Aquatic HCP is currently working its way through the USFWS review process. Once that is complete, each local government that submitted an application for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will determine whether it wants to move forward with acceptance of the ITP, which includes formal adoption of the HCP. Many of the recommendations in the draft HCP were focused on improving water quality through reduction of point and nonpoint source loadings, reductions in sedimentation and erosion, and restoration or maintenance of hydrology. The recommendations in the 2011 and in this updated regional plan related to water quality and stormwater management will address many of the original HCP recommendations.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

4 http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Missions/Planning-Environmental/ACT-Master-Water-Control-
Manual-Update/ 5 http://www.etowahhcp.org/

June 2017

7-37

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

7.4.3 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Plans
The Metro District was created by the Georgia General Assembly in 2001 to establish policy, create plans, and promote intergovernmental coordination within the 15-county metro Atlanta region, which includes more than 90 cities. While the Metro District is governed by separate authorizing legislation than the CNG Water Planning Region, the two are similar in some respects and the provisions of the 2008 State Water Plan apply to planning activities by both entities. There are, however, differences. For example, the Metro District is funded by State appropriations and per capita local government dues; it is governed by an elected/appointed Governing Board, which sets policy and direction. Metro District staffing is provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission Environmental Planning Division, while plans and policies are guided by the Board Executive and Finance Committees, the Technical Coordinating Committee, and the Basin Advisory Councils (Metro District, 2011).
Similar to the CNG Regional Water Plan, local governments and utilities are responsible for implementing the plans at the local level, but compliance with the Metro District Plan is directly enforced through the GAEPD's permitting process. While the CNG Regional Water Plan will guide GAEPD's future permitting decisions, local governments must be in compliance with the District plans to receive a permit for an increased water withdrawal, a new or increased discharge, or for an MS4 permit, with GAEPD being responsible for auditing local governments to determine compliance with the plans, including audit checklists and site visits.
The original Metro District Plan was approved in 2003 and was updated in 2009, and is currently going through an update that will be completed in 2017 in conjunction with the other 10 regional water plans. This update will result in an integrated water resources management plan that integrates water supply and conservation, wastewater and stormwater management components. A joint council meeting was held with the Metro District to discuss the potential needs for future collaboration or coordination on management practice implementation in January 2017. The points for potential collaboration were primarily related to water supply and water quality management practices in the Chattahoochee River Basin and Lake Allatoona watersheds. Specifically, measures related to nonpoint source management are emphasized in this plan to address the existing TMDL for nutrients in Lake Allatoona and the pending TMDL for nutrients on Lake Lanier. Updates to the water quality management practices focusing on post development stormwater controls and forestry BMPs for sedimentation and erosion will address feedback from the Metro District members regarding nonpoint source pollutant loading reductions to Lake Lanier.
7.4.4 Other Regional Planning Considerations
7.4.4.1 Water Supply Planning Considerations
Future development of water supplies in the CNG Region should continue to take into consideration the availability of water from the Tennessee River Basin. A significant portion of the Region is included in the Tennessee River watershed, and local entities should have access to water contributed to the river from watersheds within north Georgia. The CNG Council recognizes there are potential legal issues that would have to be addressed between Georgia and Tennessee to facilitate usage of the Tennessee

7-38

June 2017

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
River; however, the Council would like future planning efforts to address this alternative water source in more detail as needs arise.
Additionally, regional reservoir projects should continue to be evaluated to meet both in-stream and off-stream needs within the CNG region. Portions of the CNG Region, specifically in the Coosa basin, have the potential for development of new water supply reservoirs that may provide sufficient yield to supply water to areas outside of the CNG planning area. The CNG Council is not opposed to considering these options for meeting future water supply needs in Georgia; however, the Council would like to ensure that a complete and thorough evaluation is completed to verify that the CNG basin water resource needs (both in-stream and off-stream) are met. This plan update includes a recommendation to identify and map potential new reservoirs and reservoirs that may be candidates for future expansion.
7.4.4.2 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation
The State's TMDL process establishes the allowable pollutant loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a water body based on the relationship between pollutant sources and in-stream water quality conditions. This allows water quality-based controls to be developed to reduce pollution and restore and maintain water quality. Integration of the CNG Region's existing TMDL Implementation Plans was an important component considered during the development and selection of the management practices.
There are a number of streams segments in the CNG Region, including streams in every county, that are on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies and/or have existing TMDLs to address the identified impairments. As noted in Sections 3 and 5, the streams are primarily listed for fecal coliform, impaired biota, or fish consumption guidelines/commercial fishing ban due to legacy pollutants such as PCBs or metals. The updated water quality management practices include recommendations with greater emphasis on post-development stormwater controls, improved forestry BMP practice implementation, and increased monitoring of listed stream segments.
Since the original plan was developed in 2011, TMDLs have been finalized to address chlorophyll-a issues in Lake Allatoona (GAEPD, 2013) and Carter's Lake (GAEPD, 2016). Studies also are currently under way to finalize the chlorophyll-a TMDL for Lake Lanier. In each case, the local governments and utilities in the watersheds leading to these three lakes will need to implement measures to further reduce nutrient loadings in these watersheds. The CNG Council, with support from the Partnership, has been studying options for cost effective nutrient reductions (see below) including water quality nutrient trading. Most recently, the Partnership has initiated a nutrient management study on the Soque River in the Chattahoochee River watershed that will provide additional insight on specific measures for nutrient management. The updated CNG plan provides the additional emphasis on stormwater management to begin to address the needed nutrient reductions to comply with the TMDL implementation plans for Lakes Allatoona and Carters, and in anticipation of a TMDL implementation plan for Lake Lanier.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

7-39

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
7.4.4.3 Northwest Georgia Regional Water Resources Partnership The Northwest Georgia Regional Water Resources Partnership was formed and endorsed by the Board of Directors of both the Coosa Valley and North Georgia Regional Commissions (known as RDCs at the time) in 2001 in recognition of the importance of watershed planning. Water withdrawal and discharge permit holders (government, water authority, industrial and private communities) and interested entities not holding water permits (governments, quasigovernmental agencies, environmental organizations, advocacy groups, and other interested entities) were invited to participate, and an executive committee of 12 members was elected from the membership. Many of the local governments, utilities and industries in the CNG region are full participating members of the Partnership. The goals of the Partnership include:
Goal 1: Organize and increase our collective political influence on local, state and national levels.
Goal 2: Combine our resources to develop and implement watershed assessments, water supply studies, and storm water management initiatives within the region including the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Tennessee River Basins.
Goal 3: Educate legislators, citizens, and ourselves on surface and ground water resources in the region.
Goal 4: Obtain funding from a variety of sources for water related activities.
Goal 5: Monitor, assess, and shape local, state, and national legislation on water related issues.
Goal 6: Monitor the proposed ACT and ACF water compact agreement.
Goal 7: Serve as a coordinating mechanism for all regional water related activities including development of the proposed State Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
The Partnership was endorsed by the CNG Council as the technical support group for the Council in 2011, and has served as the primary entity supporting implementation of the regional water plan. As noted in Section 7.1, over the last 5 years the Partnership has received grants or used member funding to implement the following studies:
Nutrient Trading in the Coosa Basin: A Feasibility Study
Redundancy and Emergency Interconnectivity Study
Water Transmission Grid Study
North Georgia Agricultural Water Use Study
Soque River Nutrient Management Study

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-40

June 2017

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
The following are guidance documents produced by GAWP that the Partnership has identified as tools for implementation of the regional water plan:
Best Practice Master Planning Guidance and Resource Document
A Guide to Asset Management for Small Water Systems
Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for Small Local Governments
These documents and studies are available on the Partnership website.6 The Partnership will continue to provide technical and implementation support for the CNG Council over the next 5-year period.
7.4.4.4 Lake Allatoona/Upper Etowah River Comprehensive Watershed Study The Etowah River watershed above Allatoona Dam includes portions of eight counties: Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Dawson, Forsyth, Fulton, Lumpkin, and Pickens. Dawson, Lumpkin and Pickens counties in the CNG region are participating in the Study. In response to the previously defined problems, Congress authorized the USACE to address the water resource problems within the study area. The Lake Allatoona/Upper Etowah River Watershed Study was authorized by Section 422 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-541) to address streambank and shoreline erosion, sedimentation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat degradation, and other problems relating to ecosystem restoration and resource protection in the Lake Allatoona Watershed.
The Watershed Assessment and Watershed Protection Plan planning effort are designed to provide the data needed to make targeted improvement in the quality and quantity of water and ecological conditions of Lake Allatoona and the Upper Etowah River Watershed. This information will help county governments as they strive to protect environmental quality and meet or exceed regulatory requirements, while managing rapid growth in North Georgia (USACE, 2011b). Many of the recommendations in the Watershed Protection Plan are reflected in the management practices included in this plan.
7.5 Recommendations to the State
This section provides recommendations for actions by the State (Table 7-6) that support implementation of this Regional Water Plan.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

6 http://www.ngawater.org/

June 2017

7-41

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-6: Recommendations to the State

Recommendation

Funding

Identify long-term funding mechanism, beyond grants, to assist responsible parties with implementation of water supply projects.

Coordination

The RCs should continue to serve as the clearinghouse and coordinator for ongoing CNG Council planning activities.

Enhance the opportunity for ongoing CNG Council input during implementation of Regional Water Plan Management Practices and establish a process for involvement in the 5-year Regional Water Plan update.

Improve coordination with organizations, such as the ACCG, GMA, GRWA, and GAWP to develop templates and materials that each council, with the assistance of DCA or the RCs noted in Section 2.3, can adapt for regional/local implementation.

Support local monitoring and allow volunteer sampling data to be used to assess watershed conditions.

Coordinate CNG planning efforts and ACT Basin negotiations.

Policy / Programmatic

Develop a program to consistently meter and report agricultural water withdrawals.
Provide support to study the effects of septic systems on water quality.
Develop regulatory framework/guidelines for water quality credit trading and alternative permitting strategies.

Develop guidelines for appropriate use of interbasin transfers of water.

Explore opportunities for Georgia to expand use of the Tennessee River as a water supply source.

Support efforts to develop regional reservoir projects to meet both in-stream and off-stream needs.

Develop regulatory framework/guidelines for aquifer storage recovery.

Support efforts to give authority to enforce Regional Plans.

Support and expand water quality monitoring programs.

Implementation
Next 5-Year Update

Develop or support BMP demonstration projects to evaluate their effectiveness in the CNG Region.
Support and coordinate additional commercial water audits.
Refine Resource Assessment models to report results at a finer resolution.
Review the technical assumption that LAS is considered to be a consumptive use so that this can be correctly accounted for in the future.

Partner with the counties to obtain better information on future forecasts of noncrop (and less than 100,000 gallons per day) uses through planning period.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7-42

June 2017

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Section 8. Monitoring and

Section Summary

Reporting Progress

Monitoring of the progress

The selected management practices identified in toward implementation of the Section 6 will be primarily implemented (as recommendations will be based

described in Section 7) by the various water users on key benchmarks identified

in the region, including local governments and for water conservation, water

others with the capacity to develop water infrastructure and apply for the required permits, grants and loans.

supply, wastewater, and water quality practices. Progress will be evaluated annually,

The benchmarks prepared for the original plan (2011) by the CNG Council were reviewed as part of this plan update and the recommended benchmarks are listed in Table 8-1. These

biennially, or at each of the 5-year plan updates, depending on the management practice.

benchmarks will be used to assess the

effectiveness of implementation and to identify changes that need to be addressed

during the 5-year Regional Water Plan update. As detailed below, the Council selected

both qualitative and quantitative benchmarks that will be used to assess whether the

management practices are closing gaps and eliminating shortages over time and

allowing the Region to meet its vision and goals.

8.1 Benchmarks
The State Water Plan guided the Council's selection of benchmarks that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased. Table 8-1 outlines the benchmarks for implementation of this Regional Water Plan; the short-term actions outlined in Tables 7-1(a) through (d) will serve as overall benchmarks, and it is recommended that progress be measured via an annual survey.
The GAEPD and DCA will continue to coordinate the annual survey with the support of the RCs. GAEPD and DCA will track the results of these surveys for needed adaptation and adjustments to the CNG Regional Water Plan during the 5-year updates.
Table 8-1 also provides resource-specific benchmarks that allow a mechanism for tracking realistic and measureable progress over the long-term in addressing the water resource gaps, or issues, described in Section 5. For example, because of the time it takes to develop or expand water and wastewater infrastructure, it is appropriate to measure overall progress during the 5-year Regional Water Plan update cycle by revisiting the infrastructure gaps summarized by County in the tables in Section 5. The resource benchmarks also build on existing measurement tools, such as the biennial update of the Clean Water Act 305(b)/303(d) list of waters not meeting their designated uses.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

8-1

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Table 8-1: Resource Benchmarks for Management Practices

Category of Management
Practice

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

All Practices

Implement short-term actions

Annual Survey

Water Conservation (WC)

Maintain or Reduce Residential Per Capita Water Use

Update of Regional Water Plan Per Capita Water Use Estimates

Implementation of Recommended Water Conservation Management Practices

Survey via Annual Water Conservation Plan Progress Report

Water Supply Practices (WS)

Reduction in future facility / infrastructure gaps between existing permitted water withdrawals (surface and groundwater) and future demands

Update of Regional Water Plan Forecasts

Wastewater Practices (WW)

Availability of permitted assimilative capacity in the major tributaries of the CNG Region

Resource Assessments

Reduction of the future wastewater facility shortages via expansions or development of new facilities to meet projected future wastewater demands

Update of Regional Water Plan Forecasts

Water Quality Practices (WQ)

Support of Designated Use

305(b)/303(d) List of Waters

Reduction in pollutant loads observed in the watershed modeling

Resource Assessments

Observed improvements in water quality monitoring results

GAEPD Online Water Quality Database7

Time Period Annual
Every 5 years
Annual
Every 5 years
Every 5 years
Every 5 years
Biennial Every 5 years Annual

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

7 http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/EPDOnlineWaterQualityData.html
8-2

June 2017

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress
8.2 Regional Water Plan Updates
Meeting current and future water needs will require periodic review and revision of Regional Water Plans. The rules associated with the State Water Plan provide that each Regional Water Plan will be subject to review by the appropriate regional water planning council every 5 years in accordance with guidance provided by the Director, unless otherwise required by the Director for earlier review. These reviews and updates will allow an opportunity for the Regional Water Plans to be adapted based on changed circumstances and new information that becomes available in the 5 years after GAEPD's adoption of these plans. These benchmarks will guide GAEPD during Regional Water Plan review.
8.3 Plan Amendments
This Regional Water Plan has been drafted to provide flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. This Regional Water Plan will be amended on a 5-year basis as required unless additional needs (triggering events) are identified in the interim period.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

8-3

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

8-4

June 2017

9. Bibliography

Section 9. Bibliography

Agricultural Water Use Forecast for the Coosa-North Georgia Region. http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org/pages/forecasting/agricultural_water_use.php
Brown and Caldwell. 2013 (August). Draft Nutrient Trading in the Coosa Basin: A Feasibility Study. Prepared for North Georgia Water Resources Partnership. http://www.ngawater.org/docs/DraftCoosaBasinNutrientTradingStudyAugust2013.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Labor Force Data by County, 2015 Annual Averages. https://www.bls.gov/lau/tables.htm. (accessed February 27, 2017).
Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia. May 2015. Georgia Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) Population Projections Methodology Report.

CH2M HILL. August 2010. Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater

Forecasting

for

the

Coosa-North

Georgia

Region.

http://www.coosanorthgeorgia.org/documents/3-

CNG_MI_ForecastTM_20100824.pdf

Chowns, T. 2006 (October 6). "Appalachian Plateau Geologic Province," in New Georgia Encyclopedia. Georgia Humanities Council and the University of Georgia Press. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3561 (accessed January 31, 2017).

CNG website. 2017. Coosa-North Georgia Region Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum.

Cubbage, Frederick, Jonathon Scott, Threesa Pressley, and Susan Moore. Undated.

"Costs of Forestry Best Management Practices in the South: A Review". Department

of

Forestry.

North

Carolina

State

University.

http://www.trout.forprod.vt.edu/meetings/presentations/cubbage.pdf

(accessed

January 31, 2017).

Elkins, D.C., S.C. Sweat, K.S. Hill, B.R. Kuhajda, A.L. George, and S.J. Wenger. 2016 (December). The Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. Final Report. Athens (GA): University of Georgia River Basin Center. 237p.

EPA, see U.S Environmental Protection Agency.

Etowah Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). 2009. Welcome to the Etowah Aquatic HCP Archives! http://www.etowahhcp.org/ (accessed January 31, 2017)

Fanning, J.L. and V.P. Trent. 2009. Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5002.

GADNR. 2013. (April). Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Lake Allatoona in the Coosa River Basin for Chlorophyll a.

June 2017

9-1

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

9. Bibliography

GADNR.

2015.

State

Wildlife

Action

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/conservation/wildlife-action-plan

Plan.

GADNR. 2016. (February). Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Carters Lake in the Coosa River Basin for Chlorophyll a.

GAEPD, 2003. Watershed Protection Branch, Drinking Water Compliance Program, River Basins.

GAEPD. 1998. Coosa River Water Management Plan 1998. http://www.georgiaepd.org/Documents/coosa_plan.html (accessed January 31, 2017).

GAEPD. 2005. (February). Drinking Water Source List.

GAEPD. 2008 (January). Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan.

GAEPD. 2009 (March). Draft Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Two Segments of Lake Allatoona in the Coosa River Basin for Chlorophyll a.

GAEPD. 2010a (November). Changes between the 2008 and Draft 2010

305(b)/303(d)

List

of

Waters.

http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/305b/Y2010_303d/List_ofChanges_Table_Y2010.p

df (accessed February 17, 2017).

GAEPD. 2010b (March). Water Conservation Implementation Plan. http://www.conservewatergeorgia.net/documents/wcip.html (accessed January 31, 2017).

GAEPD. 2011. Supplemental Guidance for Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison. April.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR), Wildlife Resources Division. 2011. "High Priority Waters," in Georgia Rare Species and Natural Community Information. http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1377 (accessed February 3, 2017).

Georgia Environmental Protection Division. (GAEPD). 2011 (April). Total Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDLs). http://www.georgiaepd.org/Documents/TMDL_page.html (accessed January 31, 2017).

Georgia Geologic Survey. 2006. Digital Environmental Atlas of Georgia, 2006. CD-1.

Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association (GTMA). 2009. Industrial Water and Wastewater Forecasting Carpet Sector Input.

Jacobs and AMEC Foster Wheeler. 2015 (April). The Redundancy and Emergency

Interconnectivity Study. Prepared for the North Georgia Water Resources Partnership

and the Coosa North Georgia Regional Planning Council\l. Submitted to the Northwest

Georgia

Regional

Commission.

http://www.nwgrc.org/ngawater/Coosa%20Interconnection%20Report%20Completed

.FINAL%20042015.pdf

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

9-2

June 2017

9. Bibliography
Jacobs and AMEC Foster Wheeler. 2015 (April). Water Transmission Grid Study. Prepared for the North Georgia Water Resources Partnership and the Coosa North Georgia Regional Planning Council. Submitted to the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission. http://www.nwgrc.org/ngawater/Coosa%20Grid%20Completed%20Report%2004212 015.REALLY%20FINAL.pdf
Marlowe, Mark. 2010 (August 26). A Summary of the Partnership--The Utility Perspective. Georgia Environmental Conference.
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (Metro District). 2011. About Us. http://www.northgeorgiawater.org/html/aboutus.htm (accessed January 31, 2017)
Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory (NARSAL), Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (UGA), 2015. Conservation Lands.
North West Georgia Regional Council. 2015. Progress Report on Identifying Items to Update in the 5-year Review and Revision Cycle. 59 pgs.
Robinson, J.L., C.A. Journey, and J.B. Atkins. 1996. Ground-Water Resources of the Coosa River Basin in Georgia and Alabama--Subarea 6 of the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint and Alabama- Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basins. USGS Open-File Report 96-177.
TetraTech. 2015. North Georgia Agricultural Water Use Study. Prepared for the North Georgia Water Resources Partnership and the Coosa North Georgia Regional Planning Council. www.nwgrc.org/wp-content/uploads/AgWaterUsev2.pptx
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. Carters Lake. http://carters.sam.usace.army.mil/ (accessed January 31, 2017)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Hydrologic Unit Maps. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html (accessed January 31, 2017)
USACE. 2011b. Lake Allatoona/Upper Etowah River Comprehensive Watershed Study. http://www.allatoona.sam.usace.army.mil/Watershed%20Documents/Documents.htm (accessed April 1, 2017)
Williams, L. 2004. Methods and Hydrogeologic Data from Test Drilling and Geophysical Logging Surveys in the Lawrenceville, Georgia Area. USGS Open-File Report 2004-1366.
Williams, L., R. Kath, T. Crawford, and M. Chapman. 2005. Influence of Geologic Setting on Ground-Water Availability in the Lawrenceville Area, Gwinnett County, Georgia. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5136.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

9-3

9. Bibliography
(This page intentionally left blank)

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

9-4

June 2017

Appendix A Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Section

Location

Change

Reason

Table of Contents and Acronyms and Abbreviations

Content revised.

Updated to reflect changes in the plan.

Acknowledgements

Table revised.

Updated to reflect current council members.

Executive Figures ES-2 Summary and ES-3

Date updated.

Updated to address the updated water and wastewater forecasts.

Executive Summary

Table ES-2

Table revised.

Table updated to provide a summary of potential gaps, needs, or shortages by CNG county.

1

All pages

Text revised.

Updated to reflect this document is an update to the 2011 Regional Water Plan.

Page 1, first

Text revised.

Updated to reflect most recent population

paragraph,

information.

2

Section

Summary and

Section 2.2.1

2

Section 2.2.2

Text revised.

Deleted 2011 employment information.

Section 2.2.3,

Text, table, and Updated to reflect most recent land cover

2

Table 2-3, and

figure revised.

information.

Figure 2-3

3

Section Summary

Text revised.

Updated to reflect the updated water use and Resource Assessment information.

Section 3.1

Text and figures Updated to reflect most recent water use

3

and Figures

revised.

information.

3-1 to 3-4

Text revised.

Updated to reflect the updated Resource

3

Section 3.2

Assessments information, and to more accurately describe the nature of the

analyses.

Section 3.3,

Text, table, and Updated to reflect most recent ecosystem

3

Table 3-1 and Figures 3-6

figures revised.

conditions, in-stream use information, and the 2014 303(d) list.

through 3-9

Page 1, first

Text revised.

Updated to reflect the updated regional

4

paragraph and Section

water demand and wastewater flow forecasts 2015, and for 10-year intervals

Summary

from 2020 through 2050.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

A-1

Appendix A Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Section

Location

Change

Reason

(Continued)

Section 4.1;

Text and tables Updated to reflect the most recent

Tables 4-1, revised, and figures population projections and the updated

4

4-2, and 4-3;

replaced.

regional municipal water demand and

and Figures

wastewater flow forecasts.

4-1 and 4-2

4

Section 4.2 and Figures 4-3 and 4-4

Text revised and figures updated.

No updates were made to the industrial water demand and wastewater flow forecasts, but the text and figures were updated to include 2015 values.

4

Section 4.3 and Table 4-4

Text and table revised.

Updated to reflect most recent regional agricultural water demand and wastewater flow forecasts.

Text revised.

Updated to reflect most recent forecasts for

4

Section 4.4

future water needs for thermoelectric power

production.

Section 4.5

Text revised and Updated to reflect most recent total water

4

and Figures 4-5, 4-6, 4-7,

figures replaced. demand forecasts.

and 4-8

5

Section Summary

Text revised.

Updated to reflect the updated Resource Assessment information and the most recent permit information.

5

Section 5.2 and Table 5-1

Text and tables revised.

Updated to reflect most recent information from the surface water availability resource assessment.

5

Section 5.3

Text revised.

Updated to reflect the updated resource assessment information.

Figure replaced. Updated to reflect the updated surface

5

Figure 5-2

water quality resource assessment analysis

under current permitted conditions.

Tables renumbered Table 5-2 added to provide detail on the

5

Tables 5-2 and 5-3

after adding Table 5-2.

frequency and duration of potential gaps. The subsequent tables were renumbered. Original Table 5-3 on Lake Allatoona water

quality was deleted.

5

Figures 5-2 to 5-5

Figures updated.

Figures updated to reflect the updated water quality resource assessment.

5

Table 5-6

Table updated.

Table updated to reflect the updated gap analysis by county.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

A-2

June 2017

Appendix A Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Section

Location

Change

Reason

(Continued)

Text and tables revised.

Updated to reflect updates to the water management practices. Primary changes included:

Combining all the education related water

conservation measures in WC-1 and

All sections

6

and

Table 6-1(a)

deleting original WC-7, 8, 10, 12, and 14.
Clarification on original WC-11 (now WC-8) on agricultural irrigation efficiency. Addition of new WC-10 on the inventory of

agricultural withdrawals, installation of flow meters, and monitoring.

Addition of new WC-11 encouraging energy production facilities to reduce withdrawals where possible and maximize returns.

Table revised.

Updated to reflect updates to the water

6

Table 6-1(b)

management practices, including:

Clarifications on WS-1, 2, 3, 6, 7.

Table revised.

Updated to reflect updates to the water

6

Table 6-1(c)

management practices, including:

Clarifications on WW-3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

Table revised.

Updated to reflect updates to the water

management practices, including:

Clarifications on WQ-1 to 5, 7 to 9, and 11.

6

Table 6-1(d)

Addition of WQ-13 regarding sampling in impaired waters to help remove them from

the 303(d) list and WQ-14 to support non-

traditional water permitting (water quality

trading).

Added section and Added Section 7.1 Implementation Update

renumbered

to provide information included in 2015

7

Section 7.1 subsequent sections. progress report developed by CNG

Regional Water Planning Council and

NWGRC.

Section 7.2

Revised text and Updated to reflect updates to

7

and Tables 7-1(a) through

updated tables.

implementation schedule and roles of responsible parties.

7-1 (d)

Section 7-3

Revised text and Updated to reflect updates to the water

7

and Tables 7-2, 7-3, 7-4,

tables.

management practices.

and 7-5

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

June 2017

A-3

Appendix A Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Summary of 2017 Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan Revisions

Section

Location

Change

Reason

(Continued)

Revised text.

Updated to reflect updated discussion about

7

Section 7-4

how the CNG plan aligns with regional and

local plans.

7

Table 7-6

Revised table.

Updated to reflect updated recommendations for actions by the State.

8

All pages

Text revised.

Updated to reflect that this is an update to the original (2011) plan.

9

All pages

Text revised.

Updated to reflect references cited in the plan.

COOSA-NORTH GEORGIA

A-4

June 2017

Printed on Recycled Paper