THE METRO WATER DISTRICT

Transcription

1 The Watershed Management Plan provides the framework for regional water resources protection for the 15-county. The Watershed Management Plan prescribes strategies and recommendations for effective stormwater and watershed management and builds upon existing efforts to meet the overall goal of protecting and improving water quality. THE METRO WATER DISTRICT The (Metro Water District) was created by the Georgia General Assembly in 2001 (O.C.G.A ) to serve as the water planning organization for the greater metropolitan Atlanta area. The Metro Water District s purpose is to establish policy, create plans and promote intergovernmental coordination of water issues in the District from a regional perspective. The Metro Water District includes 15 counties (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale counties) as well as 91 municipalities partially or fully within these counties (Figure 1-1). The Metro Water District also has seven authorities which provide water, sewer and/or stormwater services. Table 1-1 provides a list of the local jurisdictions that make up the Metro Water District. The Metro Water District s plans and policies work to protect water resources in the Chattahoochee, Coosa, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee and Tallapoosa River Basins (Figure 1-2). With the adoption of the Georgia State-wide Water Management Plan by the Georgia General Assembly in 2008, the Metro Water District is now one of eleven regional water planning councils in the state, and will continue to work within the integrated framework of state water resources planning. REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANS The Metro Water District enabling legislation mandated the development of three long-term regional plans to address the water resources challenges: water supply and water conservation, wastewater management and watershed protection and management. The first plans were completed and adopted in 2003 and have been actively implemented by local jurisdictions in the Metro Water District over the last five years. This document, the Watershed Management Plan, details strategies and recommendations for both effective watershed and stormwater management and water quality protection. It includes specific tasks and milestones for implementing these recommendations for local governments as well as regional and state agencies. 1-1

2 FIGURE 1-1 Metro Water District Area Euharlee Taylorsville Braswell 20 Kingston Bartow Villa Rica Paulding Dallas Adairsville 75 Newnan Cartersville Emerson Hiram Douglas Coweta White Chattahoochee Hills ALLATOONA Acworth Kennesaw Douglasville Palmetto Canton Marietta Cobb Powder Springs Austell Union City Fairburn Smyrna Fulton Fayette Cherokee Roswell Sandy Springs Atlanta Milton Clayton Alpharetta DeKalb Jonesboro 85 Tyrone Fayetteville Lovejoy 75 Sharpsburg Waleska Peachtree City Woodstock Holly Springs East Point Hapeville College Park Forest Park Lake City Morrow 675 Woolsey Mountain Park Riverdale Nelson Ball Ground Dunwoody Chamblee Decatur Doraville Clarkston Forsyth Cumming Johns Creek Norcross Stockbridge Hampton 400 Duluth Berkeley Lake Lilburn Stone Mountain Pine Lake Avondale Estates Lithonia Sugar Hill Suwanee Gwinnett Rockdale McDonough Henry Locust Grove SIDNEY LANIER Buford Lawrenceville Snellville Conyers Rest Haven Oakwood Flowery Branch 85 Dacula Grayson JACKSON Clermont Hall Gainesville Braselton Auburn Lula Gillsville Grantville Moreland Turin Senoia Haralson Brooks Legend Interstate Highways WEST POINT Miles Metro Water District Counties Metro Water District Municipalities 1-2

3 TABLE 1-1 Metro Water District Local Jurisdictions Counties Bartow County Coweta County Forsyth County Henry County Cherokee County DeKalb County Fulton County Paulding County Clayton County Douglas County Gwinnett County Rockdale County Cobb County Fayette County Hall County Municipalities Acworth Clermont Gillsville Marietta Sharpsburg Adairsville College Park Grantville McDonough Smyrna Alpharetta Conyers Grayson Milton Snellville Atlanta Cumming Hampton Moreland Stockbridge Auburn Dacula Hapeville Morrow Stone Mountain Austell Dallas Haralson Mountain Park Sugar Hill Avondale Estates Decatur Hiram Nelson Suwanee Ball Ground Doraville Holly Springs Newnan Taylorsville Berkeley Lake Douglasville Johns Creek Norcross Turin Braselton Duluth Jonesboro Oakwood Tyrone Braswell Dunwoody Kennesaw Palmetto Union City Brooks East Point Kingston Peachtree City Villa Rica Buford Emerson Lake City Pine Lake Waleska Canton Euharlee Lawrenceville Powder Springs White Cartersville Fairburn Lilburn Rest Haven Woodstock Chamblee Fayetteville Lithonia Riverdale Woolsey Chattahoochee Hills Clarkston Flowery Branch Forest Park Gainesville Locust Grove Lovejoy Lula Roswell Sandy Springs Senoia Authorities Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority Clayton County Water Authority Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority Coweta County Water and Sewerage Authority Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority Peachtree City Water and Sewerage Authority 1-3

4 Flint River Section 1: INTRODUCTION FIGURE 1-2 Metro Water District Major River Basins Etowah River Bartow COOSA BASIN ALLATOONA Etowah Cherokee Little River River Forsyth SIDNEY LANIER Hall Middle Oconee River Chattahoochee River OCONEE BASIN Apalachee River Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Alcovy River TALLAPOOSA BASIN Sweetwater Douglas Chattahoochee River CHATTAHOOCHEE BASIN Creek Fulton Clayton Fayette DeKalb South River Big Cotton Indian Henry Yellow River OCMULGEE BASIN Rockdale Creek Coweta White Oak Line Creek FLINT BASIN JACKSON Creek Legend WEST POINT Miles Interstate Highways Metro Water District Counties River Basin Boundaries 1-4

5 The 2003 Watershed Management Plan s planning process evaluated a wide spectrum of management measures to develop a comprehensive regional program to protect water quality and watershed health. The selected measures established a strong foundation of watershed management including a consistent set of model ordinances, stormwater management program, source water protection, pollution prevention, and watershed evaluation measures for the region. The communities within the Metro Water District have worked aggressively over the past five years towards implementation of these management measures. The Metro Water District also prepared two other plans which together with the Watershed Management Plan represent an integrated and holistic approach to water resources planning and management. The Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan provides the framework for meeting local water supply demands over the planning horizon. It calls for intensive water demand management and an aggressive water conservation program. The plan includes recommended supply sources and facilities for the Metro Water District, as well as the sizing of water treatment plants required to meet local demands. The Wastewater Management Plan sets forth strategies for comprehensive wastewater management efforts to meet future needs across the Metro Water District. The plan outlines a long-term implementation schedule for public wastewater treatment. It also provides for comprehensive wastewater planning to establish future sewer service areas and calls for more intensive management of privately owned septic systems. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Metro Water District, Georgia EPD and local governments all play important roles in implementing the District s water resources plans as illustrated in Figure 1-3 below. The Metro Water District develops the plans which are implemented by local jurisdictions. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD) enforces the plans provisions through its permitting process. All local jurisdictions within the Metro Water District are required to substantially comply with the plans in order to obtain new or expanded water withdrawals or wastewater discharges, renewal of their NPDES municipal stormwater permits, or any Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) grant or loan funding. FIGURE 1-3 Metro Water District Plan Development and Implementation 1-5

6 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS A survey was conducted in 2008 asking Metro Water District communities about their activities related to implementation of the 2003 District Watershed Management Plan. Responses were received from 73 of the Metro Water District s local jurisdictions which represent 97% of the population and 98% of land area. The survey results showed significant commitment from local jurisdictions in implementing both required and optional measures from the 2003 Watershed Management Plan. Stormwater and Watershed Protection Model Ordinances All local jurisdictions surveyed have adopted the model Post-Development Stormwater Management Ordinance or equivalent regulations. 93% have incorporated the ordinance requirements into their local development review process and over 64% have adopted procedures for long-term maintenance of new stormwater facilities. All communities surveyed have adopted a Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance with at least 50- foot undisturbed stream buffers with an additional 25-foot impervious setback. Seven jurisdictions have adopted steam buffer requirements that exceed the model ordinance. All jurisdictions surveyed except one have adopted the Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Ordinance and 80% have an active illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program. 85% of local jurisdictions surveyed have adopted the model Floodplain Management Ordinance or equivalent regulations. 82% of these have completed or have efforts underway to map futureconditions floodplains to support implementation of the ordinance. A list of ordinance adoption by jurisdiction is provided in Appendix A. FIGURE 1-4 Implementation of Post-development Stormwater Ordinance and Floodplain Mapping Progress 1-6

7 Stormwater System Operations and Maintenance Over 83% of jurisdictions surveyed have completed or are performing local stormwater system inventories. 80% conduct inspection and maintenance activities for publicly-owned stormwater system components, and 58% have also developed policies for requiring ongoing maintenance of privatelyowned stormwater facilities. FIGURE 1-5 Implementation of Local Stormwater System Operations and Maintenance Programs Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures Nearly 90% of jurisdictions surveyed have implemented a required municipal good housekeeping program for local government facilities and operations. Local governments are also implementing a number of optional measures to reduce stormwater pollution: almost 75% inspect commercial and industrial facilities; 20 jurisdictions offer household hazardous waste collection programs to residents while 21 encourage or require the installation of pet posts in residential areas to help dog owners clean up after their pets. Education and Public Awareness Nearly every community surveyed utilizes the stormwater educational materials available from the Metro Water District s Clean Water Campaign in their local education programs. Four out of five jurisdictions have held some type of public involvement/participation activity in the last year, including sixteen communities who hosted Clean Water Campaign workshops that were developed as part of the Metro Water District s regional education program. Stormwater Program Funding The majority of jurisdictions surveyed fund stormwater activities from their general fund, but a growing number of communities are finding benefits from implementing a stormwater utility. One-third of jurisdictions in the Metro Water District now use funds generated from a stormwater utility or enterprise fund to finance stormwater programs and activities. 1-7

8 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS The Metro Water District enabling legislation requires that the district shall prepare an updated watershed management plan no less frequently than every five years after finalization of the initial plan. (O.C.G.A (c)) In conjunction with updates to the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan and Wastewater Management Plan, this Plan is an update of the initial 2003 plan. The Metro Water District utilized an integrated planning effort similar to that used to develop the original plans in order to build consensus for long-term regional water resources management solutions. The Metro Water District water resources plans are the result of a collaborative effort between the Metro Water District s local jurisdictions, the Georgia EPD, and numerous stakeholders. PLANNING PARTICIPANTS As envisioned by the Metro Water District s enabling legislation, the planning process includes the Metro Water District Governing Board, a Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), six Basin Advisory Councils (BAC), Georgia EPD, planning staff from the Atlanta Regional Commission and technical consulting firms. Metro Water District Board: The 26-member Metro Water District Governing Board is the decision-making body for the Metro Water District which includes local representatives from the Metro Water District communities as well as citizen members. Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC): The TCC is comprised primarily of local government officials and staff from counties, cities, and authorities in the Metro Water District, and provides planning and policy support in the areas of water supply and conservation, wastewater management, stormwater and watershed management, septic systems, and education and public awareness. Basin Advisory Council (BAC): The BACs are comprised of basin stakeholders including water professionals, business leaders, environmental advocates and other interested individuals and parties. Six BACs represent the Chattahoochee, Etowah, Flint, Oconee, Ocmulgee river basins and the Lake Lanier basin. The BACs advise in the development and implementation of policy related to basin-specific issues and provide input on plan content to the Governing Board, TCC and Metro Water District staff. POLICY GOALS The Metro Water District planning process was driven by policy goals agreed upon by all planning participants and adopted by the Board in These policy goals, shown in Figure 1-6, served as guideposts and helped ensure consistency of purpose for the watershed, wastewater, and water supply plans. 1-8

9 FIGURE 1-6 Metro Water District Policy Goals Manage Metro Water District Water Resources Sustainable Economic Development Enhance Water Quality Equitably Distribute Costs Implementable Measures Education and Public Awareness PLAN UPDATE FOCUS Since their adoption in 2003, the Metro Water District plans have become valuable tools for protecting and preserving water resources. For the plan update process, there were a number of objectives developed in conjunction between Metro Water District staff, TCC and BAC s. For the Watershed Management Plan these included: Placing a stronger emphasis on the linkages of land use and water quality; investigate opportunities to strengthen the land use and water quality connection through existing mechanisms, such as comprehensive land use plans and water/wastewater plans Recognizing the unique nature of each basin within the Metro Water District through resourcespecific management measures to address individual challenges or protect exceptional resources Placing a stronger emphasis on sustainability and integration of the water supply and conservation, wastewater management, and watershed management plans Streamlining the implementation section to improve plan accessibility and understanding Reorganizing the document to function more easily as a reference tool KEY CHANGES TO THE PLAN In this plan update, there are a number of important changes from the original 2003 Watershed Management Plan, including a substantial reorganization of the document. The most notable change involved consolidating all of the required local management measures into a single section (Section 5) based on implementation experiences with the 2003 Watershed Management Plan. Each of the local management measures was rewritten and formatted to provide more background, implementation guidance and resources for local programs than was included in the 2003 document. In addition, the measures were placed into functional categories to make it easier to determine which personnel or department has responsibility for implementation. The local management measures were consolidated to form the minimum requirements for a comprehensive watershed management program that offer solutions and enhancements for community programs based on local needs. 1-9

10 New measures were added to address gaps and topic areas that the 2003 Watershed Management Plan did not adequately address, including: Coordination of watershed and land use planning Sanitary sewer and septic system coordination Construction erosion and sediment control Endangered species Another major change is the preparation of a set of additional optional measures (Section 6). The optional section provides a strong emphasis on land use planning aspects that can benefit watershed health. Note that the Georgia EPD audit process will cover only the measures outlined in the local management measures in Section 5. The implementation section was revisited and now provides simple, one-page implementation summaries for each responsible entity. The one-page view is helpful for local program budgeting and planning, as it distinguishes between the development of new programs and ongoing implementation. As most communities have limited funds for watershed management, the plan streamlines existing watershed and stormwater requirements and identifies a wider range of funding sources for local consideration. PLAN OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN The Watershed Management Plan is organized in the following sections: Section 1: Introduction Provides an overview of the Metro Water District, watershed management planning process, a summary of the successes of the 2003 Plan, and organization of this Plan. Section 2: Rationale for Watershed Management Summarizes the need for watershed and stormwater management in the Metro Water District. Section 3: Federal and State Regulations Provides the federal and state requirements and programs related to stormwater and watershed management which impact local governments in the Metro Water District. Section 4: River Basin Profiles Summarizes the major river basins within the Metro Water District, including a description of the watershed management successes and challenges. Section 5: Local Management Measures Outlines the local watershed management measures that all Metro Water District communities are required to implement. Section 6: Optional Local Management Measures Describes additional optional local management measures for Metro Water District communities. Section 7: State and Regional Policy Recommendations Summarizes recommendations for various state and regional agencies to help advance watershed protection in the Metro Water District. Section 8: Education and Public Awareness Outlines public education and outreach efforts at the regional and local levels. 1-10

11 Section 9: Implementation Plan Includes the specific tasks, milestones, and responsibilities for implementation of the recommended Watershed Management Plan. In addition, funding mechanisms for local governments are identified. Section 10: Future Plan Evaluation Summarizes metrics for future evaluation of the Watershed Management Plan. 1-11

12 [This page intentionally left blank] 1-12