Soque
Watershed Protection
Plan

Prepared by the
Funding for this project is provided
by a U.S. EPA CWA § 319(h) grant
Administered by the
Environmental Protection Division
Watershed Protection
Plan
Prepared by the
March 2008
Lead Organization: City of
Project Manager:
Partners:
GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division GA
Forestry Commission
Habersham Co. Chamber of Commerce City of
GA Poultry Federation
City of
Natural Resources Conservation Service City of
Fieldale Farms Chestatee-Chattahoochee RC&D
GA Soil & Water Conservation
Commission GA
Mountains RDC
Habersham / White Co Homebuilders
Association

TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………... iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………. iii
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………. iv
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………... 1
Watershed Conditions.…………………………………………………………………… 3
Pollutant Sources and Causes………………………………………………………….. 7
Pollutant Load Reductions………………………………………………………………. 9
NPS Management Measures……………………………………………………………. 11
Educational
Component………………………………………………………………….
18
Implementation Schedule………………………………………………………………… 19
Interim Milestones…………………………………………………………………………. 20
Monitoring Plan……………………………………………………………………………. 21
Additional Recommendations……………………………………………………………. 22
Technical and Financial Assistance
Needed…………………………………………… 23
References…………………………………………………………………………………. 28
LIST OF
FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Location
of
Figure 2.
Subwatersheds of the
Figure 3. 303(d) listed
stream segments……………………………………………..
5
Figure 4.
Landcover in the
Figure 5.
Bacterial sample locations………………………………………………….. 8
Figure 6. NPDES permitted discharges and priority sites
for corrective action
(bacterial)………………………………………………………………………. 16
Figure 7. Priority sites for corrective action (sediment
– dirt roads and
streambank erosion)…………………………………………………………. 17
LIST OF
TABLES
Page
Table 1. Stream segments not supporting designated
uses in the
Watershed………………………………………………………………………. 2
Table 2. Area and
landcover for subwatersheds of the
Table 3. Bacterial
sample sites by subwatershed……………………………………. 7
Table 4. NPS fecal coliform production loadings –
entire
Watershed………………………………………………………………………. 9
Table 5. Bacterial load reductions needed to meet
water quality standards by
subwatershed…………………………………………………………………. 9
Table 6. Suspended
sediment load and yield by subwatershed……………………. 10
Table 7. Three
year implementation project budget…………………………………. 25
Table 8. Roles and
responsibilities of participating partner organizations………… 27
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
As
in much of
The
Soque River Watershed Partnership (the Partnership) was formed to take
advantage of the opportunity for local protection of water resources and in
response to water quality concerns and the anticipated impacts of rapid growth
in the watershed. The Partnership is
comprised of numerous local and state agencies and organizations and is guided
by a Steering Committee of stakeholders and a Technical Advisory Committee of
scientific and resource professionals.
Partnership formation was driven by a concern for the sustainability of
local water supplies and the identification of impaired waters in the watershed.
Recent
surveys by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identified stream segments in
the watershed that do not meet state water quality standards. These stream segments have subsequently been
placed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. Specifically, two segments of the
In
recognition of these water quality impairments from NPS pollution, the
Partnership applied for and received CWA §319(h) funding from the USEPA and
administered through GAEPD. The funding
was to complete a comprehensive watershed assessment to document current
biological, chemical, and physical conditions in the watershed. The data was then used to draft this
watershed protection plan for use by citizens and municipalities to make
informed decisions about the future use and protection of water resources in
the watershed.
INTRODUCTION
The Soque
River Watershed comprises 160 square miles, or 57% of the land area of
The
headwaters of the river flow from National Forest lands off of Tray Mountain
and run together in the Blue Ridge Physiographic province (Level IV ecoregion
66d – Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains) to form the main-stem of the
Soque. The river continues down through
the Piedmont (Level IV ecoregion 45a – Southern Inner Piedmont) to the confluence
with the

Figure
1. Location of
The river serves as the water supply for
the City of
In response to problems already identified in several
stream segments and threats from rapid development and other sources, a broad
coalition of groups, known as the Soque River Watershed Partnership, joined
together to perform a watershed-wide assessment of surface water quality. This
assessment has was funded by a 319(h) grant awarded to the City of
Clarkesville, which began in 2004 and concluded in March, 2008. The purpose of
that first-round 319 grant-funded project was to gather data needed to complete
a Watershed Protection Plan, through which the Partnership can address the
highest priority threats to water quality and watershed integrity.
Measures to eliminate pollution sources that have
contributed to the designation of four stream segments in the watershed as
“Impaired Waters” by the State of
Table 1. Stream segments
not supporting designated uses in the Soque River Watershed
|
Waterbody |
Reach Location |
Criterion Violated |
Potential Cause |
Designated Use |
Extent |
|
|
Goshen
Creek to SR 17, Clarkesville |
Fecal
Coliform |
|
Fishing |
29 miles |
|
|
SR 17,
Clarkesville to |
Fecal
Coliform |
Urban
Runoff |
Fishing |
6 miles |
|
|
Law
Creek to |
Biological
Impairment – Macroinvertebrate from Sediment |
Pollution |
Fishing |
5 miles |
|
|
Reservoir
No. 12 to Law Creek |
Biological
Impairment – Fish from Sediment |
|
Fishing |
4 miles |
Source: State of
All
watershed protection and management strategies detailed in this plan should be
evaluated and adapted to best meet local needs and ensure progress towards the
attainment of water quality standards.
Furthermore, action should not be limited to the contents of this
plan. Other alternatives should be
considered as additional information or resources become available.
WATERSHED
CONDITIONS
For the
purpose of this plan, the Soque River Watershed has been further divided into
tributary sub-watersheds (Figure 2).
This division will enhance the identification, prioritization, and
implementation of protection efforts and corrective actions. A summary of landcover for sub-watersheds
(and for the entire Soque River Watershed) used in this plan is included in
Table 2. Subwatersheds will be listed in
all tables in the order in which they enter the main-stem of the river from
north to south.
Table
2. Area and landcover for subwatersheds
of the Soque River
|
Subwatershed |
Area (mi2) |
|
% Agriculture** |
% Urban*** |
% Silviculture **** |
|
Headwaters |
17.3 |
90.9 |
5.4 |
3.1 |
0.5 |
|
Raper Creek |
9.6 |
91.2 |
4.2 |
3.7 |
0.8 |
|
Shoal Creek |
9.8 |
82.9 |
5.9 |
6.5 |
4.6 |
|
Deep Creek |
30.2 |
57.5 |
23.6 |
11.3 |
7.1 |
|
Beaverdam Creek |
14.6 |
59.7 |
23.7 |
7.5 |
8.4 |
|
|
31.9 |
46.8 |
24.5 |
16.3 |
11.0 |
|
Yellowbank Creek |
6.7 |
48.3 |
28.9 |
7.9 |
14.4 |
|
Total Watershed |
159.8 |
64.3 |
18.3 |
9.6 |
7.1 |
Figure 7.
** % Agriculture
includes pasture land, row crops, orchards, and vineyards
*** % Urban includes
low and high intensity residential, industrial, commercial, transportation, and
utilities
**** % Silviculture
includes clear-cuts, planted pine, and barren areas
Physical,
chemical, and biological data collected during the watershed assessment
indicate significant relationships among those variables and landcover (Figure 4)
in the watershed. For example, high
levels of urbanization are strongly correlated with increasing fine sediment in
streams and fewer numbers and types of benthic macroinvertebrates that are
intolerant of NPS pollution. Conversely,
heavily forested areas had less instream sediment and a greater diversity and
abundance of stream organisms intolerant of pollution (SRWP, 2008). It is noteworthy that the landcover data used
in the assessment is somewhat dated (NARSAL, 2001). It is expected that even more forested and
agriculture lands have been converted to developed areas between then and now.
The
assessment identified watershed areas and stream segments both in need of
continued protection and corrective action.
Primary sources of bacteria identified included livestock, humans, and
urban runoff (domestic pets and humans).
Sediment inputs were primarily attributed to land disturbing activities
(improperly managed construction sites), streambank erosion, and dirt
roads. NPS management measures will be
targeted towards reducing pollutant inputs from these sources.
![]()


Yellowbank Creek Beaverdam Creek Main-stem Headwaters Deep Creek Shoal
Creek Raper
Creek
![]()
![]()
![]()

Figure
2. Subwatersheds of the

Figure
3. 303(d) listed stream segments

Figure 4. Landcover in the
POLLUTANT
SOURCES AND CAUSES
Source
assessments for this plan focus on fecal coliform bacteria and sediment, the
causes of the failure to meet designated uses and water quality standards. Potential pollutant sources were considered
and evaluated using data collected during the watershed assessment. Potential sources of bacteria include
wildlife, livestock, humans, pets, broken sewer lines and overflows due to rain
events, point source discharges (Figure 6), and failing septic systems. Potential sources of sediment include all
land disturbing activities, streambank erosion, and dirt roads.
Bacterial
samples were taken quarterly at 76 sites in the watershed over a period of two
years, and E. Coli was used as an
indicator organism indicative of the level of bacterial pollution (Table
3). Tributaries draining to the upstream
listed
Table
3. Bacterial sample sites by
subwatershed
|
Subwatershed |
Total Sites (n) |
# Impaired Sites |
% Impaired |
|
Headwaters |
8 |
1 |
12.5 |
|
Raper |
9 |
2 |
22.2 |
|
Shoal |
11 |
7 |
63.6 |
|
Deep |
14 |
8 |
57.1 |
|
Beaverdam |
9 |
7 |
77.8 |
|
Hazel |
17 |
13 |
76.5 |
|
Yellowbank |
8 |
8 |
100.0 |
|
Total Watershed |
76 |
46 |
60.5 |
Sediment data
(suspended sediment concentration) were collected as baseflow and stormflow
throughout the subwatersheds and on the mainstem of the

Figure 5. Bacterial sample locations
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTIONS
Pollutant
load reduction estimates needed to meet water quality standards for fecal
coliform bacteria and suspended sediment were modeled, calculated and compared
with field collected data to refine prioritization of corrective actions. Necessary load reductions will be discussed
as pollutant specific. However, it is
anticipated that management and protection strategies will address both
bacteria and sediment in many instances.
BACTERIA
Fecal
coliform bacteria data for the entire Soque River Watershed were modeled using
the Bacteria Source Load Calculator (Virginia Tech, 2007), which requires user defined inputs for potential
pollutant sources. These input data were
gathered from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources
Division (wildlife), Georgia Cooperative Extension (livestock), Habersham County Health Department
(septic systems), and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (human
population). Fecal coliform production
loadings from various sources are found in Table 4. It is assumed that the agricultural and
wildlife contributions are higher in more forested and agricultural areas of
the watershed and that urban contributions (humans and pets) are more
significant in rapidly developing areas with more impervious surfaces.
Table
4. NPS fecal coliform production
loadings – entire Soque River Watershed
|
Source |
Loading |
% of total |
|
Agriculture |
4.88Ex1015 |
49.1 |
|
Wildlife |
7.36Ex1014 |
7.2 |
|
Human |
2.21Ex1015 |
22.2 |
|
Pet |
2.10Ex1015 |
21.0 |
Model results
do provide a starting point to prioritize management decisions. In this case, more specific watershed data
are available from the watershed assessment.
To further refine the available control measures and corrective action
locations, field collected data were analyzed by sub-watershed. The results of needed load reductions percentages,
based on bacteriological sample data, are included in Table 5.
Table
5. Bacterial load reductions needed to
meet water quality standards by subwatershed
|
Subwatershed |
# Impaired Sites |
Range (% Reduction) |
Mean (% Reduction) |
|
Headwaters |
1 |
63.5 (one site) |
63.5 |
|
Raper |
2 |
7.0 – 78.6 |
42.8 |
|
Shoal |
7 |
6.4 – 84.6 |
46.8 |
|
Deep |
8 |
34.6 – 87.9 |
53.5 |
|
Beaverdam |
7 |
26.5 – 90.4 |
59.3 |
|
Hazel |
13 |
8.9 – 86.0 |
54.3 |
|
Yellowbank |
8 |
13.9 – 92.6 |
68.1 |
|
Total watershed |
46 |
6.4 – 92.6 |
60.5 |
SEDIMENT
Sediment load
reductions were derived using data from a recent United States Department of
Agriculture Study (USDA, 2006). In that
study, the
Table
6. Suspended sediment yield and load by
subwatershed
|
Subwatershed |
Yield (tons/year/ mi2) |
Load (tons/year) |
|
Headwaters |
104.8 |
1813 |
|
Raper |
104.8 |
1006 |
|
Shoal |
115.1 |
1128 |
|
Deep |
165.3 |
4992 |
|
Beaverdam |
159.4 |
2327 |
|
Hazel |
202.2 |
6450 |
|
Yellowbank |
196.3 |
1315 |
|
Whole watershed |
147.6 |
23586 |
NPS
MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Achievement
of the estimated load reductions needed to attain water quality standards and
promote the integrity of aquatic life will require multiple concurrent resource
protection and management strategies.
Specific projects will be considered on a case by case basis among the
subwatersheds with the highest priority needs.
The goal of this plan is to implement measures to greatly reduce or
eliminate pollutant sources resulting in progress towards attainment of desired
water quality standards. Many of these best
management practices (BMPs) will be designed, installed, and maintained as part
of a system of measures to control pollutants – not as stand alone
practices. As priority sites are
identified for protection and corrective action, site-specific conditions will
be evaluated and recommendations made to best control pollutants by
cost-effective measures in that particular situation.
A number of
specific sites were identified during the watershed assessment that require
attention to reduce pollutant loads (Figures 6 and 7). As part of the upcoming Clean Water Act §
319(h) implementation grant, entitled Soque
River Watershed Protection Plan Implementation, the Partnership will begin
addressing these sites and adapt strategies as new data and information become
available to achieve desired goals.
Specific project activities at these sites over the next three year
grant period are included below.
Bacterial Pollution Control – Through our
monitoring program, we have measured high bacterial levels in each of five
sub-watersheds within the Soque watershed. These include: Beaverdam Creek, Deep
Creek, Shoal Creek, Yellowbank Creek, and
The
upstream listed segment of the
The major
subwatersheds draining to the lower listed segment of the Soque (Yellowbank,
Beaverdam, and Hazel Creeks) each have a number of bacterial problems and certainly
contribute to the failure to meet water quality standards of the Soque’s lower
reaches. Therefore, we will complete
farm and/or drain field projects in these sub-watersheds also. The Yellowbank
drainage is the smallest of these three but shows some of the highest bacterial
counts in our sampling and we will target at least 4 sites in this area.
Beaverdam Creek’s drainage is somewhat larger, but we believe that addressing 4
additional sites there can have a significant affect on the problems in that
sub-watershed.
Sediment Pollution Control – In the portion
of the
Stormwater Management
Measures
– Also in the
The BMPs listed
below are grouped according to the target pollutant for reduction, however, it
is anticipated that a number of management practices will result in the
effective reduction of both fecal coliform bacteria and suspended sediment
loadings. These BMPs will be used to
address the target area “hot spots” identified during the watershed
assessment. In addition to these target
pollutants, control and management measures to address stormwater runoff are
included as options. Decreasing the
volume of this runoff from urbanizing areas is expected to reduce the concentration
of target (and many other) pollutants delivered to streams as well as lessen
excessive erosion that comes with periodic high flows associated with
increasing area of impervious surfaces. Descriptions
of various BMPs that may be used to control or eliminate pollutant sources are
included below and were obtained from four primary sources and are all based on
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Practice Standards:
1) Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission Best Management Practices for
Georgia Agriculture, 2007
2)
3)
4) Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission Field Manual for Erosion and
Sediment Control in
FECAL COLIFORM BMPs
Alternative Water Sources – includes using troughs and tanks to
provide livestock with watering sources away from streams to reduce direct
fecal coliform contribution and associated erosion. This measure is often used in conjunction
with exclusion fencing.
Exclusion Fencing – provides barriers to prohibit
livestock from freely entering streams.
Allows for periodic “turning out” of animals to graze in the vegetated
buffer for short periods of time thus controlling areas where fecal loadings
are present.
Critical Area Planting – establishes permanent vegetation
(preferably native plant material) in highly erodible areas to reduce sediment
and filter bacteria. Critical area
plantings may reduce sediment runoff by as much as 75%.
Riparian Herbaceous Cover – uses grasses, forbs, and trees
directly on banks to protect wildlife habitat, provide wildlife habitat, and to
stabilize streambanks and channels.
Filter Strips – are vegetated areas between
cropland, grazing land, or disturbed areas and surface waters to protect water
quality. Filter strips may remove as
much as 50-80% of nutrients and sediment from surface runoff.
Stream Crossings – provide a stable streambed and
reduce erosion where livestock must access streams.
Nutrient Management – assists growers and producers in
improving farm management and litter or manure application strategies.
Animal Waste Storage – include composters and stack houses
for manure and litter storage. Proper
composting reduces viable bacteria and nutrient concentrations.
Septic System Repair – reduces fecal coliform loads where
on-site sewage disposal systems are not properly designed, installed, or
maintained.
Sewer Inspections – can prevent and detect bacterial
loading from broken pipes or overflowing manholes. This practice includes the removal of storm
drains that are hooked to sanitary sewers which may overwhelm the capacity of
the sewer during periods of heavy rains resulting in overflows.
SEDIMENT BMPs
Heavy Use Area Protection – reduces sediment and bacterial
runoff by protecting areas with heavy livestock traffic such as troughs and
feeding areas.
Pasture and Hayland Planting – prevents soil erosion by
establishing native vegetation (preferable) or introduced forages in fields or
pastures.
Grassed Waterways – are natural channels to slow the
flow of water, remove excessive sediment and nutrients, and prevent gully
erosion.
Field Borders – are permanently vegetated buffers
around pastures to reduce soil erosion.
Conservation Cover – is the establishment of permanent
vegetative cover to prevent erosion and protect water quality on retired
agricultural land.
Prescribed Grazing – manages grazing animals for long
term benefits; promotes vegetative quality and quantity and reduces erosion.
Streambank and Shoreline Protection – stabilizes and protects streambanks
to reduce erosion and prevent water quality degradation.
Stream Channel Stabilization – strengthens or stabilizes the bed
or bottom of the channel in very specific instances when normal protection and
riparian buffers are inadequate to protect water quality.
Tree/Shrub Establishment – slows runoff and allows for
increased infiltration of runoff, thus reducing pollutant concentrations.
STORMWATER BMPs
Many urban
stormwater BMPs are available and should be considered on a site specific case
by case basis (USEPA, 2005). The
importance of proper site design and consideration of new construction is
vital, however there are also things that can be done in already developed
areas to minimize and treat runoff. There
are two broad categories of stormwater BMPs that will be considered under this
plan: 1) BMPs that prevent runoff, and
2) BMPs that treat stormwater to remove potential pollutants before they reach
streams. There are many excellent
publications and resources available on BMP selection, installation, and
maintenance. The measures indicated here
are not exhaustive. Additional research
is recommended to refine this menu of selections.
Runoff Prevention BMPs – are the most effective measures to
control NPS pollution. It is much easier
to prevent pollution than to address problems where pollution has already
occurred. These measures are aimed at
preventing runoff and subsequent pollutant transport and include:
Impervious surface reductions – through street and parking lot design
and the use of new technologies like permeable pavement and green roofs.
Construction practices – to ensure that grading and clearing
are done appropriately and that a system of BMPs is considering prior to
development. This includes measures for
mass grading, sequencing development, and maintaining the proper site specific
BMPs.
Soil erosion control on exposed soils – using mulches, blankets and mats,
vegetative measures, structural methods, inlet protection, silt fence, check
dams, and temporary sedimentation basins or traps (GSWCC, 2002).
Stormwater Treatment BMPs – are designed to remove pollutants
carried in runoff before they reach surface waters and include:
Infiltration systems –promote rainfall infiltration prior to
runoff. These measures include basins,
trenches, and rain gardens. When more
water soaks in, less runs off (and fewer pollutants are delivered to streams).
Filtration systems – to remove excess pollutants from
stormwater runoff by bioretention, filter strips, and maintenance of stream
buffers.
Retention and Detention systems –retain pollutants and detain
stormwater for release more slowly over time.
These measures can help reduce stormwater volume and pollutant
concentration and help prevent harmful effects of stormwater on aquatic life.

Figure
6. NPDES permitted discharges and priority
sites for corrective action (bacterial)

Figure
7. Priority sites for corrective action
(Sediment – dirt roads and streambank erosion)
EDUCATIONAL
COMPONENT
Public
education about water quality threats and methods of resource protection are an
essential component of this plan. The
educational component will include measures aimed at increasing public
awareness of water quality problems and providing solutions. Specific attention
will be paid to working with middle school aged children to increase their
knowledge of water related issues. Additionally, homeowners will be targeted and
encouraged to take control of their stormwater to reduce runoff and increase
infiltration. Examples and demonstrations of simple BMPs for residential
stormwater will be provided to encourage their implementation. Specific
components of the educational program will include:
·
Articles
about water quality issues in Partnership member newsletters and the local
newspaper
·
Continued
work with GA Cooperative Extension and the 4-H program on water related
curriculum and homeowner BMPs
·
Classroom
and lab activities with children in the local school system
·
Speaking
engagements with local community and civic groups
·
Purchase
of an EnviroScape to demonstrate principles of non-point source pollution in
schools and for civic groups
·
Additions
to the Partnership website with educational links for teachers to serve as a
clearinghouse of water quality information
·
A
yearly field day for all
·
A
summer day camp for 7th and 8th graders who show an
interest in the environmental sciences (based on recommendations from local
science teachers). Potential activities include tours of water treatment
facilities, trips to local farms to look at agricultural BMPs, field work with
water chemistry and aquatic biology/ecology, estimating stream discharge etc.
·
Public
meetings to inform citizens about Partnership activities
·
Fact
sheets about BMPs that highlight successes
·
Increased
participation in Adopt-a-Stream (AAS) by local school, civic, and neighborhood
groups. The SRWP Watershed Coordinator
will become a certified AAS trainer and promote the program locally.
·
Storm
drain stenciling to increase awareness of the direct connections between runoff
and surface waters
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
Implementation
of this plan will begin with the Soque
River Watershed Protection Plan Implementation 319(h) grant in April,
2008. The new grant will run for a
period of three years. Interim
milestones for the grant are included in the next section. A revised implementation schedule will be
developed during the grant period to reflect knowledge gained from additional
monitoring. Sites for corrective action
will be continually re-prioritized as problems are addressed and new
information becomes available.
INTERIM
MILESTONES
|
MILESTONE |
STARTING DATES |
COMPLETION
DATES |
|
Execute contract with the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division. |
1/08 |
3/08 |
|
Sign Interagency Agreement Between SRWA,
NGTC, and City of |
1/08 |
3/08 |
|
Hire Contract Worker to Assist with
Technical and Procedural Items with Corrective Actions |
4/08 |
5/08 |
|
Corrective Actions Aimed at Bacterial
Pollution – Farm Projects and Drainfields (20) |
4/08 |
12/10 |
|
Stream bank stabilization and buffer zone
restoration and enhancement projects (2) |
4/08 |
12/10 |
|
Maintain and Improve Partnership Web Site |
4/08 |
3/11 |
|
Environmental Field Day educational event
for 6th Graders |
4/08 |
4/10 |
|
Water Quality Monitoring Around Corrective
Action Sites in Accordance With Existing QAPP |
4/08 |
3/11 |
|
Steering Committee Meetings (2/year) |
4/08 |
3/11 |
|
On-site Stormwater Management Measures
Installed (2) |
6/08 |
12/09 |
|
First Public Meeting |
6/08 |
8/08 |
|
Submit semi-annual report for GRTS update
(each February 28th and August 31st ) Submit annual
load reductions each August 31st. |
8/08 |
3/11 |
|
Environmental Summer Camp for 7th
& 8th Graders |
7/09 |
7/10 |
|
Publish BMP Fact Sheets |
9/08 |
1/11 |
|
Workshop and Brochure On Homeowner
Stormwater Management Solutions |
1/10 |
7/10 |
|
Second Public Meeting |
8/10 |
1/11 |
|
Submit final project close-out report to
the GAEPD and the USEPA for review and approval |
3/11 |
3/11 |
MONITORING
PLAN
All
monitoring will be in accordance the Soque River Watershed Partnership Quality
Assurance Project Plan used for the watershed assessment (approved by USEPA and
GAEPD in January, 2005). The QAPP
contains Standard Operating Procedures for field data collection and laboratory
analyses to ensure the quality of the data.
In addition to data collected during the watershed assessment, it is
suggested that fish data be added to the biological information already
available.
Routine
monitoring for sediment and bacteria will continue and we will work to refine
“hot spot” locations for corrective action.
The goal is to ensure that BMPs are implemented in places where they
will result in water quality improvements and progress towards our goal of 303(d)
de-listing. In all cases where BMPs are
installed or management measures implemented, both pre and post activity
monitoring will occur (upstream/downstream).
We will evaluate and assess physical, chemical and biological variables,
as applicable.
ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition
to the specific implementation activities mentioned in this document, a number
of local measures are available and recommended to enhance water quality
protection. Many of these
recommendations may be addressed thorough proper enforcement of existing laws
and regulations (e.g. the Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act). The current draft Comprehensive Plan for
·
Mass
grading
·
Stream
buffer protection
·
Stormwater
management
·
Performance
based zoning
·
Protection
of sensitive ecosystems and water supply watersheds
·
Farmland
preservation
·
Water
conservation and increased efficiency
·
Limiting
impervious surfaces
·
Greenspace
·
Slope
restrictions for development
·
Transferable
development rights
·
Land
acquisition
·
Conservation
easements
Consideration
in implementing local water quality and quantity protections must also be given
to the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan that recently passed as a
resolution in the Georgia Legislature.
Additional recommendations for citizens and localities will be added as
applicable for the term of implementation of this grant and beyond. Model ordinances to address some of the
issues above are available through the River Basin Center at the
TECHNICAL
AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED
Funding for
three years of implementation of the Soque River Watershed Protection Plan has
been secured via a Clean Water Act § 319(h) grant administered through
GAEPD. A project budget for the first
three years of implementation is included in Table 7. It is important that the work started during
this time be continued over a longer period in order to meet the CWA goal to
“restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of
surface waters in the Soque River Watershed.
The ultimate success of this project will be judged by our ability to
implement management and protection strategies that result in documented water
quality improvements in 303(d) listed and other stream segments. The total amount of funding needed to meet
these goals is unknown at this time. The
initial three year implementation will provide much insight as to how much
capital may be needed to meet and maintain the pollutant load reductions
necessary to meet water quality standards.
The SRWP will investigate additional sources of funding to achieve these
goals (included below). More grant
possibilities will be considered and researched during the implementation phase
from available sources.
POTENTIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Flood
Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration Program – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – is a
watershed based program to mitigate flood hazards and restore riverine
ecosystems.
Southeast
Aquatic Resources Partnership
– provides funding for habitat plans for aquatic organisms.
Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Program – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service –
provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners to restore or
improve native habitats for fish and wildlife (may be used to restore riparian
buffers and degraded wetlands).
Five Star
Restoration Program –
USEPA – provides challenge grants for restoration projects involving
partnerships.
River
Network Partner Grants
– River Network – may be applied for by conservation groups (Soque River
Watershed Association) to help build a volunteer base to implement protection
and management strategies.
Watershed
Assistance Grants –
USEPA via River Network – to provide small grants to local watershed
partnerships for organizational development.
Water
Protection and Conservation Grants
– Turner Foundation – to protect surface and groundwater from contamination
Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Program – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – provides
technical and financial assistance for watershed protection, water supply,
water quality, erosion and sediment control, and fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement.
National
Integrated Water Quality Program
– USDA – to improve water quality through research, education, and extension
activities.
Environmental
Quality Incentives Program
– USDA – for agricultural BMPs will help meet water quality goals.
Farm Bill
Programs – USDA –
include the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program where
farmers are paid to set aside environmentally sensitive lands from production.
Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Programs
– USDA - is a voluntary program for landowners to implement applicable wildlife
habitat practices.
Technical
Assistance to Develop and Implement Conservation Programs – USDA – to assist landowners in
planning, designing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating fish and wildlife
habitat development projects in
Local
Funding –
from municipalities to partner with local conservation and civic organizations
for specific projects.
In addition
to funding, the continued support of SRWP members is vital to the success of
this project. Key elements of the
technical assistance needed from partners are included in Table 8.
Table
7. Three year implementation project
budget
|
Item |
Object Class Category |
319(h) Grant Funds |
Non-Federal Matching
Funds |
Total |
|
A. |
PERSONNEL: |
|
|
|
|
|
City of One (1) City Clerk – 0.08 FTE ($38.6K/year) for 3 years (financial administration) One (1) City Manager – 0.05 FTE ($44.5K/yr) for 3 years (landowner relations, workshops, education) One (1) Water Works Superintendent – 0.05 FTE ($35.2K/yr) 3 years - (workshops, education, technical assistance) |
2,000 0 0 |
7,264 6,675 5,280 |
9,264 6,675 5,280 |
|
|
UGA Cooperative Extension
Service: One (1) Natural Resources Agent – 0.2 FTE ($38K/yr) for 3 years (landowner relations, workshops, education, technical
assistance) |
0 |
30,400 |
30,400 |
|
|
Chestatee-Chattahoochee
RC&D: One (1) Project Manager – 0.05 FTE ($36,400K/yr) for 2 years (Technical advice, assistance, educational events) |
0 |
3,640 |
3,640 |
|
|
One (1) Inspector – 0.05 FTE ($35K/yr) for 3 years (technical advice, assistance, educational events) |
0 |
5,250 |
5,250 |
|
|
One (1) Horticulture Instructor – 0.05 FTE ($45K/yr) for 3 years
(assistance with riparian plantings, streambank stabilization, educational
events) One (1) Fisheries Instructor – 0.05 FTE ($38K/yr) for 3 years
(technical assistance, monitoring assistance) |
0 0 |
6,750 5,700 |
6,750 5,700 |
|
B. |
FRINGE BENEFITS: |
|
|
|
|
|
City of One (1) City Clerk – 0.08 FTE – 33% for 3 years One (1) City Manager – 0.05 FTE – 33% for 3 years One (1) Water Works Superintendent - 0.05 FTE – 33% for 3 years |
0 0 0 |
3,057 2,203 1,742 |
3,057 2,203 1,742 |
|
|
UGA Cooperative Extension
Service: One (1) Natural Resources Agent – 0.2 FTE – 33% for 4 years |
0 |
10,030 |
10,030 |
|
|
Chestatee-Chattahoochee RC&D: One
(1) Project Manager – 0.05 FTE – 33% for 4 years |
0 |
1,201 |
1,201 |
|
|
One
(1) Inspector – 0.05 FTE – 33% for 4 years |
0 |
1,733 |
1,733 |
|
|
One
(1) Horticulture Instructor - 0.05 FTE – 33% for 3 years One
(1) Fisheries Instructor - 0.05 FTE – 33% for 3 years |
0 0 |
2,228 1,881 |
2,228 1,881 |
|
C. |
TRAVEL: SRWA Ex. Director (100 miles/month
@ $0.485/mile) (Site visits, educational events, public meetings) |
0 |
1,746 |
1,746 |
|
D. |
EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
E. |
SUPPLIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
Newsletter Supplies |
0 |
1,200 |
1,200 |
|
F. |
CONTRACTUAL: |
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel: One (1) Project Manager – 0.4 FTE ($38K) for 3 yrs
(project management and coordination) |
37,620 |
7,980 |
45,600 |
|
|
Chestatee-Chattahoochee
RC&D: Technical Assistance Personnel: One (1) Project Consultant – 0.3 FTE ($33.3K) for 1
year (consultation and technical assistance with BMP installation and
landowner relations) |
9,990 |
0 |
9,990 |
|
|
Laboratory Services: Pollutant Source Sample Analysis (bacterial ribotyping) |
6,000 |
0 |
6,000 |
|
|
Corrective Actions : Bacterial Control ( 20 @ $9,000 each) Streambank Stabilization, Buffers (2 @ 15,000) Residential Stormwater Management (2 @ 5,000) |
180,000 30,000 10,000 |
120,000 20,000 6,667 |
300,000 50,000 16,667 |
|
G. |
CONSTRUCTION |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
H. |
OTHER: |
|
|
|
|
|
Interagency Agreement with |
170,476 |
29,143 |
199,619 |
|
|
Printing: Stormwater Management Brochure - (1,000 copies) Corrective Action Fact Sheets
(1,000 copies) |
0 0 |
2,000 2,000 |
2,000 2,000 |
|
|
Educational Programs: Enviroscape Display Field Day and Summer Camp Transportation and Supplies |
1,200 0 |
0 4,421 |
1,200 4,421 |
|
|
Volunteer Time at Events, Educational and Corrective Actions |
0 |
8,000 |
8,000 |
|
I. |
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES: [Sum of A-H] |
447,286 |
298,191 |
745,477 |
|
J. |
INDIRECT CHARGES: |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
K. |
TOTAL: [Sum of I and J] |
447,286 |
298,191
|
745,477 |
Table
8. Roles and responsibilities or
participating partner organizations
|
Organization |
Responsibilities |
|
City of |
Service
as lead organization. Formation of memoranda of agreement and interagency
contracts with other parties. Financial administration of grants funds. |
|
|
Project
manager and chair of Partnership Steering Committee. Development of
educational and informational materials and forums. Spokesperson for
Partnership. Supervise and work with Watershed Coordinator in completion of
day-to-day project tasks. |