Developing a watershed improvement plan to meet multiple community objectives in Gainesville and Hall County, Georgia
Author(s)
Thom, Chrissy
Dockery, David
McInturff, Kevin
Massie, Betsy
Murphy, Lauren
Advisor(s)
Editor(s)
Carroll, G. Denise
Collections
Supplementary to:
Permanent Link
Abstract
The City of Gainesville and Hall County
have developed a Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) for
Flat Creek, which is partially funded by a Section 319(h)
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant, in partnership
with GADNR Environmental Protection Division. In concert,
the City and County have also developed an Ecosystem
Restoration Report (ERR) to potentially obtain federal
funding under Section 206 of the Water Resource Development
Act (WRDA). The Flat Creek Watershed was one
of three areas identified in both the 2000 Watershed Assessment
and Management Plan and the 2006 Watershed
Protection Plan as not currently meeting the desired level
of health. Reasons for this finding were largely attributable
to urban growth, as evidenced by 303(d) listings for
violations due to high fecal coliform concentrations and
impacted biota, unstable banks, and degraded stream quality.
In 2003, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
District (District) classified Flat Creek as a substantially
impacted watershed due to high effective impervious
cover estimates.
Implementation of watershed improvement projects
can be costly. In order to assure that implementation efforts
are targeted toward the most cost-effective and beneficial
projects, a customized prioritization strategy was
developed to: (1) identify problem areas in the watershed
using GIS and field assessments, (2) develop potential
watershed improvement projects, and (3) prioritize projects
based on estimated costs and benefits.
Since the project began in February 2007, coordination
between multiple stakeholders has occurred with tasks
including data collection, analysis, project development,
prioritization, and identification of recommended alternatives.
Potential ecosystem costs and benefits of restoration
combinations (or alternatives) were compared using sediment
modeling, stream and stormwater structure assessments,
biological monitoring, planning-level cost estimates,
feasibility constraints, and long-term water quality
data collected by the City. For the ERR, benefits were
ranked using the Ecosystem Response Model developed
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
North Georgia Water Resources Agency team. This summer,
the draft WIP and ERR documents were prepared to
summarize efforts and submitted for approval to the GAEPD
and USACE, respectively.
Sponsor
Sponsored by:
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Water Science Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Water Resources Institute
The University of Georgia, Water Resources Faculty
Date
2009-04
Extent
Resource Type
Text
Resource Subtype
Proceedings