Final

Total Maximum Daily Load

Evaluation

for

Lake Lanier

in the

Chattahoochee River Basin

for

Chlorophyll a

Submitted to:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia

Submitted by:
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Atlanta, Georgia

December 2017
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table of Contents
Section Page

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. v
List of Appendixes ....................................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Watershed Description .................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Regional Water Planning Councils .................................................................................. 5
1.4 Water Quality Standard ................................................................................................... 5

2.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 9

3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................14

3.1 Point Source Assessment.............................................................................................. 14
3.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities ........................................................................14
3.1.2 Regulated Storm Water Discharges...................................................................18
3.1.3 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations .........................................................20
3.2 Nonpoint Source Assessment........................................................................................ 21
3.2.1 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................21
3.2.2 Agricultural Livestock .........................................................................................22
3.2.3 Urban Development ...........................................................................................22

4.0 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................25

4.1 Watershed Modeling (LSPC) ......................................................................................... 25
4.2 Lake Hydrodynamic Modeling (EFDC)........................................................................... 49
4.3 Water Quality Lake Modeling (EFDC) ............................................................................ 54
4.4 Model Calibration and Verification ................................................................................. 62
4.5 Critical Conditions Models ............................................................................................. 66
4.5.1 ACF Master Water Control Manual Update ........................................................69

5.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS .....................................................................................70

5.1 Waste Load Allocations ................................................................................................. 70
5.2 Load Allocations ............................................................................................................ 74
5.3 Seasonal Variation ........................................................................................................ 74
5.4 Margin of Safety ............................................................................................................ 75
5.5 Total Nutrient Load ........................................................................................................ 75

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................78

6.1 Monitoring...................................................................................................................... 78
6.2 Nutrient Management Practices..................................................................................... 78
6.2.1 Point Source Approaches ..................................................................................79
6.2.2 Nonpoint Source Approaches ............................................................................80
6.3 Reasonable Assurance.................................................................................................. 82
6.4 Public Participation ........................................................................................................ 83

7.0 INITIAL TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN..........................................................................84

ii
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

7.1 Initial TMDL Implementation Plan .................................................................................. 84

7.2 Impaired Segments ....................................................................................................... 84
7.3 Potential Sources .......................................................................................................... 85
7.4 Management Practices and Activities ............................................................................ 85
7.5 Monitoring...................................................................................................................... 87
7.6 Future Action ................................................................................................................. 87
7.7 References .................................................................................................................... 89

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................90

iii
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

List of Tables

1. Waterbodies on the 2014 303(d) List for Chlorophyll a in Lake Lanier

2. Lake Lanier Watershed Land Coverage
3. NPDES Facilities Discharging to the Lake Lanier Watershed
4. Phase I Permitted MS4s in the Lake Lanier Watershed
5. Phase II Permitted MS4s in the Lake Lanier Watershed
6. Percentage of Lake Lanier Watersheds Located in MS4 Urbanized Areas
7. Registered Dry Manure Poultry Operations in the Lake Lanier Watershed
8. Estimated Agricultural Livestock Populations in the Lake Lanier Watershed
9. Estimated Number of Septic Systems in the Counties in the Lake Lanier Watershed
10. Permitted Land Application Systems in the Lake Lanier Watershed
11. Landfills in the Lake Lanier Watershed
12. Available Meteorological Stations in the Lake Lanier Watershed
13. Land Cover Percent Impervious and Previous
14. Summary of Point Source Discharges to the Lake Lanier Watershed
15. Additional Phosphorus Data Collected at Minor Point Sources
16. Assumed Water Quality Concentrations for Point Sources without Data
17. Septic Tank Water Quality Concentrations
18. Summary of Water Withdrawals in the Lake Lanier Watershed
19. Irrigated Acreage by Sub-Watershed
20. Irrigation Depth (inches)
21. LSPC Modeling Parameters
22. Flow Stations Used to Calibrate LSPC Hydrology
23. Monitoring Stations Used to Calibrate LSPC Water Quality
24. Modeled and Calculated Annual Average Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr) for the Major
Tributaries
25. LSPC Watershed Inputs
26. Point Sources Included in the Lake Lanier Model
27. Water Withdrawals Included in the Lake Lanier Model
28. Summary of the Monthly Lake Withdrawals
29. Parameter Linkage for LSPC to EFDC
30. Summary of the Major Lake NPDES Dischargers
31. Calibrated Sediment Oxygen Demand Values
32. Calibrated Nutrient Flux Values (g/m2/day)
33. EFDC Modeling Parameters
34. Total Nutrient WLAs for the Lake Lanier Watershed Facilities
35. Annual Total Phosphorus Load Delivered to Lake Lanier
36. Total Daily Nutrient Loads and Required Load Reductions

iv
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

List of Figures

1. USGS 8-Digit HUCs for Chattahoochee River Basin

2. 2014 303(d) Listed Segments in Lake Lanier
3. Boundaries of the Regional Water Planning Councils and the Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District
4. Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards Stations
5. Location of Point Source Discharges
6. Linkage between LSPC and EFDC
7. Sub-delineated 12-Digit HUC Coverage for the Lake Lanier Watershed
8. Meteorological Stations Used in the Lake Lanier Watershed Model
9. Lake Lanier Watershed Land Cover from 2005 GLUT
10. Lake Lanier Watershed Impervious Coverage from 2005 GLUT
11. Pasture Chicken Land around Chicken Houses in the Lake Lanier Watershed
12. Lake Lanier Watershed Soil Hydrologic Group
13. Ag Water Pumping Reporting Regions
14. USGS Flow and Monitoring Stations Used in the Calibration of LSPC
15. GA EPD Monitoring Stations Used in the Water Quality Calibration of LSPC
16. NGCSU Monitoring Stations Used in the Water Quality Calibration of LSPC
17. Daily Average and 30-day Moving Average Flow Released from Buford Dam
18. Model Grid for Lake Lanier, Showing the Location of the Upstream Boundary and
Tributary Flow Inputs
19. Water Quality Zones in the Lake Lanier EFDC Water Quality Model
20. Water Surface Elevation Calibration at the Buford Dam Forebay for the Period 2001-
2007
21. Temperature Calibration at the Buford Dam Forebay for 2006
22. Growing Season Average Chlorophyll a Calibration at the Five Lake Lanier Compliance
Points for 2001 – 2012
23. Growing Season Chlorophyll a Levels at Existing and Critical Conditions and the TMDL
at the Five Lake Lanier Compliance Points

List of Appendixes

A: Lake Lanier Water Quality Monitoring Data

B: Average Annual Growing Season Chlorophyll a Plots

v
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State of Georgia assesses its water bodies for compliance with water quality standards
established for their designated uses as required by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).
Assessed water bodies are placed into one of three categories, supporting designated use, not
supporting designated use or assessment pending, depending on water quality assessment
results. These water bodies are found on Georgia’s 2014 305(b) list as required by that section
of the CWA that defines the assessment process, and are published in Water Quality in Georgia
2012-2013 (GA EPD, 2014). This document is available on the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD) website.

The subset of the water bodies that do not meet designated uses on the 305(b) list are also
assigned to Georgia’s 303(d) list, named after that section of the CWA. Although the 305(b)
and 303(d) lists are two distinct requirements under the CWA, Georgia reports both lists in one
combined format called the Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List, which is found in Appendix A of Water
Quality in Georgia 2012-2013 (GA EPD, 2014). Water bodies on the 303(d) list are denoted as
Category 5, and are required to have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) evaluation for the
water quality constituent(s) in violation of the water quality standard. The TMDLs in this
document are based on the 2014 303(d) listing, which is available on the GA EPD website. The
TMDL process establishes the allowable pollutant loadings or other quantifiable parameters for
a water body based on the relationship between pollutant sources and instream water quality
conditions. This allows water quality-based controls to be developed to reduce pollution and
restore and maintain water quality.

A TMDL is the sum of the individual waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load
allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, as well as natural background (40 CFR 130.2) for a
given waterbody. The TMDL must also include a margin of safety (MOS), either implicitly or
explicitly, that accounts for the uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loads and the
water quality response of the receiving water body.

For all waters in the Georgia, the State of Georgia’s Rules and Regulations for Water Quality
Control define water use classifications, general and specific water quality criteria, and other
rules relating to water quality enhancement. Lake Lanier’s water use classifications are
Recreation and Drinking Water. At specific locations in five different segments of Lake Lanier, a
specific criterion for chlorophyll a has been established. Chlorophyll a is a pigment in algae. It
is used as an indicator of the potential presence of nutrients in a waterbody that causes excess
algal growth. The State of Georgia has identified one segment of Lake Lanier located in the
Chattahoochee River Basin as not supporting its designated uses due to chlorophyll a violations
(Browns Bridge Road (SR 369)). Another segment is listed as assessment pending (Lanier
Bridge Road (SR 53)). Based on the 305(b)/303(d) Listing Assessment Methodology included in
Appendix A of Water Quality in Georgia 2012-2013 (GA EPD, 2014), a lake segment is placed
on the not support list if during the last five-year assessment period, the chlorophyll a growing
season (April through October) average exceeds the site-specific criterion two or more times. A
segment is placed on the assessment pending list if during the last five-year assessment period
the site-specific criteria are exceeded one time. Water quality samples collected monthly during
the growing season are used to determine the growing season average. This TMDL addresses
the Browns Bridge and Lanier Bridge listings in Hall and Forsyth Counties.

An important part of the TMDL analysis is the identification of potential source categories.
Sources are broadly classified as either point or nonpoint sources. A point source is defined as
a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 1

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

discharged to surface waters. Nonpoint sources are diffuse, and generally, but not always,
involve accumulated nutrients that wash off land surfaces as a result of storm events.

The process of developing the chlorophyll a TMDLs for the Chattahoochee River Basin listed
segments includes using two computer models to determine the following:

 The current nutrient loads to the lake under existing conditions;

 The critical nutrient load to the lake under NPDES permits at full capacity;
 The TMDL for similar meteorological conditions to those under which the current
critical load was determined; and
 The percent reduction in the current critical nutrient load necessary to achieve the
TMDL.

A watershed model for Lake Lanier was developed using the Loading Simulation Program in
C++ (LSPC). The watershed model simulates the effects of surface runoff on both water quality
and flow and was calibrated to available data. The model also included all major point sources
of nutrients. The results of this model were used as tributary flow inputs to the lake
hydrodynamic and lake water quality model Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC).
Hydrodynamic models simulate the transport of water into and out of the lake and the water
quality models simulate the fate and transport of nutrients into and out of the lake and the
uptake of nutrients by phytoplankton, where the growth and death of phytoplankton is measured
through the surrogate parameter chlorophyll a. The nutrient loads and required reductions are
summarized in the table below.

Total Daily Nutrient Loads and Required Load Reductions

Table 36. Total Daily Nutrient Loads, Wasteloads, and Required Load Reductions

Lake Lanier – Lake Lanier –

Lanier Bridge Browns Bridge
GAR031300010818 GAR031300010819
Lake Segment
Total Total Total Total
Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
WLA (lbs/day) 1,634 58 2,019 71
Permitted
Current

WLAsw (lbs/day) 100 4 143 6

Load

LA (lbs/day 5,638 227 8,145 322

Total Load (lbs/day) 7,373 289 10,307 399
WLA (lbs/day) 2,153 23 3,220 32
Future TMDL
Components

WLAsw (lbs/day) 83 3 118 5

LA (lbs/day) 4,646 188 6,649 269
MOS (lbs/day) Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit
TMDL (lbs/day) 6,882 214 9,987 305
Percent Reduction WLA - 60.5% - 55.9%
Percent Reduction WLAsw 17.6% 17.4% 17.0% 16.7%
Percent Reduction LA 17.6% 17.4% 18.4% 16.7%
Percent Reduction TMDL 6.7% 26.0% 3.1% 23.7%

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 2

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Management practices that may be used to help reduce nutrient source loads include:

 Compliance with NPDES (wastewater, construction, industrial stormwater, and/or MS4)

permit limits and requirements;
 Implementation of recommended Water Quality management practices in the Coosa-
North Georgia Regional Water Plan (GA EPD, 2017);
 Implementation of required Action Items in the Water Resource Management Plan
developed by the Metro-North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD, 2017)
 Implementation of Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry (GFC, 2009);
 Implementation of Best Management Practices for Georgia Agriculture (GSWCC, 2013)
 Adoption of National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practices
for agriculture;
 Adoption of proper fertilization practices;
 Adherence to the Surface Mining Land Use Plan prepared as part of the Surface Mining
Permit Application;
 Implementation of the Georgia Better Back Roads Field Manual (GA RCDC, 2009) and
adoption of additional practices for proper unpaved road maintenance;
 Implementation of individual Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for land
disturbing activities; and application of the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in
Georgia (GSWCC, 2016)
 Implementation of the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (ARC, 2016) to
facilitate prevention and mitigation of stream bank erosion due to increased stream flow
and velocities caused by urban runoff through structural storm water BMP installation.
 Adherence to DNR River Corridor Protection guidelines;
 Mitigation and prevention of riparian buffer loss due to land disturbing activities;
 Promulgation and enforcement of local natural resource protection ordinances such as
land development, stormwater, water protection, protection of environmentally sensitive
areas, and others.

The amount of nutrients delivered to a stream is difficult to determine; however, by requiring

monitoring, the implementation of these management practices can be measured. The effects of
the management practices will improve stream water quality and will represent a beneficial
measure of TMDL implementation.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 3

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The State of Georgia assesses its water bodies for compliance with water quality standards
criteria established for their designated uses as required by the Federal Clean Water Act
(CWA). Assessed water bodies are placed into one of three categories, supporting designated
use, not supporting designated use, or assessment pending, depending on water quality
assessment results. These water bodies are found on Georgia’s 305(b) list as required by that
section of the CWA that defines the assessment process, and are published in Water Quality in
Georgia 2012-2013 (GA EPD, 2014). This document is available on the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD) website.

The subset of the water bodies that do not meet designated uses on the 305(b) list are also
assigned to Georgia’s 303(d) list, also named after that section of the CWA. Although the
305(b) and 303(d) lists are two distinct requirements under the CWA, Georgia reports both lists
in one combined format called the Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List, which is found in Appendix A
of Water Quality in Georgia. Water bodies on the 303(d) list are denoted by Category 5, and
are required to have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) evaluation for the water quality
constituent(s) in violation of the water quality standard. The TMDL process establishes the
allowable loading of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a water body based on the
relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions. A TMDL is the
sum of the individual waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load allocations
(LAs) for nonpoint sources, as well as natural background (40 CFR 130.2) for a given
waterbody. The TMDL must also include a margin of safety (MOS), either implicitly or
explicitly, that accounts for the uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loads and the
water quality response of the receiving water body.

Chlorophyll a is a pigment in algae. It is used as an indicator of the potential presence of

nutrients in a waterbody that cause excess algal growth. In 2006, three segments of Lake
Lanier, Flowery Branch, Browns Bridge, and Lanier Bridge, were listed as impaired for
chlorophyll a (Category 5). These segments remained on the 2008 impaired list and in 2010 all
three segments were placed on the assessment pending list (Category 3), since their growing
season average chlorophyll a levels only exceeded the criteria once in the last 5 years. In
2012, the Flowery Branch and Lanier Bridge segments were moved to the support list
(Category 1) and Brown Bridge was moved to the impaired waters list (Category 5). Table 1
presents the current status of the Lake Lanier segments included on the 2014 303(d) list for
exceedances of the chlorophyll a criteria.

Table 1. Waterbodies on the 2014 303(d) List for Chlorophyll a in Lake Lanier

Segment Area
Lake Segment Location Reach ID# Category Designated Use
(acres)

Recreation/
Lanier Lake Browns Bridge Road (SR 369) GAR031300010819 5 5,952
Drinking Water
Recreation/
Lanier Lake Lanier Bridge Road (SR 53) GAR031300010818 3 4,928
Drinking Water

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

1.2 Watershed Description

Lake Lanier lies in the upper Chattahoochee watershed in north-central Georgia, approximately
30 miles northeast of Atlanta. Lake Lanier receives the majority of its inflow from the
Chestatee and Chattahoochee Rivers, which start in the north Georgia mountains in Lumpkin
and Union Counties, respectively. The Lanier watershed has a drainage area of 1,040 square
miles. Downstream from Lake Lanier, the Chattahoochee River flows southwest through
Atlanta to West Point Lake, from there it flows south and forms the border between Georgia
and Alabama. The Chattahoochee River flows through Walter F. George Reservoir and
converges with the Flint River in Lake Seminole, at the Georgia-Florida border and continues
south to the Apalachicola Bay in Florida.

Lake Lanier is a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) lake, and Buford Dam was completed
and has been operational since 1956. The lake has a normal summer pool elevation of 1,071
feet above mean sea level. Lake Lanier is a multi-use reservoir, and its uses include: flood
control, hydropower generation, water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife management, and
navigation. The cities of Buford, Cumming, and Gainesville, and Forsyth and Gwinnett
Counties depend on the lake for water supply to meet the water needs for their populations.
Eleven counties are located either completely or partially in the Lake Lanier Watershed, thus
making the watershed very important to a wide range of communities.

The Lake Lanier watershed contains parts of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont physiographic
provinces that extend throughout the south-eastern United States. The United States Geologic
Survey (USGS) has divided the Chattahoochee River Basin into four sub-basins, or Hydrologic
Unit Codes (HUCs), numbered 03130001 to 03130004. Figure 1 shows the locations of these
sub-basins. Figure 2 shows the impaired segments within the Lake.

The land use characteristics of the Lake Lanier watersheds were determined using data from
the Georgia Land Use Trends (GLUT) for Years 2005 and 2008. This raster land use trend
product was developed by the University of Georgia – Natural Resources Spatial Analysis
Laboratory (NARSAL) and follows land use trends for years 1974, 1985, 1991, 1998, 2001,
2005 and 2008. The raster data sets were developed from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)
and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+). Some of the NARSAL land use types were
reclassified, aggregated into similar land use types, and used in the final watershed
characterization. Table 2 lists the watershed land use distribution contributing to the two
listed segments and the other segments within Lake Lanier.

1.3 State Water Planning

The Georgia Legislature enacted the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Act in
2001 to create the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD) to preserve
and protect water resources in the 15-county metropolitan Atlanta area. The MNGWPD is
charged with the development of comprehensive regional and watershed specific water
resource management plans to be implemented by local governments in the metropolitan
Atlanta area. The MNGWPD issued its first water resource management plan documents in
2003.

In 2004, the Georgia Legislature enacted the Comprehensive State-wide Water Management
Planning Act to ensure management of water 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 on a state-wide level. GA EPD later developed the 2008 Comprehensive State-
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 5
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 1. USGS 8-Digit HUCs for Chattahoochee River Basin

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 6

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 2. 2014 303(d) Listed Segments in Lake Lanier

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 7

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 2. Lake Lanier Watershed Land Coverage

Land Use Categories - Acres (Percent)

High Intensity

Non-Forested
Low Intensity

Mixed Forest
Open Space

Pasture/Hay
Golf Course
Open Water

Residential

Residential

Residential

Row Crops
Deciduous
Developed

Evergreen
Stream/Segment

Wetlands

Wetlands
Forested
Intensity

Pasture-
Chicken
Medium

Barren

Forest

Forest

Total
Lake Lanier - 7,839 26,835 10,476 2,962 1,470 14,512 177,755 37,014 22,756 576 28,152 59 37,136 1,335 33 368,910
Lanier Bridge (2.1%) (7.3%) (2.8%) (0.8%) (0.4%) (3.9%) (48.2%) (10.0%) (6.2%) (0.2%) (7.6%) (0.0%) (10.1%) (0.4%) (0.0%)
Lake Lanier - 5,204 13,772 3,907 822 379 7,132 108,504 23,899 9,845 0 11,239 777 7,766 438 36 193,720
Boling Bridge (2.7%) (7.1%) (2.0%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (3.7%) (56.0%) (12.3%) (5.1%) (0.0%) (5.8%) (0.4%) (4.0%) (0.2%) (0.0%)
Lake Lanier - 19,786 42,490 15,403 4,054 1,998 22,418 291,000 61,664 33,433 576 40,035 836 45,015 1,776 70 580,554
Browns Bridge (3.4%) (7.3%) (2.7%) (0.7%) (0.3%) (3.9%) (50.1%) (10.6%) (5.8%) (0.1%) (6.9%) (0.1%) (7.8%) (0.3%) (0.0%)
Lake Lanier - 32,108 47,931 19,741 5,449 2,896 24,993 303,118 63,632 35,236 702 44,415 836 47,702 1,899 81 630,739
Flowery Branch (5.1%) (7.6%) (3.1%) (0.9%) (0.5%) (4.0%) (48.1%) (10.1%) (5.6%) (0.1%) (7.0%) (0.1%) (7.6%) (0.3%) (0.0%)
Lake Lanier - Dam 41,527 52,076 22,500 5,999 3,241 27,364 309,500 65,802 36,567 925 46,487 836 48,109 1,962 86 662,981
Entire Watershed (6.3%) (7.9%) (3.4%) (0.9%) (0.5%) (4.1%) (46.7%) (9.9%) (5.5%) (0.1%) (7.0%) (0.1%) (7.3%) (0.3%) (0.0%)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 8

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

wide Water Management Plan, which established Georgia’s ten Regional Water Planning
Councils (RWPCs) and laid the groundwork for the RWPCs to develop their own Regional
Water Plans. The boundaries of these ten RWPCs, in addition to the MNGWPD, are shown in
Figure 3. The listed segments are located within the boundaries of the Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District. The Lake Lanier watershed is within the boundaries of the
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District and the Coosa - North Georgia Regional
Water Planning Council.

In 2011, each RWPC finished development of individualized Regional Water Plans, which were
later adopted following GA EPD review. These Regional Water Plans identify a range of actions
or management practices to help meet the state’s water quality and water supply challenges.
The MNGWPD and each RWPC subsequently updated and revised their respective
management plan documents in 2017. Implementation of these plans is critical to meeting
Georgia’s water resource challenges. The specific Regional Water Plan(s) applicable to this
TMDL are discussed in Sections 6 and 7.

1.4 Water Quality Standard

The water use classifications for the listed segments in Lake Lanier are Recreation and Drinking
Water. The criterion violated is listed as chlorophyll a. The potential causes listed include
urban runoff, nonpoint sources, and municipal and industrial facilities. The site-specific criteria
for Lake Lanier, as stated in the State of Georgia’s Rules and Regulations for Water Quality
Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03(17)(5)(i) (GA EPD, 2015), were revised and approved by EPA in
October 2015 and are as follows:

(e) Lake Sidney Lanier: Those waters impounded by Buford Dam and upstream to Belton Bridge Road on the
Chattahoochee River, 0.6 miles downstream from State Road 400 on the Chestatee River, as well as other
impounded tributaries to an elevation of 1070 feet mean sea level corresponding to the normal pool elevation of
Lake Sidney Lanier.

(i) Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly mid-channel photic zone
composite samples shall not exceed the chlorophyll a concentrations at the locations listed below more than
once in a five-year period:

1. Upstream from the Buford Dam forebay 5 g/L

2. Upstream from the Flowery Branch confluence 6 g/L
3. At Browns Bridge Road (State Road 369) 7 g/L
4. At Boling Bridge (State Road 53) on Chestatee River 10 g/L
5. At Lanier Bridge (State Road 53) on Chattahoochee River 10 g/L

(ii) pH: Within the range of 6.0-9.5 standard units.

(iii) Total Nitrogen: Not to exceed 4 mg/L as nitrogen in the photic zone.

(iv) Phosphorous: Total lake loading shall not exceed 0.25 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.

(v) Fecal Coliform: Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6)
(b)(i).

(vi) Dissolved Oxygen: A daily average of 5.0 mg/L and no less than 4.0 mg/L at all times at the depth specified in
391-3-6-.03(5)(g).

(vii) Temperature: Water temperature shall not exceed the Recreation criterion as presented in 391-3-6-.03(6) (b)
(iv).

(viii) Major Lake Tributaries: For the following major tributaries, the annual total phosphorous loading to Lake
Sidney Lanier shall not exceed the following:

1. Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road 178,000 pounds

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 9

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

2. Chestatee River at Georgia Highway 400 118,000 pounds

3. Flat Creek at McEver Road 14,400 pounds

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 10

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 3. Boundaries of the Regional Water Planning Councils and the Metropolitan
North Georgia Water Planning District

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 11

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

2.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

In lakes with nutrient and chlorophyll a standards, GA EPD collects water quality samples
monthly during the growing season, which is from April through October. Lake Lanier is
sampled at five locations. Figure 4 shows the locations of the Lake Lanier water quality
stations. These data are used to assess water quality standards, see trends in nutrients and
chlorophyll a levels, and to assist in developing NPDES permits.

Stream segments are placed on the 303(d) list as not supporting their water use classification
based on water quality sampling data. A lake segment is placed on the not support list if during
the last five-year assessment period, the chlorophyll a growing season average exceeds the
site-specific criteria two or more times.

The data used to develop these TMDLs were collected during calendar years 2000 through
2013. Appendix A present these data along with other water quality data collected as part of the
lake standard monitoring program for calendar years 2000-2013. Appendix B shows plots of the
average annual growing season chlorophyll a levels at the five monitoring stations.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 12

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 4. Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards Stations

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 13

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT

An important part of the TMDL analysis is the identification of potential source categories.
Sources are broadly classified as either point or nonpoint sources. A point source is defined as
a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are, or may be,
discharged to surface waters. Nonpoint sources are diffuse, and generally, but not always,
involve accumulation of nutrients on land surfaces that wash off as a result of storm events.

3.1 Point Source Assessment

Title IV of the Clean Water Act establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program. Basically, there are two categories of NPDES permits: 1) municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, and 2) regulated storm water discharges.

3.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities

In general, industrial and municipal wastewater treatment facilities have NPDES permits with
effluent limits. These permit limits are either based on federal and state effluent guidelines
(technology-based limits) or on water quality standards (water quality-based limits).

The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has developed technology-based

guidelines, which establish a minimum standard of pollution control for municipal and industrial
discharges. These are based on Best Practical Control Technology Currently Available (BPT),
Best Conventional Control Technology (BCT), and Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT). The level of control required by each facility depends on the type of
discharge and the pollutant.

The US EPA and the states have also developed numeric and narrative water quality standards.
Typically, these standards are based on the results of aquatic toxicity tests and/or human health
criteria and include a margin of safety. Water quality-based effluent limits are set to protect the
receiving stream. These limits are based on water quality standards that have been established
for a stream based on its intended use and the prescribed biological and chemical conditions
that must be met to sustain that use.

Discharges from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities can contribute nutrients
to receiving waters. There are 24 point source discharges located in the Lake Lanier watershed,
and nine direct point source discharges to the lake, for a total of 33 point source dischargers. Of
these point sources, five are major municipal facilities, eight are minor municipal facilities, 14
are private facilities such as schools and hospitals, and six are industrial facilities. Four of the
six industrial facilities are rock quarries and should not be a source of nutrients. Of the
remaining 27 facilities, 13 have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitted discharges with flows greater than 0.1 MGD. The 14 remaining are classified as
Private and Industrial Development (PID) have permitted discharges with flows less than 0.07
MGD. Two facilities, Habersham Mills and Camp Coleman in Cleveland, Georgia, have ceased
discharging since 2007, Chattahoochee Bay’s permit is terminated, and one permit, Habersham
Central High School, was rescinded in September 2013. Figure 5 shows the locations of these
point source discharges. Table 3 provides the permitted flows, BOD5, and nutrient
concentrations (total phosphorus [Total P] and ammonia [NH3]) for the municipal and industrial
treatment facilities.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 14

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

GA0022471
GA0031674 GA0020168
GA0030261

GA0031933
GA0049115
GA00324198
GA00319
GA0038130 3349051
GA0049051

Figure 5. Location of Point Source Discharges

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 15

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 3. NPDES Facilities Discharging to the Lake Lanier Watershed

NPDES Permit Limits

Average
NPDES Permit TOTAL
Facility Name Receiving Stream Monthly
No. BOD5 (mg/L) PHOSPHORUS NH3 (mg/L)
Flow
(mg/L)
(MGD)
Scovill Fasteners Inc. GA0001112 Soquee River Report NA 4.0 lbs/day NA
Habersham Mills Inc. GA0001694 Closed
5 2.5* 0.13 0.5
Gainesville – Linwood GA0020168 Lake Lanier
7 2.5* 0.13 0.5
Gainesville - Flat Creek WPCP GA0021156 Flat Creek 12 2.5 0.13 0.5
Cornelia WPCP GA0021504 South Fork of Mud Creek 3 25 1.1 1.5
Chattahoochee Country Club GA0022471 Lake Lanier 0.0007 30 6.9 kg/yr
Dixie MHP - Gainesville GA0023043 Unnamed trib to Flat Creek 0.0043 30 7.6 kg/yr
Shady Grove MHP GA0023469 Unnamed trib to Balus Creek 0.0029 30 5.8 kg/yr
Chattahoochee Bay GA0024198 terminated
Dahlonega WPCP GA0026077 Yahoola Creek 1.44 30 0.13 8
0.0072 30 13.5 kg/yr
Baker & Glover MHP GA0027049 Unnamed trib to Little River
0.011 30 22.1 kg/yr
Habersham on Lanier GA0030261 Lake Lanier 0.11 30 0.5
Cumming – Lanier Beach South GA0031674 Lake Lanier 0.038 10 0.5 2
Flowery Branch GA0031933 Lake Lanier 0.4 5 1.3 2
0.4 30 0.8 Report
Demorest WPCP GA0032506 Hazel Creek
0.80 15 0.4 5
Clarkesville WPCP GA0032514 Soquee River 0.75 30 95.94 kg/mnth 17.4
Wauka Mountain Elementary School GA0032697 East Fork Little River 0.013 30 24 kg/yr
20 (May-Oct) 2.2 (May-Oct)
Baldwin WPCP GA0033243 South Fork Little Mud Creek 0.8 1
30 (Nov-Apr) 4.1 (Nov-Apr)
Habersham Central High School GA0033952 Rescinded 9/16/2013 0.018 30 168 kg/yr
Oak Grove MHP GA0034207 Unnamed Ck to Cane Creek 0.005 30 3.6 kg/yr
North Hall High School GA0034886 Unnamed Trib to Wahoo Ck 0.03 30 191.86 kg/yr
Camp Barney Medintz GA0034983 Jenny Creek 0.016 30 61 kg/yr
Camp Coleman - Cleveland GA0035467 Closed
Cleveland WPCP GA0036820 Testnatee Creek 0.75 20 159 kg/mnth 10
Buckhorn Ventures LLC GA0037209 Trib to Six Mile Creek Report
Vulcan Construction Materials - Dahlonega Unnamed trib to Long
GA0037508 Report
II Branch Ck
Gwinnett County - F Wayne Hill Water
GA0038130 Lake Lanier 40 18** 0.08 0.4
Resources Facility

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 16

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

NPDES Permit Limits

Average
NPDES Permit TOTAL
Facility Name Receiving Stream Monthly
No. BOD5 (mg/L) PHOSPHORUS NH3 (mg/L)
Flow
(mg/L)
(MGD)
Lula Pond WPCP GA0039039 Hagen Creek 0.375 30 10.4 kg/mnth 2
Hanson Aggregates SE GA0046086 Hazel Creek Report
Long Mountain Quarry GA0046302 Shoal Creek Tributary Report
0.007 30 3.26
Mountain Lakes Resort GA0046400 Lake Qualatchee
0.009 30 2.59
Lake Lanier Islands GA0049115 Lake Lanier 0.35 30 0.13
Cinnamon Cove Condos GA0049051 Lake Lanier 0.07 30 48.4 kg/yr
Source: GA EPD * Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
** Chemical Oxygen Demand

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 17

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Combined sewer systems convey a mixture of raw sewage and storm water in the same
conveyance structure to the wastewater treatment plant. These are considered a component of
municipal wastewater treatment facilities. When the combined sewage exceeds the capacity of
the wastewater treatment plant, the excess is diverted to a combined sewage overflow (CSO)
discharge point. There are no permitted CSO outfalls in the Lake Lanier watershed.

3.1.2 Regulated Storm Water Discharges

Some stormwater runoff is covered under the NPDES Permit Program as a point source. Some
industrial facilities included under the program will have limits similar to traditional NPDES-
permitted dischargers, whereas others establish controls: “to the maximum extent practicable”
(MEP). Currently, regulated stormwater discharges that may contain nutrients consist of those
associated with industrial activities including construction sites disturbing one acre or greater,
and large, medium, and small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) that serve
populations of 50,000 or more.

3.1.2.1 Industrial General Stormwater NPDES Permit

Stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities are currently covered under the 2017
NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity
(GAR050000), also called the Industrial General Permit (IGP). This permit requires visual
monitoring of storm water discharges, site inspections, implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs), and record keeping. The IGP requires that stormwater discharging into an
impaired stream segment or within one linear mile upstream of, and within the same watershed
as, any portion of an impaired stream segment identified as “not supporting” its designated
use(s), must satisfy the requirements of Appendix C of the 2017 IGP if the pollutant(s) of
concern for which the impaired stream segment has been listed may be exposed to stormwater
as a result of industrial activity at the site. If a facility is covered under Appendix C of the IGP,
then benchmark monitoring for the pollutant(s) of concern is required. Delineations of both
supporting and not supporting waterbodies are provided on the GA EPD website, and are
available in ESRI ArcGIS shapefile format or in KMZ format for use in Google Earth. Interested
parties may evaluate their proximity to not supporting waterbodies by utilizing these geospatial
files.

3.1.2.2 MS4 NPDES Permits

Storm water discharges from MS4s are very diverse in pollutant loadings and frequency of
discharge. At present, all cities and counties within the state of Georgia that had a population of
greater than 100,000 at the time of the 1990 Census are permitted for their storm water
discharge under Phase I. This includes 58 permittees in Georgia.

Phase I MS4 permits require the prohibition of non-storm water discharges (i.e., illicit
discharges) into the storm sewer systems and controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable, including the use of management practices, control techniques
and systems, as well as design and engineering methods (Federal Register, 1990). A site-
specific Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) outlining appropriate controls is required by
and referenced in the permit. There are three Phase I MS4s in the Lake Lanier watershed
(Table 4).

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 18

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 4. Phase I Permitted MS4s in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Name Permit No. Watershed

Buford GAS000104 Chattahoochee, Ocmulgee
Forsyth County GAS000300 Chattahoochee, Coosa
Gwinnett County GAS000118 Chattahoochee, Ocmulgee, Oconee
Source: Nonpoint Source Permitting Program, GA DNR, 2015

Small MS4s serving urbanized areas are required to obtain a storm water permit under the
Phase II storm water regulations. An urbanized area is defined as an area with a residential
population of at least 50,000 people and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people
per square mile. There are six Phase II MS4s in the Lake Lanier watershed (Table 5).

Table 5. Phase II Permitted MS4s in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Name Watershed
Cumming Chattahoochee
Dawson County Chattahoochee, Coosa
Flowery Branch Chattahoochee
Gainesville Chattahoochee, Oconee
Hall County Chattahoochee, Oconee
Oakwood Chattahoochee
Source: Nonpoint Source Permitting Program, GA DNR, 2015

Table 6 provides the total area of the watershed and the percentage of the watershed that is a
Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 MS4 urbanized area.

Table 6. Percentage of Lake Lanier Watersheds Located in MS4 Urbanized Areas

Total % of % of
Watershed Urban MS4
MS4 Watershed Watershed
Segment Area Area
Area that is that is
(acres) (acres)
(acres) MS4 area Urban MS4
Lake Lanier -
368,910 20,608 5.59% 9,046 2.5%
Lanier Bridge
Lake Lanier-
193,720 9,409 4.86% 2,585 1.3%
Boling Bridge
Lake Lanier-
580,554 40,566 6.99% 14,467 2.5%
Browns Bridge
Lake Lanier-
630,739 55,822 8.85% 23,662 3.8%
Flowery Branch
Lake Lanier - Dam
662,981 108,840 16.42% 37,325 5.6%
Entire Watershed

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 19

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

3.1.3 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Under the Clean Water Act, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are defined as
point sources of pollution and are therefore subject to NPDES permit regulations. From 1999
through 2001, Georgia adopted rules for permitting swine and non-swine liquid manure animal
feeding operations (AFOs). Georgia rules required medium size AFOs with more than 300
animal units (AU) but less than 1000 AU to apply for a non-discharge State land application
system (LAS) waste disposal permit. Large operations with more than 1000 AU were required to
apply for an NPDES permit (also non-discharge) as a CAFO. The US EPA CAFO regulations
were successfully appealed in 2005. They were revised to comply with the court’s decision that
NPDES permits only be required for actual discharges. Georgia’s rules were amended on
August 7, 2012 to reflect the US EPA revisions. The revised state rules will continue LAS
permitting of medium size liquid manure AFOs and extend LAS permitting to large liquid manure
AFOs with more than 1000 AU, unless they elect to obtain an NPDES permit. There are no
known swine and non-swine liquid manure CAFOs located upstream of the listed segments in
the Chattahoochee River Basin.

In 2002, the US EPA promulgated expanded NPDES permit regulations for CAFOs that added
dry manure poultry operations larger than 125,000 broilers or 82,000 layers. In accordance with
the Georgia rule amendment discussed above, the general permit covering these facilities has
been terminated and they are no longer covered under any permit. Georgia is consistently
among the top three states in the U.S. in terms of poultry operations. The majority of poultry
farms are dry manure operations where the manure is stored for a time and then land applied.
Freshly stored litter can be a nonpoint source of nutrients. Table 7 presents the dry manure
poultry operations in the Lake Lanier watershed.

Table 7. Registered Dry Manure Poultry Operations in the Lake Lanier Watershed
Number of
Name County Animals
(thousands)
Big A Farm Habersham 294.0
Blacksnake Pullet Farm & Franklin Farm Habersham 276.1
Brooks Poultry Farm White 140.0
Chosewood Poultry Farm Habersham 234.0
Ellis Brothers Farm White 135.0
Jones Poultry Co. Forsyth 214.5
Larry Copeland Habersham 170.0
Little River Farm Hall 153.0
Michael Shore White 145.0
Nacoochee Poultry Farm Habersham 214.1
Phillip Mullinax Lumpkin 180.0
Shore Farm Habersham 145.0
T & S Farm Lumpkin 150.0
T S Farms Lumpkin 125.0
Tracy Grizzle #2 Lumpkin 282.0
Warbington Egg Farm, Inc. Forsyth 160.0
West Fork Farm Hall 153.0
Source: GA Dept. of Agriculture, 2014

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 20

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

3.2 Nonpoint Source Assessment

In general, nonpoint sources cannot be identified as entering a waterbody through a discrete

conveyance at a single location. Typical nonpoint sources of nutrients come from materials
being washed into the rivers and streams during storm events. Constituents that have washed
off of land surfaces in previous months or years have either flushed out of the system along with
the water column flow or settled out and became part of the lake bottom. In this manner,
settleable material accumulates and may release nutrients into the water column over time.
Constituents of concern from surface washoff include the fractions of phosphorus and nitrogen
that become an integral part of channel bottom sediments, thus becoming a potential source of
nutrients for algae.

Typical nonpoint sources of nutrients include:

 Wildlife
 Agricultural Livestock
o Application of manure to pastureland and cropland
o Application of fertilizers
 Urban Development
o Application of fertilizers
o Septic systems
o Land Application Systems
o Landfills

In urban areas, a large portion of storm water runoff may be collected in storm sewer systems
and discharged through distinct outlet structures. For large urban areas, these storm sewer
discharge points may be regulated as described in Section 3.1.2.

3.2.1 Wildlife

The significance of wildlife as a source of nutrients in streams varies considerably, depending

on the animal species present in the watersheds. Based on information provided by the Wildlife
Resources Division (WRD) of GA DNR, the greatest wildlife sources of nutrients are the animals
that spend a large portion of their time in or around aquatic habitats. Of these, waterfowl,
(especially ducks and geese), are considered to potentially be the most significant source of
nutrients, because when present, they are typically found in large numbers on the water
surface, they deposit their waste directly into the water, and their feces contain high levels of
nutrients. Other animals regularly found around aquatic environments include racoons,
beavers, muskrats, and to a lesser extent, river otters and minks. Recently, rapidly-expanding
feral swine populations have become a significant presence in the floodplain areas of all the
major rivers in Georgia.

White-tailed deer populations are significant throughout the Chattahoochee River Basin.
Nutrient contributions from deer to water bodies are generally considered less significant than
that of waterfowl, racoons, and beavers. This is because a greater portion of their time is spent
in terrestrial habitats. This also holds true for other terrestrial mammals such as squirrels and
rabbits, and for terrestrial birds (GA WRD, 2007). However, waste deposited on the land
surface that contains nutrients can result in additional nutrient loads to streams during runoff
events.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 21

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

3.2.2 Agricultural Livestock

Manure from agricultural livestock is a potential source of nutrients to streams in the Lake Lanier
watershed. The animals grazing on pastureland deposit their feces, which contain nutrients,
onto land surfaces, where it can be transported during storm events to nearby streams. Animal
access to pastureland varies monthly, resulting in varying nutrient loading rates throughout the
year. Beef cattle spend all of their time in pastures, while dairy cattle and hogs are periodically
confined. In addition, agricultural livestock will often have direct access to streams that pass
through their pastures, and can thus impact water quality in a more direct manner (USDA,
2002).

Table 8 provides the annual estimated number of beef cattle, dairy cattle, goats, horse, swine,
sheep, and chickens reported by county. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
provided these data.

Table 8. Estimated Agricultural Livestock Populations in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Livestock

County Chickens-
Beef Dairy Chickens
Swine Sheep Horses Goats Broilers
Cattle Cattle Layers
Sold
Dawson 2,800 - - 100 800 - - 19,057,500
Forsyth 1,350 - - - - 50 63,000 6,620,250
Gwinnett 3,500 - - - - 550 - 2,496,000
Habersham 10,000 - - 50 500 4,000 800,000 84,480,000
Hall 8,700 425 - - 400 3,700 80,000 69,273,600
Lumpkin 2,549 - - 82 20 158 140,000 12,672,000
Towns 4,500 - - 25 900 300 - -
Union 2,500 200 - - 700 300 50,000 1,500,000
White 5,200 300 - - - 140 400,000 26,752,000
Source: NRCS, 2011

3.2.3 Urban Development

Nutrients from urban areas are attributable to multiple sources, including: domestic animals,
leaks and overflows from sanitary sewer systems, illicit discharges, septic systems, runoff from
lawns where fertilizers have been applied, and leachate from both operational and closed
landfills.

Urban runoff can contain high concentrations of nutrients from domestic animals and urban
wildlife. Nutrients enter streams by direct washoff from the land surface, or the runoff may be
diverted to a storm water collection system and discharged through a discrete outlet structure.
For large, medium, and small urban areas (populations greater than 50,000), the storm water
outlets are regulated under MS4 permits (see Section 3.1.2). For smaller urban areas, the
storm water discharge outlets currently remain unregulated.

In addition to urban animal sources of nutrients, there may be illicit connections to the storm
sewer system. As part of the MS4 permitting program, municipalities are required to conduct

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 22

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

dry-weather monitoring to identify and then eliminate these illicit discharges. Nutrients may
also enter streams from leaky sewer pipes, or during storm events when sanitary sewer
overflows discharge.

3.2.3.1 Leaking Septic Systems

A portion of the nutrient contributions in the Lake Lanier watershed may be attributed to septic
systems failures and illicit discharges of raw sewage. Table 9 presents the number of septic
systems in each county of the Chattahoochee River Basin existing in 2006 and the number
existing in 2011 based in part on U.S. Census data, and on the Georgia Department of Human
Resources, Division of Public Health data. In addition, an estimate of the number of septic
systems installed and repaired during the five-year period from 2007 through 2011 is given.
These data show an increase in the number of septic systems in all of counties. Often, this is a
reflection of population increases outpacing the expansion of sewage collection systems.

Table 9. Estimated Number of Septic Systems in the Counties in the Lake Lanier
Watershed

Number of Number of
Existing Existing
Septic Septic
Septic Septic
County Systems Systems
Systems Systems
Installed Repaired
(2006)1 (2011)
(2007 to 2011) (2007 to 2011)
Dawson 8,954 9,372 418 172
Forsyth 31,946 32,907 961 1173
Gwinnett 64,702 65,192 490 1550
Habersham 14,507 15,259 752 245
Hall 47,108 48,489 1381 1377
Lumpkin 11,462 12,314 852 71
Towns 8,538 9,179 641 43
Union 13,390 14,198 808 182
White 10,717 11,276 559 217
Source: The Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, Division of Public Health, 2012
:1
Notes Adjusted from State Water Plan values

3.2.3.2 Land Application Systems

Many smaller communities use land application systems (LAS) for treatment and disposal of
their sanitary wastewater. These facilities are required through LAS permits to treat all their
wastewater by land application and are to be properly operated as non-discharging systems that
contribute no runoff to nearby surface waters. However, runoff during storm events may carry
surface residual containing nutrients to nearby surface waters. Some of these facilities may
also exceed the ground percolation rate when applying the wastewater, resulting in surface
runoff from the field. If not properly bermed, this runoff, which probably contains nutrients, may
be discharged to nearby surface waters. There are 17 permitted LAS systems located in the
Lake Lanier watershed (Table 10).

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 23

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 10. Permitted Land Application Systems in the Lake Lanier Watershed
Flow
LAS Name Acres Permit No. Type
(MGD)
American Proteins Inc. 158 GAJ010572 IND 0.500
Apple Mountain Resort (1) 2.48 GAJ030772 PID 0.030
Apple Mountain Resort (2) 15.0 GAJ030887 PID 0.096
Chestatee Development 212.4 GAJ020192 PID 0.075
DNR-Unicoi State Part 6.0 GAJ020066 PUB 0.075
Fieldale Farms Corp Hall County NA GAJ020080 IND sludge
Helen 66.3 GAJ020157 MUN 0.500
LHR Farms, Inc. 60.4 GAJ010576 IND 0.059
McKinely Manor Subdivision 2.1 GAJ030805 PID 0.016
Mount Vernon Mills, Inc. 8.8 GAJ010528 IND 0.058
North Georgia Water Reuse Facility 11.9 GAJ030857 PID 0.050
PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. 2.2 GAJ010362 IND 0.400
R-Ranch in the Mountains Owners
13.0 GAJ030972 PID 0.100
Assoc.
Sonstegard Foods NA GA01-420 IND sludge
The Retreat at Lake Lanier 9.4 GAJ030685 PID 0.044
URJ Camp Coleman 5.7 GAJ030731 PID 0.025
Wrigley Manufacturing Company 11.5 GAJ010595 IND 0.064
Source: Wastewater Regulatory Program, GA EPD, Atlanta, Georgia, 2015

3.2.3.3 Landfills

Leachate from landfills might contain nutrients that may at some point reach surface waters.
Sanitary (or municipal) landfills are the most likely to be a source of nutrients. These types of
landfills receive household wastes, animal manure, offal, hatchery and poultry processing plant
wastes, dead animals, and other types of wastes. Older sanitary landfills were not lined and
most have been closed. Those that remain active and have not been lined operate as
construction/demolition landfills. Currently active sanitary landfills are lined and have leachate
collection systems. All landfills, excluding inert landfills, are now required to install
environmental monitoring systems for groundwater and methane sampling. There are 142
known landfills in the Chattahoochee River Basin. Of these, 18 are active landfills, one is under
construction, 3 are in closure and 120 are inactive or closed. There are 9 landfills in the Lake
Lanier watershed (Table 11).

Table 11. Landfills in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Name County Permit No. Type Status
Greenleaf Recycling, LLC Forsyth 058-013D(C&D) Construction and Demolition Operating
Pea Ridge Road PH1 Habersham 068-016D(SL) Sanitary Landfill Closed
Pea Ridge Road PH2-3 Habersham 068-017D(SL) Sanitary Landfill Closed
SR 13 MSWL Habersham 068-020D(SL) Municipal Solid Waste Land Operating
Barlow Homes Rd. PH2 Lumpkin 093-003D(SL) Sanitary Landfill Closed
Duke's Creek White 154-003D(SL) Sanitary Landfill Closed
Clarkesville Habersham - NA Inactive
Cornelia Habersham - NA Inactive
Cumming Forsyth - NA Inactive
Source: Land Protection Branch, GA DNR, 2014

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 24

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

4.0 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The process of developing the chlorophyll a TMDLs for Lake Lanier included developing a
computer model for the Lake and its embayments. The model was run for calendar years 2001
through 2012, when water quality data were collected in the Lake. A watershed model of the
Lake Lanier watershed was also developed, using LSPC that included all major point sources of
nutrients. The watershed model simulates the effects of surface runoff on both water quality
and flow and was calibrated to available data. The results of this model were used as tributary
flow inputs to the hydrodynamic model EFDC, which simulated the transport of water into and
out of the lake. The EFDC water quality model was used to simulate the fate and transport of
nutrients into and out of the lake and the uptake by phytoplankton, where the growth and death
of phytoplankton is measured through the surrogate parameter chlorophyll a. Figure 6 shows
how the two models interact with one another and what outputs each model provides. The
computer models used to develop this TMDL are described in the following sections.

Figure 6. Linkage between LSPC and EFDC

4.1 Watershed Modeling (LSPC)

LSPC is a system designed to support TMDL development for areas impacted by both point and
nonpoint sources. It is capable of simulating land-to-stream transport of flow, sediment, metals,
nutrients, and other conventional pollutants, as well as temperature and pH. LSPC is a
comprehensive data management and modeling system that simulates pollutant loading from
nonpoint sources. LSPC utilizes the hydrologic core program of the Hydrological Simulation
Program Fortran (HSPF, EPA 1996b), with a custom interface of the Mining Data Analysis
System (MDAS), and modifications for non-mining applications such as nutrient and pathogen
modeling.

LSPC was used to calculate runoff and hydrologic transport of pollutants based on historic
precipitation data. LSPC was configured for the Lake Lanier watershed to simulate the
watershed as a series of hydrologically connected sub-watersheds. Configuration of the model
involved sub-dividing the Lake Lanier watershed into 225 modeling sub-watersheds, which are
shown in Figure 7. Sub-basin delineations were based on elevation data (10 meter National
Elevation Dataset from USGS), and stream connectivity from the National Hydrography Dataset.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 25

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 7. Subdelineated 12-Digit HUC Coverage for the Lake Lanier Watershed

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 26

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Potential pollutant loadings were determined from mass-balance predictions of available

pollutants on the land surface for the land cover distribution in each sub-watershed.

The Lake Lanier watershed LSPC model performed a continuous simulation of flow and water
quality for these sub-watersheds using the following data:

 Meteorological data
 Land cover
 Soils
 Stream lengths and slopes
 Point source discharge data
 Water withdrawal data
 USGS flow data
 Water quality data

Meteorological Data

Nonpoint source loadings and hydrological conditions are dependent on weather conditions.
Hourly data from weather stations within the boundaries of, or in close proximity to, the sub-
watersheds were applied to the watershed model. An ASCII file was generated for each
meteorological station used in the hydrological evaluations in LSPC. Each meteorological
station file contains atmospheric data used in modeling the hydrological processes. These data
include precipitation, air temperature, dew point temperature, wind speed, cloud cover,
evaporation, and solar radiation. These data are used directly, or calculated from the observed
data. The five meteorological stations used for the Lake Lanier models are listed in Table 12
and shown in Figure 8.

Table 12. Available Meteorological Stations in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Station Elevation
ID Station Name (ft) County Latitude Longitude
92006 Cleveland 1567 White 34.442 -83.356
92283 Cornelia 1470 Habersham 34.518 -83.529
92408 Cumming 1 ENE 1306 Forsyth 34.208 -84.131
92578 Dawsonville 1343 Dawson 34.421 -84.104
93621 Gainesville 1170 Hall 34.301 -84.860

The Lake Lanier watershed was subdivided into Thiessen polygons, using the meteorological
stations as centers, to determine the meteorological station that would be used for each sub-
watershed.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 27

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 8. Meteorological Stations Used in the Lake Lanier Watershed Model

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 28

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Land Cover

The watershed model uses land cover data as the basis for representing hydrology and
nonpoint source loading. The land use data used was the 2005 and 2008 GLUT coverage.
Figure 9 presents the distribution of land cover within the Lake Lanier watershed, and a
breakdown of the watershed by land use is given in Table 2.

The LSPC model requires division of land cover into pervious and impervious land units. For
this, the GLUT impervious cover, Figure 10, was intersected with the GLUT land use cover. Any
impervious areas associated with utility swaths, developed open space, and developed low
intensity, were grouped together into low intensity development impervious. Impervious areas
associated with medium intensity development and high intensity development, were kept
separate from medium intensity development impervious and high intensity development
impervious, respectively. Finally, all impervious areas not already accounted for in the three
developed impervious classes were grouped together into a remaining impervious class called
catch all for remaining impervious (Table 13). The catch all for remaining impervious class is
made up of small bits of imperviousness associated with Clearcut/Sparse (Transitional),
Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits, Bare Rock/Sand/Clay, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest,
Mixed Forest, Golf Courses, Pasture/Hay, and Row Crops.

Table 13. Land Cover Percent Impervious and Pervious

Land
Categories Land % %
GLUT Land use Category
Represented in Use Code Impervious Pervious
the Model
Water 11 Open Water 0 100
Urban 20,21,22 Developed Low Intensity 4 96
Urban 23 Developed Medium Intensity 48 52
Urban 24 Developed High Intensity 83 17
Barren & Mining 31 Clearcut/Sparse (Transitional) 0 100
Barren & Mining 33 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits 0 100
Barren & Mining 34 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 0 100
Forest 41 Deciduous Forest 0 100
Forest 42 Evergreen Forest 0 100
Forest 43 Mixed Forest 0 100
Golf 73 Golf Courses 0 100
Pasture 80 Pasture/Hay 0 100
Cropland 83 Row Crops 0 100
Wetland 91 Forested Wetland 0 100
Wetland 93 Non-forested Wetlands 0 100
Failing Septic 888 Failing Septics 0 100
Pasture Chicken 1000 Chicken Pasture 0 100
Remaining Catch All for Remaining
332 100 0
Impervious Impervious

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 29

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 9. Lake Lanier Watershed Land Cover from 2005 GLUT

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 30

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 10. Lake Lanier Watershed Impervious Coverage from 2005 GLUT

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 31

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Chicken Houses

In the Lake Lanier watershed, an amendment to the land use coverage was made to account for
broiler chicken houses. Google Earth imagery was used to map locations and create a
Geographic Information System (GIS) point coverage of broiler chicken houses. There are
1540 broiler houses identified in the Lake Lanier watershed. These broiler chicken houses are
buildings that currently house, or in the past housed, a large number of birds. It is common for
chicken manure to be applied to pasture land. A study conducted by the University of Georgia
(UGA) showed pasture land within a 0.75-km radius of a chicken house typically received
applications of broiler manure (Lin, 2008). To distinguish regular pasture land from pasture land
that receives or has received broiler manure, a 0.75-km radius was drawn around each broiler
chicken house, and all pasture land contained within this buffer area was converted to a new
land use type known as “Pasture-Chicken” (Figure 11).

It is well known that chicken manure is very high in phosphorus and nitrogen. It was assumed
that the pasture land within the buffer area receives 6.73 mg per hectares per year of broiler
litter (Lin, 2008), which translates to an average of 16.45 pounds of broiler litter per day. Of the
16.45 lbs per day of broiler litter, 1.3% (Radcliffe, 2008a) was assumed to be total phosphorus
(0.214 lbs per day). It was assumed that 0.214 pounds per day was the accumulation rate and
the maximum storage was 0.214 pounds, indicating an “instant build-up.” To calculate the
amount of nitrogen applied to the pasture land used by poultry, it was assumed that of the 16.45
pounds per acre per day of broiler litter, total nitrogen makes up 3.13% (0.515 lbs per day)
(Radcliffe 2008). Similar to total phosphorous, it was assumed that the load of total nitrogen, the
accumulation rate and the maximum storage value, indicating an “instant build-up”.

It is acknowledged that the estimation of chicken houses based on aerial photography includes
facilities that are no longer active. Thus, the number of active houses in the watershed, and the
corresponding pasture land within the buffer area where manure is currently applied, has most
likely been overestimated. Additionally, the model does not account for the significant amount
of manure that is transferred out of the watershed for use as a fertilizer in other parts of the
State. If information becomes available on the reduction of nutrient levels that result from
manure being transferred out of the watershed, or if new information substantially changes the
other assumptions described in this section, the TMDL WLA may be adjusted to account for
these reductions in the LA loads.

Soils

Soil data for the Lake Lanier watershed were obtained from the State Soil Geographic Data
Base (STATSGO). There are four main Hydrologic Soil Groups (Group A, B, C and D). The
different soil groups range from soils that have a low runoff potential to soils that have a high
runoff potential. The four soils groups are described below:

Group A Soils Low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when wet. They
consist chiefly of sand and gravel and are well to excessively drained.
Group B Soils Moderate infiltration rates when wet and consist chiefly of soils that are
moderately deep to deep, moderately to well drained, and moderately to moderately
course textures.
Group C Soils Low infiltration rates when wet and consist chiefly of soils having a layer
that impedes downward movement of water with moderately fine to fine texture.
Group D Soils High runoff potential, very low infiltration rates and consist chiefly of clay
soils.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 32

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 11. Pasture Chicken Land around Chicken Houses in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 33

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

In LSPC, each dominant Hydrologic Soil Group within the study watershed gets assigned a
default group number. A standard approach for assigning Hydrologic Soil Groups to default
group numbers included: Group A equals 1, Group B equals 2, Group C equals 3 and Group D
equals 4.

There is one major Hydrologic Soil Group, Groups B, in the Lake Lanier watershed. Figure 12
shows the soil group coverage for the watershed. The total area that each hydrologic soil group
covered within each sub-watershed was determined. The hydrologic soil group that had the
highest percent of coverage within each sub-watershed represented that sub-watershed in
LSPC.

Stream Lengths and Slopes

Each sub-watershed must have a representative reach defined for it. The characteristics for
each reach include the length and slope of the reach, the channel geometry, and the
connectivity between the sub-watersheds. Length and slope data for each reach was obtained
using the Digital Elevation Maps (DEM) and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The
channel geometry is described by a bank full width and depth (the main channel), a bottom
width factor, a flood plain width factor, and the slope of the flood plain.

LSPC takes the attributes supplied for each reach and develops a function table, FTABLE. This
table describes the hydrology of a river reach or reservoir segment by defining the functional
relationship between water depth, surface area, water volume, and outflow in the segment. The
assumption of a fixed depth, area, volume, and outflow relationship rules out cases where the
flow reverses direction or where one reach influences another upstream of it in a time-
dependent way. This routing technique falls into the class known as “storage routing” or
“kinematic wave” methods. In these methods, momentum is not considered (US EPA, 2007).

For incorporating agricultural water withdrawals into the model, fictitious reaches were created
to hold the irrigation water prior to being applied back onto the land. Each sub-watershed that
contained irrigated land had its own fictitious reach and this reach was treated like a pot-hole
lake. Each of these reaches used the same FTABLE and the outflow for each stage was held at
zero. These reaches were not connected to sub-watersheds downstream and merely held
water until it was applied back onto the land through the pumping of irrigation water.

Point Sources Discharge Data

There are 24 point source discharges located in the Lake Lanier watershed that have NPDES
permits. Of these point sources, eight are municipal facilities, 10 are private facilities such as
schools and hospitals, and six are industrial facilities. Two facilities, Habersham Mills and
Camp Coleman in Cleveland, Georgia, have ceased discharging since 2007, and one permit,
Habersham Central High School, was rescinded in September 2013. Flows and water quality
data for these point source discharges were obtained from either the Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR) or Operating Monitoring Reports (OMR). Data obtained from these reports were
input directly into the LSPC model. The sub-watershed that each facility was assigned to and
the frequency of the DMR or OMR data are given in Table 14.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 34

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 12. Lake Lanier Watershed Soil Hydrologic Groups

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 35

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 14. Summary of Point Source Discharges to the Lake Lanier Watershed

Permit Facility Data Sub-

Facility Name Receiving Water
Number Type Frequency Watershed
GA0001112 Scovill Fasteners Inc. IND Soquee River Monthly 1178
GA0001694 Habersham Mills Inc. IND Soquee River – cease discharging Constant 1178
GA0021156 Gainesville - Flat Creek WPCP MUN Flat Creek Daily 1222
GA0021504 Cornelia WPCP MUN South Fork of Mud Creek Monthly 1213
GA0023043 Dixie MHP - Gainesville PID Unnamed trib to Flat Creek Constant 1222
GA0023469 Shady Grove MHP PID Unnamed trib to Balus Creek Monthly 1223
GA0026077 Dahlonega WPCP MUN Yahoola Creek Daily 1044
GA0027049 Baker & Glover MHP PID Unnamed trib to Little River Constant 1106
GA0032506 Demorest WPCP MUN Hazel Creek Monthly 1179
GA0032514 Clarkesville WPCP MUN Soquee River Monthly 1181
GA0032697 Wauka Mountain Elementary School MUN East Fork Little River Monthly 111
GA0033243 Baldwin WPCP MUN South Fork Little Mud Creek Monthly 1217
GA0033952 Habersham Central High School PID Rescinded 9/16/2013 Monthly 1204
GA0034207 Oak Grove MHP PID Unnamed Creek to Cane Creek Monthly 1036
GA0034886 North Hall High School PID Unnamed Trib to Wahoo Creek Monthly 1095
GA0034983 Camp Barney Medintz PID Jenny Creek Monthly 1077
GA0035467 Camp Coleman - Cleveland PID Closed Constant 1076
GA0036820 Cleveland WPCP MUN Testnatee Creek Monthly 1075
GA0037209 Buckhorn Ventures LLC IND-RQ Trib to Six Mile Creek Monthly 1011
Vulcan Construction Materials -
GA0037508 IND-RQ Unnamed trib to Long Branch Ck Monthly 1035
Dahlonega II
GA0039039 Lula Pond WPCP MUN Hagen Creek Monthly 1219
GA0046086 Hanson Aggregates SE IND-RQ Hazel Creek Monthly 1179
GA0046302 Long Mountain Quarry IND-RQ Shoal Creek Tributary Monthly 1079
GA0046400 Mountain Lakes Resort PID Lake Qualatchee Monthly 1082

There was not sufficient data to quantify organic and orthophosphate loadings from the point
sources. For minor point sources, data from five facilities in the Upper Etowah River
watershed were used to determine the phosphorus speciation. These data are given in
Table 15.

Table 15. Additional Phosphorus Data Collected at Minor Point Sources

Permitted Total Ortho

NPDES Ortho Phosphorus/
Facility Name Flow Phosphorus Phosphorus
Number Total Phosphorus Ratio
(MGD) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Reinhardt College
GA0024228 0.024 6.05 3.0 0.50
(ceased discharging)
GA0029955 Tate Housing Authority 0.010 3.40 3.4 1.00
GA0032204 Jasper WPCP 0.800 3.40 3.4 1.00
GA0035866 Sawnee Elementary School 0.030 8.40 8.2 0.98
GA0045818 Tate Elementary School 0.007 1.50 1.4 0.93
Average Ratio 0.88

Using these data, the following equations were applied to minor discharges (< 1.0 MGD) that
did not have available orthophosphate data:

Organic Phosphorus = Total Phosphorous * 0.12

Orthophosphate = Total Phosphorous * 0.88

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 36

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

For major dischargers with permitted flows greater than 1.0 MGD, the total phosphorus and
orthophosphate data collected at the Cobb County Northwest WRF, also located in in the Upper
Etowah River watershed, were used to determine the breakdown of the total phosphorus. From
November 2004 through December 2006, there were 784 values of total phosphorus and
orthophosphate data collected. The average ratio of orthophosphate data to total phosphorus
was 0.66. Therefore, the following equations were used for major discharges that did not have
available phosphorus data:

Organic Phosphorus = Total Phosphorous * 0.34

Orthophosphate = Total Phosphorous * 0.66

Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) reports data were used to determine values for particular
constituents needed for model input that were not reported on the DMR and OMR sheets. For
the Gainesville Flat Creek WPCP, ammonia is a measured value and the other nitrogen species
are default; so speciation from the CSI reports are utilized to calculate the other nitrogen
constituents from the measured ammonia values.

Table 16 provides the water quality concentrations that were input when no data were available for
water quality parameters in a point source.

Table 16. Assumed Water Quality Concentrations for Point Sources without Data

Parameter Concentration (mg/L)

Flow 0.1 MGD
o
Oct- March – 15 C
Temp o
April-September – 25 C
DO 5
BOD5 30.00
TN 14.00
NH3 2.00
NO3/NO2 10.00
ORG-N 2.00
TP 1.00
PO4 0.66 (majors) / 0.88 (minors)
ORG-P 0.34 (majors) / 0.12 (minors)
TSS 30.00

Land Application Systems

A GIS coverage of the Land Application System (LAS) fields was clipped and geo-processed
with the Lake Lanier delineated sub-watersheds coverage and incorporated into the GLUT land
use. The land use that was associated with LAS acreage for each sub-watershed was
subtracted from its original GLUT land use and that area was added to a new land use
associated LAS. Great care was taken to ensure that the overall acreage of the watershed was
unchanged.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 37

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Land application system loading rates were obtained from the Coosa Watershed model that was
developed for the Georgia State Water Plan. These land-use loading rates are quite high and
were allowed to build up for 3 days before reaching their maximum storage limit.

Septic Tanks

Septic tanks were also considered in the watershed model. The number of septic tanks in each
sub-watershed was determined through an area-weighting method. Each sub-watershed was
assigned to a county based on where the outlet of the watershed lies. The ratio of the area of
the sub-watershed to the area of the county was determined, and this ratio was applied to the
total number of septic tanks in the county to determine a number for each sub-watershed. Not
all septic tanks were considered to be contributing flow to the system. It was assumed that at
any given time, 85% of the septic tanks were non-failing and 15% of the septic tanks were
failing. If information becomes available on the nutrient levels due to failing septic tanks, the
TMDL WLA may be adjusted to account for these reductions in the LA loads.

For the non-failing septic tanks, these were treated as a source of nutrients through subsurface
flow. This was represented as a direct input into the stream, assuming a first order decay rate
and an average 60-day travel time from the septic tank to the stream. To represent the non-
failing septic tank flow, it was assumed that each septic tank serves a household of 2.8 people
and that each person accounts for 70 gallons/day of flow in the septic tank and 15% of the water
used in the house never makes it to the septic tank. The non-failing septic tanks were modeled
as very small individual point sources for each sub-watershed. Table 17 presents the
concentration of septic tank effluent, decay rates for each constituent, and the concentration
after 60 days of decay. For phosphorus, it was also assumed that 90% was sorbed to sediment;
therefore only 10% of the effluent concentration was used to calculate decay after 60 days.

Table 17. Septic Tank Water Quality Concentrations

Effluent Decay Rate Concentration

Parameter Concentration (1/day) at Stream
(mg/L) (mg/L)**
BOD5 105.0 0.16 0.003
Total Nitrogen 70.26 0.1 0.1263
Organic Nitrogen 0.46 0.1 0.0008
Ammonia 10.5 0.1 0.0189
Nitrate+Nitrite 59.3 0.1 0.1066
Total Phosphorus* 0.3 0.014 0.1287
Organic Phosphorus* 0.3 0.014 0.1287
Ortho-Phosphate* 0.0 0.014 0.000
TSS 10.0 0 10
Dissolved Oxygen -- -- 4
Water Temperature -- -- GW Temp***
* It was assumed that 90% of phosphorus is sorbed to sediment.
** Assumes Septic Flow takes an average of 60 days to reach stream
***Supplied groundwater temperature from temperature component of simulation

The portion of the septic tanks that were considered failing were modeled as a “Failing Septic
Tank“ land use because it was assumed that no decay occurs and raw effluent is directly
applied to the land. It was determined that the average area of a septic field is 6,750 ft 2
(Inspectapedia 2009). The land use that was represented as “Failing Septic Tanks” was
subtracted from the Low Intensity Urban Pervious land use for each sub-watershed. For a few of

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 38

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

the sub-watersheds subtracting Failing Septic from Low Intensity Urban Pervious resulted in
negative values. For these watersheds, all of the Failing Septic Tank area was subtracted from
Developed Open Space.

Water Withdrawal Data

There were seven water withdrawals located in the Lake Lanier watershed that were
represented in the LSPC model. Six of them are municipal water withdrawals and one is an
industrial water withdrawal. Two of the City of Dahlonega’s withdrawals have been revoked and
in 2008, the city was issued a new withdrawal. Average monthly water withdrawal data from
were obtained. The current source water, sub-watershed, and permitted withdrawal for each
withdrawal are given in Table 18.

Table 18. Summary of Water Withdrawals in the Lake Lanier Watershed

Permitted Permitted
Withdrawal Withdrawal
24-Hour Monthly
Permit Sub- Limit Average
Number Withdrawal Source Water Watershed (MGD) (MGD)
068-1201-01 City of Cornelia Hazel Creek 1208 4.0 4.00
068-1201-03 City of Clarkesville Soquee River 1181 1.50 1.00
Chattahoochee
068-1201-04 City of Baldwin 1141 4 3
River
093-1202-03 Birchriver Gold , L.P. Chestatee River 1045 0.43 0.43
Yahoola Creek
093-1204-03 City of Dahlonega 1046 9.1 6.8
Issued 6/6/2008
Yahoola Creek-
093-1204-01 City of Dahlonega, New Plant 1046 1.50 1.25
Revoked 4/12/2012
Yahoola Creek –
093-1204-02 City of Dahlonega, Old Plant 1046 0.5 0.5
Revoked 12/28/2004
White County Water & Sewer
154-1202-02 Turner Creek 1080 2 1.8
Authority

Agricultural Water Withdrawals

Two data sources were utilized to determine agricultural irrigation in the Lake Lanier watershed,
the Ag Water Pumping report and a GIS coverage of areas receiving irrigation water. The Ag
Water Pumping report provided seasonal, regionalized, irrigation depths by source water type
based on the results of the multi-year Ag Water Pumping study (Ag Water Pumping 2005). The
GIS polygon coverage, created by researchers at the University of Georgia (UGA), was clipped
and geo-processed with the Lake Lanier delineated sub-watersheds coverage and incorporated
into the GLUT land use.
The total acreage of irrigated lands and the percent of acreage irrigated by surface water are
given in Table 19. The land use that was associated with the irrigated acreage for each sub-
watershed was subtracted from its original GLUT land use and that area was added to a new
land use associated irrigated land. For example, if a sub-watershed has 100 acres of irrigated
land of which 85 acres were originally Row Crop, 10 acres were originally Pasture, and 5 acres
were originally Forest. The GLUT land use for that sub-watershed would have 85 acres

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 39

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 19. Irrigated Acreage by Sub-Watershed

AWP
Irrigation Percent
Sub-Watershed Irrigation Pond Reporting
Acreage Surface Water
Region
1181 21181 40.50 100 North Georgia
1185 21185 96.33 100 North Georgia
removed from Row Crop and added to Irrigated Row Crop, 10 acres removed from Pasture and
added to Irrigated Pasture, and 5 acres removed from Forest and added to Irrigated Forest.
Great care was taken to ensure that the overall acreage of the watershed was unchanged. Each
sub-watershed containing irrigated land was assigned to an Ag Water Pumping Reporting
Region (see Figure 13). The product of the irrigated area and monthly irrigated depth for the
North Georgia Reporting Region given in Table 20 produces a monthly volume of water.

Table 20. Irrigation Depth (inches)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2000 0.25 0.35 0.635 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4
2001 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.6 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.55 1.25 0.95 0.5 0.25
2002 0.25 0.35 0.65 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4
2003 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.6 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.55 1.25 0.95 0.5 0.25
2004 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.6 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.55 1.25 0.95 0.5 0.25
2005 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.6 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.55 1.25 0.95 0.5 0.25
2006 0.25 0.35 0.65 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4
2007 0.25 0.35 0.65 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4
2008 0.25 0.35 0.65 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4
2009 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.6 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.55 1.25 0.95 0.5 0.25
2010 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.6 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.55 1.25 0.95 0.5 0.25
2011 0.25 0.35 0.65 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4
2012 0.25 0.35 0.65 0.8 1.95 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.45 0.75 0.4

Modeling Parameters

For the Six Mile Creek watershed, the land-use loading rates, maximum storage, interflow and
groundwater concentrations were adjusted until the simulated instream concentrations were in
range with observed instream concentrations in Six Mile Creek. For this reason, the Six Mile
watershed had its own unique land use attributes.

Pollutants simulated by LSPC were biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (Total N),
and total phosphorus (Total P). LSPC requires land cover specific accumulation and washoff
rates for each of the modeled water quality parameters. Table 21 provides the rates developed
during model calibration for BOD, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for each land cover type.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 40

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 13. Ag Water Pumping Reporting Regions

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 41

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 21. LSPC Modeling Parameters

Rate Of
Surface Concentration
Water Rate of Maximum Concentration
Land use Runoff In Active
Quality Accumulation Storage In Interflow
Which Will Groundwater
Parameter (lb/acre/day) (lb/acre) Outflow (mg/L)
Remove 90% Outflow (mg/L)
(in/hr)
BOD 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Beach Total N 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Total P 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
BOD 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Water Total N 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Total P 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Low BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 3.5 - 5.1 1.6 - 1.6
Developed Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 1.568 - 1.868 1.268 - 1.568
Pervious Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.009 - 0.009 0.01 - 0.01
Low BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 0.0000 0.0000
Developed Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
Impervious Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
Medium BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 3.5 - 5.1 1.6 - 1.6
Developed Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 1.568 - 1.868 1.268 - 1.568
Pervious Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.009 - 0.009 0.01 - 0.01
Medium BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 0.0000 0.0000
Developed Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
Impervious Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
High BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 3.5 - 5.1 1.6 - 1.6
Developed Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 1.568 - 1.868 1.268 - 1.568
Pervious Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.009 - 0.009 0.01 - 0.01
High BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 0.0000 0.0000
Developed Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
Impervious Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
BOD 0.183333 - 0.55 0.549999 - 1.65 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Barren Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.55 - 0.65 0.45 - 0.55
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.008 - 0.008 0.0098 - 0.0098
BOD 0.183333 - 0.55 0.549999 - 1.65 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Forest Total N 0.026375 - 0.181875 0.1055 - 0.7275 0.60 0.35 - 0.45 0.25 - 0.35
Total P 0.001 - 0.022 0.003 - 0.066 0.60 0.004 - 0.004 0.006 - 0.006
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Golf Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 1.568 - 1.868 1.268 - 1.568
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.005 - 0.005 0.008 - 0.008
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 3.8 1.6 - 1.6
Pasture Total N 0.084 - 0.61375 0.336 - 2.455 0.60 1.388 - 1.988 1.188 - 1.788
Total P 0.015 - 0.03 0.045 - 0.09 0.60 0.055 - 0.065 0.075 - 0.075
BOD 0.183333 - 1.216667 0.549 - 3.650 0.70 1.3 - 3.8 1.6 - 1.6
Crop Total N 0.084 - 0.61375 0.336 - 2.455 0.60 1.388 - 1.988 1.188 - 1.788
Total P 0.015 - 0.03 0.045 - 0.09 0.60 0.085 - 0.085 0.075 - 0.075
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Forested
Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.768 - 0.818 0.768 - 0.818
Wetland
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.004 - 0.004 0.0058 - 0.0058
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Non-Forested
Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.768 - 0.818 0.768 - 0.818
Wetland
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.004 - 0.004 0.0058 - 0.0058

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 42

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Rate Of
Surface Concentration
Water Rate of Maximum Concentration
Land use Runoff In Active
Quality Accumulation Storage In Interflow
Which Will Groundwater
Parameter (lb/acre/day) (lb/acre) Outflow (mg/L)
Remove 90% Outflow (mg/L)
(in/hr)
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 0.0000 0.0000
Other
Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
Impervious
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.0000 0.0000
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 3.8 1.6 - 1.6
LAS Total N 1.090375 - 1.090375 4.3615 - 4.3615 0.60 2.088 - 2.688 1.988 - 2.588
Total P 0.015 - 0.03 0.045 - 0.09 0.60 0.055 - 0.065 0.065 - 0.065
BOD 0.308644 - 0.308644 1.234 - 1.234 0.70 4.2 - 4.2 1.5 - 1.5
Failing Septic Total N 0.07098 - 0.07098 0.3549 - 0.3549 0.60 0.46 - 0.46 0.468 - 0.468
Total P 0.009259 - 0.009259 0.0463 - 0.0463 0.60 0.01 - 0.01 0.012 - 0.012
BOD 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Irrigated Water Total N 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Total P 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 3.5 - 5.1 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated
Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 1.568 - 1.868 1.268 - 1.568
Urban
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.009 - 0.009 0.01 - 0.01
BOD 0.183333 - 0.55 0.549999 - 1.65 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated
Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.55 - 0.65 0.45 - 0.55
Barren
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.008 - 0.008 0.0098 - 0.0098
BOD 0.183333 - 0.55 0.549999 - 1.65 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated
Total N 0.026375 - 0.181875 0.1055 - 0.7275 0.60 0.35 - 0.45 0.25 - 0.35
Forest
Total P 0.001 - 0.022 0.003 - 0.066 0.60 0.004 - 0.004 0.006 - 0.006
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated Golf Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 1.568 - 1.868 1.268 - 1.568
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.005 - 0.005 0.008 - 0.008
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 3.8 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated
Total N 0.084 - 0.61375 0.336 - 2.455 0.60 1.388 - 1.988 1.188 - 1.788
Pasture
Total P 0.015 - 0.03 0.045 - 0.09 0.60 0.055 - 0.065 0.075 - 0.075
BOD 0.183333 - 1.216667 0.5499 - 3.6500 0.70 1.3 - 3.8 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated Crop Total N 0.084 - 0.61375 0.336 - 2.455 0.60 1.388 - 1.988 1.188 - 1.788
Total P 0.015 - 0.03 0.045 - 0.09 0.60 0.085 - 0.085 0.075 - 0.075
BOD 0.183333 - 0.45 0.549999 - 1.35 0.70 1.3 - 2.8 1.6 - 1.6
Irrigated
Total N 0.036375 - 0.191875 0.1455 - 0.7675 0.60 0.768 - 0.818 0.768 - 0.818
Wetland
Total P 0.004 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.075 0.60 0.004 - 0.004 0.0058 - 0.0058
BOD 0.133333 - 0.4 0.399999 - 1.2 0.70 0.2 - 0.2 1.5 - 1.5
Chicken Land Total N 0.5148 - 0.5148 0.5148 - 0.5148 0.60 3.101 - 3.901 2.701 - 3.501
Total P 0.2138 - 0.2138 0.2138 - 0.2138 0.60 0.05 - 0.06 0.066 - 0.066
BOD 0.133333 - 0.4 0.399999 - 1.2 0.70 1.3 - 3.8 1.6 - 1.6
Six Mile Creek
Total N 30.514 - 30.514 122.06 - 122.06 0.20 50.901 - 90.101 50.901 - 90.101
Subwatershed
Total P 0.015 - 0.03 0.045 - 0.09 0.40 0.055 - 0.065 0.066 - 0.066

Model Calibration

Historical flow data collected at USGS stations located in the Lake Lanier watershed (Table 22)
were used to calibrate and validate the LSPC watershed hydrology model. Figure 14 shows the
location of these flow gages used for the hydrologic calibrations. Three of the gages had a
complete period of record for the simulation period from January 1, 1998 through December 31,
2012, while the last gage contained data from January 18, 2007 thru December 31, 2012. The

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 43

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 14. USGS Flow and Monitoring Stations Used in the Calibration of LSPC

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 44

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 22. Flow Stations Used to Calibrate LSPC Hydrology

Drainage Calibration /
USGS
Station Name Area Validation /
Stations 2
(mi ) Verification
Chattahoochee River at Helen, Georgia 02330450 44.7 Validation
Soque River at GA 197 near Clarkesville, Georgia 023312495 93.9 Validation
Chattahoochee River near Cornelia, Georgia 02331600 315 Calibration
Chestatee River near Dahlonega, Georgia 02333500 153 Calibration

Chestatee River gage near Dahlonega and the Chattahoochee River gage near Cornelia were
used for model calibration. The Chattahoochee River gage at Helen and the short term Soque
River gage at GA 197 near Clarkesville were used for model validation.

During the calibration process, model parameters were adjusted based on local knowledge of
soil types and groundwater conditions, within reasonable constraints as outlined in Technical
Note 6 (US EPA 2000), until an acceptable agreement was achieved between simulated and
observed stream flow. Key hydrologic model parameters adjusted included: evapo-transpiration,
infiltration, upper and lower zone storages, groundwater recession, and losses to the deep
groundwater system.

As previously mentioned, to represent watershed loadings and resulting pollutant concentrations

in individual stream segments, the Lake Lanier watershed was divided into 225 sub-watersheds.
Listed reaches, tributary confluences, and the locations of water quality monitoring sites defined
these sub-watersheds, representing hydrologic boundaries. Delineation at water quality
monitoring sites allowed comparison of model output to measured data.

Each month, water quality data is collected at the following three locations: Chattahoochee
River at Helen, Chattahoochee River near Cornelia, and Chestatee River near Dahlonega.
During 2007, GA EPD conducted intensively sampled rivers and streams in the Lake Lanier
Watershed. This sampling was conducted at 27 key locations throughout the watershed.

In addition, Dr. Robert C. Fuller from North Georgia College and State University (NGCSU) has
collected water quality data for over 20 years on ten tributaries to Lake Lanier. The water
quality data included total nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total
phosphorus, orthophosphate, BOD5, total suspended sediment (TSS), temperature, and
dissolved oxygen. The Lake Lanier LSPC model was calibrated and validated to discrete
instream water quality data measured. Five of the stations were chosen to be calibration
stations. The remaining stations were utilized as validation stations. The list of stations and how
they were utilized is given in Table 23 and the station locations are shown in Figures 14, 15 and
16. Calibration and validation plots can be found in Appendices N, R and S of the LSPC
Watershed Modeling Report for Lake Lanier.

Table 24 gives the modeled annual total phosphorus load for the major lake tributaries
compared to the calculated load based on continuous flow measured at the USGS gages and
monthly total phosphorus measured at Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road and the
Chestatee River at Georgia Highway 400. In average to above average precipitation years, the
calculated annual load is often higher than the modeled load. This may be due to the method of
holding Total Phosphorus concentration constant when calculating the annual major tributary
load.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 45

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 23. Monitoring Stations Used to Calibrate LSPC Water Quality

Station Calibration /
Station Name
Number Validation
USGS Stations
Chattahoochee River at Helen, Georgia 02330450 Calibration
Chattahoochee River near Cornelia, Georgia, 02331600 Calibration
Chestatee River near Dahlonega, Georgia 02335000 Calibration
GA EPD Water Quality Stations
Chattahoochee River at Bottom Road near Helen 12015101 Validation
Sautee Creek at SR17/255 (Sky Lake Road) near Helen 12016501 Validation
Soquee River at State Road 105 near Demorest 12028001 Validation
Mossy Creek at New Bridge Road near Clermont 12030025 Validation
Mud Creek at Crane Mill Road near Alto 12030031 Validation
Little Mud Creek at Coon Creek Road near Alto 12030041 Validation
Chattahoochee River at Belton Bridge Road near Lula 12030085 Calibration
Flat creek at Glade Farm Road near Lula 12030103 Validation
West Fork Little River at Jess Helton Road near Clermont 12030141 Validation
East Fork Little River at Honeysuckle Road near Clermont 12030151 Validation
Wahoo Creek at Ben Parks Road near Murrayville 12030171 Validation
White Creek at New Bridge Road near Demorest 12030301 Validation
Chestatee River at Roy Grindle Road (CR 49) near Dahlonega 12033901 Validation
Chestatee River at Copper Mines Road near Dahlonega 12034101 Validation
Shoal Creek at Ashbury Mill Road near Cleveland 12034401 Validation
Testnatee Creek at Gene Nix Road near Cleveland 12034691 Validation
Chestatee River at State Road 400 near Dahlonega 12035401 Calibration
Yellow Creek at Yellow Creek Road (CR158) near Murrayville 12036001 Validation
Flat Creek at McEver Road near Gainesville 12038501 Validation
Balus Creek at McEver Road near Oakwood 12038610 Validation
Mud Creek at McEver Road near Flowery Branch 12038781 Validation
Two Mile Creek at Wallace Wood Road near Cumming 12039001 Validation
Big Creek at McEver Road near Buford 12039501 Validation
Sixmile Creek at Burrus Mill Road near Coal Mountain 12039601 Validation
Bald Ridge Creek at Pilgrim Mill Road near Cumming 12039801 Validation
Four Mile Creek at Browns Bridge Road near Cumming 12039811 Validation
Sawnee Creek at Pilgrim Mill Road near Cumming 12039831 Validation
North Georgia College and State University (NGCSU)
Balus Creek downstream of Old Flowery Branch Road Balus Validation
Flat Creek upstream of McEver Road Flat Validation
Limestone Creek at Pine Valley Road Bridge Limestone Validation
Chattahoochee River at middle of GA 52 Chattahoochee Validation
Little River at Jim Hood Road culvert Little River Validation
Wahoo Creek at Ben Parks Road Bridge Wahoo Validation
Squirrel Creek at GA 60 culvert Squirrel Validation
Chestatee River South Bound GA 400 Chestatee Validation
Six Mile Creek at Burrus Mill Road Bridge Six Mile Validation
Boling Bridge at center of bridge Boling Bridge Validation

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 46

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 15. GA EPD Monitoring Stations Used in the Water Quality Calibration of LSPC

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 47

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 16. NGCSU Monitoring Stations Used in the Water Quality Calibration of LSPC

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 48

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 24. Modeled and Calculated Annual Average Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr)
for the Major Tributaries

Station Standard 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Chattahoochee Modeled 49,055 66,943 96,676 92,118 89,419 61,821 37,447 49,310 117,152 79,074 60,564 55,829
River at Belton
Bridge Rd Calculated 42,700 59,600 152,300 96,800 171,500 62,200 44,040 68,330 131,215 118,105 68,843 48,351
Chestatee River Modeled 23,486 32,040 42,794 32,275 29,828 27,343 13,781 19,305 52,126 30,393 21,854 24,403
at Georgia
Highway 400 Calculated 10,000 25,400 72,000 51,200 91,400 40,500 17,130 25,120 48,984 55,417 29,382 22,729

4.2 Lake Hydrodynamic Modeling (EFDC)

Bottom elevations and shoreline boundaries define the EFDC model grid. The grid for Lake
Lanier covers the entire lake and includes the Chattahoochee River up to USGS station
02331600 (near Cornelia, GA) and the Chestatee River up to USGS station 02333500 (at State
Route 52 near Dahlonega, GA)). The bottom elevations for Lake Lanier were obtained from a
Kingfisher Map (#301). Once the horizontal grid was developed, bottom elevations were
interpolated for each grid cell taking into account the total pool area and volume of the reservoir.
Once the bottom elevation was determined for each cell, the stage-area and stage-capacity of
Lake Lanier were compared.

A maximum of 10 uniformly distributed (equal height) vertical layers were defined along the
deepest region of the main channel of the Lake. The number of layers was selected to have a
good resolution of the temperature stratification of the lake along the deepest part of the main
channel and to have at least two layers in all embayments. To promote the temperature
induced convection, circulation in the embayments the lake had a minimum of 2 layers. The
number of layers outside the main channel was defined based on the bathymetry and the water
surface elevation at full pool. The height of each layer at full pool was calculated by subtracting
the deepest bottom elevation from the water surface elevation and dividing by the maximum
number of layers. At each cell, the number of layers was calculated as the total water depth at
full pool divided by the layer depth at the deepest region.

The EFDC model requires boundary conditions to simulate circulation and transportation. These
conditions include water surface elevations, dam releases, watershed tributary inflows, point
source discharges, water withdrawals, and meteorological data. Data for the operation of
Buford Dam was obtained from USACE. The USACE provided a 24-hour discharge in cubic
feet per second (cfs). Figure 17 shows the daily average and 30-day moving average flow
released from Buford Dam for 2001 through 2007.

Tributary Inputs

The results of the LSPC watershed model were used as tributary flow inputs to the Lake
hydrodynamic model. Figure 18 shows the model grid for Lake Lanier and the location of the
upstream boundaries and watershed inputs.

The watershed flows are an important input for the flow balance of the Lake. Table 25 identifies
which EFDC cell each LSPC sub-watershed was input into and the flow type utilized. RO means
the in-stream flow value and PERO means the total land outflow from an individual sub-
watershed.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 49

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 17. Daily Average and 30-day Moving Average Flow Released from Buford Dam

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 50

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 18. Model Grid for Lake Lanier, Showing the Location of the Upstream Boundary and Tributary Flow Inputs

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 51

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 25. LSPC Watershed Inputs

LSPC Sub- EFDC Cell Flow Type

Figure ID Flow Type
Watershed I-Value J-Value
1 1001 40 18 PERO
2 1002 25 13 RO
3 1003 13 19 RO
4 1004 42 21 RO
5 1009 5 23 PERO
6 1010 41 27 RO
7 1011 4 23 RO
8 1012 25 24 RO
9 1014 30 27 PERO
10 1015 37 33 RO
11 1016 29 27 RO
12 1018 23 34 PERO
13 1019 31 35 PERO
14 1020 20 39 PERO
15 1021 24 46 PERO
16 1022 17 37 RO
17 1023 19 41 PERO
18 1025 15 41 PERO
19 1027 13 39 PERO
20 1028 12 36 RO
21 1029 12 43 PERO
22 1088 24 48 RO
23 1089 28 50 PERO
24 1090 23 55 PERO
25 1091 26 56 PERO
26 1092 20 56 PERO
27 1093 23 58 PERO
28 1105 22 59 RO
29 1106 23 60 RO
30 1113 26 65 PERO
31 1114 26 69 PERO
32 1115 26 68 RO
33 1116 26 70 RO
34 1117 26 71 PERO
35 1220 32 37 RO
36 1221 35 37 RO
37 1225 30 64 RO
38 1301 17 44 RO
39 1302 12 47 RO
40 1305 26 72 RO
41 1307 19 56 RO

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 52

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Point Sources Discharges

There are eight point sources that were included in the EFDC calibration model (Table
26). Daily data were input for the Gainesville – Linwood WPCP (GA0020168) and Flowery
Branch WPCP (GA0031933) from January 2001 through December 20007 and monthly data
from January 2008 through December 2012. Monthly data were input for Lake Lanier Islands
(GA0049115) and Cinnamon Cove (GA0049051) from January 2001 through December
2012. Chattahoochee Country Club (GA0022471) had three measurements in both 2006 and
2007, five measurements in 2010, and one measurement in both 2011 and 2012. These were
input into the model for these years and the average for these years was used for January 2001
through December 2012. The remaining point source inputs were input at their design flow and
permit limits for the entire simulation.

The Gwinnett County F. Wayne Hill facility (GA0038130) was not included in the calibration of
the EFDC model until May 2010 and the data used were monthly. This facility was included in
the critical conditions model run needed for the TMDL determination.

Table 26. Point Sources Included in the Lake Lanier Model

Permitted
Permit Number Facility Name EFDC Cell
Flow (MGD)
GA0049115 Lake Lanier Islands 0.44 (34,14)
GA0049051 Cinnamon Cove Condos 0.021 (41,22)
GA0030261 Habersham on Lanier 0.14 (25,7)
GA0031674 Cumming – Lanier Beach South 0.048 (27,7)
GA0024198 Chattahoochee Bay 0.0018 (39,27)
GA0020168 Gainesville – Linwood 3.375 (26,51)
GA0022471 Chattahoochee Country Club 0.0009 (24,51)
GA0031933 Flowery Branch 0.51 (41,27)
Gwinnett County – F. Wayne Hill Water
GA0038130 40 (41,15)
Resources Facility

Water Withdrawals

There are eight water withdrawals located in Lake Lanier. Table 27 provides a summary of
these facilities’ water withdrawal permits.

Table 27. Water Withdrawals Included in the Lake Lanier Model

Permitted
Permitted
Withdrawal
Number Withdrawal EFDC
Withdrawal Monthly
Permitted 24-Hour Limit Cell
Average
(MGD)
(MGD)
City of Buford 069-1290-04 2.50 2.00 (41,20)
City of Cumming 058-1290-07 21.00 18.00 (24,12)
Forsyth County Board of
058-1207-06 16.00 14.00 (14,19)
Commissioners
City of Gainesville 069-1290-05 35.00 30.00 (26,55)
Gwinnett County Water and Sewer 069-1290-06 N/A 150.00 (39,15)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 53
Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Permitted
Permitted
Withdrawal
Number Withdrawal EFDC
Withdrawal Monthly
Permitted 24-Hour Limit Cell
Average
(MGD)
(MGD)
McRae and Stoltz 042-1202-01 0.78 0.50 (12,46)
Renaissance Resort 069-1205-02 0.60 0.60 (33,16)
KSL Lake Lanier 069-1205-01 0.60 0.60 (35,18)

Tables 28 give the average monthly water withdrawals used for the permitted model runs for
these facilities. To determine these values, the historic monthly withdrawals from the calibration
period were increased by the associated increase from the average discharge and permitted
discharge.

Table 28. Summary of the Monthly Water Withdrawals

Monthly Avg (MGD) Annual

Facility
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg

City of Buford 1.35 1.29 1.35 1.37 1.49 1.48 1.46 1.55 1.46 1.4 1.31 1.3 1.4
City of
9.06 9.65 10.21 11.26 13.06 13.46 13.49 14.27 13.43 15.91 12.69 11.42 12.33
Cumming
Forsyth County
Board of 4.77 4.15 4.13 5.43 7.72 7.54 6.96 7.57 7.31 5.43 4.62 4.31 5.83
Commissioners
City of
16.45 16.06 16.32 17.33 18.87 19.67 19.53 20.19 19.18 17.92 16.66 16.00 17.85
Gainesville
Gwinnett
County Water 72.98 72.81 75.38 82.84 93.1 95.86 95.7 96.81 94.6 86.56 79.01 73.01 85.32
and Sewer
McRae and
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03
Stoltz
Renaissance
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.22 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.1
Resort
KSL Lake
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.04
Lanier

Meteorological Data

The meteorological inputs included precipitation, evaporation, relative humidity, air pressure, air
temperature, solar radiation, cloud cover, wind speed, and wind direction. Evaporation was
calculated by EFDC, and solar radiation was calculated from cloud cover. The other
meteorological inputs were obtained the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) station Lee
Gilmer Memorial Airport in Gainesville, Georgia (WBAN 53838) due to its close proximity to
Lake Lanier.

4.3 Water Quality Lake Modeling (EFDC)

The water quality model developed for Lake Lanier simulated different loading conditions.
EFDC was also used for the water quality model. The EFDC model for Lake Lanier was setup
using the following variables:

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 54

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

 Organic nitrogen
 Ammonia
 Nitrate-Nitrite
 Organic phosphorus
 Orthophosphate
 Algae (2 species)
 Dissolved oxygen
 Organic carbon
 Silica

The output from the LSPC watershed model was used to represent the runoff to the Lake. The
LSPC model was calibrated for temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrate-nitrate, ammonia,
organic nitrogen, ortho-phosphorus, organic phosphorus, total suspended solids, and
chlorophyll a. LSPC Output parameters do not directly link up with the EFDC input parameters.
Therefore, the LSPC outputs were “linked” to EFDC inputs through various equations. Table 29
presents what LSPC parameter is used for each EFDC parameter. Note that the LSPC outputs
are in English units, whereas the EFDC inputs are in metric units. Therefore, the factor of
0.4536 was used to convert all the equation from lbs/day to kg/day.

Table 29. Parameter Linkage for LSPC to EFDC

LSPC
Parameter EFDC Parameter
Parameters
Flow RO or PERO Flow
Temperature TEMP TEMP
Dissolved Oxygen DOx DO
Biochemical Oxygen DOC, DON, LPON,
BOD5
Demand (5-day) DOP, LPOP
Nitrate + Nitrite NO3 + NO2 NOx
Ammonia TAM NH4
DON, RPON.
Organic Nitrogen ORN
LPON
Orthophosphate PO4 PO4
Organic Phosphorus ORP DOP, RPOP, LPOP
Total Algae =
greens (Bg) +
Phytoplankton PHYTO
diatoms (Bd) +
Cyano (Bc)

DON =  (ORN * % Dissolved) + fDOx*  (BOD 5 

* fRatio)/SBODu to OrgN *flow*C
RPON ORN * %Particulate* flow*C
LPON =  fLPOx *  (BOD5 * fRatio)/SBODu to OrgN* flow*C
NH4 TAM * flow*C
NOx NO3NO2* flow*CBOD

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 55

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Where:
DON = Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (kg/day)
RPON = Refractory Particulate Organic Nitrogen (kg/day)
LPON = Labile Particulate Organic Nitrogen (kg/day)
NH4 = Ammonium (kg/day)
NOx = Nitrate + Nitrite (kg/day)
ORN = Dead Refractory Organic Nitrogen Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
BOD5 = Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
TAM = Total Dissolved Ammonia Concentration from LSPC (mg/l)
NO3 = Nitrate Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
NO2 = Nitrite Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
% Dissolved = Percent of ORN that is Dissolved = 0.80
% Particulate = Percent of ORN that is Particulate = 0.20
fDOx = Fraction of Labile Organics in BODu that is Dissolved = 0.50
fLPOx = Fraction of Labile Organics in BODu that is Particulate = 0.50
fRatio = Factor to convert BOD5 to BODu = 3.0
S(BODu to OrgN) = Stoichiometric Value to convert BODu into Labile Organic Nitrogen =
22.90
flow = Flow from LSPC (cfs)
C = Conversion factor from lbs/day to kg/day * 5.39 = 2.44

DOP =  (ORP * % Dissolved) + fDOx*  (BOD 5 

* fRatio)/SBODu to OrgP *flow*C
RPOP ORP * %Particulate* flow*C
LPOP =  fLPOx *  (BOD5 * fRatio)/SBODu to OrgP* flow*C
PO4EFDC PO4LSPC * flow*C
Where:
DOP = Dissolved Organic Phosphorus (kg/day)
RPOP = Refractory Particulate Organic Phosphorus (kg/day)
LPOP = Labile Particulate Organic Phosphorus (kg/day)
PO4EFDC = Orthophosphorus (kg/day)
ORP = Dead Refractory Organic Phosphorus Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
BOD5 = Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
PO4LSPC = Orthophosphorus Concentration from LSPC (mg/L)
% Dissolved = Percent of ORP that is Dissolved = 0.50
% Particulate = Percent of ORP that is Particulate = 0.50
fDOx = Fraction of Labile Organics in BODu that is Dissolved = 0.50
fLPOx = Fraction of Labile Organics in BODu that is Particulate = 0.50
fRatio = Factor to convert BOD5 to BODu = 3.0
S(BODu to OrgP) = Stoichiometric Value to convert BODu into Labile Organic Phosphorus = 165.80
flow = Flow from LSPC (cfs)
C = Conversion factor from lbs/day to kg/day * 5.39 = 2.44
Flow RO (Instream Flow) or PERO (Overland Flow)
TEMP EFDC TEMP LSPC
DO DOx * flow*C
DOC = (BOD5 * fRatio)/F (BODu to Carbon) flow* C

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 56

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Algae Biomass Equations

Bg PHYTO*cphyto*Green Alg al Fraction* flow*C
Bd PHYTO*cphyto*Diatom Alg al Fraction* flow*C
Bc PHYTO*cphyto*Cynobacteria Alg al Fraction* flow*C

Where:
Flow = Flow into EFDC (cms)
TEMPEFDC = Temperature (OC)
DO = Dissolved Oxygen (kg/day)
DOC = Dissolved Organic Carbon (kg/day)
Bg = Green Algae (kg/day)
Bd = Diatom Algae (kg/day)
Bc = Cynobacteria Algae (kg/day)
RO = Instream Flow from LSPC (cfs)
PERO = Overland Flow from LSPC (in-acre/day)
TEMPLSPC = Temperature from LSPC (OC)
DOx = Dissolved Oxygen Concentration from LSPC (mg/l)
BOD5 = Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) Concentration from LSPC (mg/l)
fRatio = Factor to convert BOD5 to BODu = 3.0
F(BODu to Carbon) = Stoichiometric Value to convert BODu into Carbon = 2.67
PHYTO = Phytoplankton Concentration from LSPC (mg/l)
cphyto = Coefficient of Conversion from PHYTO Biomass to Carbon = 0.49
Green Algal Fraction = Fraction of PHYTO that is Green Algal = 0.90
Diatom Algal Fraction = Fraction of PHYTO that is Diatom Algal = 0.10
Cynobacteria Algal Fraction = Fraction of PHYTO that is Cynobacteria Algal = 0.00
flow = Flow from LSPC (cfs)
C = Conversion factor from lbs/day to kg/day * 5.39 = 2.44

The EFDC framework allows the user to parameterize by water quality zones. Examples of
information that may be used to specify water quality zone include reaeration, sediment oxygen
demand, benthic nutrient flux, and more. In 2007 the US EPA Region 4 conducted a study on
Lake Lanier and compiled the results into a report entitled Lake Lanier Production, Respiration,
Sediment Oxygen Demand and Sediment Nutrient Fluxes (US EPA, 2008). In this study, US
EPA Region 4 collected sediment oxygen demand (SOD) and nutrient flux data at seven
locations in Lake Lanier. Using this information, Lake Lanier was divided into seven zones
(Figure 19). These seven zones allowed the kinetics, SOD, and nutrient fluxes to be specified
per zone in the EFDC water quality model.

Point Sources Discharge Data

Daily BOD5, NH3 , Total P, and DO concentrations were obtained from 2001 - 2012 OMRs for
NPDES-permitted facilities that discharge 1.0 MGD or greater. These data were input into the
calibration model. Table 30 is a summary of the actual discharges from these facilities for
calendar years 2001 through 2012. The Gwinnett County F. Wayne Hill plant was not included
in the calibration model until May 2010 since that is when the facility began discharging into
Lake Lanier. However, the facility was included in all TMDL modeling scenarios.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 57

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 19. Water Quality Zones in the Lake Lanier EFDC Water Quality Model

Table 30. Summary of the Major Lake NPDES Dischargers

Average Discharge Data

NPDES
Facility Name BOD5 Total P NH3 DO
Permit No.
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Lake Lanier Islands GA0049115 5.4 2.87 -- --
Cinnamon Cove Condos GA0049051 3.14 4.18
Habersham on Lanier GA0030261 13.8 3.98 -- --
Cumming – Lanier Beach South GA0031674 2.6 0.6 -- --
1
Gainesville – Linwood GA0020168 15.0 4.45 10.42 6.55
Chattahoochee Country Club GA0022471 9.13 2.3
Flowery Branch GA0031933 1.2 0.24 0.47 7.41
Gwinnett County - F Wayne Hill
GA0038130 -- -- -- --
Water Resources Facility
1
Gainesville Linwood’s facility has been upgraded and their current permitted limits are given in Table 3

Sediment Oxygen Demand

US EPA Region 4 collected sediment oxygen demand (SOD) data in 2007 (US EPA, 2008). The
measured SOD measured at 6 locations ranged from -1.1 to -1.86 g O2/m2/day. During model
calibration, the SOD values were adjusted by water quality zone until the dissolved oxygen
profiles and time series plots for simulated and measured data compared well. The final
calibrated SOD values are provided in Table 31.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 58

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 31. Calibrated Sediment Oxygen Demand Values

Water Calibrated Sediment

Description of
Quality Oxygen Demand
Water Quality Zone
Zone (gO2/m2/day)
1 Chestatee River -3.86
2 Upper Lake -2.36
3 Mid Lake Embayments -4.36
4 Mid Lake -2.54
5 Lower Lake Embayments -3.86
6 Lower Lake -1.30
7 Chattahoochee River -2.36

Nutrient Fluxes

In 2001, US EPA Region collected nutrient flux data on Lake Lanier (USEPA, 2008). These data
showed a positive flux of ammonia and phosphorus and a negative flux of nitrate/nitrite,
indicating the sediment is releasing phosphorus and ammonia into the water column and the
sediment is taking nitrate/nitrite out of the water column. During the calibration, it was observed
that the nutrient fluxes, although possibly representative of 2007 conditions, might not be for
years 2001 through 2012. When the 2007 ammonia and total phosphorus nutrient rates were
applied to 2001 through 2012 conditions, there was too much loading occurring, and when the
nitrate+nitrite flux was applied, the sediments were taking too much from the water column.
Therefore, the nutrient flux rates were adjusted by water quality zone and by year to better
represent the impact of fluxes on the water column. In addition it was observed that the
phosphorus fluxes were more critical than the nitrogen fluxes for the calibration, and in fact,
fluxes were only applied to phosphorus. It was also observed that the phosphorus fluxes had
much more of an impact in the upper portions of the lake, particularly on the Chestatee and
Chattahoochee River arms, than in the main body of the lake. Table 32 presents the
phosphorus flux by water quality zone and by year for the calibration. Notice the final calibrated
phosphorus fluxes are 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller than the measured data.

Table 32. Calibrated Nutrient Flux Values (g/m2/day)

Water
Quality 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Zone
1 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0009 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005
2 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0020 -0.0025 -0.0020 -0.0010 -0.0009 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005
7 -0.0010 -0.0010 -0.0020 -0.0025 -0.0020 -0.0010 -0.0009 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005

Modeling Parameters

Table 33 provides the reaction rates and parameters used in the EFDC water quality model for
the modeled algae species.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 59

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 33. EFDC Modeling Parameters

EFDC
Constants and Parameters - Algae Card
Cyano Diatoms Greens

Nitrogen Half-Saturation (mg/L) 08 NA 0.025 0.025

Phosphorus Half-Saturation (mg/L) 08 NA 0.0015 0.0015
Silica Half-Saturation (mg/L) 08 NA 0.200 N/A
Carbon to Chlorophyll a Ratio (mg C/ug Chl a)** 09 NA 0.023-0.059 0.023-0.063
Optimal Depth for Growth (m) 09 NA 1.5 2.0
o
Lower Optimal Temperature for Growth ( C) 11 NA 10.0 20.5
o
Upper Optimal Temperature for Growth ( C) 11 NA 14.5 23
Suboptimal Temperature Coeff for Growth 12 NA 0.01 0.01
Superoptimal Temperature Coeff for Growth 12 NA 0.01 0.01
o
Reference Temperature for Metabolism ( C) 13 NA 20 20
Temperature Coeff for Metabolism 13 NA 0.069 0.069
Carbon Dist Coeff for Metabolism 147 NA 0.000 0.000
3
Half Saturation Constant for DOC Excretion (gO2/m ) 14 NA 0.500 0.500
Phosphorus Dist Coeff of RPOP for Metabolism 18 NA 0.000 0.000
Phosphorus Dist Coeff of LPOP for Metabolism 18 NA 0.000 0.000
Phosphorus Dist Coeff of DOP for Metabolism 20 NA 1.000 1.000
Phosphorus Dist Coeff of PO4 for Metabolism 20 NA 0.000 0.000
Nitrogen Dist Coeff of RPON for Metabolism 22 NA 0.000 0.000
Nitrogen Dist Coeff of LPON for Metabolism 22 NA 0.000 0.000
Nitrogen Dist Coeff of DON for Metabolism 24 NA 1.000 1.000
Nitrogen Dist Coeff of DIN for Metabolism 24 NA 0.000 0.000
Nitrogen to Carbon Ratio (mg N/mg C) 24 NA 0.200 0.200
Maximum Growth Rate (1/day) * 45 NA 1.5-3.0 1.5-3.0
Basal Metabolism Rate (1/day)* 45 NA 0.010 0.010
Predation Rate (1/day)* 45 NA 0.130 0.080
Settling Velocity (m/day) 46 NA 0.100 0.050
Settling Velocity for Refractory POM (m/day) 46 0.150
*- These variables are by Water Quality Zone and are found in the ALGAEGRO.inp file
** -The C:Chla ratio varied each year
Constants and Parameters – Light Extinction EFDC Card Value
3
Light Extinction for TSS (1/m per g/m ) 09 0.000
Light Extinction for Total Suspended Chlorophyll a
0.6667
KeCHL = (0.054 * CHL ) + (0.0088 * CHL) 09 Calculated
Where CHL = Total Chlorophyll a Concentration (ug/L)
Background Light Extinction Coeff. (1/m)* 45 0.500
Constants and Parameters – Carbon EFDC Card Value
Carbon Dist Coeff for Algae Predation - RPOC 14 0.900
Carbon Dist Coeff for Algae Predation - LPOC 14 0.000
Carbon Dist Coeff for Algae Predation - DOC 14 0.100
Minimum Dissolution Rate of RPOC (1/day) 16 0.005
Minimum Dissolution Rate of LPOC (1/day) 16 0.075
Minimum Dissolution Rate of DOC (1/day)*** 16 0.050
Constant Relating RPOC Dissolution Rate to Total Chl a 16 0.000
Constant Relating LPOC Dissolution Rate to Total Chl a 16 0.000
Constant Relating DOC Dissolution Rate to Total Chl a 16 0.000
O
Reference Temperature for Hydrolysis ( C) 17 20
O
Reference Temperature for Mineralization ( C) 17 20
Temperature Effect Constant for Hydrolysis 17 0.069
Temperature Effect Constant for Mineralization 17 0.069
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 60
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Constants and Parameters – Carbon EFDC Card Value

3
Oxic Respiration Half-Saturation Constant for DO (gO2/m ) 17 0.500
3
Half-Saturation Constant for Denitrification (gN/m ) 17 0.100
Ratio of Denitrification Rate to Oxic DOC Respiration Rate 17 0.500
Constants and Parameters – Phosphorus EFDC Card Value
Phosphorus Dist Coeff for Algae Predation - RPOP 18 0.300
Phosphorus Dist Coeff for Algae Predation - LPOP 18 0.000
Phosphorus Dist Coeff for Algae Predation - DOP 18 0.200
Phosphorus Dist Coeff for Algae Predation – Inorganic DOP 18 0.500
Minimum Hydrolysis Rate of RPOP (1/day) 21 0.005
Minimum Hydrolysis Rate of LPOP (1/day) 21 0.075
Minimum Hydrolysis Rate of DOP (1/day) 21 0.100
Constant Relating Hydrolysis Rate of RPOP to Algae 21 0.000
Constant Relating Hydrolysis Rate of LPOP to Algae 21 0.000
Constant Relating Hydrolysis Rate of DOP to Algae 21 0.200
Constant 1 in determine Phosphorus to Carbon Ratio 21 20
Constant 2 in determine Phosphorus to Carbon Ratio 21 20
Constant 2 in determine Phosphorus to Carbon Ratio 21 350
Constants and Parameters – Nitrogen EFDC Card Value
Nitrogen Dist Coeff for Algae Predation – RPON 22 0.900
Nitrogen Dist Coeff for Algae Predation – LPON 22 0.000
Nitrogen Dist Coeff for Algae Predation – DON 22 0.100
Nitrogen s Dist Coeff for Algae Predation – Inorganic DON 22 0.000
3
Maximum Nitrification Rate (gN/m /day) 25 0.007
Nitrification Half-Saturation Constant for DO 25 1.000
Nitrification Half-Saturation Constant for NH4 25 0.100
o
Reference Temperature for Nitrification ( C) 25 27
Suboptimal Temperature Effect Constant for Nitrification 25 0.0045
Superoptimal Temperature Effect Constant for Nitrification 25 0.0045
Minimum Hydrolysis Rate of RPON (1/day) 26 0.005
Minimum Hydrolysis Rate of LPON (1/day) 26 0.075
Minimum Hydrolysis Rate of DON (1/day) 26 0.100
Constant Relating Hydrolysis Rate of RPON to Algae 26 0.000
Constants and Parameters – Nitrogen EFDC Card Value
Constant Relating Hydrolysis Rate of LPON to Algae 26 0.000
Constant Relating Hydrolysis Rate of DON to Algae 26 0.000
Constants and Parameters – Silica EFDC Card Value
Silica Dist. Coeff. for Diatom Predation 27 1.000
Silica Dist. Coeff. for Diatom Metabolism 27 1.000
Silica to Carbon Ratio for Algae Diatoms 27 0.900
Partition Coeff. for Sorbed Dissolved SA 27 0.160
Dissolution Rate of Particulate Silica (PSi) (1/day) 27 0.050
Reference Temperature for PSi Dissolution (OC) 27 20.0
Temperature Effect on PSi Dissolution 27 0.092
Constants and Parameters – Dissolved Oxygen EFDC Card Value
Stoichiometric Algae Oxygen to Carbon (gO2/gC) 28 2.670
Stoichiometric Algae Oxygen to Nitrogen (gO2/gN) 28 4.330
Reaeration Constant *** 28 3.933
Temperature Rate Constant for Reaeration*** 28 1.024
Reaeration Adjustment Factor*** 46 1.000
*- These variables are by Water Quality Zone and are found in the ALGAEGRO.inp file
*** - These variables are by Water Quality Zone and are found in the KINETICS.inp file
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 61
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

4.4 Model Calibration and Verification

The simulation period for the hydrodynamic model EFDC was from January 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2012. The model simulated water surface elevation, flows, and temperature.
To help minimize the difference between simulated and measured water surface elevation, the
corrective flow feature of EFDC was applied. This feature allows EFDC to calculate, at a given
time scale, the amount of flow required to force a match between the calculated and observed
water surface elevations. The “corrective flow,” represents the error in volume associated with
the model. This flow can be due to a combination of inaccurate readings of flow inputs or
outputs, inaccurate estimates of watershed flow, spatial discrepancies in meteorological data, or
unaccounted flow terms. Figure 20 shows the water surface elevation calibration at the Lanier
Dam forebay for the period 2001 through 2007.

Figure 20. Water Surface Elevation Calibration at the Buford Dam Forebay for the Period
2001-2007

Temperature is simulated in EFDC using solar radiation, atmospheric temperature, heat transfer
at the water surface, and the temperature of the hydraulic inputs. The Lake Lanier EFDC model
was calibrated to water temperature profile data for 2001 through 2012 measured by GA EPD at
five stations throughout the lake. The model captures the stratification very well at all the
stations along the main channel of the lake, as well as in the embayment stations. The model
tends to slightly over predict the bottom temperature, particularly along the deeper main stem
stations. The degree of stratification between bottom and surface is also captured. Figure 21
shows the temperature calibration at the Lanier Dam forebay, during 2006.

The model calibration period was determined from an examination of the GA EPD 2001-2012
water quality data for the lake. The data examined included chlorophyll a, nitrogen components,
phosphorus components, dissolved oxygen profiles, and water temperature profiles. The
calibration models were run using input data for this period, including boundary conditions and
meteorological data.

Measured chlorophyll a, ortho-phosphate, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, ammonia, and

nitrate/nitrate data for the 2001 through 2012 growing seasons were used as instream targets to
calibrate the model. Figure 22 shows the chlorophyll a calibration curves for the five compliance
points for 2001-2012.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 62

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 21. Temperature Calibration at the Buford Dam Forebay for 2006

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 63

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 64

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 22. Growing Season Average Chlorophyll a Calibration at the Five Lake Lanier
Compliance Points for 2001 – 2012

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 65

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

4.5 Critical Conditions Models

The critical conditions model was used to assess the nutrient loads and chlorophyll a, and to
determine if a problem exists requiring regulatory intervention. Model critical conditions were
developed in accordance with GA EPD standard practices (GA EPD, 1978).

The complex dynamics simulated by the models demonstrated the critical conditions for nutrient
uptake and the corresponding algal growth in the embayment. The critical conditions include:

 Meteorological conditions
 Available sunlight
 Watershed flows
 Retention time in embayment
 High water temperatures
 Watershed nutrient loads

The most critical time period for excess algal growth appears to be the high-flow year when
excess nutrients have been delivered to the system. The high-flow critical conditions
incorporated in this TMDL are assumed to represent the most critical design conditions thereby
providing year-round protection of water quality. During these years, the rainfall is high, sunlight
can be unlimited, and nutrient fluxes may be high. The large amounts of nutrients delivered
during these high-flow sunny periods can cause algae to bloom and measured chlorophyll a can
exceed the numeric standards.

Drought conditions were experienced a couple of times during the period from 2001 through
2012. This simulation period exhibited a wide variety of flow conditions, which included low
flows drought conditions in 2001-2002, 2006-2007, and 2012, high flows in 2003, 2005, and
2009-2010, and normal flows in 2004, 2008, and 2011.

The critical condition scenario was run with the NPDES point sources at the full permit loads.
The permit limits are listed in Table 3. Results of permit limits runs are plotted in the graphs in
Figure 23 along with the current conditions and TMDL results at the five Lake Lanier compliance
points for comparison.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 66

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 67

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 68

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Figure 23. Growing Season Chlorophyll a Levels at Existing and Critical Conditions and
the TMDL at the Five Lake Lanier Compliance Points

4.5.1 ACF Master Water Control Manual Update

In December 2016, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District released the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the updated Master Water Control Manual,
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, Alabama, Florida, Georgia. The Manual
includes appendices prepared for each of the individual projects in the ACF Basin and is the
guide used by the USACE to operate the five reservoir projects on the Chattahoochee River. It
also includes a water supply storage assessment addressing reallocation of storage in Lake
Lanier. On March 30, 2017 the Corps signed the Record of Decision for the EIS and approved
the Water Control Manuals for the individual projects.

A second critical conditions model scenario was run using the lake levels and dam releases that
would be expected for the period from 2001-2012, if Buford Dam and Lake Lanier were
operated using the recently approved Water Control Manual. This scenario resulted in an
additional allowable Total phosphorus load of 6,000 lbs/yr.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 69

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

5.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is the amount of a pollutant that can be assimilated by the
receiving waterbody without exceeding the applicable water quality standard, which in this case,
is the growing season average chlorophyll a standards. A TMDL is the sum of the individual
waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources,
as well as natural background (40 CFR 130.2) for a given waterbody. The TMDL must also
include a margin of safety (MOS), either implicitly or explicitly, that accounts for the uncertainty
in the relationship between pollutant loads and the water quality response of the receiving water
body. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate
measures; for nutrients the TMDLs can be expressed as lbs/day or lbs/yr.

A TMDL is expressed as follows:

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS

The TMDL calculates the WLAs and LAs with margins of safety to meet the lake’s water quality
standards. The allocations are based on estimates that use the best available data and provide
the basis to establish or modify existing controls so that water quality standards can be
achieved. In developing a TMDL, it is important to consider whether adequate information is
available to identify the sources, fate, and transport of the pollutant to be controlled.

TMDLs may be developed using a phased approach, and this approach will be used here.
Under a phased approach, the TMDL includes: 1) WLAs that confirm existing limits or lead to
new limits, and 2) LAs that confirm existing controls or include implementing new controls (US
EPA, 1991). A phased TMDL requires additional data be collected to determine if load
reductions required by the TMDL are leading to the attainment of water quality standards. In the
next phase, implementation strategies will be reviewed and the TMDLs that are presented
below will be refined as necessary.

The TMDL Implementation Plan describes the installation and evaluation of point and nonpoint
source control measures, data collection, assessment of water quality standard attainment, and
if needed, additional modeling. Future monitoring of the listed segment water quality will then
be used to evaluate this phase of the TMDL, and if necessary, to reallocate the loads. The
nutrient loads calculated for each listed lake segment include the sum of the total loads from all
point and nonpoint sources for the segment.

5.1 Waste Load Allocations

The waste load allocation is the portion of the receiving waterbody’s loading capacity that is
allocated to existing and future point sources. WLAs are provided to the point sources from
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems with NPDES effluent limits. The
maximum phosphorus and nitrogen loads under current permits for these wastewater treatment
facilities are given in Table 34. The four mines do not discharge nutrients at levels above
background; therefore, they are not given permit limits, but will be required to monitor nutrient
levels in their discharge.

The sum of the Total Phosphorus WLAs is 37,800 lbs/year and the sum of the Total Nitrogen
WLAs is 5,234,945 lbs/year, which are the total loads that can be discharged into the Lake
Lanier watershed. The TMDLs are based on the sum total of the WLAs discharged into Lake

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 70

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Lanier and its watershed. It is within the discretion of the Director of Georgia EPD to reallocate
WLAs, as long as the total of the individual WLAs add up to the Total WLAs given above.

Table 34 provides the current, interim, and future TMDL nutrient loads. Current TMDL loads are
based on current permits plus current wasteload allocation requests. The future TMDL loads
are based on the projected water demands and projected wastewater flows included in the 2017
Water Resource Management Plan from the North Metropolitan Georgia Water Planning
District. Lake operations used were those in the final USACE Water Control Manual issued in
2016 and adopted in 2017. If Corps operations of the lake change in ways that affect
assimilative capacity, the TMDL may be revised. The interim TMDL loads are an example of
intermediary loads that might be allocated in the future, but actual allocations will depend on
where growth occurs and the timing of future wasteload allocation requests. Depending on
future needs, it is possible a point source load could be moved with the associated flow from
one point source to another point source.

If there are proposed expansions, then the total WLA would not change. Allowable
concentrations may need to be reduced in proportion to the flow. If discharges from the various
facilities change from those assumed in this TMDL, then loads may need to be reallocated,
which could require pollutant trading. Trading may occur between point sources, between point
and non-point sources, or between nonpoint sources as part of the TMDL as long as
appropriate credits are documented and maintained so that the TMDL is met. If the total WLA
should need to increase, the LA would need to be reduced via pollutant trading. Any trade must
be done under the purview of a pollutant trading guidance document for Georgia and it is within
the discretion of the Director of Georgia EPD to reallocate WLAs and/or LA within the TMDL in
order to meet water quality standards within Lake Lanier.

Please note that the model showed that the lake is phosphorus limited; therefore, an adaptive
management approach will be used to implement the nutrient WLAs in NPDES permits.
Georgia EPD will incorporate the Total Phosphorus WLAs into NPDES permits within eighteen
months and permittees may be given compliance schedules. Using the adaptive management
approach, the Total Nitrogen WLAs will not be implemented in permits at this time as long as
the Lake Lanier chlorophyll a and Total Nitrogen criteria are met. However, there is some
concern that single nutrient control can enhance export of the uncontrolled nutrient and degrade
downstream water quality. Future monitoring will be conducted to ensure there are no
downstream impacts (excess chlorophyll a or macrophytes) in the Chattahoochee River or
downstream lakes including West Point. If there are violations of the Total Nitrogen and
chlorophyll a criteria in the future, TMDLs to address these violations will be developed. The
Total Nitrogen WLAs will be revised, if necessary, and incorporated into the NPDES permits
with compliance schedules to meet these new limits.

State and Federal Rules define storm water discharges covered by NPDES permits as point
sources. However, storm water discharges are from diffuse sources and there are multiple
storm water outfalls. Storm water sources (point and nonpoint) are different than traditional
NPDES permitted sources in four respects: 1) they do not produce a continuous (pollutant
loading) discharge; 2) their pollutant loading depends on the intensity, duration, and frequency
of rainfall events, over which the permittee has no control; 3) the activities contributing to the
pollutant loading may include the various allowable activities of others, and control of these
activities is not solely within the discretion of the permittee; and 4) they do not have wastewater
treatment plants that control specific pollutants to meet numeric limits.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 71

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

34. Total Nutrient WLAs for the Lake Lanier Facilities

Current Permit Current TMDL Interim TMDL Future TMDL
Receiving Stream/
NPDES Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Facility Name
Permit No. Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen
Reach ID
(lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)
Gwinnett County - F Wayne Lake Lanier
GA0038130 9,741 1,509,874 12,176 1,887,342 12,176 1,887,342 14,612 2,264,810
Hill Water Resources Facility GAR031300010821
Lake Lanier
Flowery Branch GA0031933 158 17,047
GAR031300010820
265 23,312 441 68,492 528 82,571
Cinnamon Cove Condos - Lake Lanier
GA0049051 107 6,265
Flowery Branch GAR031300010820
Gainesville - Flat Creek Flat Creek
GA0021156 4,749 456,615 2,922 456,615 2,922 456,615 2,922 456,615
WPCP GAR031300010819
Lake Lanier
Gainesville - Linwood GA0020168 2,770 266,359 1,705 266,359 1,705 266,359 1,705 266,359
GAR031300010818
Hall County Proposed Lake Lanier - - - - 102 15,221 122 19,026
Cumming - Lanier Beach Lake Lanier
GA0031674 58 1,619 1,826 285,384 3,050 475,641 3,653 570,769
South GAR031300010821
Forsyth County Proposed Lake Lanier - - 1,218 190,256 3,050 475,641 3,562 570,769

Forsyth County Proposed Lake Lanier - - 1,017 159,815 1,187 190,256

Lake Lanier
Habersham on Lanier GA0030261 167 9,845 167 9,845 167 9,845 167 9,845
GAR031300010821
Lake Lanier
Lake Lanier Islands GA0049115 139 31,324 139 31,324 139 31,324 139 31,324
GAR031300010821
Chattahoochee Country Lake Lanier
GA0022471 15 63 15 63 15 63 15 63
Club GAR031300010818
Spout Springs Proposed - - - - - 386 60,882 463 72,297
Hagen Creek
Lula Pond WPCP GA0039039 275 15,982 275 15,982 386 60,882 463 72,297
GAR031300010818
Tesnatee Creek
Cleveland WPCP GA0036820 4,207 50,228 1,142 50,228 1,142 50,228 1,142 50,228
GAR031300010705
Yahoola Creek
Dahlonega WPCP GA0026077 570 87,670 570 87,670 570 87,670 584 146,117
GAR031300010705
Lake Qualatchee
Mountain Lakes Resort GA0046400 71 805 71 805 71 805 71 805
GAR031300010705
Jenny Creek
Camp Barney Medintz GA0034983 201 1,432 201 1,432 201 1,432 201 1,432
GAR031300010705

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 72

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Current Permit Current TMDL Interim TMDL Future TMDL

Receiving Stream/
NPDES Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Facility Name
Permit No. Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen
Reach ID
(lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)
Unnamed Creek to
Oak Grove MHP GA0034207 Cane Ck 8 447 8 447 8 447 8 447
GAR031300010705
Soquee River
Clarkesville WPCP GA0032514 2,539 67,122 1,142 67,122 1,142 67,122 1,142 67,122
GAR031300010818
Hazel Creek
Demorest WPCP GA0032506 974 71,597 974 71,597 974 71,597 974 71,597
GAR031300010818
South Fork of Mud Creek
Cornelia WPCP GA0021504 10,046 123,286 4,566 118,720 3,425 158,293 1,425 237,440
GAR031300010818
South Fork Little Mud Ck
Baldwin WPCP GA0033243 2,435 39,208 1,218 39,208 1,218 39,208 1,218 39,208
GAR031300010818
Wauka Mountain East Fork Little River
GA0032697 53 1,163 53 1,163 53 1,163 53 1,163
Elementary School GAR031300010818
Unnamed Trib to Wahoo Ck
North Hall High School GA0034886 423 2,685 423 2,685 423 2,685 423 2,685
GAR031300010818
Unnamed trib to Little Rvr
Baker & Glover MHP GA0027049 49 984 49 984 49 984 49 984
GAR031300010818
Unnamed trib to Flat Ck
Dixie MHP - Gainesville GA0023043 17 385 17 385 17 385 17 385
GAR031300010819
Unnamed trib to Balus Ck
Shady Grove MHP GA0023469 13 264 13 264 13 264 13 264
GAR031300010819
Soquee River
Scovill Fasteners Inc. GA0001112 1,460 8,067 730 8,067 730 8,067 730 8,067
GAR031300010818
Vulcan Construction Unnamed trib to Long Brch
GA0037508 - - Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor
Materials - Dahlonega II GAR031300010705
Trib to Six Mile Creek
Buckhorn Ventures LLC GA0037209 - - Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor
GAR031300010820
Hazel Creek
Hanson Aggregates SE GA0046086 - - Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor
GAR031300010818
Shoal Creek Tributary
Long Mountain Quarry GA0046302 - - Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor
GAR031300010705
Future Allocations - - - - 5,918 1,613,120 2,264 776,474 215 -

Total 41,244 2,734,533 37,800 5,234,941 37,809 5,234,941 37,800 5,234,941

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 73

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

The intent of storm water NPDES permits is not to treat the water after collection, but to reduce
the exposure of storm water to pollutants by implementing various controls. It would be
infeasible and prohibitively expensive to control pollutant discharges from each storm water
outfall. Therefore, storm water NPDES permits require the establishment of controls or BMPs to
reduce the pollutants entering the environment. The waste load allocations from storm water
discharges associated with MS4s (WLAsw) are estimated based on the percentage of urban
area in each watershed covered by the MS4 storm water permit. At this time, the portion of each
pollutant source that goes directly to a permitted storm sewer and that which goes through non-
permitted point sources, or is sheet flow or agricultural runoff, has not been clearly defined.
Therefore, it is assumed that approximately 70 percent of storm water runoff from the regulated
urban area is collected by the municipal separate storm sewer systems.

Under the phased approach of these TMDLs, future phases of TMDL development will attempt
to further define the sources of pollutants and the portion that enters the permitted storm sewer
systems. As more information is collected and these TMDLs are implemented, it will become
clearer which BMPs are needed and how water quality standards can be achieved.

5.2 Load Allocations

The load allocation is the portion of the receiving water’s loading capacity that is attributed to
existing or future nonpoint sources or to natural background sources. Nonpoint sources are
identified in 40 CFR 130.6 as follows:

 Residual waste;
 Land disposal;
 Agricultural and silvicultural;
 Mines;
 Construction;
 Saltwater intrusion; and
 Urban storm water (non-permitted).

As described above, there are two types of load allocations: loads to the stream independent of
precipitation, including sources such as failing septic systems, leachate from landfills, animals in
the stream, leaking sewer system collection lines, and background loads; and loads associated
with nutrient accumulation on land surfaces that is washed off during storm events, including
runoff from saturated LAS fields. To determine the LA, the nutrient accumulation loading rates
for each land use and the associated land use areas were used.

5.3 Seasonal Variation

The Georgia lake chlorophyll a criteria are based on the growing season average. The most
critical time period for excess algal growth appears to be the high-flow years when excess
nutrients have been delivered to the system. A wide variety of flow conditions were exhibited
during the simulation period, 2001-2012. This included low flow drought conditions in 2001-
2002, 2006-2007, and 2012, high flows in 2003, 2005, and 2009-2010, and normal flows in
2004, 2008, and 2011.

The high-flow critical conditions incorporated in this TMDL are assumed to represent the most
critical design conditions thereby providing year-round protection of water quality. This TMDL is
expressed as a total load based on the nutrient accumulation rate for each land use.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 74

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

5.4 Margin of Safety

The MOS is a required component of TMDL development. There are two basic methods for
incorporating the MOS: 1) implicitly incorporate the MOS using conservative modeling
assumptions to develop allocations; or 2) explicitly specify a portion of the TMDL as the MOS
and use the remainder for allocations.

For this TMDL, the MOS was implicitly incorporated by using the following conservative
modeling assumptions:

 Critical low flows into the embayment

 Hot summer temperatures
 Critical meteorological conditions
 Long retention times
 Conservative reaction rates

5.5 Total Nutrient Load

The load reductions for the TMDL are based on recommendations by a group of Lake Lanier
partners and stakeholders. This group consisted of various municipal and county utilities,
forestry and agricultural partners, and environmental groups. The group was given a modeling
tool that provided the decrease in chlorophyll a levels as a result of changes in the Total P loads
from point sources (WLA), and agricultural and urban nonpoint sources (LA). The group
determined that to meet the chlorophyll a limits in the lake at the various compliance points, the
Total Phosphorus loads from point sources had to be reduced 8.35%, the urban nutrient
accumulation loading rates had to be reduced by 50%, the agricultural nutrient accumulation
loading rates, including chicken litter application, had to be reduced by 34%, and the failing
septic tanks had to be reduced by 50%. The permitted Total P loads from the following point
sources were reduced: Baldwin (50%), Clarkesville (55%), Cleveland (72.8%), and Cornelia
(54.5%).

The nutrient load that enters the lake each year is dependent on the annual rainfall. Table 35
presents the annual Total Phosphorus load delivered to the major tributaries compliance points.
This table includes the annual load from the current permit model run, as well as the percent
reduction needed to meet the TMDL assuming reduction in the total phosphorus loads from the
facilities located in the upper watershed and the agricultural, urban and septic loadings outlined
above.

Table 36 presents the total load allocation expressed in lbs/day for Lake Lanier compliance
points including the 303(d) listed segment. It provides the current loads and corresponding
TMDLs, WLAs (WLA and WLAsw), LAs, MOSs, and percent load reductions. The LA and WLAsw
are based on each land use accumulation rate. The WLA is the daily amount that can be
discharged calculated for the TMDL and will not be used for permitting, but is given for
accounting purposes only. To gain a Phosphorus load for future growth, the LA or another WLA
would have to be reduced via pollutant trading. The State of Georgia’s policy is to support
returns of highly treated wastewater to Lake Lanier and its watershed. Increasing return flows in
the future, while meeting water quality standards may require tighter limits on concentrations or
pollutant trading to reduce another WLA or LA. The relationship between instream water quality
and the potential sources of pollutant loading is an important component of TMDL development,
and is the basis for later implementation of corrective measures and BMPs.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 75

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 35. Annual Total Phosphorus Load Delivered to Lake Lanier

Total P Annual Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr)

Station Standard Run
(lbs/yr) 2001 2002 2012 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Current
49,722 70,961 98,031 82,413 86,858 62,595 45,550 50,531 119,534 83,816 66,304 64,000
Permit
Chattahoochee
River at Belton 178,000 TMDL 37,163 55,630 78,941 65,653 68,714 49,082 34,140 44,745 102,984 73,206 57,834 56,320
Bridge Road
Reduction 25.3% 21.6% 19.5% 20.3% 20.9% 21.6% 25.0% 11.5% 13.8% 12.7% 12.8% 12.0%
Current
19,925 27,022 39,155 31,103 27,009 22,223 14,248 19,602 53,308 30,946 23,129 26,223
Permit
Chestatee River
at Georgia 118,000 TMDL 15,148 21,525 32,400 25,252 21,314 17,371 10,206 17,045 47,041 27,261 20,312 22,934
Highway 400
Reduction 24.0% 20.3% 17.3% 18.8% 21.1% 21.8% 28.4% 13.0% 11.8% 11.9% 12.2% 12.5%
Current
7,040 7,034 7,718 7,638 7,125 6,472 6,061 5,630 7,317 5,945 5,401 5,536
Permit l
Flat Creek at
14,400 TMDL 6,033 6,051 6,442 6,408 6,071 5,691 5,434 4,503 5,546 4,699 4,379 4,468
McEver Road
Reduction 14.3% 14.0% 16.5% 16.1% 14.8% 12.1% 10.3% 20.0% 24.2% 21.0% 18.9% 19.3%

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 76

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Table 36. Total Daily Nutrient Loads, Wasteloads, and Required Load Reductions

Lake Lanier – Lake Lanier – Lake Lanier – Lake Lanier – Lake Lanier –
Lake Segment Lanier Bridge Boling Bridge Browns Bridge Flowery Branch Dam Forebay
GAR031300010818 GAR031300010705 GAR031300010819 GAR031300010820 GAR031300010821
Total
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Phosphoru
Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Nitrogen Phosphorus
s
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
WLA
1,634 58 385 14 2,019 71 3,272 85 7,590 113
(lbs/day)
Permitted

WLAsw
Current

100 4 20 1 143 6 245 10 361 15

Load

(lbs/day)
LA
5,638 227 2,219 89 8,145 322 8,951 355 9,232 370
(lbs/day
Total Load
7,373 289 2,625 103 10,307 399 12,468 449 17,183 498
(lbs/day)
WLA
2,153 23 545 5 3,220 32 4,671 41 14,342 103
(lbs/day)
WLAsw
Future TMDL
Components

83 3 14 1 118 5 203 8 310 12

(lbs/day)
LA
4,646 188 1,885 76 6,649 269 7,417 291 7,599 302
(lbs/day)
MOS
Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit Implicit
(lbs/day)
TMDL
6,882 214 2,444 82 9,987 305 12,291 340 22,251 417
(lbs/day)
Percent Reduction
- 60.5% - 60.3% - 55.9% - 51.6% - 8.8%
WLA
Percent Reduction
17.6% 17.4% 32.1% 14.4% 17.0% 16.7% 17.1% 17.9% 14.1% 18.4%
WLAsw
Percent Reduction
17.6% 17.4% 15.1% 14.4% 18.4% 16.7% 17.1% 17.9% 17.7% 18.4%
LA
Percent Reduction
6.7% 26.0% 6.9% 20.5% 3.1% 23.7% 1.4% 24.2% - 16.3%
TMDL

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 77

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The TMDL process consists of an evaluation of the sub-watersheds for each 303(d) listed
stream segment to identify, as best as possible, the sources of the nutrient loads causing the
stream to exceed lake standards. The TMDL analysis was performed using the best available
data to specify WLAs and LAs that will meet chlorophyll a water quality criteria to support the
use classification specified for each listed segment.

This TMDL represents part of a long-term process to reduce nutrient loadings to meet water
quality standards in Lake Lanier. Implementation strategies will be reviewed and the TMDLs will
be refined as necessary in the next phase. The phased approach will support progress toward
water quality standard attainment in the future. In accordance with US EPA TMDL guidance,
these TMDLs may be revised based on the results of future monitoring and source
characterization data efforts. The following recommendations emphasize further source
identification and involve the collection of data to support the current allocations and subsequent
source reductions. If new information becomes available indicating that revisions in the model
on which the TMDL is based are needed, EPD will undertake revisions and may redo the TMDL
based on results of the revised model. The TMDL revisions may indicate that higher or lower
levels of point source or nonpoint source controls are required to meet the applicable water
quality standards.

6.1 Monitoring

Water quality monitoring is conducted at a number of locations across the State each year.
Sampling is conducted statewide by EPD personnel in Atlanta, Brunswick, Cartersville, and
Tifton. Additional sites are added as necessary.

Compliance with the TMDL will be determined through annual monitoring in the lake and
compliance with water quality standards. The TMDL Implementation Plan will also outline an
appropriate water quality monitoring program for the Lake Lanier watershed. The monitoring
program will be developed to help identify the various nutrient sources. The monitoring program
may be used to verify the 303(d) stream segment listings.

6.2 Nutrient Management Practices

Based on the findings of the source assessment, NPDES point source nutrient loads from
wastewater treatment facilities in the upper Chattahoochee River watershed do contribute to the
impairment of the listed stream segments. The TMDL requires that the Total Phosphorus limit
for four facilities be revised. Other significant sources can be nutrient loads from NPDES
permitted MS4 areas, which may be significant, but the sources of storm water cannot be easily
separated. Sources of nutrients in urban areas include wastes that are attributable to fertilizers,
domestic animals, leaks and overflows from sanitary sewer systems, illicit discharges of sanitary
waste, leaking septic systems, runoff from improper disposal of waste materials, and leachate
from both operational and closed landfills. In agricultural areas, potential sources of nutrients
may include CAFOs, animals grazing in pastures, manure application, manure lagoons, and
direct access of livestock to streams. Wildlife, especially waterfowl, can also be a significant
source of nutrients.

Nutrient management practices are recommended to reduce nutrient source loads to the listed
303(d) stream segments, with the result of achieving the lake chlorophyll a standard criteria.
These recommended management practices include:
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 78
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

 Compliance with NPDES (wastewater, construction, industrial stormwater, and/or MS4)

permit limits and requirements;
 Implementation of recommended Water Quality management practices in the Coosa-
North Georgia Regional Water Plan (GA EPD, 2017);
 Implementation of required Action Items in the Water Resource Management Plan
developed by the Metro-North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD, 2017)
 Implementation of Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry (GFC, 2009);
 Implementation of Best Management Practices for Georgia Agriculture (GSWCC, 2013)
 Adoption of National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practices
for agriculture;
 Adoption of proper fertilization practices;
 Adherence to the Surface Mining Land Use Plan prepared as part of the Surface Mining
Permit Application;
 Implementation of the Georgia Better Back Roads Field Manual (GA RCDC, 2009) and
adoption of additional practices for proper unpaved road maintenance;
 Implementation of individual Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for land
disturbing activities; and application of the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in
Georgia (GSWCC, 2016)
 Implementation of the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (ARC, 2016) to
facilitate prevention and mitigation of stream bank erosion due to increased stream flow
and velocities caused by urban runoff through structural storm water BMP installation.
 Adherence to DNR River Corridor Protection guidelines;
 Mitigation and prevention of riparian buffer loss due to land disturbing activities;
 Promulgation and enforcement of local natural resource protection ordinances such as
land development, stormwater, water protection, protection of environmentally sensitive
areas, and others.

6.2.1 Point Source Approaches

Point sources are defined as discharges of treated wastewater or storm water into rivers and
streams at discrete locations. The NPDES permit program provides a basis for issuing
municipal, industrial, and storm water permits, monitoring and compliance with limitations, and
appropriate enforcement actions for violations.

In accordance with GA EPD rules and regulations, all discharges from point source facilities are
required to be in compliance with the conditions of their NPDES permit at all times. In the
future, municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities with the potential for nutrients to
be present in their discharge will be permitted if it can be shown that the discharge will met
applicable water quality standards, which may require a decrease in non-point source loads or
another point source load. This may be allowed under a pollutant-trading program that will allow
point to point trading, point to nonpoint source trading and/or nonpoint (agricultural) to nonpoint
(urban) source trading. The WLA for wastewater treatment facilities may be increased if there is
an appropriate pollutant trade that requires reductions in the nonpoint source load allocation
(LA) and maintenance of those reductions or the net WLAs does not change by having a
nutrient trade between point sources. Any trade must be done under the purview of a pollutant
trading guidance document for Georgia and it is within the discretion of the Director of Georgia
EPD to reallocate WLAs and/or LA within the TMDL in order to meet water quality standards
within Lake Lanier. In addition, the permits will include monitoring and reporting requirements.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 79

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

6.2.2 Nonpoint Source Approaches

The GA EPD is responsible for administering and enforcing laws to protect the waters of the
State. The GA EPD is the lead agency for implementing the State’s Nonpoint Source
Management Program. Regulatory responsibilities that have a bearing on nonpoint source
pollution include establishing water quality standards and use classifications, assessing and
reporting water quality conditions, and regulating land use activities that may affect water
quality. Georgia is working with local governments and agricultural and forestry agencies such
as the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, and the Georgia Forestry Commission, to foster the implementation of BMPs to
address nonpoint source pollution. In addition, public education efforts are being targeted to
individual stakeholders to provide information regarding the use of BMPs to protect water
quality. The following sections describe, in more detail, recommendations to reduce nonpoint
source loads of nutrient in Georgia’s surface waters.

GA EPD issues LAS permits that allow facilities to apply wastewater at agronomic rates. If
these systems are operated in accordance with their permits and maintain vegetative buffers to
mitigate potential stormwater flows for the sites, it is not expected these systems will have an
impact on the lake. The modeled assumption that some nutrients from the LAS may washoff
these sites during rainfall events is a conservative assumption and does not reflect a conclusion
that these LAS may actually impact the lake. Determining whether any individual LAS has an
impact on the lake would require a site-specific evaluation.

6.2.2.1 Agricultural Sources

The GA EPD should coordinate with other agencies that are responsible for agricultural
activities in the state to address issues concerning nutrient loadings from agricultural lands. It is
recommended that information (e.g., livestock populations by sub-watershed, animal access to
streams, manure storage and application practices, etc.) be periodically reviewed so that
watershed evaluations can be updated to reflect current conditions. It is also recommended that
BMPs be utilized to reduce the amount of nutrients transported to surface waters from
agricultural sources to the maximum extent practicable.

The following three organizations have primary responsibility for working with farmers to
promote soil and water conservation and to protect water quality:

 University of Georgia (UGA) - Cooperative Extension Service;

 Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC); and
 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

UGA has faculty, County Cooperative Extension Agents, and technical specialists who provide
services in several key areas relating to agricultural impacts on water quality.

The GA EPD designated the GSWCC as the lead agency for agricultural Nonpoint Source
Management in the State. The GSWCC develops nonpoint source management programs and
conducts educational activities to promote conservation and protection of land and water
devoted to agricultural uses.

The NRCS works with federal, state, and local governments to provide financial and technical
assistance to farmers. The NRCS develops standards and specifications for BMPs that are to
be used to improve, protect, and/or maintain our state’s natural resources. In addition, every
five years, the NRCS conducts the National Resources Inventory (NRI). The NRI is a
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 80
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

statistically-based sample of trends in land use and natural resource conditions that covers non-
federal land in the United States.

The NRCS is also providing technical assistance to the GSWCC and the GA EPD with the
Georgia River Basin Planning Program. Planning activities associated with this program will
describe conditions of the agricultural natural resource base once every five years. It is
recommended that the GSWCC and the NRCS continue to encourage BMP implementation,
education efforts, and river basin surveys with regard to river basin planning.

All farmers should develop and implement a Nutrient Management Plan. In addition, a nutrient
management assessment, such as EPA’s Clean EAST program or similar initiative, should be
utilized to ensure that farmers have implemented appropriate nutrient management plans.

All farmers should conduct a Phosphorus Index test on their farm. The Phosphorus Index is a
phosphorus assessment tool that determines the ability of phosphorus to move off the land into
a waterbody. The Phosphorus Index is based on eight site characteristics including:

 soil erosion
 irrigation erosion
 runoff class
 soil P test
 P fertilizer application rate
 P fertilizer application method
 organic P source application rate
 organic P source application method

If the Phosphorus Index indicates there is a high potential for phosphorus to move from the site,
then BMPs should be utilized to reduce the amount of nutrient transported to surface waters
from agricultural sources to the maximum extent practicable. In areas where there are elevated
nutrient levels in the soil due to historic manure application, BMP’s should be utilized which will
minimize the movement of nutrients in storm water. These BMPs may include using riparian
buffers, reducing the application rate, planting and harvesting crops, determining the
appropriate agronomic rate of manure and fertilizer applications using a Nutrient Management
Plan and Phosphorus Index tool, changing the time of application, composting the manure,
transporting the manure out of the Lake Lanier watershed to other areas that are nutrient
deficient, or incinerating the manure as an alternative fuel source.

6.2.2.2 Urban Sources

Both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients can be significant in the Lake Lanier watershed
urban areas. Urban sources of nutrients can best be addressed using a strategy that involves
public participation and intergovernmental coordination to reduce the discharge of nutrients to
the maximum extent practicable. Management practices, control techniques, public education,
and other appropriate methods and provisions may be employed. In addition to water quality
monitoring programs, discussed in Section 6.1, the following activities and programs conducted
by cities, counties, and state agencies are recommended:

 Uphold requirements that all new and replacement sanitary sewage systems be
designed to minimize discharges into storm sewer systems;

 Further develop and streamline mechanisms for reporting and correcting illicit
connections, breaks, and general sanitary sewer system problems;

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 81

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

 Sustained compliance with storm water NPDES permit requirements;

 Encourage local governments to implement post construction stormwater

ordinances that require the use of green infrastructure/runoff reduction controls to
eliminate the discharge of runoff from all storm events up to the first inch for all
new construction projects, as well as re-development projects;

 Work with County Health Departments to encourage proper installation and

maintenance of septic tanks; and

 Continue efforts to increase public awareness and education towards the impact
of human activities in urban settings on water quality, ranging from the
consequences of industrial and municipal discharges to the activities of individuals
in residential neighborhoods including appropriate application of fertilizers and the
use of green infrastructure to reduce and reuse stormwater.

Nutrients, specifically phosphorus, bind to sediment. The phosphorus load delivered to the lake
can be reduced by controlling erosion and sedimentation. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act,
established in 1975, provides the mechanism for controlling erosion and sedimentation from
land-disturbing activities. This Act establishes a permitting process for land-disturbing activities.
Many local governments and counties have adopted erosion and sedimentation ordinances and
have been given authority to issue and enforce permits for land-disturbing activities.
Approximately 113 counties and 237 municipalities in Georgia have been certified as the local
issuing authority. In areas where local governments have not been certified as an issuing
authority, the GA EPD is responsible for permitting, inspecting, and enforcing the Erosion and
Sedimentation Act.

To receive a land-disturbing permit, an applicant must submit an erosion and sedimentation

control plan that incorporates specific conservation and engineering BMPs. The Manual for
Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, adopted in 2016, developed by the State Soil and
Water Conservation Commission, may be used as a guide to develop erosion and
sedimentation control plans (GSWCC, 1997).

Local governments, with oversight by the GA EPD and the Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, are primarily responsible for implementing the Georgia Erosion and
Sedimentation Act, O.C.G.A. §12-7-1 (amended in 2003). It is recommended that the
local and State governments continue to work to implement the provisions of the Georgia
Erosion and Sedimentation Act across Georgia.

Once the sediment reaches the lake, there are concerns that the bound nutrients may be
released back into the water column. It may be possible to reduce this internal nutrient
load by removing sediment from the lake or control the conditions that cause the nutrients
to be released from the bottom sediments in the lake.

6.3 Reasonable Assurance

Permitted discharges will be regulated through the NPDES permitting process described in this
report. This TMDL looked at the impact of these discharges to the lake water quality and did not
see any significant effects on dissolved oxygen. With implementation of the TMDL, the lake
was shown to meet the lake-specific chlorophyll a and nutrient criteria. Therefore, this TMDL
can serve as the antidegradation analysis for facilities with expanded WLAs. If new information
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 82
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

becomes available that will requires a revision to the TMDL and WLAs, the revised TDML will
serve as the antidegradation analysis.

An allocation to a point source discharger does not automatically result in a permit limit or a
monitoring requirement. Through its NPDES permitting process, GA EPD will determine
whether a new or existing discharger has a reasonable potential of discharging nutrient levels
equal to or greater than the total allocated load. The results of this reasonable potential
analysis will determine the specific type of requirements in an individual facility’s NPDES permit.
As part of its analysis, the GA EPD will use its EPA approved 2003 NPDES Reasonable
Potential Procedures to determine whether monitoring requirements or effluent limitations are
necessary.

Georgia is working with local governments, agricultural and forestry agencies, such as the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, and the Georgia Forestry Commission, to foster the implementation of best
management practices to address nonpoint sources. In addition, public education efforts will be
targeted to individual stakeholders to provide information regarding the use of best management
practices to protect water quality.

6.4 Public Participation

A forty-five-day public notice was provided for this TMDL. During this time, the availability of the
TMDL was public noticed, a copy of the TMDL was provided on request, and the public was
invited to provide comments on the TMDL.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 83

Atlanta, Georgia
 Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

7.0 INITIAL TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

December 2017

7.1 Initial TMDL Implementation Plan

This plan identifies applicable statewide programs and activities that may be employed to
manage point and nonpoint sources of nutrient loads for two segments in the Chattahoochee
River Basin. Local watershed planning and management initiatives will be fostered, supported
or developed through a variety of mechanisms. Implementation may be addressed by
Watershed Improvement Projects, Section 319 (h) grant projects, the development of watershed
assessment and protection plans, and watershed management initiatives. Any watershed plan
that addresses impaired water bodies and/or TMDL implementation will replace this initial plan.

7.2 Impaired Segments

This initial plan is applicable to the following waterbodies that were added to Georgia’s 305(b)
list of impaired waters in Water Quality in Georgia 2012-2013 (GA EPD, 2014) available on the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) website.

Waterbodies on the 2014 303(d) List for Chlorophyll a in Lake Lanier

Segment
Category
Lake Segment Location Reach ID# Area Designated Use
(acres)

Recreation/
Lanier Lake Browns Bridge Road (SR 369) GAR031300010819 5 5,952
Drinking Water
Recreation/
Lanier Lake Lanier Bridge Road (SR 53) GAR031300010818 3 4,928
Drinking Water

The water use classifications for Lake Lanier are Drinking Water and Recreation. The criterion
violated is listed as chlorophyll a. The potential causes listed are urban runoff and nonpoint
source runoff. The specific criteria for chlorophyll a in Lake Lanier, as stated in Georgia’s Rules
and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03(17)(e) (GA EPD, 2015) is:

Chlorophyll a: For the months of April through October, the average of monthly mid-
channel photic zone composite samples shall not exceed the chlorophyll
a concentrations at the locations listed below:

Upstream from the Buford Dam forebay 5 g/L

Upstream from the Flowery Branch confluence 6 g/L
At Browns Bridge Road (State Road 369) 7 g/L
At Boling Bridge (State Road 53) on Chestatee River 10 g/L
At Lanier Bridge (State Road 53) on Chattahoochee River 10 g/L

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 84

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

7.3 Potential Sources

EFDC was used to simulate the fate and transport of nutrients into and out of the embayment
and the uptake by phytoplankton, where the growth and death of phytoplankton is measured
through the surrogate parameter called chlorophyll a.

Phytoplankton contains chlorophyll a to carry out photosynthesis. They also need nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus to produce food. If nutrient loadings are high, then the
number of phytoplankton in a waterbody can increase, thereby increasing the amount of
measurable chlorophyll a in the water. This can lead to water quality impairments due to
excessive nutrients from various sources. Source assessments characterize the known and
suspected nutrient sources in the watershed. These generally consist of both point and
nonpoint sources.

NPDES permittees discharging treated wastewater are the primary point sources of nutrients. It
is recognized that effluent from biological treatment systems that meet their nutrient permit limits
is not expected to contribute significantly to nutrient loads.

Nonpoint sources of nutrients are diffuse sources that cannot be identified as entering the water
body at a single location. These sources generally involve land use activities that contribute
nutrients to streams during rainfall runoff events.

Prior to the implementation of this plan, a detailed assessment of the potential sources should
be carried out. This will better determine what practices are needed and where they should be
focused. Assessment of the potential sources within the watershed will also help when
requesting funding assistance for the implementation of this plan. GA EPD’s Nonpoint Source
Program has watershed plans for the following watersheds that contain surveys of nonpoint
sources of pollution: Soque River; Mud Creek and Little Mud Creek; Chestatee River;
Chattahoochee River; and Tesnatee/Town Creek.

Through water quality modeling, it has been determined that the nutrient loading to the lake
needs to be reduced. This nutrient loading may be due to activities including, but not limited to,
fertilizers (residential, commercial), agriculture, impervious surfaces, failing septic tanks, and
others. It is believed that if nutrient loads are not reduced, the lake will continue to degrade over
time. Remedies exist for addressing excess nutrients from both point and nonpoint sources,
and will be discussed in this plan.

7.4 Management Practices and Activities

Compliance with NPDES permits, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, and local
ordinances related to stormwater runoff control will contribute to controlling nutrient delivery
from regulated activities, and may help to achieve the reductions necessary to meet the TMDL.
Using federal, state, and local laws, enforcement actions are available as a remedy for excess
nutrients coming from regulated sources. These may include illicit discharges, wastewater
discharges, and excessive nutrient runoff from other land use activities.

Nutrients produced from nonpoint sources such as run-off from domestic lawns, agricultural
fields, paved surfaces, illicit discharges, failing septic tanks, and others are not regulated and
are, therefore, not subject to most enforcement actions. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
may be used to help reduce average annual nutrient loads and achieve water quality standards,
as well as improve the overall aquatic health of the system. Table 1 below lists examples of
BMPs that address excess nutrients through buffer protection, filtration, or other methods. This
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 85
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

is not an exhaustive list, and additional management measures may be proposed, and will be
considered as non-point source controls consistent with this plan.

Examples of BMPs for Use in Controlling

Nutrients from Non-Point Sources

Type (Ag, Forestry,

Name of BMP
Urban, Other.)
Filter Strips Agriculture
Reduced Tillage System Agriculture
Exclusion Agriculture
Timber Bridges Forestry
Re-vegetation Forestry
Sediment Basin Urban
Porous Pavement Urban
Wet Detention Pond Urban
Organic Filter Urban
Streambank Protection and Restoration Ag, Forestry, Urban, Other
Stream Buffers Ag, Forestry, Urban, Other
Additional Ordinances Ag, Forestry, Urban, Other

Management practices that may be used to help maintain average annual nutrient loads at
current levels include:

 Compliance with NPDES (wastewater, construction, industrial stormwater, and/or MS4)

permit limits and requirements;
 Implementation of recommended Water Quality management practices in the Coosa-
North Georgia Regional Water Plan (GA EPD, 2017);
 Implementation of required Action Items in the Water Resource Management Plan
developed by the Metro-North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD, 2017)
 Implementation of Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry (GFC, 2009);
 Implementation of Best Management Practices for Georgia Agriculture (GSWCC, 2013)
 Adoption of National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practices
for agriculture;
 Adoption of proper fertilization practices;
 Adherence to the Surface Mining Land Use Plan prepared as part of the Surface Mining
Permit Application;
 Implementation of the Georgia Better Back Roads Field Manual (GA RCDC, 2009) and
adoption of additional practices for proper unpaved road maintenance;
 Implementation of individual Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for land
disturbing activities; and application of the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in
Georgia (GSWCC, 2016)
 Implementation of the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (ARC, 2016) to
facilitate prevention and mitigation of stream bank erosion due to increased stream flow
and velocities caused by urban runoff through structural storm water BMP installation.
 Adherence to DNR River Corridor Protection guidelines;
 Mitigation and prevention of riparian buffer loss due to land disturbing activities;

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 86

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

 Promulgation and enforcement of local natural resource protection ordinances such as

land development, stormwater, water protection, protection of environmentally
sensitive areas, and others.

Public education efforts target individual stakeholders to provide information regarding the use
of BMPs to protect water quality. GA EPD will continue efforts to increase awareness and
educate the public about the impact of human activities on water quality.

7.5 Monitoring

GA EPD will continue monitoring of the lake at the five standard sites, as well as the five
embayments. Each year, monitoring will be conducted monthly during the growing season
(April-October). The Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (CRK), North Georgia College, and the Lake
Lanier Association currently monitor the lake. CRK has an approved Sampling Quality
Assurance Plan and their data will continue to be used to assess the lake.

Monitoring of nutrients through field tests may be carried out through GA EPD’s Adopt-A-Stream
Program. Additional monitoring may also be undertaken by stakeholders in the watershed. GA
EPD is available to work with those responsible for the monitoring activities, to conduct the
necessary training, and take the needed steps to establish a well-organized monitoring
program.

7.6 Future Action

This initial TMDL Implementation Plan includes a general approach to pollutant source
identification as well as management practices to address pollutants. In the future, GA EPD will
continue to determine and assess the appropriate point and nonpoint source management
measures needed to achieve the TMDLs, and also to protect and restore water quality in
impaired water bodies. EPD will work with stakeholders in the watershed in activities they may
undertake to improve information on pollutant source identification, assessment of point and
nonpoint source management measures needed to achieve the TMDL, and related actions to
protect and restore water quality in impaired water bodies.

For point sources, any wasteload allocations for wastewater treatment plant discharges will be
implemented in the form of water quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Any
wasteload allocations for regulated storm water will be implemented in the form of best
management practices in the NPDES permits. Contributions of nutrients from regulated
communities may also be managed using permit requirements such as watershed
assessments, watershed protection plans, and long-term monitoring. These measures will be
directed through current point source management programs.

Watershed Improvement Projects (WIPs) can be developed to address nonpoint source

pollution. This is a process whereby stakeholders, Regional Commissions or other agencies or
local governments, develop a Watershed-Based Plan intended to address water quality at the
small watershed level (HUC 12). These plans can be developed as resources, needs, and
willing partners become available. The development of these plans may be funded through
several grant sources including, but not limited to: Clean Water Act Section 319(h), Section
604(b), and/or Section 106 grant funds. These plans are intended for implementation upon
completion.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 87

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Any Watershed-Based Plan that specifically addresses water bodies contained within this
TMDL, and is accepted by GA EPD, will supersede the Initial TMDL Implementation Plan. The
Watershed-Based Plan intended to address this TMDL and other water quality concerns, should
contain at minimum the US EPA’s 9-Key Elements of Watershed Planning:

1) An identification of the sources or groups of similar sources contributing to

nonpoint source pollution to be controlled to implement load allocations or
achieve water quality standards. Sources should be identified at the
subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the
watershed (e.g., X numbers of cattle feedlots needing upgrading, Y acres of
row crops needing improved sediment control, or Z linear miles of eroded
streambank needing remediation);

2) An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures;

3) A description of the NPS management measures that will need to be

implemented to achieve the load reductions established in the TMDL or to
achieve water quality standards;

4) An estimate of the sources of funding needed, and/or authorities that will be

relied upon, to implement the plan;

5) An information/education component that will be used to enhance public

understanding of and participation in implementing the plan;

6) A schedule for implementing the management measures that is reasonably

expeditious;

7) A description of interim, measurable milestones (e.g., amount of load

reductions, improvement in biological or habitat parameters) for determining
whether management measures or other control actions are being
implemented;

8) A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether substantial progress is

being made towards attaining water quality standards and, if not, the criteria
for determining whether the plan needs to be revised; and;

9) A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation

efforts, measured against the criteria established under item (8).

The public will be provided an opportunity to participate in the development of Watershed-Based

Plans that address impaired waters and to comment on them before they are finalized.

GA EPD will continue to offer technical and financial assistance, when and where available, to
complete Watershed-Based Plans that address the impaired water bodies listed in this and
other TMDL documents. Assistance may include but will not be limited to:

 Assessments of pollutant sources within watersheds;

 Determinations of appropriate management practices to address impairments;
 Identification of potential stakeholders and other partners;
 Developing a plan for outreach to the general public and other groups;
 Assessing the resources needed to implement the plan upon completion; and
Georgia Environmental Protection Division 88
Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

 Other needs determined by the lead organization responsible for plan

development.

GA EPD will also make this same assistance available, if needed, to proactively address water
quality concerns. This assistance may be in the way of financial, technical, or other aid, and
may be requested and provided outside of the TMDL process or schedule.

7.7 References

ARC, 2016. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, 2016 Edition, Atlanta Regional
Commission, February 2016.

GA EPD, 2014. Water Quality in Georgia 2012-2013, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Watershed Protection Branch.

GA EPD, 2015. State of Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-
3-6, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division, Water Protection Branch, amended October 2015.

GA EPD, 2017. Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan, Adopted by GA EPD November
2011, Revised June 2017.

GFC, 2009, Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry, Georgia Forestry Commission,
Macon, Georgia, May 2009.

GA RCDC, 2009. Georgia Better Back Roads Field Manual, Georgia Resource Conservation
and Development Council, May 2009

GSWCC, 2013. Best Management Practices for Georgia Agriculture, Second Edition, Georgia
Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Athens, Georgia, 2013

GSWCC, 2016. Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, 2016 Edition, Georgia
Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Athens, Georgia, 2016.

MNGWPD, 2017. Water Resource Management Plan, Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District, June 2017

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture, US

EPA, July 2003

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry,

US EPA, April 2005

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas, US
EPA, November 2005

National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the
Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution, US EPA, July 2005

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 89

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

REFERENCES

ARC, 2016. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, 2016 Edition, Atlanta Regional
Commission, February 2016.

Bicknell, Brian R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, Jr., T.H. Jobes, A.S. Donigian, Jr., 2004. HSPF
Version 12 User’s Manual. Aqua Terra Consultants, Mountain View, California.

Donigian, A.S., and J.T. Love, 2003. Sediment Calibration Procedures and Guidelines for
Watershed Modeling. Aqua Terra Consultants, Mountain View, California.

Federal Register, 1990. Federal Register, Part II: Environmental Protection Agency, Vol. 55,
No. 222, November 16, 1990.

GA Dept. of Agriculture, 2014. Personal Communications with State of Georgia, Department of

Agriculture, Livestock and Poultry Field Forces. October 2014.

GA Dept. of Public Health, 2014. Personal Communications with State of Georgia, Department
of Public Health, Environmental Health Section. August 2014. GA EPD, 2012 – 2013.
Water Quality in Georgia, 2012 – 2013, Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division.

GA EPD, 1994. Diagnostic/Feasibility Study of Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia. Project

Completion Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Lakes Program June
1994.

GA EPD, 1998. Diagnostic/Feasibility Study of Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia. Project

Completion Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Lakes Program,
December 1998.

GA EPD, 2000. Combined Databases Of Landfills In Georgia; Historic And Current Through
1999, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division, Land Protection Branch.

GA EPD, 2001. Chattahoochee River Basin Management Plan 2001, State of Georgia,
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Water Protection
Branch.

GA EPD, 2014. Water Quality in Georgia 2012-2013, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Watershed Protection Branch.

GA EPD, 2014. Personal Communications with State of Georgia, Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Land Protection Branch. April 2014.

GA EPD, 2015. State of Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-
3-6, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division, Water Protection Branch, amended October 2015.

GA EPD, 2017. Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Plan, Adopted by GA EPD November
2011, Revised June 2017.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 90

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

GA RCDC, 2009. Georgia Better Back Roads Field Manual, Georgia Resource Conservation
and Development Council, May 2009

GA WRD, 2007. Personal Communications with Region IV Office, Wildlife Resources Division,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Thomson, GA, May 2007.

GFC, 2009, Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry, Georgia Forestry Commission,
Macon, Georgia, May 2009

GSWCC, 2013. Best Management Practices for Georgia Agriculture, Second Edition, Georgia
Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Athens, Georgia, 2013

GSWCC, 2016. Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, 2016 Edition, Georgia
Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Athens, Georgia, 2016.

Gerner, Jay, 2004. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading from Septic Systems. Delaware
Department of Natural Resources.

Hamrick, J. M., 1996. User’s Manual for the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer, Special
Report 331 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

Inspectipedia, 2009. Septic Drainfield Design: Septic Size Requirements Guide.

(http://www.inspectnyu.com/septic/fieldsize.htm).

Jones, Lyle, 2005. Septic Systems as a Source of Bacteria, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources.

Lihua, Cui, 2002. Treatment and Utilization of Septic Tank Effluent using Vertical Flow
Constructed Wetlands and Hydroponic Cultivation of Vegetables. South China
Agricultural University.

Lin, Z., D.E. Radcliffe, L.M. Risse, J. Romeis, C.R. Jackson, 2008. Modeling Phosphorus
Transport in Lake Allatoona Watershed (Georgia) using SWAT: II Effect of Land Use
Change. pp 121-129.

MNGWPD, 2017. Water Resource Management Plan, Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District, June 2017

Radcliffe, D.E. Personnel Communication on October 24, 2008.

Radcliffe, D.E., Z. Lin, L .M. Risse, J. Romeis, C.R. Jackson, 2008. Modeling Phosphorus
Transport in Allatoona Lake Watershed (Georgia) using SWAT: Developing Phosphorus
Parameter Values. pp 111-120.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture, U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2). Available online at
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed [08/26/2008].

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 91

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Tetra Tech, 2002. User’s Manual for Loading Simulation Program in C++, Fairfax, VA.

Thomann, R.V. and J.A. Mueller, 1987. Principles of surface water quality modeling and
control. Harper Collins Publishers Inc., New York.

UGA, 2014. Personal Communications with Center for Agribusiness and Economic
Development, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia,
304A Lumpkin House, Athens, Georgia 30605, August - October 2014.

US EPA, 2007. BASINS Technical Note 1: Creating Hydraulic Function Tables for Reservoirs in
BASINS.

US EPA, 1991. Guidance for Water Quality Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-
91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, Washington, DC.

US EPA, 2003, Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) Version 7.2, Draft : User’s
Federal Register, 1990. Federal Register, Part II: Environmental Protection Agency, Vol.
55, No. 222, November 16, 1990.

US EPA, 1985. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling
(Second Edition). Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Athens, GA.PA/600/3-85/040

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 92

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Appendix A

Lake Lanier Water Quality Monitoring Data

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

2000 Though 2013 Monitoring Water Quality Stations

GA EPD
Segment Location Monitoring Monitoring Station Description
Station No.
Lake Lanier Dam Forebay 1201080902 Upstream from the Buford Dam forebay
Flowery Branch Upstream from the Flowery Branch
Lake Lanier 1201080403 confluence
(Midlake)
At Browns Bridge Road (State Road
Lake Lanier Browns Bride 1201080203 369)
At Boling Bridge (State Road 53) on
Lake Lanier Boling Bridge 1201070501 Chestatee River
At Lanier Bridge (State Road 53) on
Lake Lanier Lanier Bridge 1201080103 Chattahoochee River

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-1

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Dam Forebay
2000 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/20/00 1.17 0.36 0.19 0.05 0.17 <0.02 <0.04 11.30 15.92
5/17/00 4.19 0.39 0.21 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 8.86 21.92
6/14/00 3.78 0.30 0.17 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 <0.04 7.99 27.53
7/11/00 3.49 0.28 0.18 <0.03 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 7.36 28.85
8/16/00 2.02 0.23 0.16 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.70 28.43
9/13/00 3.15 0.05 <0.1 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 8.05 25.74
10/11/00 5.28 0.22 0.15 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 8.08 20.10

Dam Forebay
2001 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/4/01 3.27 0.25 0.10 0.03 0.15 <0.02 <0.04 9.72 11.30
5/9/01 5.84 0.48 0.31 <0.03 0.17 <0.02 <0.04 8.30 21.20
6/6/01 4.65 0.47 0.33 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.90 24.14
7/11/01 2.17 0.26 <0.1 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.10 27.92
8/8/01 2.79 0.26 0.12 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.15 27.90
9/6/01 2.79 0.28 0.14 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.33 27.63
10/3/01 4.96 <.02 <0.1 <0.03 <.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.67 22.34

Dam Forebay
2002 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/3/02 2.2 0.37 0.21 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 10.29 15.21
5/16/02 5.3 0.45 0.32 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 <0.04 8.63 21.28
6/5/02 4.7 0.22 <0.1 <0.03 0.12 0.02 <0.04 7.46 26.93
7/10/02 6.4 0.29 0.15 0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.12 28.92
8/7/02 3.1 0.34 0.27 <0.03 0.07 0.02 <0.04 7.40 28.85
9/4/02 2.8 0.31 0.25 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 7.27 27.46
10/2/02 2.2 0.23 0.19 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 7.28 23.88

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-2

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Dam Forebay
2003 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/2/03 3.10 0.41 0.20 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 10.62 12.51
5/6/03 4.96 0.47 0.26 0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 8.39 19.65
6/4/03 2.05 0.38 0.14 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 8.20 21.33
7/9/03 4.03 0.35 0.13 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 7.72 27.29
8/6/03 11.46 0.36 0.17 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 7.72 27.57
9/10/03 8.05 0.30 0.23 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.84 26.90
10/8/03 6.81 0.23 0.25 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 7.04 22.13

Dam Forebay
2004 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/15/04 2.79 0.40 0.19 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 10.48 12.90
5/5/04 4.65 0.48 0.28 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 10.01 16.77
6/3/04 2.79 0.41 0.25 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.59 23.61
7/8/04 3.41 0.17 <0.1 <0.03 0.17 <0.02 <0.04 7.57 27.86
8/4/04 2.17 0.38 0.23 <0.03 0.15 0.02 <0.04 7.06 29.57
9/2/04 5.27 NM NM <0.03 0.07 NM <0.04 6.85 27.40
10/7/04 5.27 NM NM <0.03 0.07 NM <0.04 8.67 22.67

Dam Forebay
2005 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/13/05 5.60 0.66 0.41 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 <0.04 10.30 15.68
5/4/05 4.00 0.34 0.11 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 <0.04 9.96 15.98
6/9/05 3.40 0.43 0.23 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 7.98 25.60
7/14/05 3.70 0.38 0.22 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.61 26.39
8/10/05 3.10 0.27 0.19 <0.03 0.08 0.03 <0.04 7.48 28.32
9/14/05 10.00 0.27 0.27 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 8.34 27.11
10/5/05 5.90 0.35 0.35 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.75 25.19

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-3

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Dam Forebay
2006 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/27/06 1.24 0.40 0.18 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 9.08 19.13
5/31/06 2.79 0.29 0.10 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 9.96 27.09
6/27/06 2.48 0.28 0.10 <0.03 0.18 0.04 <0.04 7.40 27.24
7/25/06 1.00 0.20 0.10 <0.03 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 7.01 29.30
8/29/06 14.25 0.36 0.34 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.04 6.68 28.99
9/26/06 1.24 0.27 0.27 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 6.95 24.10
10/24/06 2.17 0.35 0.19 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 7.64 18.49

Dam Forebay
2007 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/17/07 1.40 0.41 0.23 0.07 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 10.47 11.36
5/15/07 4.97 0.38 0.22 <0.03 0.16 0.03 <0.04 8.72 23.78
6/12/07 2.01 0.37 0.22 0.05 0.15 <0.02 <0.04 7.93 26.36
7/10/07 2.10 0.34 <0.20 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.70 27.60
8/7/07 3.42 0.28 <0.20 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 7.55 30.36
9/4/07 10.10 0.29 0.27 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.68 29.24
10/2/07 6.53 0.2 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.91 24.24

Dam Forebay
2008 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/9/08 4.63 0.46 0.33 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 NM 10.47 14.08
5/27/08 2.86 0.5 0.34 <0.03 0.16 0.02 NM 8.73 23.41
6/11/08 1.38 0.37 0.24 <0.03 0.13 0.02 NM 7.44 29.35
7/24/08 1.41 0.41 0.29 <0.03 0.12 0.03 NM 6.67 28.24
8/13/08 1.18 0.29 0.21 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 NM 7.24 27.28
9/11/08 1.3 0.24 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 0.05 NM 7.78 26.92
10/8/08 1.99 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.05 0.02 NM 8.58 22.64

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-4

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Dam Forebay
2009 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/15/09 2.18 0.17 NA 0.03 0.17 <0.02 NM 9.97 12.36
05/27/09 1.43 0.36 0.21 <0.03 0.15 0.03 NM 8.33 21.54
06/10/09 1.48 0.36 <0.20 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 NM 7.4 26.53
07/29/09 2.71 0.33 <0.20 <0.03 0.13 0.03 NM 7.56 26.87
08/20/09 2.61 0.31 0.22 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 NM 7.16 28.48
09/23/09 5.1 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 NM 7.52 24.74
10/21/09 3.54 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.06 0.02 NM 7.58 18.95

Dam Forebay
2010 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/13/10 2.41 0.48 0.21 <0.03 0.27 <0.02 <0.04 10.82 17.87
5/20/10 3.30 0.48 0.29 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 9.55 22.16
6/10/10 4.79 0.44 0.27 <0.03 0.17 <0.02 NM 8.33 26.37
7/20/10 1.96 0.35 <0.20 <0.03 0.15 <0.02 <0.04 8.13 29.59
8/12/10 2.34 0.35 0.22 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 8.13 31.49
9/15/10 4.19 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 NM 7.9 27.35
10/21/10 5.53 0.27 <0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 NM 8.32 20.93

Dam Forebay
2011 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/19/11 4.77 0.27 <0.20 <0.03 0.27 <0.02 NM 10.56 16.11
05/18/10 7.39 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 NM 9.53 19.18
06/01/11 6.38 0.2 <0.20 <0.03 0.2 <0.02 NM 8.86 27.79
07/13/11 2.72 0.16 <0.20 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 NM 8.51 30.95
08/09/11 5.13 0.15 <0.20 <0.03 0.15 <0.02 NM 7.94 29.58
09/08/11 3.43 0.07 <0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 NM 7.79 26.19
10/06/11 4.88 0.27 0.23 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 NM 8.38 21.98

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-5

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Dam Forebay
2012 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/16/12 2.68 0.48 0.22 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 NM 10.00 18.27
05/15/12 3.53 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 NM 9.23 21.80
06/05/12 1.92 0.19 <0.20 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 NM 8.69 24.35
07/24/12 2.48 0.14 <0.20 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 NM 8.51 30.95
08/16/12 2.16 0.37 0.27 <0.03 0.1 <0.02 NM 8.49 27.87
09/13/12 3.7 0.07 <0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 NM 8.36 26.31
10/25/12 4.20 0.58 0.52 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.87 20.79

Dam Forebay
2013 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/24/13 3.87 0.51 0.2 ND 0.31 <0.02 NM 10.00 16.52
05/07/13 2.80 0.5 0.22 ND 0.28 <0.02 NM 9.75 16.17
06/25/13 4.48 0.47 0.31 ND 0.16 <0.02 NM 8.69 24.35
07/17/13 1.19 0.28 0.22 ND 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.26 26.96
08/20/13 7.68 0.32 0.27 ND 0.05 <0.02 NM 7.63 25.20
09/24/13 7.59 0.27 0.24 ND 0.03 <0.02 NM 6.56 24.84
10/25/12 6.05 0.31 0.25 ND 0.06 <0.02 NM 6.26 21.83

Dam Forebay
2010-2013 Cattahoochee Riverkeeper Chlorophyll a (g/L) Monitoring Data

Date 2010 2011 2012 2013

April 6.50 2.58 4.57

May 1.60 8.22 4.05 4.51
June 3.68 3.16 4.12 7.41
July 4.70 3.75 3.58 6.04
August 6.36 6.15 4.83 73.76
September 4.96 6.42 5..24 6.31
October 5.72 6.87 5.37 4.12

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-6

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Flowery Branch
2000 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/00 4.65 0.35 0.17 0.04 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 11.56 16.52
05/17/00 4.01 0.39 0.22 <0.03 0.17 <0.02 <0.04 8.37 22.92
06/14/00 2.99 0.38 0.24 0.04 0.14 0.02 <0.04 7.91 27.51
07/11/00 4.29 0.32 0.20 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 <0.04 7.56 29.03
08/16/00 2.86 0.30 0.22 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 7.66 28.96
09/13/00 2.91 0.21 0.13 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 8.14 25.57
10/11/00 6.06 0.26 0.18 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 8.13 20.28

Flowery Branch
2001 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L)  (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/04/01 4.03 0.28 <0.1 0.04 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 10.53 10.91
05/09/01 7.48 0.36 0.16 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 9.25 20.24
06/06/01 5.59 0.62 0.33 <0.03 0.29 <0.02 <0.04 7.99 24.26
07/11/01 2.79 0.31 <0.1 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 7.28 28.17
08/08/01 5.11 0.30 0.14 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.40 27.73
09/06/01 3.72 0.28 0.14 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.62 27.11
10/03/01 4.19 0.21 <0.1 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 <0.04 7.73 22.67

Flowery Branch
2002 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/03/02 3.4 0.38 0.21 0.03 0.17 <0.02 <0.04 9.89 15.73
05/16/02 5.6 0.45 0.29 0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.18 21.05
06/05/02 3.4 0.36 0.22 0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.44 26.51
07/10/02 4.3 0.27 0.11 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 6.91 28.71
08/07/02 4.0 0.23 <0.1 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 <0.04 7.50 28.16
09/04/02 2.9 0.29 0.22 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.65 26.77
10/02/02 2.8 0.28 0.22 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 7.09 23.32

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-7

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Flowery Branch
2003 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/02/03 6.50 0.38 0.13 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 10.20 12.39
05/06/03 3.10 0.50 0.25 0.03 0.25 <0.02 <0.04 8.79 19.48
06/04/03 3.10 0.39 0.15 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 8.44 21.85
07/09/03 4.34 0.33 0.11 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 8.08 27.13
08/06/03 6.19 0.31 0.11 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 7.56 27.82
09/10/03 8.36 0.36 0.23 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 <0.04 7.53 26.38
10/08/03 8.67 0.37 0.29 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 7.56 22.10

Flowery Branch
2004 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/15/04 4.03 0.38 0.14 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 <0.04 10.42 12.61
05/05/04 4.96 0.60 0.38 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 9.58 17.80
06/03/04 3.10 0.47 0.28 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 7.92 24.84
07/08/04 3.41 0.33 0.17 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 7.54 27.61
08/04/04 2.79 0.32 0.16 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.27 29.32
09/02/04 3.72 0.12 NA <0.03 0.12 NA <0.04 6.74 27.36
10/07/04 6.19 0.09 NA <0.03 0.09 NA <0.04 8.22 22.84

Flowery Branch
2005 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/13/05 5.30 0.52 0.24 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 <0.04 16.24 6.09
05/04/05 5.30 0.38 0.12 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 <0.04 9.84 17.42
06/09/05 4.30 0.52 0.28 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 8.29 24.35
07/14/05 5.30 0.38 0.24 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 0.05 7.49 26.46
08/10/05 6.20 0.31 0.20 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 <0.04 7.48 28.32
09/14/05 8.00 0.29 0.25 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 8.07 26.88
10/05/05 8.00 0.30 0.25 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 7.40 24.52

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-8

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Flowery Branch
2006 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/27/06 2.48 0.36 0.14 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 8.75 19.53
05/31/06 2.48 0.34 0.14 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 8.11 26.92
06/27/06 2.79 0.24 0.10 0.06 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.60 27.02
07/25/06 1.55 0.22 0.10 <0.03 0.12 0.02 <0.04 7.34 29.18
08/29/06 13.63 0.36 0.34 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.48 28.32
09/26/06 4.34 0.30 0.28 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.56 29.17
10/24/06 3.10 0.06 0.22 <0.03 0.06 0.06 <0.04 7.77 18.45

Flowery Branch
2007 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/17/07 2.10 0.4 <0.20 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 10.45 12.83
05/15/07 3.70 0.47 0.28 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 8.95 22.77
06/12/07 2.94 0.38 0.20 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 7.94 26.40
07/10/07 3.76 0.36 <0.20 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.60 27.41
08/07/07 3.57 0.31 <0.20 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 <0.04 7.45 30.41
09/04/07 6.91 0.23 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.04 7.51 28.62
10/02/07 7.62 0.23 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.04 7.88 23.76

Flowery Branch
2008 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/09/08 6.72 0.48 0.23 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 NM 10.49 13.79
05/27/08 2.48 0.5 0.3 <0.03 0.2 0.02 NM 8.54 23.68
06/11/08 1.71 0.38 0.2 <0.03 0.18 0.02 NM 7.64 29.08
07/24/08 1.23 0.38 0.25 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 NM 7.17 28.06
08/13/08 1.88 0.4 0.28 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 NM 7.25 27.71
09/11/08 1.36 0.26 0.2 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 7.9 26.48
10/08/08 1.44 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.13 22.35

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-9

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Flowery Branch
2009 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/15/09 2.34 0.21 NA <0.03 0.21 <0.02 NM 9.81 11.8
05/27/09 1.93 0.4 <0.20 <0.03 0.2 0.1 NM 7.96 22
06/10/09 0.8 0.4 <0.20 <0.03 0.2 0.03 NM 8 26.33
07/29/09 2.33 0.33 <0.20 <0.03 0.13 0.04 NM 7.8 27.29
08/20/09 3.64 0.37 0.24 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 NM 7.33 28.39
09/23/09 5.1 0.23 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 NM 7.58 24.35
10/21/09 2.88 0.28 <0.20 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 NM 7.37 18.98

Flowery Branch
2010 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/13/10 3.04 0.56 0.22 <0.03 0.34 <0.02 <0.04 11.07 18.13
05/20/10 2.25 0.53 0.29 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 9.02 23.24
06/10/10 1.57 0.42 0.23 <.0.03 0.19 <0.02 NM 8.13 26.75
07/20/10 3.72 0.42 <0.20 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 8.05 29.5
08/12/10 1.11 0.37 0.21 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.04 31.05
09/15/10 5.82 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 NM 7.52 27.46
10/21/10 4.69 0.27 <0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 NM 8.18 21.02

Flowery Branch
2011 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/19/11 2.76 0.28 <0.20 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 NM 10.42 17.24
05/18/11 2.88 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 NM 9.12 20.94
06/01/11 6.06 0.23 <0.20 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 NM 8.85 27.98
07/13/11 4.38 0.18 <0.20 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 NM 8.57 30.73
08/09/11 5.13 0.15 <0.20 0.04 0.15 <0.02 NM 8.11 30.14
09/08/11 7.02 0.04 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 NM 8.01 26.11
10/06/11 5.34 0.03 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 NM 8.49 22.11

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-10

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Flowery Branch
2012 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/16/2012 2.93 0.24 <0.20 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 NM 9.72 19.39
5/15/2012 3.21 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 NM 9.25 22.06
6/5/2012 2.06 0.21 <0.20 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 NM 8.7 24.2
<0.03 <0.02
7/24/2012 2.54 0.36 0.21 0.15 NM 8.57 30.73
<0.03 <0.02
8/16/2012 2.55 0.39 0.26 0.13 NM 8.43 28.05
9/13/2012 3.23 0.06 <0.20 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.39 26.25
10/25/2012 4.20 0.27 0.21 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.71 20.46

Flowery Branch
2013 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/24/13 2.8 0.24 0.24 ND 0.26 <0.02 NM 10.16 15.68
05/07/13 3.00 0.59 0.3 0.07 0.29 <0.02 NM 9.95 16.03
06/25/13 2.14 0.45 0.28 ND 0.17 <0.02 NM 8.70 24.20
07/16/13 0.45 0.26 0.2 ND 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.42 27.03
08/20/13 8.71 0.33 0.24 ND 0.09 <0.02 NM 7.57 25.13
09/24/13 8.22 0.3 0.25 ND 0.05 <0.02 NM 6.57 24.82
10/22/13 4.29 0.44 0.37 ND 0.07 <0.02 NM 6.54 21.70

Flowery Branch
2010-2013 Cattahoochee Riverkeeper Chlorophyll a (g/L) Monitoring Data

Date 2010 2011 2012 2013

April 7.85 3.06 4.45

May 6.07 3.19 4.14 5.32
June 5.43 3.59 4.37 5.86
July 7.61 4.30 4.01 6.9
August 6.52 6.70 4.42 9.33
September 7.83 9.48 7.06 7.98
October 4.40 5.76 4.11 5.01

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-11

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Browns Bridge
2000 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/00 6.06 0.44 0.22 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 11.37 17.05
05/17/00 6.63 0.60 0.40 0.05 0.20 0.02 <0.04 8.84 23.33
06/14/00 5.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.23 <0.02 <0.04 8.05 27.99
07/11/00 6.34 0.38 0.23 <0.03 0.15 0.03 <0.04 7.76 29.72
08/16/00 5.01 0.29 0.23 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 7.96 29.12
09/13/00 5.11 0.18 0.12 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 8.21 26.15
10/11/00 7.37 0.19 0.13 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 7.83 20.71

Browns Bridge
2001 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/4/2001 5.68 0.39 0.10 0.05 0.29 <0.02 <0.04 10.10 11.40
5/9/2001 8.98 0.39 0.19 <0.03 0.20 <0.02 <0.04 8.90 21.52
6/6/2001 4.03 0.64 0.40 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 8.14 25.01
7/11/2001 <1 0.33 <0.1 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 <0.04 7.13 28.58
8/8/2001 <1 0.33 0.15 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 7.24 28.70
9/6/2001 4.34 0.25 0.16 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 <0.04 7.36 27.58
10/3/2001 7.43 0.26 0.16 <0.03 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 7.94 22.97

Browns Bridge
2002 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/3/2002 4.6 0.44 0.21 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 <0.04 10.13 16.98
5/16/2002 9.3 0.44 0.28 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.58 22.13
6/5/2002 3.4 0.30 0.18 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 <0.04 7.44 26.51
7/10/2002 3.4 0.24 0.20 <0.03 0.04 0.02 0.07 7.41 28.93
8/7/2002 6.2 0.16 0.10 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 7.33 28.59
9/4/2002 5.8 0.25 0.16 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 <0.04 7.36 27.58
10/2/2002 3.9 0.27 0.24 <0.03 0.03 0.02 <0.04 7.43 23.76

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-12

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Browns Bridge
2003 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/2/2003 7.12 0.55 0.21 <0.03 0.34 <0.02 <0.04 10.60 13.01
5/6/2003 5.88 0.52 0.24 0.04 0.28 <0.02 <0.04 8.44 19.79
6/4/2003 7.43 0.44 0.23 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 8.44 22.88
7/9/2003 5.27 0.38 0.17 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 8.02 28.04
8/6/2003 7.12 0.31 0.10 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 7.71 28.30
9/10/2003 8.98 0.33 0.21 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 <0.04 7.37 26.87
10/8/2003 8.36 0.34 0.26 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 6.49 22.10

Browns Bridge
2004 Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/15/2004 6.81 0.50 0.25 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 <0.04 10.33 14.39
5/5/2004 5.88 0.55 0.32 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 <0.04 9.76 19.01
6/3/2004 2.48 0.53 0.32 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 7.96 26.28
7/8/2004 1.86 0.40 0.19 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 7.52 28.16
8/4/2004 3.72 0.39 0.23 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.15 30.10
9/2/2004 6.50 0.08 NA <0.03 0.08 NA <0.04 6.79 27.33
10/7/2004 3.41 0.10 NA <0.03 0.10 NA <0.04 8.55 22.73

Browns Bridge
2005 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/13/2005 9.30 0.66 0.32 <0.03 0.34 <0.02 <0.04 10.19 16.74
5/4/2005 8.70 0.47 0.18 <0.03 0.29 <0.02 <0.04 9.93 17.90
6/9/2005 4.30 0.51 0.26 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 <0.04 8.36 25.47
7/14/2005 3.70 0.28 0.24 <0.03 0.04 0.04 <0.04 7.72 26.61
8/10/2005 9.90 0.28 0.22 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 8.18 28.13
9/14/2005 8.70 0.25 0.21 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 8.20 27.03
10/5/2005 11.00 0.25 0.21 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 7.38 24.91

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-13

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Browns Bridge
2006 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/27/2006 2.79 0.62 0.41 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 8.90 21.03
5/31/2006 3.72 0.47 0.18 <0.03 0.29 <0.02 <0.04 8.23 27.36
6/27/2006 4.34 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 7.79 27.57
7/25/2006 4.65 0.32 0.22 <0.02 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 7.79 29.52
8/29/2006 11.15 0.03 0.24 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 8.18 28.13
9/26/2006 3.72 0.24 0.21 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.04 7.43 24.36
10/24/2006 3.48 0.29 0.26 <0.03 0.03 0.06 <0.04 7.15 18.86

Browns Bridge
2007 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/17/2007 2.70 0.46 0.22 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 9.79 13.48
5/15/2007 4.06 0.42 0.23 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 8.85 24.45
6/12/2007 3.58 0.36 <0.20 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.23 26.78
7/10/2007 3.78 0.34 <0.20 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 7.97 27.80
8/7/2007 5.27 0.27 <0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.86 30.60
9/4/2007 6.06 0.23 0.20 <0.03 0.03 0.02 <0.04 7.35 29.18
10/2/2007 5.75 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.60 24.14

Browns Bridge
2008 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/09/08 11.02 0.73 0.32 <0.03 0.41 <0.02 NM 10.6 14.19
05/27/08 2.62 0.6 0.33 <0.03 0.27 <0.02 NM 8.65 24.32
06/11/08 2.82 0.44 <0.20 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 NM 7.5 29.58
07/24/08 1.62 0.39 0.22 0.05 0.17 0.05 NM 7.24 28.58
08/13/08 1.97 0.31 0.23 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 NM 7.38 27.79
09/11/08 1.39 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 8.04 26.69
10/08/08 6.51 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 NM 8.09 22.34

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-14

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Browns Bridge
2009 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/15/09 2.99 0.32 NA <0.03 0.32 <0.02 NM 9.67 13.72
05/27/09 1.35 0.44 <0.20 <0.03 0.24 0.07 NM 8.43 21.45
06/10/09 4.47 0.52 0.32 <0.03 0.2 <0.02 NM 7.85 26.89
07/29/09 3.26 0.32 <0.20 <0.03 0.12 0.04 NM 7.54 27.63
08/20/09 5.28 0.28 0.24 <0.03 0.04 0.03 NM 7.57 28.93
09/23/09 5.88 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 0.04 NM 7.32 24.64
10/21/09 7.68 0.36 0.24 <0.03 0.12 0.03 NM 7.12 19.32

Browns Bridge
2010 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/13/10 5.85 0.58 0.24 <0.03 0.34 <0.02 <0.04 12.25 18.24
05/20/10 6.23 0.57 0.3 <0.03 0.27 <0.02 <0.04 9.29 23.48
06/10/10 1.76 0.48 0.24 0.04 0.24 <0.02 NM 8.32 27.26
07/20/10 3.31 0.41 <0.20 ,0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 8.16 30.29
08/12/10 2.78 0.38 0.23 <0.03 0.15 <0.02 <0.04 8.18 31.59
09/15/10 9.18 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM NM 27.29
10/21/10 5.59 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 NM 8.05 21.29

Browns Bridge
2011 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/11 6. 88 0.62 0.3 <0.03 0.32 <0.02 NM 10.39 18.50
05/17/11 5.76 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 NM 9.56 21.48
06/08/11 3.02 0.43 0.2 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 NM 8.67 29.58
07/19/11 6.60 0.14 <0.20 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 NM 9.18 28.60
08/10/11 6.40 0.09 <0.20 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 NM 8.24 30.17
09/21/11 8.40 0.26 0.26 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.93 24.09
10/26/11 3.71 0.04 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 NM 8.75 18.88

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-15

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Browns Bridge
2012 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/18/2012 5.78 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 NM 10.39 19.8
5/17/2012 5.19 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 NM 9.14 24.27
6/14/2012 4.72 0.18 <0.20 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 NM 9 25.87
7/17/2012 1.93 0.33 0.21 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 NM 8.33 29.51
8/14/2012 4.53 0.07 <0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 NM 8.49 28.58
9/11/2012 3.83 0.03 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 NM 8.12 27.34
10/23/2012 3.94 0.33 0.27 0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.24 20.72

Browns Bridge
2013 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/23/13 7.91 0.58 0.25 <0.03 0.33 <0.02 NM 10.43 16.56
05/08/13 8.03 0.52 0.21 <0.03 0.31 <0.02 NM 10.09 16.14
06/25/13 2.54 0.38 0.24 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 NM 9.00 25.87
07/17/13 1.49 0.34 0.24 <0.03 0.1 <0.02 NM 8.33 29.51
08/20/13 10.61 0.28 0.22 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 1.00 7.60
09/24/13 6.02 0.28 0.23 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 NM 6.67 24.83
10/15/13 9.75 0.05 ND <0.03 0.05 <0.02 NM 7.55 22.91

Browns Bridge
2010-2013 Cattahoochee Riverkeeper Chlorophyll a (g/L) Monitoring Data

Date 2010 2011 2012 2013

April 9.20 4.42 6.14

May 4.64 5.34 4.81 5.91
June 7.84 4.92 4.93 5.76
July 5.80 5.73 4.71 7.41
August 8.05 9.99 6.18 9.87
September 11.52 7.54 7.82 10.00
October 4.49 7.37 3.57 6.17

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-16

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Boling Bridge
2000 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/00 5.64 0.38 0.17 <0.03 0.21 <0.04 <0.02 10.37 18.25
05/17/00 8.02 0.39 0.21 <0.03 0.18 <0.04 0.02 8.91 23.75
06/14/00 5.84 0.34 0.21 0.07 0.13 <0.04 <0.02 8.24 28.69
07/11/00 6.01 0.26 0.21 <0.03 0.05 <0.04 <0.02 7.77 30.15
08/16/00 4.45 0.23 0.21 <0.03 0.02 <0.04 <0.02 7.71 29.02
09/13/00 6.68 0.13 0.11 <0.03 <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 8.07 26.89
10/11/00 4.77 0.19 0.17 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 6.76 20.56

Boling Bridge
2001 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/4/2001 7.50 NM NM <0.03 0.34 0.03 <0.04 10.62 12.39
5/9/2001 7.42 0.34 <0.1 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 8.44 22.92
6/6/2001 4.40 0.42 0.26 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.85 25.35
7/11/2001 <1 0.22 <0.1 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 <0.04 7.58 29.85
8/8/2001 <1 0.27 0.20 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.75 29.14
9/6/2001 5.14 0.19 0.17 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.40 28.06
10/3/2001 9.60 0.20 <0.1 <0.03 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 7.49 23.46

Boling Bridge
2002 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/3/2002 3.4 0.35 0.19 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 10.16 17.24
5/16/2002 16.0 0.38 0.31 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 8.93 22.96
6/5/2002 5.3 0.25 0.19 <0.03 0.06 0.03 <0.04 7.60 28.42
7/10/2002 7.4 0.20 0.16 0.03 0.04 0.04 <0.04 7.20 29.63
8/7/2002 5.0 0.14 0.12 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.05 29.60
9/4/2002 5.7 0.16 0.14 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.14 27.65
10/2/2002 5.2 0.20 0.18 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.19 24.34

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-17

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Boling Bridge
2003 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/2/2003 8.98 0.60 0.34 <0.03 0.26 0.02 <0.04 9.86 14.15
5/6/2003 6.50 0.48 0.24 0.03 0.24 0.02 <0.04 8.07 20.41
6/4/2003 11.15 0.32 0.18 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 8.47 23.29
7/9/2003 8.05 0.24 0.15 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 <0.04 8.71 28.31
8/6/2003 11.15 0.16 0.12 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 8.01 28.68
9/10/2003 7.12 0.21 0.16 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 7.21 27.73
10/8/2003 10.22 0.30 0.27 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.04 6.73 22.20

Boling Bridge
2004 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)

4/15/2004 9.60 0.60 0.23 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 10.11 15.21
5/5/2004 6.81 0.54 0.35 <0.03 0.19 <0.02 <0.04 9.59 19.57
6/3/2004 2.17 0.49 0.33 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.26 26.62
7/8/2004 3.10 0.31 0.20 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 <0.04 7.63 29.38
8/4/2004 1.00 0.25 0.19 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 7.08 30.75
9/2/2004 3.72 NM NM <0.03 <0.02 NM <0.04 6.68 27.60
10/7/2004 8.36 NM NM <0.03 0.04 NM <0.04 7.93 22.85

Boling Bridge
2005 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/13/2005 7.10 0.58 0.30 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 <0.04 10.37 18.04
5/4/2005 8.40 0.39 0.17 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 <0.04 9.82 18.80
6/9/2005 6.20 0.40 0.24 0.04 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.92 26.28
7/14/2005 9.60 0.45 0.25 <0.03 0.20 0.05 <0.04 7.88 27.35
8/10/2005 9.60 0.22 0.18 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 8.27 28.67
9/14/2005 6.50 0.17 0.17 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.77 27.30
10/5/2005 6.20 0.20 0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.16 25.55

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-18

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Boling Bridge
2006 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/27/2006 2.48 0.23 0.24 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 <0.04 8.72 21.82
5/31/2006 3.41 0.26 0.10 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 8.06 28.05
6/27/2006 2.79 0.40 0.24 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.96 27.09
7/25/2006 5.88 0.26 0.19 <0.03 0.07 0.06 <0.04 7.60 29.99
8/29/2006 5.57 0.04 0.02 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.91 29.62
9/26/2006 4.96 0.17 0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.03 24.92
10/24/2006 2.17 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.09 18.76

Boling Bridge
2007 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/17/2007 3.60 0.49 0.24 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 <0.04 9.92 13.65
5/15/2007 7.64 0.40 0.26 <0.03 0.14 0.03 <0.04 9.07 24.40
6/12/2007 2.80 0.36 0.28 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 8.01 27.76
7/10/2007 6.80 0.24 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 7.96 28.69
8/7/2007 4.58 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.43 31.29
9/4/2007 7.05 0.29 0.27 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 6.82 29.25
10/2/2007 7.56 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.33 24.84

Boling Bridge
2008 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/09/08 8.16 0.58 0.27 <0.03 0.31 <0.02 NM 10.7 15.15
05/27/08 3.28 0.51 0.31 <0.03 0.2 <0.02 NM 8.64 24.92
06/11/08 2.33 0.38 0.21 <0.03 0.17 0.02 NM 7.22 30.35
07/24/08 3.17 0.28 0.25 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 NM 7.46 29.26
08/13/08 2.09 0.22 0.2 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 6.77 28.24
09/11/08 1.77 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.94 27.19
10/08/08 6.65 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.74 22.56

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-19

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Boling Bridge
2009 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/15/09 2.19 0.26 NA <0.03 0.26 <0.02 NM 9.44 14.51
05/27/09 3.24 0.39 0.22 <0.03 0.17 0.04 NM 8.26 22.89
06/10/09 2.45 0.13 <0.20 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 NM 7.76 27.68
07/29/09 4.74 0.23 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 0.02 NM 7.65 28.16
08/20/09 8.56 <0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 0.04 NM 7.1 29.29
09/23/09 11.58 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 0.02 NM 7.36 25.34
10/21/09 7.99 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.06 0.03 NM 7.33 19.1

Boling Bridge
2010 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

NH3 Ortho DO Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NO2/NO3 Total P
Date (mg/L P (mg/L Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
) (mg/L) ) (deg C)
04/13/10 3.53 0.48 <0.20 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 <0.04 10.39 19.02
05/20/10 3.38 0.41 0.20 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 9.03 24.3
06/10/10 4.51 0.37 0.26 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 NM 8.63 27.86
07/20/10 1.66 0.31 <0.20 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 <0.04 8.29 30.38
08/12/10 3.86 0.25 <0.20 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 8.31 31.84
09/15/10 6.94 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM NM 27.26
10/21/10 7.59 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 NM 7.96 21.07

Boling Bridge
2011 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/11 5.98 0.49 0.25 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 NM 10.19 18.59
05/17/11 6.47 0.17 <0.20 <0.03 0.17 <0.02 NM 9.46 22.13
06/08/11 4.33 0.14 <0.20 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 NM 8.53 30.01
07/19/11 8.24 0.03 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 NM 9.10 29.47
08/10/11 7.54 0 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 8.01 30.48
09/21/11 8.32 0.23 0.23 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.08 24.13
10/26/11 5.00 0 <0.20 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.76 18.59

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-20

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Boling Bridge
2012 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/18/2012 7.50 0.2 <0.20 <0.03 0.2 <0.02 NM 10.54 20.37
5/17/2012 4.56 0.18 <0.20 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 NM 9.4 23.82
6/14/2012 5.75 0.31 0.21 <0.03 0.1 <0.02 NM 9.03 26.5
7/17/2012 4.25 0.03 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 NM 8.48 29.61
8/14/2012 5.26 0 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.88 28.34
9/11/2012 5.00 0 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.61 27.39
10/23/2012 5.06 0.04 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 NM 8.04 20.53

Boling Bridge
2013 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/23/13 9.79 0.5 0.26 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 NM 10.07 17.95
05/08/13 12.45 0.38 0.20 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 NM 9.68 17.30
06/25/13 7.59 0.26 0.26 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 9.03 26.50
07/17/13 3.37 0.3 0.30 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 8.48 29.61
08/20/13 10.00 0.39 0.37 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 NM 7.98 25.66
09/24/13 12.86 0.24 0.24 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 6.97 25.06
10/15/13 12.60 0 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.74 22.99

Boling Bridge
2010-2013 Cattahoochee Riverkeeper Chlorophyll a (g/L) Monitoring Data

Date 2010 2011 2012 2013

April 8.59 7.03 11.52

May 3.49 5.37 5.09 5.13
June 3.56 6.25 6.35 6.93
July 6.19 6.24 5.39 9.38
August 10.03 5.92 4.30 11.00
September 11.97 8.31 7.16 8.33
October 6.92 7.17 4.47 9.61

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-21

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Lanier Bridge
2000 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/00 19.12 0.65 0.36 0.18 0.29 0.02 <0.04 11.44 18.84
05/17/00 8.07 0.59 0.30 <0.03 0.29 <0.02 <0.04 8.88 24.41
06/14/00 10.09 0.36 0.25 0.03 0.11 <0.02 <0.04 8.40 29.14
07/11/00 7.61 0.28 0.24 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 <0.04 7.89 30.53
08/16/00 5.57 0.31 0.28 <0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.04 7.83 29.66
09/13/00 10.95 0.15 0.13 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 8.34 26.33
10/11/00 6.92 0.30 0.28 0.11 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 6.34 21.01

Lanier Bridge
2001 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/4/2001 12.39 0.72 0.20 <0.03 0.52 0.03 <0.04 10.39 12.65
5/9/2001 12.69 0.49 0.32 <0.03 0.17 0.02 <0.04 9.80 21.88
6/6/2001 4.65 0.42 0.24 <0.03 0.18 <0.02 <0.04 7.72 26.19
7/11/2001 4.34 0.19 0.10 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 <0.04 7.28 30.61
8/8/2001 9.91 0.32 0.25 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.42 29.82
9/6/2001 8.67 0.22 0.20 <0.03 <0.02 0.02 <0.04 7.53 28.17
10/3/2001 11.77 0.22 0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 8.00 23.44

Lanier Bridge
2002 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/3/2002 3.4 0.50 0.28 <0.03 0.22 0.02 <0.04 10.39 17.69
5/16/2002 17.0 0.47 0.33 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 9.28 23.07
6/5/2002 7.4 0.32 0.24 0.04 0.08 0.02 <0.04 8.47 28.74
7/10/2002 13.0 0.24 0.20 <0.03 0.04 0.02 0.07 7.45 29.45
8/7/2002 8.7 0.18 0.16 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.24 29.34
9/4/2002 6.2 0.20 0.18 <0.03 <0.02 0.02 <0.04 7.39 28.07
10/2/2002 9.7 0.27 0.24 <0.03 0.03 0.02 <0.04 8.10 24.01

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-22

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Lanier Bridge
2003 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/2/2003 11.77 0.82 0.38 <0.03 0.44 0.02 <0.04 10.61 14.30
5/6/2003 6.81 0.74 0.36 0.03 0.38 0.02 <0.04 8.34 20.56
6/4/2003 12.55 0.42 0.26 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 9.14 23.51
7/9/2003 9.29 0.36 0.22 <0.03 0.14 <0.02 <0.04 8.23 28.72
8/6/2003 8.52 0.37 0.27 <0.03 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 7.76 28.83
9/10/2003 10.69 0.31 0.26 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 7.67 27.18
10/8/2003 13.94 0.38 0.31 <0.03 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 7.54 22.11

Lanier Bridge
2004 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/15/2004 9.29 0.60 0.28 <0.03 0.32 <0.02 <0.04 10.05 14.81
5/5/2004 8.36 0.60 0.34 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 <0.04 9.87 19.88
6/3/2004 7.90 0.50 0.33 <0.03 0.17 <0.02 <0.04 8.07 26.94
7/8/2004 5.42 0.33 0.17 <0.03 0.16 <0.02 <0.04 7.96 28.87
8/4/2004 5.27 0.63 0.50 <0.03 0.13 <0.02 <0.04 7.13 30.92
9/2/2004 3.72 NM NM <0.03 0.04 NM <0.04 6.52 27.20
10/7/2004 13.32 NM NM <0.03 0.09 NM <0.04 8.63 22.86

Lanier Bridge
2005 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/13/2005 17.00 0.88 0.41 0.05 0.47 0.03 <0.04 12.05 18.73
5/4/2005 20.00 0.53 0.29 <0.03 0.24 0.02 <0.04 10.49 19.34
6/9/2005 9.30 0.53 0.28 <0.03 0.25 <0.02 <0.04 8.62 26.64
7/14/2005 8.00 0.41 0.28 <0.03 0.13 0.05 <0.04 7.58 27.55
8/10/2005 6.50 0.32 0.27 0.04 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 7.89 28.31
9/14/2005 8.70 0.30 0.22 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 8.42 27.29
10/5/2005 9.60 0.33 0.28 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 <0.04 7.36 24.87

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-23

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Lanier Bridge
2006 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/27/2006 3.72 0.50 0.26 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 <0.04 8.63 21.79
5/31/2006 10.84 0.31 0.15 <0.03 0.16 0.02 <0.04 8.05 28.06
6/27/2006 6.97 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.05 <0.02 0.05 8.00 28.14
7/25/2006 1.00 0.35 0.28 <0.03 0.07 0.06 <0.04 7.32 30.30
8/29/2006 8.67 0.33 0.27 0.04 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 8.75 29.66
9/26/2006 4.03 0.30 0.22 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 7.04 24.88
10/24/2006 4.03 0.24 0.16 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 <0.04 6.48 18.90

Lanier Bridge
2007 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
4/17/2007 8.10 0.58 0.23 <0.03 0.35 <0.02 <0.04 10.26 14.31
5/15/2007 5.21 0.49 0.28 <0.03 0.21 <0.02 <0.04 8.97 24.72
6/12/2007 10.49 0.41 0.29 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 <0.04 8.50 27.72
7/10/2007 8.72 0.3 0.24 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 8.47 28.02
8/7/2007 10.38 0.34 0.32 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.27 31.46
9/4/2007 6.09 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 0.03 <0.04 6.93 29.67
10/2/2007 8.82 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 7.22 24.50

Lanier Bridge
2008 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/09/08 14.6 0.88 0.32 <0.03 0.56 <0.02 NM 11.09 15.1
05/27/08 5.61 0.64 0.36 <0.03 0.28 0.04 NM 8.91 25.57
06/11/08 3.01 0.45 0.22 <0.03 0.23 <0.02 NM 7.96 30.44
07/24/08 3.49 0.37 0.31 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 7.01 29.26
08/13/08 5.48 0.32 0.3 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 6.7 28.47
09/11/08 6.1 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 0.04 NM 8.02 26.82
10/08/08 6.05 0.26 0.21 <0.03 0.05 <0.02 NM 7.5 22.38

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-24

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Lanier Bridge
2009 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/15/09 7.23 0.51 NA <0.03 0.51 <0.02 NM 9.68 14.75
05/27/09 6.99 0.53 0.233 <0.03 0.3 0.06 NM 8.58 22.73
06/10/09 7.01 0.55 0.31 <0.03 0.24 <0.02 NM 7.89 27.82
07/29/09 5.54 0.24 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 0.04 NM 7.51 28.04
08/20/09 6.3 0.27 0.25 <0.03 <0.02 0.03 NM 7.31 29.1
09/23/09 8.13 0.23 <0.20 <0.03 0.03 0.03 NM 7.67 24.78
10/21/09 12.69 0.5 0.27 <0.03 0.23 0.03 NM 7.44 19.07

Lanier Bridge
2010 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/13/10 5.97 0.68 0.24 <0.03 0.44 0.03 <0.04 12.05 20.21
05/20/10 4.96 0.66 0.28 <0.03 0.38 0.02 <0.04 9.24 24.61
06/10/10 2.56 0.53 0.25 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 NM 8.81 27.97
07/20/10 2.68 0.36 <0.20 <0.03 0.16 0.34 <0.04 8.37 30.75
08/12/10 2.90 0.32 0.2 <0.03 0.12 <0.02 <0.04 8.24 31.94
09/15/10 12.37 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM NM 27.32
10/21/10 9.84 0.35 0.31 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 NM 8.18 21.31

Lanier Bridge
2011 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/20/11 6.53 0.62 0.25 <0.03 0.37 0.02 NM 10.19 19.10
05/17/11 6.09 0.26 <0.20 <0.03 0.26 <0.02 NM 9.30 22.40
06/08/11 5.23 0.22 <0.20 <0.03 0.22 <0.02 NM 9.10 29.70
07/19/11 10.49 0.09 <0.20 <0.03 0.09 <0.02 NM 9.08 29.09
08/10/11 8.18 0.04 <0.20 <0.03 0.04 <0.02 NM 8.11 30.51
09/21/11 9.20 0.26 0.26 0.08 ND <0.02 NM 7.01 23.81
10/26/11 8.57 0.1 <0.20 0.07 0.1 <0.02 NM 8.24 18.56

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-25

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Lanier Bridge
2012 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/18/12 9.01 0.3 <0.20 <0.03 0.3 <0.02 NM 10.36 20.15
05/17/12 6.53 0.28 <0.20 <0.03 0.28 <0.02 NM 9.63 23.97
06/14/12 5.82 0.35 0.2 <0.03 0.15 <0.02 NM 9.06 26.17
07/17/12 5.59 0.3 0.24 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 8.69 29.33
08/14/12 4.31 0.23 0.23 <0.03 <0.02 0.02 NM 8.04 28.19
09/11/12 6.73 0.26 0.26 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 NM 7.66 27.37
10/23/12 6.12 0.42 0.34 <0.03 0.08 <0.02 NM 8.27 20.32

Lanier Bridge
2013 EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data

Total Ortho Water

Chlorophyll a Total N TKN NH3 NO2/NO3 DO
Date P P Temp
(g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (deg C)
04/23/13 8.16 0.81 0.37 <0.03 0.44 <0.02 NM 9.95 17.43
05/08/13 12.07 0.68 0.3 <0.03 0.38 0.02 NM 9.89 16.70
06/25/13 6.17 0.29 0.29 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 NM 9.06 26.17
07/17/13 10.27 0.48 0.33 <0.03 0.15 0.02 NM 8.69 29.33
08/20/13 17.11 0.42 0.31 <0.03 0.11 <0.02 NM 8.10 25.13
09/24/13 5.94 0.33 0.31 <0.03 0.02 <0.02 NM 7.31 24.98
10/15/13 14.38 0.3 0.24 <0.03 0.06 <0.02 NM 7.95 22.98

Lanier Bridge
2010-2013 Cattahoochee Riverkeeper Chlorophyll a (g/L) Monitoring Data

Date 2010 2011 2012 2013

April 6.79 6.43 9.41

May 6.59 6.37 9.65 13.00
June 8.02 7.58 6.11 7.37
July 7.00 9.50 6.83 10.63
August 10.74 9.51 5.52 11.00
September 13.15 9.87 8.61 12.00
October 9.80 11.00 7.70 11.00

Georgia Environmental Protection Division A-26

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Appendix B

Average Annual Growing Season Chlorophyll a Plots

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Atlanta, Georgia
 Average Annual Growing Season Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
Standard 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
US Dam Forebay 5 3.3 3.8 3.8 5.8 3.8 5.1 3.6 4.4 2.1 2.7 4.1 5.4 3.6 5.3
Flowery Branch 6 4.0 4.7 3.8 5.8 4.0 6.1 4.3 4.4 2.4 2.7 4.8 5.3 3.7 5.3
Browns Bridge 7 6.0 6.1 5.2 7.2 4.4 7.9 4.8 4.5 4.0 4.4 5.9 6.5 4.7 7.0
Boling Bridge 10 5.9 6.8 9.0 5.0 7.7 3.9 4.9 3.9 5.8 5.7 6.7 5.5 9.3
Lanier Bridge 10 9.8 9.2 9.3 10.5 7.6 11.1 5.6 7.3 6.3 7.7 7.4 8.2 6.8 10.6
-Growing Season defined as April through October seven month period
-For Years 2000-2006, chlorophyll a is corrected for Pheophytin a Using Spectrophotometric Method. For 2007 and later, Fluorescence, Modified non-
acidified Welchmeyer.
-In 2007, Lanier TMDL study included two data set for months of May-Oct. Additional samples analyzed by EPA SESD Athens. Averages of average
monthly chlorophyll a represent growing season average entered here.
-For 2010 and later, the Lake Lanier data includes data from Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

Annual Average Total Phosphorus Load (lbs)

Standard 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Chattahoochee
178,000 29,200 42,700 59,600 152,300 96,800 171,500 62,200 44,040 68,330 131,215 118,105 68,843 48,351
River
Chestatee
118,000 7,700 10,000 25,400 72,000 51,200 91,400 40,500 17,130 25,120 48,984 55,417 29,382 22.729
River
Flat Creek 14,400 10,200 7,500 9,300 10,000 9,500 6,500 2,100 2,000 1,820 2,151 1,766 1,791 704

Georgia Environmental Protection Division C-1

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Atlanta, Georgia
Final Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation December 2017
Lake Lanier (Chlorophyll a)

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Atlanta, Georgia