Altamaha regional water plan, 2011

REGIONAL WATER PLAN
September 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................. ES-1
1. Introduction................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. The Significance of Water Resources in Georgia............................. 1-1 1.2. State and Regional Water Planning Process.................................... 1-2 1.3. The Altamaha Water Planning Region Vision and Goals ................. 1-3
2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region ......................................................... 2-1 2.1. History and Geography..................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Characteristics of Region.................................................................. 2-3 2.3. Local Policy Context ......................................................................... 2-4
3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region ................................................... 3-1 3.1. Current Major Water Use in Region.................................................. 3-1 3.2. Resource Assessments .................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1. Current Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) ........ 3-2 3.2.2. Current Surface Water Availability ........................................ 3-7 3.2.3. Current Groundwater Availability .......................................... 3-9 3.3. Current Ecosystem Conditions and Instream Uses ........................ 3-10
4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs ................................................. 4-1 4.1. Municipal Forecasts.......................................................................... 4-1 4.2. Industrial Forecasts .......................................................................... 4-5 4.3. Agricultural Forecasts ....................................................................... 4-6 4.4. Water for Thermoelectric Power Forecasts ...................................... 4-8 4.5. Total Water Demand Forecasts........................................................ 4-9
5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs ................. 5-1 5.1. Groundwater Availability Comparisons............................................. 5-1 5.2. Surface Water Availability Comparisons........................................... 5-2 5.3. Surface Water Quality Comparisons (Assimilative Capacity) ........... 5-6
6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals ............................................. 6-1 6.1. Identifying Water Management Practices ......................................... 6-1 6.2. Selected Water Management Practices for the Altamaha Region.... 6-2
7. Implementing Water Management Practices................................................ 7-1 7.1. Implementation Schedule and Roles of Responsible Parties ........... 7-1 7.2. Fiscal Implications of Selected Water Management Practices ....... 7-16 7.3. Alignment with Other Plans ............................................................ 7-27 7.4. Recommendations to the State ...................................................... 7-28
8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress.............................................................. 8-1 8.1. Benchmarks...................................................................................... 8-1 8.2. Plan Updates .................................................................................... 8-6 8.3. Plan Amendments ............................................................................ 8-6

September 2011

i

ALTAMAHA

Table of Contents

Bibliography ..........................................................................................................B-1

Tables

ES-1
ES-2 ES-3 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-2
4-3 4-4 5-1 5-2 5-3
5-4 6-1 7-1 7-2 8-1

Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Assessment Recommendations .................................................................................... ES-8 Short-Term Water Quantity Management Practices (0 10 Years)........ ES-10 Short-Term Water Quality Management Practices (0 10 Years) .......... ES-10 Baseline DO Assimilative Capacity in Altamaha River Basins ..................... 3-4 Magnitude of Current Surface Water Availability Gaps ................................ 3-8 Population Projections by County ................................................................ 4-2 Estimated Municipal Water Demand Reductions from Lower Flush Volume Toilets (AAD - MGD) ....................................................................... 4-3 Agricultural Water Forecast by County (in AAD-MGD) ................................ 4-7 Regional Thermoelectric Water Forecasts (in AAD-MGD) ........................... 4-9 2050 Forecast versus Groundwater Permitted Capacity.............................. 5-2 2050 Surface Water Gap Forecast (in AAD-MGD) ...................................... 5-4 2050 Municipal Wastewater Forecast versus Existing Permitted Capacity (MGD) .......................................................................................................... 5-7 Permitted Assimilative Capacity for DO in Altamaha River Basins .............. 5-7 Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region .......................... 6-6 Implementation Schedule............................................................................. 7-2 Cost Estimates for the Implementation Responsibilities ............................ 7-20 Benchmarks for Water Management Plans.................................................. 8-2

Figures

ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 ES-5 ES-6 ES-7 1-1 1-2 1-3 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8

Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council ............................................. ES-2 2005 Water Supply by Source Type.......................................................... ES-3 2005 Water Use by Category .................................................................... ES-4 Trends in Wastewater and Return Flows .................................................. ES-5 Altamaha Region Population Projections (2010-2050) ............................. ES-5 2050 Surface Water Gaps ......................................................................... ES-6 Implementation of Management Practices .............................................. ES-11 Regional Water Planning Councils ............................................................... 1-2 State Water Planning Process ..................................................................... 1-2 Locations of Altamaha Region Council Members ........................................ 1-3 Surface Water Resources, Counties, and Major Cities ................................ 2-1 Major Georgia Aquifers ................................................................................ 2-2 Land Cover Distribution................................................................................ 2-3 2005 Water Supply by Source Type............................................................. 3-2 2005 Surface Water Withdrawal by Category .............................................. 3-2 2005 Groundwater Withdrawal by Category ................................................ 3-2 2005 Wastewater/Return Flow by Category................................................. 3-2 Assimilative Capacity Models ....................................................................... 3-3 Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Baseline Conditions 3-5 Surface Water Planning Nodes .................................................................... 3-7 Sub-regions Associated with the Coastal Permitting Plan ........................... 3-9

ii

September 2011

ALTAMAHA

Table of Contents
3-9 Impaired Water Bodies with Completed TMDLs......................................... 3-12 4-1 Total Municipal Water Use Forecast (in AAD-MGD) .................................... 4-3 4-2 Total Municipal Wastewater Generation Forecast (in AAD-MGD) ............... 4-4 4-3 Total Industrial Water and Wastewater Forecast (in AAD-MGD) ................. 4-6 4-4 Total Agricultural Water Forecast (in AAD-MGD)......................................... 4-8 4-5 Water Demand in 2010 and 2050 .............................................................. 4-10 4-6 Wastewater/Return Flow in 2010 and 2050 ............................................... 4-10 5-1 2050 Surface Water Gap Summary ............................................................. 5-5 5-2 Results of Assimilative Capacity AssessmentDO at Permitted
Conditions .................................................................................................... 5-8 5-3 Surface Water Quality Gap Summary ........................................................ 5-10 6-1 Recommended Surface Water Availability Management Practices in a
Phased Approach.........................................................................................6-4 6-2 Recommended Surface Water Quality Management Practices in a
Phased Approach.........................................................................................6-5
Supplemental Documents
The following supplemental materials have been developed in support of the Altamaha Regional Water Plan and are available electronically as attachments to the Regional Water Plan at www.altamahacouncil.org:
Public Outreach Technical Memorandum
Vision and Goals Technical Memorandum
Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum
Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum
Management Practices Selection Process Technical Memorandum
Plans Reviewed in Selecting Management Practices Technical Memorandum
Water Conservation Technical Memorandum

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

iii

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments
The Atlamaha Council should be acknowledged for contributing significant amounts of time and talent toward the development of the Regional Water Plan. They participated in council meetings, subcommittee meetings, conference calls, and report development and review. The members of the Altamaha Council include:

Name Gary Bell Randy Branch (Alternate) Guy R. Bullock James M. Burns Gerald A. DeWitt (Alternate) Will Donaldson, Jr. Cleve Edenfield Jim Free Randy Giddens Len Hauss Edward S. Jeffords (Vice-Chair) Phillip Jennings L. Brinson Lanier (Chair) Dan McCranie Steve Meeks Buddy Pittman Michael A. Polsky John E. Roller Sue B. Sammons Doug Sharp Paul A. Stavriotis (Alternate) James E. Strickland Dent L. Temples Lindsay Thomas William G. Tomberlin Michael Williams Russ Yeomons Representative Greg Morris (Ex-Officio) Senator Tommie Williams (Ex-Officio)

City Claxton Baxley
Pitts Tarrytown
Jesup Metter Swainsboro Swainsboro Eastman Jesup Jesup Soperton Metter Eastman
Kite Eastman Cochran Mount Vernon Lumber City
Jesup Glennville Glennville
Lyons Screven Abbeville Cochran Swainsboro
-

County Evans Appling Wilcox Montgomery Wayne Candler Emanuel Emanuel Dodge Wayne Wayne Treutlen Candler Dodge Johnson Dodge Bleckley Montgomery Telfair Wayne Tattnall Tattnall Toombs Wayne Wilcox Bleckley Emanuel
-

The Altamaha Council would like to thank Rick Brown and Katherine Zitsch with CDM and Kevin Farrell and Ted Hendrickx of Georgia EPD for providing the planning and technical guidance toward the development of this Plan.

ALTAMAHA

iv

September 2011

Conversion of Units
Conversion of Units (Water Flow and Volume) Used in Plan (values
rounded) 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons 1 cubic foot per second = 0.646 million gallons per day or 646,272 gallons per day 1 million gallons per day = 1.55 cubic feet per second 1 million gallons = 3.069 acre-feet (1 acre-foot is enough water to cover a football field with about 9 inches of water) 1 cubic foot per second = 1.98 acre-feet per day 1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons 1 acre-foot = 0.326 million gallons

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

v

List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms

AAD-MGD

Annual Average Day in million gallons per day

ASR

Aquifer Storage and Recovery

ASWS

Additional/Alternate Surface Water Supply

BMP

best management practice

cfs

cubic feet per second

CRD

Coastal Resources Division

CWA

Clean Water Act

CWCS

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

CWSRF

Clean Water State Revolving Fund

DCA

Department of Community Affairs

DCAR

Data Collection/Additional Research

DNR

Department of Natural Resources

DO

dissolved oxygen

DWSRF

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

EDU

Educational Needs

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPD

Environmental Protection Division

ET

evapotranspiration

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GEFA

Georgia Environmental Finance Authority

Georgia DOA

Georgia Department of Agriculture

GFC

Georgia Forestry Commission

gpcd

gallons per capita per day

GSWCC

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

ALTAMAHA

vi

September 2011

List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms

GW

groundwater

I/I

inflow and infiltration

IGWPC

Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity

IWWPC

Industrial Wastewater Permit Capacity

LAS

land application system

LDA

local drainage area

M

million

MG

million gallons

MGD

million gallons per day

MGWPC

Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity

MNGWPD

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District

MOA

Memorandum of Agreement

MWWPC

Municipal Wastewater Permit Capacity

N/A

not applicable

NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS

non-point source

NPSA

Agricultural Best Management Practices

NPSF

Forestry Best Management Practices

NPSR

Rural Best Management Practices

NPSU

Urban Best Management Practices

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NUT

nutrients

O.C.G.A.

Official Code of Georgia Annotated

OCP

Ordinance and Code Policy

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

vii

List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms

OPB

Office of State Planning and Budget

OSSMS

on-site sewage management systems

PIP

Public Involvement Plan

PS

point source

PSDO mi2

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen square miles

SW

surface water

TMDL

total maximum daily load

UGA

University of Georgia

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS

U.S. Forest Service

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WC

water conservation

WCIP

Water Conservation Implementation Plan

WRD

Wildlife Resources Division

WTP

water treatment plant

WWTP

wastewater treatment plant

ALTAMAHA

viii

September 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Water Resource Trends and Key

Introduction and Overview of the Findings for the Altamaha Region

Altamaha Region

The Altamaha Region includes 16 counties in the

Of all Georgia's natural resources, none is more important to the future of our State than water. Over the last several decades, Georgia has been

south central portion of Georgia. Over the next 40 years, the population of the region is projected to increase from approximately 250,000 to 375,000 residents.

one of the fastest growing states in

the nation. According to the U.S.

Census Bureau, between 2000 and

2010, Georgia ranked 4th in total

population gain (1.5 million new

residents) and 7th in percentage

increase in population (18%). During

a portion of this same period, our

State

also

experienced

Key economic drivers in the region include agriculture, forestry, professional and business services, education, healthcare, manufacturing, public administration, fishing and hunting, and construction. Energy production is also significant to the region. Water supplies, wastewater treatment, and related infrastructure will need to be developed and maintained to support these economic drivers.

unprecedented drought. Georgia's growth and economic prosperity are vitally linked to our water resources.

Groundwater from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is needed to meet about 55% of the water supply needs, with agricultural and industrial uses being

As our State has grown, the management and value of water resources has also changed. Ensuring a bright future for our State requires thoughtful planning and

the dominant demand sectors. Surface water is utilized to meet about 45% of the water supply needs, with agriculture and energy as the dominant demand sectors. The energy sector is a major user of surface water from the Altamaha River.

wise use of our water resources. In

2008, the State of Georgia's

leadership

authorized

a

comprehensive state-wide water

planning process to help address

these challenges and take a forward

Water resource challenges in the region include: surface water shortfalls during some periods on the Canoochee, Ogeechee, Alapaha, and Satilla Rivers; and water quality challenges associated with low dissolved oxygen in some portions of the region.

look at how our State is expected to grow and use water over the next 40 years. The Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council (Altamaha Council) was established in February 2009 as part of this statewide process. The Altamaha Council

Management practices are needed to address these challenges including: water conservation; refining planning information; alternate sources of supply in areas where surface water availability may be limited; improving/upgrading wastewater treatment; and addressing non-point sources of pollution.

is one of 11 planning regions

charged with developing Regional Water Plans, and encompasses sixteen counties

in the south central portion of Georgia (shown in Figure ES-1). An overview of the

initial findings and recommendations for the Altamaha Region are provided in this

Executive Summary. The Altamaha Council's Regional Water Plan is available at:

www.altamahacouncil.org.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

ES-1

Executive Summary

Figure ES-1: Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council

Georgia has abundant water

resources, with 14 major

river systems and multiple

groundwater

aquifer

systems. These waters are

shared natural resources;

streams and rivers run

through many political

jurisdictions. The rain that

falls in one region of Georgia

may replenish the aquifers

used by communities many

miles away. And, while water

in Georgia is abundant, it is

not an unlimited resource. It

must be carefully managed

to meet long-term water

needs. Since water

resources vary greatly

across the State, water

supply planning on a regional

and local level is the most

effective way to ensure that

current and future water

resource needs are met.

The Altamaha River, formed by the confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers, is the major surface water feature in the region. The river originates in the Northern Piedmont province of north Georgia, traverses southeast through the Coastal Plain region, and discharges to the Atlantic Ocean near Darien, Georgia. It is the only major river in Georgia that is contained wholly within the boundaries of the State. The Altamaha River is a popular fishing resource to the region and is home to 74 species of fish including sunfish, largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, and catfish.

The Altamaha Region encompasses several major population centers, including Vidalia, Jesup, Swainsboro, Eastman, and Glennville. The Altamaha Region is projected to grow by approximately 61,000 residents, or 24%, from 2010 to 2030 (Georgia's Office of Planning and Budget, 2010). Based on this trend, the population of the region in 2050 will increase by approximately 124,000 people, or 49%, for a total of about 375,000 residents. To accommodate this growth, the region requires reliable water supplies and sufficient wastewater treatment to meet its growing needs. In addition, the region has a vibrant agricultural base that requires water supply to continue supporting the economics of the region.

Key economic drivers in the Altamaha Region include agriculture, forestry, professional and business services, education, healthcare, manufacturing, public administration, fishing and hunting, and construction. The important industrial and

ES-2

September 2011

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

manufacturing sectors in the region include mining, food, textile, paper, chemical, petroleum, rubber, stone and clay, primary metals, fabricated metals, and electrical equipment. Forested lands and agriculture are major land covers in the region, which are also important drivers for the region's economy.

Establishing a Water Resource Vision for the Altamaha Region A foundational part of the water planning process was the development of a vision for the region that describes the economic, population, environmental, and water use conditions that are desired for the region. The Altamaha Council adopted the following vision for the region.

"The vision of the Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council is to wisely manage,
develop, and protect the region's water resources for current and future generations by ensuring that the Altamaha basin's water resources are sustainably managed to enhance quality of life and public health, protect natural systems including fishing, wildlife and wildlife utilization activities, and support the basin's economy."

The Altamaha Council identified 12 goals to complement the vision. These goals can be found in Section 1 of the Regional Water Plan.

Overview of Water Resources and Use in the Altamaha Region Surface Water

The Altamaha River is the major Figure ES-2: 2005 Water Supply by surface water feature in the region. Source Type

The Altamaha River, formed by the

confluence of the Ocmulgee and

Oconee Rivers, is 127 miles long and

has a drainage area of approximately

14,000 square miles (EPD, 2003). As shown in Figure ES-2, surface water is used to meet about 45% of the region's water supply needs. Through 2050, the sources of agricultural surface water in

Surface Water,
107 MGD, 45%

Ground- water,
130 MGD, 55%

the region are projected to come from

the Altamaha River Basin (34-36%),

Ocmulgee River Basin (28-29%),

Ogeechee River Basin (21%), Satilla River Basin (7-8%), Suwannee River

Total 237 MGD

Basin (6%), and Oconee River Basin (2%). This information is based on the

Data Source: "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005" (USGS, 2009).

assumption that future use will follow

current practices and trends. However, as described in more detail below, there are

some locations where current and/or future water needs exceed water availability,

which causes the need to develop alternate sources of water supply.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

ES-3

Executive Summary

Groundwater
As shown in Figure ES-2, groundwater is used to meet about 55% of the region's water supply needs. Based on 2010 forecasted groundwater withdrawal data, approximately 94% of groundwater in the region will be supplied from the Floridan aquifer, which is one of the most productive groundwater aquifers in the United States. The remaining groundwater is supplied by the surficial, Claiborne, Gordon, Cretaceous, and Dublin aquifers.
Water and Wastewater Needs in the Altamaha Region A Closer Look
Figure ES-3 presents surface water and groundwater use by sector in the Altamaha Region. About 54% percent of surface water withdrawals in the region are for the energy sector. However, only approximately 36 MGD of the total 58 MGD of energy water withdrawals is consumed, while the remaining 22 MGD are returned to the surface water. About 105 MGD of groundwater withdrawals are used to supply industrial (48%) and agricultural uses (33%), while municipal, self-supply (homes with groundwater wells), and energy make up the remaining uses.

Figure ES-3: 2005 Water Use by Category

Surface Water
Energy, 58 MGD,
54%

Agriculture, 49 MGD,
46%

Agriculture, 43 MGD,
33%

Groundwater
Energy, 0.2 MGD,
0.1%
Municipal, 15 MGD,
11%

Total 107 MGD

Industrial, 62 MGD,
48%

Total 130 MGD

Self-Supply (Domestic),
9 MGD, 7%

Data Source: "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005" (USGS, 2009).
Energy totals shown represent total thermoelectric water withdrawal; 36 MGD of the total 58 MGD (62%) is consumptive, the remainder (22 MGD) is discharged back to surface waters as return flow.

Wastewater treatment types/values representing past trends and forecasted use in the region are shown in Figure ES-4. According to the Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecast developed for the Regional Water Plan (CDM, 2011), 62% of treated wastewater in the region are disposed of as a municipal/industrial point source discharge, energy discharge (20%), or to a land application system (5%). The remaining wastewater is treated by on-site sewage treatment (septic) systems (13%).

ALTAMAHA

ES-4

September 2011

Executive Summary

Altamaha Forecasted Water Resource Needs from the Year 2010 to 2050
Municipal water and wastewater forecasts are tied to population projections for the counties within the Altamaha Region. The population projections were developed by the Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and are shown in Figure ES-5. Overall, the region's water supply needs are expected to grow by 34% (90 MGD) from 2010 through 2050. Over the same period, total wastewater flows in the region are expected to grow by 34% (36 MGD).

Figure ES-4: Trends in Wastewater and Return Flows

Point Source Discharge,
69 MGD, 62%

Land Application Systems,
5 MGD, 5%
On-site Sewage Treatment (Septic Systems), 14 MGD,
13%

Total 110 MGD

Energy Discharge,
22 MGD, 20%

Data Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.
Energy totals shown represent total thermoelectric water withdrawal; 36 MGD of the total 58 MGD (62%) is consumptive, the remainder (22 MGD) is discharged back to surface waters as return flow.

Figure ES-5: Altamaha Region Population Projections (2010-2050)

400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000
50,000 0

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Wilcox Wheeler Wayne Treutlen Toombs Telfair Tattnall Montgomery Johnson Jeff Davis Evans Emanuel Dodge Candler Bleckley Appling

Data Source: Georgia 2030 Population Projections, Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2010. Data based on the 2010-2030 projections used for State Water Planning purposes and extrapolated to 2040 and 2050.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

ES-5

Executive Summary

Comparison of Available Resource Capacity to Future Water Resource Needs
Groundwater Availability
Groundwater from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is a vital resource for the Altamaha Region. Several groundwater modeling tools were developed as part of the water planning process to estimate the amount of water that can be sustainably pumped from select regional aquifers; also referred to as sustainable yield. Overall, the results from the Groundwater Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010) indicate that the sustainable yield for the modeled portions of the regional aquifer(s) is greater than the forecasted demands. Therefore, at this time no groundwater resource shortfalls are expected to occur in the Altamaha Region over the 40 year planning horizon. However, localized issues could arise in areas where there is a high well density and/or high volumes of groundwater withdrawal.

Figure ES-6: 2050 Surface Water Gaps

Surface Water Availability
Surface water is also an important resource used to meet current and forecasted future needs of the Altamaha Region. In order to determine if there is sufficient surface water to meet both offstream uses of water and instream flow needs, a Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment model was developed and used in the state water planning process.

The results of the future conditions modeling from the Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010) show that in some portions of the region, there are sufficient surface water supplies to meet current and forecasted water supply needs. However, in dry years, during some portions of the year, the modeled demand for offstream uses of water results in projected impacts to

ES-6

September 2011

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

instream flow needs (referred to as a "gap"). Figure ES-6 summarizes the locations in or near the region where there is a forecasted gap between available surface water resource and forecasted need. There are current and 2050 forecasted surface water gaps at the following locations in and near the region: Claxton (Canoochee River), Eden (Ogeechee River, outside of Altamaha Region), Kings Ferry (Ogeechee River, outside of Altamaha Region), Atkinson (Satilla River, outside of Altamaha Region) and Statenville (Alapaha River outside of the Altamaha Region). At each of these locations, the dominant water use type is agricultural. The projected increase of agricultural surface water use for the counties within the Altamaha Region that have current and/or future gaps is 5.32 MGD. Since there are current gaps at the referenced locations, it will be difficult to develop additional surface water to meet projected needs without increasing current gaps. As described below, management practices are recommended by the Altamaha Council to address surface water gaps. In Figure ES-6, the terms "planning node" and "basic node" refer to locations in the region with long-term river flow measurement data. In most instances, basic nodes are located at or near U.S. Geological Survey stream gages or at dams. Planning nodes are basic nodes where water availability assessments are performed.

Summary of Resource Assessment Results
Management Practices should be developed and implemented to address water resource shortfalls as determined by the three Resource Assessments.
Groundwater: Overall, results indicate that the sustainable yield for the modeled portions of the regional aquifer(s) is greater than the forecasted demands.
Surface Water Quantity: There are sufficient surface water supplies at some locations throughout the Altamaha Region, but there are also projected surface water shortfalls at the Claxton, Eden, Kings Ferry, Atkinson, and Statenville nodes.
Surface Water Quality: There are four river reaches within the Ogeechee River Basin, six river reaches within the Altamaha River Basin, and one river reach in the Ocmulgee River Basin that may exceed assimilative capacity.

Assessment of Water Quality Conditions
One measure of the capacity of surface water to maintain its health and the health of the aquatic species living therein is the amount of residual dissolved oxygen in the water. As part of the March 2010 Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment, modeling of dissolved oxygen concentrations was performed by EPD for each surface water reach in the region that has upstream wastewater discharges to the reach. The modeling estimates the ability of the surface water to assimilate the amount of waste being discharged (also referred to as assimilative capacity). Each modeled river segment was classified as exceeding dissolved oxygen capacity, meeting dissolved oxygen capacity, or having available dissolved oxygen capacity. Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the assimilative capacity assessment for dissolved oxygen at baseline and/or permitted conditions including recommendations to address potential future (2050) water quality needs. Assimilative capacity assessments indicate the potential need for improved

September 2011

ES-7

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

wastewater treatment in some facilities within the Ogeechee, Altamaha, and Ocmulgee River Basins. Information is also included for portions of the river basin where additional treatment of nitrogen and/or phosphorus and/or ammonia may be needed.

Table ES-1: Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Assessment Recommendations

River Basin

Recommendation

Number of Affected Stream Reaches

Monitoring and data collection

3

Relocate discharge point to higher flow receiving stream

1

Altamaha

Improve level of wastewater treatment to improve instream dissolved oxygen

3

Improve wastewater treatment for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)

2

Monitoring and data collection

2

Expand/construct new facility to meet future wastewater flows

1

Ogeechee Improve level of wastewater treatment to improve instream dissolved oxygen

1

Improve wastewater treatment for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)

1

Improve level of wastewater treatment to improve instream dissolved oxygen

1

Ocmulgee Implement ammonia limits

1

Improve wastewater treatment for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)

1

Source: Altamaha Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.

Under Section 303d of the federal Clean Water Act, a total maximum daily load must be developed for waters that do not meet their designated uses. A total maximum daily load represents the maximum pollutant loading that a water body can assimilate and continue meeting its designated use (i.e., not exceeding State water quality standards). A water body is deemed to be impaired if it does not meet the applicable criteria for a particular pollutant; consequently, total maximum daily loads are required to be established for these waters to reduce the concentrations of the exceeding parameters in order to comply with State water quality standards.
For the Altamaha Region, there are 75 impaired stream reaches (total impaired length of 915 miles) and 2 impaired lakes (total impaired area of 390 acres). Total

ES-8

September 2011

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary
maximum daily loads have been completed for 71 of the impaired stream reaches and for both of the impaired lakes. The majority of impairments are due to low dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform.
Identifying Water Management Practices to Address Water Resource Shortfalls and Future Needs
The comparison of EPD's March 2010 Resource Assessments and forecasted demands identified the region's likely resource shortfalls or gaps and demonstrated the necessity for region and resource specific water management practices. In selecting the actions needed (i.e., water management practices), the Altamaha Council considered practices identified in existing plans, the Region's Vision and Goals, and coordinated with local governments and water providers as well as neighboring Councils that share these water resources.
The Altamaha Council has developed a management practice strategy based on the best data and modeling results available. The Council recognizes that as data are refined and modeling results improve including water and wastewater projections and Resource Assessments the resulting future needs and gaps may change. Therefore, the Council has prioritized short-term management practices to address gaps with the understanding that more complex management practices may be required in the future. These short-term management practices are presented in Tables ES-2 and ES-3.
The Altamaha Council believes the Regional Water Plan should be reviewed in defined increments in the future such as every five years to evaluate how the implemented management practices are performing toward addressing gaps and meeting forecasted needs and what additional measures might be required. If the selected management practices have not sufficiently closed the gaps identified by the Resource Assessments, then additional management practices should be selected and implemented. The selected management practices will over time address identified gaps and meet future uses when combined with practices for all shared resource regions.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

ES-9

Executive Summary

Table ES-2: Short-Term Water Quantity Management Practices (0 10 Years)
Utilize surface water and groundwater sources within the available resource capacities
Water conservation
Data collection and research to confirm the frequency, duration, severity, and drivers of surface water gaps (forecast methodology assumptions and Resource Assessment modeling)
Evaluate and ensure that future surface water permit conditions do not contribute to low flow concerns
Encourage sustainable groundwater use as a preferred supply in regions with surface water low flow concerns
Identify incentives and a process to sustainably replace a portion of existing surface water use with groundwater use to address low flow concerns
Evaluate the potential to use existing storage to address low flow concerns
Education to reduce surficial aquifer groundwater use impacts to low flow concerns

Table ES-3: Short-Term Water Quality Management Practices (0 10 Years)
Point Sources:
Support and fund current permitting and waste load allocation process to improve treatment of wastewater and increase treatment capacity
Data collection and research to confirm discharge volumes and waste concentrations as well as receiving stream flows and chemistry
Non-point Sources:
Data collection to confirm source of pollutants and causes; encourage stormwater ordinances, septic system maintenance, and coordinated planning
Ensure funding and support for Best Management Practices programs by local and state programs, including urban/suburban, rural, forestry and agricultural Best Management Practices
Non-point Source Existing Impairments - Total maximum daily load list streams:
Improve data on source of pollutant and length of impairment
Identify opportunities to leverage funds and implement non-point source Best Management Practices

Implementing Water Management Practices
The Altamaha Council supports the concept of regional water resource planning with a focus on planning Councils composed of local governments, water users, water providers, industry, business and affected stakeholders. Local representatives are typically most familiar with local water resource issues and needs. The State has a vital role providing technical support, guidance, and funding to support locally focused water resource planning. This plan should be viewed as a living, iterative document and the State should focus on the following principles:
Education, Incentives, Collaboration, Cooperation, Enabling, Supporting
Implementation of the Altamaha Regional Water Plan will be primarily by various water users and wastewater utilities in the region. The most cost-effective and more readily implemented management practices will be prioritized for short-term implementation via an incremental and adaptive approach as shown in Figure ES-7. If resource needs are not met and/or gaps are not addressed, then more complex management practices will be pursued. Future planning efforts should confirm current assumptions and make necessary revisions and/or improvements to the conclusions reached during this round of planning.

ALTAMAHA

ES-10

September 2011

Executive Summary
Figure ES-7: Implementation of Management Practices

Cost Considerations
Planning level cost estimates were prepared for the various categories of management practices. A detailed summary of costs can be found in Section 7 of the Regional Water Plan. In most cases, costs are presented on a unit cost basis or when applicable as a total estimated cost for certain management practices. Total overall costs for the entire Plan were not specifically developed because the recommended practices are not intended to be mandated or prescriptive to the water and wastewater users and providers. In general, addressing surface water needs in the region from both a water supply and a water quality perspective are expected to present the largest challenges and have the most fiscal impact. For the Regional Water Plan to be most effective, wastewater utilities and agricultural water users will need the planning and implementation support to help them meet current and future needs. It is anticipated that several different funding sources and options will be used to secure funding for the various management practices outlined in the Regional Water Plan, and adequate funding will be a critical component of the successful implementation of the State Water Plan.
Implementation Considerations and Benchmarks Helping Ensure Progress toward Meeting Future Needs
Effective implementation of the Regional Water Plan will require the availability of sufficient funding in the form of loans, and in some cases, possibly grants. In addition, many of the proposed management practices require ongoing coordination with affected stakeholders/water users and collaboration to help ensure successful solutions are identified and implemented. Finally, in many cases, monitoring progress toward addressing future needs will require improved data and information on the current actions and management practices that are already in place.
To assess progress toward meeting regional needs, the Altamaha Council identified several benchmarks, which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the

September 2011

ES-11

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary
Regional Water Plan. The benchmarks are discussed in Section 8 of the Regional Water Plan and include both the activities that should be accomplished and the measurement tools that can be used to assess progress.
The Altamaha Council suggests that EPD consider "institutionalizing" planning. This would entail a long-term commitment of staff and funding to: monitor and support Regional Water Plan recommendations; coordinate improved data collection, management and analysis; continue to develop and improve Resource Assessment tools; and help provide funding, permitting, and technical support to address gaps and water resource needs. Institutionalized planning would provide the framework to monitor management practice progress against the benchmarks presented, assist in determining the success of implemented programs, and evaluate what additional practices might be necessary.
The Altamaha Council supports the concept of regional water planning led by local representatives. The Council members wish to express their gratitude to former Governor Sonny Perdue, Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, and former Speaker of the House Glenn Richardson for their nomination to the Altamaha Council. The Regional Water Plan provides a recommended path forward to help achieve social, economic, and environmental prosperity for the region. The Council members are grateful for the opportunity to serve the region and State. The Altamaha Council members wish to remain involved in facilitating attainment of the Regional Water Plan benchmarks and making necessary revision to the Plan.

ALTAMAHA

ES-12

September 2011

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

Section 1. Introduction

Over the last decade, Georgia was one of the fastest growing states in the nation. During this same period

Summary

the State experienced unprecedented drought. In addition, we have seen increased competition for water supplies, and our perspectives on how we use and value water have also changed. In response to

The Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council, established in February 2009

these challenges, a State Water Council was formed under the State Water Plan,

to develop a state-wide water planning process.

has adopted a Vision and

Goals for prioritizing water

In 2008, the State Water Council submitted the resource use and

Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Plan management within the

(State Water Plan) to the Georgia General Assembly region.

and the state-wide water planning process was

approved. The purpose of the State Water Plan is to These guiding principles

guide Georgia in managing water resources in a were used to identify and

sustainable manner to support the State's economy, select water management

protect public health and natural systems, and to practices that best address

enhance the quality of life for all our citizens. The the needs and resource

State Water Plan identifies state-wide policies, provides planning guidance, and establishes a planning process for completion of Regional Water

conditions of the Altamaha Region.

Development and Conservation Plans (Regional Water Plans). The Altamaha

Regional Water Planning Council (Altamaha Council) was formed to help guide the

completion of the Regional Water Plan. The Altamaha Council is composed of

membership based on a nomination and appointment process by the Governor,

Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker.

1.1. The Significance of Water Resources in Georgia
Of all Georgia's natural resources, none is more important to the future of our State than water. Georgia has abundant water resources, with 14 major river systems and multiple groundwater aquifer systems. These waters are shared natural resources. Streams and rivers run through many political jurisdictions. The rain that falls in one region of Georgia may replenish the aquifers used by communities many miles away. And, while water in Georgia is abundant, it is not an unlimited resource. It must be carefully managed to meet long-term water needs.

Since water resources, their conditions, and their uses vary greatly across the State, selection and implementation of management practices on a regional and local level is the most effective way to ensure that current and future needs for water supply and assimilative capacity are met. Therefore, the State Water Plan calls for the preparation of ten regional Water Development and Conservation Plans (Regional Water Plans). The eleventh regional water planning district, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD, also known as "the District"), was created by State law in 2001 and had existing plans in place. Figure 1-1 illustrates

September 2011

1-1

ALTAMAHA

1. Introduction

Figure 1-1: Regional Water Planning Councils

the 11 council boundaries and major surface watersheds, which are shown by the different background colors.

This Regional Water Plan prepared by the Altamaha Council describes the current and projected water resource needs of the region and summarizes regionally appropriate management strategies (also referred to as water management practices) to be employed in Georgia's Altamaha Water Planning Region over the next 40 years to help meet these needs.

1.2. State and Regional Water Planning Process
The State Water Plan calls for the preparation of Regional Water Plans designed to manage water resources in a sustainable manner through 2050. This Regional Water Plan has been prepared following a consensus-based planning process illustrated in Figure 1-2. As detailed in the Altamaha Council's Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as well as the Council's Public Involvement Plan (PIP), the process required and benefited from input of other regional water planning councils, local governments, and the public.

Figure 1-2: State Water Planning Process

ALTAMAHA

1-2

September 2011

1. Introduction

1.3. The Altamaha Water Planning Region Vision and Goals

Following the process established in the State Water Plan, the Altamaha Council was established in February 2009. The Altamaha Council has 29 members, which includes 2 alternates and 2 Ex-Officio Members. Figure 1-3 provides an overview of the Altamaha Region and the residential locations of the Altamaha Council members.

Figure 1-3: Locations of Altamaha Region Council Members

The Altamaha Council met collectively for the first time on March 13, 2009 at a kickoff meeting for the ten regional water planning councils. The meeting focused on: providing an orientation to the water planning process; a preliminary overview of Georgia's water resources; and establishing an understanding of the schedule for completing the Regional Water Plan, the Council's meeting schedule, and requirements.

Developing the Region's Council Procedures
Initially, the planning process focused on establishing the Altamaha Council leadership along with operating procedures and rules for conducting meetings. The operating procedures and rules were appended to the Memorandum of Agreement that was executed between EPD, DCA, and the Altamaha Council. The Memorandum of Agreement was unanimously approved by the Altamaha Council and executed on June 18, 2009. A copy of this document can be accessed on the Internet at: www.altamahacouncil.org/documents/ALT_MOA_Signed-3.pdf.

In support of the Memorandum of Agreement, the Altamaha Council formed six subcommittees to provide planning guidance during various development stages of the Regional Water Plan. The subcommittees consisted of the following: Vision and Goals, Public Involvement Plan, Water and Wastewater Forecasting, Plan Drafting (Table of Contents), Plan Drafting (Report), and Management Practices.

Developing Regional Vision and Goals
A major element of Georgia's state and regional water planning process is the identification of a Vision and Goals that describe the economic, population, environmental, and water use conditions that are desired for the region. The Vision and Goals describe the Altamaha Council's priorities for water resource use and

September 2011

1-3

ALTAMAHA

1. Introduction

management. This information is used to help guide the identification and selection of water management practices for the Altamaha Region and to communicate these priorities and values to other regions of the State.
Vision Statement (As established September 17, 2009 and revised on October 28, 2010) "The vision of the Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council is to wisely manage,
develop, and protect the region's water resources for current and future generations by ensuring that the Altamaha basin's water resources are sustainably managed to enhance quality of life and public health, protect natural systems including fishing, wildlife and wildlife utilization activities, and support the basin's economy."
Goals (As established November 19, 2009)
The Altamaha Council has identified 12 goals for the region. It is important to note that the goals summarized below are not presented in order of priority, but rather were assigned a number to identify specific goals addressed as part of the water management practice selection process (Section 6).
The Altamaha Council recognizes that we are generally not the primary implementation entity associated with water resource development, use, and management. Nevertheless, the Council wishes to express meaningful, action oriented goals for the future use and management of water resources in our region. The following goals are identified with this principle in mind.
Water Systems/Supply Sustainability
1. Help ensure protection and management of surface and ground water recharge areas to ensure sufficient long-term water supplies for the region.
2. Identify opportunities to maximize and optimize existing and future supplies.
3. Promote water conservation and water use efficiency for all water use sectors to allow for sufficient long-term water supplies.
4. Identify opportunities to better prepare for and respond to climate and water supply variability and extremes.
5. Identify and implement cost effective water management strategies.
Economic Sustainability and Development
6. Manage and develop water resources to sustainably and reliably meet domestic, commercial, agricultural, and industrial water needs.
7. Manage ground and surface water to encourage sustainable economic and population growth in the region.
8. Identify opportunities to minimize excessive regulations and the resulting negative economic impacts (especially in rural areas); while maintaining quality and quantity of water supply.

ALTAMAHA

1-4

September 2011

1. Introduction
Quality of Life and Public Health Enhancement
9. Ensure an adequate water supply of suitable quality to meet current and future human, environmental and recreational needs of the region and citizens of Georgia.
10. Optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure, including identifying opportunities to implement regional water and wastewater facilities.
11. Identify opportunities to manage water, wastewater, and stormwater to improve water quantity and quality, while providing for wise land management, wetland protection, and wildlife sustainability.
12. Work collaboratively with other regions that share resources to help ensure that activities outside the Altamaha Region do not adversely impact the region.
More information regarding the region's Vision and Goals can be found at: www.altamahacouncil.org/documents/ALT_Vision_Goals_Adopted.pdf.
The Altamaha Council's Public Involvement Plan
A foundational principle of the Georgia water planning process is public and stakeholder participation and coordination among multiple interests. The Altamaha Council developed a Public Involvement Plan to help guide/implement an inclusive planning process. The Public Involvement Plan was adopted by the Altamaha Council on November 19, 2009 and can be accessed at: www.altamahacouncil.org/documents/ALT_Public_Involvement_Plan_Adopted.pdf.
Outreach to the public, local governments, water providers, and users was accomplished by e-mail correspondence, direct communication, and updates provided by Council members at local government and other interest group meetings. Opportunity for public and local government comment was provided at each Council meeting. More information regarding public outreach can be found in the Altamaha Council Public Outreach Technical Memorandum available at: www.altamahacouncil.org/documents/ALT_Vision_Goals_Adopted.pdf.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

1-5

2. THE ALTAMAHA WATER PLANNING REGION

2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region

Section 2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region

2.1. History and Geography
The Altamaha Region is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The topography of the region is characterized by gentle slopes that reflect the geologic history of Tertiary and Quaternary marine incursions and regressions. Approximately 90% of the Coastal Plain sediments exposed in the area are sands and clays. The major land cover in the region is forested lands and agriculture, which are important drivers for the region's economy.
Figure 2-1: Surface Water Resources, Counties, and Major Cities

Summary
The Altamaha Region encompasses 16 counties in the south central portion of Georgia. Predominant land cover in the region includes agriculture, forest, and wetland areas.
The Altamaha River, formed by the confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers, is the major surface water resource in the region.
The Upper Floridan Aquifer, one of the most productive aquifers in the United States, is the primary source of groundwater in the region.

The regional domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, thermoelectric power, and recreational water uses are vital to the region's economy and quality of life.

Surface Water Resources
Figure 2-1 provides an overview of the surface water resources in the Altamaha Region. The Altamaha River is the major surface water feature in the region. The Altamaha River, formed by the confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers, is 127 miles long and has a drainage area of approximately 14,000 square miles (EPD, 2003). The river originates in the Northern Piedmont province of north Georgia, traverses southeast through the Coastal Plain region, and discharges to the Atlantic Ocean near Darien, Georgia. It is the only major river in Georgia that is contained wholly within the boundaries of the State. The Altamaha River is a popular fishing resource to the region and is home to 74 species of fish including sunfish, largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, and catfish.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

2-1

2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region

Groundwater Resources
Groundwater is a very important resource for the Altamaha Region. Figure 2-2 depicts the major aquifers of Georgia. Based on 2010 forecasted groundwater withdrawal data, approximately 94% of groundwater supplied in the region is from the Floridan aquifer, which is one of the most productive groundwater aquifers in the United States. The remaining groundwater is supplied by the surficial, Claiborne, Gordon, Cretaceous, and Dublin aquifers.

The Floridan aquifer is

primarily comprised of

limestone, dolostone,

and calcareous sand.

The aquifer is generally

confined, but at its

northern extent there

are unconfined and

semi-confined zones.

The Floridan aquifer

increases in thickness

eastward across the

State

and

is

approximately 400 feet

thick in Glynn County.

The aquifer is very

productive, with typical

well yields of 1,000-

5,000 gallons per

minute.

Figure 2-2: Major Georgia Aquifers

The northern portion of the Altamaha Region is within the Cretaceous aquifer area, which consists of sands and gravels. The eastern portion of the Altamaha Region is within the Brunswick aquifer area, which consists of sands and limestones. Where these aquifers exist, they are used in addition to the Floridan aquifer for water supply. A surficial aquifer is present beneath most of the Coastal Plain area; however, it is usually not very thick and is not typically used as a primary source of water supply.
Climate
A review of available data for the region from the Southeast Regional Climate Center indicates that the climate is temperate with mild winter and hot summers. Average maximum temperatures are around 92F in July and average minimum temperatures are around 35F in January. The area receives abundant rainfall, approximately 4248 inches per year, with the greatest rainfall occurring during July and August and the least in October and November. Snowfall is rare and typically averages around 0.2 inches in the northern portion of the region.

ALTAMAHA

2-2

September 2011

2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region

2.2. Characteristics of Region
The Altamaha Council encompasses 16 counties in the south central portion of Georgia, with a projected 2010 population of approximately 251,000 (Office of Planning and Budget, 2010). The major population centers in the region include Vidalia, Jesup, Swainsboro, Eastman, and Glennville.

Based on information obtained from Georgia Department of Labor Local Area Profiles, major employers in the region include Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC in Wayne County and Edwin I. Hatch nuclear power plant in Appling County. The primary economic sectors in the region include agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, professional and business services, education, healthcare, manufacturing, public administration, and construction.

The region includes four colleges within the Technical College System of Georgia: Altamaha Technical College in Jesup, Southeastern Technical College in Vidalia, Swainsboro Technical College, and Heart of Georgia Technical College in Dublin. The region also includes East Georgia College in Swainsboro, which is part of the University System of Georgia, as well as Middle Georgia College in Eastman, Brewton-Parker College in Mount Vernon, and Troy University in Vidalia. In addition to county jails, there are 15 state and federal correctional facilities, which are important employers and water users in the Altamaha Region.

A summary of 2005 land cover distribution is shown in Figure

Figure 2-3: Land Cover Distribution

2-3, based on data obtained

from the University of Georgia

Natural Resources Spatial

Analysis. Forests cover 41% of

the Altamaha Region, and

agriculture and wetlands cover

26% and 15% of the region,

respectively. The term wetland

refers to land cover and does

not infer a regulatory

determination. Urban develop-

ment accounts for only 6% of

the land cover within the

Altamaha Region. The

remaining land cover (12%)

consists of water and open

spaces. Based on the inventory

developed of Georgia's irrigated

croplands for the year 2008

(UGA Cooperative Extension

Irrigation Survey and Dr. Jim Hook), the Altamaha Region is a major producer of

cotton and fresh vegetables. These crops cover nearly 45% of the irrigated acreage

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

2-3

2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region
within the region. Other crops such as peanuts, corn, and soybeans are also planted widely within the region.
2.3. Local Policy Context Regional Commissions
Regional Commissions are agencies of local governments and representatives from the private sector that facilitate coordinated and comprehensive planning at the local and regional levels. Regional Commissions often assist their membership with conformity to minimum standards and procedures and serve as liaisons with state and federal agencies. There are 12 Regional Commissions in Georgia. Except for Laurens County, the Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Commission covers the same counties as the Altamaha Council.
In July 2009, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs required the Regional Commissions to adopt, maintain, and implement a Regional Plan (DCA Rule 110-126). The Altamaha Regional Commission's Regional Plan provides guidance to regional and local business leaders, local governments, state and federal agencies, and citizens to promote quality growth in region. It is a vision of the future for the region and includes quality community based objectives related to water resources such as water supply, wastewater, and stormwater management. A key component is the establishment of "performance standards", which are actions, activities, or programs a local government can implement or participate in that will advance their efforts to meet the vision of the Regional Plan. The Altamaha Regional Commission's Regional Plan defines two achievement thresholds (Minimum and Excellence), which are attained by implementing the performance standards. Local governments are required to achieve the Minimum Standard to maintain their Qualified Local Government status, which qualifies them for certain state funding. By achieving the Excellence Standard, a local government may be eligible for special incentives. The Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Commission is expected to complete the Regional Plan by 2013.

ALTAMAHA

2-4

September 2011

3. WATER RESOURCES OF THE ALTAMAHA WATER REGION

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

Section 3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

3.1. Current Major Water Use in Region
Based on data summarized from the 2009 USGS report "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005", water supply in the Altamaha Region for 2005 totaled approximately 237 million gallons per day (MGD) and was comprised of 55% groundwater and 45% surface water, as shown in Figure 3-1. A total of 107 MGD was withdrawn from surface waters in the region to supply the energy and agricultural sectors, as shown in Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3 shows that about 130 MGD of groundwater withdrawn was predominantly used to supply industrial (48%) and agricultural uses (33%) while municipal, selfsupply, and energy made up the remaining uses. Wastewater treatment types in the region are shown in Figure 3-4. According to the Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (CDM, 2011), 87% of wastewater in the region was disposed of as a municipal/ industrial point source discharge (62%), energy discharge/return flow (20%), or to a land application system (5%). The remaining wastewater was treated by on-site sewage treatment (septic) systems (13%).

Summary
In 2005, surface water and groundwater withdrawal in the Altamaha Region totaled approximately 237 MGD to accommodate municipal, industrial, agricultural, and energy demands.
The majority of wastewater in the region is disposed of as a point source discharge from municipal, industrial, and energy uses.
The availability of surface water to meet current uses varies significantly across the region. In many areas of the region there are sufficient surface water supplies to meet current uses. On the smaller rivers (i.e., Alapaha, Canoochee, Ogeechee, and Satilla Rivers) with higher water use, river flows are at times (during drier years) insufficient to meet both off-stream uses and instream needs.
Groundwater supplies are currently sufficient on a regional basis to meet uses across the region.

3.2 Resource Assessments

Under current conditions, there are

EPD developed three Resource Assessments to several locations in the region where evaluate surface water quality, surface water dissolved oxygen levels may be

availability, and groundwater availability insufficient to assimilate wastewater

throughout the State. These assessments discharges.

determined the capacity of water resources to meet demands for water supply and wastewater discharge without unreasonable impacts

Water quality in several river reaches and water bodies does not meet the

according to metrics established by EPD. These designated use for the resource. The

assessments were completed on a resource majority of these occurrences are

basis (river basins and aquifers), but are associated with low dissolved oxygen

summarized herein as they relate to the Altamaha and fecal coliform.

Region. As described in more detail below, the

term "gap" is used to indicate when the current or future use of water has been

identified as potentially exceeding the long-term sustainability of the water resource.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

3-1

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

Full details of each Resource Assessment can be accessed on the EPD website at: www.georgiawaterplanning.org/pages/resource_assessments.

Figure 3-1: 2005 Water Supply by Source Type 1a

Figure 3-2: 2005 Surface Water Withdrawal by Category 1a, 2

Surface Water,
107 MGD, 45%

Energy,

Ground- water,

58 MGD, 54%

130 MGD,

55%

Agriculture, 49 MGD, 46%

Total 237 MGD Figure 3-3: 2005 Groundwater Withdrawal by Category 1a, 2

Total 107 MGD Figure 3-4: 2005 Wastewater/ Return Flow by Category 1b, 2

Agriculture, 43 MGD, 33%

Energy, 0.2 MGD,
0.1%

Municipal, 15 MGD,
11%

Point Source Discharge,
69 MGD, 62%

Industrial, 62 MGD,
48%

Total 130 MGD

Self-Supply (Domestic),
9 MGD, 7%

Total 110 MGD

Land Application Systems,
5 MGD, 5%
On-site Sewage Treatment (Septic Systems), 14 MGD,
13%
Energy Discharge, 22 MGD,
20%

1 Data Sources: a) "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005" (USGS, 2009); b) Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.
2 Energy totals shown represent total thermoelectric water withdrawal; 36 MGD of the total 58 MGD (62%) is consumptive, the remainder (22 MGD) is discharged back to surface waters as return flow.

3.2.1. Current Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)
The Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010) estimates the capacity of Georgia's surface waters to absorb pollutants without unacceptable degradation of water quality. The term assimilative capacity refers to the ability of a water body to naturally absorb pollutants via chemical and biological processes without exceeding State water quality standards or harming

ALTAMAHA

3-2

September 2011

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

aquatic life. The current (also referred to as a baseline) assimilative capacity results focus on dissolved oxygen (DO), and nutrients in some areas of the State (specifically nitrogen and phosphorus), and chlorophyll-a (a parameter that is closely tied to lake water quality). The assessments evaluate the impact of current wastewater and stormwater discharges with current (2005) withdrawals, land use, and meteorological conditions. Additional details are provided in the Surface Water Quality Resource Assessment Synopsis (EPD, March 2010).

Figure 3-5: Assimilative Capacity Models

Lake Oconee

Legend
DOSag Model RIV1 Model GA Estuary Model

Assimilative Capacity Modeling (Dissolved Oxygen)
One measure of the capacity of a stream to maintain its health and the health of the aquatic species living therein is the amount of residual DO in the waters of the stream. As shown in

Lake Sinclair

Watershed Model Lakes/HarboSRraiMvveaorndneal h Major Waterway
Water PSlaCnning Region
County Boundary
Lake

Figure 3-5, DO modeling was performed by EPD for each reach that has upstream wastewater dischargers (light blue segments). Each segment was classified as exceeding DO capacity, meeting DO capacity, or having available DO

Oconee River Ocmulgee River

capacity. The results of the current DO modeling

are presented in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-6 for the

Altamaha Region, which includes portions of the

Altamaha, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Ogeechee

Lake Blackshear

Altamaha River

river basins. The baseline assimilative capacity represents the model results based on discharge amounts as reported by wastewater treatment plants in 2007. Segments with exceeded assimilative capacity may result from a number

of factors including: point and/or non-point

sources of pollutants; modeling assumptions

Brunswick regarding wastewater discharge, stream flow Harbor and temperature; and naturally low DO

Satilla River

conditions in the receiving stream. When model

results show DO assimilative capacity as

exceeded, a potential "gap" exists between the

amount of pollutants discharged and the ability of the receiving stream to assimilate

the pollutants. These points were considered when developing recommended

strategies to address water quality needs in the region.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

3-3

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

Table 3-1: Baseline DO Assimilative Capacity in Altamaha River Basins

Model Run

Basin

Available Assimilative Capacity (Total Mileage)

Very Good (>1.0 mg/L)

Good (0.5 to <1.0 mg/L)

Moderate (0.2 to <0.5 mg/L)

Limited (>0.0 to
<0.2 mg/L)

None or Exceeded
(<0.0 mg/L)

Total Modeled
River Basin Miles1

Oconee 509

117

51

44

40

761

Ocmulgee 560

249

92

41

43

985

Baseline

Altamaha 169

66

61

80

45

421

Ogeechee 96

218

307

103

211

935

Source: Surface Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, March 2010. 1Total miles include tributaries and main stem of the rivers within and outside of the Altamaha Council boundary.

Nutrient Modeling
In addition to Assimilative Capacity modeling for DO, EPD completed nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) modeling for the Satilla River watershed. The location of the watershed model boundaries, and lakes, harbors and estuaries model locations are shown in Figure 3-5. It should be noted that only current conditions nutrient modeling was performed. There are currently no nutrient standards for nitrogen and phosphorus, but these standards may be established in forthcoming years. The watershed models show non-point source nutrient loadings of phosphorus and nitrogen to the Brunswick Harbor. The Altamaha Council proactively identified several non-point source best management practices (BMPs) that can be used to help reduce nutrient loading as discussed in Section 6.

ALTAMAHA

3-4

September 2011

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
Figure 3-6: Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Baseline Conditions

ALTAMAHA

Source: Additional Supporting Material for Baseline Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, October 2010.
Very Good: 1 mg/L of dissolved oxygen (DO) available (above the water quality standard of 5 mg/L) Good: 0.5 mg/L to < 1.0 mg/L of DO available Moderate: 0.2 mg/L to <0.5 mg/L of DO available Limited: >0.0 mg/L to <0.2 mg/L of DO available At assimilative capacity: 0.0 mg/L of DO available None or Exceeded Capacity: <0.0 mg/L of DO available

September 2011

3-5

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
Figure 3-6 (cont): Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Baseline Conditions

ALTAMAHA

Source: Additional Supporting Material for Baseline Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, October 2010.
Very Good: 1 mg/L of dissolved oxygen (DO) available (above the water quality standard of 5 mg/L) Good: 0.5 mg/L to < 1.0 mg/L of DO available Moderate: 0.2 mg/L to <0.5 mg/L of DO available Limited: >0.0 mg/L to <0.2 mg/L of DO available At assimilative capacity: 0.0 mg/L of DO available None or Exceeded Capacity: <0.0 mg/L of DO available

3-6

September 2011

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

3.2.2 Current Surface Water Availability
The Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010) estimates the availability of surface water to meet current and future municipal, industrial, agricultural, and thermal power water needs as well as the needs of instream and downstream users. Instream uses include fish, wildlife habitat, recreation, and dilution of wastewater, among others. The Surface Water Resource Availability Assessment used specific minimum flow levels as indicators of the ability to support instream uses. Minimum instream flows were based on EPD policy, existing Federal Policy, or existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license requirements. The assessment determines the reliability of the surface water to meet off-stream demands without impacting minimum instream flow requirements. The results of the assessment are provided in terms of both severity (i.e., the amount by which the stream would drop below minimum instream flow requirements) and frequency (i.e., number of days below minimum instream flow requirements).

As shown in Figure 3-7, there are several surface water planning nodes (shown as yellow circles with red triangles) located in

Figure 3-7: Surface Water Planning Nodes

the Altamaha Region. Planning nodes are

locations along a river where there is a

long-term record of river flow

measurements. At each node, the surface

water availability models applied the

current cumulative upstream consumptive

uses of water (i.e., withdrawals minus

returns) and authorized reservoir

operations to stream flows from 1939 to

2007. From the March 2010 Surface Water

Availability Resource Assessment, the

term "gap" is used to indicate when the

mathematical computer modeling results

indicate that forecasted off-stream uses of

water increase the severity and/or

frequency of critical low flow periods. At

these nodes, during certain low flow

periods, there is not sufficient water to

meet current off-stream demands and also

meet the targets for support of instream uses.

Surface water is an important resource used to meet current and future needs in the region, especially for the agricultural sector. Between 2011 and 2050, the use of surface water for agricultural purposes is expected to increase by 9 MGD from 39.9 MGD to 48.9 MGD (Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011). The only planning node within the region with a surface water gap is the Claxton node (Canoochee River). However, there are surface water gaps outside the region that may be associated with water use within the region.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

3-7

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

There is a surface water gap at the Atkinson node on the Satilla River and there are surface water uses in three counties (Appling, Jeff Davis, and Wayne) that contribute surface water runoff to the Satilla River. There is also a surface water gap at the Kings Ferry (Ogeechee River) node, which is below the confluence of the Canoochee and Ogeechee Rivers. There is a very small portion of Tattnall County that contributes surface water runoff to the Kings Ferry node. Finally, there is a surface water gap at the Statenville node on the Alapaha River and there is surface water use in a portion of Wilcox County that contributes surface water runoff to the Alapaha River. There are no surface water gaps at the Doctortown (Altamaha River), Lumber City (Ocmulgee River), and Mount Vernon (Oconee River) nodes.
In the Altamaha Region and surrounding area, critical low flow conditions occur on river systems that do not have any upstream storage reservoirs. In these situations, the Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment uses the unimpaired (meaning estimated flows without off-stream uses) monthly 7 day low flow that occurred over a 10 year period or the daily unimpaired flow (whichever is the lowest value) to determine the critical low flow level/target. It is important to note that when a surface water gap exists, management practices are needed to address times when offstream uses increase the severity and/or frequency of critical low flow conditions. Low flow conditions have been and will continue to occur; and the Altamaha Council's management practices are not utilized to address naturally occurring low flow conditions.
Table 3-2 shows modeled results with information on the size of projected current gaps, with current withdrawals, expressed as changes to natural flow conditions. The values are presented as an average annual flowrate and it is important to note that this summary does not take into account seasonal peaks in consumption and the effects on river flows on a monthly basis. Additional analysis was performed to assess monthly flow conditions. For example, impacts to stream flows are higher in the summer months and lower in the winter months. Additional details are provided in the Altamaha Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum (CDM, 2011).

Table 3-2: Magnitude of Current Surface Water Availability Gaps

Node

Length of Shortfall (Percent of Time)

Average Shortfall

(MGD)

(CFS)

Claxton

18

3.2

Kings Ferry

6

22.6

Atkinson

11

16.8

Statenville

20

20.0

Source: Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment; EPD, March 2010.

5.0 35.0 26.0 31.0

ALTAMAHA

3-8

September 2011

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

3.2.3 Current Groundwater Availability

The Groundwater Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010) estimates

the sustainable yield for prioritized groundwater resources based on existing water

use data and aquifer characteristics. EPD prioritized the aquifers based on the

characteristics of the aquifer,

Figure 3-8: Sub-regions Associated with the evidence of negative effects,

Coastal Permitting Plan

anticipated negative impacts, and other considerations.

These assessments identified

the sustainable yield, or the

volume of groundwater that

can be used without negative

impacts such as limiting use of

neighboring wells (drawdown

as a consequence of

withdrawal),

significantly

reducing

groundwater

contributions to stream

baseflows, and the permanent

reduction of groundwater

levels. If negative impacts

occur or are expected to occur,

then a groundwater "gap"

exists.

Groundwater from the Upper

Floridan Aquifer is a vital

resource for the Altamaha

Region. In 2005, groundwater

was relied upon to meet about

55% of the water use in the

Source: Coastal Georgia Water and Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion

region (USGS, 2009). Overall, the results from the March 2010 Groundwater Availability

Resource Assessment indicate that on a regional basis, for the prioritized aquifers,

there is sufficient groundwater supply to meet current demands. However, localized

issues may occur if groundwater well densities or withdrawal rates are greater than

the scenarios evaluated in the March 2010 Groundwater Availability Resource

Assessment.

As shown in Figure 3-8, 24 counties in southeast Georgia are subject to the Coastal Georgia Water and Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion, June 2006 (Coastal Permitting Plan) (www.gadnr.org/cws/). There are seven counties (Appling, Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Tattnall, Toombs, and Wayne Counties) in the Altamaha Region that are located within the "Green Zone". Per the Coastal Permitting Plan, there are no pumping restrictions from the Upper Floridan

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

3-9

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
Aquifer in this area; however, there are several water conservation requirements related to groundwater withdrawals.
3.3. Current Ecosystem Conditions and Instream Uses
The Altamaha Region encompasses parts of the Southern Coastal Plain and the Southeastern Plains ecoregions. The rivers in these ecoregions support a diversity of fish and wildlife and provide numerous recreational opportunities. There are two Public Fishing Areas (Dodge County and Evans County) and six Wildlife Management Areas managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the Altamaha Region. These areas provide public access to rivers for fishing, hunting, and other recreational activities. Bowens Mill Fish Hatchery, also operated by DNR, produces a variety of fish that are stocked in both public and private waters around the State.
With over 1.29 million resident anglers, fishing is the most popular wildlife-related activity in Georgia (DNR-WRD, 2006). Annually, the Altamaha River is the destination for a significant number of recreational angling trips and provides a corresponding positive economic impact. The most sought after species are largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and mullet. DNR is currently involved in a restoration effort aimed at striped bass, another popular sport fish. Striped bass numbers in the Altamaha River are thought to be low partially due to the limited number of coolwater springs available in the river during summer.
The Altamaha River and its tributaries provide important riverine habitat for diadromous fish (fish that travel between rivers and the ocean to breed), including American eel, American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon. The Altamaha River also supports commercial fishing for American shad, eels, blue crab, and shrimp.
The 2005 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy identified 71 high priority animals that inhabit the Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion and 85 high priority animals in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion (more information is available at (www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1370). Several of these species depend on rivers for part or all of their lifecycle including amphibians, fish, mammals, mollusks, and reptiles. Federally endangered species in the Altamaha Region that inhabit rivers and lakes include the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). There were 25 identified high priority habitats in the Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion and 27 high priority habitats in the Southeastern Plains (CWCS, 2005) (for more information on high priority waters and protected species go to www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1377 and www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1366). The Nongame Conservation Section (Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division) can be contacted for additional information on rare aquatic species. Riverine systems and processes are important to many of these habitats such as alluvial rivers and swamps, bottomland hardwood forests, blackwater streams, canebreaks, and open-water ponds and lakes. These high priority streams and watersheds are considered important for

ALTAMAHA

3-10

September 2011

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
conservation of at least one high-priority habitat or species located in the Altamaha Region.
Several rivers and watersheds in this region have been identified as ecologically important, including the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, and Ogeechee rivers. In the Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion, conservation lands make up 14% of the land area (CWCS, 2005). The percentage of lands in conservation is lower in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion at 2.6% (CWCS, 2005).
The major rivers that flow through and from the Altamaha Region also pass through the Coastal Regional Council boundary and discharge to the Atlantic Ocean. The coastal area contains a unique combination of fresh, brackish and salt water environments. The area is defined by barrier islands, sand beaches, open Atlantic Ocean, and there are 9 major estuaries including 350,000 acres of salt marsh and 150,000 acres of open water. Shipping channels are maintained in three estuaries the lower Savannah River, St. Simons, and Cumberland. Otherwise, the remainder is very similar in depth, size and other physical characteristics as they were at the time of European settlements of Georgia.
An estuary is a semi-enclosed body of water, which has a free connection with the sea and within which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water. Without the fresh water input, such areas in Georgia would be salt water lagoons or bays. A key characteristic of an estuary is salinity, which can be highly variable depending on the location within the estuary and the estuaries itself. Sources of freshwater for estuary include: fresh water river discharges, industrial and municipal discharges of groundwater after use and treatment, and upwelling of groundwater through geologic features. Estuarine environments support a diversity of life, both aquatic and terrestrial, unparalleled in other portions of the State. Hundreds of species of animals and plants exist because of the unique mixing of salt water and fresh water. If the fresh water were removed, the diversity would change immensely from what is found today. Maintaining freshwater inputs to Georgia's estuaries is vital for maintaining a unique coastal environment, which provides a myriad of social and economic benefits, as well as invaluable ecological services to the citizens of Georgia. (Personal Communication: Spud Woodward, Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources).
Impaired Water Bodies
Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), a total maximum daily load (TMDL) must be developed for waters that do not meet their designated uses. A TMDL represents the maximum pollutant loading that a water body can assimilate and continue meeting its designated use (i.e., not exceeding State water quality standards). A water body is deemed to be impaired if it does not meet the applicable criteria for a particular pollutant; consequently, TMDLs are required to be established for these waters to reduce the concentrations of the exceeding parameters in order to comply with State water quality standards. For the Altamaha Region, there are 75

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

3-11

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

impaired stream reaches (total impaired length of 915 miles) and 2 impaired lakes

(total impaired area of 390 acres).

Figure 3-9: Impaired Water Bodies with

Of the impaired reaches in the region Completed TMDLs
(note that a reach may be impaired for

more than one parameter):

53% are impaired for low dissolved oxygen

52% are impaired for fecal coliform

21% are impaired for fish community impacts

15% are impaired for trophicweighted residual mercury in fish tissue

2% are impaired for pH

Both impaired lakes in the region are impaired for trophic-weighted residual mercury in fish tissue. TMDLs have been completed for 71 of the impaired stream reaches and 2 of the impaired lakes, as shown in Figure 3-9. The Altamaha Council categorized these TMDL listed segments and more information on the listed segments can be found in the Altamaha Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum (CDM, 2011).

ALTAMAHA

3-12

September 2011

4. FORECASTING FUTURE WATER RESOURCE NEEDS

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

Section 4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Water and wastewater demand forecasts, along with Summary
the Resource Assessments (Section 3), form the

foundation for water planning in the Altamaha Region

and serve as the basis for the selection of water Over the next 40 years, the

management practices (Sections 6 and 7). The tables population in the Altamaha

and graphics in this section present the regional water Region is projected to grow

and wastewater forecasts for 10-year intervals from by 49%, increasing the

2010 through 2050 for four water use sectors: demands for surface water

municipal, industrial, agriculture, and thermoelectric and groundwater and

generation.

increasing the quantity of

wastewater generated.

The methodology to forecast water and wastewater

demands is based primarily on the assumption that Total water withdrawals by

there will be a continuation of existing trends and municipal, industrial,

practices. It does not make a determination regarding agricultural, and energy

the efficiency or inefficiency of forecasted demands, sectors are projected to

only that they are expected to occur given current increase by 34% (90 MGD)

trends. Initial forecasting does not take into account from 2010 to 2050.

management practices, including water conservation (other than passive conservation as described in more detail below) that may be adopted by Regional Water Planning Councils to reduce the expected magnitude of demand (see Sections 6-8 for additional details on

Total wastewater flows are projected to increase by 34% (36 MGD) over the same period.

water conservation and other management practices).

Additionally, this forecasting effort does not change EPD requirements related to

individual permitting decisions, but represents a forecast for regional water planning

that will help guide permitting and funding decisions.

During development of the Regional Water Plan, there was a concerted effort to strike a balance between broad coverage and local data by using consistent data collection on a regional basis modified as appropriate with local provider input. These data and resulting forecasts are not applicable between regions or between providers within the region.

4.1. Municipal Forecasts
Municipal water includes water supplied to residences, commercial businesses, and small industries (water use by higher water using industries are forecasted separately and those major industrial sectors are identified in Section 4.2). Residential water uses include water for normal household purposes: cooking, bathing, and clothes washing, among others. Commercial water uses include water used by hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and office buildings, among others. Municipal water demands may be served by public water systems, private water systems, or self-supplied by the user (such as individual wells).

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

4-1

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

Population Projections
Municipal water and wastewater forecasts are closely tied to population projections for the counties within the Altamaha Region. The population projections were developed by the Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, which is charged in State law (O.C.G.A. 45-12-171) with the responsibility for preparing, maintaining, and furnishing official demographic data for the State. The population projection results by county for the planning period are shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Population Projections by County

County

20101

20201

20301

20402

20502

Difference2 % Increase2 (2010-2050) (2010 2050)

Appling

18,437 20,766 23,043 25,335 27,782

9,345

51%

Bleckley

13,001 14,501 15,820 17,104 18,322

5,321

41%

Candler

11,074 14,216 18,241 23,201 29,306

18,232

165%

Dodge

20,458 22,367 24,218 25,048 25,775

5,317

26%

Emanuel

23,141 24,623 26,424 28,315 30,401

7,260

31%

Evans

12,004 14,052 16,103 18,128 20,146

8,142

68%

Jeff Davis

13,676 14,422 15,079 15,592 16,041

2,365

17%

Johnson

9,698 10,272 10,849 11,431 11,948

2,250

23%

Montgomery 9,172 10,611 11,961 12,866 13,737

4,565

50%

Tattnall

24,230 28,706 33,706 39,135 45,100

20,870

86%

Telfair

13,529 14,360 15,241 15,984 16,734

3,205

24%

Toombs

28,858 32,189 35,059 38,619 43,195

14,337

50%

Treutlen

7,189 7,973 8,811 9,195 9,255

2,066

29%

Wayne

30,275 34,061 37,861 41,637 45,387

15,112

50%

Wheeler

7,039 7,869 8,652 9,361 10,011

2,972

42%

Wilcox Total

8,878 9,655 10,350 10,921 11,425 250,659 280,643 311,418 341,872 374,565

2,547 123,906

29% 49%

1Source: Georgia 2030 Population Projections, Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2010. 2Data based on the 2010-2030 projections used for State Water Planning purposes and extrapolated to 2040 and 2050.

Municipal Water Forecasts
The municipal water forecasts were calculated by multiplying the baseline per capita water use by the population served. Per capita water use rates are different for public water systems in comparison to self-supplied water use; therefore, the demands are calculated separately and then summed together. The publicly-supplied water use rate was determined for each county within the region. The self-supply per capita demand is estimated at 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
The forecasted water use rates for the Altamaha Region were adjusted based on two plumbing code changes which mandate new water saving lavatory fixtures. The

ALTAMAHA

4-2

September 2011

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

National Energy Policy Act of 1992 reduced the maximum toilet flush volume from 3.5 to 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) for all toilets available in the U.S. starting in 1994. The Georgia Water Stewardship Act of 2010 reduces the maximum flush volume to 1.28 gpf for all new toilets installed in Georgia after July 1, 2012. As new homes are constructed and less efficient toilets are replaced within existing housing stock, the water use rate is reduced over time. Additional information on plumbing code efficiency adjustments and rationale for per capita water use is available in the Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (CDM, 2011). Table 4-2 summarizes the estimated water savings for both acts. On a regional basis, municipal water demands are expected to be about 11% lower as a result of water demand reduction (4 MGD in 2050) that can be attributed to passive conservation.

Table 4-2: Estimated Municipal Water Demand Reductions from Lower Flush Volume Toilets (AAD - MGD)

Category

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Passive Conservation Reduction from 1992 National Energy Policy Act

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.6

2.1

Additional Passive Conservation Reduction from 2010 Water Stewardship Act

0.0

0.2

0.6

1.1

1.8

Total Passive Conservation Savings

0.0

0.7

1.6

2.7

3.9

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011. These estimates are based upon reduced flush volume toilets, but do not include the 2010 Water Stewardship Act provisions for more efficient showers, urinals, and faucets in newly constructed or renovated homes.

Total regional municipal water demands are shown in Figure 4-1 for the Altamaha Region. In addition, this figure shows the distribution in demands resulting from public water systems and self-supply systems. In the Altamaha Region, all municipal water demands are satisfied by utilizing groundwater as the sole source for withdrawals.

Figure 4-1: Total Municipal Water Use Forecast (in AAD-MGD)

45

40

40

37

36

35 30

27

27

30

30

34

32

34

25

20

15

10

5

0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Self-Supply
Public Water
Self-Supply (After Adjustment) Public Water (After Adjustment)

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.

September 2011

4-3

Municipal Water Demand (AAD-MGD)
ALTAMAHA

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

Municipal Wastewater Forecasts
Municipal wastewater forecasts are based on estimates of indoor municipal (public and self supplied) water use. Indoor water use may be treated by centralized treatment plants or onsite sanitary sewage (septic) systems. Centralized treatment plants may discharge to a water body or to a land application system (LAS).
Estimates of wastewater generated from publicly-supplied and self-supplied water use (from the passive conservation scenario above) were calculated and then assigned to septic and centralized wastewater flows. U.S. Census data on the percent of households with septic systems were obtained by county. For planning purposes, it was estimated that all of the wastewater generated from self-supplied water use is disposed of via septic system. Dividing the number of municipally supplied households on septic by the U.S. Census estimate of the number of households by county provided an estimate of the percent of municipally supplied households that discharged to septic systems in 2005.
Estimates of flows treated at centralized wastewater treatment plants are derived from the portion of wastewater flow that is not septic. In addition, a percent of flow is added to account for infiltration and inflow (I/I) that occurs in the wastewater collection system before reaching the treatment facility. I/I is a term used to describe groundwater and stormwater that enters into the dedicated wastewater system. An initial I/I estimate of 20% was used to calculate return flows. This estimate was adjusted when there was county-specific data to support an alternate value.
Finally, wastewater effluent flow from centralized treatment facilities is either discharged as a point source to a receiving water body or delivered to a land application system. EPD permit data as well as feedback from municipal suppliers were used to determine the ratio of point discharge to land application system for each county. Municipal wastewater forecasts are shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: Total Municipal Wastewater Generation Forecast (in AAD-MGD)

35

30

25

25

20

15

10

31 29 27

33
Septic LAS Point Discharge

5

0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.

4-4

September 2011

ALTAMAHA
Municipal Wastewater Demand (AAD-MGD)

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs
4.2. Industrial Forecasts
Industrial forecasts show the future need from the major water using industries including: food, textile, and paper. Industries require water for processes, sanitation, cooling, and other purposes, in addition to domestic (employee) water use. Some industries, such as poultry processors, operate under strict U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines that require water use to maintain sanitary conditions within the facilities. Water need (i.e., the total water requirements of an industry, or the water withdrawals) is based on either production or employment, depending on the available information.
Employment Projections
The employment projections provided information on the anticipated employment growth rate for each industrial sector. The University of Georgia produced the industry-specific rates of growth for employment for EPD, which were then used to calculate the future water needs for specific industries within the Altamaha Region. General employment in heavy water-using industries such as textile and paper sectors shows an upward trend throughout the 40 year planning period, while employment projections in the food manufacturing sector are maintained relatively constant.
Industrial Water Forecasts
Industrial water forecasts were calculated using information and data specific to each of the major water using industries. For industries where information was available on water use per unit of production, water forecasts were based on production. For industries where product based forecasts were not possible, industry-specific workforce projections were assumed to reflect the anticipated growth in water use within the industry. Figure 4-3 shows the industrial water and wastewater forecast over the planning period. Similar to the municipal water demands, industrial demands in the Altamaha Region are fully satisfied by utilizing groundwater as the sole source for withdrawals.
Industrial Wastewater Forecasts
Industrial wastewater forecasts were calculated for each sector by multiplying the industrial water use by the ratio of wastewater to water for that industrial sector. For example in the apparel category, for every gallon of water used, there will be 0.6 gallons of wastewater produced. For the paper category, for every gallon of water used, there will be 1.0 gallon of wastewater produced.
Once the industrial wastewater flows were estimated, flows were separated between point discharges and land application. The industrial wastewater forecasts are presented in Figure 4-3 by the anticipated disposal system type: industrial wastewater treatment (point discharge), LAS, or discharge for municipal wastewater treatment.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

4-5

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

Figure 4-3: Total Industrial Water and Wastewater Forecast (in AAD-MGD)

Industrial Water/WW Demand (AAD-MGD)

80 70

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

62 63

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 201200102010 202020202020 203020302030 204020402040 205200502050

Industrial to Municipal WWTP LAS
Point Discharge
Groundwater Supply

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.

4.3. Agricultural Forecasts
The agricultural water use forecasts include irrigation demands for both crop and non-crop uses (i.e., livestock, nurseries, and golf courses). The crop forecasts, developed by the University of Georgia for 2011 through 2050, provide a range of irrigation water use from dry to wet climate conditions based on the acres irrigated for each crop. Table 4-3 lists a drier-than-normal year crop irrigation forecast for each county.
The University of Georgia also compiled non-crop (including non-permitted) agricultural water demand with the assistance of industry associations. Similar to crop irrigation, forecasts for nursery and greenhouse water use were also developed for a range of climate conditions over the planning period. For planning purposes, the drier-than-normal nursery/greenhouse forecasts are presented in Table 4-3. For golf courses and livestock production, current (2011) water forecasts were developed, but future forecasts were not developed for this first round of regional water planning due to lack of available data. Current water demands were held constant throughout the planning period for these water use sectors. Full documentation of the methodology and results of the agricultural forecasts developed by the University of Georgia are available at: www.nespal.org/sirp/waterinfo/State/awd/agwaterdemand.htm.
Figure 4-4 shows the regional agricultural demands by source of supply. An 18% increase in agricultural water demand is projected by 2050 for the Altamaha Region. The largest increase in forecasted demand occurs in Toombs County, with a 36% increase by 2050. Tattnall and Evans Counties have the next largest forecasted demand increases at 26% and 22%, respectively. All other counties in the region are

ALTAMAHA

4-6

September 2011

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

forecasted to have increases of less than 20% through 2050, with Montgomery and Johnson Counties having the smallest increases at 8% and 2%, respectively. As shown in Figure 4-4, the majority of the agricultural withdrawals (over 60%) are supplied by groundwater and the remainder by surface water.

Table 4-3: Agricultural Water Forecast by County (in AAD-MGD)1-3

County

2011

Crop

NonCrop

2020

Crop

NonCrop

2030

Crop

NonCrop

2040

Crop

NonCrop

2050

Crop

NonCrop

Appling

5.59 0.71 5.71 0.71 5.87 0.72 6.05 0.72 6.24 0.73

Bleckley

10.46 0.78 10.64 0.78 10.88 0.78 11.15 0.78 11.45 0.78

Candler

4.94 0.34 5.04 0.34 5.17 0.34 5.31 0.34 5.46 0.34

Dodge

12.33 0.46 12.76 0.46 13.29 0.46 13.87 0.46 14.51 0.46

Emanuel

4.38 0.32 4.52 0.33 4.69 0.33 4.88 0.34 5.08 0.34

Evans

5.82 1.33 6.09 1.36 6.44 1.40 6.83 1.44 7.26 1.49

Jeff Davis

5.73 0.18 5.91 0.18 6.13 0.18 6.37 0.18 6.62 0.18

Johnson

1.76 0.14 1.76 0.14 1.77 0.14 1.78 0.14 1.79 0.14

Montgomery 2.55 0.46 2.60 0.46 2.66 0.46 2.73 0.46 2.80 0.46

Tattnall

15.59 0.84 16.40 0.84 17.43 0.84 18.58 0.84 19.86 0.84

Telfair

8.57 0.08 8.87 0.08 9.26 0.08 9.69 0.08 10.17 0.08

Toombs

10.42 0.87 11.18 0.89 12.14 0.91 13.22 0.93 14.43 0.96

Treutlen

1.37 0.25 1.41 0.26 1.45 0.27 1.51 0.27 1.56 0.28

Wayne

3.34 0.49 3.41 0.50 3.51 0.51 3.62 0.52 3.74 0.53

Wheeler

3.02 1.00 3.09 1.02 3.18 1.03 3.29 1.05 3.40 1.08

Wilcox

16.14 0.28 16.75 0.28 17.53 0.28 18.40 0.28 19.37 0.28

Sub-Total

112.0

8.5

116.1 8.6 121.4

8.7

127.3 8.8 133.8

9.0

Total

120.5

124.8

130.1

136.1

142.7

1Source: University of Georgia, 2010. 2Crop demands represent dry year conditions, in which 75% of years had more rainfall and 25% of years had less based on rainfall records
from 1950 to 2007. Non-crop demands consist of livestock, nurseries, and golf course uses. 3Agricultural withdrawals (crop and non-crop) are supplied by groundwater and surface water.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

4-7

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

Figure 4-4: Total Agricultural Water Forecast (in AAD-MGD)

Agricultural Water Demand (AAD-MGD)

160

140

120

121

100

80

60

40

20

0 2011

125 2020

130 2030

136 2040

143 2050

Unspecified Source for Livestock Surface Water
Groundwater

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011. Livestock demands do not have information on source ofsupply and are not included in forecasts that are reported by source of supply.

4.4. Water for Thermoelectric Power Forecasts
Thermoelectric water withdrawal and consumption demands were developed for the State of Georgia based on forecasted power generation needs and assumptions regarding future energy generation processes. Full details of the state-wide energy sector water demand forecast can be accessed on the EPD website at: www.georgiawaterplanning.org/pages/forecasting/energy_water_use.php.
Thermoelectric water demands for the Altamaha Region are shown in Table 4-4. The first two rows show the regional forecast of water demand for existing facilities and facilities planned to become operational by 2020. Beyond 2020, the location of generating facilities that may be built is not known. Therefore, water demands beyond 2020 associated with this unplanned power capacity need were developed on a state-wide basis and not disaggregated regionally. The state-wide forecasts show that in 2030, an additional 58 MGD of water consumption (106 MGD of withdrawal) is needed to meet projected state-wide energy production requirements, with 170 MGD of consumption (313 MGD of withdrawal) needed state-wide in 2050.
The Altamaha Council acknowledges that some portion of the future additional generating capacity may be constructed in the Altamaha Region in future years. Council discussed "economy of scale" considerations for siting, designing, and constructing new generating capacity and identified that about a 2,000 megawatt facility would be the likely capacity to warrant new capital investment. For the purposes of water planning, the Altamaha Council developed the water demand scenario shown in Table 4-4 for 2030-2050, with the acknowledgement that actual

ALTAMAHA

4-8

September 2011

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

demand may vary considerably. This approach results in 28% of the unassigned state-wide consumptive use being projected to occur in the Altamaha Region in 2030 and 20% in 2050. The Altamaha Council also identified several principles to consider when developing additional energy needs including: locating facilities in areas of sufficient supply, encouraging reuse where possible and feasible, and encouraging close cooperation with local government to promote "fairness" in water supply and accommodating other possible growth sectors. For more information please see the Altamaha Water and Wastewater Technical Memorandum (CDM, 2011).

Table 4-4: Regional Thermoelectric Water Forecasts (in AAD-MGD)

Category

2010

2020

20301

20401

20501

Existing and Planned Facilities' Withdrawals

51.0

50.5

50.5

50.5

50.5

Existing and Planned Facilities' Consumption

32.7

32.4

32.4

32.4

32.4

Regional Portion of Unassigned Withdrawals

-

-

25.0

25.0

50.0

Regional Portion of Unassigned Consumption

-

-

16.5

16.5

33.3

Total Regional Withdrawals

51.0

50.5

75.5

75.5

100.5

Total Regional Consumption

32.7

32.4

48.9

48.9

65.4

Source: Statewide Energy Sector Water Demand Forecast Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2010. 1Water Demand Forecasts from 2030 to 2050 were decided by the Council based on the minimum threshold for power plant expansion.

4.5. Total Water Demand Forecasts
Total water demand forecasts in 2010 and 2050 for the Altamaha Region are summarized in Figure 4-5. This figure presents the forecasts for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and thermoelectric power. Overall, the region is expected to grow by 34% (90 MGD) in water demand from 2010 through 2050.
Figure 4-6 summarizes total wastewater and return flow forecasts in 2010 and 2050 for the Altamaha Region. This figure presents the forecasts for municipal, industrial, and thermoelectric power discharges. Overall, the region is expected to grow by 34% (36 MGD) in wastewater flows from 2010 through 2050.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

4-9

4. Forecasting Future Water Resources Needs

Figure 4-5: Water Demand in 20101 and 20502

2010

Municipal, 27 MGD,
10%

Agricultural, 121 MGD,
46%

Industrial, 62 MGD,
24%

Agriculture, 143 MGD,
41%

2050

Municipal, 36 MGD,
10%
Industrial, 73 MGD,
21%

Total 261 MGD

Energy, 51 MGD,
20%

Total 351 MGD

Figure 4-6: Wastewater/Return Flow in 20101 and 20502

2010

Energy, 18 MGD,
17%

2050

Energy, 100 MGD,
28%
Energy, 35 MGD,
25%

Industrial, 63 MGD,
59%

Municipal, 25 MGD,
23%

Industrial, 74 MGD,
52%

Municipal, 33 MGD,
23%

Total 106 MGD

Total 142 MGD

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.
1 2010 Energy totals shown represent total thermoelectric withdrawal; 33 MGD of the total 51 MGD (64%) is consumptive, the remainder is discharged back to surface waters as return flow. For 2050, 65 MGD of the total 100 MGD (65%) is consumptive, the remainder is discharged back to surface waters as return flow.
2 The portion of thermoelectric withdrawal (50.0 MGD) and return flow (16.7 MGD) associated with future unplanned generating capacity is not assigned to specific resources and, therefore, is notincluded in resource assessments.

ALTAMAHA

4-10

September 2011

5. COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE RESOURCE CAPACITY AND FUTURE NEEDS

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Section 5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

This Section compares the water and wastewater demand forecasts (Section 4), along with the Resource Assessments (Section 3), providing the basis for selecting water management practices (Sections 6 and 7). Areas where future demands exceed the capacity of the resource have a gap that will be addressed through water management practices. This Section summarizes the gaps and water supply needs for the Altamaha Region.

Summary
Over the next 40 years, forecasted surface water demand within the Altamaha Region will exceed the available resource in the Canoochee River. Increased demand in the region may also add to surface water gaps downstream of the region on the Ogeechee River at the Kings

5.1. Groundwater Availability Comparisons
Groundwater from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is a vital resource for the Altamaha Region. Overall, the results from the Groundwater Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010) indicate that the sustainable yield for the modeled portions of the regional aquifer(s) is greater than the forecasted demands.

Ferry planning node, the Satilla River at Atkinson node, and the Alapaha River at the Statenville node.
At the regional level, for modeled aquifers, no groundwater resource shortfalls are expected to occur in the Altamaha Region over the 40 year planning horizon.

Assimilative capacity assessments

At this time, no regional groundwater resource indicate the need for improved

gaps are expected to occur in the Altamaha Region over the 40 year planning horizon. However, localized gaps could occur if well densities and/or withdrawal rates result in exceedance of sustainable yield metrics. In

wastewater treatment in some facilities within the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Ogeechee, and Suwannee river basins.

addition, some counties including Candler, Addressing non-point sources of

Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, pollution and existing water quality

Wayne, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties may impairments will be a part of

need additional permitted capacity if future addressing the region's future

demand for groundwater exceeds permitted needs.

groundwater withdrawal limits. The comparison

of existing groundwater permitted capacity to forecasted future demand in the

Altamaha Region is shown in Table 5-1. Please note that sufficient capacity at the

county level does not preclude localized municipal permit capacity shortages. Local

water providers in counties with large demand forecasts should review their

permitting needs.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

5-1

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Table 5-1: 2050 Forecast versus Groundwater Permitted Capacity

County

2050 Public Demand Forecast (AAD MGD)

Municipal
Existing Municipal Groundwater Permitted
Yearly Average (MGD)

Municipal Permitted Capacity Need in 2050
(MGD)

2050 Industrial Demand Forecast
(AAD MGD)

Industrial
Existing Industrial Groundwater Permitted
Yearly Average (MGD)

Candler

1.2

0.9

0.3

0.0

0.0

Emanuel

2.6

2.0

0.6

1.1

1.7

Evans

0.9

0.5

0.4

1.8

1.7

Jeff Davis

1.4

0.9

0.5

0.4

1.0

Montgomery

0.9

0.8

0.1

0.0

0.0

Wayne

3.1

2.6

0.5

69.2

68.0

Wheeler

0.4

0.4

0.03

0.0

0.0

Wilcox

0.8

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.1

Source: Altamaha Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011.

Industrial Permitted Capacity Need in 2050
(MGD)
None None 0.1 None None 1.2 None
None

5.2. Surface Water Availability Comparisons
Surface water is an important resource used to meet current and future needs of the Altamaha Region, especially in the agricultural and energy sectors. There are several surface water planning nodes located in and in close proximity to the Altamaha Region. From the Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2010), the basic conclusions of the future conditions modeling show surface water gaps (i.e., there are times when there is insufficient water to meet off-stream demands and also meet the targets for support of instream uses) at the following nodes: Claxton (Canoochee River), Kings Ferry (Ogeechee River, outside of Altamaha Region), Atkinson (Satilla River, outside of Altamaha Region) and Statenville (Alapaha River outside of the Altamaha Region). When assessing this issue, the Altamaha Council recognized that surface water gaps are driven by both net consumption (withdrawal minus returns) and year to year variations in river flows. In wet years, the region is likely to not experience any shortfalls to off-stream uses and instream needs. In dry years, the shortfalls are likely to be more severe. In order to better assess these shortfalls and to better understand the types of management practices that may be required, a more detailed quantification of the frequency and severity of shortage was completed.
First, a quantification of the largest flow shortfall was completed. This quantification estimated the average flow of water that would be needed to increase stream flows to their minimum target levels, and it quantified the number of days that the flow would be needed. The flow needed and the number of days that it is needed results in an estimate of the total volume of water that would be needed to address the largest flow shortfall.

ALTAMAHA

5-2

September 2011

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Using the same approach outlined above, quantification of shortfalls was completed for the average flow needed to address 90% of the shortages and 50% of the shortages. It is important to note that in some cases, the largest flow shortage did not always correspond to the largest volume shortage because some shortfalls are lower in flow rate but longer in duration.
The quantification of shortfalls is especially relevant when selecting water management practices. For example, if the preferred management practice is to replace surface water diversions with groundwater withdrawals, it is important to know how much flow needs to be generated and for what length of time. This process will in turn dictate the number and size of wells needed to generate the flow. If a reservoir is the preferred practice, then one needs to know the largest volume of storage needed because stream flow needs can then be addressed by controlling the rate of flow released from the reservoir. In addition, since the largest shortages occur less frequently, there are important cost-benefit considerations associated with addressing the largest and more infrequent shortfalls.
The geographic location of the modeled regional surface water gaps are shown in Figure 5-1. The gaps are quantified in terms of flow. The flow values depicted in the charts represent the average additional flow at that node that would be needed to close the specified gap occurrence. These flows are presented on a percent capture basis. The term "capture" refers to the percent of all gap occurrences at a node that are less than or equal to this flow value. For example, the 50% capture value indicates the flow that would be needed to close half the gap occurrences at a particular node, and the 100% capture value indicates the flow that would be needed to close all gap occurrences at a particular node. In addition to flow, values are given for gap duration (number of days the flow is below 7Q10) and volume (total volumetric shortfall to 7Q10 expressed in acre-feet) at each node. The years and months listed in the figure are tied to the hydrologic data set used in the modeling. The specific years and months are the periods of time when the referenced gap occurred. For example, at the Claxton node the largest flow gap (100% capture) occurred between June and August 1952.
The projected increased use of surface water for the counties within the Altamaha Region that have current and future gaps are shown in Table 5-2. Since there are current gaps at the referenced planning nodes, development of additional surface water to meet projected needs will need to done in a manner that does not increase current gaps.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

5-3

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Table 5-2: 2050 Surface Water Gap Forecast (in AAD-MGD)

County

Planning Node with Gap

Total County Increase in Agriculture Demand by 20501

Appling

Atkinson

0.16

Candler

Claxton

0.30

Emanuel

Eden and Claxton

0.12

Evans

Kings Ferry and Claxton

0.95

Jeff Davis

Atkinson

0.29

Tattnall

Claxton and Kings Ferry

2.68

Wayne

Atkinson

0.04

Wilcox

Statenville

0.78

Source: Altamaha Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011. 1A portion of this increased demand falls within the local drainage area of the planning node with gap.

ALTAMAHA

5-4

September 2011

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-1: 2050 Surface Water Gap Summary

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

5-5

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
5.3. Surface Water Quality Comparisons (Assimilative Capacity)
This Section summarizes the results of Resource Assessment modeling when all municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities operate at permit conditions, and provides a comparison of existing wastewater permitted capacity to the projected 2050 wastewater forecast flows. A discussion on non-point source pollution is also included.
Future Treatment Capacity Needs
Existing municipal wastewater permitted capacities were compared to projected 2050 wastewater flows to estimate future treatment capacity needs by county. This analysis was done for both point sources and land application systems, both of which are permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As shown in Table 5-3, Candler and Evans Counties may have small infrastructure needs by 2050. It should be noted that the comparison in Table 5-3 was completed at the county level and localized shortages in treatment capacity may exist.
Assimilative Capacity Assessments
The Assimilative Capacity Assessment at permit conditions (EPD, March 2011) was developed to estimate the ability of streams, estuaries, and harbors to assimilate pollutants under future conditions. The modeling was focused on dissolved oxygen (DO) and based upon municipal and industrial wastewater facilities operating at their full permitted levels in terms of flow and effluent discharge limits. The results of the DO modeling are presented in Table 5-4 and Figure 5-2 for the Altamaha Region, which includes portions of the Altamaha, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Ogeechee River basins.
Figure 5-3 illustrates the number of reaches within each river basin in the region that have exceeded their DO assimilative capacity in either the baseline or permitted model runs or both. It is important to note that exceedance of assimilative capacity on a reach could be the result of a point source discharge, non-point source loading, or a naturally low DO condition. The river basin tables in the figure summarize recommendations that arose out of coordination with EPD's Watershed Protection Branch and the number of reaches within the basin for which these recommendations apply. In addition to improving low DO conditions in surface waters, these recommendations are aimed at providing sufficient future wastewater permit capacity and preparing for future nutrient standards in receiving waters.

ALTAMAHA

5-6

September 2011

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Table 5-3: 2050 Municipal Wastewater Forecast versus Existing Permitted Capacity (MGD)

Point Source (PS)

Land Application Systems (LAS)

County

2050 Forecast1

Permitted Capacity

2050 Surplus or Gap (-)

2050 Forecast1

Permitted Capacity

2050 Surplus or
Gap (-)

Appling

0.7

1.4

Bleckley

0.6

1.0

Candler

0.0

0.0

Dodge

0.8

1.8

Emanuel

1.0

3.0

Evans

0.53

0.52

Jeff Davis

0.8

1.5

Johnson

0.2

0.8

Montgomery

0.4

0.4

Tattnall

1.1

3.8

Telfair

0.5

0.7

Toombs

1.4

3.2

Treutlen

0.3

0.6

Wayne

1.4

2.5

Wheeler

0.2

0.5

Wilcox

0.5

0.7

Total

10.4

22.5

0.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 -0.01 0.7 0.6 0.1 2.7 0.2 1.9 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.2
12.1

0.2

1.4

1.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

1.0

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.3

2.1

1.8

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.7

0.2

0.5

1.8

1.3

1.4

1.8

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.3

9.6

5.3

Source: Altamaha Gap Analysis Technical Memorandum; CDM, 2011. 1 Includes industrial wastewater expected to be treated at municipal facilities.

Table 5-4: Permitted Assimilative Capacity for DO in Altamaha River Basins

Model Run

Basin

Available Assimilative Capacity (Total Mileage)

Very Good (>1.0 mg/L)

Good (0.5 to <1.0 mg/L)

Moderate (0.2 to <0.5 mg/L)

Limited (>0.0 to
<0.2 mg/L)

None or Exceeded
(<0.0 mg/L)

Total Modeled
River Basin Miles1

Oconee

458

163

39

6

80

746

Ocmulgee 473

192

185

73

Permitted

Altamaha 119

34

48

96

82

1,005

123

420

Ogeechee 127

211

442

27

127

944

Source: Additional Supporting Material for Permitted Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, August 2010. 1Total miles include tributaries and main stem of the rivers within and outside of the Altamaha Council boundary.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

5-7

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-2: Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Permitted Conditions

ALTAMAHA

Source: Additional Supporting Material for Permitted Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, October 2010.
Very Good: 1 mg/L of dissolved oxygen (DO) available (above the water quality standard of 5 mg/L) Good: 0.5 mg/L to < 1.0 mg/L of DO available Moderate: 0.2 mg/L to <0.5 mg/L of DO available Limited: >0.0 mg/L to <0.2 mg/L of DO available At assimilative capacity: 0.0 mg/L of DO available None or Exceeded Capacity: <0.0 mg/L of DO available

5-8

September 2011

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-2 (cont.): Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Permitted Conditions

ALTAMAHA

Source: Additional Supporting Material for Permitted Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, October 2010.
Very Good: 1 mg/L of dissolved oxygen (DO) available (above the water quality standard of 5 mg/L) Good: 0.5 mg/L to < 1.0 mg/L of DO available Moderate: 0.2 mg/L to <0.5 mg/L of DO available Limited: >0.0 mg/L to <0.2 mg/L of DO available At assimilative capacity: 0.0 mg/L of DO available None or Exceeded Capacity: <0.0 mg/L of DO available

September 2011

5-9

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-3: Surface Water Quality Gap Summary

ALTAMAHA

5-10

September 2011

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Non-Point Source Pollution
Non-point source pollution accounts for the majority of surface water impairments in the region according to the 2008 303(d) list of Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs published by EPD. Non-point source pollution can occur as a result of human activities, including urban development, agriculture, and silviculture, and as a result of non-human influences such as wildlife and naturally-occurring nutrients. An important component of any non-point source management program is identifying those pollutant sources that are resulting from human activities.
Watershed nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) modeling was conducted for the Brunswick Harbor/Satilla River watersheds. The goal was to identify nutrient loading rates from different portions of the watershed under various hydrologic conditions and evaluate them in relation to corresponding land uses and potential non-point source contributions. Results of watershed nutrient modeling identify portions of the watershed where there are higher concentration of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in stormwater runoff than other parts of the watershed.
There are currently no nutrient standards in place for the Altamaha Region, so there is no absolute threshold against which these nutrient loadings are compared. Rather, the nutrient model results are beneficial for relative comparisons to target areas where implementation of non-point source control management practices will have the greatest benefit. Nutrient and non-point source control management practices specific to land uses within the Altamaha Region are discussed in Section 6.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

5-11

6. ADDRESSING WATER NEEDS AND REGIONAL GOALS

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Section 6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

This Section presents the Altamaha Council's water management practices selected to address resource

Summary

shortfalls or gaps identified and described in Section 5, and/or to meet the Council's Vision and Goals described in Section 1.

The Altamaha Council selected management practices to help address

6.1. Identifying Water Management Practices

surface water low flow conditions at the Claxton and shared resource planning

The comparison of Resource Assessments and forecasted demands presented in Section 5 identifies the Region's likely resource shortfalls or gaps and demonstrates the necessity for region and resource specific water management practices. In cases

nodes, and to provide for sustainable use and development of groundwater and surface water in other areas of the region.

where shortfalls or gaps appear to be unlikely, the Council identified needs (e.g., facility/infrastructure needs and practices, programmatic practices, etc.) and corresponding management practices that are aligned with the Region's Vision and Goals. In selecting the actions needed (i.e., water management practices), the Council considered practices identified in existing plans, the Region's Vision and Goals, and coordinated with local

Water quality management practices focus on addressing dissolved oxygen conditions at select locations and best management practices to address nonpoint sources of pollution and help reduce nutrient sources.

governments and water providers as well as neighboring Councils that share these water resources.

Additional water and wastewater permit capacity and new/upgraded

Review of Existing Plans and Practices
The Council conducted a comprehensive review of existing local and regional water management plans

infrastructure will be needed to address existing and/or future uses.

and relevant related documents to frame the selection of management practices. The

types of plans/studies that were reviewed to support identification and selection of

management practices for the Altamaha Region consisted of the following:

Comprehensive Work Plans (local and regional scale)

EPD databases (permitted withdrawals, planned projects, and proposed reservoirs)

State-wide guidance documents (conservation, cost, and water planning)

Best Management Practices (agriculture, forestry, and stormwater management)

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-1

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
Water quality studies (basin, watershed, and local scale)
TMDL evaluations
When possible, successful management practices already planned for and/or in use in the Altamaha Region formed the basis for the water management practices selected by the Council.
6.2. Selected Water Management Practices for the Altamaha Region
Table 6-1 summarizes the Altamaha Council's selected management practices by source of supply for the relevant demand sector(s), including surface water supply for agricultural irrigation, permitted municipal and industrial water and wastewater capacity, water quality assimilative capacity (dissolved oxygen) challenges, current water quality impairments, and nutrient considerations for the Satilla River watershed. The table summarizes general information regarding management practices needed to meet forecasted needs, and more detailed information on management practices needed to address gaps between available resources and forecasted needs. Information on shared resources is provided at the end of the table to identify where management practices in other regional Councils are also needed to address identified gaps. The Altamaha Council reviewed a number of existing local and regional water management plans and related documents during the development and selection of management practices. A detailed list of plans and documents that were considered can be found in the Altamaha Plans Reviewed in Selecting Management Practices Technical Memorandum (CDM, 2011).
The most significant gaps in the Altamaha Region are surface water availability gaps driven by agricultural irrigation usage. As such, the majority of water supply management practices in Table 6-1 are intended to address agricultural surface water use (in the table the term 7Q10 refers to the 1 in 10 year 7 day low flow condition). Figure 5-1 shows the location and magnitude of regional surface water gaps and should be referenced to provide the geographic focus of the management practices. The Altamaha Council considered a number of practices to close these surface water availability gaps, ranging from agricultural conservation to one or more regional reservoirs. While reservoirs would provide multiple potential benefits, the flat topography of the region makes siting of regional reservoirs difficult, expensive, and may have associated impacts. The Altamaha Council concluded that integrating practices, rather than using a single practice would be more effective at addressing gaps and more economically feasible. Figure 6-1 illustrates the Altamaha Council's recommended suite of surface water availability management practices, which will be implemented via an incremental and adaptive approach. Those practices that are less costly and more readily implemented are prioritized for short-term implementation. If resource needs are not met and/or gaps are not addressed, then more costly and complex management practices will be pursued.

ALTAMAHA

6-2

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
Surface water gaps (increased frequency or severity of 7Q10 low flow conditions) in the region exist under current and future conditions at the Claxton planning node and will be addressed by management practices that reduce net consumption, replace surface water use with groundwater use, and improve data on frequency and magnitude of gaps among others. The gap at Claxton occurs primarily as a result of net consumption associated with agricultural water use in the February-November timeframe. The Altamaha Council's management practices will address a significant portion of the net consumption at Claxton and when combined with management practices from the Coastal Georgia and Savannah-Upper Ogeechee water planning regions will close surface water gaps over time. Finally, as described in Section 5.2 it is important to keep in mind that shortage to low flow conditions do not occur every year. In some cases, for years with shortages the shortages do not occur for the entire year.
Figure 6-2 illustrates the Altamaha Council's recommended suite of surface water quality management practices in a phased approach. Table 6-1 also includes the Altamaha Council's recommended management practices to address water quality gaps, including stream segments with no dissolved oxygen assimilative capacity and insufficient wastewater permit capacity.
In addition to addressing gaps, the Altamaha Council identified several management practice recommendations in Table 6-1 to address forecasted future uses. These recommendations include such practices as the additional sustainable development of groundwater and surface water in areas with sufficient supply; management of other water quality issues such as non-point source runoff, nutrient loadings, TMDLs in the region; and additional educational and ordinance practices. The selected management practices will over time address identified gaps and meet future uses when combined with practices for all shared resource regions.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-3

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
Figure 6-1: Recommended Surface Water Availability Management Practices in a Phased Approach

ALTAMAHA

6-4

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
Figure 6-2: Recommended Surface Water Quality Management Practices in a Phased Approach

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-5

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1:
Management Practice Number

Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Issue(s) to be Addressed by Action(s)

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Action Needed - Address Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas Data Collection/Additional Research (DCAR) to confirm frequency, duration, severity, and drivers of surface water gaps and identify significant causes (climate, timing, water use, land cover, etc.) of 7Q10
low flow conditions and advance research/feasibility of potential solutions

DCAR-1

Improve understanding and -Acquire additional data/information on

2,6

Agricultural quantification of agricultural agricultural consumptive use to confirm or

Consumption water use and the projected

Data

surface water gaps on the

refine if agricultural consumption is less than 100% consumptive1

Canoochee River at Claxton, -Conduct "modeling scenario analysis to

Ogeechee River at Kings

bracket a reasonable range of

Ferry, Alapaha River at

consumption" with Resource Assessment

Statenville, Satilla River at Atkinson (hereafter referred to as "gap areas")

models with "new" information on consumptive use to assess effect on surface water gap1

DCAR-2 Source of Supply Data to Refine Forecasts

Refine surface water agricultural

2,6

forecasts and Resource Assessment

models to improve data on source of

supply and timing/operation of farm ponds and dual source irrigation systems1

DCAR-3
Metering Data

Obtain additional data and improved understanding of actual versus forecasted water use

-Continue to fund, improve, and incorporate agricultural water use metering data; collect and use this information in Water Plan updates.
-Expand number of GSWCC continuously monitored real-time meter sites in surface water gap areas.1
-Maintain and fund river gauging stations.

2,3,6

DCAR-4
Support Irrigation Efficiency Research

Improvement of surface water flows (in gap areas) via reduced surface water use while maintaining/
improving crop yields

Support research (University, State, and Corporate) on improved irrigation efficiency measures and development of lower water use crops and plant strains1

2,3,6

DCAR-5
Irrigation Education and Research

Improve education and research on when

2,3

and how much water is needed to

maximize crop yield with efficient irrigation1

6-6

September 2011

ALTAMAHA

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Issue(s) to be Addressed by Action(s)

DCAR-6
Minimize Groundwater Use Impacts on Surface Water

Improvement of surface water flows (in gap areas) where groundwater and surface water are hydrologically connected and groundwater use impacts surface water flows

Description/Definition of Action
Promote management practices and educate water users to minimize impacts to surface water associated with excessive pumping/use of shallow/ surficial aquifers that may impact surface water flows

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)
2,3,6,9

DCAR-7
Study Potential Use of Aquifers to Address Gaps

Improvement of surface water flows (in gap areas).

Conduct research to determine the feasibility and potential benefits and limitations of aquifer storage and recovery for confined aquifers; and determine the feasibility and potential benefits to recharge surficial aquifers to increase stream baseflow to address gaps

1,2,4,11

DCAR-8
Address Low Flow with Wetland Restoration and Retention Structures

Examine potential role of wetlands restoration and water retention structures in addressing surface water low flow conditions. Evaluate implementation considerations for each option.

Develop plan of study and conduct research to evaluate the opportunities and limitations associated with improving river flow conditions via creation/restoration of wetlands systems and potential water retention structures including streams, and if deemed potentially feasible, identify potential location(s) and estimates of potential improvements to stream flow conditions. This effort should include the identification of the incentives that could be used to make this a viable water supply option and a cost-benefit analysis of these incentives.

DCAR-9
Analyze Addressing Extreme Conditions

Cost effectively address surface water low flow conditions (in gap areas) while avoiding undue adverse impacts on water users and uses in the planning area

Conduct analysis of the socioeconomic benefits and cost in comparison to ecological benefits of addressing surface water gaps that are larger in magnitude, but occur infrequently.

2,6,9,11 2,5,6,11

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-7

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Issue(s) to be Addressed by Action(s)

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Action Needed - Water Conservation (WC) - Address current and future gaps and meet water needs by efficient water use. The Altamaha Council supports the 25 water conservation goals contained in the March 2010 Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP).

WC-1

Help meet current and

Municipal and Industrial water uses -

3

Tier 1 and

forecasted municipal

encourage implementation and adherence to

Tier 2

and industrial surface

Tier 1 and Tier 2 water conservation

Measures for water and groundwater measures established in existing and future

Municipal and supply needs throughout rulemaking processes and plans [WCIP,

Industrial

the region

Coastal Permitting Plan (including applicable

Users

Tier 3 and Tier 4 practices), and Water

Stewardship Act of 2010] by local

governments/utilities

WC-2

Help meet current and

Encourage implementation of Tier 1 and Tier

3

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures for Agriculture

forecasted agricultural surface water and groundwater supply needs throughout the region

2 conservation measures and adherence to WCIP by agricultural groundwater users

Action Needed - Water Conservation (WC) - Meet current and future gaps and needs by efficient agricultural water use - Tier 3 Conservation Practices1

WC-3

- Help meet current and Conduct irrigation audits

3

Audits

forecasted agricultural ground and surface

WC-4 Metering

water supply needs
- Help address surface water gap areas

Meter irrigation systems

WC-5 Inspections

Inspect pipes and plumbing to control water loss

WC-6
Minimize HighPressure Systems

Minimize or eliminate the use of high-pressure spray guns on fixed and traveler systems where feasible

WC-7
Efficient Planting Methods

Utilize cropping and crop rotation methods that promote efficiency

ALTAMAHA

6-8

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Issue(s) to be Addressed by
Action(s)

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Action Needed - Water Conservation (WC) Continued - Meet current and future gaps and needs by efficient water use - Tier 4 Conservation Practices1

WC-8

- Help meet current and Practice conservation tillage

3

Conservation forecasted agricultural

Tillage

ground and surface

WC-9 Control Loss

water supply needs
- Help address surface water gap areas

Control water loss

WC-10

Install end-gun shutoff with pivots

End-Gun Shutoffs

WC-11
Low Pressure Systems

Install low pressure irrigation systems where feasible (soil specific)

WC-12
Application Efficiency Technologies

Encourage and improve use of soil moisture sensors, ET sensors, or crop water use model(s) to time cycles

Additional/Alternate to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS)1

ASWS-1
Consider Low Flow Conditions in Future Surface Water Permitting

Help ensure that future surface water use does not contribute to frequency and severity of low flow conditions within the Local Drainage Areas that contribute flow to gap areas

Future surface water uses - If surface water (ponds and withdrawals) is sought for future water supply in gap areas (new permits), the Applicant, GSWCC, and EPD should work collaboratively to promote surface water use patterns that will not significantly contribute to frequency or magnitude of 7Q10 low flow conditions

2,6,9

ASWS-2
Incentives for Dry-Year Releases from Ponds

Help improve surface water flow in gap areas during low flow conditions

Future and existing surface water uses Utilizing incentives and collaborative partnerships, examine opportunities to modify farm and other pond operations to obtain releases in dry/gap years

2,4,6

ASWS-3
Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

Future and existing agricultural surface water uses - Using collaboration and incentive based program(s), encourage additional groundwater development as preferred source of supply for future demand where feasible and within the sustainable yield of the resource. Identify the need for, and feasibility of, incentive-based seasonal surface water permit conditions to address 7Q10 low flow conditions.

2,4,6,9

September 2011

6-9

ALTAMAHA

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Issue(s) to be Addressed by
Action(s)

ASWS-4
Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

Help improve surface water flow in gap areas during low flow conditions

Description/Definition of Action
Monitor gap closure. If progress toward gap closure is not achieved, evaluate need and feasibility to conjunctively manage groundwater and surface water to address surface water flow shortages during 7Q10 low flow conditions

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)
2,4,6,9

ASWS-5
Restoration Incentive Programs

Based on outcome of research (DCAR-8 above), consider incentive-based programs to restore wetlands and other areas if this practice can improve river flows during shortages to 7Q10 dry periods without impairing timber harvesting opportunities

2,6,7,9,11

ASWS-6
Land Management Incentives

Incentive-based land use practices to help promote infiltration and aquifer recharge

1,9,12

ASWS-7
Incentives for Greater Wastewater Returns

Identify incentive-based programs to increase wastewater returns; modify/manage land application systems, septic systems, and stormwater returns to address 7Q10 low flow conditions

2,6,10,11

ASWS-8
Address Gaps Periods with Aquifer Storage

If deemed fiscally and technically effective (based on outcome of research in DCAR-7), implement aquifer storage and recovery and/or recharge of surficial and other aquifers to help retime flows to gap periods

1,2,4,11

ASWS-9
Study MultiRegion Reservoir Feasibility

Evaluate feasibility and need for regional joint reservoir with Savannah-Upper Ogeechee and Upper Oconee Councils, and/or use of existing reservoirs and/or multiple new smaller reservoirs

2,6,10-12

ASWS-10
Inter-Basin Transfers

Inter-basin transfers from within the region or collaborating regions that can address regional water needs and benefit both the areas from which the transferred water is withdrawn and the area receiving the water

2,6,9-12

ALTAMAHA

6-10

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Issue(s) to be Addressed by
Action(s)

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Action Needed - Address Water Quality (Dissolved Oxygen Levels)

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen (PSDO)

PSDO-1
Collect Water Quality Data

Verification of Water Quality Resource Assessment Data and Assumptions to determine dissolved oxygen conditions (see Figure 5-2 for more information)

Data collection to confirm loading and/or receiving stream chemistry

2,6,9

PSDO-2
Point Discharge Relocation

Improve dissolved oxygen levels in receiving streams (see Figure 5-2 for more information)

Modification of wastewater discharge location. In areas with shortages to 7Q10 low flow conditions, identify feasibility to move discharge location to higher flow streams with greater assimilative capacity.

9-11

PSDO-3
Enhance Point Source Treatment

Upgrade/improve treatment to address low dissolved oxygen conditions in receiving streams

2,6,9-11

Action Needed - Address Wastewater Permit Capacity Needs/Gaps

Available Municipal Wastewater Permit Capacity (MWWPC)

MWWPC-1
Increase Wastewater Capacity

Additional municipal wastewater treatment capacity may be needed in Candler and Evans Counties

Expand or construct new facilities and/or obtain additional wastewater permit capacity to meet forecasted needs
Planned municipal projects in Candler and Evans Counties

9-11

Available Industrial Wastewater Permit Capacity (IWWPC)

IWWPC-1
Collect Additional Industrial Permit Data

Collect additional data where needed on industrial flow volumes and permit conditions to verify permitted versus forecasted needs

Obtain additional permit data regarding flow
volumes and permit conditions for industrial wastewater facilities forecasted needs2

9-11

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-11

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Issue(s) to be Addressed by
Action(s)

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Action Needed - Address Water Withdrawal Permit Capacity Needs

Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity (MGWPC)

MGWPC-1
Increase Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity

Additional municipal groundwater permit capacity may be needed in Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, Wayne, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties

Obtain groundwater permit capacity and construct new or expanded facilities to meet forecasted need

6,9,11

IGWPC-1
Increase Industrial Groundwater
Permit Capacity

Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity (IGWPC)2

Additional industrial groundwater permit capacity may be needed in Evans and Wayne Counties

Obtain groundwater permit capacity and construct new or expanded facilities to meet forecasted need

6,9,11

The following Altamaha Council Management Practices are programmatic in nature and are therefore described in general terms.

Action Needed - Address Current and Future Groundwater (GW) Needs

GW-1
Sustainable Groundwater Use

Continue to sustainably drill wells and withdraw groundwater from the Upper Floridan and other prioritized aquifers and use of other aquifer systems in the region to meet regional needs

2,6,9

GW-2
Research Groundwater Sustainability

Continue to refine sustainable yield metrics, monitor and improve understanding of historic, current, and future trends in groundwater levels
Use best available science when evaluating potential value and/or impact associated with aquifer storage and/or recovery of surface water

2,4,6

GW-3

Encourage land use practices that sustain and protect aquifer recharge

1

Promote Aquifer-

areas (both inside and outside the region) for the aquifers that are present in the region

Friendly Land

Use

ALTAMAHA

6-12

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Management Practices to Address Current and Future Surface Water (SW) Needs

SW-1
Maintain Current Permitted Capacity

Continue to apply for permits and use surface water within the available surface water resource capacity

2,6,9

SW-2

Monitor Atlantic slope river flow conditions to help determine flow

9,11

Monitor and

conditions that sustain estuary conditions

Evaluate

Estuaries

Management Practices to Address Water Quality Non-Point Source (NPS) Needs

(Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, nutrients, and other impairments)

NPS-1
Study Human Impacts on Water Quality

Data collection/analysis to confirm if dissolved oxygen and/or fecal coliform is human induced

9-11

NPS-2
Research and Address Impairment Issues

Collect data to determine the sources of nutrient loading and other NPS impairments to waters of the State, and upon confirmation of source, develop specific management programs to address

9-11

The following practices are selected by the Altamaha Council to encourage implementation by the applicable local or state program(s).
Urban Best Management Practices (NPSU)

NPSU-1

Use soil erosion and sediment control measures

9,11

Control Erosion

NPSU-2 Manage Stormwater Runoff
NPSU-3 Increase Stormwater Infiltration

Stormwater retention ponds, wetlands to manage runoff and help support river flows
Promote measures to increase infiltration of stormwater to help reduce nutrient and other pollutant runoff (City of Baxley Watershed Protection Plan, 2007)

9,11 1,9,11

NPSU-4

Protect and maintain riparian buffers along urban streams

9,11

Riparian Buffers

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-13

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number
NPSU-5 Street Sweeping
NPSR-1 Advocate Implementing Road Runoff BMPs
NPSF-1 Support Forestry Commission Water Quality Program NPSF-2 Improve BMP Compliance

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

Implement street sweeping program (City of Baxley Watershed Protection

9,11

Plan, 2007)

Rural Best Management Practices (NPSR)

Implement BMPs to control runoff from dirt roads by encouraging County

9,11

implementation of the BMPs indentified in Georgia Resource

Conservation and Development Council, "Georgia Better Back Roads

Field Manual"

Forestry Best Management Practices (NPSF)

Support Georgia Forestry Commission water quality program consisting

9,11

of BMP development, education/outreach, implementation/compliance

monitoring, and complaint resolution process

Improve BMP compliance through State-wide biennial BMP surveys and

9,11

BMP assurance exams, Master Timber Harvester workshops, and

continuing logger education

NPSF-3

Incentives to restore wetlands and historically drained hardwood and

9,11

Wetland and Forest Restoration

other areas. Where applicable, support United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) incentive programs through the Farm Service Agency and NRCS to restore converted wetlands back to forested conditions.

Incentives

Agricultural Best Management Practices for Crop and Pasture Lands (NPSA) - Support and encourage implementation of GSWCC BMP and Education Programs

NPSA-1

Conservation tillage and cover crop

3,9

Soil Erosion Reduction Measures

NPSA-2 Utilize Buffers
NPSA-3 Livestock Management
NPSA-4 Manure Control

Field buffers, riparian forested buffers, and strip cropping to control runoff and reduce erosion Livestock stock exclusions from direct contact with streams and rivers and vegetation buffers
Responsible manure storage and handling

3,9,11 9,11 9,11

ALTAMAHA

6-14

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

NPSA-5

Incentives to restore wetlands and historically drained hardwood and

9,11

Wetland and other areas

Forest

Restoration

Incentives

Existing Impairments and Total Maximum Daily Load Listed Streams (TMDL)

TMDL-1 Evaluate Impairment Sources
TMDL-2 Analyze Impaired Segments and Sources
TMDL-3 Stormwater Management BMPs

Data collection and confirmation of sources to remove streams listed due to "natural sources"
Data collection to refine river/stream reach length for impaired waters; focus on longest reaches to refine location and potential sources of impairments
Stormwater Management: - Agricultural BMPs - Forestry BMPs - Rural BMPs - Urban BMPs See Above Non-Point Source for Details

8,9 8,9 9,11

Nutrients Satilla River Watershed Model (NUT)

NUT-1

Align current land use with phosphorus and nitrogen loading data to help

9,11

Link Nutrient Loading With Current Land Use

optimize effectiveness of management practice based on consideration of land uses and actual nutrient loading contribution to surface water resources (i.e., predominant land use is not necessarily the predominant source of nutrient)

- Agricultural BMPs

- Forestry BMPs

- Rural BMPs

- Urban BMPs

See Above Non-Point Source for Details

EDU-1
Promote Conservation Programs

Management Practices to Address Future Educational Needs (EDU) Support Water Conservation Programs

2,3,5,6

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-15

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)

EDU-2

Support Stormwater Educational Programs

9,11

Stormwater Education

EDU-3

Support Septic System Maintenance Programs

9,11

Septic System Maintenance Education

EDU-4

Support Georgia Forestry Commission Forestry BMP and UGA-SFI

9,11

Forestry BMP Logger Education Programs

Education

EDU-5

Conduct stream clean-up events (Lumber City Watershed Protection

9,11

Clean-Up

Plan, 2007)

Events

Management Practices to Address Future Ordinance and Code Policy Needs (OCP)

OCP-1

Encourage local government to adopt tools and practices to implement

9,11

Engage Local Governments

and/or update stormwater and land development strategies to improve water quality/quantity. Possible resource documents include: Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, Coastal Stormwater Supplement,

Metro North Georgia Water Planning District Model Ordinances, and

Lumber City Watershed Protection Plan (2007)

OCP-2
Green Space Opportunities and Incentives

Identify opportunities for green space on incentive and voluntary basis

1,7,11

OCP-3
Promote Integrated Planning

Encourage coordinated environmental planning, land use, stormwater, and wastewater

1-3,5,6,9-12

Summary of Management Practices for Shared Resources The Altamaha Region will combine its management practices with the following Councils to address shared resource gaps.

Surface Water Quantity Canoochee River (Claxton), Ogeechee River (Kings Ferry), Satilla River (Atkinson), and Alapaha River (Statenville)

Altamaha The Altamaha Regional Council has identified the management practices in the above table to address the majority of the gap at Claxton, a portion of the cumulative gap at Kings Ferry, a small portion of the cumulative gap at Statenville, and a portion of the cumulative gap at Atkinson.
Coastal Georgia The Coastal Georgia Regional Council has identified water conservation, replacement of surface water use with groundwater, refinement of forecasting and modeling data, and potential use of incentives and new permit conditions to address a small portion of the cumulative gap at Kings Ferry. The management practices that close gaps at Kings Ferry will also close the gaps at Claxton and Eden.

ALTAMAHA

6-16

September 2011

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
Savannah-Upper Ogeechee The Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Regional Council has identified water conservation, replacement of surface water use with groundwater use, and agricultural water use monitoring program to address a portion of the cumulative gap at Kings Ferry. Upper Oconee The Upper Oconee Regional Council has identified the use of variable rate irrigation, development of new groundwater wells, and encouraging centralized sewer in developing areas to address a small portion of the gap at Eden and a small portion of the cumulative gap at Kings Ferry. Suwannee-Satilla The Suwannee-Satilla Regional Council has identified water conservation, replacement of surface water use with groundwater use, refinement of forecasting and modeling data, and potential use of incentives and new permit conditions to address the majority of the cumulative gap at Statenville and at Atkinson. Upper Flint The Upper Flint Regional Council has identified conservation, investigation of replacement of surface water with groundwater, greater utilization of farm ponds, and consideration of new storage and Aquifer Storage and Recovery to address a portion of the cumulative gap at Statenville. Surface Water Quality: Satilla River Watershed Model The Suwannee-Satilla Regional Council has identified the same Best Management Practices for reducing nutrient loading as are summarized in the above table for the Altamaha Council.
Suwannee-Satilla One reach with exceeded dissolved oxygen assimilative capacity in the Suwannee River
basin is shared with the Suwannee-Satilla Region. Both regions recommend improved level of wastewater treatment to improve instream dissolved oxygen, implementation of ammonia limits, and improved treatment for nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus).
Notes: 1Seek to reduce frequency and severity of human impacts to 7Q10 low flow conditions in the region, which are associated with agricultural water use in portions of the Altamaha Region. Focus on surface water permit holders and new surface water permit requests in Canoochee Watershed [Candler, Evans, Emanuel, Tattnall, and Bulloch Counties (Claxton Gap)], Ogeechee Watershed [Candler, Emmanuel, and Evans Counties (Eden and Kings Ferry Gap)], Alapaha Watershed [Wilcox County (Statenville Gap)], and Satilla Watershed [Appling, Jeff Davis, and Wayne Counties (Atkinson Gap)]. 2Additional industrial wastewater capacity may be needed. EPD to update and refine discharge limit databases.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

6-17

7. IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Section 7. Implementing Water Management Practices

This section presents the Altamaha Council's estimated Summary
timeframes for the implementation of the water

management practices identified in Section 6. Schedules for implementation, in addition to the early step(s) required to initiate implementation of a given practice, are presented for both short- and long-term actions. The Altamaha Council has defined short-term as years 2010 to 2020 and long-term as 2020 to 2050. As the State Water Plan provides, this Plan will be primarily implemented by the various water users in the region, therefore, the Altamaha Council has described the roles and responsibilities of the implementing parties as well as the fiscal implications of the practices.

Implementation of the Altamaha Regional Water Plan will be primarily by various water users and wastewater utilities in the region. The most cost effective and more readily implemented management practices will be prioritized for short-term implementation via an incremental and

The Altamaha Council also emphasizes that the implementation of recommended management practices are predicated on a number of planning assumptions and/or may be impacted by unanticipated or currently unknown factors including: projected growth of population, industry, agricultural and energy needs;

adaptive approach. If resource needs are not met and/or gaps are not closed, then more costly and complex management practices will be pursued.

shared resources with surrounding regions; future identification/proposal of a significant upstream water resource project; data sets and assumptions related to water use, water withdrawals and returns; data regarding water quality and watershed models; rules and regulations regarding water resource use and

As new information becomes available, it is important the Plan remain a living document and be updated to incorporate new findings.

management; and Resource Assessment tools for

surface water availability, surface water quality and groundwater availability.

Consequently, significant changes or departures from these planning assumptions,

forecasts, and Resource Assessment tools may require a modification of the

recommended management practices, the implementation schedule, and/or the

implementing entities/affected stakeholders. Future planning efforts should confirm

current assumptions and make necessary revisions and/or improvements to the

conclusions reached during this round of planning.

7.1. Implementation Schedule and Roles of Responsible Parties
Table 7-1 ties the resource shortfalls and the needs specified by the Council and the corresponding management practices detailed in Table 6-1 to the parties who will implement those practices. This table also describes the timeframe for implementation and the specific steps required for implementation.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-1

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-1: Implementation Schedule

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Data Collection/Additional Research (DCAR)

DCAR-1

Current and N/A

through DCAR-51

Future Surface Water

Agricultural Data Collection and Irrigation Research

Use in Gap Areas (Canoochee, Ogeechee, Satilla, and Alapaha

DCAR-6

Rivers)

Minimize

Groundwater

Use Impacts

on Surface

Water

Develop scope of work (01/2012-
06/2012) and key partnering agencies
(06/2012-01/2015)

Complete data collection, N/A research, and evaluation by 01/2015
Incorporate data/findings in next Regional Water Plan revision

EPD, Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC), Universities, Georgia Department of Agriculture (DOA)
EPD, GSWCC, and Georgia DOA

DCAR-7
Study Aquifer Potential to Address Gaps

EPD, Universities, Corporations, Water Utilities and Agricultural water users

ALTAMAHA

7-2

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions
(2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

DCAR-8

Current and N/A

Address Low Future

Flow with

Surface Water

Wetland

Use in Gap

Restoration Areas

and

(Canoochee,

Retention

Ogeechee,

Structures

Satilla, and

DCAR-9 Analyze

Alapaha Rivers)

Addressing

Extreme

Conditions

Develop scope of

Complete data

N/A

work (01/2012-

collection, research,

06/2012) and key

and evaluation by

partnering agencies 01/2015

(06/2012-01/2015)

Incorporate data/findings in next Regional Water Plan revision

Water Conservation (WC)1

EPD and other research agencies/entities
USDA and other agencies for funding and incentives
EPD

WC-1
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures for Municipal and Industrial Users

Current and Future Surface and Groundwater Supply Needs

Agricultural Groundwater and Surface Withdrawal

Confirm and verify status of selected practices
(06/2011-12/2011)

Implement water conservation practices through 01/2020

Conduct outreach/
education/incentives to encourage implementation of conservation measures

Verify conservation savings estimates

EPD, Georgia Municipal Association, Georgia Association of County Commissioners, and Water Providers in the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-3

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions
(2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

WC-2 through
WC-12
Tier 1 through Tier 4 Measures for Agricultural Users

Current and Future Surface and Groundwater Use in Gap/Non-gap Areas

Agricultural Groundwater and Surface Withdrawal

Confirm and verify status of selected practices
(06/2011-12/2011)

Implement water conservation practices through 01/2020

Conduct outreach/
education/incentives to encourage implementation of conservation measures

Verify conservation savings estimates

Additional/Alternatives to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS)1

EPD, GSWCC, and Georgia DOA
Agricultural surface water users in the Altamaha Region for implementation

ASWS-1 Consider Low-Flow Conditions in Future Surface Water Permitting

Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

Agricultural Surface Withdrawal

EPD to develop Data Needs and Guidance for Analysis Requirements
Applicants to submit analysis from 20102015

GSWCC to collaborate with EPD, Georgia DOA, and current/future surface water users to develop application process and data needs to streamline application and review process (by 01/2015)

Determine if expedited or revised permitting process is warranted to allow for use of the resource and protection of critical low flows

EPD, GSWCC, Georgia DOA, and Agricultural surface water users in the Altamaha Region for implementation

ALTAMAHA

7-4

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number (See Table 6-1)
ASWS-2 Incentives for Dry-Year Releases from Ponds

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected
Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

ASWS-3 Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

Agricultural Surface Withdrawal
Agricultural Surface/ Groundwater Withdrawal

Develop strategy and work with potential participants/
impacted users to increase support for and implementation of strategy

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):
Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Examine opportunities to modify farm and other pond operations to obtain releases in dry/gap years (by 01/2015)

Modify farm and other pond operations to obtain releases in dry/gap years (by 01/2030), if deemed feasible

EPD, GSWCC, Georgia DOA , and Agricultural surface water users in the Altamaha Region for implementation

Encourage

N/A

groundwater

development as

preferred source of

supply

ASWS-4 Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

Agricultural Surface/ Groundwater Withdrawal

Identify the need for, and feasibility of, incentive based seasonal surface water permit conditions to address 7Q10 low flow conditions (by 01/2015)
Evaluate need and feasibility to conjunctively manage groundwater and surface water to address 7Q10 low flow conditions (by 01/2015)

EPD and Agricultural surface water users in the Altamaha Region for implementation

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-5

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

ASWS-5 Restoration Incentive Programs

Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

ASWS-6 Land Management Incentives

ASWS-7 Incentives for Greater Wastewater Returns

ASWS-8 Address Gaps Periods with Aquifer Storage

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties (if applicable)
Wetland Restoration
City and County Land Use
Wastewater/ Stormwater NPDES Discharge, Sanitary Sewer Extension Underground Injection
Public Water System

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)
Encourage research to determine effectiveness and feasibility of restoring wetlands (see DCAR-8) Incentive-based practices to promote infiltration and aquifer recharge
N/A
Evaluate effectiveness and feasibility of aquifer storage and recovery/aquifer recharge (see DCAR-7)

For Short-term Actions
(2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Determine effectiveness and feasibility of restoring wetlands (by 01/2015)

Restore wetland characteristics (by 01/2030), if deemed effective and feasible

Determine effectiveness and feasibility of implementing practice (by 01/2015)

If deemed effective and feasible, implement practice based on status of gap closure (by 01/2025)
Continue to monitor land use and hydrologic relationships

Implement if outcome N/A of evaluation determines practice is feasible and effective (by 01/2020) and if necessary legislative changes are approved

Responsible Parties
EPD
EPD, Municipalities and Water/ Wastewater Utilities in the Altamaha Region
EPD, Universities, Corporations, Georgia Legislature, Water Utilities and Agricultural water users in the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

7-6

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

ASWS-9 Study MultiRegion Reservoir Feasibility

Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

Surface Water Withdrawal

Monitor gap closure

ASWS-10 Inter-Basin Transfers

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Based on rate of gap closure, consider reservoir reconnaissance/feasibility study (by 01/2015)
Based on rate of gap closure, consider interbasin transfer reconnaissance/feasibility study (by 01/2020)

Construct joint regional reservoir and/or multiple new smaller reservoirs (and/or utilize existing reservoirs) (by 01/2030)
Construct infrastructure for inter-basin transfers, if feasible and needed (by 01/2050)

EPD, Agricultural water users in the Altamaha Region, other collaborating regions

PSDO-1 Collect Water Quality Data
PSDO-2 Point Discharge Relocation

Water Quality Gaps

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen (PSDO)

General Wastewater

EPD to work with potentially effected entities as part of permitting process (by 01/2015)

Collect data to confirm loading and/or receiving stream chemistry (by 01/2020)
Identify feasibility to move discharge location to higher flow streams with greater assimilative capacity (by 01/2015)

N/A
If feasible and cost effective, relocate discharge location (by 01/2020)

EPD, Municipalities and/or wastewater utilities in the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-7

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number (See Table 6-1)
PSDO-3 Enhance Point Source Treatment
MWWPC-1 Increase Wastewater Capacity
IWWPC-1 Collect Additional Industrial Permit Data

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected
Water Quality Gaps
Wastewater Permit Capacity Gap (Candler and Evans Counties)
Wastewater Permit Capacity Gap

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

General Wastewater

Confirm wastewater facilities to upgrade/improve treatment to address low dissolved oxygen conditions in receiving streams (by 01/2015)

Upgrade/improve treatment of identified wastewater facilities (by 01/2015)

Continue to upgrade/improve treatment of identified wastewater facilities (by 01/2040)

Available Municipal Wastewater Permit Capacity (MWWPC)

Municipal Wastewater

EPD and entities to confirm assumptions and needs (by 01/2015)

Expand or construct new N/A facilities and/or obtain additional wastewater permit capacity to meet forecasted needs (by 01/2020)

Available Industrial Wastewater Permit Capacity (IWWPC)2

Industrial Wastewater

Obtain additional Expand or construct new N/A

permit data on flow facilities and/or obtain

volumes and

additional wastewater

permit conditions permit capacity to meet

for industrial

forecasted needs (by

wastewater

01/2020)

facilities forecasted

needs (by

01/2015)

Responsible Parties
Municipalities and/or wastewater utilities in the Altamaha Region
EPD, Municipal wastewater utilities in the Altamaha Region
EPD, Industrial wastewater facilities in the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

7-8

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

MGWPC-1 Increase Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity

Groundwater Permit Capacity Gap (Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, Wayne, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties)

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Available Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity (MGWPC)

Municipal Groundwater Withdrawal

EPD and entities to confirm assumptions and needs (by 01/2015)

Evaluate short-term needs and, if needed, work with EPD to obtain additional permit capacity (by 01/2020)

Evaluate long-term needs and, if needed, work with EPD to obtain additional permit capacity (by 01/2050)

Responsible Parties
EPD, Municipal water utilities in the Altamaha Region

IGWPC-1 Increase Industrial Groundwater
Permit Capacity

Groundwater Permit Capacity Gap (Evans and Wayne Counties)

Available Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity (IGWPC)

Industrial Groundwater Withdrawal

EPD and entities to confirm assumptions and needs (by 01/2015)

Evaluate short-term needs and, if needed, work with EPD to obtain additional permit capacity (by 01/2020)

Evaluate long-term needs and, if needed, work with EPD to obtain additional permit capacity (by 01/2050)

EPD, Industrial water facilities in the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-9

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number (See Table 6-1)
GW-1 Sustainable Groundwater Use
GW-2 Research Groundwater Sustainability
GW-3 Promote AquiferFriendly Land Use
SW-1 Maintain Current Permitted Capacity SW-2 Monitor and Evaluate Estuaries

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected
Future Groundwater Needs (Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, Wayne, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties)
Current and Future Surface Water Use Outside Gap Areas

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties (if applicable)
Groundwater Withdrawal (Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural)
N/A
Surface water Withdrawal
N/A

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Groundwater (GW)

Responsible Parties

Continue to drill wells and withdraw groundwater to meet regional needs

Provide guidance and implement sustainable groundwater withdrawal rates through 01/2020

Verify sustainable yield metrics and consider relevant localized impacts (by 01/2015)

Modify Resource Assessments and sustainable yield criteria, if necessary (by 01/2050)

Municipal, Industrial, Agricultural users in the Altamaha Region, EPD, GSWCC

Monitor land use changes and further delineate aquifer recharge areas (by 01/2015)

Encourage land use practices that sustain and protect aquifer recharge areas (by 01/2020)

Surface Water (SW)

Continue to monitor land use and hydrologic relationships

EPD, Municipalities within the Altamaha Region

Confirm non-gap areas and available surface water resource capacity (by 01/2015)

Continue to apply for permits and use surface water in non-gap areas within available resource capacity (by 01/2020)

Verify flow conditions and gaps

EPD, applicable federal agencies, and surface water users in Altamaha Region

Monitor Atlantic slope river flow conditions

Determine flow

N/A

conditions that sustain

estuary health (by

01/2020)

EPD, Coastal Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division

ALTAMAHA

7-10

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number (See Table 6-1)
NPS-1 Study Human Impacts on Water Quality
NPS-2 Research and Address Impairment Issues
NPSU-1 through NPSU-5 Various Management Practices Related to Stormwater Uses
NPSR-1 Advocate Implementing Road Runoff BMPs

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

For Short-term Actions (2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Non-Point Sources (NPS) Urban, Rural, Agricultural and Forestry Uses

Water Quality Stormwater Collect data to

Confirm sources of

N/A

Outside Gap (NPDES

determine dissolved loading and develop

Areas

Discharges) oxygen, fecal

programs to address

coliform, and nutrient (by 01/2020)

sources

Select best management practices (BMPs) needed for treating stormwater from urban and rural uses

Implement a variety of stormwater BMPs related to urban uses and dirt road maintenance (by 01/2015)

Responsible Parties
EPD, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region
EPD, Counties (Public Works/Roads and Bridges Departments) within the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-11

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

NPSF-1 through NPSF-3 Various Management Practices Related to Forestry Uses
NPSA-1 through NPSA-5 Various Management Practices Related to Agricultural Uses
TMDL-1 through TMDL-3
Evaluate Impaired Segments and Sources

Water Quality Outside Gap Areas
Water Quality Outside Gap Areas

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)
Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)
Continue to support BMP programs

Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

Collect data to confirm impairment and determine sources

For Short-term Actions
(2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Implement a variety of N/A BMPs related to forestry and agricultural uses (by 01/2015)

Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC), and possibly county commissions

GSWCC, Agricultural users within the Altamaha Region

Remove streams listed due to "natural sources" (by 01/2020)
Refine river/stream reach length for impaired waters (by 01/2020)

Continue collecting data to monitor impairment sources and support reassessment of stream segment classifications (by 01/2050)

EPD, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

7-12

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

NUT-1
Link Nutrient Loading With Current Land Use

Water Quality Outside Gap Areas

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)
Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)
Align current land use with nutrient loading data to optimize management practice based on consideration of land uses and actual nutrient loading

For Short-term Actions
(2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Support research and N/A development of tools such as the Southern Group of State Foresters and USFS Sediment Prediction modeling tool being developed by Auburn University (by 01/2020)

Responsible Parties
EPD, GSWCC, GFC, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region, and county commissions

EDU-1 through
EDU-4
Various Educational and Outreach Programs on Conservation/ Water Quality

Education/
Outreach Support

Entities' Applicable Programs

Educational Practices (EDU)

Develop educational programs on water conservation, septic system maintenance, and stormwater management

Complete educational programs on water conservation, septic system maintenance, and stormwater management

Continue educational programs on water conservation, septic system maintenance, and stormwater management

EPD, State Agencies with WCIP responsibilities, GFC, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-13

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice Number
(See
Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed and Resource(s) Affected

EDU-5
Stream Clean-up Events

Education/
Resource Improvement

Permittee Category of Responsible Parties
(if applicable)

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)

Entities' Applicable Programs

Encourage coordinating and arranging of cleanup events

For Short-term Actions
(2010-2020):

For Long-term Actions
(2020-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Complete clean-up events

Continue clean-up events

Responsible Parties
EPD, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region, Adopt-a-Stream organizations, Riverkeepers, and other applicable non-governmental entities

OCP-1

Ordinances

N/A

through

and Code

OCP-3

Policies

Stormwater

Management

through

Ordinance/

Code Updates and

Integrated Planning

Ordinance and Code Policy Practices (OCP)

Identify ordinances Identify and implement N/A

and standards to

strategies for

implement/update on stormwater

stormwater and land management to help

development

improve water quality

(including green

(by 01/2020)

space)

Encourage coordinated environmental planning

Conduct regional environmental planning (e.g., land use, stormwater, wastewater)

EPD, Regional Commissions, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region, and county commissions

ALTAMAHA

7-14

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
Notes:
1Seek to reduce frequency and severity of human impacts to 7Q10 low flow conditions in the Altamaha Region, which are associated with agricultural water use in portions of the region. Focus on surface water permit holders and new surface water permit requests in Canoochee Watershed [(Candler, Evans, Emanuel, Tattnall, and Bulloch Counties (Claxton Gap)], Alapaha Watershed [Wilcox County (Statenville Gap)], Ogeechee Watershed [Candler, Evans, Emanuel Counties (Eden and Kings Ferry Gap)], and Satilla Watershed [Appling, Jeff Davis, and Wayne Counties (Atkinson Gap)]. 2Additional industrial wastewater capacity may be needed. EPD to update and refine discharge limit databases to confirm flow and quality assumptions.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-15

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

7.2. Fiscal Implications of Selected Water Management Practices
The following subsections discuss planning level cost estimates for the water management practices selected by the Altamaha Council and potential funding sources and options. Successful implementation of the Regional Water Plan is highly dependent on the ability of state and local governments, water providers, and utilities to fund the needed implementation actions.
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each management practice as shown in Table 7-2 using planning guidance documents, the knowledge base of previous state and utility planning efforts, availability of quantifiable data, and other sources of information, as listed below:
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Supplemental Guidance for Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison dated March 2010 (Revised March 2011).
Water Conservation Analysis Technical Memorandum to Supplement Council's Plan prepared by CDM for Georgia EPD draft dated July 2011.
CDM Water Supply Cost Estimation Study prepared for the South Florida Water Management District dated February 2007.
EPA Report titled Costs of Urban Stormwater Control Practices Preliminary Report dated February 5, 2006.
EPA Report titled Costs of Urban Stormwater Control dated January 2002.
St. Johns River Water Management District Report titled Water Supply Needs and Sources Assessment Alternative Water Supply Strategies Investigation, Water Supply and Wastewater Systems Component Cost Information dated 1997 (Publication Number SJ97-SP3).
Preliminary estimates of production well yields and costs from local licensed well drillers in Georgia (Bishop Well and Pump Service and Grosch Irrigation Company.)
Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States. Project Report 32. Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia DNR, EPD under Proposal No. ES61135FC1.
Groundwater Flow Modeling of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System of Georgia. Draft Report completed for EPD as part of State of Georgia Groundwater Resource Assessment (December 2009).

7-16

September 2011

ALTAMAHA

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
FY 2004 Sussex Conservation District Cover Crop Program Fact Sheet. Sussex Conservation District, Georgetown, Delaware. Dated 2003.
North Carolina State University Department of Forestry Costs of Forestry Best Management Practices in the South: A Review.
Recent bid tabulations for wastewater treatment facilities.
The cost estimates are unit cost estimates where there is a lack of detail or specificity about the management practice. For example, for an inter-basin transfer of water, the cost is driven by the length and size of the pipeline and the quantity to be transferred. If the connection locations and or the transfer quantity are not known, a unit cost per mile of pipeline is given. Where there is detail about the management practice, unit cost data were used to develop an approximate capital/programmatic cost. The capital costs were adjusted to 2010 dollars using the Engineering News Record Cost Index. In summary, some cost estimates are unit costs with different unit basis and some costs are approximate capital costs. Therefore, each management practice is assigned a cost (where applicable) rather than rolling up the costs into general categories since they may not be additive. The cost information provided in this document will be used to pursue loans, grants, and other funding options that can be prioritized throughout the region.
Funding Sources and Options
Several different funding sources and options will be used to secure funding for the different management practices outlined in this Plan including:
The State Revolving Fund Program
Other State of Georgia Funding Programs
State and Federal Grants
Water/Wastewater System Revenues
State and local government incentive programs
More details on potential loan and grant programs are provided for the management practices in Table 7-2. Below is a list of some of the larger organizations and agencies that provide funding for the types of management practices recommended in this Plan. It is important to note that funding sources and opportunities change on a yearly basis.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-17

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Programs
The EPA provides grants to States, non-profits, and educational institutions to support high-quality research that will improve the scientific basis for decisions on national environmental issues and help the EPA to achieve its goals. The EPA provides research grants and graduate fellowships; supports environmental education projects that enhance the public's awareness, knowledge, and skills to make informed decisions that affect environmental quality; offers information for State and local governments and small businesses on financing environmental services and projects; and provides other financial assistance through programs such as the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), and the Brownfield Program. More information on the EPA can be accessed at: www.epa.gov.
The EPA offers the following grant programs:
Continuing Program Grants
Project Grants
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
Water Pollution Control Program
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements Program
Water Quality Management Planning Program
Onsite Wastewater Management Planning Program
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
The mission of EPD is to help provide Georgia's citizens with clean air, clean water, healthy lives and productive land by assuring compliance with environmental laws and by assisting others to do their part for a better environment. As a result of the Clean Water Act, each year the State of Georgia receives funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assist the State with addressing environmental issues. EPD offers the following grant programs:
Section 319 (h) Grants
Section 604 (b) Grants

ALTAMAHA

7-18

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDANRCS) Conservation Programs
The USDA-NRCS offers a number of funding opportunities as a result of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This Act is landmark legislation for conservation funding and for focusing on environmental issues. The conservation provisions will assist farmers and ranchers in meeting environmental challenges on their land. This legislation simplifies existing programs and creates new programs to address high priority environmental and production goals. The USDA-NRCS offers the following funding options:
Conservation of Private Grazing Land Program
Conservation Security Program
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Farmland Protection Program
Resource Conservation and Development Program
Wetlands Reserve Program
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-19

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Table 7-2: Cost Estimates for the Implementation Responsibilities

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding Sources and
Options1

Notes and Sources for Costs

Data Collection/Additional Research (DCAR)

DCAR-1

Surface

Agricultural

Water Gaps

Consumption Data

$0.25M

State incentive Various recent similar projects programs

DCAR-2
Source of Supply Data to Refine Forecasts

$0.5M

Local governments; State incentive programs

DCAR-3 Metering Data

$0.5M

DCAR-4
Support Irrigation Efficiency Research

$0.2M

DCAR-5
Irrigation Education and Research

$0.1M

DCAR-6
Minimize Groundwater Use Impacts on Surface Water

$0.05M

DCAR-7
Study Aquifer Potential to Address Gaps

$0.075M

DCAR-8
Address Low Flow with Wetland Restoration and Retention Structures

$0.125M

DCAR-9
Analyze Addressing Extreme Conditions

$0.15M

ALTAMAHA

7-20

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)
WC-1 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures for Municipal and Industrial Users
WC-2 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures for Agriculture
WC-3 Audits

Issues to be Addressed
Surface Water Gaps

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding Sources and
Options1

Water Conservation (WC)

$0.1M to $0.2M

Local governments; utilities

$0.1M to $0.2M

$1,300/system

State/federal loan or grant

WC-4 Metering
WC-5 Inspections
WC-6 Minimize HighPressure Systems WC-7 Efficient Planting Methods WC-8 Conservation Tillage WC-9 Control Water Loss
WC-10 End-Gun Shutoffs WC-11 Low Pressure Systems WC-12 Application Efficiency Technologies

$2.7M $0 to $0.25M $4,700/system $0.1M to $0.2M $0.1M to $0.2M $0.1M to $0.2M
$700/system $3,400/system $2,000/system

Notes and Sources for Costs
Supplemental Guidance
Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States (3,026 existing irrigation pumps) times 10% increase in pumps times $800/totalizer $0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565 Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States Educate farmers on benefits of cropping and crop rotation
Educate farmers on benefits of conservation tillage
Educate farmers on practices to prevent water loss through more efficient detention of rainfall Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-21

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding Sources and
Options1

Notes and Sources for Costs

Additional/Alternatives to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS)

ASWS-1
Consider LowFlow Conditions in Future Surface Water Permitting

Surface Water Gaps

$0.15M to $0.2M per applicant

State incentive programs; utilities

Various recent similar projects. Includes modeling, permit application and monitoring.

ASWS-2
Incentives for Dry-Year Releases from Ponds

$1M to $2M

State incentive Various recent similar projects programs

ASWS-3
Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

$0.01M to $0.1M per MGD

From local well driller data and Supplemental Guidance. Includes only cost of supply.

ASWS-4
Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

$1M to $2M

Various recent similar projects

ASWS-5
Restoration Incentive Programs

$5,000 to $9,000 per credit

Supplemental Guidance. The costs are based on the cost to purchase credits from a restoration bank.

ASWS-6
Land Management Incentives

$0 to $1 per capita

State incentive Supplemental Guidance. Total

programs

population in 2050: 374,565

ASWS-7
Incentives for Greater Wastewater Returns

$0.1M to $1M per MGD

State incentive programs;
utilities

Supplemental Guidance

ASWS-8
Address Gaps Periods with Aquifer Storage

$0.025M to $1M per MGD

Georgia Reservoir and
Water Supply Fund

From Supplemental Guidance and CDM Water Supply Cost Estimation Study

ASWS-9
Study MultiRegion Reservoir Feasibility

$0.01M to $0.35M per MG

Supplemental Guidance for new surface reservoirs

ALTAMAHA

7-22

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)
ASWS-10
Inter-Basin Transfers

Issues to be Addressed
Surface Water Gaps

Capital/ Programmatic
Cost
$6.7M per mile

Funding Sources and
Options1
Local governments; utilities

Notes and Sources for Costs
Inter-basin transfer is a function of piping cost. Assume 48-in pipe. Pipe costs from Supplemental Guidance. Does not include easement acquisition, storage, or treatment costs.

PSDO-1 Collect Water Quality Data PSDO-2 Point Discharge Relocation PSDO-3 Enhance Point Source Treatment
MWWPC-1 Increase Wastewater Capacity
IWWPC-1 Collect Additional Industrial Permit Data
MGWPC-1 Increase Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity
IGWPC-1 Increase Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen (PSDO)

Water Quality Gaps

$0.25M to $0.5M

Local governments;
utilities

Various recent similar projects

$0.1M to $0.3M GEFA Georgia Fund Loan; utilities

$7M to $10M per MGD

Supplemental Guidance

Available Municipal Wastewater Permit Capacity (MWWPC)

Wastewater Permit Capacity Gap

$4M to $10M per MGD

GEFA Georgia Supplemental guidance Fund Loan

Available Industrial Wastewater Permit Capacity (IWWPC)

Wastewater Permit Capacity Gap

$0.1M to $0.2M

Various recent similar projects

Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity (MGWPC)

Groundwater Permit Capacity Gap

$0.25M to $0.5M

Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Loan
Program

Various recent similar projects

Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity (IGWPC)

Groundwater Permit Capacity Gap

$0.25M to $0.5M

DWSRF Loan Program

Various recent similar projects

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-23

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No.
(See Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding Sources and
Options1

Groundwater (GW)

Notes and Sources for Costs

GW-1
Sustainable Groundwater Use

Future Groundwater Needs

$0.01M to $0.1M per MGD

Georgia Reservoir and
Water Supply Fund

Supplemental Guidance

GW-2
Research Groundwater Sustainability

$0.2M to $0.4M

State of Georgia Groundwater Resource Assessment

GW-3
Promote Aquifer-Friendly Land Use

$750 to $8,500 State incentive Supplemental Guidance

per MGD

programs

Surface Water (SW)

SW-1 Maintain Current Permitted Capacity
SW-2 Monitor and Evaluate Estuaries

Current and Future Surface Water
Uses Outside Gap Areas

$0.05M to $0.1M per applicant
$0.1M to $0.15M

Local governments; utilities

Includes cost of permitting and impact evaluation
Various recent similar projects

Dissolved Oxygen, Fecal Coliform, Nutrients, and Other Impairments

NPS-1
Study Human Impacts on Water Quality
NPS-2
Research and Address Impairment Issues

Future Water Quality Non-Point Source (NPS) Needs

$0.2M to $0.4M
$0.5M to $1.5M

Clean Water Act Section 319(h) Grants (NPS Implementation Grant)

EPA Manual of Costs of Urban Stormwater Control (2002)
Various recent similar projects

Urban Best Management Practices (NPSU)

NPSU-1 Control Erosion
NPSU-2 Manage Stormwater Runoff

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$0 to $ $0.37M
$6,000 to $65,000 per MG

Clean Water Act Section
319(h) Grants; (NPS Implementation Grant)

$0 to $1 per capita. Total population in 2050: 374,565
EPA Manual of Costs of Urban Stormwater Control (2002)

ALTAMAHA

7-24

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No.
(See Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding Sources and
Options1

Notes and Sources for Costs

NPSU-3
Increase Stormwater Infiltration

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$0 to $0.25M

Clean Water Act Section
319(h) Grants; (NPS Implementation Grant)

$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

NPSU-4 Riparian Buffers
NPSU-5 Street Sweeping

$0 to $0.25M

GEFA Land Conservation Program

$0.4M to $0.8M

Clean Water Act Section
319(h) Grants; (NPS Implementation Grant)

$1 to $2 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

Rural Best Management Practices (NPSR)

NPSR-1
Advocate Implementing Road Runoff BMPs

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$2,500 to $75,000 per mile of swale

319(h) Grants; EPA Manual of Costs of Urban (NPS Implemen- Stormwater Control (2002) tation Grant)

Forestry Best Management Practices (NPSF)

NPSF-1
Support Forestry Commission Water Quality Program

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

Continue to fund existing programs

NPSF-2
Improve BMP Compliance

Continue to fund existing programs

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

NPSF-3
Wetland and Forest Restoration Incentives

$5,000 to $9,000 per credit

Federal grants

Supplemental Guidance. The costs are based on purchasing credits from a restoration bank.

Agricultural Best Management Practices for Crop and Pasture Lands (NPSA)

NPSA-1
Soil Erosion Reduction Measures

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$0.1M to $0.2M

Conservation tillage and cover crop

NPSA-2 Utilize Buffers

$0 to $0.25M

$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-25

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1) NPSA-3 Livestock Management NPSA-4 Manure Control
NPSA-5 Wetland and Forest Restoration Incentives
TMDL-1 Evaluate Impairment Sources TMDL-2 Analyze Impaired Segments and Sources TMDL-3 Stormwater Management BMPs
NUT-1 Link Nutrient Loading With Current Land Use
EDU-1 Promote Conservation Programs

Issues to be Addressed
Future Water Quality NPS Needs

Capital/ Programmatic
Cost $0 to $0.25M
$0.5M to $1M
$5,000 to $9,000 per credit

Funding Sources and
Options1

Notes and Sources for Costs
$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565
Sussex (Delaware) Conservation District Cover Crop Program Fact Sheet Supplemental Guidance. The costs are based on the cost to purchase credits from a restoration bank.

Total Maximum Daily Load Listed Streams (TMDL)

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$0.5M to $1M

Various recent similar projects

$35,000 to $130,000 per impairment

Various recent similar projects

$19M to $30M

$50 to $80 per capita. Total population in 2050: 374,565

Nutrients Satilla River Watershed Model (NUT)

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$10 to $150 per acre

Supplemental Guidance

Future Educational Needs

Educational (EDU)

$0 to $0.85M

State incentive programs; utilities; local governments

$0 to $2.25 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

EDU-2
Stormwater Education

$0 to $0.85M

$0 to $2.25 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

ALTAMAHA

7-26

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices

Management Practice No.
(See Table 6-1)

Issues to be Addressed

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding Sources and
Options1

Notes and Sources for Costs

EDU-3
Septic System Maintenance Education

Future Educational Needs

$0 to $0.25M

State incentive programs; utilities; local governments

$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

EDU-4
Forestry BMP Education

$0.05M to $0.15M

Support Georgia Forestry BMPs

EDU-5
Clean-Up Events

$0.05M to $0.1M

Various recent similar projects

Ordinance and Code Policy (OCP)

OCP-1
Engage Local Governments

Future Ordinance $0 to $0.25M and Code Policy Needs

State incentive programs; local governments; utilities

$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

OCP-2
Green Space Opportunities and Incentives

$0 to $0.25M

State incentive programs; utilities, local governments; Georgia Land Conservation Program

Green space incentives $0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

OCP-3
Promote Integrated Planning

$0 to $0.25M

State incentive programs; utilities; local governments

$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565

1 Where referenced, GEFA-administered loan programs (e.g., CSWRF, DWSRF) are intended to finance eligible activities related to construction of water infrastructure projects, including site-specific engineering and planning efforts.

7.3. Alignment with Other Plans
The Altamaha Council's Plan and management practices selection process was based on identifying and supporting existing policy, planning, and projects. Local comprehensive plans, planned and/or permitted projects were relied upon in developing the Regional Water Plan. This approach is tailored to maintain consistency with, and to maximize support for, locally driven water resource management decisions. The Altamaha Council did identify potential challenges associated with both the cost and technical issues that the region may face; especially regarding water and wastewater needs for both new and aging infrastructure. In addition, addressing existing surface water gaps must be accomplished in a manner that does not cause adverse impacts to local water users and local governments.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-27

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
The challenges of funding Plan recommendations and addressing future technical and regulatory issues is especially difficult for smaller towns and utilities, agricultural water uses, and small businesses that rely on natural resources. The successful implementation of the Regional Water Plan will be dependent on the principles of support and leadership by state agencies, in a collaborative setting, utilizing incentives, and financial assistance to the extent possible.
7.4. Recommendations to the State
The Altamaha Council supports the concept of regional water resource planning with a focus on planning Councils composed of local governments, water users, water providers, industry, business, and affected stakeholders. Local representatives are typically most familiar with local water resource issues and needs. The State has a vital role providing technical support, guidance, and funding to support locally focused water resource planning. This Plan should be viewed as a living, iterative document and the State should focus on the following principles:
Education, Incentives, Collaboration, Cooperation, Enabling, Supporting
The Altamaha Council is sensitive to unintended consequences if Plan recommendations become mandates. The State must help balance Plan recommendations with assessing measurable progress toward Plan implementation. If additional rules or other administrative or regulatory actions are deemed necessary, the State should work with Councils to help ensure workable solutions.
The following specific recommendations to the State are provided to help aid in the successful implementation of the Plan.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
Consider "institutionalizing" planning. This would entail a long-term commitment of staff and funding to: monitor and support Plan recommendations; coordinate improved data collection, management and analysis; continue to develop and improve Resource Assessment tools; and help provide funding, permitting and technical support to address gaps and water resource needs.
Work with Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Georgia Department of Agriculture, University of Georgia, and other relevant institutions to improve agricultural water use data collection and management. This effort would focus on refining source(s) of supply for multiple irrigation sources, continuing to assess data on crop water requirements, evaluating the effects of farm ponds on direct irrigation withdrawals and the hydrologic cycle, and further research on crop consumptive use. This data in turn should be coordinated with Resource Assessment tools to ensure accurate simulation of any gaps and assumptions.

ALTAMAHA

7-28

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
Focus funding support and permitting assistance to projects and programs aimed at addressing gap areas. Where possible, leverage federal funds to help support and expedite project implementation.
Consider collaborative approaches to collecting more standardized water use data and improving data on water demands. This would include continued improvement and updating databases used in the planning process. It would also involve working with the Georgia Municipal Association, Georgia Association of County Commissioners, and other relevant stakeholders to improve water use information.
Working with Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, examine opportunities to improve coordination among water providers and users and create incentives to maximize existing infrastructure and coordinated operations.
Continue to engage in dialogue and data-sharing with the States of Florida and South Carolina regarding current and forecasted groundwater use. South Georgia, North Florida, and South Carolina rely on the Upper Floridan Aquifer to meet water supply needs and it is in EPD's best interest to include the most accurate available information on growth and groundwater use in both states in the Resource Assessment modeling.
Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA)
Meeting forecasted water supply needs will require stable and flexible funding sources to assist water users and water and wastewater utilities in meeting forecasted needs. A stable GEFA financing source(s) should be provided for necessary water supply, water and wastewater plant construction and plant upgrades to address current and future gaps.
Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC)
Continue to support and fund the GFC Forestry Best Management Practices Program. Providing education and incentives to control erosion and segmentation will help the region prevent/address TMDL listed segments, reduce nutrient loadings, and support wetland areas. This will have the benefit of helping to sustain baseflow conditions of streams and water quality.
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC)
GSWCC should continue to provide leadership and locally focused efforts in the following programs:
Continue education and outreach associated with Urban Erosion and Sediment Control program including certification of individuals involved in land disturbing activities and on-site implementation of erosion,

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-29

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
sedimentation, and pollution control plans. This will help address the water quality needs of the region.
Continue education and outreach efforts to agricultural interests through annual Irrigation Meetings and other avenues to inform farmers of available technologies and funding sources to make more efficient use of water resources without incurring hardship.
Support completion, maintenance and improvement of the Agricultural Water Use Measurement Program, which is aimed at cost effectively collecting agricultural water use data across the State, and integrating cooperative arrangements with the private sector and partnerships with other State agencies. This program is a vital component to helping the State and regions effectively manage and utilize water resources.
Support Georgia Agricultural Conservation Incentive program, which provides funding support to help implement conservation practices that benefit water quantity and quality. Funding for this program is essential to help implement conservation measures, especially in the regional watersheds where there are surface water gaps.
Office of State Planning and Budget (OPB)
Obtain population census data and compare to population forecasts to track trends in the accuracy of population projections
Revise population forecasts and support ongoing state-wide planning
Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
Identify and encourage local governments to integrate Regional Water Plan management practices with land use and water quality/quantity nexuses into their comprehensive planning efforts.
Continue to promote coordinated environmental planning
Georgia Department of Agriculture (DOA)
Provide technical information and participate in needed studies to better characterize agricultural water uses and quantification of shortages to low flow conditions.
Assist with outreach and education of agricultural users to obtain greater understanding of surface water resource limitations, both quality and quantity, and to help improve the implementation rate of management practices. Assist EPD and other state agencies in coordinating accomplishment of the above goals with the Georgia Farm Bureau.

ALTAMAHA

7-30

September 2011

7. Implementing Water Management Practices
Georgia Department of Natural Resources [Coastal Resources Division (CRD) and Wildlife Resources Division (WRD)]
Continue to monitor resources and help sustain, enhance, protect and conserve Georgia's natural, historic, and cultural resources.
Provide technical and ecosystem information to help support state water planning needs.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

7-31

88.. MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG AANNDD RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG PPRROOGGRREESSSS

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Section 8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

The selected water management practices identified
in Section 6 will be primarily implemented (as Summary

described in Section 7) by the various water users in the region, including local governments and others with the capacity to develop water infrastructure and apply for the required permits, grants and loans.

The Altamaha Council has identified several benchmarks and means to measure progress toward

8.1. Benchmarks

meeting regional needs and goals. In most cases, efforts

The benchmarks prepared by the Altamaha Council and listed in Table 8-1 below will be used to assess the effectiveness of this Plan's implementation and identify any required revisions. As detailed below, the Altamaha Council selected both qualitative and quantitative benchmarks that will be used to assess whether the water management practices are closing gaps over time and allowing the water planning region to meet its Vision and Goals. Effective implementation of the Plan will require the availability

will require significant coordination between affected water resource managers, and local and state government. Successful implementation will be dependent on adequate financing, leadership and support by state agencies, and

of sufficient funding in the form of loans, and in some collaboration by multiple

cases, possibly grants. In addition, many of the stakeholders.

proposed management practices require ongoing

coordination with affected stakeholders/water users and collaboration to help ensure

successful solutions are identified and implemented. Finally, in many cases

monitoring progress toward addressing future needs will require improved data and

information on the current actions and management practices that are already in

place. The benchmarks will be used to evaluate the Regional Water Plan

effectiveness at the next 5-year Plan review and will require collection of information

in the intervening years to better quantify and document resource conditions and

progress to meeting regional needs and goals. The successful implementation of the

Regional Water Plan will require both leadership and supporting roles by EPD, other

state agencies, local government and water and wastewater utilities, as well as

individual water users.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

8-1

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Table 8-1: Benchmarks for Water Management Plans

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

Time Period

Address Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas Data Collection/Additional Research (DCAR) to confirm frequency, duration, and severity of
agriculturally-driven shortages to 7Q10 low flow conditions

DCAR-1 through DCAR-9
Various Data Collection and Additional Irrigation and Restoration Research Practices

- Develop Plan of Study, obtain funding and stakeholder participation as needed
- Completion of work plans and study implementation and documentation of results

- Survey or self-reporting of agencies/entities involved in studies
- Verify inputs and revisions to water planning tools

2-4 years 5 years

- Incorporate data and findings into forecasts, Resource Assessments, and Water Plan updates

Action Needed - Water Conservation (WC) - Meet current and future gaps and water needs by

efficient water use

WC-1 and WC-2
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures for Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural Users

- Maintain or reduce gallons per capita consistent with Tiers 1 and 2 conservation practices
- Implementation of Tiers 1 and 2 agricultural conservation practices

Assess regional municipal, industrial, and agricultural water use rate trends and practices via periodic survey

2-5 years

WC-3 through WC-12
Tier 3 and Tier 4 Measures for Agriculture

Reduction in agricultural surface water withdrawals while maintaining agricultural production and reduction in surface water gap areas

- Survey of agricultural conservation practices implementation rates and trends in water use by GSWCC

2-5 years

- Assess flow conditions using water use data and Resource Assessment tools (EPD)

Address Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

Additional/Alternate to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS)

ASWS-1
Consider Low-Flow Conditions in Future Surface Water Permitting

- Formation of stakeholder group and consensus reached on new surface water application process in gap areas
- Application process and permit conditions developed

Status report from stakeholder group;
Report on usage of process and the number of permits issued with conditions

1-2 years 2-4 years

ASWS-2
Incentives for Dry-Year Releases from Ponds

Incentives and operating conditions identified as part of ASWS-1

Document and maintain volumetric accounting of participating storage facilities

2-5 years

ALTAMAHA

8-2

September 2011

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1) ASWS-3 Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development
ASWS-4 Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

Time Period

-Information and educational materials developed in conjunction with GSWCC and Georgia DOA to communicate issues and goals of improving surface water flows
-Methods and incentives identified to increase implementation/participation
- Develop information and educational materials in conjunction with GSWCC and Georgia DOA to communicate issue and goals of improving surface water flows
- Identify methods and incentives to increase implementation/participation

- Verify information and educational outreach via survey or direct agency reporting - Monitor and track surface water versus groundwater permit applications
Identify and monitor participation and conversion rates from surface water to groundwater

1-3 years 1-5 years 1-3 years
1-5 years

ASWS-5 Restoration Incentive Programs
ASWS-6 through ASWS-10 Various land management, disposal, and water storage/transfer measures

Pending feasibility study

Assess research results 5 years

- Feasibility studies completed (for short-term studies)
- Feasibility studies initiated (for long-term studies/actions)

Reevaluate need during 5 years next Regional Water Plan update

Address Water Quality (Dissolved Oxygen Levels) Point Sources (PSDO)

PSDO-1 Collect Water Quality Data

-Resource Assessment assumptions reviewed and, if necessary, new data collection efforts underway/completed
-New findings incorporated into updated Resource Assessment data sets

EPD/agency summary report complete verifying assumptions and documentation of new data

1-4 years

PSDO-2 Point Discharge Relocation
PSDO-3 Enhance Point Source Treatment

- Outreach activities to dischargers completed and feasible options have implemented by dischargers
- EPD to conduct outreach and facilitate improved treatment in low dissolved oxygen reaches

Monitor permit applications and verify improved data collection for dischargers

1-5 years

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

8-3

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

Time Period

Obtain Additional Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater Permit Capacity

MWWPC-1, IWWPC-1, MGWPC-1, IGWPC-1
Expansion of Wastewater and Groundwater Permit Capacities to Address Gaps/Needs

-Outreach activities completed to water providers in high growth areas
-Need for additional permit capacity verified and improved data for discharges obtained

Monitor permit applications and verify improved data collection for dischargers

5 years

GW-1 Sustainable Groundwater Use

Addressing Current and Future Groundwater Needs

Sufficient permit capacity to meet forecasted needs; through the timely submittal and processing of permit applications

Monitor permit applications and issuance

1-5 years

GW-2
Research Groundwater Sustainability

Sound science used to improve data and sustainably manage groundwater resources

Groundwater Resource Assessment updated

5 years

GW-3
Promote Aquifer-Friendly Land Use

Counties and local governments consider practices to promote infiltration and aquifer recharge

Evaluate trends in impervious land cover in areas of aquifer recharge

5 years

Addressing Current and Future Surface Water Needs for Gap and Non-gap Areas

SW-1 Maintain Current Permitted Capacity

Sufficient permit capacity exists to meet forecasted needs through timely submittal and processing of permit applications

Monitor permit applications and issuance

1-5 years

SW-2
Monitor and Evaluate Estuaries

- Major water resources diversion/storage projects identified
- Upstream actions that would significantly impact flow conditions assessed

Monitoring data collected in estuaries and river flow trend data collected and reviewed

5 years

ALTAMAHA

8-4

September 2011

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

Time Period

Programmatic Practices for Water Quality the following management practices are associated with the Vision and Goals of the Region and are described in general terms as they are either
associated with existing state and local programs or are not yet at a point where implementation frameworks have been established by the State

- Nutrient Non-point sources Satilla and Watershed Model
- Urban/Suburban, Rural, Forestry, and Agricultural Non-point source BMPs
- Total Maximum Daily Load Listed Streams BMPs

-Additional assessments to align sources of contaminants (point and non-point sources) to water quality impairments and land use types
- Continue implementation and assessment of the effectiveness of existing state program including GFC, GSWCC, 319 Water Quality initiatives, and local efforts to improve watershed protection and water quality improvements
- Background/natural levels of potential sources established

-Review and assessment of programs and information
- Complete summaries of watershed conditions using Resource Assessment tools, improved data collection, and synthesis of relevant state program data

1-5 years

Management Practices to Support Educational Needs

Support education programs for: - Water Conservation - Stormwater Management - Septic System Maintenance -Logger Education -Forestry BMPs

- Data used to identify where future program efforts will be most effective
- Funding for programs maintained or improved

Survey and summarize program effectiveness and success stories

1- 5 years

Management Practices to Address Ordinance and Code Policy Needs

- Encourage implementation and/or compliance with Stormwater and land development ordinances and/or regulations
- Encourage improved coordinated environmental planning

- Select local governments surveyed to identify current knowledge base and recommended areas of improvement
- Improved education at state and local government conferences and workshops
- Enhanced awareness in Comprehensive Planning by local governments across region

Select follow-up survey of local governments to identify changes and success stories

1-5 years

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

8-5

8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)
Combined management practices for the Claxton, Kings Ferry, Atkinson, and Statenville gaps (Coastal Georgia, SuwanneeSatilla, Savannah-Upper Ogeechee, Upper Oconee, and Upper Flint Regions)

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

Shared Resources

Regional Council-specific management practices implemented

Evaluate project improvement of surface water flows using gauge data and Resource Assessment tools

Time Period 1-5 years

8.2. Plan Updates
Meeting current and future water needs will require periodic review and revision of Regional Water Plans. The State Water Plan and associated rules provide that each Regional Water Plan will be subject to review by the appropriate Regional Water Planning Council every five years and in accordance with this guidance provided by the Director, unless otherwise required by the Director for earlier review. These reviews and updates will allow an opportunity to adapt the Regional Water Plan based on changed circumstances and new information arising in the five years after EPD's adoption of these plans. These benchmarks will guide EPD in the review of the Regional Water Plan.
The Councils appointed to prepare future Regional Water Plan updates will have the opportunity to review the recommendations of past Plans against current available data to make a determination as to which management practices are still appropriate and which ones need to be revised or augmented to meet changing conditions. Future Councils will also have the ability to judge the effectiveness of practices recommended in previous Plans against available benchmark data. This analysis will reveal which practices are effective and what adjustments are necessary to compensate for less effective practices.

8.3. Plan Amendments
The Altamaha Council emphasizes that the recommendations in this Regional Water Plan are based on the best information available at the time the Plan was written. New information and issues that may impact the recommendations should be considered and incorporated into relevant implementation decisions and future Water Plan updates. Future planning efforts should confirm current assumptions and make necessary revisions and/or improvements to the conclusions reached during this round of planning.

ALTAMAHA

8-6

September 2011

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Bibliography
CDM. Water Supply Cost Estimation Study. Document prepared for the South Florida Water Management District. Dated February 2007.
Cowie, G. and Davis, D. Georgia's State Water Plan. Retrieved on March 2, 2009. www.robinson.gsu.edu/ethics_pub/2009/cowie.pdf
Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan. Georgia Water Council. January 8, 2008.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia County Snapshots website. Retrieved on July 21, 2010, www.dca.state.ga.us/CountySnapshotsNet/default.aspx
Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Regional Planning Rules "Standards and Procedures for Regional Planning." Chapter 110-12-6, et seq. www.dca.ga.gov/development/PlanningQualityGrowth/PAGES/Legal.asp#RegionalRules
Georgia Department of Corrections website Facility Search. Retrieved on July 21, 2010, www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/FacilityMap/jsp/FacQrybyCounty.jsp
Georgia Department of Economic Development's GeorgiaFacts website. Retrieved on July 21, 2010, www.georgiafacts.net
Georgia Department of Labor's LaborMarket Explorer and Local Area Profiles. Retrieved on July 21, 2010, www.explorer.dol.state.ga.us/mis/profiles.htm
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Assimilative Capacity Resource Assessment Scenario Report. Draft Report completed in cooperation with Tetra Tech. March 2011.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Synopsis Report Groundwater Availability Assessment. Report completed in cooperation with CDM. March 2010.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Synopsis Report Surface Water Availability Assessment. Report completed in cooperation with Arcadis. March 2010.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Synopsis Report Current Assimilative Capacity Assessment. Report completed in cooperation with TetraTech. March 2010.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Supplemental Guidance for Regional Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison. March 2010 (Revised: March 2011).

September 2011

B-1

ALTAMAHA

Bibliography
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Groundwater Flow Modeling of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System of Georgia. Draft Report completed by CDM for EPD as part of State of Georgia Groundwater Resources Assessment. December 2009.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. The State of Georgia's Environment. 2009.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Georgia's State Water Plan. Regional Water Planning Guidance. July 2009.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Georgia's Water Resources. A Blueprint for the Future. Draft Submission to the Water Council. June 28, 2007.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Coastal Georgia Water and Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion. June 2006.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Draft August 2003. Altamaha River Basin Management Plan 2003.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Resources Division. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia. August 31, 2005.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Resources Division. Fisheries Section Annual Report. 2006.
Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Commission website. Retrieved August 3, 2010, www.hogarc.org/
North Carolina State University Department of Forestry. Costs of Forestry Best Management Practices in the South: A Review. Presentation from Forestry Best Management Practices Research Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, April 2002.
Southeast Regional Climate Center. Climate summaries obtained for the following stations: Swainsboro (ID 098496), Abbeville (ID 090010), Eastman (ID 092966), Mt. Vernon (ID 096126), Glenville (ID 093754), and Metter (ID 095811).
St. Johns River Water Management District. Water Supply Needs and Sources Assessment Alternative Water Supply Strategies Investigation, Water Supply and Wastewater Systems Component Cost Information.1997.
Sussex Conservation District. FY 2004 Sussex Conservation District Cover Crop Program Fact Sheet. Georgetown, Delaware. 2003.

ALTAMAHA

B-2

September 2011

Bibliography
Thomas, D.L. (ed.), Evans, R.O., Harrison, K.A., Hook, J.E., Privette, C.V., Segars, W.I., Smith, W.B., Tyson, A.W. 1998. Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States. Georgia Geologic Survey Project Report 32. Prepared in cooperation with Georgia DNR, EPD under Proposal No. ES61135FC1. Retrieved on November 20, 2010 from: www.nespal.org/SIRP/IWC/Report/conserv.rpt980728.pdf
University System of Georgia, Map of USG Institutions. Retrieved on July 21, 2010, www.usg.edu/inst/map/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Costs of Urban Stormwater Control Practices Preliminary Report. February 5, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Costs of Urban Stormwater Control. January 2002.

ALTAMAHA

September 2011

B-3