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